Volume 677 Week 3 - Wednesday 15 February 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 677 Week 3 - Wednesday 15 February 2012 
[Volume:677;Page:395] 
Wednesday 15 February 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance given that the decision to sell the Crafar farms to Shanghai Pengxin has just been set aside in the High Court? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is important to understand the role of Ministers which is to follow the law and the interpretation of the law. All I can say at this point is that the interpretation given to the Overseas Investment Office by its own internal counsel of the way that it would interpret the law is clearly different from the way the judge sees things. 
David Shearer 
: Given the court’s decision today does he have confidence in his own judgment given that he said: “The law would not have allowed us to reverse the decision made by the Overseas Investment Office.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely because the law states as was the recommendation from the Overseas Investment Office that sections 16 and 18 of the Overseas Investment Act need to be complied with. It was the belief of the Overseas Investment Office that sections 16 and 18 were complied with and indeed they may still be complied with. What will now happen is that the Overseas Investment Office will need to go back and have a look at the application and decide whether it meets the criteria as prescribed by the judgment today from the judge. That may still stand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister how he could possibly say that the two Ministers concerned in fact interpreted the law correctly when— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is Richwhite your mate now? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he never was. He is your mate and a crook one at that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You heard what he said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and the member will cease interjecting. It is not uncommon for members to interject—and that was a very mild interjection—but members asking questions should not have to react like that. This is question time. The question being directed to the Prime Minister is important. Let us hear the supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he say that these two Minsters interpreted the law correctly when a court of law with a legal background says they have not and that is the reason why it has been set aside or does he know more than the judge at court as well? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is important to understand the process here which is— 
Hon David Parker 
: A pity the Minister didn’t. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Actually since 2005 Ministers from the Labour Government have relied on the Overseas Investment Office’s interpretation of the law and the way it has been prescribed. Now it is not unusual for judges to have a different view from internal counsel and in this particular case they have done that. But I will add that those Ministers relied for a very long time on the same view from the Overseas Investment Office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition I say that this obviously is an issue of considerable public interest. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answers even if the Labour front bench does not want to hear them. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot imagine what the point of order might be. 
Hon David Parker 
: Well wait to hear it Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am listening. 
Hon David Parker 
: Thank you. The Prime Minister made a reference to me alleging that my conduct had been illegal— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have heard sufficient. The member will resume his seat. 
Hon David Parker 
: He does not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. The interjections from the Labour front bench started long before that—started long before that. The matter is serious. I think they should show courtesy to their own leader because I want to hear the answers to his questions.  
David Shearer 
: How can he express confidence in his Ministers when the judge ruled in paragraph 44 that the Ministers “misdirected themselves in law …”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not read the full judgment but that will be on the basis of the fact that they relied on the interpretation of law as they understood it as Ministers in a Labour Government did as well. It is the same advice and it is the same opinion that has applied ever since the Act has been there—since 2005. It is not unusual in New Zealand for judges to have a different interpretation from a body like the Overseas Investment Office. All the decisions made by Labour in the past on recommendations by the Overseas Investment Office relied on the same legal interpretation from the Overseas Investment Office. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister now accept that his and his Government’s assertions that there was no other decision possible no longer stands up to scrutiny and it may be entirely possible that another decision was possible? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because if one looks at the advice from the Overseas Investment Office one sees that it makes it quite clear that Ministers need to follow the law and interpret whether sections 16 and 18 of the Act have been followed. If they have been followed Ministers would have to put up a reason why they believe—if they have a counter view—that those conditions were not met. Ministers no had reason to believe that those conditions had not been met. 
David Shearer 
: How he can express confidence in these Ministers when the judge ruled in paragraph 38 that the Ministers ignored “clear evidence that the benefit will accrue anyway should the land remain in … New Zealand ownership.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Overseas Investment Office applied a test in relation to benefits that asked whether there were benefits. The judge is now saying there is a new interpretation about the counterfactual of additional benefits. That is not the way the law was interpreted for all the advice provided to David Parker when he was the Minister in the gun. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How did the Prime Minister arrive at the view that his two Ministers had no discretion at all to exercise and were required to merely endorse the view of the Overseas Investment Office? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It may come as a novelty but they need to follow the law and the law states in sections 16 and 18 that if they want to have a different opinion they— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Prime Minister. The Rt Hon Winston Peters asked a perfectly reasonable question. I do not know whether he could hear the answer but I struggled to hear the answer again because of the interjections on my left. That is not reasonable.  
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Overseas Investment Office made it quite clear in the correspondence to the Ministers that they are required to follow sections 16 and 18 of the law. They are quite entitled to change their opinions from the opinion offered by the Overseas Investment Office but they need to give reasons why. In the opinion of the law as it was interpreted there were no reasons. 
David Shearer 
: How can he express confidence in these Ministers when the judge ruled in paragraph 57 that the error was “not a mere technicality.” and that “the economic benefits caused by the overseas investment were materially overstated …”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is the opinion of the judge. That would have to go back—[ 
Interruption 
]. Just before everyone gets a little bit excited here I say that the process will be that the Overseas Investment Office will have to go back and reconsider the application in light of the new ruling by the judge. It is eminently possible that the Overseas Investment Office will come up with exactly the same recommendations and Ministers will continue to accept them. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept that the law as it exists today following this judgment means that the Government has to consider New Zealand buyers of New Zealand land and the benefits that they will bring not just the benefits that come from overseas buyers or to put it in colloquial language that New Zealanders should get a fair go? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not in a position to offer advice on that because I have not had advice from Crown Law although it is my expectation we will get advice from both Crown Law and the Overseas Investment Office this afternoon. But what it is fair I think to characterise in these high-level terms is that the previous test as understood and applied by the Overseas Investment Office right from 2005 when Labour wrote the law and was the Government was whether there were benefits. The judge is now saying that the counterfactual has to be considered—whether there are greater benefits. That is a different test. 
David Shearer 
: In light of today’s High Court decision does he now accept that blaming the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement and the fact that Ministers had no discretion was plain and simply wrong? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No Ministers need to follow the law just in the same way that Labour Government Ministers followed the recommendations that came from the Overseas Investment Office. If they want to change that they have to come up with reasons why. And if in a period of time the Overseas Investment Office comes back with the new recommendation to accept the bid—and let us argue for the moment that Ministers then accept that recommendation—that will be the correct interpretation of the law unless they can come up with another reason. If it is wrong it will have to be judicially reviewed. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept that his Ministers will now have to apply the law as interpreted by the New Zealand judiciary and that that interpretation means they must look at the benefits that New Zealand buyers of this land could bring to New Zealand and compare the benefits that New Zealand buyers can bring with those of overseas investors—that that has to be the test that they apply to give New Zealanders a fair go? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is exactly the point. The point is that Ministers apply the law as it is understood. The previous understanding as was developed through the courts was exactly the one that the Overseas Investment Office applied. We now have new jurisprudence and you are quite right that both the Overseas Investment Office and the Ministers will now have to consider this ruling unless the Crown wanted to appeal the decision which I understand is extremely unlikely in which case yes they will have to go and consider the new benefits test as described and prescribed by the courts this afternoon.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in two Ministers who at the first hurdle where they were required to make a decision on the law clearly as the court has so kindly pointed out to them were incapable of understanding the law? How can he have confidence in those two Ministers now? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is just completely and factually incorrect. The interpretation of the Overseas Investment Act is one prescribed by the Overseas Investment Office. It is not for Ministers to rewrite the law’s interpretation by the Overseas Investment Office. 
David Shearer 
: I seek leave to table the decision by Justice Miller setting aside the Crafar farms decision dated today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.  
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Capital Projects—Investment by Businesses 
2. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What evidence has he seen of businesses having the confidence to invest in large capital projects in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I have seen three examples in just the last few weeks of businesses confidently expanding their operations in this country to the benefit of New Zealanders. Last month Methanex announced it would increase methanol production in Taranaki requiring a combined capital investment with Todd Energy of up to $860 million over 10 years and creating up to 500 construction and gasfield jobs. In the Hawke’s Bay Heinz is returning the manufacture of the iconic Wattie’s tomato sauce from Australia to New Zealand and increasing production in its Hastings plant by 30000 tonnes per year or about 10 percent. And just this morning I attended the construction start of a new $70-million gas plant to supply New Zealand Steel that will create 120 jobs over the next 2 years. 
Todd McClay 
: What are these and other companies saying about the Government’s role in their investments? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: These investments underscore what I hear personally from businesses like Methanex and New Zealand Steel. They value a Government that provides an internationally competitive regulatory environment giving them the confidence to invest significant amounts in new capital projects in this country. It reinforces the Government’s focus on providing a strong platform for competitive productive New Zealand - based businesses to trade and succeed in the world today. 
Todd McClay 
: What policies would deter business investment like this? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The policies would be the reverse of course: ones that do not create or actually worsen the competitive nature of the regulatory environment—for example introducing new taxes on productive capital like businesses and farms. A more expensive emissions trading scheme would be another example of that; a return to 1970s-style labour relations would perhaps be another example—and introducing regional fuel taxes. That is to name just a few. All those examples would put a handbrake on the sort of business growth that we have seen today and are policies advocated by the members opposite. 
Electoral Broadcasting—Prime Minister’s Radio Live Show 
3. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all the answers he gave to oral question No. 6 yesterday? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: When did he first learn that his communications manager had drafted an email for Radio Live to send to the Electoral Commission and had rewritten the brief for the Prime Minister’s hour show drafted by Radio Live?  
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I answered the first part of the question at question No. 6 in question time yesterday and in answer to the second part of the question he did not rewrite it. He made a minor technical tweak. 
Grant Robertson 
: When did he first learn that his communications manager had said after receiving the Electoral Commission opinion on the show that “… they have been pretty clear about putting the responsibility on the broadcaster which is useful.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: At question No. 6 in question time yesterday. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is he seriously asking New Zealanders to believe that he undertook the Prime Minister’s hour show without any knowledge of whether he might break the law? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is missing the point—that is the purpose of the broadcaster getting an opinion from the Electoral Commission on whether it broke the law. I am not in any doubt that I have not broken the law. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he still think this is “a matter between the Electoral Commission and the broadcaster” given the extent of involvement of he and his office in selecting the guests for the show rewriting the brief for the show and drafting an email for Radio Live to send to the Electoral Commission or is he just hoping New Zealanders might not know these facts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely I am convinced it is a matter between the broadcaster. There was a tweak to the application to the Electoral Commission primarily because when Radio Live wrote it it actually stated the Electoral Finance Act which you may know the previous Government repealed on 29 September. With all of the emails that the member got yesterday he forgot to mention it sent my office all the scripts I was meant to read out. The facts of life are that this was a gig for Radio Live it asked me to go on and the reason the Labour Party is so grumpy is not that it thinks it is a breach but that Radio Live would not give its former guy a go. If Labour thought it was so illegal why was it begging on hands and knees for Radio Live to give Phil Goff a show? 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did the Prime Minister not come to the House and correct the answers he gave yesterday as soon as he found out that they were not correct in line with Speaker’s Ruling 179/3? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My answers were absolutely correct yesterday— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Just say sorry! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: What would be nicer would be if they said sorry for 9 years of economic mismanagement. [ 
Interruption 
] If they want to say sorry they could add to that the fact that the country has had negative exports for years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would ask the Prime Minister to come to the point he is trying to make in response to questioning. I think we have had enough of the other stuff. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the questions I was asked yesterday by the member I said “Not to the best of my knowledge.” That is absolutely correct. I was not even aware these emails existed until I heard about them yesterday. 
Child Poverty Abuse and Neglect—Protection of Children in State Care 
4. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: E pehea te Minita e mohio ai kei te piki te ora o nga tamariki i roto i nga ringaringa o Child Youth and Family? 
[ 
How will she ensure that children are not made more vulnerable than when they went into the care of Child Youth and Family? 
] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Social Development)  
on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: The Government has been working hard to address how we better care for children who come into the care of Child Youth and Family. Just one example is this Government’s commitment of $43.7 million to the children in care package which requires psychiatric educational social and medical needs assessment so that children in its care with unmet needs receive tailor-made care and are not treated like a commodity. We will be making further decisions as part of the green paper and white paper process.  
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. What does it say about Child Youth and Family that a response to the green paper from one of the children living at a Child Youth and Family home was: “We shouldn’t have Child Youth and Family. The police turn into CYF. CYF is the same as the police with residences instead of cells. CYF are supposed to help me change but they don’t. CYF should keep families together.”?  
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: The Government welcomes their feedback. It is an important part of the green paper process and these people are at the coalface of engagement with Child Youth and Family. But I believe that the context is also important. Most of these young people either have been sent to a youth justice residence by a judge having broken the law and it would not surprise anyone that they do not always view authority fondly or are in need of care and protection because they have been abused and neglected by those people who are supposed to love them. These residences house the hardest most traumatised and neglected young people so the report will reflect that.  
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Do the responses from children in the care of Child Youth and Family to the green paper such as “Child Youth and Family not just to walk in and take you away from your family.” and “Not getting Child Youth and Family involved they take us from family.” point to a need for a more whanau-based approach to looking after vulnerable children an approach like Whanau Ora?  
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: We know that a high number of Maori children are in whanau-based care. About 60 percent of Maori children within Child Youth and Family care are with their whanau. We have got to remember that this is about what is in the best interests of the child and this is a subject area that is part of the green paper discussion process. So we look forward to members of the public especially those who have a history of engaging with Child Youth and Family making their submissions by the close of the discussion paper at the end of the month.  
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does the green paper address the root causes of the vulnerability of children when it dismisses the role of poverty stating that “Research shows that poverty in itself does not determine life outcomes.” given the priorities identified by children themselves included the basics of food a bed shelter heat and clean clothes?  
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: The green paper does not reject child poverty as a cause for engagement with Child Youth and Family. We look forward to everyone engaging with this process and bringing his or her submissions to the table including submissions around child poverty.  
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can the Minister assure the public that all submissions to the green paper will be considered when a draft white paper is already being circulated by the ministry?  
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Yes.  
Government Financial Position—Current Account Balance Forecast 2013-16 
5. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is Treasury’s projection for New Zealand’s current account balance for the next four years? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance)  
on behalf of the Minister of Finance: As a percentage of GDP the forecast current account deficit is 3.6 5.4 6.4 and 6.9 percent for each of the March years 2013 to 2016. The main contribution to this is a short to medium term lift in imports due to the Canterbury rebuild. This impact is expected to make up almost a third of the forecast current account deficit in the year to March 2016. Other factors include a Treasury expectation that export prices will come off record highs a forecast increase in business investment and an increase in consumer confidence. It is worth nothing that even a 2016 forecast deficit currently would remain significantly lower than the 8.9 percent peak it hit in 2008.  
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update in fact show that even excluding the Canterbury rebuild the current account deficit will increase to 5.2 percent of GDP or $13 billion in 2016? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said in the answer to the primary question the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update does predict the deficit to increase for a number of reasons and the Canterbury rebuild is the biggest but not the only one although I must say that it is reasonably amusing to suggest that suddenly Mr Parker is much more focused on the Treasury predictions today after bagging the Treasury predictions yesterday. 
Hon David Parker 
: In other words is the Minister confirming that under the National Government’s economic settings Treasury projects that the current account deficit will get worse every year of the forecast period rising to $17 billion in 2016? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In relative terms that is Treasury’s prediction. The Government is actually more optimistic than that. But the member makes the mistake of starting from a very low position. This Government has actually contributed to improving it from the very bad position that the previous Government left it in. Between 2005 and 2008 the current account deficit averaged more than 8 percent of GDP each year as Government spending grew out of control consumers went on a borrowing binge and the productive parts of the economy were squeezed out by red tape and new costs. It has now got down to less than 2 percent in 2010 and it is expected to rise back from that as a result of the factors I mentioned in the primary answer. 
Simon Bridges 
: What reports has he seen on the current account balance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I alluded to in the previous answer the balance of payments has undergone a dramatic improvement in recent years falling to less than 2 percent in 2010 before rising slightly to its current level of around 4 percent. This is mainly because New Zealanders have started saving more and borrowing less. It is also as a result of improved economic policies particularly around red tape and not adding new costs to business. Of course we know that that is what happened to the export sector under the previous Government when the internationally competitive parts of our economy went into recession in 2005 because of the policies of that Government and we have been in the process of reversing them. 
Hon David Parker 
: Can the Minister confirm that the growing current account deficit will be paid for by a combination of New Zealand borrowing more money from overseas and the sale of more New Zealand - owned assets to foreign buyers? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The answer to the second part of the question is no; the answer to the first part of the question is interesting because actually again we have a situation where New Zealand’s net international liabilities have dropped significantly since this Government has come into office. They dropped to 69 percent in the year to March 2011. They peaked at 85 percent of GDP in March 2009 just after Labour left office and ahead of National’s first Budget. So we have improved the net international liabilities position. Treasury has some predictions going out that suggest it will come back up a bit but it is nothing like what happened under the previous Labour Government which that member was part of. 
Hon David Parker 
: If the growing current account deficit will not be paid for by a combination of more borrowing from overseas and the sale of New Zealand - owned assets how will it be paid for? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The current account deficit and the international liabilities position are two of the things that will be impacted by improved savings by New Zealanders which I am pleased to see has occurred. That means that you can have— 
Hon David Parker 
: That doesn’t help pay for the current account deficit. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well the savings of New Zealanders are very important in terms of New Zealand’s net international liabilities and also the export performance of New Zealand businesses. And in answer to an earlier question today I pointed out that the investment by companies in New Zealand investments that are going to grow exports is picking up as a result of this Government’s interventions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness before I go to the next question the member did ask how the current account deficit would be funded after the outcomes of savings and exports. That question is perfectly capable of being answered because the Government must have some idea of how it plans to fund the current account deficit. And I believe that the House does deserve the answer. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The point I was making was that the Government does not accept that Treasury’s projections in this matter are final and the Government is working hard to improve the export performance of the New Zealand economy so that the current account balance does not go out to the extent that Treasury’s projections expect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Forgive me but it would be a miracle in my time if the Government succeeded in turning round projections from 6 percent of GDP to zero percent of GDP. Therefore a current account deficit does have to be financed. I believe the member deserves that part of the question answered. The question was very simple and very clear. It contained no accusations about bad policy or anything like that. It just asked how it was to be financed. The Minister described how the Government plans to try to minimise the current account deficit and that is fine but that is not actually what the question asked. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Obviously to the extent that it is not met—in other words the foreign accounts are not in balance—then international liabilities do rise and that is the point I suspect the member was making. The point that I was making was we did not necessarily accept that those projections as provided by Treasury are likely to occur particularly if we improve the settings around the export sector of the New Zealand economy. That was the point I was making and I think it is an entirely fair point in the context of the current account balance and the international liabilities. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is this a point of order or a speech? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I was responding to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Simon Bridges 
: What steps has the Government taken to rebalance the economy towards savings and exports? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has taken several steps to rebalance the economy towards savings investment and exports. As the member knows we reformed the tax system increasing taxes on consumption and property investment while lowering the tax rates on working and saving. We have set a faster return to surplus in 2014-15—one of the most important contributions the Government can make to lifting national savings and one that the Opposition rejects. We have kept a lid on the costs of doing business by getting on top of fast-rising costs like ACC costs which are due to reduce in the next couple of months and we are providing investment opportunities through the mixed-ownership model which will help Kiwi investors diversify their growing pool of savings away from property and finance companies. It is just a pity that Opposition members do not sometimes listen to orthodox economic policies that balance the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The question was from the Minister’s own colleague. He does not need to bring the Opposition into that. 
Early Childhood Education—2011 Enrolments 
6. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received about early childhood education enrolments in 2011? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Tena koe. I am pleased to inform the House that I have received the latest official figures which show that early childhood education enrolment rates were up 3 percent in 2011 when compared with 2010. The figures also show that the number of children who start school having attended early childhood education is also moving in the right direction reaching 94.7 percent in 2011. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What is her target for early childhood education participation? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: This Government understands that quality early childhood education is hugely beneficial. This is why we have a target of 98 percent participation by 2015. We are working to ensure that all kids are enrolling. We are investing $91.8 million to increase participation in communities of low enrolment such as in South Auckland and we are also spending record amounts on early childhood education—$1.5 billion in the last Budget. 
Syria Internal Conflict—Non-involvement of New Zealand Armed Forces 
7. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will he give an assurance that New Zealand’s armed forces will not be used in any possible military intervention in Syria in violation of the United Nations Charter? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Is he then in that case in a position to confirm that the Government does not support external military involvement in Syria unless it responds to a United Nations Security Council resolution authorising it—that is to say no coalition of the willing is legal without that mandate? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: New Zealand always follows the United Nations Security Council resolutions so we would not be doing anything in violation of that. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Will New Zealand condemn military intervention in Syria under the responsibility to protect principle without a council resolution given that major powers such as Russia and China would then be free to do precisely the same thing including in the Asia-Pacific region? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well that is a hypothetical situation so we will see what happens. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Will he then confirm that New Zealand is bound by the outcome resolution of the World Summit of the UN General Assembly in 2005 that any intervention under responsibility to protect is legal only when it is authorised by Security Council resolution? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am not familiar with that resolution but we do follow international law. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does it mean—just to be clear—that New Zealand will never commit its armed forces to military action without a Security Council resolution authorising it? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That is what I said at the start. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Should New Zealand impose economic sanctions or leadership sanctions against Syria as has been done by the Arab League the EU and the US? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Should we oppose economic sanctions? Well look Mr McCully has made it New Zealand’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seems there may have been a misunderstanding here and it is not the Minister’s fault. I invite Dr Kennedy Graham to clarify. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Impose. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Impose economic sanctions? 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Impose sanctions. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: We are not in a position to impose economic sanctions because we do not actually have any trade with Syria. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Will he call upon the Syrian Government to release the 37000 or so civilians who have been detained in prison since the unrest began as a move towards the kind of reconciliation the UN Secretary-General and High Commissioner for Human Rights are appealing for? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am pretty sure we have already done that. 
Labour Costs—Local Government Compared with Central Government and Public Sector 
8. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What reports if any has he received on labour costs in the local government sector as compared to central government and the private sector? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The reports are that labour costs in the local government sector according to Statistics New Zealand grew by 7.6 percent. This is about double the 3.9 percent in the central government sector and also exceeds increases in the private sector over the first term of this Government. In the previous term from 2005 to 2008 labour costs in both central and local government were rising considerably faster than in the private sector. The Government has been successful in its endeavours to pull back labour costs in the central government sector but these latest reports show that local government costs are out of step and rising too quickly. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Are there any differences in the tools available to central government as compared with local government in managing labour costs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes there are. Cabinet has the capacity to set overall policy on the levels of remuneration and staff numbers across the State sector. These tools have been used to get these costs back under control after the excessive growth that occurred prior to 2008. Mayors and councillors currently do not have such tools available to them and this makes it more difficult for them to manage labour costs and their impact on rate increases. The Government is exploring whether the councils need more tools to better manage these costs as part of a broader programme of local government reform to reduce pressure on rates. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
9. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does she have confidence in her Chief Executive and his staff? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Minister have confidence in her chief executive who authorised the payment of $50000 to merely alter the font and colour of 42 Department of Corrections’ signs when the wording remained the same? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I do not have details of that. If the member would like to put it in writing to me I will get him the answers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister has not got details of that why was she writing a letter complaining of this very matter on 26 January 2012—a two-page letter signed by her as Minister of Corrections and excusing her predecessor’s waywardness when it came to expenditure? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: What I said in answer to the second supplementary question was that I did not have details of that case here in front of me. How could I possibly given the primary question? But if the member likes to put something down in writing to me I will get him an answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 26 January 2012 that the Minister wrote—less than what 2 or 3 weeks ago and signed by her—as evidence that she knows all about this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The rest of the point of order was fine. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it correct that there have been several cases recently of corrections staff improperly accessing computerised offender records but in most cases no disciplinary action has been taken against the staff concerned; if so how will she be making it clear to her department that it needs to take security of offender information more seriously? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that that member’s assertions as to the actions of a couple of staff are correct. However the assertions regarding the actions taken by the chief executive are incorrect. I have absolute confidence in the chief executive to ensure that employment matters are dealt with. 
Fines Collection—Credit Check of Fines Initiative 
10. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What initiatives are underway to assist court staff to improve the collection of outstanding fines? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 On Monday the Credit Check of Fines initiative went live. The Government is determined to strengthen fines as a credible sanction and hold offenders to account for these actions. From now on when a person applies for credit such as for a power account or to buy a TV on hire purchase the retailer will be able to access details about overdue fines as part of their credit history. This is a strong incentive for people with overdue fines to pay them. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How will the new initiative work and whom will it target? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Credit Check of Fines targets people who are able to pay their fines but do not whether negligently or wilfully. Not paying fines is unfair on those people who do pay their fines in a timely manner and fines will not show up in a credit record check if they have been paid or if the person has made an arrangement to pay over time. 
NZ On Air Board—Potential Conflicts of Interest 
11. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What advice and reports if any has he received about the Rt Hon John Key’s electorate chair Stephen McElrea’s potential conflict of interest in his role as a board member of New Zealand On Air? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 None. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister in the House has received reports that point to that conflict and there have been documents tabled in the House that indicate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Forgive me but this is not a point of order. The member may be surprised by the Minister’s answer; that is his right to—whatever. But his colleague asked a question the Minister gave a very clear answer to it and no point of order can dispute that. 
Clare Curran 
: When and from whom did he first receive reports that Mr McElrea was working with a MediaWorks staff member making decisions about individual documentaries? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I became aware of that from media reports or maybe something from the member a few weeks ago. 
Clare Curran 
: What role did Mr McElrea play in selecting the production company for the Whanau Ora programme? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The various working groups for New Zealand On Air work as they have done now for about 15 years and all decisions of those various groups that decide such matters are I understand always unanimous. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a question not about the working group that involved MediaWorks but about the selection of MediaWorks to be involved in the documentary. The Minister I think understands— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we do not go down that track. In order to save time I invite Clare Curran to repeat her question so that there can be no misunderstanding.  
Clare Curran 
: What role did Mr McElrea play in selecting the production company for the Whanau Ora programme? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I do not know of that. It was part of the working group process that has been going on with New Zealand On Air for quite some time. I do not know the answer to the specifics of that question and I do not get involved in operational matters of the board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again we have a Minister saying he does not know what the process is but it is the same as it has always been— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Ministers answer in this House and members must take their word unless of course they can subsequently produce evidence that they were wrong. But what the Minister just said was he did not know what role the particular gentleman Stephen McElrea had played in the selection of the production company. That was a very clear answer to the previous supplementary question and we have to take the Minister’s word on that. We cannot dispute it by way of point of order. It has nothing to do with the order of the House. The Minister has answered the question and he must be accountable for his answer. Members have got the chance to dig further into it either through further supplementary questions or in the future and Ministers have to be accountable for their answers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That would have been absolutely right if the Minister had not then gone on to say that the process is the same as it has always been. It is not possible for him to say both he does not know and the process is the same as it has always been.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure I need help on this because the answer is perfectly possible—that in fact he does not have specific information about the role any particular person played yet he has been advised that the process is the same as the one that has been adopted for years. There is nothing in conflict about the Minister’s answer in that regard. 
Clare Curran 
: Is he aware of the working title of the fourth documentary in this series the title of which has hitherto been withheld; if so what is it? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I have no idea what the title of that particular programme is. I do not get involved in operational matters of the board. 
Clare Curran 
: Has he received an assurance from either the Prime Minister or Mr McElrea that none of the New Zealand On Air matters that Mr McElrea has been involved in have been shared with either the Prime Minister or his office? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I have sought discussions with the chair of the board and he has full confidence in the board. I have not sought any other communications along those lines from anybody else. 
Online Government Services—Log-on and Identity Verification Services 
12. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What announcements has she made regarding the igovt scheme and making it easier for people to verify their identities to government agencies? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Last week the Electronic Identity Verification Bill had its first reading in the House. The bill will give New Zealanders the option of an easy and secure way to verify their identities to access a range of Government services. I was heartened by the extensive cross-party support for the bill’s first reading. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How will this service work in combination with the igovt log-on service? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: The service allows people the choice of using one log-on to access secure online services across multiple Government agencies without having to repeatedly provide physical documents time and again. Under igovt the process will be streamlined while ensuring appropriate safeguards remain in place. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call on order of— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have another matter to deal with unless you are just going to call Mr Parker straight away. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his intervention because indeed I should consider this before I call the Address in Reply debate. What has been lodged is a letter. Letters seeking under Standing Order 386 an urgent debate on matters can be lodged up till—I mean ideally lodged before the House sits. But I am not in any way turning this application down because that was not the case; my understanding is it may not even have been possible to achieve that.  
What I am faced with here—and it is not very often that the Speaker has to make a decision on one of these on the hoof—is a letter from the Hon David Parker that seeks under Standing Order 386 that I allow an urgent debate on the decision of the High Court in Wellington that “The Ministers’ consent to the overseas investment to be made by Milk NZ in the Crafar farms is set aside.” I feel able to make a ruling on this pretty much on the hoof because for an urgent debate on an issue to be allowed the issue must be an issue for which a Minister has direct responsibility. A Minister does not have direct responsibility for a decision of the court. That is not a matter the Minister has direct responsibility for and I believe on those grounds that it is not appropriate for me to allow that urgent debate.  
I make it very clear that I am not turning it down on the basis of the slightly unusual arrival of the application. I accept that the application is perfectly in order but Ministers are not responsible for decisions of the court. Urgent debates can be allowed and the business of the House set aside under Standing Order 386 only for matters that are the responsibility of Ministers. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The triggering factor that makes it urgent is certainly the decision of the High Court but it was a decision of the High Court to overturn a ministerial decision. What this does is undo a ministerial decision and leave a void where that decision was. Now if I were you I might turn it down on the fact that there is an Address in Reply debate going on and there is possibly an ability to deal with it there or on the fact that it can be the subject of a later debate but I am pretty sure that if we go back through some of the precedents we will see it is not the timing around the original decision; it is when it comes to light and becomes urgent. And that I understand happened at some stage this morning but was then reported. The other— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Can I make one other point? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That point is as Mr Parker has just pointed out to me that unless another amendment is moved—and it would be an interesting confidence amendment—he cannot speak on it because of course he spoke yesterday in the Address in Reply debate as have some others. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable Leader of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think that if you were to accept that argument from Mr Mallard there would be numerous occasions where ministerial decisions are revisited one way or another—perhaps sometimes many many years after the event first occurred. So I think you are quite right in saying that the provisions for an urgent debate in this House are for occasions when a Minister makes a decision that has very significant public interest and where there has been no other occasion for the House to discuss the matter. 
Now this matter has been the matter of questions in the House. It has been the matter of various bits of speculation in speeches in the Address in Reply debate and of course as Mr Mallard points out we are still in the Address in Reply debate. So I think you are quite correct in maintaining the long-held view or precedent that is reflected in the Standing Orders that says it has to be a recent decision by the Government—by a Minister effectively—on which there has been no other opportunity or there is not likely to be any other opportunity for debate. Further I would point out that although you are saying you do not have to have the application in by that time the Standing Order does say 1 hour before the House commences and this decision technically was available within that time space. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Point of order— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not really need to hear a lot more but I will hear firstly from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Just as a suggestion there is a precedent for such a ruling and that is the injunction against—you remember—the All Black tour to South Africa where the ruling was given by the judge favouring the injunction whereupon that triggered an urgent debate in Parliament. I am not trying to gainsay your decision but there is precedent where that is exactly what happened. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Just very briefly I would argue that rather than looking backwards as the members over here have suggested it is actually a question of ministerial responsibility. What the courts have said is that the Ministers must redo the decision. That is the ministerial responsibility. That is the specific language that is used in the Standing Orders. There is now ministerial responsibility to reconsider the decision; that is what the courts have directed them to do. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Very briefly I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Although I hesitate to disagree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters I think he might have had his argument slightly upside down. My memory is that the House declined the debate on the injunction when it was granted and the reason that it was declined was that it was an injunction between a group of individuals and the Rugby Football Union for which there was no ministerial responsibility. But in this case I do not think we could have anything that was more involved with ministerial responsibility. I think if you look at the accompanying documents and go through them you will see there is line after line where the court has pointed out that ministerial responsibility appears not to have been exercised properly. That I think when you have a court finding that Ministers are not doing their jobs according to the law— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No I think we have heard sufficient on this. I do not need to hear further on this. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my application. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the Hon David Parker made there. It is his application. I will hear him. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There are three parts to the test laid out in Standing Order 386. The first is that it is a particular case of recent occurrence and this clearly is. The second is that it involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government and with regard to the Speaker’s initial comments I think with respect that it does and that the difference with the case of the Rugby Football Union that was referred to is that was not a case of ministerial responsibility. In my submission Mr Speaker the decision for you is whether this requires the immediate attention of the House because the first two legs of the test are made out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the members for their contributions because this is an important issue of order. I appreciate the contributions. As the Hon Trevor Mallard pointed out in fact the application way back in when was it 1980— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: 5. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —1985 was it? It was 1985 indeed. That application was turned down on the grounds that the Hon Trevor Mallard has mentioned. The reason why I have declined this application is that the case was not made for an urgent debate. This is not a recent Government decision or action. What has triggered this is the decision of a court; that is what the application is based on. The application is specifically to debate the decision of the High Court and no Minister is responsible for the decision of the High Court.  
What I am not ruling is that the issue is not important or that it is not possible to frame an application that might meet the Standing Orders. But it is my view that this application does not meet the requirement of the Standing Orders because this application is to set aside the business of the House to debate the decision of the High Court and that is not a responsibility of a Minister. That is why I believe we have to be very careful not to allow setting aside of the business of the House for actions that are not the responsibility of a Minister—and this one is not. The application is based on the decision of the court. But it does not rule out further applications.  
What I am saying is the application in front of me in my view does not meet the test. But just because an application has been made today does not mean to say that it is not possible to make further applications. Members may recollect in fact that there was an issue in the last term where I finally did consider that an application met the test. It might have been the third application on a particular issue. So this does not rule out future applications. It is just in my view today—I have to be careful. In this particular application I am not in any way belittling the issue it is just that the way this application is made does not meet the test because we cannot set aside the business of the House to debate a decision of the High Court. On that basis I must decline this application.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to set aside time for such a debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Address in Reply 
Debate resumed from 14 February. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 It is a true pleasure to speak in this Address in Reply debate. The Government was elected in the general election with a mandate to get on with the business of making New Zealand a successful place to live work and bring up our children. New Zealand is better placed than most countries. The debt crisis in Europe in countries like Greece demonstrates what happens when you do not act on debt. The National-led Government believes that as a country we must get our debt under control and balance our books. This is crucial to allow us to grow our economy create local jobs and enjoy higher wages. The National-led Government is determined to keep on top of debt keeping it below 30 percent of GDP. We have been and will continue to be responsible managers by restricting debt. We are determined to get back into surplus and we have a plan over the next 3 years to build solid foundations for growth and more jobs. 
We have made a great start. Across the board income tax has more than compensated the vast majority of income earners for the rise in GST meaning they have more money in their pockets to spend. Around three-quarters of earners now pay a top tax rate of no more than 17.5 percent on their income. The average wage has increased 10 percent in the past 3 years and that is taking into account tax and inflation. Superannuation payments have gone up 19 percent over the past 3 years around double the rate of inflation. The married couple rate for superannuation for example has gone up $166 a fortnight in 3 years. We are working hard to lift the long-term performance of the economy create jobs and create an environment that encourages economic growth. 
We are focused on protecting jobs while ensuring a fair wage. I am particularly pleased with the 90-day trial period introduced by our Government. In 2008 we introduced the 90-day trial period for employers with fewer than 20 employees. Research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research showed that 13000 New Zealanders got jobs through the 90-day trial periods. The Government has now extended that 90-day trial period to all employers to enable New Zealanders to benefit from it and they will I am quite sure. It is good for people returning to the workforce or those without a work history. It is good for youth migrants and women. Quite simply it is a win-win. 
New Zealand is well placed to succeed and create more jobs for New Zealanders but we must back business. After all it is businesses that create jobs. The Minister for Economic Development Steven Joyce recently wrote an excellent opinion piece in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and I would like to touch on this. He wrote that for New Zealand to be successful we need more jobs and more higher-paying jobs. Jobs provide the incomes that people use to help their families get ahead. Jobs give people the income to pay taxes for the public services like health and education that we value and well-paying jobs are what keep more of our people in New Zealand contributing to our country. And of course keeping families together means our communities are stronger. 
But critically meaningful sustainable jobs will depend on businesses that provide services or products that people need or want. The Minister went on to say in the article that businesses depend on six key things: ideas and innovation to create the business—that is entrepreneurs and ideas people—money to build the business; access to raw materials; skilled people to work in the business; the public infrastructure that businesses depend on such as power broadband and transport; and most important customers who want to buy the product. Essentially if we want more and better jobs for New Zealanders we need to encourage more businesses to be based here. To do that we need to make sure those six key drivers are there and easier for businesses to access. It is all about encouraging an environment that is encouraging to entrepreneurs and ideas people. We need to ensure that we make resources available for businesses to use. We need stronger and more internationally integrated capital markets that provide money for investment. We need to ensure that our people have the right skills. And we need to remember that we have a small domestic market so our businesses will need to access world markets a lot earlier than similar businesses in countries located in larger world populations. 
The Minister wrote in the article that we need to start a “we can” culture and move away from the “we can’t” culture. We need to reframe the argument to “why we should” from “why we shouldn’t”. It is about removing roadblocks and obstacles. The Minister went on to elaborate that this “can’t do” attitude was the prevailing attitude in the 2000s. Over that decade we progressively boxed ourselves in more and more so we depended on fewer and fewer industries based on what the “can’t” group said. At the end of the day the Government of the day was pretty much down to talking about only two of the key ingredients—that is skill training and subsidising entrepreneurs who do not use resources. 
The Minister summed it up by saying that we “need to stop the endless debate about which industry will save us and focus on all industries where New Zealand has a natural advantage. That’s why the Government is implementing and further developing its 120-point action plan that will help build a stronger more competitive economy.” We need to encourage and develop all the opportunities if we are to prosper. The article by the Minister was extremely well written and thoughtful and I encourage all my colleagues to read it. 
Another win-win for New Zealanders is the mixed-ownership model which we told New Zealanders about a year ahead of the election. The Government owns about $220 billion of assets and we are expecting to invest another $34 billion over the next 5 years. Rather than borrow more money to pay for this we are extending the mixed-ownership model to the four State-owned energy companies—that is Mighty River Power Meridian Genesis and Solid Energy. We are reducing the Government’s majority shareholding in Air New Zealand which is already under a mixed-ownership model and has proven to be very successful. The public-private partnership model will bring sharper commercial discipline and better-performing companies as has happened with Air New Zealand. 
We have guaranteed to the New Zealand public that the Government will be the majority shareholder and will maintain a minimum of a 51 percent shareholding stake. There will be priority for Kiwi investors which will allow individual shareholders to hold around 10 percent further ensuring Kiwi control. It frees up between $5 billion and $7 billion to invest directly into the Future Investment Fund for schools and hospitals and other productive assets. The mixed-ownership model will help balance the books by 2014-15 without extra borrowing. And it does put Kiwis at the front of the queue for shares and investments other than finance companies. We are confident that these companies will remain overwhelmingly in New Zealand control. We expect New Zealanders will own at least 85 to 90 percent of these companies. That is because the Government will keep 51 percent majority control. It is a good investment opportunity. New Zealand investors have about $100 billion sitting in term deposits and there are tens of billions of dollars invested by other New Zealand investors such as KiwiSaver the New Zealand Superannuation Fund ACC the Government Superannuation Fund and iwi. 
We will be able to fund new assets such as broadband schools and hospitals without borrowing more. We told New Zealanders about our plan a year ahead. There was no subterfuge. We were upfront and clearly spelt out our plan. It is a smart policy that will strengthen New Zealand’s economy and a stronger economy is the only way we will create jobs boost incomes and provide high-quality public services that New Zealand needs. Thank you. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. Tena tatou katoa. In the Speech from the Throne there was one simple statement that revealed the next steps in progressing our transformation agenda. As agreed with the Maori Party a separate appropriation and governance structure will be established for Whanau Ora. This statement was a signal to us all that Government has confidence in Whanau Ora as an approach that is premised on delivering better results for w’anau. In the relationship accord that confidence is articulated further: “to support the evolving focus and ongoing implementation of Whanau Ora.”  
Today I want to share some of our learning and our successes in the journey of w’anau transformation. The sheer numbers of w’anau engaged is one tangible measure of the enthusiasm with which New Zealand families are taking up these opportunities. We have 25 provider collectives representing 160 provider organisations currently delivering to and engaging w’anau and families. At least 2000 w’anau plans representing more than 15000 family members have set their w’anau planning activities in motion through involvement in the Whanau Integration Innovation and Engagement Fund. In addition 1000 w’anau are actively navigated to access existing services through our 25 provider collectives.  
 But although the numbers are important the overriding interest for me has been the outcomes. Are we seeing successful w’anau across a broad range of situations? Let us be clear: this is high-risk business with a potential for a high return. There is no quick-fix solution to achieve the well-being of families.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In accordance with numerous Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders I ask that the member table the speech instead of reading it.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Let us be clear: this is high-risk business with a potential for high return. There is no quick-fix solution to achieve the well-being of families but we have to invest time energy and resources in family to be self-managing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! We have a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard. I ask the member to resume her seat please. The decision of the Standing Orders Committee late last year which is now to be commonplace within the House is that speeches are not to be read. That is why the Hon Trevor Mallard asked that the speech be tabled. We can refer to speeches but we cannot read them verbatim. So I ask the member in her remaining time to use it as guidance for her speech rather than reading it verbatim. She can just refer to it in the context of which she wishes to speak this afternoon. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We were not advised of the change to the Standing Orders to say that speeches could not be written and spoken to in the House and— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the member to resume her seat. Last year the last thing before the House adjourned was that the new Standing Orders of Parliament were actually adopted by the House. So from this year on this is what is going to be the accepted practice. If you are hearing this for the first time I say to all members that in future they must only refer to their speech notes as opposed to a Minister who may be speaking directly to a bill in their name. The exception also was for new members who are making their maiden speeches. That is the ruling and I ask the member to just use the notes that she has as reference points for the balance of her speech. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One other point is that it was a decision of the Standing Orders Committee on which Mr Flavell was her representative.  
Hon Tau Henare 
: I am wondering whether we can get around this because it is obviously a new Standing Order. It has obviously passed some of us by and maybe with the good grace of the House now that we do know we could start tomorrow afresh.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In order to join my friend in his suggestion rather than start tomorrow maybe it could be from the end of this speech. I seek leave for the Minister currently reading her speech to be allowed to complete her speech reading it.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you to the House.  
I would dare anyone in this Chamber to declare raising families to be a walk in the park because we all know the challenges that come with raising children in today’s world. The circumstances of daily life can at times be very stressful even for the best of families and for some families their circumstances become overwhelming. There are so many compounding factors with poverty underpinning most factors. Successive administrations have attempted to intervene in circumstances of crisis but too many times the intervention itself has simply created another obstacle in the path of the family in need. A brave Government would admit that the State is not the ultimate solution; a bold Government would be prepared to put its trust in the people to acknowledge their potential and to enable w’anau to set their own direction to make change happen.  
This indeed is the hub of the political challenge: to find the point of equilibrium between prudent accountability of public funds and an environment to support the diversity of w’anau aspirations. I want to remind those who have spoken out in anger against what they see as a one-man crusade to undermine Whanau Ora that Whanau Ora has always been about more than politicians and political parties. Indeed it has never relied on Parliament as a moral guarantor and nor should it for essentially the success of Whanau Ora has been due to a rising tide of confidence in local solutions that we trace back over many many decades. It has emerged from the momentum of w’anau to create a secure foundation for our mokopuna to benefit from and the majority of our w’anau do this without State intervention.  
Whanau Ora did not just come along in 2012. We saw the genesis of the approach in Puao-te-ata-tu in Tu Tangata in the kohanga reo movement and in the Hui Taumata of 1984. The call was broad for w’anau hapu and iwi to determine run and control their own initiatives. The funding for these moves would come from the so-called negative spending that went into picking up the pieces.  
A fundamental premise in this journey was to encourage the State to place faith in the capacity of families to achieve outcomes that could lead to their full participation within society. This has not changed a generation on in our current environment where there has been significant change in our economic social and cultural environment.  
This journey is predicated on an investment in an indigenous approach an approach based on Maori cultural foundations built round a communal approach to well-being. Indeed it has been available to all who want to participate in this approach and we have been there before. Indeed in this House 21 years ago in April 1991 a politician rose in the appropriation debate to give voice to a view that might well have come out of Whanau Ora. The Minister of Maori Affairs at that time said that “It was not for central government to determine for tribes their shape their character or their form—and that policy was supported by Maoridom. The Government would work in a voluntary way with every tribe with every subtribe even with family but it would be oppressive and culturally offensive to hold out the taxpayers’ cheque-book and say ‘Either you conform or we don’t deal with you.’.” That politician was Winston Peters and I hope he can appreciate the contribution that  
Ka Awatea 
 also made to a journey that we are now seeing the fruits of through the success of Whanau Ora.  
I said before that Whanau Ora is a high-risk business. Why would it not be when we know the impact that circumstances can have on already fragile lives? But if it is high risk it is also high return and that return has been evidenced in three ways. We have seen strategic leadership and regional championing bringing together knowledge expertise and experience of community members and Government processes to benefit the well-being of w’anau. We are observing systemic change progressive and incremental success demonstrated by integrated contracts multi-year funding multi-year planning and the accompanying action research to inform quality improvement and to evidence outcomes. Most importantly we are seeing the value benefit and success of w’anau transformation as they build their capability and become the vehicle for their own change.  
Whanau Ora is about transforming our futures. It is being realised in outcomes across social cultural and economic dimensions. One of the most significant aspects is the planning to create intergenerational transfers of knowledge and values to put an end to cycles of despair and to pave a way in which w’anau aspirations are able to be fostered. Our next steps are in extending Whanau Ora to the Kaipara Hauraki South Waikato Taupo Turangi Palmerston North Wairarapa Levin the Kapiti Coast and Murihiku. We are championing an inclusive approach—an approach that is driven by a focus on outcomes—and that approach although fundamental to the opportunities and gains for w’anau also comes back to Government.  
And so I conclude my contribution today with an assurance to the House that we can have every confidence in the Whanau Ora approach and that it will continue to evolve. Despite the amount of resourcing distributed across Government departments and to a range of agencies there is an unfair expectation that Whanau Ora is the panacea for everything. We all have the responsibility to be responsive and to practise whanau ora. It can begin with us all modelling hope and placing value in a vision for tomorrow—the translation of our highest hopes into strong w’anau who will lead communities throughout Aotearoa. Thank you.  
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I suppose that I am the first member of the House to follow and operationalise this new ruling. I can assure you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch and the House that I will not be reading from a speech but I will be referring to a document that I think will become quite important in New Zealand’s economic history over the next few years which is the National Government’s 2011 national Economic Development Action Plan.  
One of the things that I have found very amusing coming from the other side of politics—and I would say that perhaps the word “bemused” rather than “amused” is a more appropriate word—is the accusation that National does not have a plan to fix New Zealand. This is wrong on multiple levels although one is rather interested that the problem that we are trying to fix is the problem we inherited from three terms of the previous Labour Government. But I will put that aside try to deconstruct the criticism and ask what would constitute a plan.  
I mean is it some sort of hairy-chested 1950s version of it with “Commissar Cunliffe” or “Commissar Parker” working long into the night with Leontief input-output tables allocating resources in the so-called public interest? I do not suppose that is what they have in mind when they talk about an economic plan. So we would have to assume that on the basis that it is better to listen— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that members of this side of the House were referred to as commissars. I think that although the member himself has acknowledged once being a Stalinist it is out of order in this House to call people on the opposite benches commissars. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. I just ask the member to withdraw that comment. 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: It will be the last time that I will use—even obviously in jest—the word “commissar”.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! The member has been asked to withdraw the comment. That is all the member is required to do with no further comment. 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I withdraw and apologise.  
So if that is not the concept of an economic plan what would be the plan that Labour has in mind? One would have to assume—on the basis of the well-known principle that people should be judged by the actions they take rather than on their words—that we would look at the three terms that the New Zealand public did give to Labour the confidence of the Treasury benches in order to work out what a Labour-planned “fix New Zealand” would look like.  
So what would that really add up to? Well fundamentally the plan that Labour unleashed on New Zealand after 3 years in the late 1990s—when growth averaged 4 percent unemployment was rattling down and the deficit was coming down at the same time—resulted after 8 or 9 years in the following basic economic facts. First of all the last 3 years of that Government resulted in economic growth under 1 percent finally achieving the remarkable distinction of putting New Zealand as the only developed country in the world to be in recession before the Lehman Brothers collapse provoked the global financial crisis.  
It was an economic plan that gave us mortgage interest rates of over 10 percent costing households on a typical average mortgage $200 a week more than they are typically paying today on a structured mortgage of that nature. It was a plan that led us as we discovered in question time today to an explosion of private sector debt from around $70 billion in 1999 to around $177 billion by December 2008 causing a huge spike in New Zealand’s net international liabilities which as the Minister for Economic Development pointed out today has come down very remarkably considering how difficult it is to turn around a supertanker like that from 85 percent of GDP to 69 percent of GDP. And it led to a tanking of productivity. So if that is the plan in Labour’s mind could it please find another country to experiment on than ours.  
What we have given is a real plan which is working with New Zealanders and working with the market to try to fix some of the immediate macroeconomic imbalances facing New Zealand and to make serious progress on long-term structural reform against the background of very difficult domestic conditions caused by the Canterbury earthquake which is the second-largest insurance disaster in the history of the planet according to what I read—unbelievably—and secondly the global financial crisis. And that is exactly what this Government has done in the previous 3 years and will continue with relentlessly over the next 3 years while we have the confidence of the Treasury benches. It will address those serious structural imbalances and yes it will indeed try to lay the structural foundations for a brighter long-term outlook for our economy and for the people of New Zealand.  
First of all we have addressed many of the structural economic imbalances though I will be the first to admit there is a long way to go. We have stopped what was intended to be an endless spray of deficits and have got a plan that will have us just crossing the line into surplus by 2014-15. We have initiated on the structural side very long-overdue tax reform which involved a very much-needed shift on higher consumption— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am loath to interrupt the member who has just returned to his seat but I do seek the opportunity to table a copy of the Government’s Economic Development Action Plan noting that it contains no mention— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sit down. That is not a point of order. You are interrupting the member speaking and we are going to hear the Minister out. If you wish to seek leave to table after the Minister has spoken you may. That was a straight-out interruption of a member speaking. 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: In addition to moving on the macroeconomic front the economic plan that the member has just referred to advances a whole set of propositions under more than 30 different headings of structural reforms which piece by piece will indeed create the foundations for improved economic performance in this country.  
This is not the first time we have moved in this direction. If one looks at our record in the previous Government one could pick many examples. One at random would be the work that we have done on aquaculture. After 8 or 9 years of not a single square metre of fresh open water space being allocated to what should be a far more vibrant export industry for New Zealand finally we have advanced the frontier of reform in this area. It is just one small example of the structural reforms that this National-led Government has advanced and intends to advance in the future. We have got the deficits under control though we have some way to go and it will be a very difficult task to continue to keep fiscal discipline at the point where we have got restoration of New Zealand into a prudent situation.  
The one thing that is very clear is that the era of beer and skittles is over. It is time now to get serious with public finances. There is any number of signals around the world telling New Zealanders telling people of all nationalities that that is the nature of the game. This Government is serious. This is a vital component of our economic plan for New Zealand. In addition to this we have got a plan for advancing structural reform under many of those headings in that document. They cover numerous different issues such as science and innovation such as broadband and communications.  
Rebuilding Canterbury is still a central preoccupation in terms of our economic plan for New Zealand as it must be given that Christchurch is the second-largest city in New Zealand and absolutely central to our export effort. I want to give credit to the people of Canterbury for maintaining an astonishing performance in terms of getting their world-class goods and services out of Lyttelton Port and out of Christchurch International Airport under the most stressful conditions. I think they have done just an absolutely outstanding job and I think it is extraordinary when I listen to the people responsible for Lyttelton telling us that actually they are almost at record levels.  
But we have a whole series of economic plans that we will be implementing including trying to move our time limits on consenting medium-term projects and freshwater reform. We are going to try to address better the planning process around assessing natural hazards. I predict that the Labour Party will oppose probably every single one of those reforms. This by the way—let me make it clear—is a prediction I would love to be proven wrong on. But I am not counting on it; I am not counting on it.  
Fundamentally to conclude this is about advancing the frontier of a wealth creation economic plan for this country and trying to capture what I think is not just a necessity but a mood shift that is there inside our community and inside communities around the world as this process of financial deleveraging should be reaching every single responsible political party in this country. Finally to put it in the metaphor that our Prime Minister put it we have indeed proven over the first 10 years of the 21st century that we can spend like a First World country. Now is the time to prove we can earn like one. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Drawing upon Speakers’ rulings 38/2-3 I note that a member claiming to be misrepresented might seek an opportunity to explain that. The member who has just resumed his seat claimed that the economic development action plan of the Government contained numerous fiscal targets including a return to surplus. When I attempted to table— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: What is the point of order? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The point is that it does not. It contains no targets whatsoever. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: What is the member—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This is a separate point of order. A separate point is coming up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: What is the point of order? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The first point of order is to explain that misrepresentation because this is not a fiscal plan— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! That is a debating point. If the member wishes to seek leave to table a document he should do so. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table the Government’s economic development action plan which contains no fiscal targets no— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is all you need to do; that is all you need to do. Order! Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat Mr Groser claimed to have a plan. Well he and I attended in November a meeting of Business New Zealand where two-thirds of those present New Zealand businessmen condemned the Government for having no plan. Although I waited with much anticipation for the Speech from the Throne following the election I have to concur with the media verdict that this Speech from the Throne told us very little. It told us nothing about where the Government wanted to go. There was no vision no sense of direction and no plan—and that is rather sad.  
I want to correct the member on one other thing. He claimed that National had inherited a poor legacy. That is not what Bill English said on becoming Minister of Finance. He said we were in good shape because a Labour Government had prepared for the rainy day which was the global financial crisis. The fact is we had paid off our debt. We had zero net Government debt. Now National is borrowing to the tune of $300 million a week. We had the lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD and we had a credit rating that the agencies put up not down which was their verdict on the adequacy of the National Government’s response.  
Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch can I acknowledge your election to your position as Assistant Speaker and also welcome new members to the House. I congratulate them on their election. Can I particularly congratulate the four maiden speakers for Labour who gave I believe great speeches last night. They talked of their vision of where they had come from and about why they were in this House and where they wanted our country to go in order to be a fairer and more effective country for all New Zealanders—and I emphasise “all”.  
But today I want to focus on a momentous decision made in the High Court by Justice Miller. What Justice Miller did just 2 hours ago was set aside a decision made by Ministers Coleman and Williamson to sell 8000 hectares of some of New Zealand’s best dairy land to foreign investors. He set it aside and thank God that we have got a High Court judge with the guts under law to stand up and act in New Zealand’s interests when weak and incompetent National Party Ministers had failed to do so. The judge was absolutely clear in his conclusion that the Ministers’ decision was thoroughly inadequate. He said that the Overseas Investment Act requires the benefits of foreign investment to be identifiable and substantial but that the Ministers had failed—had failed—to ensure that the Shanghai Pengxin Group application met that test. In fact he was scathing about the Ministers’ decisions. He said that the Ministers had “misdirected themselves”. That was his learned legal opinion. He said they had ignored the clear evidence that benefit would accrue if the land remained in New Zealand’s ownership. There was no need to sell it he said. The Ministers ignored the benefit that would accrue if it remained in New Zealand’s ownership and he said that they had accepted evidence about the economic benefit of the Shanghai Pengxin Group sale that was materially overstated. In other words the judge was very clear that the Ministers failed to do their job. They let New Zealand down and in that they were aided and abetted by Prime Minister John Key.  
Mr Key argued this: “The law would not have allowed us to reverse the decision made by the Overseas Investment Office.” Not only was he wrong but he was proven wrong in law. Far from the law not allowing the Overseas Investment Office to not accept the application he said the law required it to look at criteria that should have led it to reject that application. Mr Key was absolutely wrong but he will not accept responsibility. I have been in this House for a fair long time. The last person who exhibited the characteristics of Mr Key was one Sir Robert Muldoon. He was wrong was proven wrong but he was never prepared to accept responsibility for wrong decisions and misstatements of fact that he had made.  
In fact the obligation on the Ministers was to ensure that they exercised their judgment over this purchase bid not to be the puppets of the Overseas Investment Office which Mr Key implied when he said that they were simply following the Overseas Investment Office’s advice. They do not get paid a quarter of a million dollars a year to rubber-stamp what the Overseas Investment Office says; they are paid money and given the responsibility to make decisions that are correct according to law and to apply their judgment and they failed absolutely to do that. 
 Then Mr Key claimed that the China free-trade agreement required that this decision be approved. The judge’s decision explicitly rejects that and says that the Ministers were advised that that was not correct. The Overseas Investment Act is an agreed exception to the agreement in the free-trade agreement that foreign and domestic investors will be treated alike. It is specifically set aside and Mr Key is wrong and misleads New Zealanders in claiming that the free-trade agreement required us to sell out our heritage and pass ownership of that land to this Shanghai-based company. Has Mr Key— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How many pieces of farmland did you sell when you were the Minister of Foreign Affairs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —or Mr Henare—ignored the fact that no New Zealand company can go to China and buy land in China? No New Zealand company can buy land in China. I congratulate the Chinese on that because the Chinese Government at least can recognise that it needs to act in the interests of its own people—something that the National Government in this affair has failed to recognise altogether.  
Labour says that now is the time to draw a line in the sand. At the end of last year we sold $100 million of prime land in Southland around where Mr English lives to German investors. Then the Government was intending to approve $200 million in the sale of land to Chinese investors. I do not care whether they are Chinese German American or whatever— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh yes you do. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —what I care about is whether that decision was going to be in the interests of New Zealand and that is where the High Court judge—I say to Mr Henare—said absolutely that it was not in our interests. How can it be in our interests to become tenants in our own land? John Key stood up and said that we will not become tenants in our own land. What does he think happens when we sell off those 8000 hectares of land and the Shanghai Pengxin Group becomes the landlord and Landcorp becomes the tenant? Is that not becoming tenants in our own land?  
The fact is that that sale would not have increased our productivity and wealth and it would not have improved the way in which the animals or pasture are managed; all it would have done is push up the price for Kiwi farmers. It would have risked the value added being transferred overseas it would have risked transfer pricing where taxes were paid not to our Government for activity in our country but to overseas Governments and it would have guaranteed that the money profits from our land flowed out of our country to the benefit of foreign investors.  
I want to say one other thing. It is about the sale of the State assets. Mr Key said that the reason to do this was that he had a mandate to sell and that this would improve the performance of the companies. Again neither is true. Massey University did a properly organised scientific survey. It found that 75 percent of Kiwis were against the sale of our energy companies. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How many? How many? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Seventy-five percent were against it and 9 percent were for it. DigiPoll on Television New Zealand last night found that 88 percent of the people surveyed were opposed and 8 percent were for it. There is no mandate and if this Government had the courage of its convictions it would take this decision to a public referendum to see whether or not it had its mandate. But it will not do that because it knows that at least three out of every four New Zealanders do not want to sell. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe. Me tuku whakapaha ki a Honore Anne Tolley mo taku whakararuraru i tana korero. Mr Speaker e hiahia ana ki te korero mo tetahi korero i korerohia e koe ina tata nei i a au e ngaro ana. Ko te tikanga o taku tu ake ko te ahuatanga o te korero o te Honore Trevor Mallard ko tana i ki mai kaore i te tika kia panui mai tetahi korero ki roto i te Whare ki konei korero ai i taua take. Na me penei rawa te korero kai te whakaae au ki te hiahia ki te korero i runga i te ngakau a tena a tena engari i roto i te Standing Orders kei reira tonu etahi tikanga hai whai ma tatou. Ka huri ki te reo Pakeha i tenei wa. 
[ 
Thank you. I need to apologise to the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley for the problems I caused her during her address. Mr Speaker I want to follow up a recent ruling you made in my absence. The reason for rising and making this point of order relates to the circumstances around what the Hon Trevor Mallard said when he stated that a member cannot read his or her address in the House but should deliver it in an impromptu manner. I agree with that. Each member should speak from the heart but there are procedures in the Standing Orders for us to follow. At this point I switch to English 
.]  
I just wanted to take up a matter raised earlier by the Hon Trevor Mallard and other speakers coming in the debate and I appreciate that I have come down from my office to address this. It is to do with the issue about the reading of speeches. Immediately after that issue was raised our office made an investigation and found that there is actually from our understanding no mention of anything about not reading speeches in the Standing Orders. That is the first point. The second point is to raise however that in the Speakers’ rulings—and I refer specifically to Speaker’s ruling 47/1 from September 2011—there is a phrase that states: “Where possible members should not read speeches … However no member other than the Speaker may interrupt a member who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention and the Speaker may allow speeches to be read in some circumstances. Such circumstances may relate to the technical nature of the material under discussion or the relative experience of the member concerned.” That was part of the  
Review of Standing Orders: Report of the Standing Orders Committee 
 September 2011 on page 28.  
So there are two points I wanted to raise with respect. The first one is to correct Mr Mallard’s discussion in Parliament that there is in fact no ruling from our understanding from the Standing Orders Committee about that convention. Secondly the onus is actually on the Speaker to make a decision as opposed to a member of this House. I raise that because Mr Henare and others have spoken about the fact that that may set a precedent for the rest of our time over the next 3 years. I leave that for your consideration. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for his comments. If we go back and look at the review of the Standing Orders which was tabled in the House and adopted by the House the point that the member makes on page 28 is correct but the convention has been that we do not read speeches. If you look at the opening statement there: “We also wish to reiterate that where possible members should not read speeches. The reading of speeches was precluded until 1996 and we wish to reassert this rule as a convention”. So this was what was adopted by this House on the review and the member was a member of the Standing Orders review—as I was—and understood the reasons behind that. So what the tabling of this document the report of the Standing Orders Committee and the accepting of it in the House is actually doing is reasserting the convention that speeches should not be read.  
Many members bring up points of order. It is at the Speaker’s discretion whether a speech should be read. I said to the member who was speaking the Hon Tariana Turia that she should refer to her notes so it was not as if I was saying—I think I used the word “verbatim”; it came up a couple of times. But then the House sought leave for her to read it and we were in the hands of the House at that stage and the House decided that the Minister could read her speech. The points that the member has made are taken on board but I want to make it very clear that the reading of speeches as pertained in the report of the review of the Standing Orders—the convention that we do not read speeches—is something that Speakers in the future and the Chairman of the Committee will be looking at very closely. I thank the member for bringing that matter to our attention. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch not to trivialise your response but can I just check with you though the issue about—not being a lawyer—the difference between a convention and a rule as set out by the Standing Orders. I ask that seriously because I understand the desire of the House at that time and in the discussions to have open free debate and I have got no problem with that. But the inference that Mr Mallard gave—I thought; that I took from the discussion—was that it was required a set rule a Standing Order and I am trying to make the point that that was not the case. But if you could define “convention” that would be helpful. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well I cannot; I am not a lawyer either. We need to get some advice on that. Can you just wait while I just ask the Clerk for some advice on that matter. 
 The practice was part of the Standing Orders review. In the report it says that it is a convention that speeches should not be read. This was adopted by the House and I mentioned that earlier on. There is no specific Standing Order I think that is a point for the member—there is no Standing Order. But when the House adopted the report of the Standing Orders Committee which talks about speeches being read what it does is re-enforces the convention or the practice that speeches will not be read in the future. So that is the position that this House adopted in this report and that is what is going to be the convention which is going to be the protocol as it were from here on in. It does of course allow for some flexibility. I mentioned when we discussed this earlier on on a point of order that there will be Ministers who maybe can read a speech on a bill in their name. It could be and I mentioned this also specifically that new members making their maiden statements will be able to read their speeches. There could well be some technical aspects within a bill that require some explanation and that it would be desirable that the person or the Minister actually read. I hope that clarifies the position. It is a convention. We want to move back to an accepted practice that speeches in future will not be read. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this on this point? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is on this point. It is pursuant to this and I am not arguing with your ruling. A second point of that new Standing Order then goes on to say that no member other than the Speaker may interrupt a member who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention and that is something that clearly has been broken. It is your discretion and I would just hate to see that there is a precedent set in this House whereby we start down this track as we have taken action on it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. Yes and I acknowledged that earlier on that it is at the Speaker’s discretion. I had made the decision earlier on and how it was resolved finally was that leave was sought. We are in the hands of the House when leave is sought for a particular course of action and I think that was a resolution a favourable resolution for the Minister. I hope that ends the matter. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 This National-led Government of course has four key priorities for our second term as outlined by our Prime Minister: first to responsibly manage the Government’s finances; second to build a competitive and productive economy and lift of course the standard of living of all New Zealanders; third the rebuild of Christchurch; and fourth to deliver better public services—and it is that last point that I as Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections want to talk about today and to expand on the Prime Minister’s address to this House. Under National over the last 3 years crime rates have fallen. My predecessor the Hon Judith Collins oversaw immense improvements in corrections and I want to confirm in the House today that we remain firmly—firmly—focused on preventing crime reducing reoffending and most important of all keeping our communities safe. 
We are all aware that we are in very difficult economic times so this is not just about throwing money at problems; we do not have the money to throw at problems. It is about working smarter and one of the most important and exciting initiatives to be introduced by this National-led Government is Policing Excellence. This involves about eight different streams of work that will see the police and have seen the police focusing more on crime prevention making our communities safer reducing offending and all of that of course leads to fewer victims. That means fewer families grieving for lost loved ones or being affected by white collar crime which can of course have long-term implications for people as well as things as minor as burglaries which are a very difficult emotional invasion for people no matter how small the issues are. 
So Policing Excellence will increase the productivity and efficiency of our police and they have set themselves targets of a 13 percent reduction in reported crime. They want to see more crime prevented before it happens so are looking for a decrease in the amount of crime that happens and as a result of that a 13 percent decrease in the amount of crime that is recorded and a 19 percent decrease in non-traffic apprehensions resolved by prosecutions over the next 3 to 5 years. They are big targets for the police but they are determined to achieve those. 
Amongst their work streams is Prevention First. This is where we are going to give our police staff many more opportunities to be out there in communities working in areas where they know there are high risks and looking to prevent crime before it happens. When I talk to some of those front-line policemen out there they say this is the stuff that they joined the police to do. They do not want to be arresting people; they want to be making sure that they are stopping crime from happening. Neighbourhood policing teams—32 of which have now been deployed across the country—are again working in areas where the intelligence tells them the most crime is committed where young people are most likely to be congregating and getting into trouble. They are out there working with those communities coming up with all sorts of ways of preventing crimes and making those communities safer.  
Working on alternative resolutions as an alternative to taking someone through the court process is really important with our young people because the evidence is quite clear that once we get those young people into that cycle of turning up at court it is very hard to get them out of it. 
We are also looking at keeping our front-line police far more mobile. One of the worst parts of their job is having to go back to the office and write everything up. So we are looking at trialling technology so that they can actually be recording their actions at the time. They do not have to stop what they are doing and go back into an office and fill in forms. We are keeping them out there on the streets. So we are looking to increase the number of hours that police are out there working on our streets. 
And one of the last work streams is the crime reporting line. This is under way currently in Auckland City Counties Manukau and Bay of Plenty and it is due to be expanded this year. I have to say I had reason to use this myself. The police are just a phone call away. You do not have to go down to the station and fill in forms; you can talk to someone over the telephone report the crime give all the details and get your police number. It saves an awful lot of effort on behalf of the victims particularly in my area where rustling is a huge issue that has grown over the last couple of years. Farmers say to me: “Gosh to report the crime we’ve got to stop what we are doing and we are working drive down the coast—it could be an hour and a half or so to report the crime—fill in the forms and drive back.” Actually they do not want to do that and soon they will be able to pick up a telephone and report the crime. 
So in summary Policing Excellence is putting more effort into crime prevention and more hours into front-line policing and that is leading to lower rates of offending and that of course means that fewer people in our communities are the victims of crime—and that is what we want. That is what we are focused on: reducing offending. 
And of course we are interested in reducing reoffending because prisoner rehabilitation is extremely important. When you look at the figures for our prisoners you see that within a 12-month period 45 percent of prisoners released from prison are reconvicted and 27 percent of them are re-imprisoned within 12 months of release. After 24 months—after 2 years—62 percent of them are reconvicted and 39 percent are re-imprisoned. So there is a cycle that these people get on and we are determined to make sure that we can get more and more of them out of that cycle back into their families and their communities and contributing to society. So what have we done? Well over the last 3 years we have doubled the drug and alcohol treatment places for prisoners—we have doubled them—and we will continue to roll out more treatment places for prisoners. We have boosted literacy and numeracy education in prisoners which languished under the previous Labour Government and we have increased dramatically the number of prisoners who are receiving work skills training. It is so important that they have those skills so that when they leave prison they are able to take their place in the work force and of course we are determined to work with them to make sure that that happens. 
Just last week while I was visiting the Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility I spoke to offenders who were involved in the distribution of food to other prisons around New Zealand. They not only have huge pride in the work that they are doing but are using that opportunity to gain their National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) qualifications. The women I spoke to were aiming for their NCEA level 2. They were pushing me to ensure that they could sit NCEA level 3—there were some minor technicalities around the use of computers that we need to resolve in order for them to achieve that. In fact this week one prisoner in Christchurch I understand has achieved the National Certificate in Distribution (Level 3). That means that these women when they leave prison will have a skill that they can take with them into the workplace. That gives them the opportunity then using our 90-day trial period legislation to get that first job to get that next step on the ladder that gets them back into the community and out of this cycle of reoffending and re-imprisonment. 
We believe we have made enormous strides in corrections over the last 3 years and for that the management deserves credit. They have done an outstanding job improving the performance of our prisons and focusing on those reoffending rates—all part of making our communities safer. Finally can I refer to a report that was released a couple of days ago showing that New Zealanders’ confidence in the New Zealand police force has soared and that is simply a reflection of all the good work that this National-led Government has done to support both the police and corrections to make our communities safer. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 May I begin by acknowledging the re-election of the Speaker to his role. I have new portfolio responsibilities: Canterbury earthquake recovery civil defence and emergency management and consumer rights and standards. I just want to say how grateful I am for David Shearer’s confidence because with his background in disaster recovery it speaks a lot to me about what he has to offer the city of Christchurch and indeed the country in terms of taking the lessons learnt from Christchurch and making them our own as a country.  
We all know about disaster recovery. It requires four particular things: quality communication community engagement building resilience but most of all leadership. When I talk about leadership there is a difference between the leadership that is required in a response effort which of course is command and control—people need to do what they are told they need to know that they can rely on the decision maker—but in recovery it is different. It is inclusive it is engaging it is a really important way of ensuring that the community is able to go with those decision makers. The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has mocked the well-established principles of recovery by saying that all we are asking for is to sit around in groups and sing “Kumbaya”. He says that he is rewriting international best practice on a day-by-day basis and that is actually what deeply disturbs me. International best practice is based on the evidence—the evidence that is gained from both successes and disasters. So when there has been a failure of recovery those lessons have been learnt and they are available to us. This Government is placing a great risk on a Minister who wants to rewrite history and rewrite our future.  
When the Prime Minister spoke on 23 February the day after our dreadful earthquake of which we acknowledge the anniversary next week he said “On behalf of the Government let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone. New Zealand will walk this journey with you. We will be there every step of the way. Christchurch; this is not your test this is New Zealand’s test. I promise we will meet this test.” Today I am asking the Prime Minister and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to meet the challenge that he quite rightly set the Government the day after the disastrous earthquake. It is one week away from that first anniversary so I know that I am going to be criticised for making this statement but I think it is really important because there are people in Christchurch who are extremely worried not just about the fact that this is the anniversary of the 22 February earthquake and they are still out of their houses or face an uncertain future but because it is nearly 18 months since the first earthquake and some of them have been out of their houses since the first earthquake and some of them still do not have the basic services that we would expect in a First World country. A number of them are facing the uncertainty of the land upon which their houses are built or facing an unpalatable choice between the Government’s offer and the unknown. I want to talk about that I want to talk about the red zone offer and I want to talk about the reality that people face about their land.  
The first thing I want to mention though is how the Government has communicated the land decisions because I actually personally think there is nothing worse than the way the Government has chosen to do it—by briefing the media about the future of the land and not the people who are affected by the decisions. On 23 June 2011 the media had already been briefed sufficiently to be able to lead the front page of the 
 Press 
 with the decision that was going to be announced at lunchtime that day. As local MPs we were given a 15-minute heads-up of the detail of the announcement. On 18 August the Kaiapoi decisions were announced. Affected residents were denied admission to the press conference where the future of their land was disclosed. On 19 August the details of the red zone offer were launched immediately following the opening of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s recovery assistance centre. There were a number of things about that announcement where the Government did not point out that there was no right of appeal on the amount of the offer—it did not mention that at the press conference.  
On 28 October most of the remaining orange zones were turned green but it did not give any warning of these new foundation technical categories 1 2 and 3—1 being the grey 2 being the yellow and 3 being the blue. Of course that has caused major concerns for a number of people who do not have the detail to go with that requiring as it does individual geotechnical site investigations to determine foundation types. The interesting thing about that announcement that day is that Brooklands residents who had been on tenterhooks for months went online to find out what was the story with their community and the system crashed. Guess what? They had not changed colour at all and no one warned them that no decision had been made about Brooklands. This is playing with people’s minds.  
On 17 November a text message from the Minister’s office in the morning said there would be announcements that afternoon. We were briefed at 12 o’clock. At 2 o’clock the people of Brooklands found out that they were subject to the red zone decision but they did not find out that that was going to happen until the press went out to ask them for their response how they felt about being red-zoned. A lot of people in Brooklands are very very upset at that decision. Then on February 10 again we had to contact the Minister’s office to ask for details about the announcement. Again Southshore was not included the white zones in my colleague’s electorate in Port Hills were not mentioned and again there was a great deal of uncertainty.  
 When I tell people this they are appalled at the insensitivity and that is because I believe the Government’s communication strategy is not focused on the affected communities. It is political and it is very inappropriate on every level. Because the community does not understand the nature of the decisions that are being made they therefore have no confidence in the quality of the decision making. When you have to dig yourself out of silt on Christmas Eve Christmas Day and Boxing Day and you have done it for the third time in a row then you can understand why in fact there is no confidence in the decision. This is not just Parklands East. All of the boundary areas that we have been raising with the Government since July last year are all affected in the same way and are asking for more details. Significant numbers want to be red but there are also significant numbers in Brooklands that want to be green. And in Brooklands they did not dig out tonnes of silt on 22 February 13 June or 23 December because their damage was done on 4 September.  
If the Government had agreed to engage with them as I have repeatedly asked month after month after month then people would understand what was happening. So many people believe that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority makes the decision but it is not the authority; it is the Government. It comes down to “What is the cost of repair?” and “How much are the sections worth?”. It is about money and it is about insurance. The Government says the red zone offer has winners and losers. Well it sure does and there are different shades of losers. I lose out on what the Government has described as an extremely fair deal but I am not losing as much as many of the people I am privileged to represent. I sat next to someone on the plane a while ago and he asked how my property was. I said I was in the red zone and he said: “Oh well that’s lucky for you.” I said: “Actually I do not get enough out of the Government offer to buy what I have got now” and I also said that my insurance company had told me that it could repair my house. But the point is and the person sitting next to me said this: “But how can they repair your house? You’re in the red zone.”  
That is the problem. The Government has given in to the insurance industry and let it off the hook for what we are entitled to. We signed up for replacement policies with our insurers and we expect the Government to stand by our side as the Prime Minister promised us on 23 February and enable us to move on with our lives—not to do any better we do not want to be winners; we just want to break even. That is not an unreasonable thing for people to ask. That is what many people and the people of Christchurch are asking the Government to understand and to reflect on as we head into this time. Maybe we could think about what the word “kumbaya” means. In the song it says: “Someone’s crying Lord kumbaya.” It means “come by here” and maybe when the Prime Minister is in Christchurch next week he would like to come by some of the neighbourhoods and talk to them about the issues that are confronting them and think about whether the decision was the right one for Christchurch. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. [ 
In New Zealand Sign Language 
] 
Toku awa ko toku ora. Toku awa ko toku mana. Toku awa ko toku kaha. Toku awa ko toku wairua. 
[ 
My river is my love influence strength and spirituality 
.] 
My river is my life.  
It was the desire to save a very special river the Waikirikiri that led directly to my involvement in politics. Twelve years ago I moved out of Christchurch to the village of Coalgate in the foothills of the Canterbury Plains with my former husband and three small children. The location was ideal for us close to a small country school with the peaceful Waikirikiri flowing past our doorstep and amazing views of the mountains. But shortly after moving there we found that there were ambitious plans to build a massive water storage dam for irrigation just upstream of us. If the dam went ahead the beautiful Waikirikiri would become an ugly fast-flowing canal too dangerous for kids to go swimming in. The dam would also destroy private land protected by a Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenant including two raised spring-fed peat bogs which pollen analysis showed to be thousands of years old. I recall standing with my husband at the bottom of our property looking upstream towards the Wairiri Valley wondering what we should do. Should we spend time and energy fighting the proposed scheme or should we resign ourselves to it going ahead?  
At that time we had a small business offering forestry management services mainly to farmers on the Canterbury Plains and foothills. We had witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of prolonged drought. But we also knew that the scheme was not about drought-proofing but about land intensification. It would allow yet more farms to convert to intensive dairying and dairy support—land uses dependent on high inputs of energy water and fossil fuels. It was clear to us that our groundwater and our rivers were at risk. So we decided to try to stop the dam and highlight to the wider public the downside of intensive farming. As part of this campaign we networked with other committed people across Canterbury all of us united by a desire to protect Canterbury’s water. Some of this fight is covered in Sam Mahon’s book  
The Water Thieves. 
It was during this time that I became disillusioned with the politics of both Labour and National. It seemed to me that neither was willing or able to grasp the seriousness of the threats facing our water. So in part inspired by the late Rod Donald who was my neighbour prior to his election to Parliament I joined the Green Party and stood as a candidate for the first time in the 2005 general election.  
When I first stood I had no concept of what huge challenges lay ahead of me as a deaf candidate and activist. I just wanted to speak out in defence of our water and our environment and be heard. But I learnt the hard way that passion and knowledge were not enough. I had to find different ways of doing politics ways of getting around the barriers posed by being deaf ways that allowed me to participate and engage effectively. I started learning New Zealand Sign Language and using sign language interpreters when I spoke to submissions to the local city and regional councils. I am absolutely thrilled that there are New Zealand Sign Language interpreters in the gallery today and I note that it is the first time in New Zealand that a maiden speech is being covered this way. I hope that this will be the start of greater recognition by Parliament of the status of New Zealand Sign as our third official language.  
I want to thank all those who campaigned to get New Zealand Sign Language Act passed into law and I acknowledge the role played by the former Minister for Disability Issues the Hon Ruth Dyson in facilitating this process. The effects of this Act have been positive for many but there is still a long way to go before the Act is implemented as it should be. For example as a mother of three children I find it unacceptable that some deaf parents are unable to attend parent-teacher interviews to discuss their children’s progress as is their right because the school will not provide New Zealand Sign Language interpreters.  
I want to acknowledge the dedicated people who campaigned for New Zealand to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New Zealand signed the convention on 30 March 2007 under a Labour Government and ratified it on 26 September 2008 under a National Government. Article 29 of the convention guarantees the right of persons with disabilities to effectively and fully participate in political and public life including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected. My election on the Green Party list under MMP means that hearing impaired deaf and people with disabilities have representation in Parliament from someone who shares with them many of the same experiences and challenges that they face.  
It is a huge honour to be representing this community in the House and I take this responsibility seriously. High on my list of goals for this Parliament is to advocate for improved access to information and communication services for deaf and hearing and vision impaired. Simple things like improving the captioning and audio description of television DVDs and the internet would enable access to our culture and to services. Until recently New Zealand had one of the lowest rates of television captioning in the developed world. Even Uganda had higher rates than us. This situation has improved recently with the introduction of closed captioning by Sky television on many of its channels a move that I celebrate as it will make a real difference for many of us.  
Although access to TV has improved full access to information around political debates and to democratic participation remain out of reach for many. We need captioning of Parliament TV so that all New Zealanders with a hearing impairment can have full access to political debates a right that we have under the convention. At the moment because Parliament TV is not captioned I am relying on electronic note-takers to follow the debate in the Chamber. Although they do an excellent job and parliamentary staff have worked very hard in getting around the technical challenges it is not an ideal solution in part because they will not always be available when a bill comes up that I need to speak to.  
I made the point yesterday that funding for electronic note-takers and equipment should be not be coming out of my support budget which all members receive because no MP with a disability should be expected to fund their participation in the House in this way. To put the cost in context a few years ago Parliament spent nearly $1 million upgrading the audio system in the Chamber so that MPs could hear better. I am hopeful that Parliament will show leadership in this area and move quickly to resolve this so that I can get on with the work that I was elected to do.  
I would now like to acknowledge the love and aroha that I have had over the years from my family my friends and my supporters sustaining me through all the ups and downs of my political journey into Parliament. Many of them including my three beautiful children are here in the gallery today. Thank you all; I could not have done it without you. Your love is what gives me the strength to stand here today.  
I am also motivated by the knowledge that so much has been invested in me from my earliest years. I was 2½ years old and without speech when teachers at my kindergarten picked up that I was profoundly deaf and I was provided with large aids that I wore in a harness strapped on to my body. Given this very late start in language development I would never have caught up with my peers had it not been for two key things. Firstly I am fortunate to have an amazing and totally dedicated mother who once she knew I could not hear spent many many hours with me teaching me basic speech and reading skills before I even started school to ensure that I would not be left behind. Secondly I have had the benefit of extensive intervention and support throughout my childhood including 3 years at the Mary Hare School for Deaf in England where class sizes ranged from six to 10 pupils and the focus was on high academic achievement. I believe that it is the right of every child with a disability to have access to the level of early intervention and quality education that I had so that every child can reach their potential.  
Although disability issues are obviously high on my agenda I do have other issues I am keen to progress particularly in the areas of food and animal welfare. At the moment far too many animals in New Zealand suffer needless and prolonged pain and suffering both on intensive farms and in experimentation. I grew up eating meat produced on our own farm but when I left I became vegetarian because I could not be sure that the meat I ate would come from animals that had been treated well. Likewise I avoid eggs from battery hens because of the cruelty and suffering involved in their production. I am delighted that the UK has banned cages for hens and I look forward to the day the last hen is released from her cage in New Zealand.  
While staying true to the Green Party kaupapa and to those I represent I pledge to work constructively and with an open mind with everyone from all sides of the House to advance issues wherever we can find common ground.  
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 He honore he kororia ki te Atua he maungarongo ki te whenua he whakaaro pai ki nga tangata katoa. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Ko taku pepeha. Ko Wharepuhunga toku maunga. Ko Waikato toku awa. Ko Tainui toku waka. Ko Ngati Raukawa toku iwi. Ko Ngati Huri toku hapu. Ko Pikitu toku marae. Ko Rauti Simmonds toku tupuna kuia. Ko Bob Roche taku matua. Ko Anne Roche taku whaea. Ko Jim Roche me Andrew Roche me Ennis McLeod me Bernie Taylor me Bridget McBeth me Judy O’Connor raua ko Gloria Roche aku tuakana. Ko Robby Roche taku teina. Ko John Stansfield taku hoa rangatira. Ko Joseph raua ko Matariki oku tamariki. No te motu ataahua o Waiheke ahau. 
Nga mihi nui ki a koe Mr Deputy Speaker ki nga rangatira o te whenua o tenei Whare tenei tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Honour and glory to God peace and good will to all mankind. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. 
My tribal identity is as follows. Wharepuhunga is my mountain and Waikato is my river. Tainui is my canoe Ngati Raukawa is my tribe Ngati Huri is my subtribe and Pikitu is my marae. Rauti Simmonds is my grandmother Bob Roche is my father and Anne Roche is my mother. My older siblings are Jim Roche Andrew Roche Ennis McLeod Bernie Taylor Bridget McBeth Judy O’Connor and Gloria Roche. My younger sibling is Robby Roche. John Stansfield is my noble husband and Matariki and Joseph are my children. I come from the beautiful island of Waiheke.  
Greatest of respects to you Mr Deputy Speaker and acknowledgments to you all leaders of the nation of this House greetings to you all 
.] 
We come to this House—all of us—as the individual expression of collective aspiration collective experience and collective effort. It has been said before that no one stands on the paepae by themselves. You cannot be a leader if there is no one with you. You cannot stand at the front if there is no one behind you. And importantly you are a leader only because others have supported you.  
As I take my place in this House I first thank all the fabulous Green Party supporters and voters who have trusted me with their vision of a richer New Zealand: a country where rivers are clean where children are safe healthy and educated and where a thriving green economy ensures our children can build satisfying careers in the same country as their families. In particular I thank the Auckland Greens. I especially acknowledge Katy Watabe Ron Miller Rod Galanti Gwen Shaw Neil Miller Nora West Tim McMains Jane and Pam and so many others for their incredible support encouragement and sheer hard work.  
I am not the first woman of Maori descent to come to this House from the glorious motu of Waiheke. My mentor and inspiration—and my friend—and a former Minister of Local Government the Hon Sandra Lee blazed that path for me. And I am not the first woman from our organic island farm to walk these halls; my friend and fellow olive-picker and grape-stomper the Hon Laila Harré a former Minister of Women’s Affairs holds that baton. And I am not the first organic grower from our farm to represent the great green family in this House. My colleague Greens co-leader Russel Norman beat me to the post.  
But I am the first descendant of Rauti Simmonds the first daughter of Ngati Huri to enter this House as a member. I acknowledge Ockie Simmonds from our hapu up there in the gallery. And I am the first in the Roche family—a huge family blessed as it was by the combination of natural Maori fertility and Catholic contraception—to enter this House. I am the eighth child and the youngest daughter in a family of nine children. My mother was one of three but from a large extended family and part of the clan McLeod of Waipu. I still have a horror of bagpipes being played indoors. My father was one of 16 children and I am one of about 84 first cousins on that side.  
I am sad that my parents Anne and Bob Roche have both passed away and do not get to see their daughter take her place in this House. However I am grateful for the support that I have received from my family. I acknowledge my whanau my children and my friends up there in the gallery who have travelled from far and wide to witness this day.  
It was my large family that prepared me for a political career. I learnt early that numbers count—and the importance of organising the numbers in the house to offset the power at the top. And I certainly learnt the skills in arguing. I had a lot of practice and I particularly thank my brother-in-law Pat Taylor for honing those skills over very many years.  
I grew up with my family in a railway house in the Frankton railway settlement. Mum worked for the post office and my dad was on the railways—good secure Government jobs which no longer exist today. In fact just this week the Prime Minister has announced more job losses to come in the State sector.  
I am not of the 1 percent who are so grossly overrepresented in every part of New Zealand political life. I was one of those kids who left high school with no qualification but I returned as an adult student some years later. I studied by day and among other jobs I sang telegrams at night to support myself. I was blessed to be challenged and supported by one of New Zealand’s greatest educators while at Auckland Girls’ Grammar School. Thank you Charmaine Pountney—I am here to pay it back.  
Emboldened by education and enraged by the injustice that delivered by an accident of birth to one class the jewels and another the crumbs I set out on a journey that began as a union organiser initially with the theatrical workers union hitching rides on trains in the guards’ van with my dad’s union mates and fighting for the rights of cinema workers around the northern part of our country. I have protested and picketed with the best. I can attest that love and politics can mix: my first date with my life partner John was at a union picket at the Devonport docks.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: So romantic. 
DENISE ROCHE 
: Romance! I have scrapped my way through disputes represented workers in courts and tribunals and had a solid education in the misery that is greed the blight that grew inequality across our land. I moved to the hotbed of activism known as Orapiu Grove Farm on Waiheke Island to be with my partner when our kids were small. I am grateful to that island. It is where I learnt to walk the talk as a Green.  
Waiheke is a great place to raise your kids and it is an even better place to learn the craft of political representation. It is a place where opinions are strongly held and freely given too—at all hours of the day—on the ferry at the supermarket at the library.  
I started my political career in 2007 by defeating a sitting Auckland City Councillor by just 11 votes and I put up with being called “Landslide Roche” for the next 3 years. That election catapulted me into the final term of the Auckland City Council and the debates on the future governance of Auckland.  
We do political debates a bit differently where I come from. We do them like they matter as if political decisions were the preserve of those affected by them. For this reason in Auckland Council Waiheke and Great Barrier Island have a rate of voter engagement that is the envy of much of the country. There is something in this that this House needs to learn from—how to make politics meaningful and relevant to our citizens. And I am sorry to say it is something that this House has been failing at.  
The 2011 election marked a historic low in political engagement: the lowest rate of voter turnout since 1877 which was before women got the vote. The biggest threat to democracy in this country is not the community of Ruatoki it is not the Taliban it is not the Exclusive Brethren and their abortive campaign to wipe out the Green Party. It is disengaged citizens. You will note that I do not call this “voter apathy” because as a Green member of Parliament I do not believe in blaming the victim. If our time in this House is to serve the interests of democracy then we need to urgently address and arrest this decline in voter participation.  
When the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance began the process that took the “local” out of local government in Auckland nearly a quarter of all the submissions it received were from the 0.8 percent of the region who live in the Hauraki Gulf islands. The commission had no option but to hold hearings on both Waiheke and Great Barrier Island and they were very well attended I can assure you. The upshot was that both our communities kept our own local boards. Many others in that forced amalgamation did not. The Gulf islands is a little place but you seriously do not want to mess with us.  
I am proud to be Ngati Waiheke and I acknowledge those from the motu who have travelled here today. And I am proud to be part of the community and voluntary sector too. Community organisations are the crucible of democracy the place where citizens come together to share their dreams and plan our common futures. They are an essential glue of society which shapes our norms and values without which we would all be the poorer.  
I am carried into this House on the shoulders of activists and organisations who fought for my right to be here. I think particularly of that historic and venerable institution the National Council of Women. It was founded in 1896 and the first president was suffragist Kate Sheppard. It is an organisation to whose tireless advocacy I and every other woman in this House owe our place. We have not honoured this contribution. In 2004 this House passed inept legislation based on an ancient definition of “charitable purpose” which denies the legitimate advocacy role of non-governmental organisations and which has resulted in organisations like the National Council of Women and others like Greenpeace being denied registration as charities. They cannot be registered because the Charities Commission has an allergy to advocacy. Australian legislators have realised this error and amended their legislation and I look forward to being part of a New Zealand Parliament that moves similarly.  
As I enter this House I look forward to being able to work across parties for the benefit of all our communities—like the bill that will be coming up soon to restrict harm from gambling. I can assure the House that even though I am the Greens’ gambling spokesperson I am not an anti-gambling zealot and I will prove that to you by selling you a raffle ticket during the dinner break. I am however deeply concerned with the harm caused by commercialised gambling and especially by the blight on our communities caused by pokie machines.  
Kiwis know that these machines reap their profits from problem gamblers. Kiwis know that they can harm whole communities which is why whenever they have been asked if they want more pokies people say no. The former Manukau City Council received over 6000 submissions asking it to restrict pokies. Active engaged citizens are saying no to pokies and will be dismayed by the banana-republic backroom deal being done by the Government where our laws are for sale and where the Auckland casino a monopoly provider is to be expanded in return for a convention centre—or was that 30 pieces of silver?  
Commercial gambling is deeply regressive and cynically exploitative. It is a transfer of wealth from the brown to the white from the women to the men and from the poor to the rich. Casinos are an engine of crime and inequality. 
As Simon Collins so cogently argued in last week’s  
New Zealand Herald  
feature we have become a land of inequality. The deregulation of the labour markets since 1991 has not brought the wealth and security to the working people that was promised in this House. We are not a better country for having dismantled generations of knowledge and experience in distributing fairly the profits of work and enterprise.  
We used to be a nation that prided itself on giving everyone a fair go but the human value of fairness and equality has been subverted by greed. It has been subverted by bankrupt financial ideology which has robbed the poor on behalf of the rich. The one mechanism available to working people to garner a fair share for their work—organised labour—has been systematically demonised vilified and stripped of rights that took generations of active citizens to build. I acknowledge the Ports of Auckland workers’ dispute to oppose the casualisation of their jobs and the Oceania rest home workers who are striking soon.  
If we want working people to invest their lives in our future as a nation we need to assure them of decent wages safe working conditions and economic security for their families or we are forever condemned to waving goodbye to our kids as they flee to societies that will respect them.  
I am proud to join the largest team of Green MPs that this country has ever seen. The last election saw a greater awareness that the Green vision is a sound vision. We are waking up to the fact that promises delivered for a 3-year election cycle will not deliver the best outcomes in the longer term. My children Mata and Joe and all our children are destined to inherit an environment much more degraded than the country I grew up in. We have a duty to them and to generations to come to address climate change and to clean up the mess we have been creating.  
And finally it is an absolute privilege to join a team of Greens who are determined to keep our principled approach to politics. I pay tribute to our Green Party MPs who left last term: Keith Locke Sue Kedgley and prior to that Jeanette Fitzsimons and Sue Bradford who together with all our MPs have demonstrated that principled approach to this House over the years. I hope to do as well. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Waiata 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. Te mea tuatahi me mihi ki a Ranginui raua ko Papatuanuku tena korua. Te Whare e tu nei tena koe. Ko rererangi te waka. Ko Sierra Nevada nga maunga. Ko Yuba te awa. Ko Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa te moana. Ko Ngati Merikana ko Ngati Pakeha nga iwi. No Kareponia ahau. Ko Tamaki-makau-rau taku kainga i naianei. Ko Julie Anne Genter ahau. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all. The first thing is to acknowledge Sky Father and Earth Mother—greetings to you two. Greetings also to the House standing before us. Aeroplane is the mode of transport Sierra Nevada are the mountains Yuba is the river and the Great Ocean of Kiwa is the sea. Ngati American and Ngati Pakeha are the tribes and I am from California. Currently Auckland is my home and I am Julie Anne Genter 
.]  
 It is with the greatest respect that I address this House for the second time. It is with gratitude and humility that I stand here—gratitude to those who have gone before; gratitude to all those who have taught me on my journey so far. Special thanks to my father John and my brothers Sean and Liam who are here today to my mother Pauline and to my grandparents who are watching from afar. I owe my presence here today to a great many people: family members friends housemates and colleagues who are far too many to name. I especially want to acknowledge the fantastic and tireless efforts of Green Party staff volunteers members and supporters who achieved an unprecedented result this past November. We hope to do you proud and to help turn your efforts into a greener and fairer New Zealand. I stand here with utmost humility. It is an incredible honour and privilege to serve the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. I would like to take this opportunity to affirm my allegiance to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the reason I and all Pakeha are able to be here with legitimacy and call this place home.  
Like many of my neighbours in Auckland I was not born in Aotearoa. I chose this land to be my home because I love it. I love the forests I love the lakes and rivers I love the mountains and the beaches I love the people. Like many New Zealanders I grew up swimming in the Pacific Ocean though it was on the far side. The Sierra Nevada mountains the redwood forests and the crystal-clear Yuba River are among the precious places that taught me a deep love and respect of the natural world that sustains us.  
However the wild beauty in the remote corners of California does contrast starkly with the place where I actually grew up. Anyone who has ever attempted to walk along in the undifferentiated suburban sprawl of Los Angeles County along a loud and polluted eight-lane arterial flanked by asphalt deserts of mostly empty car-parks and ugly strip development will understand what I mean. As a young person I often wondered why it was so difficult and unpleasant to walk anywhere why in a large metropolis with a nearly perfect climate the only place I saw other people was at the mall and how it could be less costly for each and every person to have to make even very short trips in their own expensive 2-tonne box of glass and steel rather than by walking or cycling or taking a bus or train. In fact I have learnt it is not.  
The wealth of my homeland and the material comfort that I was raised with also contrast starkly with the endemic poverty that lies beneath the shiny movie screen surface of America. As a child I recall a few trips to downtown Los Angeles another world from the big houses in our predominantly white neighbourhood. We visited many cardboard towns of homeless people set up underneath motorway flyovers. We brought them hundreds of brown bags with sandwiches and carefully walked around broken glass hypodermic needles and rubbish that covered the footpaths. We went home to our safe quiet neighbourhood where it was easy for me to read study and achieve. Why is it like this? Does it have to be this way? Could the spaces between the buildings be places that we love? In a wealthy society could everyone have a safe place to live and have the same opportunities to achieve? These are the questions that have shaped the journey of my life so far.  
The week I turned 18 I left home to seek adventure beyond the suburbs. I ended up in a small town in the mountains in northern California where I lived and worked with people from all different backgrounds. We lived week to week on minimum wage jobs in restaurants and cinemas. We bought most of our clothes and furniture in op shops. We were happy although in the winter we sometimes had to break the ice in the toilet which had frozen overnight and we could not really afford to go to the doctor or the dentist. My friends there were all doing their best and were smart and hard-working enough to make a great contribution to society but many did not feel that path was open to them. My privileged upbringing made it easy for me to move on when I was ready to continue my studies. I studied philosophy at the University of California Berkeley to try to uncover the rational underpinnings of my political and ethical convictions. In my final year I took up French in part due to a love of Voltaire and his pragmatic approach to humanism.  
Ten years ago I left the United States. I initially went to France to gain fluency in the language but I stayed because I could not bear to return to a country engaged in the futile and destructive wars championed by George W Bush. After some time working and travelling in Europe I was fortunate enough to receive a scholarship to undertake postgraduate study at Sciences Po in Paris where I was able to study economics and political theory. My questions about the places where we live and the nature of our economy were slowly informed by my experiences as well as by my studies. I eagerly delved deeper into new approaches to urban planning transport and resource management at the University of Auckland and in my subsequent work as a transport consultant.  
Every one of us travels most every day and every one of us consumes goods that have been transported from farther and farther away. We are all very personally familiar with the annoyances and the injustices that inevitably occur when we are running late and need to get somewhere. But there is a much bigger picture. The places where we live are fundamentally shaped by the transport system and policies put in place by Government. In turn this affects the money and time we must spend travelling the quality of our air and water and the fact that nearly 40 percent of our energy use is for transport. We increasingly see that it affects our health the value of our land the cost of development and the affordability of housing. It even affects the amount of interaction we have with our neighbours. Perhaps most pertinently for this Government it affects our balance of trade and the amount of money we have left over each week to save or to spend in the domestic economy. The latest research in transport and urban planning tells us it is entirely possible to foster healthier safer and more livable towns and cities. Doing so will even save Governments households and businesses money while facilitating economic development so why are we not doing that?  
It was when working as a consultant with district and regional councils Government agencies and private developers that I realised there are no technical economic or cultural even barriers to sustainable towns and cities. The impediments holding us back from doing things smarter are mainly political and this is true in areas beyond transport. That is why I joined the only party with a good understanding of transport and indeed a coherent vision for the future of our economy and society.  
I am sure all members of this House will agree that we face some very daunting challenges. The global financial crisis the end of cheap energy climate change and increasing inequality are the four big ones and they are all interrelated. The flip side of these challenges is that we have an opportunity to approach things differently. We have an opportunity to improve the ways we live and do business and it will enable us our children and our grandchildren to meet these challenges successfully but to do so we will need to approach problems differently than we have in the past. We will all need to listen to one another. We will need to move past ideology and look beyond our prejudices.  
If the House will indulge me I would like to talk about an emerging view in cognitive science called the argumentative theory of reason. Since the Enlightenment it has been commonly assumed that each person has a uniquely human faculty of reasoning which they could individually use to deduce the truth. However the evidence from psychology does not support this; in fact people do quite poorly on reasoning tests. But as it turns out we are all very good at arguing especially in this House. People are very good at finding evidence to support their arguments. That is part of the reason why we struggle with confirmation bias: that is we tend to find evidence to support the views that we already hold. This is well-documented in psychology.  
This theory does not suggest that reasoning cannot lead to good decisions. The idea is that humans evolved in groups and reason actually functions socially through argumentation rather than individually. We can see this as the wisdom of crowds which is informing our digital age. It has interesting and inspiring implications for deliberative democracy. We often assume life would be better if we could just get on with it whatever our favoured course of action happens to be. But doing more faster without the buy-in of everyone is not necessarily advantageous. It turns out that we make better decisions collectively when more people are involved in the debate even if it takes longer. Having multiple perspectives represented means more valuable information is included in the evaluation and more minds weigh up the validity of the arguments put forward. It gets round our confirmation bias and makes for more robust decisions. It is why MMP is so crucial because it allows many more perspectives to be represented in Parliament.  
I am proud to be a member of the Green Party which uses a consensus model of decision making. Consensus does not mean we all agree. In fact we often have heated arguments but by taking the time to allow everyone to have their say and continue until everyone can live with the decision I believe that makes our policy much more robust. Greater participation in decision making could help us with the challenges we face in at least two ways. Firstly it will prevent us from being seduced by expertise that may create more problems than it solves. As the members of this House will hear me say many times I am sure in the next 3 years our transport predicament is at least in part due to the perfectly understandable but misguided approach of traffic engineering that focused on increasing the volume and speed of vehicles to the exclusion of all else. When we take wider impacts into account some of which are represented by the public health sector and some represented by local communities we get a better idea of the true economic impact of our infrastructure projects.  
Secondly groups that have profited from the status quo and have become very powerful have a vested interest in maintaining it. They will claim that any move to a more sustainable and fair economy will kill jobs or drain New Zealand of innovation. It is understandable that they react this way. They want to protect their short-term interests but over and over again we see evidence that when small powerful groups have too much sway it benefits no one not even them. We have seen special interests consistently lobby for deregulation that ended up costing everyone more in the medium term. Examples include leaky homes US car manufacturers arguing against fuel economy standards hedge funds and deep-sea oil contractors—and these are barely the tip of the iceberg. All arguments are not equally strong. By not favouring certain points of view just because they are powerful or have claims to expertise and by having more people involved in the debate I believe we can collectively find solutions that will enable us to create a better world.  
For my part during my time here I hope to use my unique perspective and experience to contribute to law and policy that will enable us all to flourish. I would like to encourage and enable greater participation in our political process. I hope to move beyond the traditional assumptions and to persuade members from all sides of the House that New Zealanders will greatly benefit from a much smarter transport and urban land use policy; that we will all benefit from a fairer more transparent and less punitive justice system; and that we will all benefit from an independent publicly funded broadcasting system.  
I believe that every member of this House has come here because they believe in the possibility of democracy and that their contribution can have a positive impact on our fellow citizens and on this beautiful place we inhabit. To the 50th Parliament I say that I acknowledge and respect our shared passion for service and I look forward to working constructively with each of you where we can find common ground. I believe that we can move beyond our traditional assumptions and find new ways of doing things that will leave us all better off. Kia ora koutou. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I acknowledge this House the land it stands on and the indigenous people of this place. To all the women and people from the margins who have gone before me in this place I thank you. I will do my best to live up to your vision of a future where we can all speak constructively. To those still on the margins I promise you my best efforts to redress hardship and injustice and to live up to your expectations. And to all the amazing Green Party activists and voters again my thanks. I look forward to our ongoing journey.  
I pledge to this House and to those who elected me that I will seek to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi the Declaration of Independence and the principles of cooperation inclusion integrity justice and fairness. I stand here today as a leftie feminist lesbian who sometimes despairs about what we are doing to each other and our planet. I stand here as an ordinary Pakeha New Zealander. I stand here knowing we could do things so much better if we did things differently.  
I grew up in Invercargill. Both my parents worked really hard to give my brother and me the opportunities that they had not had. Dad worked for the electricity department and mum was a theatre nurse. My mother was brought up in Lebanon for part of her life as a daughter of Baptist missionaries and I remember as a child watching the Israeli bombing of Lebanon on TV and her pointing out a massive pile of rubble that had been her childhood home. For me it was an early grounding in global affairs and world politics and I felt lucky to have her and to be watching from afar. My dad grew up in rural New Zealand and he passed on his love of the outdoors to my brother and me while teasing us for being townies. His history as a polar explorer was incredibly exotic and has given me a sense of unlimited possibility. Mum and dad always told my brother and me we could do anything we wanted as long as we worked hard enough. And I would like to thank them for this start and for bringing me up to care about fairness and justice the world and our precious places. I would also like to apologise in advance for all the times in the coming years that you are going to be bemused by your radical daughter—sorry about that.  
Despite having this amazing start in life my teenage years were pretty tough. Like many people many New Zealanders I suffered from an undiagnosed mental illness. I was bewildered by the changing world not sure of who I was scared I would not be able to live up to my own expectations and angry about the greed and cruelty I was seeing around me. It was the 1980s and New Zealand was in the middle of massive social and cultural change. It was the time of the women’s conferences and the catchcry “Girls can do anything.” as well of course as the media and discussion telling us we could not. It was the time of the Springbok Tour Bastion Point and homosexual law reform. During this time my friends were dealing with racism on a daily basis—as sadly friends are still now—being followed in shops stopped in their cars patronised ignored and mistrusted. Their tears frustrations anger or extra efforts to conform disturbed me then and still deeply disturb me. The 1980s was also a time of radical economic change and I saw this through the lens of a spate of suicides of fathers of students at my school who due to the removal of Government farming subsidies faced the loss of their family farms and their identity. This was a tragic lesson on the human cost of decisions made in this place.  
Being unwell I went off the rails for a while during the 1980s and early 1990s and the truth is I am very very lucky that my friends and family—and particularly my brother—managed to get me through university and hold me here until I managed to get back on track. It was an incredibly precarious time for me and I cannot express how grateful I am to have got through it. What got me back on track was discovering activism and community work. I started working for Women’s Refuge in the early 1990s and this gave me a sense of purpose of being able to make a difference and of solidarity with others wanting a better world. I finally felt as if I was part of something and had a sense of how I could contribute to the world.  
I have never lost that feeling of purpose or the sense of responsibility that comes from thriving when I really know that so many others are not. Since then increasingly I have seen the focus in New Zealand turn to individuals and individual responsibilities rather than to family community or shared endeavour. Yet societies cannot function if everyone acts as an individual. It is connection that makes our society work not isolation.  
Today one of the key stories I carry with me into this House is from the 1990s when I was working in youth health. I was doing a suicide prevention workshop with a group of unemployed disenfranchised and disconnected young people. I asked these young people about what it takes to be successful and they came up with responses like being smart and working hard. And I asked in a rather leading way whether they thought getting help from other people make a difference. They disagreed. When I asked whether they thought say Jenny Shipley or even Tupac had received help to get where they were they again refused to acknowledge that possibility. These young people were already on the margins out of school out of work and they believed it was their own fault they were in this position. They believed individual responsibility was all. But rather than that myth spurring them into action it put their lives at risk and it significantly increased their chances of remaining unemployed. All their charisma energy and ideas were left floating in the ether of individualism and self-blame.  
If we cannot see we are interdependent then we will not ask for help when we need it and we will be left floundering in polluted waters unable to breathe. We are all beneficiaries and should be proud to be so. I am the beneficiary of years of support from family friends the State not to mention the beneficiary of colonisation and at times the unemployment benefit. There should not be a stigma in accepting help when you need it. And there is benefit in sharing and helping others when they need it. Individualism locks in inequality and oppression and as a result we all lose out.  
I also carry with me today into this House all too many stories of gender-based abuse and violence. One in three girls one in seven boys one in 11 women and up to one in two transgender people will experience sexual abuse in this country. One in three women experience psychological or physical abuse from their partners in their lifetime. On average 14 women six men and 10 children are killed by a member of their family every year. Police are called to around 200 domestic violence situations every day—that is one every 7 minutes on average. Police estimate only 18 percent of domestic violence incidents are reported. Like most of you I carry some of these stories etched into my heart from experience—my own of others and those I have worked with through Women’s Refuge and the Wellington Sexual Abuse Foundation helpline. The people of these stories who have been victimised by what is predominantly men’s violence are from all ethnicities of all ages genders and sexualities across an ability spectrum and from every economic stratum. This is not an issue of poverty.  
It is important to me that I bring these stories into this House because these stories need to be shared and the shame taken away from those who are holding the stories. We representatives of the people of this country have a duty to honour the extraordinary strength of survivors and ensure first and foremost that they have adequate support to heal. They also need to see that we are working to prevent the same thing from happening to others or to them again. We have a duty too to those perpetrating the abuse to help them learn the fulfilment that can come from equal relationships rather than ones of power and control. It is not enough to have a task force. We need to implement the recommendations of those task forces. And it is not in any way acceptable that funding for sexual abuse counselling through ACC has been cut in half and that domestic violence support services have effectively been cut while their workload has increased by 12 percent. There are immediate changes we can make; they need to be a priority for all of our sakes.  
I also bring with me today stories of hope into this House. One is about the launch of the Assume Nothing exhibition at the Dowse Art Museum in 2008. Assume Nothing is a photographic exhibition by Rebecca Swan celebrating diverse gender identities. The exhibition showed a range of people who do not fit traditional gender roles or narrow definitions of male or female looking strong and beautiful. Attending the exhibition having recently returned from overseas I felt so proud to be a New Zealander proud to live in a country that has such spaces and people willing to share so intimately of themselves in the pursuit of understanding and the celebration of our diversity.  
I am here in this House to work for a world where we can enjoy our differences of gender sexuality culture ethnicity ability and age—in every aspect of our society. We are a diverse population and I hope to see the potential of this diversity realised. Would it not be wonderful to see Government as a whole drive to increase innovation and productivity by addressing the barriers that are holding all too many people and communities back? I will work to grow this hope so that we can all see the beauty of difference rather than the fear of the “other”. We all need to know we count. We all need to know that together we can make a difference for ourselves our families our friends and our communities.  
Through my work in the community sector I have learnt the importance of creative solutions involving people in change of having politicians who will work with you keeping to your values and how to do a lot with very little money. I bring these skills and others to this place.  
All the stories I have shared today demonstrate who I am and who I am working for. To remind myself of these values I got a tattoo over the holidays with the Audre Lorde quote “My silences have not protected me.” I will do my best to speak out for all of us so one day we can all be protected and free. But my sister-in-law has suggested I should get my other leg tattooed with “Discretion is the best part of valour.” I am not quite ready for it.  
I am very proud to be a Green Party MP because the Green vision is a new vision. It is a vision that holds equity economy and the environment together and acknowledges we are all important and have a duty of care for each other and the planet. I would like to thank the Green team and all the parliamentary staff in advance for doing all the work that enables us to make a difference. I hope I can. Finally I would like to thank all my family—mum dad Noel Ian Anna Liz Maria Kyran Deb Whetu Jac Caroline Denise and Billy—for all your love and support.  
With your food basket and my food basket the people will thrive. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Waiata 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa. I give my acknowledgment to this House to those who have gone before to the tangata whenua of this region and indeed to Aotearoa. I acknowledge my parents both no longer with us—Ivan passing just a few years ago and Alice just a week and a day before the election—and my late half-brother Trevor who was also so supportive of my vision. To the Green Party MPs before this current 14—to the late Rod Donald who led such a full but short life inspiring me and many others to remain resolute in the vision of a fair and sustainable Aotearoa and world; to Jeanette Fitzsimons now retired after 15 years of inspiring leadership and example; to Nandor; to Keith Locke; to Mike Ward; to Ian Ewen-Street; and to the two Sues Sue Kedgley and Sue Bradford who have both shown such significant output—thanks to you all for your support and friendship.  
In acknowledging my fellow Green MPs and their skills knowledge and passion I think of the great Green team and the party that has reached the New Zealand public in such a way that we are now 14—and we will grow. Many of you have put so much of your life into the Green cause—a very special thanks to you. To those Greens in my rohe of Marlborough—you and many others have directly encouraged and supported me. I am scared to start naming you all because where do I stop? But for inspiration and leadership Alison and Nozz Fletcher—I think we all say thanks. Bob and Jenny Crum—such special friends. Pam Nicholls and the great Green campaigners—so much effort from you all and what a great crew. Thanks to the Van Pallandt family for your love and support. To my son Jordan who cannot be here today your love and support as with Jamie’s is a rock for me. To all my five siblings all here in the gallery today with my son Jamie over from Melbourne and other close friends it is so great to have you with me today.  
The non-governmental organisations—to my many many friends and colleagues in the non-governmental organisations I have worked with for years you are fantastic and a big part of why I am here. Much of what you strive for so very hard should be achieved for all New Zealanders by good leadership and vision from Parliament. You deserve better. You are another great big family that makes a wonderful world striving for an even more wonderful world. Thanks to Philippa Jamieson Elvira Matt Marion Bob Crowder Margaret Jones Kyra Xavier and the great Soil and Health Association team; the Bio-Gro and Organics Aotearoa New Zealand teams Brendan Hoare and Seagar Mason and whanau; to the Friends of Nelson Haven and Tasman Bay whanau—what a strong close hard-working group for coastal ecosytems—to Pete and Tukutai Beech from Guardians of the Sounds; to Tim Newsham and the Marlborough Environment Centre; to Susie Lees Claire Bleakley Zelka Jon Carapiet and Jon Muller from GE-Free New Zealand; to Alison White from the Safe Food Campaign Meriel Watts on pesticides and Murray Horton on peace and foreign ownership; and to many other non-governmental organisations and friends. You all really do rock and we have achieved a lot. There are other very dear friends whose close love and support have helped me and my vision—you know who you are and thank you so very much.  
I would like to acknowledge my fellow members of Parliament—those who have returned those other newbies like me and those like you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch who have been elected to further positions. I would like to acknowledge the parliamentary staff also who have been so helpful already—thank you. I include especially today in parallel to the members of Parliament our executive assistants and collective office staff. You have either returned or are another set of newbies thanks to the results of last year’s general election and your skills. Congratulations especially to my executive assistant Angela McLeod who is helping me find my feet and has so much experience to offer me—thank you.  
What a great privilege it is to join the Green Party caucus in Parliament with portfolio responsibility in most of the areas that I am particularly passionate about and also to get on to the Primary Production Committee. Primary production underpins our economy and most of the environmental issues New Zealand is grappling with. My year started with the challenge of theoretically taking holidays yet acknowledging the demands of many emails and Facebookers about what was wrong with the Food Bill. The Food Bill won overall. Time management saying no and prioritising among the many important issues are certainly the biggest challenges for me and I have already learnt a strong lesson. My portfolio areas of agriculture organics forestry fisheries biosecurity customs genetic engineering and security intelligence all have immediate issues to start on. I am looking forward to them to the others that will arise but especially to those that I will bring to the table.  
So where did this Green MP come from? My family moved to Marlborough when I was 4 in 1958—No. 4 of six children—to an undersized house on a half-acre Blenheim section running down to the Opawa river. That was developed into a huge garden with nut and fruit trees. The outdoors of what seemed to be a huge section and the wilderness of the Opawa riverbank gave us children a space from the constraints of the house and gave our mother Alice a reprieve from incessant children. There were boats and fishing from what was then a tidal-influenced river which has changed now with shoals of mullet to try for which are not there now; the then endless eels which are fewer now; cowboys and Indians—they are not there either—the huts; and all the childhood adventures. From that home we were all given a sense of curiosity and were taught to question beyond the obvious and certainly encouraged to question authority. Clearly that persists.  
As a child I loved gardening and keeping lizards. With a keen interest in ecology I can still recall in my sixth-form biology text—and those important teachers—the wonderful drawing of a giant rimu including epiphytes and piwakawaka showing the complexity of the indigenous ecosystem. That interest persists in my work’s focus in both marine and terrestrial sustainability. The interrelationships between organisms and ecosystem services that work so well in nature need to be modelled in productive and social systems for a sustainable humanity. They should underpin every decision from Parliament. The Green Party’s guiding principles interlink them well.  
I lived in the bush for over 6 years 300 metres up on the side of my maunga Aorere—Mount Stokes—the tallest mountain in the Marlborough Sounds at 1200 metres with an endemic daisy in its indigenous alpine floral summer mix. We could walk out the back door and climb to a snow-covered crispy top in the winter with views over Marlborough over Tasman Bay up to the North Island and past Cook Strait to the Kaikoura coast. My family—my then wife Diane and our two boys Jamie and Jordan—looked out over Forsyth and the Chetwood Islands to a distant Stephens Island/Takapourewa and we were totally off the grid.  
My work on marine sustainability started there when Anakoha Bay began to have mussel farms along nearly all of its 12-kilometre coastline. Marine farming—having submitted to more Resource Management Act marine farm applications than anyone else in New Zealand I will focus on this just now. Friends of Nelson Haven and Tasman Bay remains involved in Environment Court proceedings from the last aquaculture gold rushes. We have built the case law supporting good planning in the Marlborough Sounds. I am keen that the National Government’s hunger for an aquaculture boom does not create the same environmental impacts or non-governmental organisation workloads as the last two gold rushes did. Yet National is now clearly supporting New Zealand King Salmon and others through its aquaculture law reform. Reform was necessary but not so enabling as to encourage King Salmon to try breaking down the community’s hard-won protections of smart spatial planning in the Marlborough Sounds.  
King Salmon in Marlborough is a prime example of foreign ownership and what is happening throughout New Zealand primary production—a dairy conglomerate here; multithousands of hectares of forestry land there. The potential ownership of Marlborough Sounds water by the infamous Malaysian Tiong family needs to be prevented. Plan change and resource consent applications by King Salmon to the Environmental Protection Authority for eight new salmon farm sites in areas currently prohibited to aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds were made following the aquaculture legislative reforms last year. The applications are for an initial 35 years as controlled activities which without further plan changes mean an indefinite period of re-consenting—effectively ownership.  
Foreign-controlled salmon farming in New Zealand’s marine environment is akin to mining in the conservation estate. New Zealand King Salmon’s operation is no more sustainable than the Tiong family’s other operations: clear-felling rainforests in the Solomon Islands Papua New Guinea Vanuatu Burma Africa or the ancient forests in Russia. The fish fed to raise the salmon are from ecologically collapsing fisheries off Chile and Peru. The high pollution effects of salmon farming in New Zealand need further research. Human rights abuses attributed to Tiong’s Rimbunan Hijau Group companies in Papua New Guinea make for further reason why New Zealand should not be associated with this company. The Tiong family already has extensive interests especially in forestry in New Zealand but must be prevented from further ownership including our marine environment.  
The eight new areas applied for by the Tiong-dominated King Salmon are public space that has been zoned by the Marlborough District Council as not being appropriate for aquaculture due to its amenity and wilderness characteristics and the balances of uses of the Marlborough Sounds. It should be a marine park not an industrial park. The aquaculture zoning by Marlborough District Council was the result of extensive public consultation and Environment Court processes which are now intended to be overridden by New Zealand King Salmon and the National-led Government through the aquaculture legislation changes. I am pleased to say that the Green Party is opposed to foreign ownership and supports landownership for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents only.  
This has another twist in it: $500000 was gifted by the National Government for marketing of New Zealand King Salmon products offshore because it was tough times last year. The question for the House could be “Who has shares in Direct Capital?”—the other 49 percent of New Zealand King Salmon. Well done National for giving half a million dollars to Tiong to promote unsustainable production! That is quite a subsidy for a 51 percent overseas occupier and polluter of New Zealand waters.  
Forestry—foreign companies such as Tiong own or control the vast majority of logs or timber products going offshore yet this Government seems hell-bent on making it easier for them. One is allowing the gassing of our communities and the ozone layer with spent neurotoxic and carcinogenic ozone-depleting methyl bromide from the log fumigations. Labour and National have both dodged forcing the recapture of the invisible odourless gas which cannot be tracked with confidence. Giving the industry 10 years’ latitude while we increase our exports and fumigations means people are getting sick and dying—dying for whom? The same foreign-dominated industry has this Government forcing councils back from implementing decent safeguards to stop the crude forest harvest practices loading our streams and estuaries with millions of tonnes of sediments. These are sediments that destroy fisheries habitats and nurseries. The Government just does not make the links—or it does not care.  
The current iteration of the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry which limits councils in crucial areas of protection and will not measure sediment pollution is still too tough apparently and Cabinet wants it further pared back. The cost-benefit ratio was not right. The hundreds of people terrorised by flood waves of log plumes and debris—from Pohara to Tapawera Marlborough to Opotiki and beyond—and the thousands of kilometres of marine environment deserve much much better. I am looking forward to a Green Government.  
Time does not allow today but I could speak for hours on the work I have done on exposing genetic engineering field trial abuses; how the last few Governments have been complicit through their agencies in cover-ups; how they have removed GE—or this Government has—from the Food Bill as something we need to regulate for food safety; and how they have allowed more than 70 GE food lines to be approved for New Zealand consumption including the latest: GE soy and corn resistant to 24-D and other herbicides. 24-D on our kai? I think not. Why has National continued funding GE crop and forestry research yet sabotaged the organic sector while our more civilised trading partners have set targets for organic production because they know that the environmental health and social benefits have so much value for their nations?  
New Zealand farming the great unsubsidised producer is not what it seems as the gross externalities from New Zealand’s farming fisheries and forestry are actually subsidies that are nicely tucked away by our free-marketers. Organic production can make us the “100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand” that Mr Key’s Tourism New Zealand dropped last year on behalf of Federated Farmers’ lobbying and the lack of an aspirational vision for cleaning this country up and maintaining a brand that New Zealanders can be proud of. I am looking forward to a Green Government and to working with my colleagues here as well. Thank you. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. I greet the sky above and the air we breathe. I greet the seas that surround us and the lands on which we stand. I bring this stone from the Waimakariri to remind me of Canterbury’s great rivers and to anchor me here. The Waimakariri replenishes the aquifers that give Christchurch its water which created the plains and creates wealth on those plains. The Waiwhetu aquifer and the Orongorongo and the Wainuiomata rivers provide us with the water we drink in this House. I acknowledge the rivers streams lakes wetlands and aquifers throughout Aotearoa for all of the life they sustain. Without clean and healthy waterways and a temperate life-sustaining climate we are nothing.  
When I first walked on to Parliament’s grounds as a member of this House last November I heard a tui practising its scales below the Beehive. The tui’s chorus is sweeter than anything I might say in this Chamber so I took its song as auspicious—a sign that if tui have come to Parliament their oral petitions would encourage this House to give more serious attention to our wild landscapes and our indigenous plants and animals whose ancestry and tenure in these islands is so much longer than our own.  
Aotearoa’s 70 million years of geographic isolation from other parts of Gondwana produced some of the world’s oldest and most unusual life forms: trees such as the kahikatea fruit basket of the forest and animals such as the tuatara the weta and the giant carnivorous land snails  
Powelliphanta 
. We can and must invest more in safeguarding the first inhabitants of Aotearoa and the places where they live. We have no treaty with them but they define who we are. They are what makes New Zealand so distinctive in the eyes of the world. As Sir Paul Callaghan recognised recently our natural heritage and clean environment are among the assets capable of attracting the world’s best thinkers and brightest minds to New Zealand to help build our future here.  
Working to protect nature’s healthy functioning is what inspires and motivates me. As a JAFA who rolled south 20 years ago to Canterbury and who stayed I want to acknowledge the work of two earlier Canterbury members who helped shape a Pakeha land ethic: Thomas Henry Potts and Harry Ell. Thomas Potts was the member for Mt Herbert and a member of this House from 1866 to 1870. He was an observant naturalist and ornithologist and the first parliamentarian to press for forest conservation. Recognising kiwis’ role in the forest ecosystem Potts sought their legal protection when thousands were being slaughtered to provide feathers for ladies’ muffs which were fashionable at the time. And Potts advocated for national domains the forerunners of our national parks. In October 1868 his successful motion that the Government ascertain the present condition of the forests of the colony with a view to their better conservation was the first step in the eventual establishment of forest reserves and a national system of public protected lands.  
Potts’ vision was carried forward by Harry Ell the member for Christchurch South. It was Ell’s persistent representations that gave us the Scenery Preservation Act of 1903. That was New Zealand’s first statute devoted to establishing reserves specifically for the purpose of nature conservation rather than soil and water conservation. In 1903 when colonial New Zealand was more concerned with developing agricultural land and converting forest to pasture the legislation was remarkable. Much of that land was seized or coerced from Maori and we are still working through the process of reconciliation and recompense to truly honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  
This year we celebrate 125 years of national parks in New Zealand. Thanks to the far-sighted initiative of Ngati Tuwharetoa and their paramount chief te Heuheu Tukino IV their gift of the sacred peaks of Tongariro Ngauruhoe and Ruapehu to the Crown in 1887 created our first national park. Today our national parks and other protected lands are the basis of our tourism industry places of recreation and inspiration. They provide ecosystem services of incalculable value. We could be as similarly visionary today as Ngati Tuwharetoa if we established large marine protected areas covering the submarine volcanoes and islands of the Kermadecs Antarctica’s Ross Sea and areas important to the 85 seabird species that breed in New Zealand waters. We could pass legislation to protect our native plants which are unprotected outside parks and reserves.  
If Potts and Ell were alive today I hope they would be encouraged by the thousands of hours that volunteers devote each week to improving the prospects for wild nature by planting stream banks killing possums and controlling weeds. I hope they would be encouraged by the innovative farmers who are growing food and fibre while reducing their water use and nutrient losses. What would they make however of sending chemical cocktails deep underground to frack the earth and extract hydrocarbons the ploughing under of the Mackenzie Basin’s dryland plants for yet more dairy pasture and the killing of 14000 albatross and hundreds of fur seals dolphins and sea lions each year as fisheries by-catch? Throughout lowland New Zealand rivers lakes and streams are no longer fit for swimming fishing or harvesting kai. The waters of Lake Horowhenua were recently described as being able to kill animals and small children. Last weekend the Canterbury District Health Board warned people to avoid reaches of the Hakatere/Ashburton Ashley and Waimakariri rivers because of toxic cynobacteria that can cause skin rashes nausea and numbness.  
We can destroy or degrade our lands and water for the profits of a few or we can recognise the vastly higher value to our citizens and visitors of making the clean green image real. To do that we need smarter regulation—strong national policies and environmental standards on fresh water—not the tissue paper national policy statement we have now. We need to limit dairy cow numbers in sensitive catchments such as the Mackenzie Basin and Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere and we need to charge for the commercial use of water to help fund sustainability initiatives. We can prevent Southland’s wildlife-rich Waituna Lagoon from flipping to become algal soup. We can say no to new dams on wild rivers. We can fund the Department of Conservation properly. Then it can control predators on much more than 12 percent of the conservation estate as it does currently. By restoring the health of rivers lakes and estuaries we can properly implement article 2 of te Tiriti so that Maori can have full enjoyment of their forests and fisheries.  
New Zealanders have elected and put their trust in us to serve and value both present and future generations. That means enacting the policies and programmes to stabilise rising global temperatures. It is essential and urgent that we find the collective political will to do this. Irreversible changes in the Earth’s climatically sensitive systems would make life much more challenging than living with a Fukushima or a Chernobyl. Thinking globally and acting locally by curtailing further expansion of coal mining in New Zealand would help safeguard the climate. It would also retain productive farmland and natural treasures. The coal strata of the Buller coal plateau were laid down 40 million to 50 million years ago. A handful of human generations have used a sizable part of this resource. What are we leaving for future citizens 50 100 or 500 years from now?  
Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy describes our nearsightedness thus: “Our inability to live entirely in the present (like most animals do) combined with our inability to see very far into the future makes us strange in-between creatures neither beast nor prophet. Our amazing intelligence seems to have outstripped our instinct for survival. We plunder the earth hoping that accumulating material surplus will make up for the profound unfathomable thing that we have lost.” Non-governmental and community organisations such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Federated Mountain Clubs the Environmental Defence Society local protection groups and many iwi and hapu are a vital thin green line in seeking to protect the future by safeguarding wildness and nature’s healthy functioning.  
Activism for earth justice and the defence of mauri takes determination hard work and a thick skin. Corporations like to marginalise you as nimbies—people who are against progress. I honour all those who act and organise to protect oceans keep coal in the ground and prevent destructive and poorly conceived development proposals from Southland lignite to Meridian’s Mokihinui dam. All strength to you.  
I acknowledge former Forest and Bird colleagues including the late Jacqui Barrington friend of kereru and foe of magpies and the late great Kevin Smith a keen thinker who sharpened my activism. I am proud to represent a party that recognises the seriousness of the ecological and climate crisis and the need for sustained and comprehensive political action. I am proud to represent people who understand that our preoccupation with economic growth is a major part of the problem and that progress is better measured by social and environmental well-being than by GDP.  
As a list MP I would not be here without the hard work of Green Party members staff and supporters particularly by the Aoraki Greens. Thank you for trusting me to be a clear voice for the principles of the Green kaupapa. To my Green caucus colleagues: I value your sense of urgency your passion for change and your laughter. I thank Jeanette Fitzsimons for being such an example of serenity and calm wisdom. Jeanette and Rod Donald helped inspire me to join the Green Party and they helped build strong foundations. I remember Rod for his boundless energy and his championing of electoral reform and MMP. We are a much better Parliament because of that.  
I thank the officers of Parliament and staff throughout the precinct for their friendly help to this new MP. Parliament’s effective functioning relies on your quiet work. As a recent graduate arriving here to be researcher in the mid-1980s from a patriarchal Forest Service it was liberating seeing what the political energy and skills of the Labour women’s caucus could achieve for fairness and equality. I look forward to working with you again and to working with members around the House on making good law and policy.  
I am here today because of bad law. I would not be here if we still had elected regional councillors in Canterbury. I thank all 13 of my former councillor colleagues on Environment Canterbury for the practical lessons that they gave me that politics is the art of the possible. Robust debate in a council chamber shows that democracy is alive and well just as it does in this House. It does not mean that council or Parliament is dysfunctional. I look forward to being a member of a House that recognises the fundamental principle of no taxation without representation and restores regional democracy to Canterbury.  
Next Wednesday we remember the 184 individuals who died and many others who were seriously injured in Christchurch this time last year. I acknowledge the families who are going through the hardest of tasks rebuilding their lives after losing someone special. Kia kaha. Coming from Christchurch where hundreds of heritage buildings have been demolished and concrete tilt slabs risk becoming the dominant building style it is a pleasure to work in such a beautiful historic building. The skills and craftsmanship evident in Parliament’s construction and the 1990s refurbishment and restoration show what is possible with a commitment to both seismic strengthening and heritage protection. Christchurch’s rebuild will not be enhanced by more Government-appointed commissioners or by enlarging the scope of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s powers. It would be enhanced by delegating more power and resources to the elected community boards to strengthen local democracy decision making and accountability. This would embrace the strong spirit of neighbourliness that has got us through the quakes and the thousands of aftershocks.  
The earthquakes are a reminder that Gaia does not care very much about human survival. Using energy water and other resources more efficiently and acting now to stabilise the climate clean up our waterways and conserve biodiversity will better protect our future and that of other species.  
In closing I thank friends and family who are here today or watching on television for your decades of love and support. To my parents my brothers John and Phillip and their families the late Stephen and my dear partner Richard I love you all heaps. You make me strong. And particular thanks to my beautiful niece Natalya for travelling so far to be here today. I dedicate my time in this House to working to help create a better future based on sustainability and greater respect for nature community and democracy. Now if I may Mr Speaker: [ 
Birdsong 
] No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 Ka titiro atu au ki Pukeatua e tu mai ra ka whakarongo ake au ki nga ripo o Te Awa Kairangi. I tupu au i raro i te raukura o Te Atiawa i Moera. Tena koutou katoa. E te Rangatira o te Whare e te Mangai o te Whare tena koe. E nga mana nui e nga mema koutou katoa tena hoki koutou. E nga tini mate kua wheturangitia ki te kupenga wairua haere haere haere.  
Ki toku kuia ki toku poutokomanawa ka piri tonu koe ki taku ngakau ka tata tonu koe ki taku puna mahara. Ki a Rod Donald ahakoa kihai maua i tutaki i whakamanawa koe i ahau ki runga i tenei haerenga. Ki a korua menemene mai homai o ihi o wehi o wana ki a au. E moe korua ki te po i waenga i te tini e moe e moe. Ratou ki a ratou tatou te hunga ora tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
I gaze upon the prominent landmark Pukeatua standing over there and listen to the whirling waters of the Hutt River. I grew up under the feathered plume of the Te Atiawa tribe at Moera. So salutations to you all. To the prominent figure and Speaker of the House greetings to you. To the charismatic great all of you members I acknowledge you as well. To the vast and many who have passed away farewell farewell depart. 
To my kuia to my pillar and ridgepole you remain close to the seat of my affections and thoughts. To you Rod Donald even though we did not meet you inspired me to make this journey. And so to you two dear people smile please give me your power awesomeness and qualities of inspiration. Sleep there in the void among the many; 
sleep sleep and rest. They the dead to the dead and to us the living I salute us all 
.]  
I never met Rod Donald. To many people it will seem amazing that just 6 short years after his death there is already a Green MP who never met Rod. To many it will seem very sad—indeed it is. I first joined the Green Party as both a member and a staff member in January 2006 just months after Rod’s death. Although I never worked with him his absence at that time was palpable. The party was reeling from his death and reeling from a tough election result which had seen our numbers in Parliament reduced from nine to six. It is often said that it is not easy being Green and in 2006 it most certainly was not. I am therefore immensely proud of the way the Green Party has rebuilt in the intervening years so that I now stand in this House as one of not six but 14 Green MPs representing the best election result the Green Party has ever achieved. We have cemented our place very firmly as the third party of New Zealand politics and in many ways as the true Opposition.  
I am now one of seven new Green MPs in this 50th Parliament and together with the second generation of Green Party co-leaders Metiria and Russel we are an entirely new caucus from that first elected in 1999. But although the faces have changed the Green Party principles and values have not and though I did not know him I think it is safe to say that Rod would have been proud of the team that has risen to speak tonight. 
Because I never met Rod I never got to tell him that he was partly responsible for the formation of my political consciousness. It was 1997 and I was sitting in a sweltering upstairs classroom at Hutt Valley High School watching a video in fourth form social studies about the 1981 Springbok Tour. Suddenly there was a young Rod resplendent in his fluoro vest and orange bike helmet clashing spectacularly with his shaggy red hair and beard. He spoke earnestly into the camera about why he was putting his safety on the line to march in the front lines of the increasingly terrifying anti-apartheid protests. I was moved fascinated and strangely jealous.  
I went home and told my mum that I wished we had issues like that to protest about these days. She laughed and told me there were plenty. I started paying attention and realised she was right. So I have Rod to thank in part for setting me on the path to politics and I also have my mum Wendy Walker who is here tonight to thank for that and so much more. Mum thank you for your unstinting love and unbelievably dedicated parenting—especially in those early years when it was just you and me against the world. You have made me who I am today. For reasons that are long since forgiven my mum found herself on her own with a small baby in 1982. She had the support of her mum my Nana who passed away sadly aged 92 last year before she got to see her eldest grandchild elected to Parliament. My mum also had the support of her sister Heather and many other family and friends for which we both remain very grateful.  
But when faced with bringing me up on her own my mum was also able to rely on the proud tradition of the New Zealand welfare State. For the first part of my life we lived in a council flat in Moera and mum received the domestic purposes benefit. This support guaranteed that I had the essentials—a safe home enough to eat and the loving ministrations of an attentive caregiver. Every child—and I mean every single one—deserves these essentials.  
While I was a preschooler mum used the training incentive allowance to train as a kindergarten teacher. She started teaching not long after I started school and has been a much-loved and respected teacher at many kindergartens around the Hutt Valley since. My colleague and co-leader Metiria Turei also used the training incentive allowance when she found herself with a small baby and no qualifications. She got a law degree and has taken care of her family ever since. Today that support would not be available to them. We all know that John Key grew up in a State house and that Paula Bennett was a sole parent—now they are Ministers of the Crown. With the fantastic education I received at public schools in the Hutt Valley I grew up to win a Rhodes scholarship and get elected to Parliament aged 29. But in the words of Russel Norman in his maiden statement to this House these stories do not mean that a State house kid or a public school kid or a DPB mum can do anything. They mean that the State’s commitment of resources towards housing education and income support really does make a difference. Naku te rourou nau te rourou ka ora ai te iwi. 
[ 
With my food basket and your one the people will be sustained 
.] 
The commitment of State resources towards housing education and income support; the belief that when we guarantee the essentials to every child we guarantee them opportunities for life; and the abhorrence of gross inequality and injustice—these are the issues that drive me. I am honoured to be entrusted by my party with the portfolios of children housing and youth so that I may make progress on these issues during my time in this House.  
Although these driving issues are primarily about social and economic justice there is a reason that I am a member of the Green Party and it is not just that it was Rod in that video; it is also that like many New Zealanders I was raised with a deep love and appreciation for our precious natural heritage. For this I have to thank my Dad—one of them—Simon Davis who is also here tonight. He joined mum in the not always joyful task of raising me when I was 3 years old. He took me outside threw me in rivers coaxed me up hills strapped skis to my feet and pushed me down mountains and showed me something extraordinary—that we live in the most beautiful country in the world but that we have a responsibility to look after it. So Dad thanks for making me green and for always pushing me out of my comfort zone so that I have now found myself leaping off the biggest cliff yet and here into Parliament.  
I joined the Green Party because its policies on the issues I care about reflect my own beliefs and I do not have to compromise to adopt them; because the Green Party does politics according to Ghandi’s exhortation to us all to be the change we wish to see in the world; because when the Green Party thinks there should be a spokesperson for children it appoints one; because the Green Party takes gender equality seriously; and because the Green Party is the only party that understands the inextricable links between our environment our economy and our people and builds those links into everything it does. 
The world is changing. Green parties around the world are riding a wave of success achieving their best results ever and in the case of one German state electing a Green Party Government. That tide that has been turning around the world is now turning here in New Zealand. The future is green and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is ready. But the increased ranks of Green MPs who have spoken tonight would not be here without the blood sweat and tears—and there were tears—of thousands of amazingly dedicated Green Party members and supporters. I want to pay tribute to all of you who have put us here today: to the provincial and national campaign committees to the party executive and paid staff to the national campaign manager Megan Salole and her team to the Young Greens and other party networks to the other candidates like James Shaw whose extraordinary efforts saw the Green Party come second in the party vote in Wellington Central and to the non-violent army of volunteers around the country thank you. In particular I want to thank the members of the Hutt South Greens campaign team—too many to name but many of whom are here tonight. Thank you team for the leaflets delivered meetings attended meals supplied stalls staffed data analysed sausages sizzled and hoardings erected around the mighty electorate of Hutt South. Ehara taku toa he takitahi he toa takitini. 
[ 
My strength is not of a single warrior but rather of a vast number 
.] 
At this point it is appropriate to acknowledge the amazing kakahu that sits on my shoulders tonight. It was woven by longstanding Green Party member and leader Danna Glendining over 22 months under the guidance of kuia at Te Rau Awaawa in Hamilton and gifted to the party at a powhiri in January. This incredible taonga is woven from the feathers of Pakeha birds including caged battery hens who have found a freedom in death in this kakahu that they never had in life. I am honoured and humbled to wear it in this House tonight. Danna thank you for this taonga and for everything you have given the Green Party over the years. I will be doing everything I can to convert your hard work and the work of Green Party supporters around the country into good green change in Parliament.  
And that good green change is urgently needed. We are staring down the twin barrels of climate change and peak oil and this Government is squandering the window of opportunity we presently have to lead the world live up to our clean green image and retool our economy to meet the challenge. Our freshwater resources are in crisis and this Government is burying its head in milk powder encouraging the rapid intensification of commercial agriculture and the irrigation of our iconic landscapes and trying to spin us the line that cleaning up our rivers is compatible with this approach when we know it is not. We have seen disaster and destruction wreaked by oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico—and here on our own shores—and this Government is still soliciting big oil and gas to drill in our waters. And New Zealand has one of the fastest-growing gaps between rich and poor in the developed world and this Government is still pretending that its corporate welfare policies will trickle down when we know that they do not and will not. 
In her maiden speech to this House Jeanette Fitzsimons said this: “Governments have allowed [even] encouraged the huge gap that has opened up between rich and poor and they can and must close that gap again.” Yet here we are 15 years later and the gap is wider. I carried Jeanette’s old briefcase into the House today and I am ready to get stuck in. As you have heard from my colleagues reducing the gap between those who have the most and those who need the most is now one of the defining political issues of our time. Just last week the  
New Zealand Herald 
 ran a series of articles highlighting the yawning chasm that has opened up between the very rich and the rest of us since the failed neo-liberal experiment of the 1980s and 1990s. The world is waking up to the realisation that inequality is good for no one. Groundbreaking research has shown that the more unequal a country is the worse it does in almost every social economic and health indicator. People in more equal countries live longer do better at school are less likely to be victims of crime and suffer less from drug and alcohol abuse. Our own statistics in New Zealand bear this out.  
Equality and social justice in some form or other have been the preoccupations of my career so far from speaking out as the editor of a student magazine—and it must be said not always getting it right—to being a small cog in wheel of the Treaty settlement process to writing a Masters thesis in Oxford on Maori disparity to advising the last Green Party caucus on social issues. Now I am here in this House to make reducing inequality and ending child poverty my missions as a lawmaker. By the time I leave this place may we have made real progress towards closing the gaps and guaranteeing the essentials for every child. That is my commitment. Waiho i te toipoto kaua i te toiroa. 
[ 
Keep it close together not wide apart 
.] 
Before I conclude there are some thanks that cannot go unsaid. They are to the many people who look after me and nourish me emotionally from wherever they are in the world—in particular my sister Sian and my brother Adrian; my other Dad Tim and my Australian whanau especially Sam and Roz; my cousin Sarah; my parents-in-law Lesley and Rick; my sisters-in-law Bronwyn and Katherine; and Kitty who is part of the family whether she likes it or not. But above all I thank my partner in life and in civil union David Haines. Dave I cannot even describe how much you have given to me not only on the crazy journey here but in every part of our lives together—but you know. You shore me up you carry me along and you make everything possible. I am afraid that I am not always able to adequately reciprocate and for that I am sorry. But I love you and I love that every challenge is an adventure we embark on together 
So I start my journey as a parliamentarian shored up by my loved ones and ready to change the world one step at a time. Manaaki whenua manaaki tangata haere whakamua. 
[ 
Protect the land and the people and go forward 
.] 
Waiata 
Sitting suspended from 6.11 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the debate be now adjourned 
.  
Motion agreed to. 
National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 14 February. 
Bill read a third time. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (ACT—Epsom) 
: 
 I seek leave to cast a vote against the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill which came through at about 90 miles an hour and I did not hear it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well no—the opportunity was there and it is up to the member to— 
Hon John Banks 
: But I am seeking leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have already done that. It is too late because I have announced the result. We have actually voted on it and we now move to the next section which is moving into Committee stage. I say sorry to the member but the member must exercise his right to vote at the time or bring up a point of order at the time not after. The House has decided we have passed that and we are now moving into Committee. 
Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill 
In Committee 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for all parts and clauses to be taken as one question for the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: She sought leave— 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: This will facilitate the order of the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure where this fits— 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I will go with it. I was just seeking clarification from the Government junior whip that this has been discussed with other parties. 
Hon Member 
: Yes it has. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have had an assurance that it has been so I am now going to put the leave that the debate be as one question. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 to 3  
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I stand to speak to the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. I stand here in part due to the infinite wisdom of the shadow Leader of the House who deemed that I should have an opportunity to speak so soon after my maiden speech on a topic of interest. 
Simon Bridges 
: Are you not interested in the bill? 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: I note also that in his infinite wisdom as the member opposite raises the question the bill he chose to provide me with this opportunity is indeed the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. It is surely not the most important or urgent bill before the House currently and it is a bill that has made slow progress. It has been around for nearly a year and I think I should probably reserve my judgment on whether it is a compliment or a commentary that I have this opportunity so soon to speak to such a bill. That we are dealing with this matter does reek of a Government bereft of a plan other than to sell assets.  
Labour will support this bill but it does have concerns about the removal of the approved issuer levy. That levy is on payments of interest on securities meeting certain requirements as notified under the Act. The question as to why we would give away the small amount of money the small amount of revenue gained by the approved issuer levy rather than actually making a more robust mechanism has not convincingly been answered. It is better to give I guess a neutral tax signal like capital gains tax to make sure that investment is done on a basis of profitability than to be tinkering in this way and tinkering around with the idea of investment on the basis of tax treatment which is the inevitable result.  
I do agree with the Minister of Revenue that it is important that we do not encourage New Zealand ownership of offshore operations to be undermined by uncompetitive tax rates in New Zealand on overseas income. If we do that we create a perverse incentive for companies to move from New Zealand to overseas jurisdictions. Indeed we must guard against that danger. But there are many ways to skin a cat. A broader tax base would also allow for lower rates and a more competitive tax system and surely to look at those bigger mechanisms would be a worthier use of parliamentary time. There are many other revenue options and financial transaction taxes capital gains taxes and estate duties are amongst them.  
We do need to address the dropping tax base. There is an urgent need to address this. The recent briefing to the incoming Minister from the Inland Revenue Department showed a 4 percent drop in revenue and that is quite shocking. We need to preserve the services that New Zealanders value. A 4 percent drop in revenue is of great concern. The officials from the Inland Revenue Department pointed out that only 1.5 percent of that can be attributed in any way to a recession and 2.5 percent of that drop in Government revenue has come as a direct result of Government policy changes. That is that switch to regressive GST which has punished those who work hard but do not have the capital that you need to really advantage yourself in the system.  
Those tax cuts that made this possible gave the top 10 percent of income earners 41 percent of the value of the cuts. Those at the bottom 20 percent got just 2 percent of the value of those tax cuts. They are a lot worse off as a result of that tax switch and overall our tax take is down. That is something we should be worrying ourselves with rather than the matter of the approved issuer levy.  
In summary Labour has supported this bill but we retain our concerns with regard to the removal of the approved issuer levy. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Just before I call the Minister just because we are having a debate across all parts and schedules of the Act that does not open up the debate to any subject even remotely related to taxation. The heading of the bill is Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill so I just ask members when they are speaking—yes they can speak on any part of the bill but not on any matter of taxation. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I thought it would be helpful for the Committee if I just outlined the process and the history to date of the reform of New Zealand’s international tax regime and also made some comments about the approved issuer levy. The change— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Tell us about Tony Gibbs. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well that is actually a different piece of legislation altogether and the reality if the member wants to know is that that legislation has now run its course and Mr Gibbs and his company have accepted the outcome. 
But let me come back to this Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. We began around 2007 during the term of the previous Labour Government a reform package of New Zealand’s international tax rules. What happened in the 1980s was that New Zealand took the stance of taxing all New Zealand entities on their worldwide income in New Zealand. It was a stance that was not replicated in many other countries and we have begun a process of change which has had many facets to it to try to modernise and bring into line with contemporary practice our international tax rules. Members who have been here a while like my colleague who interjected a moment ago will remember the fair dividend rate debate a few years ago which was again part of this change. This bill takes further the steps that we introduced in the previous international tax bill about bringing in the active/passive distinction for income earned offshore for New Zealand companies which meant that active income earned offshore would not be taxed in New Zealand alongside the country in which it was taxed. That would create a greater incentive for those companies to stay resident in New Zealand. 
The issue of the approved issuer levy similarly has a long history. The Capital Market Development Taskforce which was established in 2008 recommended to the Government in 2009 that the approved issuer levy be reduced from 2 percent to nil for some public issues of debt held by New Zealand residents. And that is what this bill does; it actually reduces the rate from 2 percent to zero. It does not actually get rid of the approved issuer levy per se. The reason for doing this is to boost the development of the bond industry in this country and to make sure that bonds that are traded in this country become a relatively cheaper source of corporate finance which helps to level the playing field so that we no longer have domestic bonds being disadvantaged relative to bank loans in offshore funding. What happens at present is that when a New Zealand resident borrows from a foreign lender for example they become subject to non-resident withholding tax on the interest payment and that can be at 15 percent or 10 percent depending on the nature of the tax treaty that the country of origin of the loan has with New Zealand. But it can be in certain circumstances reduced to zero and in lieu of that the borrower pays the 2 percent approved issuer levy. 
When the approved issuer levy was introduced about 20 years ago the main aim was to reduce the tax that was imposed on loans that were from unrelated parties but since that time concern has been constantly expressed that the existing tax settings really contribute to the shallowness of the bond market in New Zealand and discourage the issuance of bonds to non-residents. So what the bill does is pick up the recommendations of the Capital Market Development Taskforce introduce the zero rate of the approved issuer levy and also ensure that we actually have strict criteria to prevent loans syndicated lending private placements and other forms of closely held or non-traded debt from qualifying for the zero rate. 
This is a very specific measure falling within the overall package of international tax reform. When you take them together aggregate them with the changes that have been made previously they bring New Zealand’s international tax approach into line with what most countries now follow. We were previously the outrider. We were the country that had the “grey list”. We were the country that had a whole range of rather antiquated and unusual provisions. We have now come into the mainstream with this set of measures. It will position New Zealand business well for the future. It also actually helps retain a measure of our own economic sovereignty but ensures that New Zealand becomes a more competitive place and a more attractive place for both offshore investment and also for New Zealanders doing business from here in offshore markets. I think it is no great surprise that this bill is supported widely around the House because it is a positive step forward. It will be eagerly awaited when it takes effect shortly after 1 April this year. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Can I just deal with this issue and ask the Minister of Revenue to clarify a few points around the approved issuer levy—its abolition effectively; bringing the approved issuer levy to a zero rate which is like abolishing it except leaving the framework there. It is not going to be applied. The report of the Labour Party in the minority report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee noted that there was no good evidence that this was going to increase the rate of flow of funds available to New Zealand lenders nor that it was necessarily going to decrease the cost of borrowing in New Zealand.  
Simon Bridges 
: You guys are sticklers for the evidence.  
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We are sticklers for the evidence Mr Bridges and you know— 
Simon Bridges 
: I told you. It’s a value judgment. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it is actually an assessment of the evidence that was given. Around the world Governments are running deficits in part because they have hugely decreased the taxation that is paid by the wealthiest of people in the world who move capital around between jurisdictions and somehow manage to avoid paying much if any tax. Given that this was a very small impost effectively upon the rate of return that was being received by overseas lenders into New Zealand the Labour Party is not convinced that the tax burden that was effectively being paid by foreign lenders into New Zealand was wrong. I pay tax. Everyone else in New Zealand pays tax. Why should people who benefit from the New Zealand economy settings not pay tax? They benefit from our police force from the fact that we have an enforceable rule of law and from the fact that we have an educated and healthy population who are educated by a system that is paid for by taxation and who use health services that are paid for by taxation all of which increase the capability of the New Zealand economy to pay the interest that is the reward that overseas lenders in New Zealand receive. I have got no problem with those overseas lenders being rewarded for lending money to New Zealand but I do think there is as good a case for their contributing to the finances of New Zealand as there is for other people. Why zero-rate the approved issuer levy when there was no good evidence that this would have an effect that was measurable on either the available liquidity coming into New Zealand or the rate of interest paid by New Zealanders? I know that we in the Labour Party reached the conclusion that it was just bad policy. 
New Zealand has a multibillion-dollar deficit. That deficit is effectively funded by the Government borrowing money—indeed in part borrowing more money from overseas investors who are being given effectively a lower tax burden through the zero rating of the approved issuer levy. So I ask the Minister to tell the Committee what the evidence is that the approved issuer levy going down to zero percent will either reduce interest rates or increase liquidity into New Zealand. And if there is no good evidence why is it that the Government with a multibillion-dollar deficit is giving up on that revenue? 
There were claims that the approved issuer levy was easily avoided. Well the answer to that is to close the avoidance mechanisms not to reduce the levy to zero. If we were to reduce all taxes to zero—rather than closing the loopholes—just because some people avoid them we would not have a health system we would not be able to pay the police and we would not be able to educate our population. The appropriate response to the fact that the approved issuer levy was not being paid by everyone because there were ways round it that were legal but were known would be to close the loopholes. So I ask the Minister why the loopholes were not closed but rather the easier option was taken to decrease the approved issuer levy to zero—to zero. 
Can I also ask the Minister—and this is an area where I am admitting ignorance or less knowledge than I should have—whether the people who are receiving the approved issuer levy are all paying non-resident withholding tax on all of the interest that is paid to them by New Zealand institutions or whether they are able through the approved issuer levy route to avoid their non-resident withholding tax obligations. Because if they are able to avoid paying non-resident withholding tax obligations on the interest that is paid to them by New Zealand borrowers who are lending money from international lenders—if they are not paying non-resident withholding tax through the approved issuer levy route—then that further reinforces the fact that the approved issuer levy rather than being abandoned completely should have had the loopholes tightened. This would ensure that there is a reasonable return to the New Zealand authorities to help fund the very services that the overseas lenders rely upon in order for them to be paid their interest—that is enforcement of the rule of law education and health services and a healthy economy all of which those lenders benefit from. 
That is the end of my contribution. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I am by no means an expert in tax and I have got to raise a couple of questions. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Too modest. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well that is true but I was going to call on John Hayes who today as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in public session made a magnificent job of running interference against the Government. That is why I hope Mr Hayes is going to take a call soon because I know it will be an outstanding contribution. He will probably ask even more deep and penetrating questions than I could even think of.  
But can I just ask the Minister given there is a trend—and I will not widen the debate as per your instructions but I just want to touch on two points. I will just mention their names and move on. There is a trend with this Government whether it be the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill or whether it be the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill that is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee which we dealt with in public session today and part of this bill the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill which of course we support where members get up and ask for evidence and rationale as to why the Government has embarked on a particular course of action and that does not arrive. I will not go into those other bills because it would not be appropriate—there will be a time and place for that—but we have seen evidence of that before a select committee today.  
I think it is right and proper that when members raise concerns in respect of possible fiscal leakage as Mr Parker has already said it would be interesting if the Minister wanted to provide evidence to perhaps allay our fears in respect of this issuer levy on the face of it not increasing liquidity or reducing interest rates or adding any debt to capital markets. They are legitimate issues that the Opposition raised and it would be helpful I think for the Minister to provide through his officials or whatever some analysis or evidence of that. I would welcome it.  
I would also ask another question. Given that the issuer levy is zero rated and therefore is effectively null and void the question that arises is why you would still have the framework in place. Again I confess I am not an expert in tax and there may be a logical reason for it but it appears to me that if the issuer levy is effectively redundant zero rated and has no relevance then why—was it a mistake? Is there some way we can sort it now perhaps in Committee maybe through leave or whatever but why would you leave a tax framework in place when it has no effect at all? So I think there are some legitimate concerns here.  
I do reiterate Mr Parker’s point that at a time when this Government seems intent on slashing and burning and clawing every dollar out of every particular department—you know doing a dash for cash desperate for cash resources everywhere and so-called savings and making cuts—why would it embark on this measure which in effect could provide fiscal leakage and could weaken the tax base without some pretty robust evidence that that would not happen. Now it may be and I know the Minister has been in the job for many many many years; he is probably the longest serving revenue Minister in the history of this country possibly the history of any Commonwealth Parliament. He went to the same university as me I think part of his degree was history and he may want to research that— 
Hon Member 
: And you went to the same high school. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Absolutely. We went to the same high school St Bede’s College absolutely and he may well want to research that fact. He may well end up in the  
Guinness Book of Records 
 but I think generally this Minister has acted in a way that does generally provide information to allay those concerns but it is legitimate to ask those questions. 
I will just say this again. There is a trend coming into this Government. When it embarks upon measures—and there will be a time and a different place for instance to talk about maybe the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill and whether it will actually return much cash to the taxpayer for the exorbitant cost it is going to cost to put it together or not. That is for another day; evidence is not prevalent perhaps there. Other bills that have been put up are shiny politically palatable to some a good bit of spin and promotion but actually do nothing in effect but change a few words and have no practical effect in our communities. 
 We support this bill; that is absolutely clear. I accept and I support the Minister’s view that this will streamline a number of measures for New Zealand companies and will bring us into line with many other Western-country partners. But I think this is a particular issue that has vexed the Opposition and to date with respect there has not been a lot of robust evidence or analysis put up to allay our fears.  
If we are wrong fair enough. But if we are wrong I think we owe it to Parliament and the community to allay those fears and ensure that there is evidence on the table. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I am going to take a call at this point because I have another commitment very shortly that will mean I am absent for a little while but I will come back. I want to respond to the points that have been made by the two members who have spoken. I have read Labour’s minority report with some interest. It is a fairly brief report and it is really a thinly disguised argument for a capital gains tax which is a separate issue altogether. We are not going down that path. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: We don’t disguise our call for a capital gains tax. We say it openly. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well it is a very little paragraph. You want a capital gains tax—or the Opposition wants a capital gains tax—and this side of the House does not so that is really a policy divide. But I want to come to the points that— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You used to like it. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I have never been in favour of a capital gains tax. The member can check the record going right back. I have never spoken for a capital gains tax.  
Let me come back to this bill and the questions from Mr Cosgrove and from Mr Parker to some extent as well. I would like to refer them back to the regulatory impact statement which sets out a number of the conditions that are being applied to the changes in particular in regard to the approved issuer levy to make sure that it is tightly focused and to make sure that the benefit is borne by the New Zealand borrower who currently suffers the tax burden rather than the offshore lender.  
Mr Parker I think it was asked how much revenue was potentially being forgone through this measure. The best estimate stated in the regulatory impact statement is based on the last 3 years’ movement in the bond market—about $5 million. So it is not a large sum of money.  
Mr Cosgrove then went on to ask why we were just zero-rating the approved issuer levy and why were we not abolishing it— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No no why are we taking the framework? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes effectively and the short answer is—and this is a slightly flippant answer but there is good historical precedent for it and I know the member wanted me to quote history—many many years ago we struck a zero rate for stamp duty. We still actually have stamp duty on the books in New Zealand. I do not think it is a particularly good argument in the approved investor levy case but it is just a signal that there are some precedents. The point is that this is a new area of change. We are operating on the basis of the Capital Market Development Taskforce recommendations. It was considered prudent at this stage to simply shift the rate from 2 percent back to zero.  
We will obviously keep a clear eye on how this works out in practice once the change is made. But frankly we see it more as being about tidying up the process making it neater and clearer as the member acknowledged and simply getting round what we think has been an impediment that has imposed costs on New Zealand businesses has not raised a great deal of revenue historically and frankly is probably seen more as a disincentive than as a positive.  
I do not have time to go into all of the other issues that were raised in terms of things like financial transaction taxes and everything else that Mr Parker spoke of. They are way beyond the scope of the bill; they are not on the radar screen at this point. What we are focused on in this measure is the further progressive tidy-up of our international tax rules.  
I conclude by quoting—and this time I will try to get it right—the phrase of Dr Michael Cullen when this matter was first on the table.  
Hon David Cunliffe 
: “We won. You lost. Eat that!” 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No Dr Cullen paraphrased  
Star Trek 
 when describing New Zealand’s international tax rules. He said: “New Zealand boldly went where no country chose to follow.” That is a very good summary of the position we were in. This legislation effectively is a further part of the winding back of that to get us to a more realistic and credible position and I am grateful for the support of the Opposition. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in relation to the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. New Zealand First does support this bill but as we have said in this House we have certain reservations and there are some caveats.  
We heard from the Minister of Revenue that this is intended to tidy up some of the tax areas internationally to put New Zealand on a level footing with other countries and for there to be a fairer equitable system for our companies and corporates to operate both onshore and offshore in a globally competitive market. However we do have reservations and it has been seen in the past that often where there are such exemptions or allowances we the New Zealand taxpayer and we the New Zealand Government can sometimes be taken for a ride. We have previous instances where it has been convenient for companies to relocate to other tax jurisdictions to avoid paying their full dues and their full taxes here in New Zealand and New Zealand First certainly would not want to see this occurring as a result of this Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill.  
We can all recall or those who are old enough can recall in the 1990s what happened through the wine-box saga. It was our party New Zealand First as you will all recall—those of you who are old enough; some in the back rows of the Government perhaps are not old enough to remember it—and it was the Rt Hon Winston Peters who exposed these very loopholes in this Parliament and the New Zealand companies who were trying to evade paying their full dues to the New Zealand Treasury. We cannot go back to those days. We cannot go back to the days when companies hid behind the loopholes and the convenient bills before this Parliament and the Acts in this Parliament to secure a preferential situation for themselves in some other tax jurisdiction.  
Also as we have seen in recent weeks there are now more and more companies of course that operate in cyberspace that operate on the internet that operate in virtual reality—and I am not talking about the Government here; I am talking about real companies that are operating. In this respect we also have a situation in which of course where the actual company is located these days is often very questionable. Although it may be operating on a particular website on a particular internet site or in some particular cyberspace position it may not actually physically be within our jurisdiction but it may be using our jurisdiction for its own convenience.  
However New Zealand First is in favour of reformation of our taxation system. We have always said that the long-term objective must be to reduce taxation of New Zealanders. We would like to see all tax laws simplified. If you will bear with me Mr Chairman—you said that you did not wish to stray into these other areas but at the same time we must be fair to all taxpayers and although this bill is aimed at supporting our companies our exporters and our international trading organisations to be competitive and supporting investors investing in this country and overseas we must also ensure that we are being fair to the overall tax system. We must ensure that this is not undermining our tax system and is not undermining our Government’s ability to pay for the health welfare education and all the social security systems that are required by the people of New Zealand. So New Zealand First does support this but the caveats are that it must be fair and it must be a system where corporates are not using it as a convenience to avoid tax.  
I also note that in the commentary on the bill there is a reference to exemptions for new residents’ superannuation schemes and a recommendation from the Finance and Expenditure Committee in relation to that. This is another area that I raised in the House last week. This should not in future just be applying in terms of the corporates of New Zealand; in the future we need to also be mindful of taxes being paid by particularly many of our immigrants. We also have to be mindful of those who have immigrated to this country and perhaps have paid into pension schemes in other countries—particularly I am aware the UK the Netherlands and other countries. They have been long-term contributors to pension schemes and when they come to New Zealand there are difficulties with reciprocal arrangements under our pension schemes in New Zealand. They likewise are being treated unfairly and New Zealand First certainly will be following through on this. Perhaps we could add it to our SuperGold card which is hugely successful as the Government will be aware. Perhaps that could be another situation to be added to the SuperGold card whereby those pensioners who have paid their dues and have paid their rightful taxes in other tax jurisdictions around the world would have access to the same rights remedies and pensions through the New Zealand system and not be penalised and likewise in the Pacific so that they can perhaps take advantage of opportunities to be with their friends families and whanau and not be penalised as a result.  
Although we support this we do raise some flags of concern; we do say that we will be monitoring it. New Zealand First will be a party that will continue to look at situations like that. We do not want a repeat of the wine-box situation in the 1990s. We do not want New Zealand companies to see this as another way of the New Zealand Government or the National Government helping its mates to get a better deal somewhere else. We do not want to see its mates in some corporates getting a handout or a leg-up from this. National has already done very well by its mates with tax reductions for the select few. We do not want to see this as another situation where National Party mates are benefiting and redirecting their business investments to other jurisdictions where they might be able to save on tax. At the end of the day we do have to make sure that the coffers are full enough to pay for our health to pay for our welfare and to pay for our education. We cannot allow this to undermine it. Thank you.  
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I just want to comment on some of the speeches and the points made and Andrew Williams’ speech. He was doing so well until that last scurrilous attack on the National Party. Prior to that he was supporting the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. I thought that in what I understand was one of his first speeches after his maiden speech he gave a very lucid speech and I know that Barbara Stewart the real leader of New Zealand First—the puppetmaster within New Zealand First—will be watching Andrew Williams and will be thinking very carefully about giving you a question at question time soon.  
I turn now to Clayton Cosgrove because speaking of scurrilous that was a scurrilous attack he made on John Hayes the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this Parliament.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to withdraw and apologise. I want to give you a commitment that I will never praise John Hayes in this Chamber again.  
SIMON BRIDGES 
: John Hayes has been a wonderful contributor on economic matters and tax matters in the Finance and Expenditure Committee.  
David Clark gave a speech and I was very disappointed in David Clark.  
Grant Robertson 
: Are you a teacher? Are you giving a report card or are you actually going to give a speech?  
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Basically. I will come to the bill—I will come to the bill. But David Clark in his contribution was very disappointing. He had no enthusiasm for this bill. I think he just wanted to get on his feet after his maiden speech. If “elegant” is the word of the week I thought his “skinning the cat” phrase was entirely inelegant and not something that the animal lovers of New Zealand like to hear in this Parliament.  
Like some of the members opposite this bill may be dull but it is worthy. I do say “dull” because you know actually—as I said in my Address in Reply speech—it is not some big bang we need in the economy; it is incremental work minor steps time after time and this bill is that. It makes a contribution to our tax regime in New Zealand and it is worthy.  
As I explained and made clear in my speech in the first reading of this bill in this House what it means when we clear away the jargon—and I appreciate there is a bit more to it than this—is that New Zealand businesses overseas when they are in foreign countries investing are not penalised and they are not double taxed and that has got to be a good thing for growing New Zealand and growing our interests overseas.  
So this bill as I say like some of the members opposite— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Have you read it? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —is dull but worthy. I have read it; I read it prior to the first reading. I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when it considered this but I did read it. It is dull but worthy and it does bring us into line with international tax regimes and what is happening in other countries. And so I am very happy at this Committee stage when we are taking all the parts as one to globally support this bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to follow the boy wonder Simon Bridges who has hardly read the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill by the sound of it. This bill is one which Labour supports on balance but I think the real phrase here is “on balance” because it is a bill made up of the good the bad and the potentially ugly. We will be watching very carefully to see its implementation. The good is undoubtedly the modifying of the thin capitalisation rules to ensure that banks and financial institutions pay out a rather larger slice of tax when they are offshore domiciled in order to contribute to our economy. I think that would be welcomed by all sides of the House. The bad is the approved issuer levy reduction. Now there are a number of important reasons why it is in our view very very questionable to reduce the approved issuer levy and we are going to be watching this one like a hawk.  
The first reason is that it erodes the tax base associated with financial institutions at a very interesting time. At a time when one major bank declared today that it had increased its profit by over 30 percent and the sector as a whole according to the latest KPMG survey increased its profit by a quarter in the last year—by 25 percent in the last year—when GDP was flat and New Zealanders’ living standards if anything went backwards this Government is giving institutions like the banks a net reduction in tax through this bill. What is happening in Europe? France and Germany have said that the real economy is bearing a big load in the recession so it is time for the financial sector to bear a load. And both the conservative Governments of France and Germany are looking at bringing in a financial transactions tax.  
We are not advocating that. It would be pretty difficult for New Zealand to do in isolation but I do point out that this bill is reducing the net tax burden on financial institutions. Now why might that be a problem as well as the fact that we are losing revenue with which we pay for schools and hospitals? Well here is an economic paradox: it is because of this bill cheaper to source funds from offshore now than it was and cheaper relative to funds saved and sourced onshore. In other words it means relatively speaking that foreign banks and foreign-sourced funds are taxed more lightly and domestically sourced funds and institutions are taxed more heavily—thus providing an incentive to shift capital out of the country and to favour foreign institutions over local ones.  
Why would you do that? Not you Mr Chairman; it is not your idea. Why would the Government want to do that? Why would the Government want to provide an additional incentive for foreign-owned domiciled and sourced banks? I note that we are debating this on the day that several Ministers—one of them is sitting in the front row the Hon Maurice Williamson—have been overturned in the High Court. In a rare move the High Court has said that the Ministers misapplied the national economic interest test and wrongly favoured a foreign-domiciled company in the purchase of the Crafar farms. Tonight we are debating a tax bill that favours foreign banks over New Zealand financial institutions by reducing the approved issuer levy that applies to foreign institutions.  
Actually might we think about the reverse? Might we think about ensuring that foreign financial institutions in New Zealand are actually paying their fair share and about getting beneath the question of how come the real economy is flat and the banking sector increased its profit between a quarter and a third in 1 year? No one is alleging malpractice. Nobody is saying that there has necessarily been any breach of the law or anything corrupt—far from that. But the fact remains that one sector of the economy—and it is not dairying; banking—has had a stellar skyrocket year in 2011 and ordinary New Zealanders are wondering how they are going to pay the mortgage and the bill and put food on the table.  
So all I am saying is that this is not a big bill this is not a major piece of legislation but this is another small let-out that allows foreign capital a lighter tax burden in New Zealand. So the bad bit about this bill—and it is against the background that foreign-sourced capital institutions already have a lower tax burden than New Zealand - domiciled capital—is that we tax savings in New Zealand too heavily but we do not tax savings sourced from offshore heavily enough. It is already unbalanced and this bill makes the balance worse. So we will be monitoring very closely the effects of this bill.  
Having agreed with the Government on the thin capitalisation rules having clearly disagreed with the approved issuer levy reductions—that was the good and then the bad—the potentially ugly is the other major part of this bill which is the foreign investment fund regime. This is a hideously complex piece of tax law and for listeners out there I am just going to try to get my head around it and help them. What this bill does is it affects a particular class of investor. It is not the little guys; the little guys are not helped by this bill. Anybody owning less than 10 percent of a foreign investment fund gets no help from this bill. So mum and dad at home if they are middle-class Kiwis and have retirement funds and superannuation funds invested in an offshore fund—Fidelity State Street I do not know; whatever—they get no help from this bill. But if you are a large investor—and this may go to some of the issues that our colleagues from New Zealand First raised—owning more than 10 percent but less than 50 percent of a foreign investment fund you get a tax break.  
Now that may or may not be the right thing to do. There are some design issues and we understood the advice of officials on this matter about making the law symmetrical in some regards to past practice and ironing out some definitional problems and that is why the bill is here before us today. We are going to give the advice a chance but I want to lay down a very clear marker on behalf of the Labour Opposition. This bill is under watch. This provision is under watch. I am sure listeners can hear a pattern emerging. The approved issuer levy part makes it cheaper for foreign financial institutions. They pay less tax. The foreign investment fund rules part means that people owning less than 10 percent of a fund—that is 99.99 percent of New Zealanders—get no help. They are no better off. But the few big rollers who may have a large stake worth more than 10 percent of a fund or an active investment in a substantial offshore company get extra help.  
So New Zealanders need to ask themselves whether Mr Bridges was in fact right with his sunny Bay of Plenty optimism his perma-tan and his lovely sparkling white teeth—oh it is beautiful. They have to ask whether he is right with his sunny optimism because—guess what Mr Bridges—it is only the big fish that get the minnows here. The little fish—the 99 percent of small-business people that that member has got in his electorate—miss out. They are at the bottom of the barrel Mr Bridges and this bill gives them nothing. In fact if they are like most of the small-business people in my electorate who have to borrow capital to survive they are going to be paying more because the foreign financial institution just got a “get out of jail free collect 200 bucks when you pass go” Christmas present from the ever-honourable Peter Dunne. My goodness he has earned his money for the capitalist class has he not? The perennial Santa Claus of rentier capitalism is back in business again. He has had more allegianceships than the Maori Party has had leadership coups. Goodness me I predict that by 2013 Peter Dunne will be back pawing at the glass in the doors at the end of the Labour Opposition corridor saying: “There’s been a misunderstanding.” We have got bad news for David Clark who has the revenue portfolio. Peter Dunne is after his job; Peter Dunne is after his job. When John Key goes— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Shearer’s got yours. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Henare your chances of getting back in west Auckland look even thinner. When your mate “Hone” Key goes off to the World Bank what is happening to your poll ratings? When “Hone” Key goes to the World Bank and that Minister comes back begging for a job from us this bill is “all over red rover”. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 Never have I prayed for the ringing of the bell as I did that time listening to the member opposite. Can I say to members opposite that I think you made the wrong choice last year. There is a man who still harbours leadership ambitions with a speech like that. I am not sure whether it is the party of the member on my left or on my right he is interested in. In fact I had a constituent send me a message yesterday having watched television coverage from this House saying that somewhere in New Zealand a homeless man has lost his beard. Can I suggest that David Cunliffe gives his beard back to him quite quickly. That man is worried and winter is coming. [ 
Interruption 
] Actually Mr Bridges is not homeless; he has always had that suntan. 
I want to very very briefly make mention of an important part of this Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill and that is where the active income exemptions will bring New Zealand tax rules into line with others. The reason I want to mention this is because of a number of important free-trade agreements that our hard-working Minister of Trade Tim Groser has been working on for a long period of time. The free-trade agreement with China is a very important agreement that Tim Groser has spent a huge amount of time focusing on. What this part of the bill means to that agreement is that New Zealand companies that may manufacture in China will have an opportunity to do so under the same tax rules as other companies will face there. Lastly the Trans-Pacific Partnership is under negotiation at the moment. That too will provide benefits for New Zealand companies. There is so much more I want to say on this that I might need to take another call later in the debate. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. I would like to acknowledge that as a consequence of my colleague David Cunliffe coming back from a great summer he can see the future. That sort of hirsute look that he brings to the Chamber is in contrast to that very handsome mop of hair that has haunted a number of us as it watched your circuitous career. I would like to say as well that I am about to eat venison as a consequence—unrelated to tax—of a hunting trip. The Minister sitting next to you can claim some credit on a completely unrelated issue.  
The Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill amongst the other amendments it makes—and I was chided earlier by the Minister of Revenue—in actual fact does make some improvements I presume or amendments to that marathon exercise called the fair dividend rate. The Minister and I imposed ourselves upon the swallows of Kororareka Russell a bunch of New Zealand and overseas residents who took great umbrage at the changes that Dr Cullen and the Minister at the time who is still the Minister were making. Perhaps he could enlighten us during the course of the evening as to how these amendments and how these changes are actually going to improve the functioning of not so much international business but us sourcing capital.  
We have heard a bit from the other side of the Chamber and I understand John Hayes has joined the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As he sits on that committee I just hope that there is some topic that comes across the purview of that committee to do with Persian rugs. If not Persian rugs then Persian cats. There is one thing I know about Mr Hayes and it is that he is a walking encyclopaedia on matters pertaining to Persia. Unfortunately the only person disinterested in listening to him is the current Minister of Foreign Affairs who in days gone by actually was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But I will not speak ill of that fellow resident at one point in time in North Auckland etc. That was Tau Henare and he does not have a perma-tan. His head has been on the sunbed for far too long. He knows that and he also knows that this is the last—[ 
Interruption 
] I actually hope that he does stand and take a call on this tax-related bill largely because it may be the most coherent thing we are going to hear from the man in this final 3-year countdown of his parliamentary career. I have no doubt he curses the day that he made fun of the “hammerhead shark” who sits here on a regular basis—otherwise known as Winston Peters. Tau Henare’s career may have gone on and on but let us come back to these tax matters.  
We support this bill. Of course we support this bill because we are incredibly supportive of turning round the fortunes of the country unlike our colleagues over there who have the rhetoric but have not given us a clear set of ideas as to how these changes to the international tax regime will apply or ensure that those players who are investing overseas are paying their fair tax. I would like to hear from the Minister on this question of the connection with the protracted experience we had in creating the fair dividend rate which I presume actually did improve the prospects of Tony Gibbs before he fell from grace but that is another matter. I was the person dispatched to try to make sense of what he was on about and that was prior to hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the  
Dominion Post 
 and various other organs of the fourth estate as they sought to change the minds of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Government of the day. We being a responsive Government were a little bit flexible in that regard.  
But as I recall the fair dividend rate is referred to. That is one of the amendments in this bill. There was an attempt to ensure that for New Zealanders who were capturing their wealth through the capital growth of equities that they held overseas—and they were able to repatriate them back to New Zealand because it was a capital growth and it was not regarded as income—there was an opportunity for them to let me say short the New Zealand - based tax system and capture the full value of their equities overseas as they grew in terms of their capital value. When that was monetised and cashed up the rest of us were struggling here and paying PAYE as an ordinary part of our daily lives but they were able to—I would not say evade—circumvent that obligation. The fair dividend rate is contained in here so I really look forward to the Minister bringing a little erudition—but not in that usual sort of schoolboy style. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I am happy to oblige the member. I do recall the trip we made to the Duke of Marlborough Hotel in Russell to meet a number of wealthy expatriates who had come to this country as their bolthole and who were enjoying the benefits of their earnings and investments at that stage. The fair dividend rate regime effectively said we would tax them on a portion of the gain provided they were outside Australia—because the member will recall 70 percent of New Zealand offshore investment at that point was into Australia so the people who were going to be caught by this were those outside the Australian regime. Most of these people of course were Americans and Canadians and Europeans— 
Hon David Parker 
: Not used to paying tax. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —not used to paying tax—and even more incensed that this was a Government policy which was broadly supported by all sides of the House that might require them to pay some. My overriding recollection of that meeting and I am sure the member recalls it was that there was one group of people in the front who were being very nice and reasonable and trying to go through all of the arguments without actually portraying their real intent. Right at the end of the meeting I think it was a Canadian woman who got up and said: “I’m sick of what I’m hearing. I’m hearing all these people talking about fairness and equity and paying their taxes. We’re wealthy people. We shouldn’t have to put up with that nonsense.” The consensus that had been built during the meeting about trying to work our way through was destroyed by the selfishness of this particular individual. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Was that Michelle Boag? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No it was not.  
Having said that we did develop a regime that was fair and reasonable. What I have been trying to say in earlier parts of the discussion on this Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill was that this is part of an overall package of reforming our international tax rules. The member made reference to Mr Gibbs and it was the Brierley—Guinness Peat Group— 
Hon David Parker 
: GPG. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —GPG—over the cotton manufacturers whose name I temporarily forget. The member will recall we gave it a 5-year exemption that if it could prove that within that 5 years that Guinness Peat Group or—the name—Coats the cotton people were substantially located within New Zealand then it would be exempt from the regime. I should tell the member that what happened—because the 5-year anniversary was last year—was that Mr Gibbs or his successors quietly have let that one go. So the argument was that it was a substantially New Zealand company and that therefore it had to be exempted when we said: “You have got 5 years to make the transition.” At the end of the 5 years it came back and said: “No we are quite happy with things as they stand.” So that was the outcome on that story.  
I just want to make a comment about the amendment that has been put forward by Mr Parker. If I read it correctly what he is seeking to do is to hold the rate of the approved issuer levy at 2 percent. 
Hon David Parker 
: Yes—omit clause 142. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes. So in effect what clause 142 does is give us the mechanism to strike it at zero. He is simply saying remove that—hold it at 2 percent. Well that is contrary to the intent of the bill. The Government will not be supporting that and I would suggest to Mr Parker that what he has proposed is a rather elaborate mechanism. If he is opposed to going from 2 percent to zero he should vote against that part. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 We will be voting against Part 3 but we want to vote for the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. The bill will be improved if Part 3—or clause 142 which is the same thing—is omitted. I want to explain to the Minister of Revenue my reasoning for that.  
Since my last contribution I have confirmed that there are some bond issuers in New Zealand—namely large corporates—that can currently issue bonds that do not incur non-resident withholding tax on the interest that is paid to the overseas lender. At the moment the only contribution to the revenue in New Zealand that is made by those international lenders into New Zealand is the 2 percent issuer levy. If that levy goes to zero percent effectively the interest that is being paid to the overseas lender will incur no tax and no approved issuer levy. There will be no contribution to the New Zealand revenue in respect of an income payment that is being paid out of the New Zealand economy to that overseas lender and the Labour Party thinks that is wrong. We think that those people should be paying either non-resident withholding tax or an approved issuer levy at a decent rate.  
If there are ways currently of avoiding the approved issuer levy that are unfair to some people who go through the proper route—if other people avoid it—close the loophole. But what is the case for international sources of capital paying no tax and no approved issuer levy? They have the benefit of our enforcement of the rule of law—the enforceability of their contract—and our economic settings which are underpinned by taxation that funds the police who protect law and order that funds the court system that funds education and that funds health which means that we have a healthy and employed workforce and economy which means that the New Zealand borrowers can afford to pay the interest that the overseas people want to get. That is why they should be paying some taxation just as everybody else should be. They should not be paying as high a rate of tax as a New Zealander because they do not benefit from all of the things that we get—I get my own health and education—but they should pay some tax.  
This proposal by the Government is wrong. There are the good parts of this bill and we have acknowledged those but this part is patently wrong. I thought my colleague David Cunliffe made a very good point. If this is going to have any effect what you are effectively creating is a disincentive to New Zealand savers. You are effectively creating a bias in favour of the overseas investor which reduces the rate of return that would otherwise be earned by competing New Zealand investors. Presumably the theory that lies behind this is that the cost of funds overseas becomes more competitive because you keep interest rates in New Zealand down. Well although there was no good evidence of that—and we say it fails for that reason—if it were true it would be creating a disincentive to New Zealand savings which would be encouraging consumption rather than savings and would be going further away from this need to rebalance the New Zealand economy towards improved New Zealand savings— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Making the current account deficit worse. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —reducing the New Zealand current account deficit through improved savings. Instead we will have less New Zealand savings and we will have a worse current account deficit. So this bill fails both in terms of the fairness of overseas people not paying their contribution towards tax and this part undermining the New Zealand economy by decreasing the incentive to save increasing the incentive to spend decreasing the incentive to invest in our productive export economy and increasing our incentive—I would suggest Mr Cunliffe—to invest in our speculative economy. Both of those things go to increasing our current account deficit and over time increasing New Zealand’s net international liabilities.  
This is a poor part of the bill. That is why despite the fact that it is a small part of the bill that will not cause us to vote against the whole of the bill we have submitted an amendment that omits this particular clause—clause 142—which is to that effect. I would ask for the support of other parties in this Committee to vote in favour of my amendment to omit clause 142 from the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have had time to consider the member’s amendment— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Be nice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I am bound by Standing Order 325 which says that an amendment that may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates or move a change to a vote needs 24 hours’ notice and the member has failed to observe the 24-hour— 
Hon David Parker 
: So it’s fiscally significant? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not engage in dialogue with me while I am giving a ruling. But can I just say to members—not hearing the member—that the Standing Order does not define the impact. It just says that has a fiscal impact. Now for members who have come into the Chamber since leave was sought I say that leave was sought for the debate to be taken as one and for the vote to be as one question. If the members want to vote against Part 3 they will have to seek leave that Part 3 or clause 142—I am just trying to assist the Committee here. That would have the same impact as the member’s amendment. I am going to put the question now. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee that the vote in the Committee stage on Part 3 be taken as a separate question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call just to remind members of what the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is about. It has been a long time in the Parliament and now that we are up to the Committee stage it would be worthwhile just covering the three major headings that the bill has been done for.  
There are three categories of amendments in this bill which is amending the Customs and Excise Act and the Biosecurity Act. The amendments are required to provide for planned information-sharing by the New Zealand Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. As time evolves and computer systems get more sophisticated information sharing is vital. The bill provides for developing information-sharing arrangements with other agencies in the future as well—things that allow both the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to get on and do their jobs.  
The second part of the bill enhances the effectiveness of law enforcement. The Customs and Excise Act has a variety of compliance and enforcement mechanisms some of which were put in place in 1996 with relatively little review since then so I think that is important. These mechanisms no longer have the deterrent effect needed or are proving to be unnecessarily complex to administer with little benefit. The amendments will indeed strengthen the Custom Service’s penalty regime increase deterrence and provide greater distinction between enforcement for minor offences and enforcement for the more serious end of town offences.  
Finally the third part of the bill is to provide clarity to existing legislation provisions or to address new situations that have emerged since the Customs and Excise Act was passed.  
Can I finally say that technology is changing the whole way that both the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry do it and there can be no better example to members of this Committee than New Zealanders going through all of our international airports who can now go through SmartGate on departure and SmartGate on arrival and have a computer electronic system do all of that processing for them. And as the Joint Border Management System with the Customs Service comes into effect and as that is developed this particular bill and the provisions of this bill will be needed. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 It is nice to see members opposite so happy that I am taking a call on the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Can I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister of Customs for his brief synopsis of the bill; it has been some time since it has been before the House and again for his glowing praise of the SmartGate system. You know it is a rare occasion when we talk about SmartGate in the Chamber so it is nice to hear some praise around SmartGate!  
This is a bill that the Opposition is supporting. We think that in this day and age—and we have seen other bills before the House in recent days looking at a time of increased technology and better technology—we should be making sure that we can share information between agencies to make sure that they can do their job more effectively and efficiently. We think especially that in the job and task of policing our borders we should take advantage of the increased technology and make sure that we can keep our international reputation of having a safe and secure border.  
Can I just make the point again that this bill is about the effectiveness— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Let’s talk about border control. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Excuse me Mr Henare? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Let’s talk about border control. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Border control—someone lets you back in Mr Henare so in terms of data sharing between the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Customs Service I am sure you will not pop up on their radar. Effectiveness and efficiency letting our Customs Service agents and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry agents do their job better at the border is what this bill aims to do.  
Can I thank the Minister for responding to concerns that the Labour Opposition had in the previous Parliament around the sharing of information and the privacy of that information. I know that my predecessor in the customs portfolio Su’a William Sio certainly had some concerns when this bill was introduced into the House around the provision for privacy and it is good to see some changes have been made. One for instance is that the Privacy Commissioner will look at this after 5 years to see whether the level of information or type of information that is being shared between these border policing agencies is appropriate. Can I also say that it is great that we are looking at making sure we can be more effective and efficient at the border.  
But we must also have suitable and adequate resources at the border to make sure that we can effect some of the intelligence and some of the efficiencies that we can get from these new systems. Some of the noises made recently from the National Government around its move to scale back numbers in the Public Service are a concern when we are spending a significant amount of money to increase intelligence and maybe the Minister in the chair might be able to clarify that. In the first instance it was thought that the system was going to cost about $75 million and there was some suggestion that it might rise to around $200 million. Maybe the Minister in the chair might be able to clarify that.  
But going back to my earlier point it is a concern around the noises that have been made by National—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes some of them may not have eaten; they are getting a bit ratty. It is a concern around some of the noises that have been made by the National Party in terms of cutting the Public Service as to whether we will be able to take advantage of some of the efficiencies that come from information sharing and may come from this bill. We do have serious concerns around the level of resourcing especially when this is a party in Government that said in 2008 that it would cap and not cut the Public Service then over 2000 jobs went missing over the last term of Government. So we do have serious concerns around the ability of the Government to implement some of the efficiencies and the effectiveness that we may benefit from from this bill and the investment in better technology if we do not have the people on the ground the people at our borders to make sure that we can benefit from the move that is in this bill.  
Also it was good to see some changes around the regulation-making powers that the Minister may have. It is good to see that he is going to have to consult with the agencies concerned in this information-sharing exercise before he expands the amount or the type of information that these agencies can share. Also there is a provision within this bill to make sure that again the Privacy Commissioner is— 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take a very short call. In fact I was going to thank the member for Mana who I have just discovered is Labour’s new customs spokesman for his comments—his supportive comments initially—and in particular for his acknowledgment of the work the Minister has done in order to take things on board.  
I have to say that latterly in his speech I think the member moved well away from the actual focus of the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill so I would like just to come back to that and to reiterate a point that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Customs has made and that is that planned information-sharing is logical. It is cost-effective. It is efficient and most important it is increasingly vital for our customs officers in order for them to be able to operate successfully in the very important work that they do. There is no question that their role is a demanding one. They have to be vigilant all the time. What they do matters hugely to New Zealand.  
This bill recognises the technological advances such as SmartGate which the Minister and Mr Faafoi have both referred to. Our Joint Border Management System has greatly increased the speed and the ease of travel and that is great for all of us who travel internationally but of course it puts extra responsibilities on to those customs staff and others who monitor and control our borders. This bill not only moves with the times; it gives them the tools they need to do the job. It is something that I believe is warmly welcomed in the House. I commend the Minister for the work that he has done and I commend the bill to the Committee. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I stand up unashamedly as the biosecurity spokesman for Labour. Although we have indicated our support for the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill can I say I raise some serious questions. National members will laugh about it because they are the party that has slashed biosecurity funding.  
If this is a SmartGate then I will take us back 100 years to when farmers invented the Taranaki gate. I am sure they considered it smart as well but now we need not a Taranaki gate; we need a safe door—that is not one that is locked permanently but one that is opened when people meet the requirements and know the code. What is happening here today every day in this country is that we have a Taranaki gate for biosecurity when we need a safe door. At no time in this country’s history has biosecurity and the threat of an incursion been greater. We have more people and more goods coming over our border every day than ever before. This Government thinks a smart gate is a Taranaki gate.  
I have to say that this bill as has been specified by the Minister of Customs and others attempts to do information sharing. A great idea—I cannot argue with that. The issue is what is happening in front-line biosecurity as both agencies—the Customs Service and MAF Biosecurity—have been moving in this direction. This programme has been around for a wee while and I have colleagues who may talk about that.  
What has been happening? Take for example Auckland International Airport—Auckland biosecurity staff. “Government has not hired any front-line staff for at least 3 years at Auckland Airport.” It goes by many names: sinking ceiling cost cutting attrition. People have been pregnant they have left they have retired and they have been on their OE but not one of them has been replaced at Auckland Airport. Is that a smart gate? No way. I feel very reluctant to offer support for this bill when the National Government has taken resources from front-line biosecurity people and placed them into one of Mr Williamson’s little technology projects.  
Well we can make progress through information sharing; there is no doubt about that. But we have claims that if you have an Australian or New Zealand passport you can virtually import anything into this country without challenge. Can I say that there have been—and you see them occasionally if you travel the borders—dogs. In fact this bill says it is illegal to harm a customs dog or biosecurity dog—a great move. How many of them are there? How much work are they doing? How much protection are they offering us? I put to you from firsthand information that I have received that the dogs cover about 1 hour a day of a 24-hour operation—1 hour per day. There are some more dogs being trained that is true but what happens is that they take the dogs from the airport to the port or the mailroom and they shift them around. Mr Williamson is smiling because all the reports he gets from all his managers say it is all fine it is all OK they are covering it all off.  
When front-line biosecurity staff are alarmed they are stressed. Those people who are truly committed to border protection see people walking through—in fact having their passports stamped to walk straight through without any checks at our airports. Now Mr Williamson is aware of this because he has been given this information. I do not know what he is doing about this. He is proceeding with the bill because he thinks that sharing information on computers—and to be fair to him he has been a consistent advocate for computers and technology; I acknowledge that. I am slowly catching up myself. But that is no replacement for the front-line protection that we need in this country every single day.  
There is a view among biosecurity staff that the next Minister in charge of biosecurity will soon be responding to the next incursion—imminent and inevitable. That is what they think because they are unable to carry out the duties that they know are necessary at the front-line borders be it at the port or be it at the airports. We are covering the whole thing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no let me just respond because I am on my feet. I made the comment earlier that just because we are having a debate on all clauses and schedules of the bill it does not mean we talk about anything that is broadly under biosecurity. It should still pertain to the bill and this is an information-sharing bill. I ask the member to just contain himself. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I refer you to clause 7 “Regulations relating to entry of goods for export”. I would have thought that a regulation-making power in that area which gives specifications in that area would be about as broad as one could get as to the possibility of making regulations in this particular area. I would have thought that under that clause just about anything would go.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No it will not. It has to pertain exactly to what that clause actually requires. It does not allow any kind of debate on biosecurity. It must pertain if the member is using that to clause 7. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise and I regret the fact that I appear to be arguing with you. That clause is an amendable clause. That is a clause that is headed “Regulations relating to entry of goods for export”. The member could propose anything to do with goods coming in for the purpose of exporting them if he so chose. It is about as broad as you can get. In a Committee stage it does not have to be the exact words here; it can be any addition to that header that comes within the scope. My argument is that anything would come under that scope. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is about the amendment to the clause and I have made that point. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Thank you to my colleague; I think he is right. I will stick to the bill as always. The sharing of information about every aspect of biosecurity and customs is no doubt the objective of the Minister and that is why I make comment on this.  
Can I go to the issues of fines. Minimum fines are increased from $50 to $200 in the customs area. They have already been increased in the biosecurity area and I think it is important because there is uncertainty as to what this might do. Will it improve the situation or not? The firsthand evidence of what is happening in biosecurity now is that firstly passengers are not made aware of their rights. They simply get slapped with—for biosecurity purposes—a $400 fine and told that that is it: pay it or nothing. Of course they are not informed of their four options the problem being that the resources taken for the Joint Border Management System have been taken away from training for front-line biosecurity officers who have to impose these fines. That is what is going on here now. I have firsthand information regarding that. The Minister has firsthand information regarding that and I hope that he will take a call and hopefully deny that that is occurring. But I suggest that he probably is not in that situation.  
One other point that I think pertains to this legislation is the fact that MAF Biosecurity has moved to implement a new computer system. It is called MAFPAX I believe. It was imposed on staff who have effectively rejected the use of it because it takes too long and it is too complicated to record the data. If this is the data that is going to be shared but front-line officers do not have the training or do not have the time to put it in the system then what progress are we making? Are we just kidding ourselves here? Will the Minister Mr Williamson be able to say that we have got the most sophisticated information-sharing system in the world with the Minister responsible for biosecurity saying we need to gather $100 million to take on an incursion because we have had something slip through the border? That is the likely outcome of the current Government’s approach to biosecurity.  
We need an independent review of what has occurred in biosecurity over the last 3 years as we have moved toward the Joint Border Management System. I hope the Minister in the chair will get up and give us that assurance. If he will not then I have real trouble supporting this bill and the so-called progress we are making on border protection for this country. The Minister cannot deny claims and information given to him firsthand in the hope that it will go away and that officials will give him reassurance that all is hunky-dory. Well it is not. I have spoken to people from Christchurch who are in the same dilemma—that is staff working are unable to speak out publicly. They are committed to border security and biosecurity but they do not want to speak the truth for fear of losing their jobs. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on this bill the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The name is encased in the title very well. I am particularly interested in the way in which this bill helps us combat the ravages of P. In our last term our Government made it very clear that we were not prepared to stand by and see families young people and in fact all strata of society affected by this appalling drug. We are pushing back in terms of the harm done by the abuse of alcohol. The Alcohol Reform Bill is the first push-back in 30 years of progressive liberalisation of the alcohol laws.  
But the Prime Minister announced the war against P on three fronts and these fronts are reducing the availability of the precursors of P in our domestic market giving the police more tools and more manpower to deal with the illegal P labs and of course closing the door to the raw materials coming into our country. This is where this bill is so important.  
The schemes of the drug lords are fiendishly clever. We have all heard—and I remind you if you have not heard—of a shipment of kitchen granite brought in from an Asian port. Right in the midst of these slabs of granite which were hollowed out were kilos and kilos of the precursor to methamphetamine. It was only the good work the surveillance and tracing by the Customs Service and the sharing of information—and in the Budget in 2010 the Government put in almost $6 million to improve the way the Customs Service can surveil and trace potential drug shipments—that allowed this to be intercepted. The information sharing between agencies can only help this. The production of 169 kilos of methamphetamine was stymied by the interception of the precursors for this foul drug.  
This bill is an excellent bill. It will increase communication among our agencies. I commend this bill to the Committee. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports all parts of the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. However we do have some concerns and reservations especially in relation to the privacy of personal information notwithstanding however the important role of the Privacy Commissioner as set out in the bill. The important part I think is new section 282B inserted by clause 24 which empowers the sharing of border information between what are called accessing agencies and holder agencies. However the only definition of “accessing agency” or “holder agency” is whatever is to be set out in the regulations and we do not at this stage know what that would be. New section 286A inserted by clause 25 allows regulations to specify “any agency or any class of agencies as an accessing agency:”. So that is very wide. It can include companies such as airport companies as well as Government departments port companies and so on. We do not really know how wide that is so that is something of a concern for us.  
Nevertheless New Zealand First does support the new provisions in the bill in so far as they allow appropriate agencies to share border information and we accept that that will better and more efficiently and effectively allow those agencies to carry out their duties. We think the provisions in the bill for those purposes are sensible and necessary and make good use of new technologies. The reservation we have however is that the provisions really contain no clear limitation on the types of agencies that can access the information and we think no adequate control on what the information may ultimately be used for. All this relies on ministerial discretion and on what ultimately goes into those regulations.  
So the concern in particular that we have is that information may reach the wrong hands and be misused may be passed on to others—perhaps unofficially—and may not be shared for border security or related reasons. I note that the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand did suggest a limitation along the lines that information sharing should be limited only to those agencies that have a border security function. That may be appropriate but it may be a little too restrictive because there will be related functions that are important as well.  
But of more particular concern to me is that the accessing agency may access and use information for private commercial reasons. To deal with this what New Zealand First would have liked to see in the bill is an addition to new section 286A(2)(c) relating to matters to be considered by the Minister in respect of those regulations. We would like to see something like: “whether the personal information accessed might be commercially sensitive” or “might confer a commercial advantage on the accessing agency”. There is nothing of that nature in the bill which we think is something of a disappointment because it does impinge we think on that principle of private personal information requiring adequate protection.  
I also note that the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee refers to new section 286A(1)(e) which refers to regulations made for border information sharing that may prescribe “the conditions under which an accessing agency may access border information …”. But this differs from the committee’s advice which says “provide a means for Government agencies to place controls on the way information provided to commercial interests could be used;”. So the new section 286A(1)(e) does not do this. It does not provide a means for the holder agencies to place controls on use for commercial purposes. It only allows regulations by way of Order in Council to prescribe conditions under which accessing agencies can gain access. So it is uncertain whether that provision would be effective to control use for commercial purposes. Again the broadness of amendments allowing access and the lack of specific controls on the use of commercial purposes are a concern for New Zealand First. There was a need we think for section 286A(1)(e) to be further tightened up in the ways that I have mentioned.  
I would like to turn now to the new provisions relating to biofuels. Again New Zealand First supports the amendments especially to section 74(2)(c) which exempts home production of biofuels and biofuel blends from licensing requirements if for personal use if not for sale and if manufactured on land on which the manufacturer’s house is located. The amendment also exempts home-produced biofuels from excise duty which we also think is appropriate and consistent with exemptions for home-produced tobacco and alcohol.  
However I do have a concern about the amendment to section 2 relating to the definition of biofuel. This refers to fuel production from biomass but there is no definition of biomass. So there is a risk that fossil fuels could be included as a fuel produced from biomass thus beating the meaning of the Act in relation to exemptions for biofuels. The dictionaries of are no assistance on the term “biomass”. They refer to biomasses as “organic matter that can be converted into fuel”. So that could let fossil fuels in we think. However if we look a little bit wider for example at Wikipedia it says: “Biofuel is a type of fuel whose energy is derived from biological carbon fixation. Biofuels include fuels derived from biomass conversion as well as solid biomass liquid fuels and various biogases. Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient carbon fixation they are not considered biofuels by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been ‘out’ of the carbon cycle for a very long time.” So for that reason I think the definition as it is will just survive and be workable. However it would have been preferable to see a better definition in the bill. With those reservations New Zealand First will support the bill as it is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Chariman— 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I hate to interrupt my colleague Mr Mallard—it is not my style—but I seek leave to table a letter received in my office on 14 February dated 4 January sent to the Minister for Primary Industries claiming that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is enough. I will put the leave. Leave is sought for the tabling of that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] You know the rules. Leave was put; leave was refused. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am just flabbergasted by the lack of cooperation from the Government which is looking for cooperation from the Opposition. I would like to ask the Minister of Customs a few questions around the regulation-making powers that sit within the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Bill. I ask him whether he makes them himself whether there is a requirement to take them to Cabinet and whether he had any discretion in this matter. Are they the sorts of regulations where he just rubber-stamps the recommendations of the department? If that is the point then there is no point in having the Minister involved in making the regulations because we know with this Minister—in recent years at least—that there has been no sign of a mind of his own. There is no sign of his being able to make an independent decision to take the interests of the country to heart and to do what is important for the country. I just want the Minister to get on his hind feet at some stage and indicate to the House whether in fact these powers give him any discretion or not or whether he is just a lapdog and a puppet of the department that is concerned. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member in question raised a point of order when I referred to Geppetto some years ago. I do not think it is appropriate to call anyone a lapdog or a puppet in the Chamber. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I think that in that particular case we were talking more about the family of Pinocchio and calling someone a liar. I am certainly not calling the Minister a liar. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is just sort of inside the scope of what is acceptable—just. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As my kind colleague the Attorney-General’s cousin has pointed out there is a question about whether he could make independent decisions or whether he has to have the intellectual giant Jonathan Coleman assist him in making this sort of decision as to whether to make recommendations for this sort of regulation. Between them frankly I have more faith in Maurice Williamson. If he was going it alone I think—[ 
Interruption 
]—no I should not have more faith! He has no faith in himself. He agrees with the High Court. He agrees with the High Court. It has no faith in him either to make any sort of recommendation or any sort of decision according to the law.  
There are a couple of other points. I do want to acknowledge in this question of information sharing and computing generally that this Minister at least in the past—and I think Peter Dunne will remember; my colleague Annette King will probably remember; probably no one else in the Chamber will remember—was the Minister who stood up against Jim Bolger in opposing the INCIS. I want to ask whether the courage and style that he had then is something he is prepared to carry through and to tell John Key now. He was very good at that time at saying what could be done and what could not be done and I would be very interested to hear whether the courage that the member has shown in the past is continuing through to his contributions as part—[ 
Interruption 
]—no it is not. No it is not. He has been beaten up by the High Court. He shakes his head and he says: “I had a chance of convincing Jim Bolger—I failed—but I have no chance of convincing John Key what is the right thing to do as far as information and communications technology is concerned.”  
Turning to the more specific parts of the bill now I would like to ask the Minister what the difference is between a dog used for customs purposes and a customs dog. What is the difference between a dog used for customs purposes and a customs dog? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Poodle. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it is nothing to do with the pedigree. There is no doubt that if this Minister is involved it is a mongrel. We are being asked to change the law to change the term from a dog used by customs to a “Customs dog” and I want to know what the difference is. Why are we doing this? Why is it so important?  
I would also like to ask him to help explain to the Committee the interplay in clause 13 of the bill between new sections 128 and 128B when it goes to definitions of “materially incorrect” and the calculation of amount of penalty. I note that it appears that it refers to any error—any error or omission—in relation to the following matters. So if for example a full stop is left out of the overseas supplier’s identity if a tariff item number is one digit out if the zero or the decimal point is in the wrong place or if there is a currency conversion error that section catches it as being materially incorrect. As a result that means that there is an obligation under new section 128B around the calculation of the penalty. I accept that for the vast majority of these goods of course there are no tariffs and therefore there are unlikely to be any penalties under section 128B(3)(b) where there is a dollar amount. But notwithstanding that under section 128B(3)(a) there is a $200 penalty for any material error. Unfortunately “material error” is defined so widely that the misapplication of a full stop— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Really? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it actually says: “materially incorrect means—(a) for an entry under section 39 that the entry contains an error or omission in relation to any of the following matters:”. It does not mean that you got it completely wrong. It does not mean that you put something down that is false. That is where the error or omission is made knowingly—not that anyone would knowingly leave out a full stop; clearly that is caught under section 128B(3)(b)(iii). I do not think there is any suggestion of that but under paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) or under “materially incorrect” paragraph (a) it appears that “material” in the normal sense of actually making a difference and in particular where something is deliberate—although in this case of course there are errors that are “grossly careless” or “did not take reasonable care”. I think it is fair to say that missing out a full stop or a dot in an email address probably could come into the category of not taking reasonable care. I am not sure and I want to make sure that we are not catching here more than it is the intention of the Government and the Committee to catch.  
I think in summary I am seeking some assurances from the Minister around the width of the definition of “materially incorrect” and how that interplays with the penalty clauses. I would like him to make some comments about dogs and the effect of the change in the law here. Also I would like some sort of assurance from him that his previous good work in ensuring the integrity of the Government’s information and communications technology system will continue.  
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for allowing me to have a second contribution to this bill. I would just like to start this contribution with reference to Tim Macindoe the member for Hamilton West—Hamilton West? 
Hon Member 
: East I think. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Hamilton West. Heaven forbid he gets mixed up with the member for Hamilton East! Tim Macindoe said that there are many measures in this Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Bill that are logical and we on this side of the Chamber agree with it. That is why we are supporting this bill. We think that the move to share information between the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Customs Service is logical. We think it is logical that householders who produce their own biofuels get an exemption from any duty that they have to pay. We think it is good that we give more powers to customs officers at our borders to take action to remove people who are making a nuisance of themselves. We think that is logical.  
We obviously agree that there are a number of measures in this bill that are logical but what we do not agree is logical is that the Government at the moment is taking measures around the resourcing of a number of Government departments to make sure that very few of these measures will be able to be carried out efficiently and effectively. And if we are led to believe that the Government’s moves around the reduction of the Public Service go far beyond just using technology with the sharing of information where are we going to go now with our smartphones when we go through customs? We will just flash our smartphones through a scanner and then we will be going through. We can imagine the kind of trouble and what will happen to our reputation in terms of border security if we do head down that track. So we are very concerned about the illogical move of the Government and although we support these moves that are being debated today in this bill we do not support the Government’s move that will see many of the benefits of this bill not come to fruition.  
We do also welcome the increasing of the penalties that come in under this bill. We understand that it has been around 15 or 20 years since penalties under the two laws that this bill will amend have been looked at and the change of I think the minimum fine going from $50 to $200 is welcome. Also the maximum fine going from $10000 to $50000 is a welcome move too to make sure that those who have been trying to take more advantage of our laws over time are punished sufficiently under this new regime.  
Along with my colleague Trevor Mallard I did put a question to the Minister of Customs earlier on and I am hoping that he might be able to address it. It was around the cost of bringing in this information-sharing technology. It was around $75 million and that was the first price tag to introduce this technology. I think that in these times of austerity from the Government we would like to know an exact figure of what it might cost to bring in this technology at our borders especially when media reports at the time of the introduction of this bill were that the estimates went up to around $200 million. I can see that the officials and the Minister are shaking their heads so that would suggest that that is not necessarily the price tag for the introduction of the technology. But it would be nice to hear from the Minister in the chair exactly what it will cost to bring in this technology.  
Also Mr Mallard referred to the ability of the Minister to make regulations to expand some of the information sharing and what type of information that both the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Customs Service might be able to share. He made reference to the High Court decision today. We hope that in the future the judgment of the Minister might be a little bit sharper in terms of what he might be able to extend in this bill as to what he decided in the Crafar farm decision that he made along with an Associate Minister of Finance Jonathan Coleman.  
I do not want to be too negative about the bill though because we are supporting it. We do welcome the move from the Government to make sure that we can have more efficient and effective policing of our borders. It is a move that we can progress to because of the increased technology and the increased willingness of Kiwis and those who are coming to our nation to use their own technology to make sure that they can come in and out as freely as they can. So we do support this bill. There are some reservations around the cost which I hope the Minister in the chair may clarify because I think in this day and age when a lot of Kiwis are being told to— 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am sorry to cut off my colleague Kris Faafoi but I wanted to raise a couple of questions with the Minister of Customs. I am seeking some clarification. 
Firstly it seems to me that in principle I need to say that the purpose of the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—to improve information sharing between border agencies—is well supported but the devil will be in the detail and the implementation. So the fact that the bill refers to a review at 5 years and before 6 years is I think a positive thing. It is an important element of ensuring that the operational practice of implementing the intent of this bill has been achieved effectively. 
The questions that I have for the Minister that I am seeking clarification on relate to the level of discretion given to the chief executive. In particular I am looking at clause 22(2) of the bill. In my initial reading of that clause it seems to me that the chief executive is given quite a wide-ranging brief in terms of his or her ability to exercise discretion. On that matter if the Minister were inclined to take a question it would be this: is he comfortable with the level of discretion that the chief executive is able to exercise in relation to this bill and is he convinced that it is a matter that does not require review? It could be the simple fix that as the aspect of information sharing is to be reviewed at 5 years or 6 years the level of discretion exercised by the chief executive could be subject to that review also. 
If the Minister did take the opportunity to respond to that question the other part would be in relation to the setting of penalties and the rates. It is not clear to me whether the calculation of penalties is reasonable. I think it is a fair question. Obviously to say that the penalties have not been addressed over a period of time and need to be looked at—I do not dispute that. My question to the Minister is on what basis he determined that the penalties set were a reasonable amount and something that was justifiable. In reading section 128B in clause 13 and the amount of discretion implicit in it that the chief executive can exercise again my question to the Minister is whether he is comfortable with that. He may well in fact respond by saying that my reading of that section is entirely wrong and I accept that but it implies that again the chief executive has the ability to exercise discretion over the amount of penalty that could be attributed to offences under this particular provision. 
Can I also say in relation to the explanation about agencies other than border agencies having access to the information that is collected on the database that I understand that one of the submissions was given by Auckland International Airport and that it argued that it was important to have access to this information so that it could make some timetabling decisions around staffing at the airport. Although I have some sympathy for that argument my main concern if we are going to deal with the issue of border control is that this is primarily an issue of ensuring that those border agencies that are tasked with ensuring security at the border are the primary utilisers of the information. Although I have some sympathy for the airport’s position I do not think it is the type of agency external to border agencies that should have a huge amount of access to the information that is being collected in this particular database. If I understand the way in which this bill is constructed it is not intended that the airport company or for that matter cruise ship companies or services or duty-free services at cruise ship terminals would have an in-depth detailed amount of information from this system. But it is again worth asking the Minister whether as this matter is being reviewed it is the Minister’s intention that the primary responsibility and objective of the bill is focused on border agencies and not in large part on external agencies. We must be absolutely confident in this House when we pass laws to do with our border that our primary focus is on security at the border. 
So with that in mind I am hopeful that the Minister will take a call on those questions. I have been very specific so as not to waste the time of the Committee. It has been encouraging to see that the Justice and Electoral Committee spent some time going through this bill and making some useful amendments to ensure that it can pass with the support of Labour and other parties in the Committee. I encourage the Minister to take me up on my offer and respond to those questions. They are genuine ones that I consider are useful and may help with clarification—certainly in  
Hansard 
 and in the bill being read as intended by the Minister—to help in the interpretation and utilisation for the successful implementation of this particular bill. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I will answer just a couple of the questions that were raised either by the Hon Trevor Mallard or by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. Yes indeed I am confident that the chief executive’s discretion here is the right level for that to be exercised for these levels of penalty.  
I refer to Trevor Mallard’s concern that “materially incorrect” when filling out some of the forms may even relate to a full stop being in the wrong place. Can I tell the member that under section 128A “Imposition of penalty” in clause 13: “(1) The chief executive may issue a penalty notice to a person if the chief executive is satisfied that—(a) an entry of goods made by the person contains an error or omission;” so the chief executive is allowed to use his discretion. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The Minister of Customs Maurice Williamson is perhaps the only Minister I have known in the past 3 going on 4 years who has consistently brought good news to this House in his portfolio of customs. Unlike my colleague Trevor Mallard I will not be making the allegations he made about why but simply will note that we all generally agree about the importance of protecting our borders and he is now the beneficiary of credit for work that goes back a ways to the time of Minister Rick Barker and to the time of Minister Nanaia Mahuta. I just want to lay that on the table for people to note. 
The Minister will also know that when he first introduced this bill there were some serious concerns despite our general agreement on it. The first point was around the sharing of information and privacy. That still remains the concern for me despite the fact that we now have the Privacy Commissioner being able to review the goings-on in 5 years’ time. I suppose the question that still remains doubtful in my mind is the period from the start to 5 years out. What happens when information is inadvertently shared with those companies or whomever that we do not want to have this information made available to? What systems are in place is my question in terms of how we ensure that that information is safeguarded for the purposes that we seek to have it available for? I would not mind the Minister being able to sort of allay those concerns because I think those were concerns shared by many on the Justice and Electoral Committee which deliberated on this particular issue. 
To expand a little bit on that I will tell you a story about something that took place last month. I had an aunt who passed away in Melbourne just as my younger brother arrived here and used the gateway system. He then had to go back to Melbourne with us. On arriving in Melbourne I was able to use the gateway system. My brother attempted to use the gateway system in Australia but he could not go through. Anyway I went through thinking it would be a matter of minutes before I would see him again. We arrived at 10 o’clock in the morning; I did not see my brother for another 3 going on 4 hours. What had happened was that apparently his passport was not scanned by the gateway system on the other side for whatever reasons. He was told that the machine did not pick up the number from the passport. So for 3 almost 4 hours he was questioned by the authorities there. There was no other information available to them to enable them to determine whether his passport was legitimate. In fact they made the allegation that perhaps it was a forged passport. So the officials there had to call New Zealand.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You need to come back to the bill.  
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Well the point is in terms of what I said earlier about the sharing of information. This was very important information it was not available to the authorities there and for some reason or other it was considered that the information that the machinery should have had was in limbo and therefore we were detained for 4 hours my brother was alleged to be some sort of bad person and there were questions over whether that passport was legitimate or not. This was not his fault; this was the fault of the system. OK we paid by waiting around for 4 hours or so. The fear expressed by some in the industry and by other officials is what if this information ended up in the wrong hands. I think the example shared by some was that sensitive business information could get into the wrong hands. So that is one issue. 
The other issue that still is a matter of concern is the cost of the system that we are putting in. I think there have been some rough estimates of around $200 million maybe $400 million. Do we now have a correct figure? I would not mind the Minister being able to share that with the rest of us. 
I guess another concern also is that now we have added instant fines added other costs on the importers the fear is that those costs will simply be passed on to the consumers. Is that the reality for us? Do we expect increases in the costs of consumer items as a result of the change in the cost regime? I mean I think most people here in this Committee agree that yes if we are going to create jobs we have got to try to encourage and support business. That is one of the reasons why Labour has always supported reductions in the compliance costs of business but it seems that we are now going the other way by adding what some might say are unnecessary costs on importers with the threat by those importers that those costs will simply be passed on to the consumers. So I would not mind the Minister making some comments around those. 
Generally the rest of the amendments were minor. I do not know whether the Minister has answered Trevor Mallard’s questions about the dog. Did we ever find out what the difference is? The other point that I also make is in terms of secure customs areas and giving officials the power to use reasonable force. Have we determined what “reasonable force” is? The concern there is that officials are only humans. How do we prevent officials who are tired who might be upset from overdoing what may be “reasonable force” on unsuspecting travellers who might through no fault of their own end up in space that is considered to be customs space? I mean I would have thought that to prevent that you would have some clear big signs to ensure that people do not trespass into those particular areas. So those are really the concerns. 
 I was not part of the select committee so I do not know what updates have been made. I am generally asking the Minister whether he would mind sharing whether there are any changes to that. My biggest concern I have with this particular system is whether we are going to lose any jobs at the front line. Will we lose jobs by combining the systems for the collection and sharing of information? That is my contribution to what I do not consider to be very sexy legislation. I would have thought that this time would be better spent debating some of the issues that were raised in the maiden speeches by the Green Party earlier today and by my colleagues late yesterday. Speeches on closing the gap in terms of inequality would have been better than for us to be looking at border control which is an issue that we all agree we need to look after. I will finish off there. I am hopeful that the Minister will take the time to respond to some of the questions that I have raised. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a brief call on the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is one of a number of bills. It seems to have been a bit of a theme for the last week or two that we are dealing with a number of bills that relate to better information-sharing between Government agencies and departments.  
I think that generally speaking that is something to be encouraged although one of the concerns I have had in the House this past week in dealing with a number of bills that relate to this topic is that I have not really got a sense from the Minister of Customs’ contributions that the Government has an overall plan and approach to information sharing. It seems to be being dealt with on very much an ad hoc basis rather than with a wider whole-of-Government approach to better information-sharing which was something that the Prime Minister talked about just a few days ago.  
I think that if we are going to be dealing with this issue of better information-sharing between Government departments—and it is coming up and recurring in a number of different areas—we need to get a sense of what the Government’s overall objective is here. There are a whole range of considerations: there are privacy considerations and there are considerations around whether Government departments should be using information that they have collected for one purpose for another purpose. I think the Parliament as a whole should be considering the wider principles behind these sorts of information-sharing arrangements rather than just dealing with them on an ad hoc one-by-one basis.  
I do have a few questions with regard to the specific bill itself. I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee but primarily the first point that I want to talk about is around the cost of these measures. I understand that industry sources estimate that it could cost up to $200 million and that some of this cost will be recovered through the use of an import transaction fee which would apply to goods over $400 but may apply to packages valued at less than $400 and I wonder how that will be enforced and how that will be tracked. This is an issue that has been raised with me by people in my own electorate around monetary values of imported goods particularly where they are imported using the postal system and how we actually keep track of that. People can import goods above a threshold by dividing them up into smaller packages and importing them in a series of smaller packages. How is that traced? And will this information sharing that this bill is intending to put in place stop that from happening? There are wider implications from that than simply those of a customs nature.  
There are taxation implications. To give an example I have got a model crafts and hobbies retailer in my electorate who imports models—model aeroplanes for example—which the retailer is taxed on. Yet if somebody goes online and buys parts of these models one bit at a time and imports them they may get them all arriving at the same time but if they get them all in different packages they avoid paying tax. So the retailer who provides the comprehensive service and imports the whole lot all at once gets taxed on it whereas somebody who uses online technology to import it—[ 
Interruption 
] I am getting to the point—does not. My question is: will the information sharing that is proposed in this bill have any impact on that? As I say the implications are much wider than merely what would seem to be suggested by this bill. The import transaction fee that I referred to I understand will apply to items such as jewellery clothing and electrical appliances so potentially would it apply in the instance that I have just mentioned of somebody importing models and those types of craft items? That is something that it would be useful to get clarification from the Minister on.  
Overall the bill is a good one and I understand from colleagues who have been on the select committee that it was well examined by the select committee. The chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee is Chester Borrows and this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate him in the Chamber on his elevation—a well-deserved promotion and long overdue in fact. It would be fair to say that in the short time that I have been in the House Chester Borrows is probably the best select committee chairperson that I have encountered notwithstanding the excellent chairmanship of David Parker of the Government Administration Committee— 
Charles Chauvel 
: How did you find your experience on Regulations Review? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Oh and the Regulations Review Committee as well. It is very easy to forget. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This has been taken as one question by leave rather than in three parts. The understanding when that happens is that if there is ever going to be leave for it again we are not going to be cut off by a closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have listened to the member. That is not a point of order. If the member disagrees with the closure he should vote against it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to invite the senior Government whip to withdraw that motion in the interests of getting leave in the future to take parts together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member can make that request. It is not a point of order and that is the sort of discussion that should not be made as a point of order but in direct dialogue with the member concerned. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 stand part. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like those put separately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well the member will have to seek leave if that is what the member wants. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We do actually have some separate questions. We have an agreement to a debate. We do not have an agreement to have them put together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I put leave at the start that the debates be taken as one and the questions as one. On the previous bill that was held in Committee leave was sought to separate the questions. Unless there is leave put and agreed to— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to have the questions taken separately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to have the questions taken separately. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Leave is opposed.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 1 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 119 Noes 1. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move that Supplementary Order Paper— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have reached the time when you must report. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No. On a closure motion one completes the voting. I call Maurice Williamson. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we have completed the voting on the question that you put to the Committee. This is a separate motion now being moved. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It has been the convention of this House that all matters dealing with the conclusion of the bill that is being progressed are progressed at that voting. So I will ask the Minister— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chairperson obtain the Speaker’s ruling on whether a motion to divide the bill was covered by the closure motion. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee has voted that you be recalled to determine whether or not the ruling that I made was in fact the correct one. The Committee was debating the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I put a closure motion to the Committee on the debate. The closure motion was accepted. The vote on the clauses the parts and the schedules was agreed to. I then proceeded to call the Minister to put the motion to divide the bill and the question was raised whether or not that was covered in the closure motion. I ruled that it was. There was a question about that and you have been asked to determine whether in fact that is the case. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think the Chairman has summarised it absolutely clearly. It is a very simple question and that is when a closure motion has been called for and passed on the preliminary clauses and the parts of the bill—voted on; that has been completed—obviously the Committee moves immediately as its next item to the Minister moving a motion. We had at that stage passed the time for the reporting and therefore it is my submission that that is a motion for the next sitting day. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. I am going to seek some advice on this. My understanding is that it has been agreed by leave that the bill be taken as one question. With that in mind when the vote starts it is also to be— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I interrupt? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Sorry the Chairman made it absolutely clear to the Committee that what had been agreed was that the parts and the preliminary clauses would be taken as one question and the votes on those would be taken as one question. He stated that clearly to the Committee as part of an earlier discussion. He did not include in his summary any further motion by the Minister. I also want to make it absolutely clear that in the motion for leave that the Committee agreed to the Minister’s motion which could have been included in that leave and probably would have been accepted was not included in what the Committee agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. I will just reiterate what I said to start with and that was that it was agreed by leave that all parts and clauses would be taken as one question—we agreed on that—and the vote was put on that. The question that arises is when the Minister then had to divide the bill. At that stage if I am hearing what you are saying you think that is outside the ambit of the original intention—that is as you see it. Well the convention has always been that when you have a bill that needs to be divided it immediately follows the vote—it immediately follows the vote. That was as I understand it from the Chairperson exactly what happened. So if we were to take this in sequence the vote was put the Minister immediately then came forward and moved the motion about dividing the bill and that is the proper thing to do as that is the sequence it follows. The question that then arises however is once that is done it actually could be regarded as a debatable motion and I think that is the area with a question mark at this stage. I am just going to seek some further advice.  
The convention is and I will just reiterate the point that I have made that immediately following the vote where a dividing of the bill were to follow it is a debatable motion as I mentioned earlier on. Although that has been a convention by concluding the debate now it actually stops members from participating in a further debate. So my ruling is that we have to move back into Committee and the Chairperson must report progress. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill with amendment and progress on the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.