"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220a1f00cb62154f10ad442d8a016dcfd3\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 23 MAY 2017\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002221ae90b85859412cb452ccf8779106a1\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 23 MAY 2017\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000002\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000004\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c2c47441b75b482485292f6bf9ba6989\u0022\u003EMotions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a7ed078bd35e47ccbd401272ce864684\u0022\u003EManchester\u2014Attack\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022e85a8813907c4888970c621f90e4e407\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e85a8813907c4888970c621f90e4e407\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to move without notice a motion regarding the tragic attack in Manchester today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227b534ce23a04d5c85e2a71e157c7166\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280c1994f12ce40c9af63131f385e746b\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS\u003C/span\u003E: I move, That this House send its condolences to the people of Manchester and the United Kingdom for the horrible attack today leading to, thus far known, 19 deaths and 59 injured.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00229e43d96994f340ac8ea331a954e0fc3c\u0022\u003EOral Questions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022dcfe4dfff60e4286b024d4b6c639b2d3\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002284a5c227d6f64a1284a70a252c037e40\u0022\u003EEconomy\u2014Consumer Confidence and Growth\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022 data-id=\u0022c977ef280d374ee8af40402c8d1cd332\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c977ef280d374ee8af40402c8d1cd332\u0022\u003EKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy, ahead of Thursday\u2019s Budget announcement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022da0d8197a5d74d6a9838f50b242da777\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022da0d8197a5d74d6a9838f50b242da777\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Last week the latest ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence index came out. It rose 2.2 points to 123.9 in May. It shows that consumers are now more confident in their personal financial positions than at any time since the global financial crisis. This matches the upbeat mood of New Zealand businesses, with a net 38 percent of firms in the ANZ Business Outlook reporting that they expect better times ahead. Both these positive readings are a testament to a strong economic plan, which is delivering confidence and growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e563358eacb54f2e90ec74a48a400f7b\u0022\u003EKanwaljit Singh Bakshi\u003C/span\u003E: What factors underpin this rise in consumer sentiment?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261c31bc10e944659b53e48a18773e2ba\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: There are a number of factors underpinning the positive outlook, including strong job growth and falling unemployment. According to the most recent household labour force survey, the employment rate in New Zealand is at a record high of 67.1 percent while the unemployment rate is at 4.9 percent. At the same time, New Zealand households expect inflation and house prices to remain subdued.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234342a5b016f44a0a838d06e26df7bb0\u0022\u003EKanwaljit Singh Bakshi\u003C/span\u003E: How does the Government plan to ensure economic growth continues?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270c6c018178b4928ba974cc726e354e6\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: One of the Government\u2019s main priorities is to maintain its strong economic plan to keep the economy growing. We continue to deliver on this with responsible fiscal and economic management, including a series of microeconomic reforms. Budget 2017 will be a further step in that direction. The Government has already announced significant investments\u2014for example, in tourism infrastructure, R \u0026amp; D grants to encourage business innovation, and, in the creative industries, through the screen grants programme. It is only by having a strong economy that we have the opportunity to invest in other areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4e9bcfc0f64464fab24c1f29eb73f56\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Since the Minister of Finance places such great store on the Roy Morgan poll, can he confirm that the only seriously trusted politician in that poll in this House is yours truly?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fcdfcd0e7c5d4bafa6ecc0a9a20e2609\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I think there is very marginal ministerial responsibility, but I will let the Minister have a go.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a363ab149f564cf898595f8eb7336f4c\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: With the greatest respect to the member, I suggest that the words \u201CWinston Peters\u201D and \u201Ctrusted politician\u201D are a contradiction in terms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226dc89bbf-c2ef-45c9-89e4-d2b5952d8d16\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b4e792189c141eeaa427e5d4dcf0bde\u0022\u003EKanwaljit Singh Bakshi\u003C/span\u003E: How important are international trade links to New Zealand\u2019s economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a95c213273e4427f904401c01517383f\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: As a small, open country, we must trade our way in the world. Securing trade agreements with other nations is vital to keeping the door open so New Zealand businesses can trade with larger markets. That is why it is very encouraging to see 11 countries, including Japan, remain very committed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. This is a high quality set of rules that will increase market access for our exporters across the Asia-Pacific region, with positive flow-ons for our wider economy. Trade is an important part of the Government\u2019s economic plan.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a997dd88c72444a7933c81d41d299e0f\u0022\u003EHousing, Auckland\u2014Crown Building Project\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022 data-id=\u002298218b694e624172ba5c68c17bc3dae2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002298218b694e624172ba5c68c17bc3dae2\u0022\u003EANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Did the Minister for Social Housing consult with him before announcing a housing plan without being able to say how many of the houses will be affordable?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00229393059d374145e1a9535f39446d407e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229393059d374145e1a9535f39446d407e\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I was consulted over announcing the Crown building project to replace 8,300 houses in Auckland with 34,000 new purpose-built houses over 10 years\u2014a detailed plan that will be executed, unlike the Labour Party\u2019s policy of 100,000 houses, for which it has now discovered it has no land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022baafa21ad6374b998efa510076424394\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Can he confirm that the population of Auckland is growing at over 40,000 a year now and he is promising just 400 affordable houses a year under his plan\u2014one new affordable house for every 100 new Aucklanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257633478a91b4e77b5e49ef5cc4ede82\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: The key to affordability of housing in Auckland is simply more houses getting built and more houses on the ground. And the other key is the new Auckland Unitary Plan, which now actually does mean the council will be able to consent lower value houses, because under the old plans it simply could not happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e320f9c5122a45a8bdc9cef82f7d9a14\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Does he now agree that there is a housing crisis or does he agree with his Minister Alfred Ngaro that it is just manufactured by the media?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d534bd5ed26c4a9a9f6a28f33ef074ff\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I know that one of the blockages to getting more houses built in Auckland right now\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9478ca85f7240d181c8c83ceabd45dd\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s the Salvation Army, isn\u2019t it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286f801bb341442d9899de285cf3dcc35\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: No, no, it is the Labour Party, because today it is going to vote against the Point England Development Enabling Bill, which would enable thousands more houses to be built, and it continues to oppose the Three Kings development, which would allow\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f21768d83f9b4692bbbb3930e515e8a7\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection, from one member particularly on the front bench on my left, is simply too loud.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d443812bb8dc4d71b62813b2aa5082ab\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Does he think young people could afford houses if they just cut down on smashed avocado and coffee?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210f4424f6e594cdb9670e3e274c5266c\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I think it would be more likely they could afford houses if the Labour Party stopped opposing the actual building of houses in Auckland. [Interruption] Well, the Labour Party has held up the Three Kings development for 3 years, and today will vote against the Point England Development Enabling Bill, which is a key to the T\u0101maki development, where up to 8,000 houses will be built.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277d9dd7ed4bb415c90b1723de243ebc6\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: Putting aside his realisation, after 9 years of Government, that there is actually a housing crisis and given his answers today, and Minister Adams\u2019 bungling last week, is it any wonder John Armstrong says that his Government is lurching from \u201Cchaotic to shambolic\u201D on housing while Labour has a \u201Cclear and coherent package of interlocking policies, \u2026\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b68ffdee8ac04e77b9200f14bd9cc6d7\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Much as I respect John Armstrong, I disagree with him and the member may not be surprised to know that. But I will tell you what is chaotic and shambolic. It is promising to build 100,000 houses and then realising you do not have the land to build them on, it is promising to build 100,000 houses with no money, and it is promising to build 100,000 houses but opposing the actual building of actual houses in Point England and in the Three Kings development, where the Labour Party is the main obstacle to thousands of houses being built. So everything else it says is inconsistent with its actual behaviour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022106966ef-8cc3-434a-9dbe-dd76b708c2a1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290fc37c21b914ffc9b00885ea2441e3e\u0022\u003EAndrew Little\u003C/span\u003E: If he wants a housing policy that will actually work, why does he not just take Labour\u2019s housing plan? He could lose himself in it, and they will not even sue him for copyright.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0d2202f523c451ca74e63309140ca4d\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: For the reason that the policy has no credibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d1e44c0c09d4a73b1954de1626f5d99\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Unlike building houses on farms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3695f12190141a89479a9630c9d53c4\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Promising to build houses and then realising you have no land, a fairly vital component, and no money, another vital component, would not be so bad except that when people are genuinely trying to build thousands of houses in Auckland, in Point England, and the Three Kings, the Labour Party is leading the opposition to those two large-scale developments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022799e684488d2486d9ee53edcf303e4da\u0022\u003EAuditor-General\u2019s Appointment\u2014Joanne Harrison Case\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u002211fae75e02024c3a931a7ffb7ebfaa87\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211fae75e02024c3a931a7ffb7ebfaa87\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00225dbd96f1f58d41d78217863ebe0b423c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225dbd96f1f58d41d78217863ebe0b423c\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes; because, unlike the member, I believe what I say because what I say is believable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295a25565178f478187c8e9c7c3a9ade7\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: If that is the case, if on 17 May he said that he was not familiar with all the details of the Joanne Harrison case, and that it had been dealt with satisfactorily, which showed the system was able to pick up problems, why, for so long, did the system miss every malpractice, fraud, and warning sign after warning sign in the Joanne Harrison case?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc60fe4c345e47bcb03f3958b7b7893a\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: If any new information comes to light, of course that should be looked at by the State Services Commission, but I understand these matters were canvassed in a process\u2014it is nothing to do with the Government\u2014and that is the process of appointing the Auditor-General, where the MPs\u2019 committee, on which that member was represented if he was not present, was briefed by the Serious Fraud Office, in full, about all these matters. The member may know more about it than I do, for that reason.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022583c81872a9049868582d1f0f40f3763\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Amongst other things as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226de5497d20ff4f61b6a89fc89e7a50bb\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! We will just have the supplementary question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249d1df458cb24fc4abde369cceafa01d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that is OK, but he was being a smart alec when he replied.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298f463a14a084272918d5e61b6ba7f45\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The member will resume his seat. I will give him a chance to just stand and ask the supplementary question without that sort of introduction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd95500bcc014295aff252e6746e35c9\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: What sort of circus was his Government running when the man in question was the head of the Ministry of Transport (MOT) when a now convicted fraudster, guilty of workplace harassment and three honest civil servants losing their jobs, was nevertheless appointed to investigate another department for\u2014of all things\u2014a workplace harassment case? What sort of circus is that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2a44a0c119c4bae8b1907b18a495f2c\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I do not know anything about those allegations. What I do know is that part of this process was that a civil servant with a positive reputation was found to be engaging in fraudulent activity. My understanding is that\u2014and the member could correct me on it\u2014in the process of the appointment of the Auditor-General all parties of Parliament were briefed by the Serious Fraud Office about those circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d65775f952c444579c7067bdad45293b\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table the front page of an 89-page report entitled \u201CInvestigation report for the Department of Conservation concerning workplace harassment complaint\u201D dated March 2016, co-authored by Joanne Harrison, general manager of organisational development and shared services for the Ministry of Transport, and a legal firm partner we have redacted to protect their identity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f01a105373ee4fcf9994df9c465978f5\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that particular report? Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022445fe5dc3ffa49c3b3cfeef2d300465e\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Prime Minister defending Auditor-General Matthews given that in 2014 Mr Matthews was aware that the Victoria Police fraud unit was investigating Joanne Harrison, yet Mr Matthews, despite that serious warning sign, gave her a clearance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229feec13f2c2644198d5fc6128370e46d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f010b199212a4e1b92f99fc1dfebcb93\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: That is a fair point, because the Auditor-General is the servant of Parliament, not the Government. That has always been the case because the role of the Auditor-General is to independently scrutinise the activities of the executive. Whatever issues the member has raised have been either raised or dealt with, or should have been, in the process that Parliament followed in appointing the Auditor-General. It would be quite inappropriate for the Government to take a position over that process, because it is a parliamentary process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6ea42f8b0ec4770957b293b538afb94\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: How could a parliamentary committee make a decision when it was not given information\u2014for example, as to why when Joanne Harrison was defrauding the taxpayer and dismissing honest Ministry of Transport staff right under Mr Matthews\u2019 nose, he showed absolutely no competence whatsoever to know what was going on and, instead, gave her a total acquittal at the time\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263494685581b4c4e839b0159bfd67b12\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! There is no prime ministerial responsibility for that committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fcf03bff9704bb68185f3af545b0913\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: If the Serious Fraud Office was working with Mr Matthews on a plan to discover Joanne Harrison\u2019s criminal behaviour\u2014which is what the Government is saying\u2014how, then, does he explain Mr Matthews approving Harrison to conduct an investigation at the Department of Conservation well after it was brought to his attention that she was suspected of serious fraud?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227d80f678d9a465b82f802328d2ce1d1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Again, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility, the right honourable Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9de13712c834099bcd6c095cbd61c29\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: As I think I have already pointed out, the Government has no role in oversight of the parliamentary process of dealing with those matters as part of the appointment of the Auditor-General. That is purely the property of Parliament. It is not accountable to the Government for that, and nor is the Government accountable to the Parliament for what the Parliament does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b12e6b10d836402887aeaa50a403757c\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Rt Hon Winston Peters\u2019 question there was asking the Prime Minister to defend the actions of the gentleman concerned when he was a departmental official and employed another departmental official. It was not a question about his competence as Auditor-General or that appointment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a0382950fa344309afa8ca2de3004ae\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I listened very carefully to the question and I listened very carefully to the answer, and the question, on this occasion, has been addressed by the Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b888609cd9a43caa9ae63527a005427\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Is it being said here by him that the Minister of Transport and no other Minister owed any obligation to Parliament in the sense that they were never informed that the MOT had document after document showing appalling lackadaisical financial controls and processes at the MOT when you were the Minister, when Mr Matthews was in charge alongside you? [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acffcad68b494f0d8920cdb9ed4749e3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! We will have the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a987f3494524cac8691449319c5f786\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I would expect that as part of the process of initiating a Serious Fraud Office investigation, which is a pretty serious matter for any Government department\u2014I cannot recall actually, off the top of my head, other occasions when it has happened\u2014that the Minister of the time would have been fully informed. As for any new or different issues that have not been raised before, then the State Services Commissioner, particularly in defending fairness for public servants, ought to look into those matters if they are new.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225152f63080ae4d32b5a30de586be6c15\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister saying that his Government takes no responsibility whatsoever for an appalling chapter of maladministration under the head of the Ministry of Transport, which even saw him not acting when there was a complaint of inferior materials being put into seven railway bridges? Does he take no responsibility at all for anything?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c94c71c079c043d195b7df21398838cb\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I am not sure about the last allegation the member has made there, but of course the Government is responsible for the proper operation of government, the Government machine, and the Public Service, and this Government has set a lot of store by paying a great deal of attention to it. When people behave in a criminal manner it is entirely appropriate that those matters are dealt with by the appropriate authorities and that is, in this case, the Serious Fraud Office, and there was a successful prosecution for what was criminal activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a5d83feece44e88b71827793c14214c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: In addition, I seek to table three photographs of inferior products going into railway bridges built under this Government\u2019s administration, which may well be a great danger to the New Zealand public travelling by rail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022981b56c6226d4adca0878243d77f2f57\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table those three photographs, which may be of interest to members. Is there any objection to them being tabled? Yes, there is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a7ddc1dc78214459a38d62deff70b557\u0022\u003ECarbon Emissions\u2014Financial Implications\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022 data-id=\u00227090b91c23d24d4b9a7d406ee9e6ee0d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227090b91c23d24d4b9a7d406ee9e6ee0d\u0022\u003EJAMES SHAW (Co-Leader\u2014Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that \u201Ceach generation bears its own burdens\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022f888519e3e0148c498c8bca3904135e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f888519e3e0148c498c8bca3904135e0\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I do, and I quite like the ring of that statement. But I stand by my full statement, which was in reference to raising the superannuation age: \u201CEach generation bears its own burdens. Any number of 60-year-olds can tell you how devastating it was to have 18 percent inflation when they were trying to save a dollar back in the early 80s.\u201D People can argue for a shorter or longer transition. I am sure that discussion will go on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208144b6094ac46379e6717007d507ef3\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Can he confirm that between 2021 and 2030 New Zealanders will be faced with a $14.2 billion liability to pay other countries to reduce their climate pollution so that we do not have to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b76e684cc4ea4d21a2582b16250f03f0\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Firstly, no, I cannot confirm that, and I do not think anyone can. There is a range of estimates for the cost of changing the climate. Bear in mind that whatever that estimate says, that is what it represents\u2014a cost of changing the climate. As the member will well know, because his party helped initiate it, the emissions trading system is a mechanism by which we find the least costly way of changing the climate, so we are likely to see some purchase of carbon credits\u2014perhaps offshore\u2014as well as mitigation occurring in New Zealand, as is happening now because people pay the carbon price right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a459e3415b4744f3b8aa2078534e761d\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Well, why then did the National Government allow climate pollution to rise 19 percent under its watch, during which period of time the emissions trading scheme has been in place, when it knew that it would cost future generations billions of dollars to offset that pollution?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225df7e3b864384316aafe78c566a91379\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: First, I do not accept the member\u2019s assertions, but, secondly, he seems to forget the history of his own party when it was kind of partially in Government in the early 2000s. When faced with the choices\u2014the policy choices\u2014the Green Party was a strong advocate of the emissions trading system, and rightly so. It is the best mechanism for ensuring that we face the cost of climate change and that those costs occur in the most efficient manner across our community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246682088be9d48ed9b25578528d506e5\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept that plans to open new coalmines on the West Coast and drill for more deep-sea oil and gas will increase climate pollution and, therefore, the financial liability faced by future generations to offset that pollution? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccfefa2b9d4c400ba8e979b3ed7005d3\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: No. The point of the emissions trading system is that if the oil or gas pays the price and the consumer has to pay more for it, then that will encourage and incentivise the development of non-fossil fuels. But if those technologies do not exist yet or they are still too expensive, then the use of the fossil fuels is still the right outcome for now, and I thought the member would understand that, because his party was a strong advocate of the emissions trading system, which is based on price, not rules. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e19608fb9774c8eafb593ef54bccd7e\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Well, does he agree with his Government\u2019s officials that paying other countries billions of dollars to offset New Zealand\u2019s pollution represents \u201Ca significant transfer of wealth overseas\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fcc01b810c774959a6ace5e7a54df2a3\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: No, I do not necessarily agree with officials about that, because they need to keep sight of the purpose of the emissions trading system\u2014which has enjoyed multiparty parliamentary support now for well over 10 years\u2014which tells us that if you pay the price for carbon, that helps us find the most efficient means of changing the climate. If buying credits from others is the most efficient way of doing it, then that is what people will do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227c215736-b512-41de-8f0c-6c5543fcfce7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e0a5fea86c14275b44c64a383d313f1\u0022\u003EJames Shaw\u003C/span\u003E: Does he think that it is better to pay other countries $14 billion to stop polluting so that we do not have to, or to invest $14 billion to create a low-emission, high-value economy right here in New Zealand? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b39e8127c98b48aca4e2dc0e9e448326\u0022\u003ERt Hon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I think the member is now simply misusing the number. I mean, it is an estimate, for a start. Secondly, it is not about whatever billion dollars being paid overseas; it is actually the economic cost of changing the climate, and the Greens need to accept there is an economic cost\u2014it does not come free. If it turns out to be $14 billion, that is quite a bit, and let us hope that it is shared fairly and efficiently across the economy. But it is simply wrong to use that number as a description of the amount of money that would be paid overseas for credits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bdd8c64572444b07ae3889673065f26d\u0022\u003ETourism\u2014Infrastructure Investment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00229884e8e8-651f-4f48-a429-70b72d5e2821\u0022 data-id=\u0022102b94000bdf4dd298c5d55066e38fe1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229884e8e8-651f-4f48-a429-70b72d5e2821\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022102b94000bdf4dd298c5d55066e38fe1\u0022\u003ESARAH DOWIE (National\u2014Invercargill)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about increased support for tourism infrastructure?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022 data-id=\u0022811eacc34ae644ee9f231f5a2d033862\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022811eacc34ae644ee9f231f5a2d033862\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism):\u003C/span\u003E As part of Budget 2017, the Minister of Conservation and I have announced a $178 million tourism infrastructure package. It is a lot. The package includes a new $100 million tourism infrastructure fund that will help councils with low ratepayer bases and high numbers of tourists to cope with and benefit from increasing numbers of tourists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229884e8e8-651f-4f48-a429-70b72d5e2821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b54357a3d2134ef68d9dd3f9c6e409ba\u0022\u003ESarah Dowie\u003C/span\u003E: What kinds of projects will be funded?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c43ed66cee494c92a65e91296f600e7e\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: Last year, through our $3 million mid-size facilities fund, we were able to fund 14 projects around the country. This new $100 million fund will mean, of course, that we can do a lot more\u2014funding upwards of over 40 projects per year. We will be looking to co-fund infrastructure with local councils such as toilets, car parks, and camping facilities, but we are also prepared to consider projects like visitor information centres and feasibility studies for infrastructure projects on a case by case basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229884e8e8-651f-4f48-a429-70b72d5e2821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233b8f83f213f4275a25615eb9f4e14f1\u0022\u003ESarah Dowie\u003C/span\u003E: Why is it so important to support the tourism industry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6c579440dd44e1c8eac1ff5b4ae67d5\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: When there are nearly 300,000 jobs that benefit from tourism, and when international visitors spent more than $10 billion in New Zealand just last year alone\u2014and recent forecasts show that we are on track for more visitors coming, creating more jobs not just in our main centres but also in our regions\u2014we think it is vital that we have the infrastructure to support this growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002250ed09d74bce4e2393d07cfeda18b3a7\u0022\u003EKris Faafoi\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree with Tourism Export Council New Zealand chief executive Lesley Immink, who called the Government\u2019s announcement \u201Cunderwhelming\u201D and said that the Government talks \u201Cabout having a commitment but I\u2019m not sure I\u2019m seeing any evidence of it\u201D; if so, will she take a tip from the Labour Party and introduce a levy on international visitors to better support the tourism industry?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a383fd9b335e4250bf2dd5fcbf0bc7b1\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: I was surprised that Lesley Immink was still there, because she had resigned to be a candidate for a parliamentary\u2014blah-blah; what was it? For a political party. She had actually left to go and meet with a political party, so I am not surprised that she was not keen on my announcement. But we are really, really focused on supporting tourism infrastructure. It is going to make a huge difference in the vicinities that we need, and that is it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002203108b682f6e4f8a9b55956e3f6b3df3\u0022\u003EBudget 2017\u2014Government Performance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u00225953b22742854ac899d009c2c7be956a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225953b22742854ac899d009c2c7be956a\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the Government doesn\u2019t do that good a job with people who have really serious needs, and needs to address New Zealand\u2019s \u201Clong-running social problems\u201D; if so, can he confirm that his Government has been in power for nearly 9 years and will shortly put forward its ninth Budget?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022dce9f66684ef4354a04c0acdf344f822\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dce9f66684ef4354a04c0acdf344f822\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I stand by the Prime Minister\u2019s statement that Government agencies struggle with people with really complex needs. They have done so for decades, and that is because these are very difficult and complex needs. However, the good news for the member is that we are making good progress on a huge number of social issues. For example, the proportion of the population relying on a main benefit is now down to 9.6 percent, which is the lowest it has been in a March quarter since 1997. It is great. I think it is a tribute to Minister Tolley. However, there are some people with really serious needs. That is why we are developing the social investment approach, which is tackling those needs in a new way, and $321 million has been allocated in this Budget to help those people with those issues. To the second part of the member\u2019s question, I do congratulate Mr Robertson. It is indeed the ninth Budget\u2014well done\u2014and, indeed, National\u2019s ninth year in Government. His arithmetic is improving. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c29445d612643d7a07e53d8e52f0739\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: After 9 years, and with the lowest homeownership level in 60 years, what credibility does he think his Government has on housing, when the best this Budget will do is create 2,000 more affordable homes in Auckland when tens of thousands are needed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224a5c00bf10f4cf8bedc2904b7ed358b\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: I am glad the member raises that, because the former Government, which was under the Labour Party, was responsible\u2014[Interruption]; no, listen, because you will learn something\u2014for a long-term decline in the building of new houses in Auckland that started in 2003 and went all the way through to 2010. Since that time it has been growing strongly under this Government. So if the member wants to worry about housing\u2014and I think he should\u2014he should look squarely in the mirror.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226424e7297344e05a3601166bb2e5a22\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker\u2014coming back to this decade.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac01fe10b91443d1afac236a747ad447\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Supplementary question\u2014Grant Robertson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a40b480a0bb74a99bb6e1f4d36809634\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: After 9 years, will he and his Government take some responsibility for the more than 40,000 children admitted to hospital every year with preventable diseases caused by the cold damp housing that they live in, which his Government has done nothing to fix?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022080a72ee069944b78c4f8af496205d44\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: One of the difficulties Mr Robertson has with getting any cut-through is that his lines bear no relationship to facts. This Government has invested so strongly\u2014so strongly\u2014in insulation for houses. This Government has passed a new law requiring rental houses to be insulated, and this Government has had a public service target that has reduced the number of children being hospitalised for these exact diseases. That is the trouble with Mr Robertson\u2019s lines, and why he gets no cut-through\u2014he makes them up with no relevance to reality. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022444ff99145754aeba51c35872274bc14\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I need less interjection across the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022335501068ef84e3b96bc21d222c15b53\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: After 9 years in Government, will this Budget finally give schools the operational funding they need, or will it be a continuation of the per-pupil cuts that have seen parents asked for more and more money from their pockets to fund the basics in schools?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022678cc28022d14799aa7596bfa50d2bf4\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: This Government has invested more and more in education. It has developed a whole new programme to support our best teachers to be teaching instead of administrating, as they used to under the previous Government. This Government is investing more every year in education. When the Budget happens on Thursday the member will find out exactly what we plan to do in education for the next year and, with the will of the people, for the following 3 years after that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257ebd4e4aa3c442a945992b1d6212dd2\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: After 9 years does he not realise that it is his Government that is not doing a good job and not dealing with social problems, and why does he not just get out of the way and let a Labour team take over and start sorting out the job of the shortfalls, deficits, and half-baked schemes that he has come up with?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e34169719974726b3f726273b96eb33\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: I tried to make an obtuse reference to empty rhetoric before, but there we have empty rhetoric demonstrated for the House. This is a member who not only refuses to offer any questions that are in relation to the facts but also has absolutely no policy to stand on in this House. Here we are, less than 4 months from an election, and on all these social issues the Labour Party has nothing new to say\u2014so 9 years in; absolutely nothing to say.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253d209e286254175a4f495e7c1f7af81\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave of the House to table Labour\u2019s detailed policy in the areas of housing, health, education, police, jobs\u2014[Interruption] Well, he wanted them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ff97bd7fc5284ab3a20fd7c28b291867\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! That information is available to members if they want to see it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022400e115f33354a7085e1e600d6c73805\u0022\u003EState and Social Housing, Auckland\u2014Crown Building Project\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5d3657a8fee4e19a9cae52179753806\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5d3657a8fee4e19a9cae52179753806\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Social Housing: How is the Government utilising its residential land holdings in Auckland to support its social housing needs?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022 data-id=\u0022caaf5cbafdee4461995005ae35161383\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022caaf5cbafdee4461995005ae35161383\u0022\u003EHon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing):\u003C/span\u003E Last week I announced the Government\u2019s extensive Crown building project, which will see the less than 5 percent of Auckland\u2019s available residential land that is owned by the Government redeveloped to remove 8,300 run-down, old social houses and replace them with 34,000 new homes over the next 10 years. The project will see 13,500 new warm, dry, fit-for-purpose social houses and 20,600 market houses delivered across the city, at least 20 percent and up to 50 percent of which will be affordable in terms of the KiwiSaver HomeStart cap. This project is the equivalent of building 3\u00BD new houses on every single street in Auckland. The vast majority of these new homes will be delivered through Housing New Zealand\u2019s Auckland housing project.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b05442813714388b34019647a1e628d\u0022\u003EAndrew Bayly\u003C/span\u003E: What are the costs of the Auckland housing programme, and how will this be funded?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265f07509e38c4813a9c4bbf31dfc72b2\u0022\u003EHon AMY ADAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Our housing programme is fully costed, and we know that the first phase of the Auckland housing programme will cost $2.23 billion over 4 years before becoming self-funding through the sale of affordable and market houses. Of course, we already have the land for our programmes. Housing New Zealand will retain dividends and proceeds from State house transfers to help fund the programme, as well as taking on a $1.1 billion private debt facility. The project has been 2 years in development to ensure that our plans are realistic, in terms of both the efficient maximisation\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a96ab0c76dc4f529bf71b5f54ae9de7\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The level of interjection from some relatively senior members in the Labour Party is unacceptable. The Minister has been asked a question; the House deserves to be able to hear the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e19cd2123304febb47a60d09599e7a3\u0022\u003EHon AMY ADAMS\u003C/span\u003E: The project has been 2 years in development to ensure our plans are realistic in terms of the efficient maximisation of the capacity of the land that the Government owns, construction sector capacity, good urban design, and the real cost of building.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fe88a04c8274c56862da1f537bf5f01\u0022\u003EAndrew Bayly\u003C/span\u003E: What will the impact be of the Crown building project for social housing tenants?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221eaef8f8a07d40ae9cbc6d296a35377d\u0022\u003EHon AMY ADAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Our first priority will be ensuring that we have suitable housing for our existing tenants whose properties are being redeveloped to move into. Our whole housing stock across Auckland is old and tired. The average age of the Housing New Zealand Auckland portfolio is 40 years old, and these redevelopments will provide warm, dry, modern housing for 13,500 families who are in need of social housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022165ed6b26f074d3f98068df87a57c08d\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Does the list of landholdings that the Government is boasting will solve the housing crisis, which it created, include any substations, roundabouts, or cemeteries, as it did two Budgets ago when that Minister promised 500 hectares of Crown land and 10,000 houses, none of which have been built in the last 2 years? [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d2bbe69d09448979d94236a3142b7e8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! [Interruption] Order! I now want the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228987abfb2e33468297f757cc5d836523\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Let Nick answer. Go on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fedada37dcea409f94974610db095c03\u0022\u003EHon AMY ADAMS\u003C/span\u003E: Ask Nick, then. The benefit of the Government\u2019s programme is that we have done the work to identify the land, to ensure we have costed the land, to ensure we know the cost of building the houses, and to make sure that the programme is effective across the construction sector. And, unlike the Labour Party, we know where the houses are going. We know the cost of building the houses. We have not dreamt up a number. We know the sites they are on, we own the sites they are on, and this is a Government that has the ability to deliver them. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ffd543382d84ada81bee5a73a66a4be\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is to all members, including the Rt Hon Winston Peters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225939d3b8adc24201b095d3b0ef0cc888\u0022\u003ETeachers\u2014Supply\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00220e41218799fd4665ba8e0c3e2384e348\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e41218799fd4665ba8e0c3e2384e348\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: How many additional teachers will be trained each year, as part of her announcement last week that $5.2 million would be spent on addressing shortages of staff in hard-to-staff core subjects?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022 data-id=\u00226ca1d102dfde43bd8c6f9c7aa2d1afd9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ca1d102dfde43bd8c6f9c7aa2d1afd9\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E The $5.2 million I announced last week was focused on 90 teachers, 45 per year, in either subjects or locations where it is hard to staff. That will vary each year. I also announced a mentoring programme that covers 700 provisionally registered teachers, of which a number will be focused on hard-to-staff areas. Additionally, we announced the lifting of the moratorium in terms of initial teacher provider training. I am confident that these measures combined, plus some measures introduced last year, will result in hundreds more quality certified teachers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f9d8c553fa442699f4ff9e4eab5a573\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does she seriously think that 45 additional teachers a year will address the fact that over 45 percent of secondary teachers are over the age of 50, and that the Secondary Teacher Supply Working Group estimates that an additional 2,200 secondary teachers are required each year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c8dd8b9153c401398efaa0d46ba650e\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: He should have listened to my last answer. It is not about just Teach First NZ. It is also about the mentoring scheme that we announced, which is $2 million and 700 teachers, of which there will be teachers in hard-to-staff core subjects\u2014plus, we have announced the lifting of the moratorium. It is not just about Teach First NZ. With regard to the 2,200 figure, the member has been in the portfolio a long time. He does not understand the numbers. He keeps repeating incorrect figures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4064c0ea4dd4dbdb8dcd777679f8af6\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If she does not think that the Secondary Teacher Supply Working Group is recommending an extra 2,200 teachers per year, how many does she think are going to be required?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e02577d1002648a68994777604cb4a0b\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: The latest advice that I have had, for instance\u2014and if we look at what we are actually talking about, which is STEM, Te Reo, and geographical areas where there are shortages\u2014when you look at the total 8,000 vacancies, take 2,700, approximately, which are in STEM. I am advised that potentially less than 10 percent are actually new teachers required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022514dfe93f3e84e1fafe392201cbd4b4a\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister disputed a particular number that I have used. I asked her what her number was, and she has not given a number in her answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6ac60e3ad034fbab2d31cad150ecc10\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I will invite the member to repeat his question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228549861acc914411a4c4f3a537207a67\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister does not think that the Secondary Teacher Supply Working Group estimated that an additional 2,200 extra secondary teachers are required each year, how many does she think are required?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dcfad73de1247e1b2d45a50b6d22666\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: I just did give a number\u2014I did give a number\u2014in terms of the overall vacancies. I talked about the fact that when we look at the overall vacancies and we actually look at the additional teachers that are required, it is less than 10 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239bb335793fb415e8b640b8a0b49572b\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That could be 10 percent of anything. The Minister has disputed the number\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022913496b7caec4a73a83b18612a1e17e9\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We have had the question twice; I am not responsible for the answer. I will allow the member an additional supplementary question to move forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0a14cc05b2d4817af60cef64485608e\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Is she concerned that the proportion of secondary teachers over 60 years of age has increased from 10 percent in 2005 to 21 percent in 2015, which is more than double the proportion of teachers under the age of 30; if so, why does her Government not have an answer to that burgeoning crisis in teacher supply?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221692b46cc36c4280a20eaf8a36bdee51\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There are two supplementary questions; the Minister can address either one or both.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a36c0d1f8e840be80c3a537e58dbfcf\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, we are concerned, in terms of the ageing workforce, but we do have an answer. We have several answers, and that is what we are doing. We have announced several measures in terms of teacher supply: lifting the moratorium to enable greater innovation in terms of initial teacher providers, and announcing a new mentoring scheme to enable more teachers to go from provisional to full registration. The other point I would make to the member is that under this Government\u2014and he might want to look at the figures\u2014the number of registered practising teachers has increased from 90,000 to 100,000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bf5ba59800b47af9a8497292227e537\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree with Northland College principal Jim Luders, who says that \u201CEvery single Teach First candidate we\u2019ve had has just been outstanding, they are so thorough, so hard-working and so resilient, it\u2019s unbelievable. Our kids get major benefit from them \u2026 This is the best thing for kids in low decile [schools] and this system works.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bf511f48747467db9f47df33aa30102\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I do, and as someone who has visited Northland College and had to fix the $14 million build for that school, I can tell you that I am very proud of this Government having invested $5 billion in fixing leaky, cold schools left by that Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226772f1a6573340f4a2477e222fe00665\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why has the Government announced an additional $5.2 million for the Teach First NZ programme, given that the programme\u2019s founding partner, Auckland University, has withdrawn from the programme; that the Dean of the Auckland University School of Education has concerns about expanding it, and has said that that was one of the reasons why they pulled out; and that there is no guarantee that the new provider is going to be approved before this programme is supposed to be delivered?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002237e5698744334f1da16d32d5182c4a34\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, there are several reasons why we have announced funding for this. The first is that there has been a range of evaluations that have shown how successful this programme is. The second thing is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc9e56ee780b4b80a7c3b4862f88da7f\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: And they pulled out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022639f3299a7744a4697bc10d04798ac9d\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: No, the second thing is that those evaluations show we are getting teachers in those hard-to-staff areas. This is not a question of the overall number of teachers; this is about science and technology and Te Reo teachers in hard-to-staff areas like Northland\u2014getting teachers where they need it\u2014and this programme is delivering. With regard to the provider, it is a serious issue and we are working through a process. I understand there is someone who has come forward, and we will work through that process. I am very confident that we will enable 90 new teachers in areas that are hard to staff to go through the Teach First NZ programme, and that will be great.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022598a8136ad2547ada6656c90e69391d7\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Does she think that it is appropriate for a Minister of Education to, effectively, instruct that these students are going to go through this programme, which has not yet been approved?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c43ddab9819743e4a91ce5ae06e4eaa2\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: That is not what I have said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e2253f559cb498599c6992a27467cf0\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s what she just said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2df4f83801a4cec9fcf5eabaf82bc0f\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: No, it is not what I have said. I have said that there are issues in terms of the current provider. There is a process that is under way. There are a range of parts to that process that have to be considered. What I am saying is that I am very confident. I think that we will\u2014whether it is that provider or another provider\u2014enable Teach First NZ to continue, but there is a process, and it is not a question that I am instructing that process; I am just saying that the money has been put aside and I am confident we will get through that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd20c986b1564b068f3615c35cde8d2e\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Did the Secondary Teacher Supply Working Group find that of the 2,200 additional secondary teachers that would be required, 1,400 of those were likely to be, or would necessarily be, new teachers to the profession; if so, why should parents have confidence that the Government will be able to deliver that number required when the number of domestic graduates from secondary education programmes has declined from over a thousand in 2012 to just 760 in 2015\u2014roughly half the number required?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f8958825ccc400a9646c3d35d5d8b37\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: I would have to check his figures from that report, but what I can tell the member is why we have confidence in terms of the overall numbers. As I said before, in the last 8\u00BD years we have gone from 90,000 to 100,000 teachers who are registered with practising certificates. The overall numbers are reasonably good; the issue that we have\u2014and there is an issue, in terms of a slight decrease each year, but the overall numbers are reasonably good for a large workforce of this size\u2014is in certain areas we have shortages. That is why we made the announcements this week, and that is why they are going to be very good for New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221256579dc02c4ea2a7236efbbf123368\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6 to Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022 data-id=\u002219eb1331d9e04c4a93dc9ba8fcd45dc7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219eb1331d9e04c4a93dc9ba8fcd45dc7\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You ruled earlier, in response to a previous point of order, that Mr Robertson could not table Labour Party policy because it was widely and freely available. Since that time, I have been searching for it on the internet and on the Labour Party website, and unfortunately it does not appear to be available. I am wondering whether you could give him the opportunity to table it again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u00225231079a5730423e89a53bf7a99baedd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225231079a5730423e89a53bf7a99baedd\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order, but Mr Robertson\u2014[Interruption]\u2014no, no. I will allow Mr Robertson to speak to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u00229b56f684009f4af690d2d22552c654f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229b56f684009f4af690d2d22552c654f5\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E I will speak very slowly: www.labour.org.nz/announced_policies. You will find it there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002247811f8adf2e4060955e1bbc3998637e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247811f8adf2e4060955e1bbc3998637e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I need no further help. It just goes to prove that my original ruling was indeed the correct one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002278091078550c4abcaff2918439414d58\u0022\u003ERoading, Taranaki\u2014State Highway 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00226bf1c9f43f3949c5b29a1d0cbcf0e637\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226bf1c9f43f3949c5b29a1d0cbcf0e637\u0022\u003EBARBARA KURIGER (National\u2014Taranaki - King Country):\u003C/span\u003E My question is to the Minister of Transport and asks: what roading projects is the\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022fccd9c404176413ca22a531c3e1aa432\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fccd9c404176413ca22a531c3e1aa432\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I apologise to the member. I am going to ask her to start the question again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u00220e668890b25241d5ae032e751ae09717\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e668890b25241d5ae032e751ae09717\u0022\u003EBARBARA KURIGER (National\u2014Taranaki - King Country)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Transport: What roading projects is the Government delivering in Taranaki to support the region\u2019s growth?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022 data-id=\u00222cea5b5528a3487fa0212b9a94e7115c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222cea5b5528a3487fa0212b9a94e7115c\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E It was my pleasure last week to start the construction of the $135 million Awakino Gorge to Mount Messenger programme of State highway projects. State Highway 3 between Mount Messenger and the Awakino Gorge in Taranaki is a key freight link with the Waikato and, indeed, the wider upper North Island, but it has become increasingly unsafe and prone to unpredictable travel times and periodic closures. That is why the Government is investing so much to build a bypass of Mount Messenger and another bypass of the Awakino Gorge tunnel, as well as a series of safety improvements along this very important stretch of highway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d75ca32b5cca488d817433b907e766ef\u0022\u003EJonathan Young\u003C/span\u003E: How will the improvements being made to State Highway 3 in Taranaki benefit the region and support its economic growth?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225adc9bd583a24817b13d7c9c1319867d\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES\u003C/span\u003E: Supporting Taranaki\u2019s growth is a top priority for the Government. That is why we are investing in the two bypasses and a series of safety improvements on Taranaki\u2019s State Highway 3 to better connect the region with the Waikato and the whole upper North Island. When completed, there will be travel-time savings for motorists and freight companies, and the new road will see fewer deaths and serious injuries from crashes. Following the recent replacement of the Normanby Overbridge, these most recent projects are further evidence of how this Government is delivering quality roading infrastructure in Taranaki to support the region\u2019s growth.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222fb4ba511a1140849f76aa2746a57dba\u0022\u003ECommunity and Voluntary Sector, Minister\u2014Statements about Ministerial Funding Decisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5147839f68a4ca3955b24011509d3a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5147839f68a4ca3955b24011509d3a8\u0022\u003EPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour\u2014Christchurch East)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector Did he have any particular organisations in mind when he stated, \u201CDo not play politics with us. If you get up on the hustings and start bagging us, then all the things you are doing are off the table. They will not happen.\u201D; if so, which organisations was he thinking of?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022 data-id=\u0022aca748e4933d4d8eaf92b187eb6956a6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aca748e4933d4d8eaf92b187eb6956a6\u0022\u003EHon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector):\u003C/span\u003E My comments were wrong. It is not the way this Government works, and I have apologised for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022876abedca0bd4b0281cffd31703e8fc9\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a primary question on notice. While the Minister may regret his comments, he is still accountable for them and still needs to answer the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244f7f8377fe447e49a2fe231e7f51885\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I agree with that. The\u2014[Interruption] Order! No, I do not think the question has been addressed. It is very easily addressed. I think the question needs addressing. It is one the Minister has had for the last 2\u00BD or 3 hours. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b24c519f03184ee08dea78a55d3823ff\u0022\u003EHon ALFRED NGARO\u003C/span\u003E: I have apologised to the organisations that I named in my comments. They were wrong. It is not the way this Government works and I have apologised for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ff905380ac44e878ad896307362bfb2\u0022\u003EPoto Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Does he agree with the finding of the recent ComVoices state of the sector report: \u201CThis is a difficult time for the entire social sector \u2026 Partly this is due to social service providers not wanting to \u2018rock the boat\u2019 and jeopardise their chances of securing future finding.\u201D; if not, in what ways does he disagree with that finding?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ab91e069e8147dc92f8212790f8968b\u0022\u003EHon ALFRED NGARO\u003C/span\u003E: I have not read those comments, but what I can say is that as the Minister I have been working and engaging with a number of the community groups, having free and frank conversations, wanting to know that we can make a difference to New Zealanders in our communities every day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220ecb506524348a2b807d14f83368209\u0022\u003EPoto Williams\u003C/span\u003E: When he stated: \u201COn the one hand, we are working together and on the other hand too. If people are criticising, we just need to be mindful of that type of relationship.\u201D, what in particular did he believe that people needed to be mindful of?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ee656785c9e40d0a4423410fbe130b6\u0022\u003EHon ALFRED NGARO\u003C/span\u003E: Part of working in the community means that others will have different points of view and we may disagree, and that is appropriate. However, we are all working towards the same goal of helping people in our communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b3b0a6ea69145da8a928deb7a6a1319\u0022\u003EPoto Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Why did he say what he said?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b83fecab963341c881e233d5f8e3b78f\u0022\u003EHon ALFRED NGARO\u003C/span\u003E: My comments were wrong. They are not the way this Government is working, and I apologise for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1a9c6333963403e8cc0b708b80774fa\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister may, as I have indicated earlier, regret what he said but he did say them and he, therefore, should be able to answer questions on them. The question was why he said it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d133c33ac585423d929fdaeef2f500ca\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I agreed with that in the first case, when it was a primary question put down on notice. As for the supplementary question, on this occasion, when I consider what was asked in the question and the Minister\u2019s attempt to address it, I think he has addressed that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce26fbbcbc6844f69effb96a9bd67e3f\u0022\u003EPoto Williams\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the Minister say sorry to the Prime Minister but not apologise to the community and voluntary sector?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022752221450f0c421d829c7589a422c465\u0022\u003EHon ALFRED NGARO\u003C/span\u003E: I have made apologies to those whom I spoke about. I have also spoken to a number inside the community as well. What I have to say to the member is that I have been humbled by the spirit of generosity that has been given to me, because most people have said that this has been out of character. I have worked very hard over a number of years with those communities as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228609460429e44ec198f544d468b869ad\u0022\u003EKiwiRail\u2014Diesel Train Purchase\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022a171a2ef874e4ac2a3a7925304378210\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a171a2ef874e4ac2a3a7925304378210\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Question No. 11\u2014Julie Anne Genter. [Interruption] Order! I have asked the member to cooperate, I think, two or three times now. If the member is going to refuse to cooperate, unfortunately I will have to ask her to leave the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022 data-id=\u002286337ba40c704f99b5fac2e90cdaca3f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286337ba40c704f99b5fac2e90cdaca3f\u0022\u003EJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Transport: Is he confident that all transport investment decisions by his Government are best value for money, reliability, and reducing climate pollution?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022 data-id=\u00221377caf1c801469aa88f4eb95e63db49\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221377caf1c801469aa88f4eb95e63db49\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, in the context that they were made. Investment decisions need to balance many factors such as value for money, reliability, the environment, and resilience. I am confident that the transport investment decisions made by this Government represent an appropriate balance of those factors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213b86c22278f450ab08e2746e54bad06\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: Will he order an immediate independent review of KiwiRail\u2019s decision to purchase new diesel trains in light of a leaked report stating that refurbishing the existing electric trains would be $230 million cheaper and that diesels purchased, to date, have extremely poor performance and have a high failure rate?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223de3f6c4ffeb41cf92f1f63590fa3f73\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES\u003C/span\u003E: As much as the member says there, that is simply incorrect. No, I will not be ordering a review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc9cbb27c326442485e72145ee25b691\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table an independent review by WorleyParsons provided to KiwiRail, which has not been made publicly available and which raises serious concerns about the cost and reliability of diesel train replacements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225de3d9d532d24e0dab5f9c31d2a174f2\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that particular review paper. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022204476d877e14e7e87b02e59f82241e7\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister seriously not concerned that an independent review concluded that KiwiRail\u2019s advice to its board was \u201Cbiased\u201D towards the diesel train option?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9f12940ca67444c81ea85ea255dfbff\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES\u003C/span\u003E: No, because the report she is talking about is now out of date. It has been superseded by much better information inputs. I think what that shows, actually, is that KiwiRail took a very long time to come to this difficult decision. It has balanced the factors, as I have said, and I am not revisiting its decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ace06beaa36494f8d183a6be14ffcb6\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: If that report has indeed been superseded by better information, why did he and his Cabinet colleagues receive a Treasury briefing the day before this decision was made public that said: \u201CTreasury officials were not confident that the actual cost of the decision is clear in the material provided.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291daf6f428dc4d379f497f2afcaa16cd\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES\u003C/span\u003E: Because we often receive briefings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ab7ee26be57438e965c9ea25b8ddf98\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was pretty specific, and it was\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d5dff4b018c44b6a8fb6441ceb2b45c\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: On this occasion, I will invite the member to go back and look at the question. When she looks at the question, she will see that it has been addressed by the Minister. Sharpen up the supplementary questions. [Interruption] Order! I have dealt with that matter. If the member has a further supplementary question, we will hear it; otherwise, we are moving on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280307bf9eb0f40f386b8adc3b024eff5\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a Treasury briefing to Ministers, obtained under the Official Information Act, showing that Treasury raised concerns a day before the decision was made public, that the cost of the decision\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdd28e00027e4ecba6032ee5a1fbaab6\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! We do not need anything further. Leave is sought to table that particular Treasury briefing. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002258f935f1-6646-40ab-9d99-17029396850c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dfa3026096fd44b6bcdc844bf62689c8\u0022\u003EJulie Anne Genter\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister is so confident, can he provide any evidence to counter the conclusions of these independent and internal reports showing that new diesel trains will cost more and are less reliable than electric ones?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280f027f2fcf6495fa8372e55b5b84c65\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I can. Ultimately, there have been many reports, but they all culminated, across about 2 years, in a business case. In short, the business case made it quite clear that the status quo was more cost effective\u2014actually, much more cost effective\u2014that the change would have been hugely disruptive to the KiwiRail business and its customers, resulting in loss of customers quite probably, and that, actually, the status quo, in terms of not seeing that freight go on to the roads, has resulted in fewer emissions than would have been the case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f69465b0dc2548a7925db5a2e03bc331\u0022\u003ETeachers\u2014Supply and Quality\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022656487fe-e0a2-485c-8dc2-fe61b9aec128\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0c88128824248b492f4ca6b18641a4c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022656487fe-e0a2-485c-8dc2-fe61b9aec128\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0c88128824248b492f4ca6b18641a4c\u0022\u003EDr JIAN YANG (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made to address teacher supply?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8d9ee2fe35f4b6fb4f47b3dfcc9e5eb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8d9ee2fe35f4b6fb4f47b3dfcc9e5eb\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education):\u003C/span\u003E As I referred to in my previous answer, last week I announced that Budget 2017 will commit $5.2 million of funding over the next 4 years to expand the innovative teacher training programme Teach First NZ. There will, of course, be a process to work through. However, Teach First NZ graduates have proved hugely influential on the students they teach during their training, making a real difference to young people. It was great to personally receive feedback from Onehunga High School. The funding will provide two further cohorts of 45 participants each, starting in 2018. The emphasis continues to be on science, technology, and maths, and graduates will be trained to teach in schools with a high proportion of M\u0101ori and Pasifika students and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022656487fe-e0a2-485c-8dc2-fe61b9aec128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215253e149e644d92897b159ad348e74c\u0022\u003EDr Jian Yang\u003C/span\u003E: What other measures is the Government taking to address teacher supply and quality?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218a476bcc21743ab8e5e6fa0d1d2c152\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in my previous answer, the number of registered teachers with practising certificates has gone from 90,000 to 100,000, but this Government is doing more. This Government is also committing $2 million to the Education Council to create an induction and mentoring programme for eligible provisionally certified teachers, to convert up to 700 teachers to gain full registration. There will, of course, be a focus on hard-to-staff areas, including core subjects and geographical locations. The new mentoring programme follows recommendations made by the joint working group on secondary teacher supply in its 2016 report. Having listened to principals, the Education Council, and those on the front line of recruitment, we are working hard to support more teachers to stay in the profession, as well as encourage more high calibre graduates. This is a Government that is investing heavily in education. We have gone from $8 billion to $11 billion. We are investing more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a243949095aa46dc98edc10148cf6108\u0022\u003EUrgent Debates Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227dbd865ee9a845edaa8ec24fbdf084e8\u0022\u003ECommunity and Voluntary Sector, Minister\u2014Investigation into Ministerial Funding Decisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u0022b860219b9aeb4686a473fff4f99088fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b860219b9aeb4686a473fff4f99088fc\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision by the Prime Minister to order an investigation of the Hon Alfred Ngaro\u2019s funding decisions as Minister. The decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The big hurdle to get over in applications for urgent debates is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House ought to be set aside. The test is a high one. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change for the matter to take precedence over other business. While the announcement of an inquiry may warrant an urgent debate, the circumstances must be exceptional. In this instance, the investigation found that the Minister had not been involved in any funding decisions. On that basis, I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the business of the House for an urgent debate on the decision to order the investigation can be justified. The application is, therefore, declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228cf3988dfcf3448ea5d017c20ce62e9e\u0022\u003ETrade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002269b023adadb44170a665d7c62cba7ba5\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022 data-id=\u00227808834566f944e692a3fb236e140267\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022163d0b68-eb0e-4094-9bed-99e184f063e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227808834566f944e692a3fb236e140267\u0022\u003EJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave for the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill to be debated as one debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00229206a6d84b044e52a4ef3d32c7dc2b48\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229206a6d84b044e52a4ef3d32c7dc2b48\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022484453bbf29547898082c0d16ee19d05\u0022\u003EParts 1 and 2, schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d2d5b5958b3843718bb104b00d17870f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d2d5b5958b3843718bb104b00d17870f\u0022\u003EDr DAVID CLARK (Labour\u2014Dunedin North):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak to this bill. We will be opposing this bill on this side of the Chamber, because it undermines a level playing field in international trade, something that we believe is incredibly important. We do not believe that New Zealand businesses should be put at risk through this kind of interference by the Minister\u2014that is what this bill introduces the potential for in our market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EThis bill creates the opportunity for the responsible Minister to decide that goods can be dumped in New Zealand at below-market value, either because they have been subsidised in their production and they have been produced more cheaply than they really cost to produce or because a surplus has been created and a country is trying to dump goods on another market to clear a backlog. For those reasons, occasionally countries do look and say: \u201CIt\u2019s in our interests.\u201D We saw it with the Canterbury earthquakes. We saw this House put business aside to say that in this circumstance\u2014and it is exceptional\u2014we will allow dumped goods to come into New Zealand, because there is a shortfall and an immediate need. We saw then and there that the Parliament has the ability, when it matters, to put aside those normal operations in order to take account of exceptional circumstances.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EThere is no need for this bill. Unfortunately, we saw, when we came to the Commerce Committee, that there was no justification offered beyond that. This is a bill designed to give the Minister extraordinary powers to decide when products can flood in and undermine a competitive market place in New Zealand. We stand against that on this side of the Chamber, because we believe in the value of New Zealand businesses and New Zealand exports. Unfortunately, under this Government, its track record shows that it does not. It talks about getting to 40 percent of GDP as exports, but it is now down below 30 percent and it is going backwards, and Mr Joyce knows it. He has seen, under his watch, the exports as a percentage of the economy decline further and further, and the projections say that it is going to decline further and further over time. This Government has failed to grow our export industries. Here we have another measure designed to undermine our exporters, and it is pushing it through the Parliament. I think it has come under pressure. It has come under pressure from industry groups, and I think it has made the wrong decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EWe asked officials how they were going to introduce this public interest test, what priorities they were going to put into the different factors they were going to consider, and how they would weight those factors. Unfortunately, they were not able to give us a convincing answer. They said: \u201CWe will consider eight factors prices, and they are a focus on prices, product choice and availability, product and service quality, the financial viability of the domestic industry, employment levels, and competition in the market.\u201D We said: \u201CThose are things that you might want to look at, but how will you weight them? Which ones are the most important? How will you judge which industries are going to be put under pressure? How will you judge what is enough product availability and choice in the market? How will you judge what constitutes quality when a good coming in may not measure up to the New Zealand things?\u201D. They had no answers for us, sadly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EI think they had been sold a pup by the Minister. They were told \u201CWe want this to happen. Please make something up, officials. Please make us look good.\u201D, and, unfortunately, it just was not possible in the circumstance. This introduces uncertainty for exporters, because they do not know how that test is going to be applied. Officials were not able to tell us, and business after business after business came before the select committee and said: \u201CThis uncertainty creates a risk for us. This creates cost in our business, because we have to account for that uncertainty when we\u2019re making our investment decisions.\u201D More than one business told us that when it is trying to make investment in a new capital plant it may have to look to Australia instead. Australia has twice looked at similar legislation to this, and has twice resoundingly rejected it, because it put their domestic producers at risk\u2014at risk of uncertainty created by ministerial whim. It put this to one side and said: \u201CWe will have nothing to do with it.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003ECatherine Beard represented that view on behalf of Business New Zealand. She said: \u201CWe don\u2019t abide by this.\u201D Business New Zealand stood against this. This undermines our domestic producers, and that is often what we heard. We heard from many of the big players in New Zealand\u2014they are able to represent their interests\u2014and they say this is bad. But what about the small players? What about the disruptors that are coming into the market\u2014the innovators in New Zealand? How are you going to measure what effect it is going to have on them when dumping comes in, if their business model is not even understood or known about? I can be confident that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will not be across every single innovator in the New Zealand market and will not have the ability to scan the whole market for who might be affected by products being dumped here against our will because a Minister says it is a good thing to do on that day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EThis also leaves us exposed in international fora. As a country, New Zealand argues that a level playing field is incredibly important in international trade. I have heard, in international fora, wise men argue for the benefits of a level playing field, where, if we reduce tariffs over time and if each country does what they are good at, we get higher-value produce, we have specialisation, and the world is better off through trade. I have heard wise people talk about this. Yet in this bill we have a suggestion that we should be doing something different: that when it suits us we should allow dumping, we should allow subsidised goods to flood the markets, and we should allow bigger countries that want to throw their muscle around to affect New Zealand domestic industries\u2014that we will have a level playing field when it suits us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EThis undermines our moral standpoint and this undermines the high moral ground that New Zealand takes in international trade negotiations and in international trade fora, where we espouse the benefits of a level playing field on trade. This actually undermines New Zealand and I think that point needs to be heard loud and clear, and the Government needs to answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EThe Minister in the chair, the Hon Jacqui Dean, needs to answer why it is that she thinks it will be in New Zealand\u2019s long-term interest to have a trade position that says we will pick and choose when we think tariffs and duties and so on are a good thing, when historically we have relied on the WH rules and the WHA procedures and have said that we think that having a level playing field is a good thing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EI look forward to hearing the Hon Jacqui Dean explain why she thinks we should now meddle in international markets and allow different practices at different times, because that is a big change in New Zealand\u2019s foreign policy that Jacqui Dean is putting forward to this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003ESo let us have a think about this. I think what we need is a fresh look at this. We need a fresh approach that just says \u201CLet\u2019s do the right thing. Let\u2019s not meddle. Let\u2019s not give a Minister that discretion. Let\u2019s not put the Minister in a place of risk and uncertainty when they are in international negotiations and our trading partners know that the Minister has that discretion to allow dumped goods into the country if there are non-tariff barrier disputes and so on.\u201D I am very much looking forward to how Ms Dean thinks that that will play out as Ministers get pressure put on them in those international trading negotiations, and how her new principle will take effect and how that will impact on our trade internationally, because that is a serious risk that is being introduced.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003ESo we need a fresh pair of eyes over this. A Labour Government would do this differently. A Labour Government would respect having a level playing field in trade rules and not allow Ministers to get in there and meddle and pick and choose, because we have seen under this Government how it has picked and chosen and picked winners and, with Mr Joyce\u2019s approach to economic development, how that is not succeeding, how exports as a proportion of the economy are dropping under Mr Joyce\u2019s watch, despite rhetoric to the contrary. We know the importance of business succeeding on the international stage and having those fair rules not introducing extra cost and risks of uncertainty. On this side of the Chamber we have respect for domestic manufacturers. We are not about supporting the speculators, as they are over there. We are about supporting the productive economy\u2014making sure that businesses that are taking risks are supported in taking those risks and not going to experience a Government that dumps on individual sectors when it picks and chooses because one is a favourite and one is not. We do not want to open up those kinds of risks and we do not think that this Parliament should be doing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225bbd9f26-fdb0-4b85-a836-0fc46e1bba3c\u0022\u003EWe heard from New Zealand Steel, we heard from Wattie\u2019s, we heard from Oji Fibre Solutions\u2014we heard from a range of big companies that expressed how badly this could play out for New Zealand and how investment could instead go to Australia into productive industries there because it has a more stable regime. It understands the importance of successful business across the Tasman and the importance of not undermining the set of rules that are in place and of not imposing extra costs on business in terms of legislative uncertainty, process uncertainty, unclear rules, and all that goes with that. I would urge the Government to listen to what we are saying on this side of the Chamber, to revisit things, or at least, in the case of the Hon Jacqui Dean, to explain how she thinks this new international position of picking and choosing is going to advantage New Zealand as it tries to take the moral high ground and encourage others to trade more with us and to play fairly on the international stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022 data-id=\u002236d9dad13f8d469d92c0c37c33413f89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002236d9dad13f8d469d92c0c37c33413f89\u0022\u003EBARRY COATES (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. T\u0113n\u0101 koe. Thank you for calling me on this bill, the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. We would like to talk to the \u201CGeneral provisions\u201D in Part 1 of the bill: \u201CThe purpose of this Act is to enable New Zealand to apply anti-dumping and countervailing duties \u2026\u201D. Actually, the purpose of this amendment is why the Government should not apply anti-dumping. We are deeply concerned over this bill and have expressed that concern in the select committee process. We are joint authors with Labour and New Zealand First in a minority opinion on this bill, which is reflected in the Commerce Committee\u2019s report.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EWe have some very fundamental questions about the purpose of this bill. Firstly, it is not quite clear what problem it is we are trying to solve here. If the problem is responding to the Christchurch earthquake, which appears to be the dominant rhetoric around the need for this bill, then, certainly, there are provisions already in existing legislation for emergency response for exactly that situation. We are not sure why these amendments are required more broadly to give the Government powers to deny New Zealand companies their rights of redress when foreign producers predate their markets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EThe second issue we have is: who wants this bill? We have heard, as Dr Clark said, from a number of submitters, including Business New Zealand, including the Manufacturers and Exporters Association, and including most of the business associations, which were\u2014how shall I put it\u2014puzzled as to why the Government would be putting this bill forward. We have, as Dr Clark said, seen that this bill would introduce a complexity with regard to our trans-Tasman trade. Australia has twice looked at this kind of test to introduce for anti-dumping and has twice\u2014after far more comprehensive analysis than we had available to us as a committee\u2014rejected it. This lack of coherence with Australia on the issue of anti-dumping will create problems for our manufacturers and exporters, and, what is more, will create some incentives for foreign companies to come and predate our markets, undercut local businesses, and, once they have driven them out of business, according to a national interest test of lower prices for consumers, then, of course, they are free to raise their prices again and use up that consumer surplus in order to generate monopoly profits in the New Zealand market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EWe think that, instead of a bill that would even the level playing field, what we have is a bill that further tilts the playing field in support of foreign companies, and that, actually, foreign companies are being given advantages through this bill, and these are foreign companies that often already have advantages\u2014for example, through not being forced to pay tax. If you are a multinational that can benefit from transfer pricing or if you are a company that sells goods online for under $400, then you do not have to pay GST\u2014a disadvantage to New Zealand companies of 15 percent. So we are adding insult to injury through the inability now of manufacturers to be able to understand whether or not they have protection from anti-dumping laws, and it is this aspect of uncertainty for a manufacturer that is one of the harshest aspects of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EThe companies that are facing unfair competition have an opportunity, first, to put in their application to the bill, and, as we see in the legislation, in 180 days they will get a preliminary opinion. But even if they won the case as to why they are being predated by anti-dumping rules, then there is a test applied, and that test applied means that they may not get redress even though they are clearly able to show that they are being predated. That is bad for their business, and, therefore, that is introducing an element of uncertainty into New Zealand business that I think is disadvantageous for what is left of our manufacturers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EThis bill is particularly harsh on small and medium sized enterprises (SME), and as we go through the clauses in this bill we see the difficulties that SMEs have in being able to negotiate procedures and timetables that are burdensome and disadvantageous to them. Not only is there a 180-day period, which for a small company is often a long enough period for them to be driven out of business, but then, with the introduction of this test, there is a further 90-day period to understand whether or not they will receive any redress. That compounds the problem for them. They are obliged to provide more information and, as small businesses, they are put at a great deal of disadvantage compared with their often far better funded overseas competitors. Again, this bill is tilting the playing field towards our foreign competitors and against the interests of New Zealand companies. Surely we want New Zealand companies to do well. That is why it is very hard to understand the rationale for this bill and the purposes of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EThe further problem here is a problem with the criteria in the test itself\u2014and we will come with specific recommendations and specific comments on the criteria that are to be applied under the national interest test\u2014but in the select committee we had officials who were quite open with us to say that it was extremely difficult to provide an objective and conclusive assessment of this national interest in ways that could be sure that the national interest outweighed the long-term damage that companies would face by being driven out of business by predatory pricing from their overseas competitors. There are deep failings in the proposed methodology, which is likely to result in the application of a standardised methodology. We heard of a methodology that would be applied by Treasury to estimate a consumer surplus that might apply in this case, and that methodology was tilted entirely in favour of the cheap importers that are dumping goods and ruining the prospects for New Zealand manufacturing companies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EThe factors in these tests are vague and subject to ministerial discretion, and that, for us, is a crucial point. Throughout this bill there is extensive discretion given to the Minister, which politicises this process in a way that is deeply worrying for the future of independent and objective decision-making on important issues like anti-dumping. The Minister, throughout this process of a national interest test, is given discretion at every stage of the process. We think that discretion is not sufficiently fettered by controls and objective criteria that will rein in the accountability of a Minister, and, once again, we will come with specific proposals during this debate to introduce some greater accountability for Ministers into this process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EFinally, I would say that we are concerned that this bill shows a neglect of the respect for, and understanding of, the difficulties faced by small business and producers in New Zealand. We have seen over the years manufacturers driven out time and time and time again by predatory foreign competition, and this bill will not only not stop that happening; this bill is a mechanism to facilitate it happening. It takes what was an anti-dumping bill and says \u201CMaybe it\u2019s an anti-dumping bill, but, actually, it might be a bill that would allow predatory pricing by foreign competitors.\u201D It completely changes the nature of the anti-dumping legislation in this country. We cannot, as the Green Party, support it. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0b8876d42fd4cf8a8dc2ba34d408025\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0b8876d42fd4cf8a8dc2ba34d408025\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E I do want to say at the outset of my contribution that the Labour Party, when this bill was introduced, was of a mind to support it. We support a robust and fair regime when it comes to the rules around anti-dumping and countervailing duties, and historically there has been widespread support pretty much across Parliament for measures that create that fair regime. That regime is about making sure that New Zealand producers and New Zealand businesses are not the victims of large-scale products coming into New Zealand and being sold for a price that is much lower than the price the product would be sold for in that country\u2019s domestic market\u2014that is, the classic form of dumping that people will be familiar with\u2014or, indeed, whether the product benefits from a big subsidy in the country where it is produced. There are World Trade Organization rules and then rules that have found their way into New Zealand law that create a robust and a fair environment, so a piece of legislation that made the claim that it was going to make that environment work better was one that we were interested in supporting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI was not on the Commerce Committee, but the consistent feedback our members were giving us when they came back was that, little by little, their concerns increased, in terms of the substance of the new public interest test\u2014which I am going to talk about in a moment\u2014but also because of the feedback from the business community. It is probably not a great surprise to members that Catherine Beard is somebody whom I do not always agree with when she puts out her statements and makes her comments on behalf of Business New Zealand and Export New Zealand, but we certainly agree with her here. Then we began to hear from companies like New Zealand Steel and Wattie\u2019s, which were saying that this has the potential to be very damaging for New Zealand companies. Of all the people, New Zealand Steel is the company that I think of here. I have to be a little careful with how I choose my words here, but there is the current situation we have got with accusations about Chinese steel being dumped in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EOne of the issues raised by submitters was about what this legislation would mean for how other countries would view New Zealand\u2019s anti-dumping regime. It reduces the certainty and the clarity of our regime, and puts in its place a subjective\u2014a highly subjective\u2014test that could be exploited. In the way in which these things work, a lot of it is around the signals that you send and the way that companies operate internationally with confidence, and that is what is being undermined here. This is not Opposition parties playing politics; this was a consistent theme of the submissions that came to the committee, and that is why Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens are jointly opposing this bill. The more information that came to light, the more concerned we got about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EOther colleagues have covered some of these overall concerns, but I have got some questions for the Minister in the chair, Jacqui Dean. There are the high-level concerns that we have around whether this framework can actually work, but when you get to the public interest test itself, the criteria are vague. The factors to be considered are not ranked in any order, so a Minister who is presented with this exercise does not have guidance as to what factors matter more than others. I would ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and explain to this Committee how she, as a Minister who might be responsible for this one day, will deal with a set of criteria that are not ranked. There is no weighting, there is no prioritisation, there is not even any formula to be followed by a Minister when making an evaluation of these factors. That is introducing an unacceptable level of uncertainty to a process that businesses need to be certain about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003ETime and again, submitters were saying that in the absence of any certainty about how this public interest is going to be applied, businesses will lose the confidence to invest. We all know that when businesses are making those decisions, it is about their confidence about rate of return, their confidence about whether or not they will be able to compete well and fairly, and the Government has gone and introduced a piece of legislation that undermines that. The Minister needs to be able to get up in this Committee and give us her view of how that prioritisation process will work. I am sorry to say that in the absence of that in the law\u2014even the Minister\u2019s answers are going to make that interesting, but at least they might enlighten the Committee a little as to how the Government actually plans on this taking place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EOur members of the committee asked consistently for examples of how this would work, and there was an absence of those. In the end, affected businesses made the call that you would make in these circumstances, which is that they do not have confidence in a regime that is so vague. From the point of view of members of this House, it is then our responsibility, I believe, to say this is not good enough. A piece of legislation that normally would get widespread support across the House has found its way back here not supported by at least three parties in the House. I think the Minister owes it to those exporters, owes it those businesses, and owes it to those companies to stand up and tell us how those criteria will work, in some specific detail.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI just want to cover a couple of other quick matters. One of those is the time that will be added to the process by the public interest test. As proposed, the bill would add 90 days to the time frame. From the point of view, again, of a number of submitters, New Zealand manufacturers looked at that and said: \u201CThis really is going to make our lives extremely difficult.\u201D There is a lack of clarity about what those businesses will do, in terms of remedies, if they are concerned about how the system is working. Ultimately, the end result of this may well be some manufacturing businesses deciding to move offshore. That cannot\u2014and I will give this to the Government\u2014have been the Government\u2019s intention in promoting the bill, but now is the time for the Government to acknowledge that it has got it wrong. Opposition members of the committee, as Barry Coates said, had very specific ideas, which could be amendments, that would at least make the system more robust. Unfortunately, Government members of the select committee were not prepared to consider those matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI am not going to unduly delay the Committee on this; I know other colleagues have got comments they want to make. I will just finish on the point of what the Government did claim was the motivation around putting this bill in place, and that was around concerns about the cost of building materials entering into New Zealand. What we saw in the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes was that when it is necessary for there to be something outside of the norms\u2014when we need to do something that moves quickly in response to a crisis\u2014we can do it. We can do it under the existing regime we have, rather than creating a regime of uncertainty, for that kind of purpose. I think that if that was the Government\u2019s motivation, actually, the response in Canterbury ensured that New Zealanders could have confidence that the system was already flexible enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EI think we have here a classic situation of a proposal that, on paper, might have looked all right. It looked like more choice. It looked like more flexibility. But then, in reality\u2014and under the scrutiny of a parliamentary select committee, which is an important part of our democratic process\u2014it has been exposed for what it is: a vague set of criteria for a public interest test that is entirely subjective, that will lead to huge uncertainty, and that is opposed by the very companies these rules are designed to protect. If that is not enough for the Minister and the Government to understand that they should think again, I am not sure what is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a25943b-cb3b-49c3-bd10-74316fae17f1\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0f00845f2324070be0c0132c30fa40e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a25943b-cb3b-49c3-bd10-74316fae17f1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0f00845f2324070be0c0132c30fa40e\u0022\u003EHon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E Members have raised a number of issues, so I will cover off a few of the issues that have been raised. The first\u2014and it has been mentioned several times\u2014is around the subjective nature of the public interest test. I would note that the public interest test is subjective by necessity, simply because it involves judgment. The inclusion in the bill of multiple criteria to be evaluated, such as quality, means that a purely objective public interest test is simply not realistic. The reports outlining the recommendations to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs will be made public at the end of the investigation. This will provide a great degree of transparency, will provide a degree of clarity, and will also signal and give future applicants an idea of how the public interest test will be conducted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a25943b-cb3b-49c3-bd10-74316fae17f1\u0022\u003EThere were also comments around the nature of the public interest test criteria not being weighted. I would say this: being too prescriptive and rather inflexible during the test could result in inconsistent and unintended outcomes. What seems sensible to one sector of the economy might not be appropriate at all in another sector of the economy. There were comments around New Zealand\u2019s international reputation, and I would say to that that the public interest test simply allows the Minister to take into account the wider competition and consumer effects of imposing a duty. The public interest test, as it is introduced in this bill, contains a presumption in favour of imposing duties and it also does not conflict with New Zealand\u2019s stance against subsidies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a25943b-cb3b-49c3-bd10-74316fae17f1\u0022\u003EFinally, a question was asked about what constitutes \u201Cquality\u201D. The Government has an entirely separate regime for dealing with quality control of imported goods. The anti-dumping and countervailing duties regime was never intended or envisaged to deal with issues relating to compliance with standards. That is an entirely different matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ebb4ac6b-662b-498f-a27f-832d054e6585\u0022 data-id=\u0022e0b06db554934d41989fa795485d2031\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ebb4ac6b-662b-498f-a27f-832d054e6585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e0b06db554934d41989fa795485d2031\u0022\u003ERIA BOND (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau to speak to the Committee stage of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. Today I want to discuss three areas throughout the bill. The first one is the proposed amendments in clause 16, which is the expansion of the suspension period. What we found through the submission stage of the select committee was that members who actually came and spoke to their submissions were quite concerned that parts of these provisions were going to expire on 30 May this year. They wondered what this Government had been doing with its time, and the fact that we were, and are today, weeks away from provisions in this bill expiring.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ebb4ac6b-662b-498f-a27f-832d054e6585\u0022\u003EThe actual suspension period is now going to be drawn out for a further 2 to 3 years. What we are wondering in that sense, and on behalf of those submitters who came through, is why they should have confidence in this Government. The Government has already had 2 years to get this right, and to make sure there is a level playing field on behalf of New Zealand businesses. It has had that time to investigate and to take officials\u2019 advice. Why should they have confidence that in another 2 or 3 years - plus there are going to be a system and provisions that are actually going to protect their trade? What they are asking is why they should have confidence in this Government when this bill already has, in its provisions, gone outside of its origins.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ebb4ac6b-662b-498f-a27f-832d054e6585\u0022\u003EWe also heard from the industry and stakeholders who had concerns about some of the standards. The question was: what standards? We know that we have had plasterboard come in from Thailand that was deemed to be standard plasterboard\u2014well, who sets those standards? Who sets them and are they standards that the industry itself is actually happy to maintain? So that begs quite a few questions around what the standards are and who is setting them. What came about from that too is that we know that the cost of building materials is high, but that is another conversation entirely, for another time. We should be talking more about the anti-competitive behaviour and the domination of certain players within our New Zealand market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ebb4ac6b-662b-498f-a27f-832d054e6585\u0022\u003EOne of the issues that also arose, which we talked about, was the domestic market threat here in New Zealand. One of those examples\u2014and we know this all too clearly\u2014is cement. So when there has been too much cement made in one country then it comes into New Zealand and it totally puts at risk our New Zealand domestic market. That was quite a huge concern. We listened to a submitter talking about other areas and about two products that would be at absolute risk for New Zealand businesses when we are making legislation in this House, and when new Ministers, such as Jacqui Dean, come in with a Supplementary Order Paper that says that this is OK. Well, it is actually not fine.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ebb4ac6b-662b-498f-a27f-832d054e6585\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders are telling us, and the big players did come and tell us, that they have a huge concern about this bill\u2014how in terms of the regulatory impact statement that they read through, itemised throughout was the absolute risk to New Zealand businesses. We feel\u2014and when we say \u201Cwe feel\u201D\u2014on this side of the House we put through a minority view to indicate and articulate the absolute concerns that we have. Having a look through and listening to further members in the Committee of the whole House today talking about the current issues, in terms of allowing the Minister to have that decision-making process kept on her shoulders, I do also want to remind the Committee that in the area of having to waive provisions within legislation we did that already through this House. This was when it came to the Canterbury rebuild and there was an absolute need for building materials to get there quickly and try to help rebuild our Canterbury area. We had the rights and we waived those. So we wonder what it is that says that we now do not actually as a Parliament continue to waive those rights in the best interests of our rebuild and emergency situations like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ebb4ac6b-662b-498f-a27f-832d054e6585\u0022\u003EI also want to pick up on what David Clark said. He said that this provision inside the bill does actually create and give the Minister a lot of power. She gets to decide on behalf of New Zealand businesses what is best for them. I can say that submitters\u2014excuse me, Minister Dean, but a lot of this uncertainty and mistrust has arisen from the fact that this Government has done one thing with the start of this bill and now the bill has turned into quite a bad piece of legislation. What we are seeing now is a bill that could have done something for our New Zealand businesses, but has not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u00227e46daadff2d401d834a831ec4051173\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227e46daadff2d401d834a831ec4051173\u0022\u003EDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour\u2014Wigram):\u003C/span\u003E It is my pleasure to take a call. I would like to thank the Minister in the chair, Jacqui Dean, for taking the opportunity to take a call, but I have some further questions for that Minister in the chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EAs colleagues who have taken calls on this side of the Chamber have said, we did previously support this legislation. We supported it to the select committee, but there were just too many questions at that select committee stage. I did not sit on the Commerce Committee, but from talking to colleagues who did and reading through the reports that came out of that, there are some glaring questions that need to be answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EOne of those questions, for me, and one I would like the Minister to respond to, is why New Zealand is choosing to go down a very different path to Australia, where Australia has a regime that allows this to remain in ministerial discretion. That is the regime that Australia has had, and, as the speaker who has previously spoken, Ria Bond, who has just taken her seat, has identified, it actually is a situation that has worked in New Zealand. Members are using the Canterbury earthquakes as an example of why it is that we need this legislation to come into play. What we have an example of there is the ability for things to be done a little bit differently in exceptional circumstances under the current rules. So why is there a need for this shift? Why is there a need for us to put in place a regime that is fundamentally different to Australia\u2019s\u2014one of our largest trading partners\u2014why is it that we would do that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EI would also like to address the Minister\u2019s comments that she made around the need for the subjective nature of the test. I think the Minister, when she took her call, said that was because of necessity. I dispute that. Actually, the advice that was put forward to the select committee actually did talk about different subjective and objective tests that could be applied. I would like to know why it is that objective tests around\u2014for example, a numerical objective test around a proportion of a market that was affected or other proportionalities and numerical measures were not put into play and that we have a solely subjective test at play here. That is something that I would be interested to know why it is that we have not chosen, when there were various models that were put forward\u2014why any element of objectivity in that test was put into play.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EIf we do actually look at the clauses in the bill\u2014new Part 4, clause 10, which has a number of letters following it\u2014that lay out the investigation and where the public interest test lies in clause 10F of the bill. What I would like to know\u2014the Minister has said, on the issue of waiting, which I think is an important issue, that what we have is we have heard from industry that it needs some kind of clarity. It needs to know the rules it is playing in. It needs to know what is going to be the really important element when applying these tests. One of the things that led to us pulling our support from this was listening to New Zealand exporters and New Zealand manufacturers telling us how detrimental this would be to their businesses and how this would not be a help at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EIf we turn to clause 10F of the bill, where the public interest test is laid out in clause 10F(3), paragraphs (a) through (h), I would just like to ask the Minister some questions around that. In subclause (3) we have: \u201CIn investigating whether imposing the duty is in the public interest, the matters the chief executive must investigate include the following: (a) the effect of the duty on the prices of the dumped or subsidised goods:\u201D. What is the trigger? When we are talking about the effect, what kind of trigger are we talking about here? What threshold has to be passed in order for the chief executive to think that that is significant?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EWe then go to paragraph (b) \u201Cthe effect of the duty on the prices of like goods produced in New Zealand:\u201D\u2014again, what kind of ballpark are we talking about? What does the impact have to be in order for the chief executive to take this seriously as a consideration? This is something that I would like to hear from the Minister on. If we look at paragraph (c) \u201Cthe effect of the duty on the choice or availability of like goods:\u201D, now, this is a very broad test, and I think we do need some clarity from the Minister. What scope are we talking about here? How broad does the choice have to be or how narrow does it have to be in order for this test to be applied? That is something that does need to be clarified.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EEven more oblique is paragraph (d) \u201Cthe effect of the duty on product and service quality:\u201D. I would like to know more from the Minister on exactly what is intended by this clause. What do we mean by \u201Cthe effect of the duty on product and service quality\u201D? What threshold has to be crossed in order for this to be deemed significant? In paragraph (e) it states: \u201Cthe effect of the duty on the financial viability of the domestic industry:\u201D. So what I would like the Minister to tell me is whether this means it is going to put a single player out of business, whether it undermines several players in a particular industry, whether or not it reduces the profits of a single player in an industry, or whether it reduces products across the board to several players in that industry. What does that mean, and how will that be applied?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EAnd then, if we go further down that list to \u201Cwhether there is an alternative supply (domestically or internationally) of [the] goods available:\u201D\u2014how broad? How broad are we going here? Are we saying that somewhere in the world there is an alternative, or are we saying that that is available in New Zealand, or that it is available in markets that we trade with regularly? What does that mean in application, in terms of how this legislation is intended to be applied? Then there is the very broad criterion in paragraph (h), which is \u201Cany factor that the chief executive considers essential to ensure the existence of competition in the market.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EThese are the factors that the chief executive can investigate when applying the public interest test. These are not \u201Cands\u201D or \u201Cors\u201D. They exist in beautiful harmony together, but what we do need to know from the Minister is what the strongest driver here is. What is it that the chief executive will be looking at most strongly when making these assessments, when applying this test? To say, as the Minister has when she took her call and said that we need to leave that, that we do not want to be too prescriptive, that that is not desirable\u2014well, it is desirable to those in the industry to know what the rules are that they are going to be operating under. We are introducing a new test here, and I think that businesses and industry players deserve to know exactly what those rules are. To simply say that it is too prescriptive to talk about weighting does not cut it, and I would like the Minister to take a further call and give some clarity to the Committee and, indeed, to impacted industries about what that may be. These are the criteria that will be applied when the Minister makes a choice about whether or not the countervailing duty will be applied.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003EThe Government has decided it wants to go down this route\u2014that it wants to go down the route of having a change of legislation, where we have a regime and tests. Well, people need to know what that means, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister and hearing what each of those factors that the chief executive will investigate when applying the public interest test mean, and what the relative weightings will be. I understand that the Minister cannot be absolutely precise and say it will be the same in every single circumstance, but what we do need to know is what the direction of travel is. The industry is telling us it does not have that at the moment. There is confusion, there is lack of clarity, and it is not good for anybody when our manufacturers and our exporters are left wondering where it is that they stand around the kinds of protections that will be in place for them. Of course, Labour wanted to be able to support this legislation, but when it came down to the detail like this\u2014and we went through it in detail at the select committee\u2014we could not be satisfied. We could not be satisfied that the right rules and a robust enough regime had been put in place. So I look forward to hearing from the Minister in the chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a25943b-cb3b-49c3-bd10-74316fae17f1\u0022 data-id=\u002296d45c95504d45eb92349b7df7cb9d6d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a25943b-cb3b-49c3-bd10-74316fae17f1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296d45c95504d45eb92349b7df7cb9d6d\u0022\u003EHon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E The member Megan Woods has just very well and precisely illustrated the difficulty of constructing what will be an objective public interest test. Of course the test will vary by circumstances\u2014those circumstances that the member has just rehearsed from within the bill. It will also depend on what sector of the economy is being complained about. Therefore, the need for judgment is inevitable. I would direct the member to clause 13 of the bill, which inserts new section 10, \u201CApplication for investigation\u201D into Part 4, because the member asked how an investigation will be initiated. It will be simply by way of a complaint.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00223709e103e89c4536acd02894f0f5c85f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223709e103e89c4536acd02894f0f5c85f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I think one of my greatest concerns about this bill arises from the pressure that can be put upon a Minister to take a decision, for non-competition regions, to decline to either proceed with an investigation or impose duties on dumped products. The Labour Party has said in its minority view that it shares the concerns expressed by Catherine Beard from Business New Zealand and by the New Zealand steel industry, being but two examples, that the introduction of ministerial discretions, which allow the Minister to not impose tariffs despite the fact that there is a case that there is product being dumped into New Zealand, creates a poor process. I want to explore one aspect of that, which is the pressure that can be brought upon New Zealand by more powerful trading interests than us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will probably get it in the ear for this, but I am going to recount what has already been in the media in the last year. We know from the story that was broken by Vernon Small in the Dominion Post that at a time when Chinese steel exports to other countries were facing duties for dumping, the suggestion that there might be a complaint in New Zealand led to pressure upon the New Zealand Government and on other exporters of other goods to China.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBefore I go into that, I want to explain what is happening in other countries. It is very simple\u2014and the Minister Jacqui Dean, I expect, will already know this\u2014to know that there is a very significant oversupply of steel being produced in the world now. There has been a massive expansion of steel production in China, and some of that is alleged, by other countries that have had anti-dumping inquiries, to be either subsidised through cheap forms of capital available to some of those companies from the Chinese Government or Chinese State-owned enterprises, or\u2014just because it has become such a surplus commodity and they have got so much of it to sell overseas\u2014to be sold below cost to get rid of it. Those allegations have been accepted in both Europe and the United States.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn respect of some subsets of steel, anti-dumping tariffs in the United States have recently been increased from about 60 percent to 190 percent. Such is the level, they assert, of subsidisation or dumping that is occurring in respect of stainless steel being exported from China to the United States. In respect of Europe, Europe has decided that the dumping of steel over there is occurring, and it has imposed tariffs of between 18 and 35 percent. New Zealand Steel, the major producer of steel in New Zealand, is concerned that it has been suffering the consequences of the export of subsidised or discounted steel into the New Zealand market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI am not talking about issues relating to quality. I am not talking about competition issues in the New Zealand supply chain. I am just talking about imported product. At the time\u2014because there is still no clarity as to what has actually been happening within Government\u2014this occurred, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, according to the Dominion Post newspaper, was told by exporters to China that they were being given a message in China that if New Zealand was to investigate the allegations of steel dumping into New Zealand, there would be retaliatory action or there would be risks to New Zealand exporters of kiwifruit and, perhaps, dairy products into China.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe all know that on the world stage New Zealand is a minnow. We rely upon multilateral rules and fair-trade rules around the world in order for us to be treated fairly abroad and in order to protect our domestic producers and domestic consumers from unfair, predatory trade practices from abroad. As a small country that is reliant on relationships with superpowers, be they big economies like the United States or China\u2014I do not want to single anyone out\u2014or Japan or anyone else, why would we be putting ourselves in a position where the Ministers, through back channels, could be opening themselves up to pressure from those countries to actually say: \u201CLook, you have got a discretion here, Minister, to actually not proceed with this anti-dumping inquiry. We want you not to proceed; otherwise, there are going to be consequences for New Zealand.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThat is what this legislation introduces. It introduces more trade-related risks to New Zealand producers, like New Zealand Steel, of the Minister coming under pressure for reasons relating to other trading interests that New Zealand has overseas. We should not be doing that. That is what Business New Zealand told us, that is what New Zealand Steel told us, and that is what other submitters said as well. I think they are right, and I think New Zealand\u2019s recent experience\u2014we still have not had disclosure of all of the cables and other information that came back from overseas posts to New Zealand. There have been redactions that the Government has made to those documents, so we have not got transparency as to what actually went down. I suspect that the accusations that were being made through the media were right\u2014that New Zealand was being pressured.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister previously in the chair, Jacqui Dean, through the Minister sitting with the Chair of the Committee, Tim Macindoe, why we would be passing legislation that makes more of those pressure points and that makes the exercise of discretion in respect of those pressure points opaque. As other speakers have already said, there are so many competing criteria that are to be applied by the Minister in making the decision\u2014and those criteria can go in different directions\u2014that just about any decision would be legitimate on the part of the Minister. Legally legitimate, I mean\u2014not the right decision, but legally legitimate. I cannot understand why the Government is going down that route. I think of what Dr David Clark said\u2014that we should be looking at what has happened in Australia. It has looked at doing this a couple of times. It has got far more muscle than we have, and yet it decided that it was not right to go down this route.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that this is incredibly naive. Why am I not surprised? This is the Government that will not even enforce New Zealand standards at the border. When Opposition parties participated in the manufacturing inquiry during the term of the last Parliament\u2014Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First\u2014they all heard submissions that New Zealand standards, or equivalents overseas, are not enforced at the border properly, and, therefore, inferior products are imported, competing against more expensive products made in New Zealand to New Zealand standards.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Government is not even enforcing New Zealand standards. It says that it thinks we have got competition problems in the supply chain for building products. Well, if that is the case, why does it not do something about that through competition policy rather than silly little exemptions to anti-dumping regimes? I am not even convinced that you should have an exemption from dumping regimes for post-earthquake events. Why should you be able to dump product in that circumstance? I do not understand that. I would have thought you should actually have to pay a fair price so as to give New Zealand producers a fair chance of producing or increasing their output to meet those periods of high demand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe more important point\u2014I want to hear from the Minister\u2014is why the Minister thinks it is in the interests of New Zealand to create more ministerial discretions when we know that, as a small country, we are more likely to be able to be pressured by the big players in the world. That is whether it is Europe\u2014they could say \u201COh well, in Europe, unless you do this or that, we\u2019re going to push harder against your butter quota.\u201D\u2014or whether it is the United States, in a similar way, or whether it is China or whether it is Japan. If you do something about steel exports from Japan, although they have shrunk\u2014you know, \u201CWe\u2019ll never let your dairy in.\u201D You know, those sorts of threats can be made. They should not be made, and this legislation is encouraging them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022 data-id=\u0022ab86a852a73c4cbda36e2473c3663507\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ab86a852a73c4cbda36e2473c3663507\u0022\u003ECLARE CURRAN (Labour\u2014Dunedin South):\u003C/span\u003E I did sit on the Commerce Committee, which heard this legislation. The Commerce Committee was a split committee. The Labour Party supported this legislation at its first reading\u2014not being, at that point, cognisant of the significant issues that it raises. Once we were at the committee, and heard submitter after submitter come before us and talk about the threats of these measures to our domestic industry, we became seriously concerned.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EWe tried to get substantial amendments and questions answered through this legislation, unsuccessfully. This, basically, led us to believe that it is being pushed through for a set of reasons other than common sense, because it is a counterintuitive piece of legislation. If you were to believe that this Government was committed to a growth in exports, to a growth in the productive economy, and to a growth in small business becoming bigger business and being able to compete on the world market with good quality products\u2014what this does is open the door to serious impacts on numerous industries in this country. It gives ministerial powers that are questionable in terms of\u2014and I think you have heard David Parker outline the pressure that could be brought to bear, and the impact that it could have, on ministerial discretion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EI would like to say that I applaud new Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Jacqui Dean for taking a couple of calls on this, because it is important to be able to engage in actual debate in the Committee stage\u2014true debate\u2014to be able to get some sense of what on earth was in the Government\u2019s mind when it decided to press through with this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EThe reason we have such a substantial set of amendments before us in the Committee stage today is that the split committee, the Commerce Committee, voted against this bill. The Government members did not have a majority, so the bill had to be returned to the House unamended. Therefore, these amendments that are before us in the Committee stage are as a result of that and have enabled the wider debate that is occurring today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EI note that when the Minister did first speak, she talked about\u2014and this is going to the public interest test. I want to touch on the issues in the public interest test: the time that it takes to get an inquiry happening and the impact of that on domestic industry, and then the intent\u2014what is in the Government\u2019s mind around this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EWith regard to the public interest test, which is in new section 10F in new Part 4, inserted by clause 13, around the investigation\u2014other speakers have noted the eight issues that have to be taken into account when undertaking that public interest test. I just want to mention four of them, and pose to the Committee the dilemmas that occur with this sort of \u201CSolomon\u2019s choice\u201D approach that can be taken by a Minister. The Minister has to take into account whether prices will go down through a dumping into the New Zealand market, whether it provides more choice, whether it affects product quality, and whether it affects the financial performance of the domestic industry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EIf it means that prices will go down and consumers get more choice\u2014and bear in mind that the rationale for this legislation is to provide what the Government called \u201Cmore consumer choice\u201D. It would seem that that is what is the intent of this legislation. So let us say it means that prices go down and there is more choice. But what actually ends up in the market is a lesser-quality product, and if it affects the quality of the financial performance of our domestic industry, then how does that decision get made? It has got to be either one or the other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EThe concern that submitter after submitter had\u2014and I know that New Zealand Steel has been mentioned on a number of occasions; it talked about an unnecessary and radical shift in New Zealand\u2019s trade policy, resulting in a materially weakened anti-dumping regime and a significant threat to New Zealand industry. I cannot stress highly enough just how alarming it was to hear the steel industry say that its very viability is on the line if this legislation is passed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EI also want to refer to another submission. I want to quote from it, and I will tell you who it was after I have quoted from it. It says: \u201CWe are not against global trade or protectionist, and support the case where a country does something extremely well and removes the need for local production of such products, but cannot agree that in some situations there is a need to tilt the playing field in favour of dumped or subsidised goods from overseas against local manufacturers, producers, and the jobs they create. How could such action, detrimental to the country\u2019s productive base, be in the public interest? We consider that small manufacturers and producers are less able to present a strong voice to the relevant Government departments. The public interest test aggravates this situation.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EThis was from the New Zealand Flower Growers Association, which sent an impassioned submission to the select committee. It wanted to bring to our attention that 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand have fewer than 20 employees, and that all of the flower growers in New Zealand fit that category. That 97 percent of businesses employs 33 percent of all employees. It was trying to get its voice heard, and I am trying to give it a voice today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003ETo the Minister in charge of this legislation, who I think is still the Minister for Small Business\u2014am I correct\u2014why are those voices not being listened to with this legislation? What is the point of this legislation when, supposedly, on the one hand, the Government says it is trying to get exports to 40 percent of GDP? We are currently under 30 percent. Here we have a piece of legislation that is encouraging, allowing, and enabling the dumping of product that may be sub-quality into our market\u2014but, oh, it might give more choice and lower prices to consumers! How is that in the public interest? I think that is the crux of this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EOther complaints with this legislation were around the time it takes to get an investigation into whether a tariff will be imposed, and then the subsequent impact of that\u2014because it is adding 90 days to that process\u2014on local industry. Those are really valid questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EThe reason this legislation is being hurried through in the next few days is that, ultimately, the original suspension period\u2014and we are going back to the building industry\u2014and the reason for allowing a temporary ability for those dumping provisions to be relaxed, was after the Christchurch earthquake. Those provisions are due to end at the close of 31 May, and one of the amendments in this bill today is to extend that suspension period until the close of 30 June 2019, which is why it has to be passed before 31 May.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EThere are significant issues here, and there are contradictions, absolute contradictions, in the rationale and the logic as to why you would put New Zealand industry\u2014our productive economy\u2014at such risk with such a piece of legislation. It is not supported by Australia, which has gone through this process twice before, and yet we push through harmonisation laws with Australia. What is the intention of the Government? I think David Parker got to the crux of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022 data-id=\u0022552f5b5da01545e69be791d795189f5f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022552f5b5da01545e69be791d795189f5f\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD (Labour\u2014Mt Roskill):\u003C/span\u003E In line with my other colleagues, I am rising to speak against the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. From the point of view of the Labour Party, this is not out of a sense of pique or rigidity, or anything like that, because, in fact, we supported this bill through to the Commerce Committee so that it could receive thorough consideration. It is as a result of the consultation of the submissions and the discussions that have occurred at the select committee level that we have determined that we simply cannot support its passage any further.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EIn my comments I want to focus in particular on the changes made at the select committee in respect of building materials. I want to talk about the impact on business viability, which was raised by a number of submitters to the select committee, and, also, what this bill says about the overall approach of the Government towards trade.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EI am starting off with the changes to clause 16, which is about extending the suspension on building materials by 2 years, from the current date of 2017 to 2019. This, to me, seems to be a case of the Government wanting to look like it is doing something about the cost of housing. Really, if we want to determine whether this is going to have any impact whatsoever, we simply need to look at what has happened in Australia, because in Australia you can go over and, effectively, buy the same kinds of building supplies for 30 or 40 percent less than you can buy them for in New Zealand. But what has Australia done in respect of this issue? Has it gone down the same track that the Government is proposing to here? Has it softened its approach to anti-dumping and countervailing duties? No, it has not. The reason that it has got cheaper building supplies is because it has had a Government that has been more active in terms of ensuring a competitive market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003ESo what I would say is that if this Government is really wanting to make a difference in terms of the cost of building supplies, we need to look at the structure of the industry and its competitiveness, not to look at measures like this, which, if anything, will serve only to undermine the development of a competitive industry domestically.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EIn respect of the select committee changes, there was one small wording change\u2014and I am referring here to new section 10F(3)(e), inserted by clause 13, which changes the word \u201Cviability\u201D to \u201Cperformance\u201D. I think that is, on balance, a positive change, because of course the wording \u201Cviability\u201D would be quite a stiff test to consider. Effectively, if we had left \u201Cviability\u201D in there we would have been saying that you could consider the matter only if the entire viability\u2014the entire ability\u2014of an industry or a business to continue happening was at risk as a part of the consideration. \u201CPerformance\u201D gives a bit more flexibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EBut, again, this goes to the point that has been made by a number of speakers in this debate about the subjectivity of this test. What do we mean when we refer to the word \u201Cperformance\u201D? There is a huge scope within that word. Do we just mean short-term financial performance for the current year of operation by that particular business? Do we mean performance across the wider sector? Do we mean the long-term business performance in that sector? These matters are commented on by the submitters to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EI want to refer to the submission from Mr Bruce Mackay, who submitted on behalf of peach growers and also other fruit growers supplying Heinz Wattie\u2019s Ltd. The point that he makes is a really valid one, and I think every member needs to think about this seriously before voting further on this bill. What Mr Mackay is saying is that, particularly in respect of the agricultural sector, the effect of dumping on the industry is not a short-term effect. If produce is dumped in New Zealand, and if it undermines growers and producers here in New Zealand, they have to walk away. Trees get ripped up. It is not like they can come back and suddenly grow peaches again the next year; that is a 5- or 10-year proposition. What Mr Mackay says is, and I quote directly from him here: \u201CThe significant risk to growers is that any adverse impact is terminal.\u201D He goes on to talk about the fact that if businesses go under, trees get ripped up: \u201CIf we have to remove them they will not be replanted, and it will be another 6 or seven years before any other new tree crop planted will start to make money again.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EHe goes on, then, to talk about the fact that there is a huge downstream effect in terms of other businesses that support the agricultural sector. It is not clear to me whether we actually get consideration of those downstream effects\u2014all of the supportive industries that support the original grower\u2014in the consideration that is written into this bill. It would be good to hear from the Minister in the chair about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EA number of submissions have been referred to. The one from Business New Zealand I thought also gave good food for thought to the Committee. This is where this bill really cuts across the grain of a lot of what the Government is saying about business simplification\u2014about wanting to make things easier for New Zealand businesses to do their thing. The point that Business New Zealand makes, amongst other matters, is that this is going to lengthen the time that it takes for considerations to be made about whether we are going to apply duties and countervailing measures by another 90 days, another 3 months, and potentially, for businesses that face investment decisions, whose viability is on the line, that is a really significant blowout in terms of the time that they might need to factor into their business decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EA submission from Horticulture New Zealand\u2014this is a really important one because it actually goes to the core of the issue, to me. New Zealand is already one of the most free and open trading nations in the world, and that is as a result of decisions made by successive Labour and National Governments over about the last 25 years. It produced evidence to show that. New Zealand industries are not protected. New Zealand industries are not particularly asking to be protected, but what they are asking for is for a Government to have their back when there is unfair and sharp trade practice being leveraged against them. Because the evidence that Horticulture New Zealand has presented to you, and that most of us in this Committee are aware of, is that, in fact, most other countries do have significant subsidies going into their farming and agricultural sectors. We have all of that, sort of, soft support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EUp to 50 percent of farm receipts in places like Norway, Switzerland, Japan, Iceland, Korea, and Turkey come from subsidies\u2014they come from subsidies. We have got producers here who basically have none of that sort of extra support, and we are relatively proud of that and there is not too much of a contest about that in this House. But what this bill does is remove the ability of a Government of New Zealand to provide some level of protection to our producers who face that sort of unfair competition, particularly when those foreign producers try to dump their products at below source cost in our country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EIn line with the other speakers from this side of the Chamber in this debate, we think that this bill is naive. It presumes that New Zealand should open itself up further when, in fact, we are one of the most open trading countries in the world as it stands. In line with the other speakers on this side of the Chamber, we oppose this bill and would recommend that other members in the Committee consider voting against it as well. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022 data-id=\u00226745af6064924490958e1e1479cbe7cd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226745af6064924490958e1e1479cbe7cd\u0022\u003EBARRY COATES (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for calling on me. I would like to introduce a tabled amendment. The tabled amendment is proposed for clause 13, new section 10F to replace subsection (2). The new subsection reads: \u201CImposing the duty is in the public interest unless any of the short and long term costs of imposing the duty to downstream industries, wider supply chains, employment, consumers, and local communities around adversely impacted production sites, are likely to materially outweigh the benefit to domestic industry of imposing the duty.\u201D This amendment widens the scope of what can be looked at in the public interest test. Our problem with the public interest test is that it is far too narrowly drawn. Actually, what we are missing is many of the concerns that we have been hearing about so far in this debate and the issues that have been talked about by different submitters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003ELet me look at the additions to the wording, one by one. Firstly, we believe that we need to look at the short term and the long term. The rules do not specifically call for a long-term perspective. The reason that this is important is that, as various submitters have said, once you lose a business\u2014once it goes out of business because of predatory pricing forcing a company out of business\u2014that is a long-term effect. You cannot just replace those fruit trees overnight. You cannot just build up a business overnight. Once it is gone, you are left with a hollowing out of a community. You are left with shareholders who have lost their money. You are left with founders who have lost their houses. You are left with skilled workers who no longer have jobs and often move away to different areas. You cannot suddenly replace these enterprises by a short-term measure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EYou have to look, in this public interest test, at the long term, because it is only in the long term that you can understand the dynamics of what generally happens. A colleague previously described the legislation as being naive. What we would be doing in this case is we would be setting up an incentive for a predatory foreign producer to lower its prices until the domestic company was driven out of business, and then raise its prices again. You can understand that effect if you look in the long term, and, therefore, the requirement to look in the long term in a way of calculating the public interest is, we believe, essential.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EIf I can just draw on one of the submissions\u2014this submission is from Business New Zealand and ManufacturingNZ\u2014it says: \u201COnce value is destroyed \u2026 it takes a long time for an economy to replace [a] large employer (we have so few of them [left] in New Zealand \u2026\u201D. So what we are talking about here is a necessity of understanding a dynamic situation rather than a snapshot in time, and the public interest test does not deal with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EA second issue introduced by this amendment is to look not only at the downstream producers, which is a very narrow definition, and instead to look at the wider supply chain, because it is only in understanding the linkages between firms that can often be very complex and across different industries that you can understand what happens when you lose a manufacturer. If you lose a manufacturer, often the supplier who supplies that manufacturer is also supplying other businesses in other sectors. So if you just look at downstream industries, then you miss the dynamics of the supply base. And, therefore, this amendment proposes adding in consideration of the effect on the wider supply chains into the public interest test.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EAgain, if I may draw from a quote from the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association: \u201C\u2026 manufacturing in New Zealand is a diverse sector, companies often are closely connected in supply chains, providing demand, inputs and services for each other, as well as building shared skills and capability in our workforce.\u201D Now, if you do not look at the broader supply chain issues, then you miss those connections. So, therefore, our amendment introduces a concept of wider supply chains.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EThirdly, our submission also requires that the public interest test looks at employment, which, at the moment, it does not in section 10F. It requires that we look at local communities that exist around adversely affected production sites. Why is this important? Because local communities often depend on their local employers not only for jobs but also for so many other community benefits. They are the beating heart of communities. If we lose our local businesses, if we lose the manufacturing businesses that tend to have higher skills, higher wages, higher value added, then the future generation will become only a generation of flipping hamburgers in McDonald\u2019s. We need to retain those businesses with the skills. They are vital to the lifeblood of a community. That is why the amendment that we have put down includes the impacts on the local community that have to be considered within the public interest test.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EWe have outlined in this, essentially, chapeau clause of section 10F(2), additional considerations that must be included in the public interest test. We have a consequential amendment that I shall come back to, which adds to the list of the specific issues that need to be addressed in that test and they are largely heralded by the amendment that is tabled in new section 10F. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u00220a7dc4322f474917befa6a41713987df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a7dc4322f474917befa6a41713987df\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1, in Supplementary Order Paper 289, be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226667e3af100b435280ffeb115ce22901\u0022\u003ECarmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chairman, I did not hear the vote. Can you please read it again?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f419d67bcfa4e50aa0322ed7abdad3d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: I beg your pardon. You did not hear the vote? Were you not listening to the Chairman at the time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221df36f6a8a51443e8c92345a1eb229da\u0022\u003ECarmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chairman, sorry. I did not hear what you said.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ff7f0c012614758873c2aab84b842e0\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: So you are wondering what clauses we are voting on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db63358c396644689509ddedd0c7ebe1\u0022\u003ECarmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: We are voting on the bill that we were just debating\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f692fcdd6bbc4cfab8d3f19c6b9fa979\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that is right. Correct. So we were voting that the Minister\u2019s amendments to Part 1, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4aaedf098af470ca9b205ac36c1b661\u0022\u003ECarmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: Whose amendments are these? The Minister\u2019s?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4a21066bfe842ac80fc1d01cdfa0385\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: These are the Minister\u2019s amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ef4bf725368482ba3647a45542b5a78\u0022\u003ECarmel Sepuloni\u003C/span\u003E: No, we are opposed. A party vote is called for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3a88c42-f60b-4cf9-8065-8bfb80a020eb\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e4c7231a0ae84ee48fd417efac6794c5\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 45\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000321\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Barry Coates to clause 13 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000322\u0022\u003Ein clause 13, new section 10F, replace subsection (2) with:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000323\u0022\u003E(2)\tImposing the duty is in the public interest unless any of the short and long term costs of imposing the duty to downstream industries, wider supply chains, employment, consumers, and local communities around adversely impacted production sites, are likely to materially outweigh the benefit to domestic industry of imposing the duty.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224e9f76fd50524099a4bc4269be56a46a\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000324\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Barry Coates to clause 13 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000325\u0022\u003Ein clause 13, new section 10F(3), after paragraph (g), insert:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000326\u0022\u003E(ga)\tthe effect of displacement of local production on the local economy around production sites and community welfare:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000327\u0022\u003E(gb)\tthe effect on the duty on the viability of domestic producers and their suppliers:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000328\u0022\u003E(gc)\tthe effect on the supply base, including but not limited to immediate downstream industries:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000329\u0022\u003E(gd)\tthe pricing pattern of dominant foreign suppliers in the New Zealand market in the past and in overseas markets:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000330\u0022\u003E(ge)\tthe effect of the duty in relation to the ability of domestic producers of like goods to remain competitive while upholding labour standards:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000331\u0022\u003E(gf)\tthe effect of the duty in relation to the ability of domestic producers of like goods to remain competitive while upholding environmental standards:\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002270b44bc62e2144f999a71115729a0a24\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000332\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Barry Coates to clause 13 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000333\u0022\u003Ein clause 13, new section 10H, after subsection (2) with:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000334\u0022\u003E(3)\tThe Minister must inform the public of any decision under subsection (1) to deny the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the grounds of public interest, including\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000335\u0022\u003E(a)\tan estimate of the resulting impact on the viability of New Zealand producers; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000336\u0022\u003E(b)\tthe impact on employment, suppliers, local communities; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000337\u0022\u003E(c)\tany other matters in section 10F(3).\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000338\u0022\u003E(4)\tIn performing the obligation under subsection (3), the Minister must ensure that the information being released in not confidential information as defined in section 3F.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225c3475dd812845e180bfdf90c09cbcee\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022387d5971d139471ea4b2d5cc2a24841e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223f83e5ac4ac946ce934c6cd6a2a45810\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000339\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227163d50a54b3429982b4b7b2194add75\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227b13d95007cd4a998a2ee29cb2c62636\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e15cdf033a4142e8833014c61d307122\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022138bbb2136084952a63ac25f5d64aff9\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f2f708cdd4234824900a9b85fa108f88\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000340\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 289 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225f20fb57a873484e82a8480c8396a1a7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 74\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 45\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222252f9577b6d463d87a5c91938b63ed0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221ebf7421286e429dbaf6c6243006c6de\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000341\u0022\u003EBill to be reported with amendment presently.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022440ea8884b8343dc8e5dfe963f7fb367\u0022\u003EStatutes Repeal Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225ff37e223454493baf8085725e8e1f75\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d3d69712f4164e50b5ef55e3a56da4ad\u0022\u003EClause 1  Title\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022 data-id=\u0022cb00c5c79e984da380ca1aed8add9037\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cb00c5c79e984da380ca1aed8add9037\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Labour\u2014Port Hills):\u003C/span\u003E If you look at the name of the bill and the size of it, you might think \u201CNot much to see here, not much of any consequence.\u201D, but, actually, this Statutes Repeal Bill, which is quite an unusual provision for our Parliament to make, takes, I think, about 132 Acts off the statute book, so it repeals about 132 pieces of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d014d992690442ff91dc0908374fa4a3\u0022\u003EPaul Foster-Bell\u003C/span\u003E: 137.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220dcfbda50194c24a4a25f2fd09b44f1\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON\u003C/span\u003E: There are 137. I stand corrected by the deputy chair of our Government Administration Committee. I am relying on his memory, which may be a little better than mine. So somewhere between 132 and 137 Acts are repealed by this legislation. All but two were agreed to unanimously by the select committee, but two of these provisions were quite contentious\u2014caused us some difficulty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EBut before I move on to discussing the specifics of those and the concerns that Labour and Greens members had about those two provisions\u2014there may be others that Barry Coates may want to mention, but I know those two we were certainly concerned about\u2014I want to just take a step back and ask what the point is of this legislation, because, actually, there was some debate about that as well. There does not seem to be a difficulty if Ministers want to say these Acts are clogging up the statute book\u2014you know, \u201CThey\u2019re causing us a lot of difficulty when we try to find something. Let\u2019s have a bit of a spring-clean and a tidy up, and let\u2019s repeal a whole lot of bills.\u201D That is entirely within the mandate of a Minister to do, and might be seen as quite a good thing to do by other parties in the Committee. But, actually, what the bill reports as doing\u2014I think it is in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce, so you would never quite know where that might be heading. What the bill says its point is in response to a recommendation by the Productivity Commission to reduce unnecessary legislation. I think that the driver behind this Statutes Repeal Bill and the recommendation of the Productivity Commission are entirely different.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EI am strongly of the view that if the Productivity Commission was presented with the Statutes Repeal Bill and was asked \u201CIs this what you had in mind when you said that Governments should reduce unnecessary legislation as a key priority?\u201D, the Productivity Commission would laugh. I think it would say: \u201CThis is not what we had in mind at all. This does not reduce unnecessary legislation. All it does is take off the statute book legislation that is no longer being used.\u201D How on earth could this bill increase productivity? What was the driver of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EI think that Minister Steven Joyce has, yet again, got it wrong. He has not paid enough attention to the detail of the Productivity Commission\u2019s recommendation, let alone transferred that into a legislative or policy framework, at all. Once again Steven Joyce has missed the mark. He is not attentive to detail; he is attentive only to slogans\u2014he has been getting those right for quite a while, until the last few months. But, certainly, in terms of a grip on legislation, he is way off the mark.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003ECan I move now to the two Acts that are repealed by this Statutes Repeal Bill that caused us concern at the select committee and created a lot of debate? One of them is the Medicines Act and the other is the Sentencing Council Act. We got only a few submissions on this bill\u2014not many people considered it of interest\u2014but one of our submissions was of extraordinarily high quality and raised significant constitutional concerns with the Sentencing Council Act repeal. That submission was from Sir Kenneth Keith ONZ, KBE, QC. I am sure that every member in the House will be familiar with the very fine legal record of Sir Kenneth Keith as a New Zealand judge. He was New Zealand\u2019s first appointment to the International Court of Justice in 2005, he served as a judge on both the High Court and Court of Appeal, he was a member of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and he was one of the inaugural appointments to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. So he has a very fine legal track record and is very well regarded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003ESir Kenneth made his submission\u2014not by any means the first that he has made to a select committee\u2014and he agreed with the point that I have just made about this legislation not being consistent with what the Productivity Commission said, and raised that more as a matter of interest than a matter of substance. When it got to the matter of substance, in relation to the Sentencing Council Act, may I just quote from his submission, he said: \u201Cthe Sentencing Council Act 2007 came into force\u201D\u2014and that is a critical word for people with good legal minds, such as the presiding officer\u2014\u201Con 1 November 2007 but was not implemented. Repealing that Act will clarify that the Government will not set up the sentencing council in the future and will allow the courts to retain their ability to develop their own sentencing guideline judgments.\u201D That is what the purpose of the bill is. It is quite different from removing from the statute book legislation that no longer has any use and is no longer being implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003ESir Kenneth was quoting the point of the bill, and he said that was misleading. He said \u201CThe Sentencing Council Act presents a completely different case from that of the Acts not in force. That Act has been in force as part of the law of New Zealand since 2007. For the past eight years the Executive has suspended its operation,\u201D which he described as \u201Can apparent breach of s1 of the Bill of Rights [Act]\u201D. He quoted Fitzgerald v Muldoon, another case that many members in this House will be familiar with. He said: \u201CThat refusal to give effect to a statute in force appears to me to be a serious constitutional matter.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EHaving started with a bill of which all of us thought \u201CWell, this has probably not got a lot of contention. These bills are not being used. They are surplus to the requirement of the New Zealand public and, certainly, the New Zealand Parliament. They could be repealed.\u201D, we had a man\u2014I would listen to the Hon Chris Finlayson\u2019s opinion, of course\u2014somebody, I would have thought, who is regarded as having one of the highest legal minds and the sharpest legal minds in the country, saying that this part of this bill was a serious constitutional matter and may be a breach of the Bill of Rights 1688.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EHe went on to say: \u201CI do see the value of repealing those Acts which have not been brought into force. But, again to repeat, the Sentencing Council Act presents a sharply different case and not just for the constitutional issue I raised above. The Act is in force. Its proposed repeal presents the following question of policy: How is the balance to be struck between promoting greater consistency and predictability in the justice system \u2026 through the application of that legislation, on the one side, and, on the other, the decisions made by the judges within the sentencing powers conferred on them, sometimes helped by guideline judgments given by appeal courts?\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003ESo it was actually quite a frustrating situation for us. I think the Government members of the select committee were persuaded, actually, by Sir Kenneth Keith but, for whatever reason, they decided to just toe the party line. I think this is the sort of legislation where they could have actually stood up and said no. We\u2014Labour\u2014could have supported the entire remainder of this legislation, because although it did not actually achieve anything, it certainly did not do any harm. But the medicines legislation, with the Government\u2019s change in policy with the therapeutic products regime, and the sentencing council, caused us a lot of concern. Those issues need to be addressed by the Minister. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, is not the Minister whose name is on the bill but he has got a good mind. Actually, I have noticed\u2014and I do not want to do him any harm by praising him\u2014that he takes serious issues seriously when they are raised in the Committee stage of the bill. So I would like him to consider the submission of Sir Kenneth Keith and, also, the inappropriateness of having the medicines legislation altered in such a way. This is not the appropriate vehicle to use for a deliberate change in Government policy or for the Government deciding not to implement a provision that is in the law and is in force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EI guess none of us thought when we started this process that it would be contentious, that it might be a matter of debate, let alone a matter of such grave concern raised by somebody like Sir Kenneth Keith. I hope the Minister has got the confidence to consider these issues and respond to them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8265e90bcc341c29d6f7202f128b41f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8265e90bcc341c29d6f7202f128b41f\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Can I thank my colleague Ruth Dyson for putting that issue so clearly. I was sitting on the Government Administration Committee when Sir Kenneth Keith came before it, and I think it is worthy to note that you would have few jurists more competent than Sir Kenneth Keith to tell a select committee what is wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAs Ruth Dyson has said, he is a former Court of Appeal judge, then a Supreme Court judge, and then was at the International Court of Justice. He is an esteemed legal academic in addition to all of those matters, and someone who now, as a retired jurist, felt that this was important enough that he would make his first submission to a select committee since his retirement as a judge. He now has the freedom to make submissions, in a private capacity, that he would not have been able to make particularly when he was on the bench of a New Zealand court, and probably even when he was at the International Court of Justice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EHe came to the select committee and made this point of principle: that a statutes repeal bill\u2014which is an omnibus bill, the purpose of which is to repeal redundant or superfluous Acts because they are spent, in that they are no longer relevant and no longer have any practical effect\u2014is different from repealing an Act, which, whilst not being adhered to by the Government, remains in force.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAt the select committee and in the report that came back from the select committee, the issue was not even addressed by the majority. Well, that is not quite fair\u2014the New Zealand Labour Party and the Green Party are recorded in the commentary back from the select committee as questioning whether this was appropriate. But the rest of the select committee just noted that it had had a submission, and then did not express an opinion upon it. I am somewhat surprised that the committee did not say: \u201COh no, we disagree with Sir Kenneth Keith. We don\u2019t think it is a matter of different principle.\u201D Rather, the only thing that we get from the select committee is: \u201CWe were told that repealing the Act is within the scope of the bill as introduced.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWell, that is obviously the view of the clerk of the committee\u2014that repealing the Sentencing Council Act is within the scope of the bill\u2014but that does not make it right. I think Sir Kenneth Keith is correct\u2014that if the Government wants to repeal the Sentencing Council Act because it does not want to implement it, then it should repeal it through a piece of legislation to repeal the Sentencing Council Act, rather than tacking it on to the Statutes Repeal Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIf the logic of the Government is correct, that there is no difference between this and any other repeal, I do not see a difference in principle between repealing an Act that remains valid on its face but for reasons of administrative neglect is not being implemented\u2014I do not see any difference in principle between repealing that through a bill like this Statues Repeal Bill and a bill that is currently being implemented, because whether an Act is or is not being complied with is not the point. Acts that exist on the statute book that should be complied with but are not\u2014it should not be any easier to repeal them than an Act that is being complied with. They are both laws of this Parliament. The Sentencing Council Act is not redundant just because the Government is refusing to implement it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Government, back in 2008, campaigned on the basis that it was not going to proceed with the Sentencing Council Act, and since then the Government would have been quite entitled to come to this House with legislation to seek to repeal the Sentencing Council Act. But it has not done that. Rather, it ignored the provisions of the Sentencing Council Act and did not apply them in the way that Parliament said should happen. For it to, through this instrument\u2014the Statutes Repeal Bill\u2014remedy its problem by adding it to a long list of these Acts that truly are redundant seems, in the opinion of Opposition members, to be wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EFor that reason, there is an amendment in my name that excises from the list of those statutes that are being repealed, found in schedule 1\u2014from page 7, just after line 10\u2014the words \u201CSentencing Council Act 2007 (2007 No 25)\u201D. I will hope that National Party members will join with members of the Labour Party and, I hope, other Opposition parties in backing an amendment to the Statutes Repeal Bill, as reported back by the Government Administration Committee, that is excising from the list of statutes to be repealed the Sentencing Council Act 2007.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI do not think I can put it more clearly than that. There is no point me repeating that again. I think the logic of Sir Kenneth Keith\u2014unsurprisingly, given his stature and the fact that he does not make these submissions lightly and had to go to the trouble of preparing a submission and presenting it at select committee, I do not think there is much doubt that he is right. I am convinced. I was convinced on the day. I think that that Act should be taken out of the Statutes Repeal Bill, and if the Government wants to repeal it some other way, well, it has got the ability to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI do think it is quite a good idea to get rid of some of these old statutes off the book. I do not think it saves much in terms of compliance costs, because they are truly redundant. All you are doing is saving the cost of reprinting them in the future, next time you reprint the New Zealand Statutes. That is a very small amount of money, given that most of these things are published electronically anyway these days, but none the less it is not a silly thing to do to clean up those old finance Acts that are listed there over more than two pages\u2014two and a half pages of amendments to the Finance Act through other finance Acts that have long since been overtaken by events.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo I am happy to support this bill. I do not think it has an effect on the compliance costs of businesses operating in New Zealand in any material way. It does slightly decrease the costs of people who buy statutes, I suppose. Indeed, people who try to find the current position at law might find that they do not have to check whether there are some unexpired provisions of these other Acts\u2014not that I think they would check that in practice, because they know them to be so old as to be redundant. But the point in respect of the sentencing council is correct, and I would commend that amendment to the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022 data-id=\u0022046f2ea3a3514e978c1bc1f3037b8313\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022046f2ea3a3514e978c1bc1f3037b8313\u0022\u003EBARRY COATES (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chair. I rise to speak about the Statutes Repeal Bill, having been a member of the committee considering it, the Government Administration Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the chair of the committee for handling a difficult discussion very well. It was an issue that previous speakers have noted was a difficult discussion, particularly centred on the potential repeal of the Sentencing Council Act 2007.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EJust to remind the Committee, this Sentencing Council Act 2007 actually came into force on 1 November 2007. It was not an Act that was never brought into force. It actually was brought into force, and then, as previous speakers have said, the Government decided that it did not want to act on an Act that was in force. Like other speakers, I was pretty much persuaded by strong evidence from Sir Kenneth Keith to say that not only is this Statutes Repeal Bill the wrong place to repeal this Act but, actually, the Government was wrong in not taking action earlier to do something about an Act that it just chose not to act on when the legislation was already in force. So we are very concerned about that Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EWith regard to the rest of the Statutes Repeal Bill, we think probably\u2014marginally\u2014getting rid of old statutes is not a bad thing to do, although we would pass a comment to say that the Government obviously has too much time on its hands and not enough important things to do, to be spending important legislative time on a job that has very dubious benefits. As a committee, we are struggling to actually understand the justification for the time and effort that has gone into this bill, including a significant amount of the time of officials.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EBut we would like to register our concern over that particular item of the Sentencing Council Act. We would say that we would like to ensure that this statutes repeal process is not used in future in order to conveniently get rid of legislation that the Government does not really want to take action on. This is not the right process, and the Sentencing Council Act should not have been dealt with in this way, and we certainly would appreciate a response from the Minister in the chair to these concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EWe raised these concerns repeatedly in the committee. As a new member on that committee, I must say I found it rather strange that the committee members did not offer an adequate explanation from the Government side as to why the Sentencing Council Act was included in this statutes repeal bill process rather than being the subject of a stand-alone and separate process, if it was legislation that it did not intend to implement. Therefore, it would be good to hear a response to that issue from the Minister, because, frankly, it left members of the committee from the Green Party\u2019s side\u2014and, I suspect, others\u2014a little bit confused as to why this route was chosen for the Sentencing Council Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e7bf04e4-2cce-41b2-8b4e-e7277074e5c2\u0022\u003EFurther, I would note that there is Supplementary Order Paper 319, which is included here on behalf of my colleague David Clendon. It deals very much with the issues that have previously been raised in this debate and those specifically raised by David Parker, the last speaker. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00226bc4f0550e4e4429a6f050563dfe1a62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226bc4f0550e4e4429a6f050563dfe1a62\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I am very happy to take a call on the Statutes Repeal Bill, as, I think, one of the few members of the Committee who actually finds this stuff interesting. I think that there are only a few of us who really do find this interesting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI was fascinated by the submission by Sir Kenneth Keith. Up until just recently I had not had the chance to have a look at it, but there are a few points that he raises that I think are definitely worth us considering. One is at what point a law becomes worthy of repeal. In paragraph 5 of his submission, he points out that there are still 200-plus private Acts, many of which had an immediate effect\u2014for example, in providing for an acquittal, completing an adoption, removing barriers to marriage, and validating appointments\u2014and then he also points out that there are many other dissolution Acts, repeal statutes, abolition Acts, and many 19th century special powers and contracts Acts. The question that he is raising is what is the mischief\u2014what is the necessity in repealing all of this legislation when, effectively, it no longer has any effect anyway?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EHe also raises a further, interesting question, I think, which is: what of the repeal provisions of more substantive Acts? When, for example, a new education Act is passed and it includes provisions that repeal a whole lot of the existing legislation, should those repeal provisions then subsequently be repealed as well? It is an interesting point. At what point do we determine that a law is sufficiently repealed that we no longer need to worry about it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI note that in this bill we are repealing a previous statutes repeal bill. At what point do we simply say: \u201COK, we\u2019ve repealed that. Now we can forget about it.\u201D? Or are we going to be coming back in another hundred years? One of the statutes repeal bills that we are repealing today is over a hundred years old. In a hundred years\u2019 time will members be back in the House repealing the repeal bill that we are now passing today, or will they simply say: \u201CActually, that\u2019s been adequately dealt with now and discharged.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI was also interested in some other issues. I was involved, as my colleague David Parker was, in the Government Administration Committee back in 2009 and 2010, when the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act was passed. In that Act, rather unusually, it provided the Government of the day with the ability, by Order in Council, to repeal the Act, because it was only ever intended to be a temporary Act for the purposes of the Rugby World Cup, and that has now happened. The Government issued that Order in Council in 2014, so the Act was expired. So why are we needing to repeal it when the Act, when it was passed, had a repeal provision in it that allowed the Government to repeal it by an Order in Council? It has been repealed through an Order in Council, so why are we even needing to do this? At what point does a repeal actually become final? Otherwise, the statute book will continue to grow with more and more repeal Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI note in particular a very interesting comment, again, from Sir Kenneth, that the statutes amendment Acts of 1943 and 1944 all amended other statutes, some of which themselves had already been repealed. They have no separate existence in their own right, because they were statutes amendment Acts. They were not new Acts in their own right; they were only ever repealing other existing legislation. So why the need to even repeal them? I am not sure about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EHe makes a point about the Michael Connelly Appointment Validation Act of 1936. I am not entirely sure what the body was that Michael Connelly was being appointed to, but it was abolished 14 years later. So we have an appointment validation Act for a person who, presumably, no longer exists, and a body that, presumably, no longer exists. It seems to me that one of the fundamental issues that we should be grappling with is how to create a system where we do not have to have these repeal bills to repeal legislation that, effectively, no longer has any purpose and that in itself has, in effect, been repealed. Otherwise, we are going to keep going in a cycle where nothing will ever be finally repealed because each subsequent repeal will need another repeal. It seems to me that that is somewhat absurd.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIt is quite an interesting exercise to read through the various explanatory notes of this legislation. It all does seem relatively sensible to repeal these pieces of legislation. But I cannot help but wonder whether the second point in Sir Kenneth\u2019s submission is not the most pertinent one: is there a better way of doing this than through a statutes repeal bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022b60d26491e3d422ab13e9cd5bfd5bbd4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b60d26491e3d422ab13e9cd5bfd5bbd4\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The previous speaker, Chris Hipkins, makes an interesting point, because if Sir Kenneth Keith is right that these things are already dead anyway, you really can never get to deader than dead. The principle that is being embarked upon through this legislation\u2014as a repeal bill that then needs to be repealed itself because it sits on the statute book, and then needs another repeal bill to repeal the repeal bill that repealed the already redundant legislation\u2014is a bit of a nonsense at that level. Having said that, I do not mind cleaning up some of this old stuff and getting rid of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI do want to return to this point of the Sentencing Council Act, because we still have not had a response from the Minister in the chair, and I am hoping that we are going to get one. I want to explain why it is wrong that through this excising of redundant legislation we get rid of the Sentencing Council Act, and I want to explain the policy reasons that lie behind the Sentencing Council Act, which just should not be repealed through this statute repeal legislation. There is no analysis in the original bill\u2019s explanatory note, there has been no evidence given by the ministries as to why the underlying purpose of the Sentencing Council Act is no longer relevant; they are just trying to get rid of it through this administratively convenient mechanism.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIn New Zealand, we know that we have high rates of incarceration of M\u0101ori. It is a shame upon our country that more than 50 percent of all prison inmates are of M\u0101ori ethnicity. We also know that there are assertions, which many believe to be correct, that M\u0101ori offenders suffer higher sentences than non-M\u0101ori offenders for the same crimes. The sentencing council was meant to be preparing sentencing guidelines that, I think, would have made it more likely that sentences would be equivalent for equivalent crimes. There would have been more guidelines, because section 9 of that Act\u2014not clause 9 of a bill that is in consideration, not some legislation that may or may not sometime come into effect, but section 9 of this legislation that is currently on our statute book\u2014says that one of the functions of the council is: \u201C(a) to produce guidelines that are consistent with the Sentencing Act 2002 relating to\u2014(i) sentencing principles: (ii) sentencing levels: (iii) particular types of sentences: (iv) other matters relating to sentencing practice:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWhat might the sentencing council have done? It might have actually produced some guidelines that said that, because of this evidence that M\u0101ori are, overall, likely to receive longer sentences for the same crime compared with someone like me, judges in the future need to take particular care when sentencing M\u0101ori to make sure that they are not sentencing M\u0101ori offenders more harshly than other offenders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThat, I think, would have been a good thing to do, because I think it is accepted by most that people who are in a less powerful position in society\u2014who are, in New Zealand, disproportionately M\u0101ori, because M\u0101ori are disproportionately represented in lower socio-economic groups\u2014are less likely to have the quality of legal representation, particularly as legal aid is eroded, and also, just because of their financial situation and their lack of power in society, they are likely to be, on average, penalised more harshly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EFor us, for this repeal legislation to repeal the Sentencing Council Act 2007 without having that discussion about whether this underlying problem that we have got with high rates of incarceration of offenders of M\u0101ori ethnicity\u2014[Bell rung]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e74e069607648aa96656d12f3e4cb40\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Referring to the Clerk, this is actually clause 3, under Schedule 1. I have given you the latitude to talk about it, but it actually comes up later on, under clause 3. I am happy for you to continue, but when you come to clause 3, then we will be stopping it at that stage\u2014so I call the Hon David Parker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022226d333f73e647a3b8fa6212498461cd\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: I thank you, Mr Chair. I will address it again under clause 3. Thank you for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022 data-id=\u002204ddca6dc1c4416a976328709e636dc3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204ddca6dc1c4416a976328709e636dc3\u0022\u003ERINO TIRIKATENE (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to take a call on clause 1 of the Statutes Repeal Bill, and can I commend the Government Administration Committee for its work in examining this bill. There are 132 to 137, give or take, pieces of legislation, or parts thereof, that are to be repealed. I know we are dealing with the title, but I will just canvass some general comments on the bill. Whilst I am not a member of this committee, I do support, in principle, the fact that we do have a lot of redundant pieces of legislation on our many voluminous copies of statute books that are on the bookshelves within Parliament. This bill goes a long way to, I guess, cleaning up a lot of those redundant pieces of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003EThe subject matter of the legislation in this bill is quite broad. It deals with things like fishing vessels and loans, the Y2K computer bug, and various finance Acts, so it is quite ad hoc in terms of the Acts that have been identified for repeal under this bill. I would just like to know how comprehensive is the list of Acts contained within this bill, because there may be hundreds more that need to be repealed. I note that there is nothing in the bill that includes any M\u0101ori legislation, and I know that there has been quite a lot of M\u0101ori legislation over the past 175 years. Surely some of that archaic or redundant legislation could have been included within this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003EI am just curious as to how comprehensive it is, or has it just been cherry-picked? I think it is quite lazy on the part of the Government, if it is going to be doing a statutes repeal bill, to not just take selected pieces of legislation. If it is going to do the job properly, it should do a complete sweep of all the legislation that is currently in force and really do a comprehensive vetting or culling of certain pieces of legislation. I am just not convinced that even though there are 130-odd pieces of legislation in this bill, that is comprehensive or that there is any clear policy around it. That has been touched on by my colleague Chris Hipkins, because I am sure that many legal academics will be studying Sir Kenneth Keith\u2019s submission. We could get into a whole lot of mental gymnastics around when a bill is repealed and when the repealing of that repeal bill is repealed and when a bill is actually ultimately repealed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003EAs a case in point, I was just scanning my eyes through this bill, and if we look at the Fisheries Act, there is a repeal of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221eea95b4f54c4f378b1351dc06a5a588\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I just interrupt the member. I made a ruling earlier on, for the Hon David Parker, that those are things that come up later because they are in schedule 1\u2014that is clause 3, schedule 1. We are actually only on the title. That is what we should be referring to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b1cab287d1704c3289c83b94f1b69f12\u0022\u003ERINO TIRIKATENE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. I will pick up on those points when we get to those clauses. Just concentrating on the title, this is about the repeal of statutes, and, as I mentioned earlier, the scope of the bill is bit unclear, because there are a whole lot of ad hoc pieces of legislation, but we do not know how comprehensive that is or how comprehensive the exercise has been. I do want to\u2014and I am sure we will pick it up later\u2014go into those finely tuned legal issues around when a bill is actually repealed, and also go into discussions later on around the sentencing council.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u0022c6cb787c41ed43c6a22c03898c244255\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c6cb787c41ed43c6a22c03898c244255\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Regulatory Reform):\u003C/span\u003E I just want to take a quick call on this, just to make the point that statutes repeal exercises have been very widely used in many countries overseas, although the practice has not been used frequently in New Zealand. The UK Parliament has passed 19 statutes repeal bills since 1965, and, in total, it has repealed more than 3,000 public Acts. And in Australia, the Federal Parliament of Australia has a regular repeal day that redundant legislation is caught through, and that practice has evolved, because there is good sense in keeping the statute book up to date and tidy and to declutter and to move things out of the way. There has not been one in New Zealand\u2014we did one in 2012, but prior to that there has not been one since 1907, so this is very timely in the New Zealand context. The Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Act 2012 repealed 31 Acts, some going back to the 19th century, and this one will carry on that tradition. I might mention that a quite a lot of reference has been made to the Sentencing Council Act\u2014or is that in the next part?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd9662cf0f4f4a5aa28460dd249710c6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: That is in clause 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f1a62e0b4504382921c2e1c68ab2cce\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. So that is all I needed to say. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e52433e8f81f4d64bede9cfbdac0fbad\u0022\u003EClause 2  Commencement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u002221976158281a4c368fc3494ba89c83f5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221976158281a4c368fc3494ba89c83f5\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I want to take only a very brief call on the commencement clause, because, of course, there is a relatively limited amount that one can say on the commencement clause, which, basically, means that this law\u2014this new Act\u2014will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. The question, really, is what the legal effect of that is, considering the comments that I made earlier. Many of these repeals have already been repealed, so what is the legal effect of repealing them again? Once this new repeal comes into effect, how is the world going to change if the things that it is repealing have already been repealed? So the Royal assent in this case does not actually make a heck of a lot of difference, given that this particular bill gives effect to decisions that have already been made. So I think that it is an interesting legal question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EThe other question would be: if something has already been repealed, and then this Act repeals the repeal, does the original repeal come undone, therefore making the mischief that was repealed in the first place once again operable? I guess that is a question for a legal scholar, like\u2014maybe the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, would like to argue that; but I am pretty sure it will not. I would love to hear from one of the greater legal minds in the House than me as to whether that is the case, because it seems to me that would create all sorts of issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227a56d3e8fcab4a3d877c54be83fdb7d5\u0022\u003EClause 3  Repeals\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022edad821efae84e078383fda27f8f1dbe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022edad821efae84e078383fda27f8f1dbe\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: We now move to clause 3. This is debate on clause 3 and schedule 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u00223d54198880984b12bfb5f56b9067eb08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223d54198880984b12bfb5f56b9067eb08\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I am very happy to take a call on an amendment that I have put forward\u2014Supplementary Order Paper 315; I am told that now is the appropriate time to debate that, so I certainly intend to take that opportunity\u2014that removes blasphemy from our statute book. It is an amendment that is well overdue, and it is one that I was very interested in researching to make this contribution today. It was drawn to the attention of the then Minister the Hon Amy Adams, the Minister of Justice, back in 2015. Her response at the time was that whilst she agreed that blasphemy should be repealed from New Zealand\u2019s statute book, she had \u201Chigher priorities\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EOne can only assume from the fact that we are debating this bill that amongst her higher priorities were a repeal of the Christchurch-Lyttelton Road Tunnel Authority Dissolution Act, the Church Property Trustees (Canterbury) Indemnity Act, many, many finance Acts from 1930 onwards, the Customs Law Act of 1908, and so forth\u2014all of these, it would appear, are higher priorities, because despite this matter being drawn to the Minister of Justice\u2019s attention back in 2015 there was still no proposal by the Government to remove blasphemy from New Zealand\u2019s statute book. So I welcome this opportunity for us to vote on this today, and to do this in a way that is clean and efficient and does not unnecessarily waste the time of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EFirst of all, for those who might want to raise an objection to the process\u2014I will get into the substance in a moment\u2014and say \u201CWell, that should\u2019ve been included in the bill in the first place.\u201D and \u201CIt wouldn\u2019t be good process to add this repeal to a bill after it has gone to select committee.\u201D, I would point out two things: one is that there were only four submissions to the select committee process on this legislation, but the second thing, and perhaps more important, was that as a result of those four submissions, five additional Acts were added to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo this bill is already amended. It already has five additional Acts added to it that were not in it when it received its first reading and when it was first referred to the Government Administration Committee and submissions were called for. So if we are going to object to an additional provision being added around blasphemy, then are we also going to object to the five additional Acts that were added by the select committee? If that is the Government\u2019s objection to repealing blasphemy as part of this bill, then it must also object to repealing the five additional Acts that were not part of the original legislation. So I just make that point, and I certainly hope that the Government members will be supporting this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ETo come to the substance of the issue, of course we should be repealing blasphemy laws in New Zealand. I was absolutely astounded that somebody in New Zealand could be thrown in jail for up to a year for blasphemy. We condemn other countries that use Draconian laws like this to do very Draconian things to people\u2014we condemn them when they do so, and yet we have got a law on our own statute book that allows the Government of New Zealand to do just that. How is it consistent with the moral standing that we purport to hold internationally for us to condemn an action by another country when the New Zealand law allows us to do exactly that same thing? I think it is past high time that this law was taken off our statute book. It violates our commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New Zealand is a part of that covenant and we should live up to it. It violates our fundamental human right to freedom of expression.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EThere are things that people might say that might be regarded as blasphemous that some people might find offensive. They are absolutely entitled to tell the other people that\u2014that they are offensive\u2014but the idea that the person who said those things could potentially be thrown in jail for saying them is not consistent with our modern expectations around freedom of speech. In fact, the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, said that if the Church cannot defend itself against blasphemy, then, goodness me, it is in some trouble. I think that the churches are perfectly capable of defending themselves against blasphemy, and I do not think they need this law. In fact, they have told us publicly through the media that they do not need this law. Tolerance\u2014and I believe in a tolerant society\u2014cannot be fostered through prohibition. It is well past time for blasphemy to be removed from the New Zealand statute book.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022 data-id=\u002216911559fb964680af470a26c6e17965\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216911559fb964680af470a26c6e17965\u0022\u003EDAVID CLENDON (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I will just take a brief call, obviously in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, SOP 319, which seeks to remove the sentencing council legislation from this repeal bill. Some good points have been made by Labour colleagues. I will not reiterate those. I will pick up a little where Mr Parker left off. I will just remind people of something of the history of the Sentencing Council Act. It derived from a Law Commission report that highlighted the importance\u2014the necessity, in fact; it used that word, that a council of that sort was actually a necessity in New Zealand. That is quite strong language coming from a Law Commission report. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003EThe bill was then enacted, became an Act, obviously, and has sat on our statute book ever since, without actually having been put into action to be implemented. I think that is most unfortunate. The council\u2019s purpose, primarily, is to ensure consistency in sentencing. What it does not do in any way is impose the parliamentary will, if you like, on the judiciary. It does not seek to have Parliament take over the role of the judiciary or unreasonably influence it; far from it, in fact. It simply creates a forum where the judiciary can look at its own sentencing practice and establish some rules of engagement, if you like\u2014some level of equity, some level of consistency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003EClearly at the time it was a Labour Party bill\u2014the Labour Government, then, as it was. It was supported by the Greens. It was also supported by the M\u0101ori Party, and I would hope that the M\u0101ori Party will support this SOP. Mr Sharples\u2014Sir Pita Sharples, as he now is, and at the time this bill went through, the co-leader of the M\u0101ori Party\u2014spoke very strongly in support of the sentencing council. The legislation that established the sentencing council went through with a raft of other justice bills, some of them quite substantive. Sir Pita Sharples made the point at the time\u2014I think I quote him accurately\u2014that this was the key measure of change in the justice system. Of all the points of all the changes that were being made back in 2006 and 2007, Sir Pita identified the establishment of a sentencing council as the single most important measure contained in all of those bills, for the very reason that Mr Parker began to discuss: the fact that we have got institutional bias in our justice system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003EThat is something I am sure we all regret. It has been acknowledged, at least by the Police and other parts of the justice system, and the sentencing council was a practical, pragmatic, positive measure towards ironing that out, to ensuring that judgments made are consistent, irrespective of other factors, not least of all ethnicity\u2014so that if a M\u0101ori person in the Bay of Plenty offends in some way, he or she will be sentenced in the same way that a P\u0101keh\u0101 person in Northland or the South Island would be. Not identically\u2014no two cases are identical\u2014but to get the level of consistency and consistent practice that is sadly missing, and it is obviously missing, currently. There is no guideline. There is no forum for judges, for the judiciary to debate this stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003EI was in the UK last year and took the opportunity to speak with the head of the office of the UK sentencing council. Frankly, initially they were surprised that we do not have such an agency in New Zealand. There were some differences between the UK model and the model adopted here in this legislation, the Sentencing Council Act. In fact, the UK model is probably more authoritative\u2014I was going to say authoritarian; that is wrong. The sentencing council in the UK probably, by my judgment, has more power to direct the judiciary than the model selected in our own domestic legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003EAt the time, again, that the legislation was passed, the National Party did oppose the legislation, but the Hon Chris Finlayson, in his third reading speech at that time, made the point that the National Party had come from a point of complete opposition to the whole notion to a point where it thought that actually, in principle, a sentencing council was probably a good idea. Mr Finlayson\u2019s objection was that it was the wrong model. He claimed that the model as reflected in the legislation was unconstitutional. He used the word \u201Codious\u201D. But he also conceded at the time that there could be a model that would be acceptable to the National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003ESo the challenge I put to the Government is to support this SOP: to not repeal the Sentencing Council Act, but simply to bring an amendment to the Committee. Consult with the very wise and able Mr Finlayson\u2014I am sure he would come up with something that would be acceptable, and, arguably, acceptable to all parties. Amend the legislation, by all means, but it would be a serious error, I believe, to repeal it at this stage. It has also been argued that in fact the repeal itself would be unconstitutional\u2014or, rather, the failure to implement this legislation is itself unconstitutional. So I will leave that there. I certainly would seek Government support\u2014all parties\u2019 support\u2014for this SOP.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003EI will just speak briefly to Mr Hipkins\u2019 SOP 315 on the matter of section 123 of the Crimes Act, simply to say the Greens wholeheartedly support that. When it was first pointed out to me a few weeks ago that we had such a provision in our statutes, I found it quite extraordinary. It bordered on the medieval, the notion that we should have anti-blasphemy legislation. New Zealand is a more secular country than it has been in previous times, not overlooking the fact that many people do have a faith and practise religion. More power to them. I think anybody who consistently or publicly or loudly condemned or attacked any particular religion, any person practising a religion, any church, or any faith would very quickly find themselves at odds with the court of public opinion. I think they would be taken to task, even by people who may not practise a particular belief system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e959f20f-3de7-4f54-8577-8ea78d72c3dd\u0022\u003EBut I think Mr Hipkins acknowledged that we are a fairly tolerant society, I think, and long may that continue. So I do not think it is at all necessary to maintain this very strange and sadly out-of-date notion of illegality of blasphemy. I think we can safely agree that this SOP would do no harm. It would take off a very peculiar provision in our law, and I think our statutes would be better for it. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022 data-id=\u002224f3e674762143289f3e2d91d0fecfe0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224f3e674762143289f3e2d91d0fecfe0\u0022\u003EPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution in the Statutes Repeal Bill debate. Firstly, I just want to begin by responding to a couple of things that members have said during this debate. Firstly, to the member Rino Tirikatene, I think this bill is actually a very well-researched\u2014it is a very recherch\u00E9\u2014piece of legislation. Our advisers have carefully, methodically, and fastidiously fumbled through the musty, dusty statute book to find those pieces of legislation that either in their entirety have no continuing relevance or partially need to be repealed to tidy up the statute book. So I want to thank and congratulate our advisers, who have so ably assisted us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003EThe Government Administration Committee, as has been pointed out, did actually come across four additional pieces of legislation that we wanted to repeal in their entirety and another that we decided should be partially repealed, and they were the Education Law Amendment Act 1933, the Infants Act Repeal Act 1989, the Taxation Acts Repeal Act 1986, the Wellington City Reserves Act 1872, and section 4 of the Wellington City Reserves Act 1871. I do want to assure the member Mr Tirikatene that we were an assiduous select committee and we did go through looking for any other examples of obsolete and unnecessary legislation that can be safely repealed without unintended consequences.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003EBut I think the difference between those very obscure, very prosaic, and very obsolete pieces of legislation\u2014we are talking about bills that go back to 1781\u2014and the legislation that is incorporated in Mr Hipkins\u2019 Supplementary Order Paper to the Statutes Repeal Bill is that they had long since failed to have any continuing legal effect. I think the difference between that and section 123 of the Crimes Act is that it still remains part of our criminal code. For one, I am completely opposed to the idea that any form of crime of thought, or of speech, or of conscience should remain part of our criminal code on an ongoing basis, and I believe I spoke in my maiden speech in that regard. It is archaic that a country like New Zealand should prohibit speech of any sort in the way we do in section 123 of the Crimes Act, with a threat of imprisonment for those who commit blasphemy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003EI have lived in countries where blasphemy, apostasy, heresy\u2014whatever you want to call it\u2014is treated with severe force in the criminal justice system. New Zealand, thankfully, is not one of those countries. Whilst it has been on the record book\u2014well, it is in the Crimes Act 1961, but it has been on our statute book, incorporated from English law; and, actually, England has long since dropped it\u2014there have been no successful prosecutions for blasphemy in New Zealand. The last attempted prosecution was nearly 100 years ago\u2014the Maoriland Worker newspaper case, in which the Government of the day, William Massey\u2019s Government, having failed to get a sedition prosecution for a pacifist article in the newspaper, attempted to use blasphemy. Even back in the early 20th century, the jury failed to convict in that particular instance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003EThere were subsequent attempts to seek blasphemy prosecutions in New Zealand, most recently for a 2005 episode of the TV show South Park, which was in bad taste, I will concede, and also a late 1990s art exhibition at Te Papa Museum, which depicted the Virgin Mary in a condom\u2014again, it was in bad taste and it was not art of the sort that I enjoy. But in both cases the Government of the day\u2014because the Attorney-General\u2019s permission is required before blasphemy charges are able to be brought\u2014decided there was no case to answer. I think this is something that should be dealt with in a way that is in line with the process that this House operates under, and I am very glad to understand that the Government will, in due course, be having a comprehensive look at tidying up the Crimes Act 1961. It is over 50 years old; it is in need of a bit of housekeeping in the same way that our wider statute book is getting housekeeping in this Statutes Repeal Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003EIn the same way that we are getting a wider set of housekeeping done, the Crimes Act will get a proper look, and I would point out that whilst we did not get a huge number or a deluge of specific submissions, because the vast majority of what we dealt with in the schedules of this bill are uncontroversial matters, I suspect that should the blasphemy provisions of the Crimes Act have been one of those that we went out to seek consultation on, there would have been a far greater degree of public interest and, therefore, a far wider variety and a greater number of submissions provided.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003ESo I think, at this point in time, it does make sense for us to park this issue\u2014as we have seen, there is no immediacy or urgency required, given there have been no prosecutions for blasphemy in the history of our country, thankfully. Actually, it does raise a very interesting question. When I was looking at this issue, I found that a number of countries have simply legislated to drop blasphemy from their statute books, and that is what happened in the United Kingdom. In Scotland, however, it is argued that due to a combination of human rights legislation coming into place and lack of use\u2014the fact that the last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1824\u2014sufficient time has elapsed that the law has, effectively, become obsolete from lack of use.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003EI think you could argue that our blasphemy law could almost be in that category, having never been successfully used to secure a prosecution and not actually used at all for 100 years now. So on the blasphemy issue, I think that there should be a comprehensive and a structured approach, and due process should be followed, and we should get robust cross-party agreement on all of these issues, I am sure, when it comes to pass. But this is a statutes repeal bill, and it is important, I think, that we do have a good degree of consensus within this House when we are looking to remove bills, particularly if there have not been public submissions on those matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022 data-id=\u00222795b0fc83264a8a8875f90372a00064\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222795b0fc83264a8a8875f90372a00064\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD (Labour\u2014Mt Roskill):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to stand up and speak to the Statutes Repeal Bill. As I read through my papers in preparation for this debate, I was reminded of the great year of 1999. As Frank Sinatra sang, it was a very good year, for some very good reasons. The reason I was reminded of it was that it was my second year at law school and the year that I took public law. Probably, as a number of other members of this House might know, about the first case that you learn when you study public law is Fitzgerald v Muldoon, because it goes right to the heart of what our public law is about; it is such an important and seminal case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EOf course, that case is raised in the submission of Kenneth Keith, one of our most eminent jurors, which has been referred to by a number of other speakers, albeit perhaps not at the correct point of the debate. What I just wanted to develop off the points made in Mr Keith\u2019s submission is that this is actually very, very fundamental. This actually goes right back to the 1688 Bill of Rights. We are not just talking about a bit of statute passed by this House; we are talking about something that comes down to us from the Mother of Parliaments, from that period in the 17th century when the modern parliamentary system, that all current Westminster Parliaments have evolved from, was being developed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThat Bill of Rights Act says this, in section 1: \u201CThat the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal:\u201D. The reason I think it is useful to quote that is that often we think of executive abuse of power or executive overreach as doing something positive, something affirmative: going to war without parliamentary authorisation, extracting tax from the public without parliamentary authorisation, those kinds of things. But what the Bill of Rights makes very clear is that, actually, Parliament, the executive, not doing things that it should is also not correct. That is the point that Kenneth Keith makes. It is a point that Fitzgerald v Muldoon makes, because in the case of Fitzgerald v Muldoon it was the Prime Minister of the day, Robert Muldoon, not doing something that had been put in place by this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThat is exactly the case here. That is what Mr Keith says, because the Sentencing Council Act was passed by this House in 2007. It went through full parliamentary scrutiny, members of the public made submissions, speeches were made in this House. It went through three readings. It was put on to the statute book, and there it has sat for 9 years, but it has not been enacted. We can say, well, OK, it is not something that has done terrible damage to someone, but the point is that that bill was enacted with a purpose. As my colleague David Parker started commenting on before, and as David Clendon spoke about before, that purpose was quite significant; it was about establishing the principle that we should have equality of sentencing across all people in our community and our criminal justice system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003ENow, people may agree or disagree with that and, obviously, the incoming Government in 2008 disagreed with that; fair cop\u2014that is why we have debates. That is why we put legislation to this Parliament and we hear both sides of it. But that legislation has sat on the books for 9 years and it has not been implemented. Mr Keith is very clear about this. He says: \u201CThat refusal to give effect to a statute in force\u201D\u2014this is in paragraph 10 of his submission to the committee\u2014\u201Cappears to me to be a serious constitutional matter.\u201D It just seems to me that the Government is sweeping that under the rug.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EI would actually like the Minister in the chair, Maggie Barry, to answer some questions about this. Is the Government actually going to take up this point\u2014which has been raised by Sir Kenneth Keith, OK? We are not talking just about a garden-variety submission; we are talking about something from Sir Kenneth Keith. A question that springs to mind for me is: is there some legal risk in this? Sir Kenneth Keith has said that this is a piece of legislation that should have been enacted. Well, if I am someone who has been convicted and sentenced during that period and the Government has not enacted something on the books that it should have, have I got some case to come back to that? I do not know the answer to that, but I think, given the points raised by Sir Kenneth Keith in his submission, we should hear from the Government about that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003ESo I support that Supplementary Order Paper 319, which we will no doubt hear more about from David Parker, to remove the repeal of the Sentencing Council Act from this legislation. I would urge all members of this Committee who care about due parliamentary process to give serious consideration to that when we move on to the debate later on. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u0022236b6aa243b143daaa0df25f319defe9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022236b6aa243b143daaa0df25f319defe9\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to thank the member Paul Foster-Bell for taking a call and contributing to the debate, although I would suggest that his 5-minute contribution illustrated the point. The point of a statutes repeal bill is to remove laws that are not being used. His argument that this law around blasphemy has not been used and therefore should not be included as part of the bill because it is unnecessary negates the purpose of the whole bill that we are debating in the House. In fact, the same argument could be made for all of the repeals that are being done as part of this legislation\u2014that they are not being used so why not just leave them where they are? That is the whole point of a repeal bill. It is to remove laws that are no longer required. If a law against blasphemy is no longer required, and I would put forward very strongly that it is no longer required, then it should be removed as part of this process, because that is the whole point of the process. But I do at least want to acknowledge the contribution that Mr Foster-Bell made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI am disappointed that the leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour, has not made a similar contribution to this debate. Having puffed out his chest and said that he was going to be the great hero to remove blasphemy, it is interesting that when it comes down to the hard work of actually debating it and the cameras are not on him because it is not 2 o\u2019clock and it is not question time, suddenly he does not seem to have any contribution to make to the debate. So good on Mr Foster-Bell for at least making it to the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI want to reiterate why this is important, and the fact that the churches themselves are arguing that this law is no longer required. Catholic Bishop Steve Lowe of the Hamilton diocese said, and I think this is very important: \u201CIt is when we grapple with the great questions of spirituality and life, with mutual respect for the opinions and beliefs of others, that we grow as a healthy community.\u201D It is a fantastic sentiment. I absolute embrace that and I absolutely agree with it. The idea that we have a law that says that one person\u2019s views are superior to another\u2019s, and that one person\u2019s views could land them up in jail in order to protect the feelings of someone else\u2014that is not right. It is something that we should act on, and simply saying that this law is not being used, and therefore there is no rush, is ridiculous. We are dealing with dozens of Acts that are no longer relevant or that have not been used, and we are giving them the priority of Parliament\u2019s time today, and yet the Government is not willing to give the repeal of blasphemy sufficient priority in order to pass the repeal legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIn fact, it is not even a question of that, because it is getting priority\u2014because I have tabled it. It is being debated anyway. The Government has created some bizarre justification for not supporting the repeal of the law of blasphemy, which just does not make any sense at all. It actually negates the purpose of a statutes repeal bill. Saying that the law is still in operation but not being used and therefore should not be repealed is simply bizarre, and it is simply weak.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIn fact, I go back to Bill English\u2019s own comments, where he said \u201CWe could get rid of them. Laws that overreach on addressing robust speech are not a good idea.\u201D, and yet his Government, including Mr English himself, is now, according to his colleagues, going to vote against the repeal of blasphemy. It is another example from him of a complete failure of leadership, because he is saying one thing, and when it comes to voting in the House he is doing another thing. He is not showing leadership on the issue. It would not actually take much. This is something that I could imagine a John Key\u2014like Prime Minister would simply shrug off and go \u201COh well, it seems probably about time that they got rid of it. We\u2019ll vote for that.\u201D, because it actually makes sense to do so. There is no great constitutional crisis in the process that is being adopted here; it is actually what this process is designed to achieve\u2014the removal of laws that are no longer relevant and that are no longer needed, and blasphemy is well and truly in that category.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EI want to finally end\u2014because this is rather humorous, and it is always good to end on a humorous note\u2014with the comments of the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson. I have managed to find them now. He said: \u201CPeople have often asked me what I thought of the Life of Brian. Was it blasphemous? Well it probably was but it was funny.\u201D And I think we should embrace that particular spirit. He goes on to say, in typical Chris Finlayson style: \u201CWell, frankly, if a 2,000-year-old religion can\u2019t stand up to someone like Stephen Fry, they may as well shut their doors.\u201D I think the churches around the country embrace that sentiment too. They are saying they do not want this law. They are saying it is archaic. They are saying it is time for it to go. I challenge members on the National Government benches to vote with their conscience and remove this law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022 data-id=\u0022ca7bcf26451e4d31b4881c6c28e8716b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002261720d2e-5b1d-4742-b4f0-30424316ccc1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ca7bcf26451e4d31b4881c6c28e8716b\u0022\u003EBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u00224655eba441334fe193ae11ff9ef0acf2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224655eba441334fe193ae11ff9ef0acf2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am going to hear from Rino Tirikatene.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022 data-id=\u00227d075d7ea1294f68867cde4a011ff238\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d075d7ea1294f68867cde4a011ff238\u0022\u003ERINO TIRIKATENE (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to speak on clause 3. We are dealing with the substantive repeals in schedule 1. I want to focus on the Sentencing Council Act. I agree that, you know, there are many historical or redundant pieces of legislation here that, quite literally, we can do away with. But the Sentencing Council Act is sort of tucked in, and I believe the Government surreptitiously snuck it in there, just to see whether it could get it quickly repealed. I think that is wrong, because that is a really important piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003EAs addressed by my colleague the Hon David Parker earlier, we need to really look at the high incarceration rates of M\u0101ori. A lot of that stems from, obviously, the sentencing from our judges in the judicial system. If we just look at the numbers, they are appalling. New Zealand is renowned as having a high incarceration rate among OECD countries. When we look at it, we have got a population of 4.6 million, we have got a prison muster of 9,400, and 50 percent of that prison muster is M\u0101ori. So we have to really look at this, because M\u0101ori make up 15 percent of the population. This has been happening for generation upon generation. I would have thought that the sentencing council would have been an ideal mechanism to provide the judiciary not just with out-and-out directions\u2014no\u2014but to provide guidelines and principles for those judges to apply, because we are talking about a lot of regional variation. We are talking about from Te Tai Tokerau, up in the Far North, right down to the Bluff. There are a lot of different judges, a lot of different jurisdictions, and a lot of variation in sentencing. Who bears the brunt of that sentencing? The numbers speak for themselves\u201450 percent of our prison population is M\u0101ori, and yet M\u0101ori make up 15 percent of our total population.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003EIf the M\u0101ori prison population were to reduce to the average rate, our prison population would halve. That is all we would want as a society: to see that prison rate come down so we could see a reduction. We would not be needing to build $1 billion prisons. We would not be needing that. We would be closing prisons. The sentencing council was a critical part in that. For this Government to sneak that piece of legislation\u2014sure, it has not been activated, but it has been passed and it is law. What the Government is really showing is that there is a total lack of policy. You know, there is a screaming-out area where policy and leadership is required to address the high incarceration rates of M\u0101ori, and the disproportionality. And what does this Government do? It is more concerned with building more prisons than supporting a sentencing council. And if it does not support the sentencing council, then what is its alternative? What is its policy? It should be, instead of repealing this Act outright, debating this. It should at least be amending the Sentencing Council Act, or at least having the debate. I mean, there were four submitters on this bill, when, really, this is a critical piece of legislation, which they are just quietly wanting to wipe off our books.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230b053199c104539bae359441795dfa1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5f70e16e5054bf5b4b5a40707f0b2ef\u0022\u003ERINO TIRIKATENE\u003C/span\u003E: To conclude, I would like to just implore the Government to support Mr Clendon\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper 319, which retains the Sentencing Council Act. It would be a very important institution if it were given life to. I would encourage the Government to do something. This is a serious problem, around the high incarceration rates of M\u0101ori. We could do with a sentencing council, or, if not, failing that, we could come up with something, because too many M\u0101ori families are affected. The numbers speak for themselves; they are appalling. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u00222900f12705584f3cae7bb006ffdd02fd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222900f12705584f3cae7bb006ffdd02fd\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I wanted to take part in the debate on two of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are in front of us. The first one is the blasphemy SOP, SOP 315, if I could put it that way. New Zealand First would support that change. We feel that it is contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. One of the sections in that Act refers to \u201Cfreedom of thought, conscience, and religion\u201D, and clearly this so-called crime of blasphemy is contrary to that. Similarly, it is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which contains similar declarations of freedom. It is out of place in 21st century New Zealand, because I think that few people these days would accept a prosecution for blasphemy. In fact, I do not even think it is possible to properly define in this day and age what blasphemy would be, because of the huge cultural diversity we have in the country. So, quite plainly, this is a section in the Crimes Act that is thoroughly out of date, incapable of prosecution, and should be dispensed with forthwith, so we will support the elimination of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EHowever, turning to the sentencing council SOP, New Zealand First will oppose that SOP because we think that the Sentencing Council should be removed, not just because it has never been used but because it is probably incapable of ever being used. Having said that, I will say the reasons why. First of all, when I look at that particular Act, I see in section 8 what the purposes are, and the purposes are to produce guidelines about sentencing and parole to promote consistency, and so on, and to enable development of sentencing and parole policy to be based on a broad range of experience and expertise. It is difficult to understand exactly how that would work and what sort of policy would come under that section. So I can understand why it has never been implemented, because it seems to me a particularly difficult piece of legislation to put into place.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EWhen I look at the functions under section 9, it talks about guidelines on sentencing principles, whatever they may be; sentencing levels, which I think actually are for Parliament to decide and not that council; particular types of sentences, which, again, I think is for Parliament to decide and not that council; and so on. It also, in section 9(1)(c), talks about assessing and taking account of the overall costs and benefits of the guidelines. I have no idea why that exercise should be undertaken or why it should be undertaken by that council. Then, in section 19, it says: \u201CAny guideline (not being an inaugural guideline) may be disapplied by resolution of the House of Representatives passed within 15 sitting days \u2026\u201D. So the House can then undo whatever it is that the council decides to do. I think it is a nonsense piece of legislation, I think it is impractical, I think it is inappropriate, and it is certainly not New Zealand First policy, so we will vote against it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EClause 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002238a38e82f2394545aed6d34e9b0e25b5\u0022\u003EClause 4  Amendments to, and revocations of, other enactments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u0022126008e869c3495bb9cf5c02539d1367\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022126008e869c3495bb9cf5c02539d1367\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I am somewhat perplexed with regard to this next clause, clause 4, which deals with schedule 2 \u201CAmendments to other Acts\u201D. My question to the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, is a relatively simple one. None of these amendments in schedule 2, by my reading of them, repeal any Acts, so why have they been included in a statutes repeal bill? It seems rather odd. If this is a case of updating in the form that we might expect in a statutes amendment bill, then it could have been included in that. But the very narrow purpose of this bill is to repeal unused Acts and unused provisions in Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that if we look at\u2014it is page 9 that we are talking about here; the first one is an amendment to insert additional provisions in the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. The next amendment inserts additional provisions in the Government Roading Powers Act 1989, in particular around the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which was rather fascinating, the definition of what constitutes the Auckland Harbour Bridge. There are further amendments to the Public Works Act 1981\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7c768b4f5a949a586923575aa0099c8\u0022\u003EKris Faafoi\u003C/span\u003E: Nick wants to build under it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8e60162f18c47c587dd65a7bafcaa23\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Nick wants to build under it. Well, funnily enough, I will come to that. Hold that thought for just a moment, I am going to come to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EThe Public Works Act 1981 is amended by inserting additional provisions. The State Sector Act 1988 is amended by inserting additional provisions. It seems to me that we have somewhat missed the purpose of the Act, which was to repeal Acts not insert additional provisions. Mr Faafoi did raise a legitimate point, which is around the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The definition of the Auckland Harbour Bridge that is being inserted in this Act says that the Auckland Harbour Bridge does not include\u2014(a) any land or water over which the bridge passes on a structure where there is air space between the land or water and the structure:\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c837f461e5574fde95fbe295c65a9a21\u0022\u003EKris Faafoi\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s prime for housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207c19818f0964ae0b2faa1e1a544e62f\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: That is a prime site for housing. I think that this is Nick Smith\u2019s new solution to the housing crisis. I am very much looking forward to the Government\u2019s explanation of exactly how that is to be. But, really, the main purpose of this contribution was really to get an explanation around why these provisions are in here, because they are not repealing anything, they are actually adding to the Act, and that seems to be completely inconsistent with what the purpose of this bill is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022 data-id=\u00222b14a72baba04378b162b32cb1c7c569\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b14a72baba04378b162b32cb1c7c569\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Labour\u2014Port Hills):\u003C/span\u003E I do not want to make any contribution in regard to the Auckland Harbour Bridge and its suitability, or not, for putting houses under.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022154b7d5d59ba412caac1fd26bfd6581e\u0022\u003EChris Hipkins\u003C/span\u003E: Why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e7162d5728e5431fb23e90647ed1f603\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that is probably the point of another debate, but I am very interested in the question that my colleague Chris Hipkins has raised in relation to the appropriateness of putting a whole schedule in a statutes repeal bill that does not deal with any repeal of statutes but deals with amendments to other Acts. They are non-controversial, I assume, and I know this from the lack of submissions to the Government Administration Committee, but I still do not know whether this is the appropriate vehicle. This is something that our Committee of the whole House has been challenged on in a number of instances previously when we have had, in a statutes amendment bill, proposals that do not meet the criteria for that. I know that the statutes repeal criteria are different from statutes amendments, but I would be interested whether the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, who usually does respond to questions, would find out what the criteria is for a statutes repeal bill, and whether it is broad enough to allow amendments to other Acts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EIn schedule 2, which is part of clause 4, we are amending the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act of 1981 with quite a substantial insertion. We are inserting a section in relation to the \u201CUnauthorised use of King George the Fifth Memorial Children\u2019s Health Camps Federation emblem\u201D\u2014not something that I think is done too frequently. As my colleague Chris Hipkins, mentioned earlier, we have the Government Roading Powers Act amendment, which is substantially to do with the Auckland Harbour Bridge, but we also have an amendment to the Public Works Act, and we have an amendment to the State Sector Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003ESo how are these amendments, whether they are non-controversial or whether they are needed to make sure that the bill is fit for purpose in this day and age\u2014how is this properly done in a statutes repeal bill? I would also be interested to know whether the Business Committee has considered looking at any of these issues to see whether there is a less onerous way of us progressing the dismissal of books from the statute register\u2014the dismissal of Acts\u2014if those Acts are no longer used. They have done their time. They had no sunset provision in them. They are no longer used for anything at all. Is there a better way than having a bill introduced into Parliament, referred to the select committee, back to the Committee of the whole House, and then on to the third reading? Is there a smarter way of us doing it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that this is a real opportunity for us to look at the criteria and say: \u201CIs this better as a statutes amendment type of provision, or could there be some separate new type of debate in Parliament where we could say that we will allow time for parties to consider all the legislation\u2014with time for public submissions if it is considered appropriate\u2014but certainly a smarter way of doing this?\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EIn the Australian Parliament they have different types of debates that are held simultaneously. Some of them are a complete opportunity for promoting oneself, I think, and that is all. I am not proposing that. I just do not think that we need to spend the usual process of the Parliament to dismiss Acts that are no longer fit for purpose. So that is my first point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EThe second one\u2014just referring to the original reason for this bill being introduced\u2014I want to repeat that I can see no benefit at all or potential gain to the productivity level of New Zealand by us amending the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act of 1981, and that was alleged to have been the purpose of this legislation; nor of the complete repeal of between 132 and 137 Acts. I counted, and I got 132. So I think the member who interjected on this earlier on might have to count again. I think he was including the ones that are amended, rather than repealed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003EThe final point I want to make is just to say that in this clause there does not appear to be anything controversial, unlike the other ones. I think that is appropriate. I urge the Minister to just answer that one question: what is the criterion that is required before parts can be included in a statutes repeal bill? If we could have that information, we could conclude the debate I am sure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022 data-id=\u0022b03b4c7a6394431895e7972deda85c72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b03b4c7a6394431895e7972deda85c72\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI (Labour\u2014Mana):\u003C/span\u003E I understand we are on clause 4 of the bill. My colleagues Chris Hipkins and Ruth Dyson have commented on the fact that within this repeal bill we have clauses and pieces of legislation that are being enacted and updated, and there are questions around that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EMy contribution goes to Part 1 of schedule 3, which I understand is in clause 4. It goes to something that is being repealed, and that is the Home Ownership Savings Act 1974. It was probably a really creative piece of legislation of the Labour Government at the time, to encourage homeownership. I feel that maybe this is one of those pieces of legislation that we should look at, that possibly could have been looked at a little bit closer as to whether we could have kept it and looked at some other creative ways of homeownership, because of New Zealand\u2019s declining rate of homeownership at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003ESchedule 3, under the Home Ownership Savings Act 1974, does repeal the definitions of things like ordinary farm ownership accounts, ordinary fishing vessel ownership accounts, special farm ownership accounts, and special fishing vessel ownership accounts. As you can see, from the kinds of things that we are repealing, that Labour Government of the time was probably taking some really fresh approaches to encourage ownership of homes\u2014a lot different from what the current Government is doing. I think it is very interesting that we have got a Government that is repealing something called the Home Ownership Savings Act 1974.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EIt does not surprise me at all, because the current Government does not seem to care about the declining rate of homeownership in New Zealand. It does not seem to care that the likes of Auckland has got massive issues with growing populations and not enough affordable housing to cater for them. It is no surprise to me whatsoever that this National Government is opposed to something called the Home Ownership Savings Act. The Government has little or no commitment to homeownership itself, so it does not surprise me whatsoever that Part 1 of schedule 3 includes the repeal of the Home Ownership Savings Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EI do not have any questions for the Minister, because I know what she will say. She will have no answer to the fact that this Government is quite happy to see something like the Home Ownership Savings Act repealed, because it has had no plan for increasing homeownership in New Zealand whatsoever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236bec478875042558a932a69c6a7b7f8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I want to just draw the member\u2019s attention to the rules around the Committee stage, which is about talking about submissions before the select committee, Supplementary Order Papers, and asking the Minister questions. It is not a chance for a rant. That is for one of the speeches the member may well give in one of the reading stages of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ff583bda0cf4fc9b374e9327f1f3151\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: I was just about to get into the rant, so I will take a different tack. I do not think there probably were any submissions on this fact whatsoever, but\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eac3f7fb8c2d4585b1cf5f4b966f4fee\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: You cannot talk about what there was not, either. You can only talk about what there was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b936b74ba39a42e9bb345801db1034cc\u0022\u003EKRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: But if there were some submissions on this, I would suggest there would be a lot of people concerned about this Government and its lack of commitment to homeownership, as shown by its repealing of the Home Ownership Savings Act 1974. Thank you very much for the opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u002281e860cd5165454893544fb584831619\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002281e860cd5165454893544fb584831619\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E I want to make a brief further contribution to this debate. I was again somewhat surprised when I looked at Part 2 of schedule 3, which includes the consequential revocation of regulations. It revokes a number of regulations made by Order in Council. The thing that surprised me about that is why we needed primary legislation in order to revoke pieces of legislation that have been made without legislation. These are regulations that have been made by Order in Council, by Ministers, and therefore why are we revoking them by way of legislation? Surely they could be revoked without the need to resort to legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that the genesis of this bill is repealing unused statutes, and the justification was the Productivity Commission\u2019s report that the law needs to be tidied up and that we need to reduce the amount of unnecessary legislation that we have, so what is the point of passing legislation as part of this bill that we do not actually need? Revoking regulations by way of an Act of Parliament, when those regulations could simply be revoked by Ministers signing a piece of paper to revoke them, seems to me to be the very mischief that this bill is designed to remediate, which is that we do not want a whole lot of unnecessary laws either on the books of the House or passing through the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo Part 2\u2014I would be very interested in an explanation from the Minister as to why these regulations are being revoked by an Act of Parliament, rather than simply by Ministers using the prerogative that they have to be able to revoke. Well, it is not actually a prerogative that they have; it is the prerogative that the Governor-General has, on Ministers\u2019 advice, to simply revoke these by way of Order in Council. It seems to me that that would be a much more sensible way of progressing that matter, unless there is a good reason why they are being dealt with through primary legislation. But I certainly cannot see, from my reading of the bill, why that might be.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022 data-id=\u00222400b7ae0e8c47a1b29bb0a14987efd1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222400b7ae0e8c47a1b29bb0a14987efd1\u0022\u003ECLARE CURRAN (Labour\u2014Dunedin South):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to take a brief call on the Statutes Repeal Bill. I have listened quite carefully to the debate, particularly around clause 4\u2014schedule 2. I think Chris Hipkins has made a very good point around the issue\u2014that this is supposed to be a repeal bill so why are we having insertions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EI have gone back and had a look at the first reading Hansard notes on this bill to see what the Minister, the Hon Steven Joyce\u2014is he still the Minister for Regulatory Reform? I am not sure. Anyway, he talked for most his speech about the fact that this bill repeals 132 Acts, and what percentage that is of legislation, etc., etc. There is a one-liner he gave around clause 4\u2014what we are debating at the moment\u2014where he said that schedule 2 saves important provisions from a small number of the Acts being repealed, to avoid adverse effects on some parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EI have just been having a look at what is in schedule 2, and I have got a few questions for the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, as to what the adverse effects are in this part of the bill, from the \u201CUnauthorised use of King George the Fifth Memorial Children\u2019s Health Camps Federation emblem\u201D in new section 20AAA(4). I note that new section 20AAA(4)\u2014this is an amendment to the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981\u2014actually inserts a fine of not exceeding $2,000 for the unlawful use of the emblem of the foundation. I just wonder whether we are able to hear a little bit about what the unauthorised use is and what the impacts of that would be, because I presume that there must have been some unauthorised use of the emblem of the King George the Fifth Memorial Children\u2019s Health Camps Federation for this quite considerable insertion to be in this Statutes Repeal Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EThen we have got the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the definitions around that, which my colleagues have talked about. In particular, in schedule 2, new section 87B of the Government Roading Powers Act talks about the Auckland Harbour Bridge being \u201Cproperly lighted\u201D. I would have actually thought that it should be \u201Clit\u201D, just as a grammar suggestion. I wonder whether there has been an issue and an adverse effect from the Auckland Harbour Bridge not being properly lit, which has required there be an insertion into this part of a repeals bill, as to the fact that it should be properly lit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EThere seem to be some sensible provisions following that around installing, maintaining, or repairing water mains or power or telecommunication lines, wires, or cables without the consent of the agency. Again, it seems to be an odd place to put a provision like this\u2014would that not already be in legislation? Clearly, it is not. Then we go to the Public Works Act, and, despite the repeal of the Southland Electricity Act, we have to have an insertion of a provision in here about the Southland Electricity Act. It sort of seems to go around in circles, that clause. So I am just wondering what the adverse effect is that has resulted in that clause being inserted into this Statutes Repeal Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00222aa0b524-c38d-45aa-bd5b-99c5927085f4\u0022\u003EIt would be useful if Minister Wagner was able to explain to us why we are having insertions into a repeal bill. It is almost half the bill, actually\u2014these insertions. I note that Minister Steven Joyce did refer to it and he referred to adverse effects. It would be useful if there could be some explanation from Minister Wagner, given that we are discussing this in the Chamber in the Committee Stage, as to what those adverse effects are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022 data-id=\u00221c81d61e29834883a45c5f4dfd1a4319\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c81d61e29834883a45c5f4dfd1a4319\u0022\u003ERINO TIRIKATENE (Labour\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I want to pick up where my colleague Kris Faafoi left off, in relation to the Home Ownership Savings Act. We have got consequential amendments to that Act in schedule 3, but that Act cross-references some key definitions that are contained in the Fishing Vessel Ownership Savings Act and the Farm Ownership Savings Act, which are actually repealed under schedule 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003EI am just cross-referencing them over, but what I would like to know is\u2014there are core definitions within the Home Ownership Savings Act that have been repealed, and also the Act that they were established under has been repealed under this bill as well. I would like to know how certain the Minister is that there are not still valid accounts that exist. I believe that it was up until 1986 that no further accounts could be opened, however we are talking about, potentially, quite a large number of accounts. The institutions that those accounts were opened with are still around, albeit, sure, the banks might have changed ownership over the years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003EClearly, not all of that Act has been repealed; it is only certain definitions relating to farm ownership and fishing vessels. So what I would like to know is, based on that, how certain is the Minister that the fishing vessel accounts and the farm accounts aren\u2019t still valid, and what happens in that situation? You are repealing the legislation that creates these accounts, and you could create a sort of void. You are voiding these accounts, and the potential accountholders or their successors. I would like some, I guess, confirmation from the Minister that this will not affect existing accountholders. This goes to the point that we have been making around the complexity when there are repeals happening upon repeals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003EI just want to bring another point\u2014I beg your indulgence, Mr Chairperson. If we look to Part 2 of schedule 1, it covers the repeal of parts of the Fisheries Act. I have looked at that section, section 314(1), and the repeal of those paragraphs relates to the repeal of other provisions in the Fisheries Act. So what we are dealing with is a repeal upon a repeal. I am cross-referencing it because it links to the subject matter in schedule 3. All I am saying is that there are inconsistencies. The potential inconsistencies here\u2014I would like to get clarification from the Minister that these are consistent with these repeals, because it does not make sense. Why would\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022333bf55aed1f46aab5017d34a6d2f43d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: I will just draw to the member\u2019s attention that the schedule he is talking about was debated under clause 3. We are now debating clause 4.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281825190-fd5d-4ed0-bb80-f12f3c93e653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222db62a1f0a144a5b3c6b70441daa3da\u0022\u003ERINO TIRIKATENE\u003C/span\u003E: I was begging your indulgence because I was switching among the various schedules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e268e89b6924075960062ed4f978dac\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: My indulgence has expired.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EClause 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c919d1bbe9bb40ccb2df35ee20067cf8\u0022\u003EClause 5  Repeal of this Act\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022 data-id=\u002266d22eb747294ab4b5fddc24cd7beae0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266d22eb747294ab4b5fddc24cd7beae0\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS (Labour\u2014Rimutaka):\u003C/span\u003E This is the longest debate that I have ever had on such a minor bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022430d03da2ad544368733e81d0b8607de\u0022\u003EHon Jo Goodhew\u003C/span\u003E: The member certainly tells it as it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3e1e0f3d3c0402a9a976e1b9cdd4fd3\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: That is true. It is absolutely right. I was going to say that one day the member will find herself over here, but apparently she will not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bff2c70cab44f58bb773f17dc6bd2a7\u0022\u003EHon Amy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: Neither will the rest of us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221001c501b60e437b865dc47aa7666fd8\u0022\u003EHon Jo Goodhew\u003C/span\u003E: Been there, done my time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002276704f876f8840b095702a62dc466d4d\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. But clause 5 of the bill repeals the Act once it has been passed. It is a rather interesting provision, because this bill will be made law the day after it receives the Royal assent\u2014so the Governor-General signs the law to say it is now the law. Then 28 days later it will disappear. It seems to me rather interesting that that would be the case because we are repealing a number of other Acts that have already been repealed. So in view of the fact that this bill has a self-destruct clause, if we could call it that, what I would like to know from the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, is whether that then means that it will not then, at any point, itself need to be included in a future statutes repeal bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f000054e0ad447e7a708a85446da5c07\u0022\u003EPaul Foster-Bell\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dee569284cdf40589ff711ed7948cb55\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Paul Foster-Bell says \u201CThat\u2019s right.\u201D, but go back to the Rugby World Cup legislation that this repeal bill repeals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EThe Rugby World Cup legislation had a self-destruct clause as well, but the self-destruct clause was by Order in Council, so the Act could be repealed when a Minister signed a piece of paper by Order in Council that said that it was repealed, and that was done. So why is it that that Act, having been repealed by an Order in Council, is now having to be repealed again as part of this bill yet this bill will then not have to be repealed\u2014I know this is sounding very, very circular\u2014by another future repeal bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003ESo does clause 5 mean that this is it for this bill\u2014completely finished?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207d42dbe-f05a-4a7a-8c23-0eecc14b72aa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220e41a63594642c8be4384aa41a61466\u0022\u003EPaul Foster-Bell\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5365bdbf8d349659fb77c9afce6462a\u0022\u003ECHRIS HIPKINS\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Paul Foster-Bell should perhaps be the Minister in the chair. Maybe he has resigned too early from the House, because he seems to be willing to engage in the debate, which the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner, who is actually responsible for the legislation, does not seem willing to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EActually, it is an important issue because the reason that we are having this debate\u2014we would not even need to have this debate if clause 5, which we have got here, had been included in all of the other repeal bills that are now being repealed by this repeal bill, and then we would not need to have further repeal bills. So a simple question: does this mean that it is the end of the matter for this bill? If it does, that is a good thing. If that is the case, then we should certainly put this into all of our future statutes amendment bills and other bills like that so that we do not then have to come back and have these debates in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221dbd2811-8e58-4ffb-848d-31c0eaa9690a\u0022\u003EClause 5 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226d5ee5878330469f995256607fa1884f\u0022\u003ESchedule 1  Repeals\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000514\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of Chris Hipkins to schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227bf1bb5fea7a483e97a8815a67a72427\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 59\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000515\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of David Clendon to schedule 1, Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c56e9daccd9c473084d655ebae392ace\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; M\u0101ori Party 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 72\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u0022be7b7b37da724dc6a4a069be88eec50d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be7b7b37da724dc6a4a069be88eec50d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: David Clendon\u2019s amendments to schedule 1, Part 2 are out of order as they are consequential to a previous amendment negatived by the Committee. The Hon David Parker\u2019s tabled amendment to schedule 1 is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f79c5c54bb39496b8377673ec68c01b5\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00222f0f6f67e8c14255b5835d62bc37749e\u0022\u003ESchedule 3  Consequential amendments and revocations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022 data-id=\u002235e80869b00941fbbdac811f96d05de5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235e80869b00941fbbdac811f96d05de5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows)\u003C/span\u003E: The amendments to schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of David Clendon are out of order as they are consequential to a previous amendment negatived by the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EBill to be reported without amendment presently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EThe Chairperson reported the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing duties) Amendment Bill with amendment and the Statutes Repeal Bill without amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022af149cbde0d84c769d182e9cb845c849\u0022\u003EPoint England Development Enabling Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d8ab85f23074413bb4edf2a4c0fc2554\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002226152fdabed74b2486d8db1f2ff20847\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226152fdabed74b2486d8db1f2ff20847\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be now read a second time. Cows or homes\u2014that is the simple choice that Parliament faces with this bill. Point England is a 45-hectare reserve 10 kilometres east of Auckland\u2019s CBD that for over 30 years has had cows grazing on 18 hectares of it. The bill lifts the reserve status on 12 hectares to enable Ng\u0101ti Paoa to undertake a housing development alongside 2 hectares that are being provided for a marae as part of their Treaty settlement. The area available for recreation and public space is being increased by 4 hectares.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe bill is a win for housing in providing 300 new homes in close proximity to the city. It is a win for Ng\u0101ti Paoa in that it helps settle their historic Treaty claim. It is a win for the community in that it will increase the space for recreation and involve millions of dollars of investment in improving playing fields and community facilities. It is a win for the environment in that \u014Cmaru Creek, which is one of Auckland\u2019s most polluted and toxic, will be able to be funded for a clean-up. The only losers are the hundreds of cows that will be evicted. I am astonished that Opposition parties, who spend half their time demanding that more houses be built and the other half arguing that New Zealand has too many cows and wants their numbers capped, somehow oppose this bill. I want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its work on the bill and for recommending that it be progressed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI want to put the bill in the context of the Government\u2019s broader plan for addressing Auckland\u2019s housing needs. There is a broad consensus that increasing supply is the most important component of a solution and that the lack of available land is one of the greatest impediments. That is why our Government created special housing areas where there are already 2,500 homes completed, 4,500 consented, thousands more sections completed, and much more in the pipeline. That is why we introduced the special process for the Auckland Unitary Plan, the urban development national policy statement, the Crown land programme, and the massive developments that are under way in sites like Hobsonville, T\u0101maki, Weymouth, and Northcote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EHouses cannot be built instantly, but the Government\u2019s programme is delivering the longest and strongest building boom in Auckland\u2019s history. Back in 2011 only 3,500 homes were being built. It went to 4,000 in 2012, 6,500 in 2014, 7,900 in 2015, and now over 10,000 homes per year are being built in that city and residential investment in Auckland is at an all-time high of over $5 billion a year. But members on this side of the House know we need to do more and that is why we are freeing up underutilised land at Point England.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI do get a bit cross when members opposite demand that new houses be built and then every time there is a development they come up with some reason to oppose it. I note Labour MP Michael Wood has led the charge in opposing the 1,500 homes at Three Kings. I notice Labour and Green members are vigorously opposing the major 400-home development next to Mount M\u0101ngere. I noticed they have opposed developments because they are next to cemeteries or they are next to power lines. They are coming up with constant excuses as to why we cannot build more houses, and their opposition to this Point England development is equally duplicitous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe argument that reserve land is sacrosanct does not wash. Just last year this Parliament put through the revoking of the reserve status of land in Riccarton for a major 400-home development, and members from New Zealand First, Labour, and the Green Party were quite comfortable. If reserve land is sacrosanct, they broke that rule last year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EEqually so, I have to say there is a precedent being created here. The Crown provided the Auckland City Council with this land for recreational purposes over 40 years ago, and it has been used for grazing cows\u201418 hectares\u2014for over 30 years. If the precedent that this Parliament creates is that if councils do not use reserves for the purpose for which they are intended, the Government might use them for another purpose, then I think that is a valuable precedent for this Parliament to set.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe argument that we could just take some land next door from the T\u0101maki Redevelopment Co. is equally flawed. You see, if you take that land next door, that means there cannot be the houses that are planned there. That means fewer homes, not more. Equally so, Ng\u0101ti Paoa have made it plain that Point England is their ancestral land, and they will not accept that land next door from the T\u0101maki Redevelopment Co. to resolve their Treaty settlement. So that alternative does not resolve that long-term Treaty settlement, nor does it add to the much-needed pipeline of additional housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI have also heard the arguments about the dotterels and I have sought technical advice. Actually, the birds move their nesting sites every year. There is no evidence that a marae or housing would any more compromise the future of the dotterels than would the housing that is proposed by Ng\u0101ti Paoa, and, with the additional funding, both Ng\u0101ti Paoa and the Auckland Council are totally committed to their future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI am appalled by Labour\u2019s minority view opposing the bill. Those members have sold Peeni Henare and the M\u0101ori Labour caucus down the road. Let me quote what Mr Henare, as the MP for T\u0101maki Makaurau, said when this bill was introduced. He said: \u201CThis particular bill offers an opportunity not just for T\u0101maki-makau-rau but, in particular, for Ng\u0101ti Paoa,\u201D for whom, he said\u2014and I quote\u2014he was \u201Cextremely excited\u201D. He went on to say that this was a \u201Cfantastic\u201D bill, that this was a win-win, that it was not just about building houses but that it was about building communities. He went on to say that Ng\u0101ti Paoa must be able to \u201Cgrasp \u2026 this \u2026 opportunity\u201D and he said\u2014and I quote\u2014\u201CWe support this bill.\u201D So Mr Henare has been kneecapped by Phil Twyford once again over-extending himself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI say to Mr Twyford, thank you for gifting the Asian vote with your misplayed Chinese-sounding names debacle, for which you currently apologise. I am sure that the M\u0101ori Party will equally thank you for your opposition to this bill, which has sent a very clear signal to M\u0101ori in Auckland that when it comes to the hard yards, it is the M\u0101ori Party that will back iwi in Auckland, not the Labour Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EAll this talk about the preciousness of reserve land brings me to this: why is it\u2014and where have the Labour Party and the Green Party and their mates on the Auckland Council been over the last 30 years\u2014that that recreation reserve land has been grazed by a P\u0101keh\u0101 farmer and they have said nothing, and now Ng\u0101ti Paoa want to put a marae and housing on that land and somehow it is an outrage? That opposition is shallow, it is opportunistic, it shows that Labour is part of the problem and not part of the solution for housing, and it is a political gift-horse for the M\u0101ori Party. If I was a member of the Labour Party, I would be questioning the strategic leadership that is being offered over this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis is a good bill. This is a bill that gets 300 more families into houses. This is a bill that enables Ng\u0101ti Paoa to settle their Treaty grievance. This enables Ng\u0101ti Paoa to be able to have a marae in their ancestral area. I am proud to stand with members on this side of the House, who say that houses in Auckland are more important than cows. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u002295ead584542942948b1e91299f19683b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295ead584542942948b1e91299f19683b\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I want to set out Labour\u2019s position on this bill, but before I begin my comments, I want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Hau\u0101uru R\u0101wiri, who is the head man of Ng\u0101ti Paoa and someone who has been right in the middle of this whole debate. Labour opposes this bill because the Government has deliberately ignored a better alternative that would have offered Ng\u0101ti Paoa a marae and co-governance of the Point England recreational reserve, as well as an adjacent housing development without taking precious city parkland from a community that needs that parkland for future generations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ELabour supported this bill at first reading, and we did so with goodwill because we believed that it deserved serious scrutiny and, on the face of it, it deserved to be taken seriously. But after meeting with all of the groups involved, including repeatedly with Ng\u0101ti Paoa, with Auckland Council, with the local board\u2014the T\u0101maki-Maungakiekie local board\u2014and a plethora of different community groups who live in the Point England and T\u0101maki area, and listening to 104 submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee, of which about 90 percent were against this bill, we changed our view. We weighed up the evidence, we listened to people, and we decided that this bill is not in the best interests of not just the community at Point England but the whole community, and I will spell out why we think that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Minister for Building and Construction has tried to say that this bill is an attempt to fix Auckland\u2019s housing crisis. Well, there are so many things that this National Government should be doing about the Auckland housing crisis that if I listed them all, I would not have any time left to talk about the Point England bill, so I will not. But there are many, many things the Government should be doing. Building houses on city parkland is simply not one of those things. It is not a credible response to the Auckland housing crisis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe communities at Point England, Glen Innes, and T\u0101maki are going to get another 20,000 residents living in those communities in the next 10 years as a result of the intensification that is under way, led by the T\u0101maki Regeneration Company. The community and future generations need this parkland\u2014another 20,000 people living in a medium-density community. They need the Point England Reserve, which is one of the most precious open expanses of urban parkland in the Auckland region.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe bill, as Auckland Council has said and as the T\u0101maki-Maungakiekie local board has said, sets a dangerous precedent. It is central government overriding the provisions of the Reserves Act and the Resource Management Act to confiscate a piece of public parkland and turn it over to private housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229c49134bb3a452c9821d80c1646f037\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: To Ng\u0101ti Paoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f771894da83f40bb8a7a9357f859a832\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: To private housing. Auckland is set to get another million people in the next generation\u2014another million people\u2014and many of those people are going to be living in medium-density and high-density communities. They need parkland. If we take away the parkland for future generations, where will the children play?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ELabour has set out over the last few weeks an alternative plan that we believe is better than this bill, and I want to set that plan out for you. The Government is the major shareholder in the T\u0101maki Regeneration Company\u2014the TRC. The TRC owns 2,800 homes just over the fence from the Point England Reserve. We propose that the Government stops this bill in its tracks and instead offers Ng\u0101ti Paoa 11 hectares of land that is currently owned by the TRC for the commercial redress component of Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2019s Treaty settlement. Co-governance of Point England Reserve could be offered as part of the package, with the opportunity for Ng\u0101ti Paoa to build the marae that they want to have established on the Point England Reserve. The Government has already accepted, in principle, the idea that the proceeds of the sale of the 11 hectares should go to enhancing parks in the local community. Well, let the Government put its money where its mouth is and get Auckland Council to match that funding, and use that to enhance the whole reserve\u2014not only for Ng\u0101ti Paoa but for the Glen Innes and T\u0101maki communities and for future generations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ENick Smith has tried to make this debate an issue of cows versus houses\u2014cows versus houses. Apparently, the basis of the National Party\u2019s housing policy is now that any land where there are cows grazing is going to be turned over to housing. I say watch out Cornwall Park\u2014watch out Cornwall Park\u2014and half a dozen other regional parks in the Auckland area that have livestock grazing on them, because that is the new National Party housing policy. Any park that has livestock grazing is fair game for housing development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ENick Smith has said that the Point England Reserve is underutilised, but as the local community group Save Our Reserves said in today\u2019s New Zealand Herald: \u201CAnyone who knows anything about the area will know that the reserve is a much-loved and much-needed public space that is enjoyed by the community year round. Only a minority of the open rural landscape is grazed, and this is to support the funding of the general maintenance of the reserve. These playing fields, three of which will be lost when the land is turned over to housing under this bill, are used by local schools and communities for cricket, kilikiti, football, and rugby league. This is in addition to family and social gatherings. Many people will have seen large public events that have taken place in recent weeks that attracted thousands of members of the Auckland public to the Point England Reserve, including Music in Parks, Movies in Parks, and the hugely popular Weet-Bix Tryathlon.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIt is no coincidence that this bill has been brought to the House by Nick Smith. He is the Minister who, two Budgets ago, brought a list to the Parliament of 500 hectares of land that he was going to build 10,000 houses on as part of his Crown Land Programme. He is the Minister who promised 500 hectares of Crown land 2 years ago; the best his officials can scrape together now is 30 hectares, and not a single house has been built on that land. Secondly, this Minister is the architect of the special housing areas policy that drew lines on the map all over Auckland and promised 39,000 houses. How many have been built 3 years later? Fewer than 3,000. This is the Minister who has made the National Government\u2019s housing policy a joke. He became a figure of fun. That is why he was replaced by Amy Adams\u2014because 5 months out from an election, he was an electoral liability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThis bill is typical of this Minister\u2019s style. This is the way he rolls. He is trying to make the confiscation of a precious piece of public parkland into a Treaty issue. That is what he is doing. He is trying to make the confiscation of public parkland to build 300 private houses\u2014he is trying to make that some kind of solution to the housing crisis. It is the ultimate in playing politics, because it is neither of those things. It is not a serious response to the housing crisis\u2014a housing crisis that has seen a shortfall of 40,000 homes build up on that Minister\u2019s watch. It is getting worse by 7,000 houses a year. Auckland Council said the other day that only 7,000 homes had been built in the last year in Auckland; we need at least 14,000 just to stand still and keep up with population growth. That is the legacy of this Minister: a massive shortfall of housing. Our city has some of the most expensive housing in the world. It has become a speculator\u2019s paradise, and he thinks that confiscating 11 hectares of public parkland that is needed for future generations\u2014he thinks that is some kind of solution to the housing crisis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ENick Smith is obsessed by the fact that there are some cows grazing 10 kilometres from the Sky Tower\u2014that is the basis of the National Party\u2019s housing policy. But, Minister, we need parkland for future generations. What about in 30 years\u2019 time? What about in 50 years\u2019 time? The fact that there are cows grazing on a small part of the Point England Reserve is being used in the justification, by this Minister, for confiscating about 25 percent of the reserve. It is a nonsense\u2014it is a total nonsense. It has no credibility as any kind of solution to the housing crisis in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d3d135963cb940b1a172ead34c02db30\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d3d135963cb940b1a172ead34c02db30\u0022\u003EHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National\u2014Maungakiekie):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support this second reading of the Point England Development Enabling Bill. I want to support the Minister, because he is hard-working. He is delivering results, not just in Auckland but around the country, around housing, and this is a bill that will enable the development of housing in just over 11.5 hectares of land around the Point England Reserve. This piece of land is situated in my electorate of Maungakiekie, and for me this legislation represents an opportunity to use the land for one of the key priorities of our Government, and, indeed, one of the important priorities facing the people that I represent in Maungakiekie, and that is housing. That is the overwhelming feedback that I get from constituents in my electorate: that the Government should prioritise housing needs alongside jobs, infrastructure, health, and education.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EOur Government has taken that feedback when setting policy and passing laws\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022754883e905f74762a98f253023616b5a\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: You should be ashamed of yourself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aab80b16046e41e8ad448e266d84d831\u0022\u003EHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014as you will see this Thursday, Mr Twyford, when budgets are delivered for the people of New Zealand. Of course, we have had to balance these needs with other competing needs of our community, and these include the need for green space\u2014yes, we acknowledge that\u2014recreational facilities, the environment, and the preservation of reserves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EI have met with many local groups and iwi, including Ng\u0101ti Paoa. I do want to acknowledge one of our leaders up in the gallery, Hau; it is good to see you, sir. I have met with groups like the local iwi and the Tamaki Estuary Protection Society, who I think raise some valid points\u2014because I am there to listen, as their local MP. They talk about the enhancement of the environment, they talk about the degradation in the local area, and they also talk about the importance of the ecological site. I respect those points made about preserving reserve status for land and people\u2019s enjoyment of the wildlife.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EHowever, for me, on balance, there is a more pressing need to build 300 more homes for families, and especially for our kids\u2014people who are in need of shelter, warm homes, and clean and modern facilities. That is right\u2014clean and modern facilities. This bill will enable Ng\u0101ti Paoa to develop the land as part of its Treaty settlement, and improve the recreational and cultural facilities in our local area. We have already heard tonight about how a marae is planned for the land. Ng\u0101ti Paoa, for its part, has undertaken to protect local birdlife, and any development will of course be subject to the scrutiny of the Resource Management Act through routine resource consenting processes. Auckland Council will also play a role alongside the local board to ensure that the appropriate conditions are applied. Most importantly, local people will also get their chance to feed back into that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EAlthough the final details of the housing plan for the area have not been finalised, we understand that there is an expectation that a good portion of those homes\u2014contrary to Mr Twyford\u2019s misrepresentations here tonight\u2014will be for social housing and affordable homes. That should help some first-home buyers in our local area get into their first home.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EIn summary, as the Minister has already stated, 11.5 hectares will be developed for housing, leaving almost 33 hectares remaining on the reserve for recreational purposes. Crucially, as the Minister has pointed out, 100 percent of the proceeds from the land will be reinvested into the local community. That is no reduction in fields, as Mr Twyford again misrepresents the facts here tonight. It is about getting local input from local people that those funds will be used to improve the environmental integrity in places like \u014Cmaru Creek. The funds could also be used to improve the recreational facilities and the green space in the local area, and we want to make those spaces more amenable and more usable going forward.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EOn balance, this bill improves the overall well-being of my local people, providing more livable homes, better recreational facilities, and, as the Minister for the Environment has already said, it will improve environmental outcomes locally. We welcome the feedback from local people. Those voices in our community have been heard, they have been respected, and they have been acknowledged and, as a consequence, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022 data-id=\u002237238ad842144ebb8dde0ac9d068b08f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237238ad842144ebb8dde0ac9d068b08f\u0022\u003EPEENI HENARE (Labour\u2014T\u0101maki Makaurau):\u003C/span\u003E E Te Minita, me puritia e koe i t\u014D mea hei whakap\u0101keh\u0101 i taku k\u014Drero! E te tuakana, e Hau\u0101uru R\u0101wiri, e tukuna atu ng\u0101 mihi ki a koe n\u0101 runga i te ng\u0101kau whakaiti, me te ng\u0101kau rangim\u0101rie kua t\u014Dt\u014Dia mai te mana o t\u014D tupuna ki roto i Te Whare P\u0101remata i te r\u0101 nei hei whutup\u014Dro porotiki e k\u014Drerohia ake nei. Hoi an\u014D t\u0101ku atu ki a koe i t\u0113nei w\u0101, kia aroha mai ki t\u0113nei, otir\u0101, ki a m\u0101tau e totohe nei i te kaupapa kua whakaritea nei e Te Minita i t\u0113nei w\u0101, k\u0101ti Ng\u0101ti Paoa, e te tuakana, t\u0113n\u0101 koe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EE Te Minita, anei he whakaakoranga Reo M\u0101ori m\u014Du. Ko T\u0101maki-makau-rau te ingoa o te whenua. Ka huri atu ahau ki te w\u0101hi p\u014Dti o t\u014Dku tuakana nei a Michael Wood, ko Puket\u0101papa; huri t\u016B atu ki Te Ihu o Mataoho ki roto o M\u0101ngere te whenua e hiahia ana koe ki te whakat\u016B whare. Ka k\u012B mai koe, ka whakat\u016B whare p\u0101tata ki ng\u0101 urup\u0101, p\u0101tata ki ng\u0101 rua k\u014Diwi o ng\u0101 m\u0101tua t\u016Bpuna. Ka k\u012B atu ahau ki a koe, he tapu, he taonga, he tapu, he taonga. Ka k\u012B ake r\u0101, ka whakat\u016Bria e koe i \u0113tahi whare ki runga i ng\u0101 k\u014Diwi o \u014Dku m\u0101tua, o \u014Dku t\u016Bpuna ki roto o M\u0101ngere, Te Ihu o Mataoho, ki runga o Puket\u0101papa. T\u0113n\u0101, ka k\u012B atu ahau ki a koe, pokok\u014Dhua!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EK\u0101ti. Ka huri ahau ki t\u0101u n\u0101 k\u012B i taku k\u014Drero i te tuatahi, i te p\u0101nuitanga tuatahi o t\u0113nei pire. \u0100e, e tika ana ka h\u012Bkaka te manawa n\u0101 runga i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero i whakaritea mai e koe m\u014D t\u0113nei Whare. \u0100e, ka p\u0101nui ahau i te pire, ahakoa k\u012Bhai au i kite i te ingoa o te iwi o Ng\u0101ti Paoa ki roto i te pire. Ka k\u012B atu \u0101e, t\u0113n\u0101 pea he huarahi t\u0113nei kia whai oranga a Ng\u0101ti Paoa. T\u0113n\u0101 pea he huarahi t\u0113nei kia whai k\u0101inga ng\u0101 hunga katoa o T\u0101maki-makau-rau. K\u0101ti, ka t\u016B mana ahau ki runga i waku kupu, ka p\u0113r\u0101 tonu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EKia m\u014Dhio mai koe e Te Minita, ko te whenua e noho nei t\u0101tau he manapori. Kia m\u014Dhio mai koe, he manapori, he democracy. Koin\u0101 te pai o tenei whenua, t\u0101 te mea, ka whakaae m\u0101tau kia haere atu t\u0113nei pire ki te r\u014Dp\u016B whiriwhiri i ng\u0101 take nei, ar\u0101, ko te select committee t\u0113r\u0101. Ko reira, ka rangona ai t\u0101tau katoa i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero a te hapori, i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero a t\u0113n\u0101, i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero a t\u0113n\u0101, i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero a t\u0113n\u0101. Ko reira, ka whai mana te manapori o Aotearoa. Kaua e p\u014Dh\u0113h\u0113 n\u0101 runga i te p\u0101nuitanga tuatahi ka whakaritea nei te mana motuhake m\u014D te pire nei. K\u0101hore! Koin\u0101 te manapori e noho nei t\u0101tau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira, ka k\u012B atu ahau ki t\u0113nei Minita, ko tana tiro atu ki te take nui o te w\u0101 nei, ko ng\u0101 take whare, he tirohanga p\u014Dnakonako, p\u014Dnakonako, short-sighted, n\u0113? P\u014Dnakonako. Koin\u0101 te tirohanga o t\u0113nei Minita t\u0101 te mea, ka k\u012B mai ki a m\u0101tau o t\u0113nei taha o Te Whare, \u0101e, ko taua whenua r\u0101 n\u0101 Ng\u0101ti Paoa. Ko Ng\u0101ti Paoa te mana whenua. Mehemea ka whakaae mai Te Minita ki t\u0113r\u0101 whakaaro, he aha te take ki roto i ng\u0101 tat\u016Bnga Tiriti ki ng\u0101 tau kua pahure ake nei? K\u012Bhai t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga i whakahokia te whenua t\u016Bturu ki ng\u0101 iwi! Kaua e k\u012B mai, n\u0101, ko Ng\u0101ti Paoa te mana whenua ki taua w\u0101hi r\u0101, koin\u0101 te take e whakahokia atu ana te whenua ki a r\u0101tau t\u0101 te mea, i tono atu ng\u0101 iwi o Waikato, i tono atu ng\u0101 iwi o Ng\u0101i Tahu, o ng\u0101 iwi katoa puta noa ki a koutou kia whakahokia mai ng\u0101 whenua ki a r\u0101tau, n\u014D r\u0101tau an\u014D te whenua! K\u012Bhai t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga i whakahoki ai i te whenua.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira, kaua e k\u012B mai ki a m\u0101tau o t\u0113nei taha o Te Whare, n\u0101, m\u014D te mana me te aroha nui o t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga ki ng\u0101 mahi tat\u016Bnga ker\u0113me. Kaua e k\u012B mai p\u0113r\u0101 ki a au t\u0101 te mea, he nui ng\u0101 take kei roto i ng\u0101 tat\u016Bnga ker\u0113me i ng\u0101 tau kua pahure ake nei ka kite atu, horekau he manawanui t\u014D t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga m\u014D Te Iwi M\u0101ori! Ka p\u014Dh\u0113h\u0113 m\u0101 te p\u016Btea anahe ka tau ai ng\u0101 take katoa e p\u0101 ana ki a m\u0101tau Te Iwi M\u0101ori, k\u0101hore, k\u0101hore, k\u0101hore!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EKua rangona ahau i ng\u0101 k\u014Drero a t\u0113nei Minita ki roto i ng\u0101 tau maha kua pahure ake nei me te k\u012B atu, ka whakaritea e t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga te tini whare m\u014D ng\u0101 iwi puta noa, m\u014D ng\u0101 t\u0101ngata puta noa ki roto i a T\u0101maki-makau-rau. Ka k\u012B atu ahau ki t\u0113r\u0101 Minita, e hia nei ng\u0101 mano t\u0101ngata ka tau mai ki roto i taku tari, e tatari ana kia mana ai te kupu a t\u0113nei Minita m\u014D te whakat\u016B whare ki roto o T\u0101maki-makau-rau. K\u0101re an\u014D m\u0101tau kia kite i t\u0113tahi paku aha ki roto o T\u0101maki-makau-rau. \u0100e, ko reira t\u0113tahi ki roto o Waim\u0101hia, ka mihi atu ahau ki t\u0113r\u0101 whakaaro \u0113ngari, e hia tau ki muri t\u0113r\u0101 i whakaritea ai? Ka kite i t\u014Dna whakatinanatanga, i t\u014Dna tutukitanga ki roto i ng\u0101 marama kua pahure ake nei. Ka k\u012B mai t\u0113nei Minita, e hoa, ko te pai o t\u0113n\u0101 whenua, an\u0101, ko te w\u0101hi kai m\u014D ng\u0101 kau, w\u0101hi kai m\u014D ng\u0101 kau? Mehemea ka whakaaro p\u0113r\u0101 Te Minita, ka k\u012B atu ahau ki Te Minita t\u0113n\u0101, me whakahokia t\u0113nei w\u0101hi whenua ki a Ng\u0101ti Paoa, herekore! Mehemea e whakapono ana Te Minita ki tana k\u014Drero, e \u0101whina atu ana r\u0101tau i a Ng\u0101ti Paoa, t\u0113n\u0101, whakahokia te whenua ki a r\u0101tau herekore, herekore! Ko reira ka kite mehemea e manawanui ana t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga ki ng\u0101 take Tiriti ka k\u014Drero mai n\u0101 e Te Minita.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EHe raruraru t\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101 te mea, ki roto i t\u0113nei pire, k\u0101re an\u014D au kia kite atu i t\u0113tahi paku k\u014Drero ki te k\u012B atu, ka whakahokia te whenua ki a Ng\u0101ti Paoa. Horekau ki roto i t\u0113nei pire. N\u014D reira, koin\u0101 t\u0101ku ka noho ki roto i Te Reo M\u0101ori, he aha te take i p\u0113r\u0101 ai? Kia kaua e wh\u0101toro, kia kaua e mirimiri t\u0113r\u0101 taha o Te Whare i waku kupu, kia rongo koutou i te wairua kei roto i ng\u0101 kupu, i te h\u014Dhonutanga o ng\u0101 k\u014Drero ka whakaritea nei ki runga i te marae \u0101tea i te r\u0101 nei. N\u014D reira, ko t\u0101ku atu ki t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga \u0101ianei, ka tango ake i ng\u0101 whenua katoa o T\u0101maki-makau-rau m\u014D ng\u0101 take whare. Rawa au e whakaae ana ki t\u0113r\u0101, n\u0101 runga i te k\u012B o t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga, horekau he take kia whakaritea nei i t\u0113tahi huarahi m\u0101 Ng\u0101ti Paoa hei whakahaere i ng\u0101 whare o Te T\u0101maki Redevelopment Company. Rawa au e whakaae ana ki t\u0113r\u0101 whakatau n\u0101 runga i te m\u014Dhio, ko t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga, kei a r\u0101tau te mana ki te whakarite i w\u0101 r\u0101tau ake hiahia. N\u014D reira, mehemea ka k\u012B mai ki t\u0113nei Whare, an\u0101, kua mutu ai te taha ki a T\u0101maki Redevelopment Company. \u0112, ka k\u012B atu k\u0101hore, t\u0101 te mea, ko \u0113tahi o ng\u0101 mana nui o taua kamupene, ko t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga, ko t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira, hei whakar\u0101popoto ake, kei a m\u0101tau te mahere tika hei tat\u016B ai i t\u0113nei take whare ki roto o T\u0101maki-makau-rau. I whakarite ai m\u0101tau i ng\u0101 hui puta noa ki roto o T\u0101maki-makau-rau e p\u0101 ana ki ng\u0101 take whare. Kotahi tonu te k\u014Drero ka whakahoki mai ki a m\u0101tau, n\u0101, ko te k\u014Dnakonako o t\u0113nei k\u0101wanatanga ki te whakatikatika i t\u0113nei take.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EN\u014D reira, ki roto i te meneti e toe nei, ka whakahokia atu ki a koe e te tuakana e Hau. M\u014D t\u0113nei t\u016B\u0101huatanga kua kitea mai n\u0101 e koe i te r\u0101 nei, ka aroha atu. M\u014D ng\u0101 k\u014Drero kua r\u0101wekengia e Te Minita i waku k\u014Drero; ko t\u0101ku e k\u012B atu: e toru ng\u0101 p\u0101nuitanga o te pire! Kaua e p\u014Dh\u0113h\u0113 n\u0101 roto i te p\u0101nuitanga tuatahi, tutuki ai! Koin\u0101 te mana o t\u0113nei whenua, he manapori. T\u0113n\u0101 e te tuakana, ko te manako kia tau iho mai ng\u0101 manaakitanga ki runga i a koe, otir\u0101, ki runga i t\u014D iwi, i t\u014D t\u0101ua wh\u0101nau ki roto o T\u0101maki-makau-rau, t\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tau katoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E[Minister Smith, you should hold on to what you expressed as a translation for my address! Acknowledgments to you, elder sibling, Hau\u0101uru R\u0101wiri, for your heartfelt humility and calm for having the integrity of your ancestor hauled into Parliament House today as a political football that we are debating here. As a result, I seek your empathy for this as we discuss this matter arranged by the Minister at this point in time, and so salutations to you, Ng\u0101ti Paoa, the elder sibling, greetings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EMinister, here are some M\u0101ori language learnings for you. T\u0101maki-makau-rau is the name of the land. I turn to the electorate of my elder colleague Michael Wood, which is Puket\u0101papa; I turn to face Te Ihu o Mataoho in M\u0101ngere, the land where you wish to erect houses on. You said to us that you want to put up houses adjacent to graveyards and places where the bones of the ancestral forefathers are interred. And I say to you, it is sacred, a possession, holy and prized. You then reiterated that some houses would be erected on top of bones that belong to my parents and ancestors within M\u0101ngere, Te Ihu o Mataoho, and Puket\u0101papa. And so I say bugger you!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EEnough. I turn now to what you said about my first speech at the first reading of this bill. Yes, it is right that the heart would be keen because of the statements you arranged for this House. Yes, I read the bill, even though I did not see the name of the Ng\u0101ti Paoa tribe in the bill. I said yes, this might be a way for Ng\u0101ti Paoa to gain a livelihood and for all those Aucklanders to get a house. And so I stand on the integrity of my words and will continue to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EYou must understand, Minister, the country that we live in is a democracy. That is why this country is good because we agreed that this bill go to the group that considers these matters, in other words, that select committee. That is the place where all of us will hear comments from the community and from that individual, that individual, and that one. It is there that the democracy of New Zealand will be mandated. Do not be deluded that the autonomy for this bill will be assigned through the first reading. No, it is not! That indeed is the democracy that we live in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003ETherefore, mine to this Minister is that his view about matters relating to housing being the big issue of the moment is a short-sighted one, short-sighted, all right? Short-sighted. That is the view of this Minister, because he says to us of this side of the House, yes, that land belongs to Ng\u0101ti Paoa. Ng\u0101ti Paoa has jurisdiction over the land. If the Minister agrees to that thought, what is the reason for the Treaty settlements in recent years? This Government did not return the original land to the tribes! Do not tell us that Ng\u0101ti Paoa having jurisdiction over that place is the reason why the land is being returned to them, because the tribes of Waikato, Ng\u0101i Tahu, and all the other ones throughout have demanded that the lands be returned to them, because it actually belongs to them! This Government did not return the land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003ESo do not tell us on this side of the House about the great integrity and empathy displayed by this Government in the operations about Treaty settlements. Do not talk like that to me, because there are many issues relating to Treaty settlements in years past where it has been seen that this Government was not tolerant with M\u0101oridom. It mistakenly thought that funding alone would settle all matters relating to us of M\u0101oridom, no, no, no!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EI have heard the comments by this Minister in the many years past when he said that this Government would arrange many houses for tribes and people throughout Auckland. I say to that Minister, many thousands of people have arrived in my office, waiting for this Minister\u2019s word to be enacted to build houses in Auckland. We have not seen a single thing put up in Auckland. Yes, there is one in Waimahia, and I acknowledge that thought, but how many years back did it take to arrange that? We note its development and completion in months just past. This Minister states, mate, that land is really good, yes indeed, great for cows to graze on\u2014for cows to graze on? If the Minister thinks like that, then I say to him, return this parcel of land to Ng\u0101ti Paoa without any encumbrances. If the Minister believes what he has stated, they are helping Ng\u0101ti Paoa, so return the land to them, freehold and without conditions. We will then see just how tolerant this Government is to Treaty matters that the Minister alludes to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EThat is a problem, because I have not seen a single statement in this bill saying return the land to Ng\u0101ti Paoa. There is not anything in this bill. And that is the reason why I remained speaking in M\u0101ori, and why did I do that? So that side of the House would not stretch or massage my words, so that you collectively hear the spirit within the words and the depth of the comments that would be considered on our forum today. So mine, in particular, to this Government is that there is no pathway considered for Ng\u0101ti Paoa to administer the houses that belong to the T\u0101maki Redevelopment Company. I would never agree to that ruling, knowing full well that this Government has the power to determine what it really wants. Therefore, if this House was to direct otherwise, well, then the part for T\u0101maki Redevelopment Company is finished. But hey, it will not, because this Government is one of the big powers of that company, this Government!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003ESo to sum up, we have the right plan to settle this housing issue of Auckland. We considered having forums throughout Auckland about housing issues. There has only been one response that came back to us, and that was about the short-sightedness of this Government to address this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003ETherefore, in the remaining minutes, I come back to you, elder sibling, Hau. In regard to this kind of situation you have witnessed today, I empathise with you about the comments. The Minister tampered with my comments; I say this: there are three readings. Do not be deluded that through the first reading it is settled. Democracy, indeed, is the charisma of this country. And so the hope for you, elder sibling, is that acts of kindness descend upon you but at the same time upon your tribe and our family in Auckland. My appreciation to us all.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u0022e8a512453ae64ed4a3692b15d6842d3f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e8a512453ae64ed4a3692b15d6842d3f\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to be talking to the Point England Development Enabling Bill, this being the second reading. As we have heard, this bill is about taking 11.7 hectares out of a total of 48 hectares, of which the Crown owns 45 hectares, and using that for housing. Specifically, there are 300 new houses to be built, a mixture of social, affordable homes as well as other homes. I have listened to my colleagues who have talked about the merits or otherwise of using this land, and also the need for housing in Auckland. As we all know, there is an overwhelming need for housing in Auckland, but what I want to turn my mind to at this stage is just to talk about the issue of Ng\u0101ti Paoa. I certainly listened to the speech\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6e8317947a949458326d2ad59bea075\u0022\u003ETracey Martin\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re not mentioned in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022256ecd8fc2c84478b8f03b784507bc79\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014from my colleague opposite, Peeni Henare. Whilst the Ng\u0101ti Paoa situation is not specifically mentioned in the bill, clearly, one of the intentions of the Government is to conclude a historical Treaty of Waitangi settlement with Ng\u0101ti Paoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EOpposition parties have made a number of claims. They claim that the iwi should be given, or should negotiate, some land around the T\u0101maki land settlement coming out of the T\u0101maki Redevelopment Company, and that that is the land that they should be entitled to and that should be used for meeting settlement requirements. Secondly, I have heard on other occasions that Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2014this is the aspersion\u2014do not have the expertise to develop the 300 houses that they would like to. Thirdly, by implication, because Ng\u0101ti Paoa do not have the expertise, then this land may be offered to other iwi and, failing that, might even be offered to developers. Well, they are wrong, and we are very lucky to have a senior representative from Ng\u0101ti Paoa up in the gallery here. I do acknowledge him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EIt is clear, first of all, that Ng\u0101ti Paoa have a very strong cultural, traditional, spiritual, and ancestral commitment and connection with this land that we are talking about. Secondly, this piece of land is absolutely crucial to their settlement. They do not want the T\u0101maki development land; they want this piece of land. And related to that, the coinciding position and the enhancement of the marae\u2014the two hectares that will be set aside for the marae on the land right beside the housing development that they wish to undertake\u2014is also a crucial element of that settlement and very important. I think that the Opposition parties have truly misrepresented that situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ENext, the aspersion that iwi do not have the expertise to undertake this development I find personally insulting. Ng\u0101ti Paoa have talked about an investment company being set up to work through that, and I think they do have the expertise and they do have the right intent. Finally, I think the persuasion that they want to create social and affordable houses on this site is a very valuable part of their offering. So I do have a great deal of faith that Ng\u0101ti Paoa will do what is correct. I do believe that this bill is the right thing to do, and I fully endorse it. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022 data-id=\u00224062787546a04e71b0ad4b52ffda56c5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224062787546a04e71b0ad4b52ffda56c5\u0022\u003EMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): \u003C/span\u003ET\u0113n\u0101 koe e Te M\u0101ngai o Te Whare, huri noa ki a t\u0101tau katoa t\u0113n\u0101 koutou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003E[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us all throughout, acknowledgments to you collectively.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThe Green Party is abstaining on this legislation, and I am going to outline very clearly why, alongside my colleague Eugenie Sage. I want to be firstly clear that I am not speaking for Ng\u0101ti Paoa, but we cannot oppose this bill because we support Ng\u0101ti Paoa fully. I too want to acknowledge Hau\u0101uru R\u0101wiri and his team for allowing us to engage with them on this issue, once we heard the submissions. We have come to the second reading in the House having engaged with community, with mana whenua, and having listened to all sides of the debate on this legislation. We trust Ng\u0101ti Paoa more than we trust the Crown\u2014that is for sure. Iwi have a long history of conservation and a better record than the Crown and local government when it comes to taking care of our environment and our people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThe historical context is important for the Greens\u2019 positioning on this piece of legislation. The Ng\u0101ti Paoa land was lost through Treaty breaches, and the land was lost for a pittance\u2014an absolute pittance. The Crown in 1841 paid \u00A3100 in cash, plus \u00A3258 in goods, to obtain 6,000 acres, including waterfront\u2014precious waterfront\u2014land. So that is \u00A3358-odd for 6,000 acres, which even at that time was ridiculously low\u2014ridiculously low. I did a rough inflation estimation of what that buying price would look a little like today, and at my lowest, lowest estimation, that is \u00A335,000. So even if I am 10 times out, that is an absolute pittance, and that is the core of the injustice that this legislation gives Ng\u0101ti Paoa a chance to rectify\u2014albeit that the Crown is hitching its housing failure to it. The Hauraki M\u0101ori Trust Board report, which is something I also delved into to learn how that land got lost for such a pittance, also suggests that the customary interests that were extinguished\u2014of course, Ng\u0101ti Paoa did not understand and think that those were going to be extinguished. That was not known to iwi around the country. So the Crown failed to protect M\u0101ori interests and paid a pittance for the land, with hardly any benefits for that incredibly low cost.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EWe cannot oppose this bill because Ng\u0101ti Paoa has a whakapapa connection to the whenua; to the t\u016Bturiwhatu, the dotterels; to the awa; to its own descendants and uri; and to the local community. The Ng\u0101ti Paoa people have an accountability that this Government does not. They have an accountability that means that they will be at the front line of working hard to make sure that the visions and plans that they have will be upheld, where people are left living with dignity. They care, and I have a huge issue with the Government pretending that that is why it is pushing this legislation through. All of a sudden the Minister stood and praised the vision in the work of the \u014Cmaru River that might be done through this legislation. Where were you long ago when the \u014Cmaru River needed a hand? Where was this Government then? What has happened is that the Minister, Nick Smith, has failed to provide housing for its own citizens for the entire term of its Government, and now it is having to do a patch-up job, and this legislation is part of that. We support Ng\u0101ti Paoa in their visions for what they want to do for their land. This is a last shot for them to have a tiny part of the injustice rectified for what happened in 1841, before that, and to this day. That is why we cannot oppose this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EWe too understand that the T\u0101maki redevelopment land as an option was not an option\u2014certainly not a viable option; more like a commercial liability. We have seen that happen somewhere before: Invercargill. The Minister made a botch-up of those sales of those houses. We, surely, can understand why Ng\u0101ti Paoa had a look at was being offered, had a look at how that was going to play out, and it did not look well. It did not look well for Ng\u0101ti Paoa. So we understand that that was not a viable option, and, yes, we need more houses. M\u0101ori in particular are featuring disproportionately in low homeownership and in homelessness, so we want homes to be built, and when that programme is led by iwi\u2014that is why we cannot oppose this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EThe Government, as I said, has hitched its housing failure to this legislation, but that means that Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2014this is their chance. This is Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2019s chance. We cannot oppose the bill, because this is Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2019s chance, and we are proud of our stand in Te Tiriti as the Green Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EMy colleague Eugenie Sage is also going to expand on our valid reasons for not being able to support this legislation. I too heard the submissions from local communities, and they were clear. Yes, we absolutely support appropriate decision making. Again, the Crown botched this decision-making process right up, and the community is not happy. The legal process for the normal, democratic rezoning of open space has completely been swiped. That outlines the reasons why, as the Green Party, we also simply cannot support this legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EI just want to, as I start summing up, pick up again on how much it displeases me when the Minister and his Government can pretend that pushing this legislation through is a genuine plea to uphold the mana motuhake of mana whenua. Now, I believe that of Ng\u0101ti Paoa, but I simply cannot accept that from the Crown. I cannot accept that after the damage it has done to both environmental and conservation protections and the damage that has happened to communities\u2014lower-income communities and M\u0101ori communities\u2014and then it is going to stand there and pretend that that is what it is pushing in this legislation. It absolutely is not. This legislation, for the Crown, is part of its patch-up job trying to fix the housing failure that it has been a massive part of. So we uncover that\u2014the Greens uncover that. We know what we are voting for and against, and that is why we have very clear and valid reasons for not being able to support this bill\u2014we believe in Ng\u0101ti Paoa and we support them\u2014and for not being able to oppose this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a5f0fe84-01e8-4eb3-a590-0025017c4243\u0022\u003EWe understand that the community has valid disagreements and fears for how this is going to shape up. I will just finish that\u2014I want to thank Ng\u0101ti Paoa for engaging with the Green Party and outlining their clear visions for this land, that they, in effect, want to double the green space that is available by utilising the currently lesser-used parts of the reserve and opening it up to be better for public use. I look forward to the building of the marae on their papak\u0101inga\u2014marae that are always available to everybody in our communities. I am excited by the visions that Ng\u0101ti Paoa have, and I am disappointed that the Crown has seen this as an opportunity to fix its failures. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022 data-id=\u0022902d519aedbc48f29ddbbb9892feaba4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022902d519aedbc48f29ddbbb9892feaba4\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E At the first reading of this bill, I expressed on behalf of New Zealand First some very grave concerns about the loss of this important reserve land. But we voted as a party to send the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, because we wanted to hear what the submissions would be from all of the affected people, especially the local people. Now we know the depth of opposition and why, so that reiterates New Zealand First\u2019s original position, which is that our priority is, in fact, the preservation of this reserve land, and it still is\u2014and the local people and the vast majority of submissions support that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EHaving said that, New Zealand First members have always wanted to see more land available for the development of housing in Auckland. In fact, we have been saying so for at least 6 years. National actually created this housing crisis. It created it, fundamentally, through excessive immigration and through other inaction, and now it is in panic mode, trying to find enough residential land because of the difficulties that it created in the first place. That includes rushing to try to use up valuable reserve land like this. National itself seems to admit that now by saying that it is prepared to go out and get land, whether it is reserve land or otherwise. I do not quite understand what it was that Bill English said recently, because it was not very clear, but he did make it clear that they are not doing enough, and I cannot agree with that more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe chronic need for more residential land does not justify the taking of this reserve land for residential development, because there are, in fact, other opportunities if the Government wants to go out and get them. Buy the land that is necessary, in appropriate places. This land was a gift to the people of New Zealand in 1945 for use as reserved open space for recreation and conservation purposes. Now, all of that is actually, in fact, being used for that purpose, irrespective of the fact that currently there are some cows being grazed on it\u2014something that, strangely, the Minister for the Environment belabours and belabours and belabours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThere are already many recreational pursuits being carried out there. The playing fields are being used. The open spaces are used for social gatherings and kids just playing. There are many events: music, triathlons, and so on. Those opportunities must not be lost, and they must not be lost just for current needs but for future generations as well, because as more and more residential development happens, there will be more and more demand for this sort of land. This bill is actually going to remove, effectively, about a third of the land usable for those purposes, and all we get in return is a paltry 300 houses, only 20 percent of which are supposed to be affordable. We do not even know on what basis they will be declared to be affordable\u2014not very affordable, I suspect, to a lot of people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003ESo the position we now are in is that we have a dismal failure of the Government\u2019s housing strategy, and that is leading to bad planning, and it is leading to the use of inappropriate land for housing development, most especially this particular reserve. The Auckland Unitary Plan actually shows that this particular area is going to have at least 20,000, if not 30,000, more houses in the immediate area. Those people are going to need this reserve land in the future. They will need more parks, not less. I do want to compare this\u2014because the Minister did\u2014with the Riccarton Racecourse land. That division of land was supported by New Zealand First because the land, which was surplus there, was not reserve land used for recreation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f18b76de82944c429f908e812581ab6d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it was.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8c8b9f97d044e1488cfd56cb07e3601\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE\u003C/span\u003E: It was not, and the recreation land was preserved and so were the amenity values of the racecourse. That land was surplus, and, furthermore, in that particular legislation there were provisions to ensure that of the sections to be sold, a significant portion of them\u2014at least 30 percent\u2014were going to be affordable and there was a definition provided for that purpose and, also, a mechanism to ensure that this commitment would be met, and that is not the case with this land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI also want to support the conservation values for this land. Despite what the Minister says, it is important as a breeding area for the northern New Zealand dotterel and pied stilts, and that is one other very good reason why this land should be reserved. The foreshore is an important roosting area, which will, in fact, be compromised by the residential development so close to it. But the preservation of the open space itself is the most important reason why this land should be preserved and the public amenity that depends on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EHousing will affect the whole reserve, not just a part of it. The Minister went on and on about so much of this land being used for grazing, but that is actually only incidental. It is part of a management regime for the land and, also, is a way of funding the maintenance of the reserve. It is not a fundamental use of the land, and he knows that. He is actually misrepresenting that situation completely. If he does not know that, then he is dumber than I think he is, and, believe me, I think he is pretty dumb right now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThe Auckland Council submission also supports the New Zealand First position. It talks about the \u201Chighly valued public reserve\u201D. It does talk about the precedent of using special legislation to get rid of reserve land. That is a serious issue, because it means that it will happen again in the future, especially if this Government stays in power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EAlso, of course, it is being used for the Treaty settlement of Ng\u0101ti Paoa. Reserves are set aside to stop all of that happening\u2014to stop all of that happening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aac8173a08da4192a0be31157fae38ad\u0022\u003EMarama Fox\u003C/span\u003E: Treaty settlements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec788b8f633e4441ad8661d31c47f9d2\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE\u003C/span\u003E: It is no small\u2014yes, that included. And it is no small matter that special legislation is being brought down to reverse both those issues: the preservation of reserve land, and to stop it being used for any other purpose, including residential development by Ng\u0101ti Paoa. And that is the truth of that matter. That is what reserves are for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EI also think it is a great shame that the Government is pitching the community against M\u0101ori in this way. The Government should be going out and finding the land that is necessary for housing and should not be resorting to reserve land in this way. The need for a settlement with Ng\u0101ti Paoa has got nothing to do with that. The local community and New Zealand First\u2014we both support that settlement, but that does not mean that this land needs to be taken for residential development, rather than reserve land for all the proper purposes that reserve land should be for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003EThis situation, supported by the M\u0101ori Party, as it always seems to do on these things, blindly and stupidly\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae82d3560587425e9d4a85c61523c232\u0022\u003EMarama Fox\u003C/span\u003E: Because we support iwi. Stupidly supporting iwi!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002247c29b78-eee0-4c91-afdf-7b07be780e1a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221eb4ef0f3ad644768d87134d31933b73\u0022\u003EDENIS O\u2019ROURKE\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014without thinking the thing through, is just another National Government mess. All the caterwauling by Ms Fox will not change that. This will not make any difference to solving the housing crisis. It is a drop in a bucket. There are alternatives available. The Government should be going out there and buying private land, not using reserve land. Instead, it is content to destroy for ever valuable public open space and to compromise its conservation values. This is a very, very bad deal. It is very, very bad legislation. It will set a precedent, and New Zealand First will certainly continue to vote against it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022 data-id=\u00222786e885bada4865a07b77ffeffba3cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222786e885bada4865a07b77ffeffba3cc\u0022\u003EMATT DOOCEY (National\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I am very happy to rise for two reasons: one, to support this bill, and, secondly, after that last speaker, I really just wanted to stand up and stretch my legs and stay awake. Really, with this bill, when you look at it, you have a Labour Party crying crocodile tears for housing in Auckland, and it opposes this bill; you have a Green Party that is sitting on the fence; and then you have New Zealand First, which voted in favour of the Riccarton Racecourse reserve bill, where we were looking to put affordable housing on reserve land in Christchurch, and is now voting against this bill. The Opposition does not make sense, whereas, on this side of the House, we are showing strong leadership\u2014strong leadership for housing in Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003EI was on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I sat through the many submissions in Auckland, and I listened to the submitters. Overall, it is fair to say that most agreed on the intent of this bill: to supply more housing. Where it really cut up rough was around the concerns for the environment and around the loss of recreational land. From what I saw that day and from what I have read, I have got full faith in Ng\u0101ti Paoa to put in mitigation strategies to address the very real concerns for the birdlife, for the dotterel, and for potential loss of recreational grounds\u2014to address that and put in mitigation strategies so both can go ahead. We can support the birdlife at Point England, we can support better recreational grounds for the local community, and we can provide more housing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003EWhen we pause and reflect on what happened post the devastating earthquakes in Canterbury, we know that when you need to ramp up housing, the first step is to free up land. We saw that in parts of my electorate, in Waimakariri. If we free up land, it increases supply and it equals demand. That is what we need for Auckland. So I am very surprised that we have a Labour Party crying crocodile tears for housing in Auckland, that we have a Green Party that is sitting on the fence, and that we have a New Zealand First Party that forgot its stance last time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ee649aea-c6fa-4610-9fcf-5c4bb2d3cd33\u0022\u003EOverall, this is a good bill that will support future housing in Auckland, and I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022f0c6c4a7da374ad893b9705d4209f82f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f0c6c4a7da374ad893b9705d4209f82f\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: The next call is a split call. Eugenie Sage\u20145 minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022 data-id=\u0022739f1ea6cbb84cb58cfd116976170b5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022739f1ea6cbb84cb58cfd116976170b5b\u0022\u003EEUGENIE SAGE (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand and explain the Green Party\u2019s position on the Point England Development Enabling Bill. It is another Nick Smith shambles. This is because it is taking public reserve land for subdivision and housing development and then using Auckland\u2019s housing crisis and a future Treaty settlement to justify it. Rather than taking all of the reserve and returning it to Ng\u0101ti Paoa, as we understand they originally requested, as cultural redress, the Minister is using this bill to actually override the normal legislative processes and require Ng\u0101ti Paoa to buy a portion of the reserve and require them to use it for housing. It is not a good Treaty settlement, but we are not opposing it, because we recognise and support Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2019s right to regain ownership of their ancestral land and their rights to development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003EThe reason we are not voting against the bill and are abstaining is that we understand that the Government has made it very clear that this is the only way Ng\u0101ti Paoa is going to get its ancestral land back. But we are not supporting the bill, because it has got many, many flaws. There is the whole issue of the way in which it overrides the usual process for removing reserve status and it overrides the Resource Management Act (RMA), and the fact that there is no guarantee that Ng\u0101ti Paoa will actually even get the land, because they have to buy it. If they do not choose to buy it and exercise that option, and if the T\u0101maki Collective does not choose to buy it, then the bill allows a panel of private developers to use the land for development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003ESo there is no certainty\u2014there is nothing in the bill\u2014that actually ensures that Ng\u0101ti Paoa will get the land. That is why there is a Supplementary Order Paper that ensures that if the land is not taken by Ng\u0101ti Paoa or the T\u0101maki Collective, it remains in Crown ownership to be used for Treaty settlement purposes and to be managed as a reserve. At the moment, this bill, if it goes through and Ng\u0101ti Paoa does not exercise its rights, is just a way that the Government is moving to allow private developers to take reserve land. That is the Government\u2019s real agenda here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003EThis area at Point England is the largest area of open space on the T\u0101maki foreshore. It has got sweeping views over the river and back to Maungarei\u2014Mount Wellington. We are expecting an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 more people in the T\u0101maki area over the next 15 to 20 years. People need open space\u2014green space\u2014for amenity values and as places to recreate, particularly where we are getting increased density of subdivision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003EThis bill overrides the normal legal processes in the Reserves Act. There are tests in the Reserves Act for changing reserve status. The regulatory impact statement made it very clear that this change in status would fail because there has been no evidence provided that the reserve is no longer required for its present purpose or any other reserve purpose. The Department of Conservation\u2019s advice was that it was very unlikely that the test for revocation of reserve status would be satisfied.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003EWe certainly did not hear any information at the select committee that the land was no longer required for a reserve. In fact, we heard an awful lot of evidence from submitters to the contrary, about how it is used for kilikiti, for sports, for passive recreation, like walking, and for kids\u2019 triathlons. Under the normal processes, the public would have had an opportunity to comment on that revocation. Under this bill, they do not get that opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003EAs well, the bill overrides the normal processes under the RMA. There should be a plan change process, which would enable the public and the council to assess the costs and benefits of rezoning what is now open space as high-density, mixed-use residential. It would look at those whole processes of democratic decisions around planning. Yet, we have seen Auckland lawyers pointing out recently in an article that this bill highlights a disturbing trend towards ad hoc decision-making at the expense of access to environmental justice and quality outcomes. So that is another reason that we cannot support the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e122e0e6-61c6-4d17-9a79-6ad2ac7d127e\u0022\u003EWe hope that Ng\u0101ti Paoa will get some advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the geotechnical issues, because this area of land is very boggy, very wet, it is potentially at risk of natural hazards, and is not suited to housing. We will not be supporting the bill or opposing it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c0fc79bbb1224448a4805b9b57333229\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c0fc79bbb1224448a4805b9b57333229\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I call Marama Fox\u20145 minutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022 data-id=\u00229fecfcbec357425e8fb4f15eb2e43392\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fecfcbec357425e8fb4f15eb2e43392\u0022\u003EMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader\u2014M\u0101ori Party):\u003C/span\u003E Well, I would like to acknowledge those of Ng\u0101ti Paoa who are seated in the gallery in this evening, specifically Hau\u0101uru R\u0101wiri, kaihaut\u016B of Ng\u0101ti Paoa Iwi Trust. While we have heard a lot about what the Government is supposedly doing, and we have heard a lot about what the Opposition members think about this bill\u2014their stance and their summations\u2014let us see what Ng\u0101ti Paoa have said about this bill. I am going to quote from Ng\u0101ti Paoa Iwi Trust chief executive officer Hau\u0101uru R\u0101wiri, and he said that \u201C\u2026 without this land there would be no Treaty settlement between the Crown and Ng\u0101ti Paoa.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003ESo there is a lot of talk from people who think they know, but this comes from the words of the people themselves: \u201C \u2018By opposing the legislation, Labour is opposing a Treaty Settlement Bill\u2014for the first time in the history of the Treaty settlement process. The Labour Party position seems to be that Ng\u0101ti Paoa is being duped by the Government to advance its housing programme. This [surely] is a supremely patronising and condescending attitude that reflects poorly on its proponents.\u2019 The Government is proposing to sell 13 hectares of the 48-hectare reserve to Ng\u0101ti Paoa, and there is a bill before Parliament that would lift its reserve status and allow housing to be built on the land.\u201D These are their words, not my words, not the Opposition\u2019s words, and not the words of the Green Party members, who seem to be sitting on the fence, while I heard a lot of reasons why the Green Party would support it, get up and support it. This is not about housing specifically; this is Treaty redress. How patronising of this Government and this Opposition to think that they can tell the Treaty partner what to do with their land, 70,000 acres taken\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228dcab51a9e5d40c29779adb2626781cf\u0022\u003EPeeni Henare\u003C/span\u003E: Give the land back. No strings attached!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dfce692cb6b54a2796067794894ae41f\u0022\u003EMARAMA FOX\u003C/span\u003E: \u201470,000\u2014taken for \u00A3100. \u201CGive the land back.\u201D is the cry that comes from over here. This is the only land available to be used as redress for Ng\u0101ti Paoa. They know it. They have said it. They have accepted it, and they have signed the letter that this land will come back to them in redress. It is the same as every other Treaty settlement, and we do not hear the decrying calls of the Opposition members when they have to buy back their land. But we have said it; we have said it over and over again: this is the greatest koha to this nation that our people make again and again and again in Treaty settlements. How dare they use the land to do what they think is right to do with it when it was theirs in the first place! How dare they! How patronising\u2014how patronising.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003EHere is one thing I do know: Ng\u0101ti Paoa have not been the ones to play political football with their Treaty settlement. They have stayed out of the politics of this debate. This debate has been politicised by this House\u2014by this House. This House has politicised their Treaty settlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003EFor the people who are going to have their million-dollar views disturbed, one of whom rang my office, a lovely male migrant who had come here from Ireland\u2014and I said to him: \u201CSurely you understand what this means to have your treaty grievance and your redress of a land coming back to you.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003EYes, unfortunately, we have had to purchase our land back\u2014and that makes no sense\u2014but yet we do it in Treaty settlements, yet we do it again and again, because we are past being people of protest, and we want to be people of progress. Ng\u0101ti Paoa has shown us the way that they would like to progress their settlement, their redress, to build affordable homes for their people and the people of Glen Innes. I tell you, I have been to just about every single housing development in that city and barely any of them are building affordable homes, except for who? Iwi. How dare they build affordable homes for their people! How patronising of this House to dare to stand up and tell them what they should do with their Treaty settlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c3d9fd88-4715-419d-be08-e1c4eda7d09e\u0022\u003ENg\u0101ti Paoa has been offered 2 hectares of that reserve land for their marae, a place to stand, a t\u016Brangawaewae, finally after a hundred and whatever years of coming to this point. Why are we rushing this through? With their agreement, with their respect, and with their wishes. I support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022758dcaf3-9976-43ac-8593-79f66ee4da22\u0022 data-id=\u00229bd8c6046f824012a1264804bd01b5ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022758dcaf3-9976-43ac-8593-79f66ee4da22\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229bd8c6046f824012a1264804bd01b5ba\u0022\u003EJOANNE HAYES (National):\u003C/span\u003E Following on from that very strong speech by Marama Fox, I just want to say to this House that I have sat here tonight and it has absolutely disgusted me, the behaviour of the Opposition\u2014Labour\u2014in not supporting this bill. It is about the Treaty rights of Ng\u0101ti Paoa. I am absolutely ashamed to be part of this House when you have got a party that abstains\u2014that abstains from actually making a decision\u2014because they came here representing a voice to the people whom they represent and yet they abstain on this very important bill. I just want this House to take note of everything that has gone on with this Opposition. It is disgusting that Labour, which purports to have all of the M\u0101ori issues in hand, really does not have them in hand, and we know that the M\u0101ori Party does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022758dcaf3-9976-43ac-8593-79f66ee4da22\u0022\u003EWhen I sat here today and I listened to what New Zealand First said about this Government taking away reserves, it is a load of rubbish. I sat there and I thought: \u201CWhere is this guy coming from? I mean, he supported the Riccarton housing bill and yet cannot bring himself to support this.\u201D Honestly, some people need to go back into their offices, look at themselves in the mirror, and think: \u201CAre we really worthy of being here?\u201D. Because, from what I have heard tonight, they are not worthy of being here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022758dcaf3-9976-43ac-8593-79f66ee4da22\u0022\u003ESo, without any further ado, I support the work that Hon Nick Smith is doing around housing in Auckland. Auckland needs these houses. Ng\u0101ti Paoa have a right to their own economic development with the 300 social houses that they have put together and planned for. They have a right. Do not take that right away. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022 data-id=\u00220125b8f12c1a4624910c3c4b0b4a6441\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220125b8f12c1a4624910c3c4b0b4a6441\u0022\u003ELOUISA WALL (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe e Te M\u0101ngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to take a call on this Point England Development Enabling Bill. I do so as a proud member of our Labour caucus but also as a M\u0101ori based in South Auckland and as somebody who is 100 percent committed to and passionate about resolving our historical Treaty settlements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EThis is an incredibly emotional piece of legislation. I think we all just have to take stock of what we are trying to do, which is many things, actually. So, firstly, I would like to acknowledge Hau\u0101uru R\u0101wiri, who is in the House on behalf of the Ng\u0101ti Paoa Iwi Trust. I acknowledge that from their perspective they have completed their negotiations with the Crown and they are in the process of their deed of settlement being prepared. So, for them, this journey has taken a long, long time. Actually, we can go back to 2007 when we released the T\u0101maki Makaurau Settlement Process Report, which in fact was the tribunal report that has brought us to where we are today. So this is a time to actually contemplate why we have managed to arrive at a point in our history where we are bickering like children in this House of Representatives, which is actually supposed to take the people with us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EIf this is a Treaty settlement bill, then why have we not ensured that the people of Point England and the people of Maungakiekie and T\u0101maki have been taken with us on this journey? We have failed in that process. We all need to look at what has happened here tonight and think about how it has happened. I think that from Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2019s position they have, in good faith, been negotiating with the Crown since 2007. In fact, in 2013 when their marae was agreed to, it was agreed by the Crown, which notified the council. It was supported by the Maungakiekie-T\u0101maki Local Board, and we had some cultural redress that ensured Ng\u0101ti Paoa had some whenua, on the land of their tupuna, Paoa, that they were going to create\u2014not only for themselves but for the community of Maungakiekie and T\u0101maki.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003ESomehow we went from there to where we are today: discussing 11.69 hectares of a reserve piece of land that, as my colleague Denis O\u2019Rourke said, was gifted to the people of Auckland in 1945, from whom? From the Crown. Who did the Crown take it from? Actually, it took it from the iwi of T\u0101maki Makaurau, including Ng\u0101ti Paoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EI have tried, in my deliberations as a member of this Parliament, to talk to the people who have been vested with the responsibility of engaging with our communities. I have talked to people like Josephine Bartley, who is the current chair of the Maungakiekie-T\u0101maki Local Board. I have talked to Phil Goff, who is the current Mayor of Auckland. Auckland Council actually supports this legislation, but it said two things: the people of Point England need to be compensated, because 25 percent of the current recreation land that that community enjoys is being lost. Actually, I think the Government is negotiating with the council to reimburse or compensate the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EThe other thing that the council said was that if this is truly a Treaty settlement, then the only people who should get this land are Ng\u0101ti Paoa. Whether we like it or not, there is an opportunity, through legislation, for the Government to actually give this land to a developer. I am trying to close that gap through my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 320. Within the Ng\u0101 Mana Whenua o T\u0101maki Makaurau Collective Redress Act of 2014 there is an opportunity for a developer\u2014if Ng\u0101ti Paoa does not take up the option, if the other 12 mana whenua who are signatories to that particular settlement agreement for whatever reason do not take up that option, the Crown, because it is using this land for housing, can actually sell it on the open market. That is a realism of this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003ESo this is not a traditional, normal Treaty settlement like we say it is. This is actually extraordinary, and it is out of the box, which is why, I think you have seen, from our side of the House, we do not support it. We have got a proud history of supporting Treaty settlements. Straight-up Treaty settlements\u2014100 percent we support them. This is not a straight-up Treaty settlement. But from our perspective we have to maintain the mana and the integrity of our Treaty partners, our mana whenua, who have acted in good faith, who have negotiated with the Crown, and they have come to an agreement about this particular piece of land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EThe SOP is seeking to close the loop and say that if this land is going to be vested back into the Crown\u2014because currently it is vested in Auckland Council\u2014and if this land is going to be used as right of first refusal land, and if this land is going to go back to Ng\u0101ti Paoa, then we want to limit section 136 of the Ng\u0101 Mana Whenua o T\u0101maki Makaurau Collective Redress Act, which, essentially, means that because it is being used for housing purposes, the Government and the Minister for Building and Construction can sell it to somebody else. So if we can close that loop and be really clear about what this bill is\u2014that it is part of the deed of settlement, that it is Treaty legislation, and that the only beneficiary of this piece of legislation going through the House tonight is Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2014then I think maybe, maybe, we can start to actually realise the full intent of this Treaty settlement process, which is about our truth and reconciliation process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EFor our mana whenua and our community groups to get caught in the middle of the bickering that we are having in this House\u2014actually, we have to take responsibility for the fact that the community was not consulted. So who should take responsibility for that? Is that Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2019s responsibility\u2014to have gone to the community to talk to them about this piece of land and where it fits in their Treaty settlement? Was it Auckland Council\u2019s responsibility? Was it the Government\u2019s? Whose was it? This is the process where we have now told some of our community groups and, particularly, our local board leaders that this is part of Ng\u0101ti Paoa\u2019s settlement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003ESo I think that there is an opportunity for us to move forward, but we can only do it in good faith and we can only do it through trust. The reality of my Supplementary Order Paper is that this shows that the community does not trust the Government. This SOP is an insurance policy for the community, because it is afraid that this National Government is not going to honour its Treaty settlement. It is going to give it\u2014[Interruption] No, I am serious. You are going to allow somebody else to develop that land\u2014Fletcher\u2019s, whoever it may be\u2014but you are not going to actually give this land back to Ng\u0101ti Paoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0987639a63448f0a60a31e738739daa\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s outrageous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa511bfb64a448808f019f5d2f04f988\u0022\u003ELOUISA WALL\u003C/span\u003E: It is not outrageous. It is absolutely not outrageous. If you think it is outrageous, then you are deluding yourself. You are also deluding yourself about the responsibility that the Government had in making sure that you took the people with us. You have actually undermined the Treaty settlement process through what you have done. Every other Treaty settlement that goes through this House usually has universal support. We would never get up and actually contradict a deed of settlement, because that deed of settlement has taken so long to get to. The deed of settlement that is being prepared\u2014and that is the other thing we must all remember. Once it is signed by the Crown, it is signed off by Cabinet and by Ng\u0101ti Paoa, and then it is legally binding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EI think that there is a way forward. At the moment we cannot support this legislation. We would love to support this legislation, but we cannot support it, because this is not a traditional, classic Treaty settlement bill. You can say it is, but it has not gone through the M\u0101ori Affairs Committee, which is the traditional process. Actually, you know, I think the M\u0101ori members of the National caucus would say this is not a traditional Treaty settlement piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b4a597dd-ed8b-42b8-975b-40c6e0cdaee1\u0022\u003EI think that there is an opportunity for us to work together to resolve this issue, to clarify it. I am hoping that there will be support for my SOP. It is on the Table. I am not sure when we will have the Committee stage and the third reading debate, but I look forward to us having a robust discussion and everybody being really clear that unless this is categorically and can only ever go to either Ng\u0101ti Paoa or other iwi of T\u0101maki Makaurau, then we will not support it, because it is not a Treaty bill. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002229c236aa-2283-4690-9a84-aa865404bb61\u0022 data-id=\u0022ac1b6d56eed74129b8b8aab7b12c4271\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229c236aa-2283-4690-9a84-aa865404bb61\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ac1b6d56eed74129b8b8aab7b12c4271\u0022\u003ENUK KORAKO (National):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe e Te Mana Whakaw\u0101. E mihi atu ki a koe e te rakatira o Ng\u0101ti Paoa, \u0101, huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229c236aa-2283-4690-9a84-aa865404bb61\u0022\u003E[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you, the esteemed one of Ng\u0101ti Paoa, and you collectively throughout this House, I greet you.]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229c236aa-2283-4690-9a84-aa865404bb61\u0022\u003EI just want to say, first of all, that I still have a lot of respect for the last speaker, Louisa Wall. But some of the thoughts that she put to the House tonight, I think really do put into jeopardy the situation on this side of the House when it comes to Treaty settlements. This is the party\u2014the National Party is the party of Treaty settlements. When we look at the past record of that side of the House compared with this side, there is no comparison at all. So to actually bring this in as a political football\u2014when we hear the other side of the House, and not just the Labour Party members but also the Green Party and New Zealand First members, actually using this as a political football, it is a very, very dire day in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229c236aa-2283-4690-9a84-aa865404bb61\u0022\u003EWhat I want to do is just to say to this House that this bill is a little different\u2014absolutely\u2014but this is an opportunity, through this bill, to release land so that there are opportunities for an iwi, actually, to be able to build on this land. It is a piece of land that was used only for the grazing of cows and some other sorts of activities. The best use of this land has been recognised by this party, and the other side of the House has now used it as a political football, where they are saying: \u201COh no, because of this the whole Treaty settlement process is in disarray.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229c236aa-2283-4690-9a84-aa865404bb61\u0022\u003EWhat I want to do is say to that side of the House that you need land. You have just promised 100,000 houses, and yet everything we have put up to you is all about the release of land\u2014you do not want to go there. Look at what we are doing. Look at what has just come. We will build 34,000 new houses in Auckland, and the reason for that\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7d3568274e646df8f2e0d00176d4060\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I do not like that word being used. I will not have that at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229c236aa-2283-4690-9a84-aa865404bb61\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6547392ffd3401aa0a1f51750d68b17\u0022\u003ENUK KORAKO\u003C/span\u003E: Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I can see that I have really hit a nerve, because the truth hurts. At the end of the day, I want to congratulate Minister Nick Smith and Ng\u0101ti Paoa on working together to achieve this excellent outcome for iwi and Aucklanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bb838d82a494b46b11070e1572d2b7d\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: I think someone left a window open. Let\u2019s build some houses on parks in your area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002229c236aa-2283-4690-9a84-aa865404bb61\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dff697043b7e427e817a7251788e647c\u0022\u003ENUK KORAKO\u003C/span\u003E: It is a shame that we get the disrespect from that side of the House, particularly because this is a great bill. Kia ora t\u0101tou katoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002207e2d4d5b9f64d9fae687f937fae0db1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be now read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; M\u0101ori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 43\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAbstentions 14\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 14.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00228f46860486fd4c339bfc8849d77dc19d\u0022\u003ETaxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18, Employment and Investment Income, and Remedial Matters) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f22800432e7c457da66f439c57afe5b5\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4a265c6019841138c2e6336fb498e44\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4a265c6019841138c2e6336fb498e44\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18, Employment and Investment Income, and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Exp enditure Committee to consider the bill. This bill serves two purposes that are important for the health of our tax system. A good tax system comprises good tax policy supported by good tax administration. This bill contains proposals to improve both sides of the equation. Along with setting the income tax rates for the 2017-18 year, as the name of the bill implies, the rates remain unchanged from the previous year. This bill contains proposals for modernising tax administration, and also contains proposals aimed at improving the current tax settings within a broad based - low rate framework.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThe Government\u2019s vision for the future is for most people to pay the correct amount of tax through the year, and if there is any refund or tax to pay, that will be calculated by IRD. To achieve that vision of a simple tax administration, the Inland Revenue Department needs good, timely information direct from income payers\u2014for example, income information provided by employers and investment income payers. People will be able to check and confirm that information if they wish. Good, accurate information will mean greater accuracy of tax collected through the year, and help prevent individuals from getting into debt.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThis bill therefore includes proposals for payers of dividends, interest, and tax for M\u0101ori authorities; distributions to provide detailed information to the Inland Revenue Department on a monthly basis, or for the months in which payments are made if the payment frequency is less than monthly. Currently, payers of these sorts of income provide only aggregate information at year-end to the Inland Revenue Department. The Government is conscious of compliance and administration costs for payers of investment income, so to reduce these costs the bill proposes that investment income payers be allowed to correct errors in previous withholding tax returns in their next return without incurring penalties or interest, subject to restrictions for errors being corrected in the following tax year. In addition, the bill proposes removing the requirement for interest payers to provide end-of-year withholding tax certificates to income recipients who have provided their IRD numbers. The investment income information changes will generally apply from 1 April 2020.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThe second group of tax simplification proposals is aimed at employers. One of the objectives of the Government\u2019s transformation of tax administration is for businesses to spend more of their time focusing on growing their businesses, rather than fulfilling tax requirements. Businesses using accounting software to prepare and send their GST returns to the Inland Revenue Department are experiencing a significant compliance cost reduction. The Government wants employers to benefit from this approach too, so the bill proposes changes that will enable employers to benefit from modern software, but does not require them to use it. The proposed changes are intended to reduce compliance for employers by integrating tax tasks, like providing PAYE information, into their normal business procedures. The bill proposes requiring employers to provide the Inland Revenue Department with information about their employees\u2019 income and deductions on a pay-day basis, rather than on the current monthly basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EIn line with the theme of modernisation, this bill proposes abolishing a subsidy that has outlived its purpose. In the early days of electronic filing of PAYE information, the use of a payroll intermediary made compliance easier for small employers and helped to guarantee a better standard of information provided to the Inland Revenue Department. An incentive to use an approved intermediary was therefore provided. The range of payroll products and services has developed significantly in the intervening years, and an incentive is simply not appropriate any more. The bill therefore proposes to repeal it from 1 April 2018. These are some of the main proposals relating to modernising our tax administration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EI turn now to the second category of proposals: those aimed at maintaining our broad based - low rate tax system. To remain effective, the tax settings must constantly evolve to keep abreast of changes in the economic environment, interpretation of the law, and business practices. One such change is the growing popularity of employee share schemes. The tax laws relating to employee share schemes have been in place for many years, but since their establishment they have not been revisited. In the meantime, employee share schemes have become a more popular form of remuneration amongst employers. The bill therefore proposes a number of changes to modernise and improve the taxation of employee share schemes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThe main objective of the proposed reforms is to ensure that as far as possible the tax position of both the employer and the employee is the same whether remuneration for labour is paid for in cash or in shares. This means ensuring that the share scheme cannot be structured to give employees tax-free remuneration. For example, under current law an employee can be given what is economically a valuable share option without being taxed on that benefit, whereas the provision of an actual option is taxable when the option is exercised. The proposals in this bill remove this distortion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThe bill also proposes allowing employers a tax deduction for the amount of the employee\u2019s share scheme income at the time the employee is taxable in order to align the tax treatment with other types of employment income. So it is a balanced package that benefits business.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EIn response to submissions, to minimise compliance costs it is proposed that the tax-exempt, widely offered employee share schemes are retained. The bill, however, proposes some amendments to modernise the rules and to close certain loopholes that are currently being used to obtain unintended deductions. Transitional rules are included in the bill, which will allow most companies 6 months after the enactment of the bill to amend the employee share schemes, if necessary, to take into account the new law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThe Government is keenly aware of the value of employee share schemes as a form of remuneration, particularly in innovative start-up companies, and, to remove some potential tax impediments faced by start-up companies in offering employee share schemes, officials are currently developing a public consultation document that defines a proposal contained in the 2016 issues paper. Public feedback is important to the development of sound tax rules, and therefore I would encourage interested parties to make submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the proposals contained in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThe bill proposes making available a refundable tax credit to address the losses arising from decommission expenditure incurred by a petroleum miner. This is similar to other refundable tax credits already included in the Income Tax Act 2007, most relevantly the refundable tax credit for mineral mining rehabilitation expenditure. The existing rules addressing this situation involve significant compliance administration costs. An amendment is proposed to create an exclusion from the dividend rules for certain company demergers. The full value of the shares in a demerged company is currently treated as a taxable dividend for the shareholder. However, a genuine demerger is in substance the division of a corporate group rather than a distribution of income and should not, therefore, give rise to taxable income. In practice, the problem has arisen in relation to demergers by listed Australian companies, so the proposed solution focuses on these. This is a good example of tax policy being responsive to the valid concerns of the private sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EA proposed amendment would provide the Inland Revenue Department with the discretion to issue IRD numbers to offshore persons without a New Zealand bank account if satisfied with their identity and background. This is intended to give the Inland Revenue Department sufficient flexibility to deal with a range of different cases in a timely basis and reduce undue compliance costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EFive new charities are proposed to be added to the list of donee organisations in schedule 32. New Zealand charities that support overseas activities must be listed in schedule 32 in order for their donors to be eligible for tax benefits, in particular the donations tax credit. The proposed new additions to schedule 32 are Beyond Disaster Relief New Zealand, Flying for Life Charitable Trust, M\u00E9decins Sans Fronti\u00E8res New Zealand Charitable Trust, Tony McClean Nepal Trust, and Zimbabwe Rural Schools Library Trust.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EFinally, the bill contains a range of remedial matters. These and other measures proposed in the bill have been developed to strengthen our tax system by modernising the administration to make it easier for people to get their tax right in the first place. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022 data-id=\u00229bd1c2a3391a43769e7c94d23c6cbbc9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229bd1c2a3391a43769e7c94d23c6cbbc9\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD (Labour\u2014Mt Roskill):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18, Employment and Investment Income, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I rise to speak to the bill on behalf of the Labour Party, and it is the intention of Labour to support this bill to the select committee stage, at which point we think it is very appropriate for a number of the matters that have been flagged by the Minister of Revenue within the bill to be very, very closely examined\u2014and I thank the Minister for her attention to the debate that is going on at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EOne of the things that is important to be aware of with this bill, and many of the other large tax bills that are coming the House\u2019s way this year, is that they are sprawling beasts, and this bill\u2014by my adding up here\u2014amends at least six Acts in reasonably important ways: the Income Tax Act 2007, the Tax Administration Act 1994, the KiwiSaver Act 2006, the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011, the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, the Child Support Act 1991, the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and the Income Tax Act 2004. So there are potentially a lot of impacts flowing from this bill, and a lot of the detail is very, very complex, so we think it is going to be extremely important that when this bill goes to select committee it receives a thorough examination\u2014and, as I stand here, I notice the upstanding and hard-working chair of our committee, Mr Chris Bishop, coming into the House, with rapt attention to this debate, and I look forward to working on the bill with him in the committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThere are four broad aspects to this bill. The first is that it sets the 2017-18 income tax rates. Secondly, there are a range of changes that focus on the business reporting of tax information\u2014a lot of these are related to the business transformation process that the Minister spoke about in her speech. There are some very substantial changes to the treatment of employee share schemes, and I want to return to those a little bit later. Then there are various remedial matters, as we always get with these bills.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EI want to start off with the rates, and they were really the unspoken story when we just heard from the Minister of Revenue, but they will be of some interest to the 3 million or so New Zealand taxpayers out there who want some clarity on what their income tax rates will be for the year ahead. Of course, it is a little bit interesting because it was not that long ago that we stood in this House\u2014I think probably only about 5 or 6 weeks ago\u2014to actually confirm the rates for the 2016-17 year. It was a bit of a last-minute dash. I think we ended up with about 2 or 3 days\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbadf81ec9e54052ad79509bec944c52\u0022\u003EChris Bishop\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220b84748d4e24f8eb471795e42425ea2\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014before the end of the financial year. Mr Bishop knows how concerned the Labour Party is about this. I know that he will be committed to having a more orderly process this year, and perhaps he can speak to the Leader of the House about ensuring that that unfolds over the coming months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EIt is notable, of course, that the rates in this bill are simply a repeat, a rehash, of the current year\u2019s rates, and they are being put to this House days before a Budget in which the Minister has been foreshadowing and really pumping up the expectation of some pretty significant changes in the income tax space. All I can say in that area is that I hope those members do a better job than they did the last time that they looked at New Zealand\u2019s income tax rates, because the last time they did that, right at the beginning of this National Government, the changes that they made shifted income distribution in this country vastly to the advantage of the top 10 percent of wage and salary earners. I think that when you listen to people out in our communities at the moment, people are looking for a Budget that has fairness at its core, and if we see changes to income tax rates that again significantly weight those advantages and that additional income to the top 10 percent of income earners, as happened the last time the National Government changed income tax rates, there is going to be a huge backlash.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EMore broadly, though, in respect of tax rates, I guess the view of the Labour Party is that that ongoing tinkering with the tax system that we are getting from the National Government\u2014that is what we expect to see in the coming week\u2014simply is not good enough. Over a long period of time we have had a build-up of substantial imbalances in our tax system, and simply reconfirming the income tax rates for the year or looking at the thresholds, as we might hear about on Thursday, does not really resolve the big issues in our economy and our society that stem from those imbalances in our tax system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EI know many members in this House might have heard about the book Tax and Fairness, which has come out over the last week or two. Look, a very well-qualified, extremely intelligent author, Dr Deborah Russell, Labour\u2019s candidate for the seat of New Lynn, is one of the authors, along with Terry Baucher, and it really is worth a read. I am only about halfway through it, but what it does is it really delves into the substantial issues in our tax system and points to this fact that just fiddling with thresholds is not going to be enough. It points to the fact, for example, that the tax treatment of people who put their wealth into productive investment and savings versus those who put their income into property speculation is vastly different\u2014is vastly different. If the Government, when it is putting forward a tax bill like this, which deals with the tax treatment of certain kinds of investments, really wanted to invest in a productive economy, that is one of the things that it could look at, because what Deborah Russell says is that the tax burden on those people who put their wealth into productive investments is four times that of the tax burden of those people\u2014and, who knows, there may even be some of them on the benches opposite\u2014who put their wealth into property speculation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThat goes to the housing crisis that affects so many New Zealanders today, and it goes to the fundamental economic settings and incentives in our economy as well, and if we ever really want to climb up that mountain that we talk about year in, year out in this House about building a high-wage, high-skill economy with high rates of R \u0026amp; D, in which we have world-class living standards, we are going to have to effect that shift at some stage. If we keep ploughing our wealth into property and if we keep having a tax system that incentivises us to do that, we simply will never get there. Once again, we have a tax bill that a lot of work has gone into\u2014a lot of institutional knowledge from IRD and a lot of research and a lot of time will be spent, a lot of submissions\u2014and we are just tinkering around the edges. We are not dealing with those very, very fundamental issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003ESo that is something that Labour wants to see, and what Labour will deliver is a shift\u2014looking at the fundamental drivers of the tax system and rebalancing it to ensure that we are incentivising the right kinds of investments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EWhile we are on it, we wait with great interest, and, again, there is nothing in this tax bill to ensure that while Kiwi taxpayers, who are, of course, paying their tax diligently at the rates set down in this bill\u2014we are seeing multinationals in New Zealand getting away with ripping off the Kiwi taxpayer to the tune of between $300 million, by the Government\u2019s own estimates, and up to $1 billion per year by some other estimates. Once again, though, we have a tax bill that does not begin to touch on that, and we have absolutely no certainty that the Government has any intention whatsoever of progressing action in that area before this election. There is a lot of hui, not much doey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4d19d709f29407d8fba86ae472777bf\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Come back to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f81325afbec94840b87b0b598832ebd3\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD\u003C/span\u003E: Certainly, Mr Assistant Speaker. I know that the members opposite are eager to hear more information, and I am happy to provide it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EOne of the concerns we have with the bill, and one of the aspects we seek to explore further in select committee, is the extent of the shift to pre-population that is set out in this bill, and it is mentioned many, many times in the commentary. Many people in the tax community really want to know where this is going, because, at first blush, IRD having better information earlier on in the piece sounds like a good idea. We can all agree that is a good idea, and we can all agree that it probably is a good idea for that information to be used to pre-populate people\u2019s tax returns. But there are many people in the tax community who are asking whether this is taking us back in the direction of compulsory filing of tax returns. There are certain signals\u2014bits of smoke that seem to come out of IRD\u2014that seem to suggest that this might be the case, and that is something that we will want to explore further in the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EI want to turn now to the changes proposed to employee share schemes. Most of us in this House will agree that employee share schemes are a really valuable tool for recognising employees, for putting incentives in place, for giving people a stake in growing companies. We want to support not just their retention but their growth under the right circumstances. Probably the most significant changes proposed in this bill are the treatment of those employee share schemes. Effectively, the changes proposed are to further date when employees acquire the shares for tax purposes. It is a major, major change, and there is already a lot of chatter amongst businesses and amongst the tax community about how this may affect the attractiveness of employee share schemes. This is not the time and place to go into all of the detail there, but, once again, on behalf of the Labour Party, I would flag up that that is an area we want to spend some real time on at select committee. We cannot afford to get that wrong, or we are really going to rock the boat on an area that is quite important in terms of incentives in many of our businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EOnce again, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill in its first reading, and we look forward to further discussion and good quality debate at select committee. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022 data-id=\u0022fdfa27c9c81a473dba4319366c5b609d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fdfa27c9c81a473dba4319366c5b609d\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP (National):\u003C/span\u003E I know that the member who has just resumed his seat, Michael Wood, is a new member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d7bc10ce99aa40198853506e4bb9616f\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Ha! Listen to him!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffc36e7d1810414c8d24204aa7574bf3\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014a relatively new member\u2014but I think Mr Wood really needs to talk to the Opposition finance spokesperson. That was quite a good speech, but it was actually a speech largely not about the bill, as my colleagues have pointed out. It was largely a speech in favour of a capital gains tax. I know that the Labour Party and their activists\u2014Mr Wood comes from that venerable tradition\u2014are hankering for a capital gains tax. But, actually, the official Labour Party policy\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c83012b4-3939-4753-80fc-1956a3e2bd1e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3e1150bbb6a4e5f969e47082b292204\u0022\u003EHon Michael Woodhouse\u003C/span\u003E: Is that the policy this week?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c04fc3a5827b42c9b856b6faa86b3a4d\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014well, this week, as my colleague Michael Woodhouse points out\u2014is that we are not going to have a capital gains tax, but it will be subject to a comprehensive taxation review in the unlikely event they get into Government. So it was a good speech, but not really about the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EThe other thing that Mr Wood mentioned in the speech was multinational tax avoidance, and, again, this is something that the Labour Party activists are very worked up about. But, actually, all New Zealanders\u2014and I think there is a bit of cross-party unity in the House on this\u2014want everyone to pay their fair share of tax. The Government is in no disagreement with that objective, and the member will have seen the Minister of Revenue Judith Collins\u2019 discussion documents that came out recently. But the thing about multinational tax avoidance and base erosion and profit shifting\u2014BEPS, which is the technical term for it\u2014is that it is a multinational problem. It is in the name. It is not something that New Zealand could do unilaterally, even if we wanted to; it is something that requires concerted action on the international level. That is exactly what the Government is doing, and that is exactly what other countries, such as Australia, are doing and I think members will see that roll out in good time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EI want to mention a couple of points in relation to the bill. The first is about employee share schemes, and Mr Wood gave a good introduction into some of the changes that the bill makes around employee share schemes. I think this is an area that we are really going to have to have a good look at in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I see the ranking Opposition member nodding\u2014I was going to say furiously, but it is not quite furiously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022207942570e4c4d5798a0185be060587e\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I wouldn\u2019t call that furious.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253e7e4fd33f643f3924172a84eebd179\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: He is nodding away. And we are going to have to take a look at this\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf5c213d09f4451cb777a0b484a13f5f\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Sagely.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0320beb5214449fa8f2ec87c75c826a\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Sagely. OK\u2014sure. This is an extremely complex area of the law and also we are dealing with individual taxpayers, and we have got to make sure we have got this right. I have had some commentary from people in the professions already that this is something that we are really going to have to take a good look at. So I am looking forward to doing that on the hard-working Finance and Expenditure Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EThe other thing I want to make mention of is the changes it makes around, basically, employee income information. You could really summarise it by saying the Government is essentially going to collect more information from taxpayers and it is going to do it more quickly. That is all through the business transformation process that the Government is spending considerable sums of money on investing in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EFor people listening out there, at 5 minutes to 10 on Tuesday night\u2014they may be sitting there listening to the radio or watching a bit of Parliament TV, thinking why would the Government want more information about employee income information, such as monthly updates from employers to the IRD. There are a few reasons for this: one is actually an honourable aim, which is to help stop individuals incurring debt and also to reduce compliance costs for big companies. I think that is a laudable aim. And, also\u2014and I know the Opposition will be very interested in this\u2014it is to give the Government, essentially, greater flexibility around redesigning social policies. One of the problems we have with the current IRD system is that it is creaking. It is ancient. It is old. It is on its last legs, and that is why\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229dc203b3-21b0-4d4a-a530-746504e05f20\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb9b3d39464241eabb68fd9d1d2a863f\u0022\u003ERichard Prosser\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t be ageist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df22b89b8ad54bda8d2c4accd3b6d265\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014the Government is spending a lot of money on investing. Ha, ha! The Government is investing into this system to allow Governments of whatever political stripe, whether they be a blue, yellow, and mauve one, or a red, green stripe, to allow Governments of whatever persuasion to more quickly adapt the system to carry out social policies, tax policy, and also welfare policies. And that is going to be good in the future. Actually, that is probably, I think, the biggest benefit of the transformation programme, as it will allow Governments to be far more agile and innovative in their policy responses to particular situations than they are at the moment. It is a good bill. It needs some consideration, and I know we will be looking at it closely at the Finance and Expenditure Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022635794a78336411b8a79142ba6453367\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022635794a78336411b8a79142ba6453367\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Wellington Central):\u003C/span\u003E What a great pleasure to stand in the House at drive time, frankly\u20144 minutes to 10 p.m. I want to thank my colleague Chris Bishop for making sure that I managed to get my opportunity to start my contribution today. The first thing I would say is that I think the Minister of Revenue is probably setting a record for lack of enthusiasm for her role. I thought she should have been more positive tonight, because, as my colleague Michael Wood has alluded to, she did something that her predecessor\u2014I need to be careful; there are a variety of former revenue Ministers around\u2014her immediate predecessor, Michael Woodhouse, failed to do, which is actually get a bill in for the rates of income tax somewhere approximating when that year might begin, as opposed to the exercise we went through in the House most recently when we just scraped through with the 2016-17 rates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EThe Minister should be a lot happier in her work, I think, given that she has actually managed to put a bill in front of us that contains the annual rates of income tax for the 2017-18 year. Of course, it all could go up in smoke on Thursday when the Minister of Finance comes to the House with a Budget that apparently\u2014I read this evening\u2014is going to deliver $50 a week to some working families. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003EIt will be interesting, if the tax rates are used to do that, just who will get that benefit, because the truth is that if you are using the tax system to do that, be it thresholds or be it rates, the people who benefit the most are people like us who earn very substantial salaries. It does not matter whether you move the bottom thresholds, the people who benefit the most are the people who earn the most at the top. New Zealanders have to ask themselves: is that the priority they want from their tax system, or, actually, are we looking to create a fairer tax system right across\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022201a9d5f6fd24c549ebd1c523d971519\u0022\u003EAlastair Scott\u003C/span\u003E: Which clause of the bill are you talking about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8f6fed2ffef41e1b2f64471e32b5af3\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: What was that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ddb265780ea43f883fc210c8d0ee7a0\u0022\u003EAlastair Scott\u003C/span\u003E: Which clause of the bill are you talking about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277aae7fdaf404d3ebe96b295e017a9c9\u0022\u003EGRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: I am talking about the annual rates of income tax for 2017-18, provided for in the very first words of the title\u2014the very first words. So Alastair Scott has woken from his\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022b4535fafa95b4e91b63b51604e4d0faf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b4535fafa95b4e91b63b51604e4d0faf\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 10 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2017052374258b5f082549419821e4cc381742b2000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"