Thursday, 15 September 2011

Thursday, 15 September 2011

Thursday, 15 September 2011

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Canada—Minister of National Defence, House of Commons

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Hon Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence from the Canadian House of Commons, is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the Minister be welcomed.

Voting

Correction—Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Mr SPEAKER: Last night, when the Committee was considering the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), the result of the vote on the question that the amendment to clause 7 in the name of the Hon John Boscawen be agreed to was incorrectly announced as Ayes 5, Noes 111. The correct result is Ayes 5, Noes 115. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House): Next week the House will be adjourned for 1 week. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 27 September the Government intends to move the first reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill, the remaining stages of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill, and other Government business. Seven retiring members will be giving their valedictory statements. Wednesday, 28 September is scheduled to be a members’ day.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think a number of questions flow out of that statement, especially around the enthralling legislation that the Minister listed. I will ask him, in particular, about the legislation that flows from the sleepover case. I understand that there is an undertaking from the Government to introduce it, and I want to make it clear that as long as it is in the form that is expected, the Labour Opposition will facilitate its passage before Christmas, if it is necessary, as I understand that it is. I also ask him whether any other legislation is contemplated.

Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House): I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his offer of facilitation on that particular matter. It is the Government’s intention to introduce that legislation at the first opportunity. Discussions may well follow from the introduction of that legislation. In respect of the shadow Leader of the House’s second matter about other legislation, the Government is always busy, and is keen to make the most of every remaining minute between now and 6 October.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Child Poverty—Left Further Behind Recommendations

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Which, if any, of the seven key recommendations of the Child Poverty Action Group’s report Left Further Behind will the Government be implementing?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I would not implement that report any more readily than I would Labour’s so-called policies, but, then again, they are the same thing.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said this week that there are likely to be 228,000 children living in poverty now, and is that more or fewer than when she became the Minister?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will not speak on behalf of the Prime Minister; the question was directed at me. I can say that we have more than 220,000 children who are in benefit-dependent households, and by any measure we take of poverty, that says that children of benefit recipients are often doing the worst in this country.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, or not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Prime Minister is always right.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that the position of children is a lot worse than it was 3 years ago, and that the longer that children spend in poverty the more harm it does; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I struggle to agree with pretty much anything that is in the Child Poverty Action Group report; it is so political. In fact, I think it is so political that it could almost carry a Labour Party authorisation with it, quite frankly. I can give the member many examples of why I do not agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, and I struggle with that example.

Hon Annette King: Given that the Prime Minister said this week “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty.”, why has the Government waited 3 years to issue a green paper, which is to become a white paper that may or may not become policy sometime after the election, and which manages to mention the word “poverty” on one page in the entire document?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think this really is the key: while Labour pontificates on whether there are children in poverty and on which report says there are and which report says there are not, this side of the House is actually getting on with real solutions—like 100,000 households that have been insulated, like more money going into early childhood education, and like $43 million more in the last Budget going towards kids in State care. If we want to talk about vulnerable children, those are the children who need us most, and whom this side of the House is prepared to stand up for.

Hon Annette King: Why does the Government believe that the interests of children have to be balanced with the interests of other New Zealanders, as the Prime Minister said, but has no hesitation in spending public money on bailing out South Canterbury Finance, the Rugby World Cup, and kiwifruit growers, to name but a few examples of the Government’s more important priorities?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government does concentrate on, and has a belief in, supporting those children. Quite frankly, the list of initiatives is so long that I would not be allowed to read it out. With the health initiatives around immunisation of those children, the rate has been lifted from 73 percent to 90 percent, which is extraordinary in helping those children. Extra assistance is going into child well-being. But what do we have from the other side? A knee-jerk reaction like calling for a new Minister for children. What would they do and what kind of budget would they have? I will be interested in hearing responses on that.

Hon Annette King: Is she aware that one of the key recommendations from the Child Poverty Action Group’s report is to ensure training allowances to support sole parents to go into education, to enable them to move into employment, and will she reinstate the training incentive allowance; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think I have made it quite clear that I do not put merit on the Labour document that is the Child Poverty Action Group’s report, which, quite frankly, is just a rehash of old policies and of what Labour perhaps intends to do, depending on whether it changes its mind in the next few weeks. On the issue of those on benefits going into training, this Government is hugely supportive of that, and we stand by our record on it.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I come back to the member, it would have been quite helpful had the Minister mentioned something to do with the training incentive allowance. My hearing may have let me down, but I do not recollect that in the answer. The question asked whether the Minister would reinstate the training incentive allowance, but I do not think that that was even mentioned in the answer.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: With regard to the training incentive allowance, of course that has not been cut. We have simply changed the criteria to make sure that it is addressing the more than 50 percent of women, in particular, who are on the domestic purposes benefit and who have no educational attainment whatsoever, and to make sure that they are getting the priority they need and deserve.

Hon Annette King: Could the Minister outline, then, what changes she did make to the training incentive allowance soon after she became the Minister, and did that include not allowing those on benefits to undertake tertiary training at a degree course level, which is the same training she managed to get under the training incentive allowance programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Talk about the politics of envy. Quite frankly, if that member was still running policies like she did 20 years ago, she would be selling State assets, because that is what she was doing 20 years ago. If we all went back to what was happening 20 years ago, it would be kind of ridiculous. The changes that were made to the training incentive allowance I have reiterated in this House many times. We changed the criteria so that its eligibility is around the level of achievement and for those attaining level 3 or under.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Maybe my hearing is not so good today, but I thought that in a previous answer the Minister said there had been no changes to the training incentive allowance?

Mr SPEAKER: What would perhaps have helped to get a more specific answer out of the Minister on the last supplementary question was if the question had not included a slightly challenging reference to the Minister’s own past life. That sort of question always leaves more latitude for a Minister in how he or she answers it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister explain to the House how the withdrawal of eligibility for a group of people to go towards a degree course is not a cut?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There was a change in the criteria. Those women can still get tertiary level achievements. There are student loans for them, there is extra early childcare assistance, there is out-of-school care and recreation assistance for them, and, on top of that, there is an extra loan they can get that is interest-free. So no one is saying that they cannot go on to study at a tertiary level. There is a lot of Government support for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister telling us that a group of women who previously got the training incentive allowance, and people in the same circumstances, are not eligible—that that is not a cut?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the first part of that question I say that the people who were receiving the training incentive allowance were able to continue receiving it. That was not actually taken away from them. But, yes, we changed the criteria of the training incentive allowance. I think everyone acknowledges that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister answered a question that I did not ask. I asked a question about women who were in the same circumstances as the women who received the allowance, not about the same women. That part of the question was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister, in answering, said that in respect of women in the same circumstances the Government has changed the criteria—that is what I heard the Minister say—and therefore some women maybe not qualifying under those new criteria is the implication of that. Whether someone wishes to interpret that as a cut is up to a member, but I think the Minister did answer that question.

Child Poverty—Green Party’s Goal

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Why did he refuse to join with the Green Party to set a goal to bring 100,000 children out of poverty by 2014?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Prime Minister: It is because he does not agree with the Greens’ policy prescription.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree that children have the same needs for good food, warm clothes, and secure housing whether or not their parents are in paid work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We certainly want to see all children doing well in this country, and we believe that the welfare system provides them with a base level of support so that they can get that. Probably where I disagree with the member is that paid work and welfare should be at the same rates.

Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister refused to set a bold target to bring children out of poverty because he knows that most of the children in poverty live in benefit-reliant households, and that therefore bringing them out of poverty would require increasing benefit levels?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, every day the Prime Minister and his Ministers work hard on behalf of those children and all New Zealanders in this country. But let me give an example of lifting children out of poverty: if we get people into work, that is the best way to get those children out of poverty. For example, in the 9 months to June this year there was a 24 percent increase in the number of people going off the domestic purposes benefit and into work. Those 5,374 sole parents had more than 8,300 children. Those children—

Mr SPEAKER: It is very interesting information that the Minister is sharing with us, but the question was reasonably precise about whether the reason the Prime Minister would not support the Green Party’s goal was that it would mean paying higher levels of benefits. The Minister sort of started to answer it in that she started arguing what other things might be important, but it would be quite helpful to say something about the question asked. If the Minister has forgotten the question, I am very happy to get Metiria Turei to repeat it. Maybe it would be helpful if she did repeat the question.

Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister refused to set a bold target to bring children out of poverty because he knows that most of the children in poverty live in benefit-reliant households, and, therefore, bringing them out of poverty would require increasing benefit levels?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: My point was on behalf of the Prime Minister and was that the best way we can get those children out of poverty is to have them in households that are in paid work. For example, in the 9 months to June this year, 5,374 sole parents went off the benefit and into work. That meant that more than 8,300 children were in households that were in paid work and were more likely to be out of poverty.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked the Minister to address the issue of increasing benefit levels, which she once again did not do.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness, I think the Minister in her answer was disagreeing with the member’s question. Rather than increasing benefit levels—in other words, she was disagreeing with that proposition—she was arguing that the best way to get children out of poverty was getting parents into work, which I think is a perfectly fair way, I think, to reply to the question.

Metiria Turei: How are low-wage jobs a solution to poverty when for every five children living in poverty, two are living in working households—how are low-wage jobs a solution to that?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because people are more likely to get into a higher-paid job by being in work, gaining skills, and actually being in that working environment.

Metiria Turei: Would not extending Working for Families to beneficiary families, and raising the minimum wage for working families, be sufficient to bring 100,000 children out of poverty by 2014, and why does the Prime Minister consistently refuse to do it for those children who are most in need?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I choose to answer the first part of that question. There is currently a court case going on about Working for Families and the in-work tax credit, and I am not prepared to answer that question.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Australia children receive the same Government support regardless of whether their parents are in or out of work, and that the Australian minimum wage is about NZ$19.50 an hour; if so, has he considered that introducing those child-friendly policies in New Zealand might actually help with his failing goal of catching up with Australia?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, the Prime Minister is aware of what Australia’s policy is.

Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister believe that caring for children at home is work, and valuable work, in this country?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I believe that being in the home with children and being in work with children—and I am not here to make that kind of judgment—is sometimes work and sometimes it is fun.

Economy—Reserve Bank Forecasts

3. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): This morning the Reserve Bank issued its Monetary Policy Statement, which held the official cash rate unchanged at 2.5 percent. The bank noted that the economy has performed more strongly this year than it forecast in its June statement, despite weaker growth among our trading partners. This reflects stronger terms of trade, providing stimulus to households and businesses, and rising consumer and business confidence. Overall, the bank expects real economic growth to average about 3 percent over the next 4 years, helped by the earthquake rebuild in Canterbury.

Chris Auchinvole: What is the Reserve Bank’s assessment of the global economic outlook?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The bank has said that “While the domestic economy has been surprisingly robust … global financial risks continue to intensify.” In particular, the economic outlook for New Zealand’s trading partners has deteriorated markedly since June. Revised data for the US shows that its recession was deeper than previously thought, and growth has slowed in the UK, Germany, and France. Despite these risks, export prices are expected to remain relatively high, supporting incomes and boosting GDP and job growth in New Zealand.

Chris Auchinvole: What steps has the Government taken to address the risks identified by the Reserve Bank?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The main risk identified by the Reserve Bank today was New Zealand’s vulnerability to the uncertainty and volatility around events in Europe. One of the most important steps that the Government has taken is to plan to reduce our vulnerability to foreign lenders. In that respect, turning round 2008 forecasts of never-ending Budget deficits and permanently rising debt was important. We expect now to be one of only a handful of developed countries heading back towards surplus over the next few years, at which point we will be able to start repaying debt.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Reserve Bank’s current forecast that growth will peak at 3.5 percent next year, compared with his Budget projection of above 4 percent, a sign that once again he has overpromised and under-delivered on economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The Reserve Bank has changed its expectations of the profile of growth, but has not really changed its expectations of the total amount of growth. It expects that with the problems in Europe and a downturn in our trading partners, we will have a slightly lower peak in growth in 2012-13. But it is not a serious shift.

Hon David Cunliffe: In that case, given that economic output per person is still 2 percent below where it was when he took office, despite the recession ending over 2 years ago, can he name another New Zealand Government that has a weaker record on economic growth than this one?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can name another New Zealand Government that wrecked—maybe without intending to, but it certainly wrecked—the economic engine of this economy, which is the export sector, and that was the previous Labour Government. Despite the best economic conditions in a generation, it left the economy in a mess, and it will take us a few years to clean it up.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a graph showing the economic growth record—

Mr SPEAKER: The source—

Hon David Cunliffe: —of successive New Zealand Governments—

Mr SPEAKER: The source of the document?

Hon David Cunliffe: The Parliamentary Library.

Mr SPEAKER: It is prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Thank you. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Economic Growth—Factored into Consideration of Policy Options

4. Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government ask when considering policy options whether the policy will improve New Zealand’s growth prospects or make them worse; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. Overall, that is a very important consideration, although I have to say that it is not the only factor that the Government considers.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: In light of the fact that between 2008 and 2011 extra Government spending consumed 98 percent of New Zealand’s $16 billion increase in nominal GDP, what factors led the Minister to undertake that increase in spending, and did he believe that that spending would improve economic prospects?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, that is a trend the Government is certainly planning to turn round. That process began in Budget 2011 and will continue. The Government is too big a proportion of the economy. The increase in Government spending was consistent with the Government’s policy objectives, which were to protect the most vulnerable through the recession, to continue to invest in front-line services, and to embark on a very significant infrastructure investment programme.

Hon Heather Roy: How can businesses expect to survive when the Government swallows up just about all of any increased growth that takes place in the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the situation of a fairly significant global downturn and also a New Zealand economy that was distorted by rampant housing inflation and huge increases in Government spending, that is what actually happened. The Government has set out its plans to reverse that trend, because it is important in this economy that people and resources move to the tradable sector, where we can earn higher incomes by selling products to the rest of the world, and out of the non-tradable sector, which has been characterised over the last 10 years by excessive debt and very low productivity.

Hon Heather Roy: What advice did the Government seek and receive on the impact on economic growth and on small businesses when it refused to reinstate youth rates, locking young people out of work and preventing businesses from hiring extra staff?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the last few years, that advice has been, I think, similar to the consensus that developed in the last 10 years that higher pay rates for young people would not affect their employment prospects. It has probably become a bit more apparent in the last couple of years that that advice maybe was not realistic.

Earthquakes, Canterbury—Consultation with Ngāi Tahu on Demolition Waste Dump

5. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has he received about any discussions with Ngāi Tahu regarding the application from Ceres Environmental to establish an earthquake demolition waste dump in residential Papanui; and what was Ngāi Tahu’s response, if any?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I have not received any reports about any discussions with Ngāi Tahu in relation to this proposal. The Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury are the decision makers in relation to any resource consents needed for the proposal. An Order in Council under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act provides for temporary storage of earthquake demolition waste, but it still requires the consent of both the city council and the regional council.

Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware of the expected environmental impact of the site; and how appropriate is it that the proposed site is close to a school and residential properties?

Mr SPEAKER: In calling the Minister to answer, I do not want to deprive him of answering the question, but as he pointed out in his answer to the primary question, the Minister is not actually responsible for any decision with regard to where such a dump might go. However, recognising that fact, I am happy for the Minister to attempt to answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not have the details of the proposals. I expect the city council and the regional council would need to give consideration to issues of noise and potential dust, as well as to issues of any contamination of stormwater coming off such a site. I also expect that if any of the immediate communities, such as schools, were likely to be affected, the councils would consult those affected parties.

Rahui Katene: What involvement will there be with Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao, the statutory advisory committee that has been established to advise the Environmental Protection Authority on matters relating to policy, process, and applications from a Māori perspective?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The advisory committee is for the Environmental Protection Authority. It deals only with very large, nationally significant consents. Although I do not have the detail of the specific consent before me, I would be highly surprised if it met the national significance tests of applications that go before the Environmental Protection Authority, so I would not expect it to have any role.

Fiscal Forecasts—Revision

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Is it the Government’s intention to revise its fiscal forecasts and the timing of reaching fiscal surplus; if so, when will it do so?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the member will know, there is an upcoming event called an election, and Treasury is obliged by law to independently update fiscal forecasts in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, which must be released 20 to 30 working days before the election. That is where there will be a revised fiscal forecast.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update include a downward revision in the protected sales revenue from his proposed privatisation policy, given international equity market downturns and the higher cost of the plan, including forgone dividends and sales fees?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not know. Treasury prepares these forecasts independently.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update include higher costs of climate change policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, it is up to Treasury to check whether the Government has made any decisions that would change the Budget forecasts on the emissions trading system. If no decisions have been made, then it will not incorporate any changes into the forecasts.

Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker, I do not believe that the Minister has addressed the question—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Hon David Cunliffe: Yes, Mr Speaker, point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect, the Minister answered the question perfectly. I think he said that if any Government decision had been made on climate change policy, Treasury would pick that up, and if a decision had not been made, Treasury would not.

Hon David Cunliffe: The point of order is that he is the Minister responsible for the very policy he is delegating to Treasury—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member had listened to an earlier answer—in fact, the answer to the primary question—the member would have detected the Minister saying that Treasury conducts an independent update of the fiscal and economic position. Therefore the Minister cannot tell with detail what Treasury is going to do. The law requires that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is it the Minister’s intention to advise Treasury of any changes in the area of climate change that might have fiscal implications for the Government’s Budget aggregates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If there were any changes, I would be obliged by statute to advise it.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given the statement of the Governor of the Reserve Bank today that the high level of the New Zealand dollar is having a dampening impact on some parts of the tradable sector, does he continue to believe that New Zealand has the best monetary policy in the world; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, the level of the currency is not the measure of whether the monetary policy framework is a sound one. In our view, the monetary policy framework is sound. We can debate endlessly subtle nuances and changes to that framework, but I doubt whether they would have any impact on the forces that are currently determining the level of the New Zealand dollar.

Amy Adams: What have previous fiscal forecasts shown about the Government’s operating balance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first set of forecasts I received from Treasury in late 2008 showed that a continuation of the previous Government’s policies would have resulted in deficits for ever, and debt increasing to 60 percent of GDP and never reducing. This would certainly have put us, by now, in the same kind of category as Greece, with probably the same kinds of problems.

Amy Adams: What do the latest forecasts show about the operating balance and Government debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The latest forecasts show a considerable improvement. These were released in May with the Budget, and they show New Zealand getting back to surplus in 2014-15, rather than the endless deficits under the previous Government’s policies, and net debt peaking at below 30 percent of GDP instead of exceeding 60 percent of GDP. By 2015 we will have borrowed $40 billion less than we would have needed in order to continue Labour’s policies.

Crime Proceeds—Seizures

7. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on the results of the legislation passed by this Government allowing the Police to seize the proceeds of crime?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I am very pleased to report that the Police have been highly successful in investigating and seizing assets funded by criminal activity since the passing of the enabling legislation in December 2009. Police are currently holding restraining orders over $40 million worth of assets, and a further $8 million has now been forfeited to the Crown. This Government is serious about confiscating the profits of crime and putting gangs out of business. I am advised that this Act is having a substantial and rising impact on organised crime and drug offending.

Tim Macindoe: What is the range of assets that have been restrained by the police, and what other steps are being taken to boost their investigations further?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The assets restrained under the Act include five boats, 30 motorbikes, 74 other vehicles, one art collection, five commercial properties, six farms, 10 lifestyle blocks, 42 residential properties, and substantial holdings of cash and bank accounts. I am advised that the police have now struck memorandums of understanding with other Government agencies to enable the disclosure and sharing of information so that the legislation can be used to the maximum extent possible. These agencies include the Solicitor-General, the official assignee, and the Inland Revenue Department.

Housing New Zealand Corporation—Proposed Restructuring

8. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Did Housing New Zealand take into account the statements made by Rt Hon John Key, when in Opposition, not to wholesale reorganise or restructure the public sector or reduce the number of frontline staff, when Housing New Zealand developed their plans for restructuring?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): I require it only to take into account my annual letter of expectations as Minister of Housing, which I trust reflects John Key’s view as Prime Minister.

Moana Mackey: Is he seriously saying that his changes to the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which it has confirmed—and which will result in front-line redundancies, the closure and downgrading of Housing New Zealand Corporation neighbourhood units, tenancy managers being made to work out of their cars, and the instruction to staff that they must no longer concern themselves with vulnerable tenants’ “wider social needs”—are not a major restructuring and will not result in the reduction of Housing New Zealand Corporation front-line staff?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The corporation is yet to make a decision, but if fewer staff are able to deliver more and better front-line services because they no longer paper-shuffle but are actually out in their cars visiting tenants, then I support the Housing New Zealand Corporation.

Moana Mackey: If making tenancy managers work out of their cars is such an effective way of getting more out of them and serving their community, will he be advising his colleague Whangarei MP Phil Heatley to close his electorate office and have his staff work out of their cars so that they can better serve their communities?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I think part of the reason for the success of National MPs is that they do not hide in their offices. They are out and about in their cars, visiting their constituents.

Moana Mackey: What is he doing about the rock-bottom morale amongst Housing New Zealand Corporation staff given the lack of consultation, the fact that they have already been told to stop attending to the social needs of tenants before any other protocols are put in place, and the speed of these changes, such as in the case of one young mum who was shocked to find out that she has been fired by the Housing New Zealand Corporation while she is on maternity leave?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am not aware of the member’s various allegations.

Moana Mackey: Will he give an assurance to community housing organisations, who already see a marked increase in their workload thanks to the changes he has implemented, that they will be properly resourced to cope with the further additional workload that will fall on them, and will he at least have the decency to consult the community housing sector, given that he keeps saying it is the solution yet it has not been consulted and it has absolutely no idea what is going on?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The non-governmental community housing organisations I have spoken to have said to me that Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancy managers are not district nurses, are not parole officers, are not policemen, and are not mental health experts—they would prefer to do that work—and they have asked for Housing New Zealand Corporation staff to pass those concerns on to them. We say that, yes, Housing New Zealand Corporation staff will pass those concerns on to those specialist providers.

Moana Mackey: Given that social housing in New Zealand is still recovering from the actions of the last National Government, which hocked off 13,000 State houses and carried out no modernisation whatsoever, why is he not carrying on the work of the last Labour Government, which spent 9 years trying to repair the damage, instead of firing front-line staff, reducing the housing stock, and now taking the “social” out of social housing; or is he simply trying to finish the job?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The previous Government—and this is well-known—left the State housing stock in a serious state of disrepair. Houses were old, cold, and mouldy, and where the rats and mice did not destroy Labour’s State houses, the gangs did—and it let them get away with that too.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has he read any of the evaluations of the community renewal project in Aranui, which has made a substantial difference in terms of the housing stock and in terms of providing the community itself with the foundation it needs for recovery after the massive earthquake, and a strengthened organisation in partnership with the Housing New Zealand Corporation, the city council, and central government?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Yes.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Renewable Energy and Forestry Investment

9. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What reports has the Government received on the performance of the ETS and on trends in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Reports show that a reversal from deforestation to afforestation and a significant increase in renewable electricity, incentivised by the emissions trading scheme, have reduced New Zealand’s emissions for the first 2 consecutive years since 1990. Our emissions are 4 percent down on 2008 levels. This compares with a 23 percent increase in emissions during the period between 2000 and 2008. The report of the emissions trading scheme review panel led by the Hon David Caygill, released today, confirms the Government’s confidence in the emissions trading scheme as the most effective way for New Zealand to reduce emissions at least cost. The report also supports the 2009 changes in respect of industry allocations and recommends that no change be made to those provisions.

Nikki Kaye: How has the electricity sector responded to the price signal of the emissions trading scheme, given that this sector has seen the largest increase in emissions—130 percent—since 1990?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Last year was the best for renewables in a decade, with 74 percent of generation being produced from hydro, wind and geothermal sources. In the last year, 1,340 megawatts of new renewable generation has been built—five times the level of the last average, when most of the new generation was, ironically, fossil fuelled. This shift is the product not just of the emissions trading scheme but also of the Government’s reforms to the Resource Management Act and the adoption of the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation.

Women, Progress—Government Initiatives

10. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: As we prepare to celebrate Suffrage Day, what improved outcomes for New Zealand women can she point to as a result of initiatives by her Government?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Acting Minister of Women’s Affairs): This Government has made a number of reforms that have led to improved outcomes for women. For example, we have made changes to our tax system that have seen the after-tax average wage increase 2 percent faster than inflation over the last year, and this has put money back into women’s pockets. We have also introduced police safety orders, which allow the police to remove an alleged violent person from the home for a period of up to 5 days. Over 5,000 of these orders have been issued since their introduction in July of last year, and over 80 percent of these orders have been issued to protect women.

Carol Beaumont: What advice has she given the Prime Minister about his stated intention to “look closely at” the gender pay gap of 27.5 percent in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, or his commitment “to take action to deal with any pay discrimination” in response to a question about the significant pay gaps in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, the Ministry of Education, and Crown Law?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Far be it from me to give the Prime Minister any advice. I am sure that he is paying attention to that issue for himself. But I would point out that the gender pay gap has fallen from 13 percent in 2008 to 10.6 percent in 2010, and that is the lowest it has ever been.

Carol Beaumont: Why has the Minister moved from a goal committed to over 22 years, supported by both National and Labour Governments, and promoted by many, including former National Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, of having women make up 50 percent of appointments to Government-appointed statutory boards, to a goal of 43 percent, as she stated when discussing this year’s women’s affairs estimates?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is my understanding that this Government has maintained the previous level of about 40 percent of the appointments being women.

Carol Beaumont: What specific action is she taking in light of the UN Women report In Pursuit of Justice: Progress of the World’s Women 2011-12, which states that New Zealand has the highest rates of physical and sexual violence against women in the OECD?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Can I refer the member back to the answer that I gave to the primary question. We introduced the police safety orders, of which there have been 5,000 issued since July of last year, and over 80 percent of those were issued to protect women.

Carol Beaumont: Which of these changes affecting New Zealand women does she believe to be the most worthy of celebrating on Suffrage Day this year: scrapping the pay and employment equity unit; passing the fire-at-will bill, which disproportionately affects women; cutting successful family violence prevention programmes and creating uncertainty for the Girls’ Self Defence Project; or decreasing the number of women in leadership positions, as highlighted by the New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2010?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would not agree with the premises of any of those suggestions, but I would point out that the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce was established in 2004, with a 5-year plan of action. This Government, at the end of those 5 years, ended it.

Children, State Care—Support

11. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is the Government working to better protect and support our vulnerable children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In Budget 2011 we put in $43.7 million to support children in State care, who are our most vulnerable. Part of the package ensures that all children who enter our care—around 2,200 in any given year—will be comprehensively assessed for their health and education needs. We know that, unfortunately, around 88 percent of children coming into State care have previously unidentified health issues, and 40 percent have a mental health disorder. The changes kicked in from 1 July, and so far we have had 136 children in our care be referred for, and go through, the gateway assessments.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How else is this package supporting New Zealand children in State care?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Our policy change also included 20 hours’ early childhood education for children in State care who are aged between 18 months and 3 years—an investment of more than $11 million—to improve the outcomes for these children. I am delighted that already nearly 100 children have accessed this education, and that number is about a quarter of what we expect in any given year.

Pike River Mine—Approval for Second Exit

12. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Labour: Did the Department of Labour Inspector Kevin Poynter sign off the Alimak raise and ventilation shaft as meeting minimum standards and adequate as a second egress from the Pike River mine on 12 August 2010; if so, why?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): I am advised that the department is not aware of any such formal sign-off, but the matter raised is the subject of evidence before the royal commission of inquiry, which will no doubt make its determination accordingly.

Kevin Hague: Is she aware that the Mines Rescue service audited the emergency exit involving the 55-metre sheer vertical ladder with a carrying capacity of just eight men, and found it to be extremely difficult to use, and impossible in a fire; that attempts to trial it as an exit, in ideal conditions, ended in failure; and that on the day of the disaster Daniel Rockhouse attempted to use this exit to escape but was forced to abandon it, just 10 metres up the ladder, because it was too physically demanding?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am aware and understand that there have been some criticisms in relation to that second access, but can I say that the matter of access is the subject of evidence before the royal commission. I think it would be wise if we waited for them to make their determination accordingly.

Kevin Hague: If the emergency exit from a mine can meet minimum standards, as former mine manager Doug White has said on oath to the royal commission, yet be impossible to use, does it not suggest to the Minister, as it does to every other New Zealander, that those standards are in urgent need of reform?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am not prepared to speculate on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the second access, nor on safety issues, because these are matters for ongoing investigation. Indeed, they are the matter of evidence. Some of it has not been tested, and it certainly has not been determined as yet by the royal commission of inquiry.

Kevin Hague: How does she think the families of miners must feel, knowing that miners go underground every day into mines where their safety is assured by regulations so bad that they allowed Pike River Coal to get away with an emergency exit that was impossible to use, and with a Government that refuses to take action to improve things until the royal commission reports?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I hope the families will consider that the Government is doing what it can to ensure that the royal commission of inquiry is as wide ranging as possible. The Government has conducted operational reviews. It has reviewed the safety of existing mines, and also there is an investigation pending under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. I am reluctant to go into too much detail for fear of pre-empting any of those outcomes, as I do not believe that is in the public interest.

Hon Rick Barker: Do the reports from the Pike River mine inquiry, which highlight the disconnect between the trained and knowledgable specialists, Mines Rescue, and those making the decisions about rescue, based in Wellington at her Department of Labour and Police National Headquarters, raise concerns with her, and will she remedy this flaw and ensure that in the future, decisions about mines rescue will be made by the specialists who are at the scene and best placed to make the decisions?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am not going to speculate or pre-empt what the determinations of the royal commission of inquiry will be. I can say we are watching it very, very carefully, and when those determinations are forthcoming we will certainly consider the matters very, very seriously.

Hon Rick Barker: Does the Minister accept that the deficiencies of the Pike River coalmine, such as telephones not working, no functioning safe emergency air, and a totally inadequate secondary emergency exit, highlight the inadequacy of the mines inspectorate, and does this give her the resolve to fix these deficiencies to make our mines safer?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: As I have said before, the safety issues at the Pike River mine are currently being considered by the royal commission of inquiry. They are also subject to criminal investigations by both the Department of Labour and the police, which may result in criminal charges. Given this, it is not in the public interest for me to comment on issues that are likely to be the subject of those investigations, by speculating about what may or may not have occurred, and what may or may not have been safe.

Darien Fenton: Does the Minister agree with the comments made by mines inspectors, in the review of her department’s interaction with Pike River Coal, that workplace safety representatives really made much of a positive contribution, and that there was essentially nothing to be learnt from those who were actually doing the work underground in the mine?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The report that we had, which gave recommendations on small mines, did indeed make recommendations on employee participation. It is the legal responsibility of the employer to keep the workplace safe, but it is also important that the whole workplace does have a culture of workplace safety, and that is the responsibility of both employers and employees.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1 to Member

Question postponed.

Urgent Debates

Rugby World Cup—Extension to Queens Wharf Fanzone

Mr SPEAKER: I have received letters from the Hon Trevor Mallard and Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s application to the Rugby World Cup Authority for an extension to the Queens Wharf Fanzone, Festival and Showcase Event area.

This is an event of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Government’s application was made yesterday. Ordinarily, such an application might not justify an urgent debate, on the grounds that the urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account where decisions have been made. However, as I indicated yesterday, this is an important and controversial matter. There is a significant element of urgency. Where there is no other parliamentary means for debating an urgent matter in the reasonably foreseeable future, this is a relevant consideration for the Speaker in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House.

Given the element of urgency, I consider that the matter does now require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore give priority to the first application I received—that from the Hon Trevor Mallard. I call upon him to move that the House take note of a particular case of recent occurrence.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. National’s sudden decision to take control of the waterfront is, in my belief, an admission that the Government failed to ensure the security and safe passage of Kiwi fans and international visitors on the Rugby World Cup opening night. It is obvious to all of us that the focus of the Government has been on photo opportunities, on smiling, on waving, and on making speeches that I think even you, Mr Speaker, would describe as inept, to millions of people. It has not focused at all on the details that are important as far as safety, security, and related matters are concerned.

I think all of us know that last Friday was a debacle, and we will get into the reasons for that as the debate goes on. But what we are seeing now, I think, can fairly be described as damage control and the covering of some relatively exposed butts. John Key and his Ministers have let down rugby fans. They have damaged our reputation enormously internationally. All around the world we have seen pictures being shown of New Zealand being unable to organise what might be described as a piss-up in a brewery.

The Prime Minister, who gave an absolute guarantee that the event would run smoothly, is the one whose butt is most exposed at the moment, and he has given Murray McCully the job of trying to cover it up. We have still not had from the Minister of Transport any assurance whatsoever that the transport issues will be resolved. In fact, he has reversed the recommendations of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and recommended to people that they drive their cars to Eden Park in future. He has recommended further use of private vehicles rather than public transport. Therefore, we are likely to have a reverse of the situation.

I think it is fair to say that when I was the Minister in charge probably too many groups were set up, but, certainly, groups were set up that had regard for safety—both international security and the physical safety of people. Groups were set up to do with transport, and there were recommendations by the bucket load.

But what we have heard from the Hon Murray McCully is that he did not deign to read the reports he received on becoming the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. I am sorry to say I am not surprised. Mr McCully on some occasions appears to be a person for detail. He picks the colours of the jacket for the Prime Minister to mince in. He gets down to that level of detail and that level of hands-on control. We could see hands-on control all over the place on Friday night—we could see that on Friday night. But he did not get hands-on, as a Minister should have, to make sure that policies were in place to ensure the safe running of this cup.

We have had repeated assurances from the Prime Minister that this event would run smoothly. He said the thing he wanted to be judged on the most, after the economy, was his ability as the Minister of Tourism and Prime Minister to run a smooth Rugby World Cup. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost. What we have is a Prime Minister who did not even ask the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Minister of Transport whether they had checked out the relevant policies and the relevant decisions of officials.

I do not know whether all of us found the approach of the previous Prime Minister particularly comfortable on occasions, but we know that her Ministers would be grilled in Cabinet and pre-Cabinet over months in advance of major events. I have a feeling that I was asked more questions in the period leading up to the bid being made for the Rugby World Cup than the present Prime Minister asked his Ministers in the 3 years they have been responsible for this event. That is the role of the Prime Minister. It is the role of the Prime Minister to lead the team and to check that they are doing the work. That is the core of the role of the Prime Minister. It is to show that leadership and to make sure that his Ministers are doing the work they should be doing.

What has become clear is that dozens of photos have appeared, like this one I have here of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Minister of Transport taking credit—taking credit—for the transport. What did they do? They went to the railway station but they did not ask the questions. They went to the railway station, they had their photos taken at numerous photo opportunities, but the Minister of Transport did not ask whether there would be enough buses scheduled. The Minister of Transport did not ask whether any trains would be coming in from the west other than those scheduled. He did not ask: “Will more trains be coming in from the west, other than those that come in every Friday night?”. No, he did not ask that question. He did not know that they would fail to provide trains going that way. He did not know what would happen if the same thing happened as had previously occurred at a concert, where too many people were on the trains and they got jammed up.

What we have is the same situation, after a series of warnings. At the Minister of Transport’s meeting 99 days out from the Rugby World Cup with the Auckland Council and the transport officials he got a warning—in fact, the Minister of Transport got a long list of warnings. But did he ensure that those warnings were followed through and that proper contingency arrangements were put in place? No, he did not, and we saw the results of his laziness last Friday night. We saw the results of having two Ministers who are more concerned about the optics than the facts. Well, in the end, if they do not care about what actually happens, it comes back to bite them on the backsides. It bites the Minister of Transport on the backside, and his bench mate the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, who has been savaged in his butt as a result of the exposure that has been made clear on this occasion.

What of the Prime Minister? Who was the leading person inviting people to come to party central? Who was the person who for 18 months said: “Come down to party central and have a great time. Come from around the world to party central, come from around New Zealand to party central, and come from around Auckland to party central.”? Then he was surprised when more than 12,000 people came. Maybe he has never been to Christmas in the Park. Maybe he has never been to an event in Auckland that has more than 200,000 people there. Maybe he was not down at the Viaduct Basin in 2003 when we won the America’s Cup. Maybe before he was Prime Minister he did not go to test matches where Eden Park was full. I do not know what sort of different world the Prime Minister lives in, but when Kiwis are told there is a party on, they come. He told Kiwis there was a party on and they came, and he said he was surprised. I think that is exceptionally sad, and it was sadder still to see that he was gobsmacked that they took his advice. Well, every now and again people will take the Prime Minister’s advice when he invites them to come to a party.

Overall, I say to Martin Snedden and his team—and to Jock Hobbs, who was there on Friday night but unacknowledged by the Prime Minister; he was at the ground but not mentioned by the Prime Minister—congratulations on the job they have done. They have done a damn fine job putting together things around the cup, the rugby, and the related things for the teams. It has gone exceptionally smoothly. I say to the people who have been associated with the cultural festival associated with the Rugby World Cup that they, too, have been doing a damn fine job, and I congratulate them.

I say, though, to the people in charge—particularly the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Minister for Economic Development, Mr Brownlee, and his team—that the business programme around the Rugby World Cup is shocking. It is much, much weaker than the programme around the America’s Cup in 2003, notwithstanding their having a lot longer to plan for it.

But I will get back to saying that in the end, we will be judged by this event, and it is very, very clear that the Prime Minister is a Prime Minister who is happy to pose for photos, and is happy to take credit. I have heard no acknowledgment from the Prime Minister crediting Helen Clark for going to Korea via Dublin to get this event. I have not heard a word from him giving credit to the previous Government for getting the event. He was taking all of the credit, but when it turned to custard, where did he go? He hid away and left it for the hapless Minister Murray McCully to front on the issue.

Members opposite said they were not into finger-pointing. How does Len Brown feel now? John Key said he was not into finger-pointing. He pointed the finger directly at Len Brown. What about the poor people who were sick and needed to get off the trains? The Prime Minister called them drunks. He called the pregnant woman who needed to get off the train to go to the toilet a drunk. That is what he did. That is the sort of approach the Prime Minister has been taking.

This weekend will not be quite so big, but the following weekend we will have the All Blacks versus France game at Eden Park. That will be big.

Hon Tau Henare: That’ll be over in the first 10 minutes.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That member, who knows more about rugby league than rugby, says it will be over in the first 10 minutes. I hope he is right—I hope he is right. There will be eight teams in Auckland for the quarter-finals, and four teams in Auckland for the semi-finals. I hope those games involve the All Blacks. They almost certainly will. Those games will almost certainly involve Australians, and there are quite a few of those.

Hon Tau Henare: No.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Tau Henare says that they will not involve the Australians. He is the expert. He says that the Australians will not make it through to the semi-finals. I would not want to wager on that one. The semi-finals are also likely to involve the South Africans, and are likely to involve the English. The four biggest crowds will be in Auckland for those semi-finals. Actually, I think that will be a bigger weekend than the finals weekend as far as international visitors are concerned, because a lot of them will go home. The peak time will be during the quarter-finals and semi-finals. We will be tested.

I conclude by reiterating an offer I have made privately three times to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. Over the period before I blotted my copybook, with my friend Tau Henare, I had accumulated quite a lot of knowledge as to what could be done and what should be done. I offered when he became the Minister, I offered subsequent to that when the legislation was going through, and I have offered again privately my assistance to make this thing work if we can, because Kiwis want to make it work, but it has become clear that the Government does not want us to be involved.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I always understood that in these sorts of debates one would allocate a bit of time at the beginning for rebuttal, but I listened to that speech from Trevor Mallard and I did not hear anything at all from him that I could respond to, because he made up a whole bunch of stuff, and apart from that he did not say much. But I did enjoy at the end of that speech his willingness to offer assistance. That rang a bell for me, because I recall how good he was in Auckland back in 2006. Perhaps Mr Mallard was offering a bit of assistance with diplomacy. I have here a few press clippings from 2006, when Mr Mallard ducked and weaved his way across Auckland, trying to organise himself a Rugby World Cup. He started off diplomatically by suggesting that Auckland had no vision. That was Trevor’s opening shot in the New Zealand Herald—that Auckland had no vision. He said, with regard to a revamped Eden Park, that it was a poor second option that showed a lack of imagination by the city. He said it showed a city that did not have a vision. Of course, that went down with Auckland, according to the newspaper, about as easily as Mr Mallard’s Heineken moment.

Moving along, what was his next step in diplomacy and working with Auckland? He said once again that the choice of stadium showed a city that did not have a vision, but that it might be what Auckland wants. Clearly, he had been told off, and he admitted it. Then John Armstrong wrote: “Mallard plays hardball in his Field of Dreams”. As we know, Trevor is a sensitive and an inclusive guy, and he said that he was quite happy for Aucklanders to choose whichever stadium they wanted, as long as it was the one that he planned to build, because he was always right. Then on 23 November the newspaper pointed out that “Residents and businesses in Auckland City can expect big extra rates bills for years to come if city councillors today opt … for a stadium on the waterfront.”—that is, Trevor Mallard’s stadium. Brian Rudman, who is normally a friend of the Labour Party—certainly he is recently—said “Let’s hope ARC has courage to vote no” on Trevor Mallard’s stadium, and pointed out that Aucklanders did not want it. But Trevor Mallard continued. He then went on and got together with the mayor. I think we might recall the mayor, actually: a chap called Dick Hubbard. The paper stated: “Trevor Mallard and Auckland Mayor Dick Hubbard can stumble about in grief and frustration muttering that their waterfront stadium is not dead, but it is.” And, of course, it was as dead as a duck. Finally, the New Zealand Herald finished, on 22 December, by stating that “Mallard’s loss may be people’s gain”, and so it proved to be. If that is the sort of assistance Mr Mallard would like to offer in Auckland, then I think Auckland would tell him politely to disappear off somewhere else.

The reality is that New Zealand is having a tremendous time with this tournament. It is a wonderful tournament, which has started extremely well. I for one have enjoyed—and I do not often get to watch rugby these days; I am not quite sure why that is—a few games that I never thought I would watch. I was watching on TV the other night that South Africa - Wales game in Wellington, which was a fantastic game. I also saw a bit of the poignant commemorations in New Plymouth of the US rugby team, which had to play on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. I also saw that energetic game at Eden Park last week. I saw a bit of the Scotland-Georgia game last night—only about 15 minutes. That was a dour struggle in the deep south. Wherever the rugby goes, the crowds have been large. When Canada upset Tonga the other night in Whangarei the crowds were large.

We also had a wonderful opening ceremony—a wonderful opening ceremony—at Eden Park. I do not know about other New Zealanders, but I always get a little bit nervous at those sorts of events. I wonder how good the opening ceremony will be. Well, I was proud from beginning to end. It was a wonderful opening ceremony. I congratulate those who put it together. There was a wonderful atmosphere down at the waterfront, for the most part, with 200,000 people and a fireworks celebration that was truly wonderful. New Zealanders are in a mood to celebrate. Apart from that crowd over on the other side of the House, New Zealanders are in a mood to celebrate. They have had just about enough of Labour’s forensic analysis as it desperately tries to lift itself off the canvas by ripping down the rest of the country. New Zealanders have had enough of that. They have had enough of Labour desperately trying to lift itself up on to the shoulders of the people in New Zealand who are determined to enjoy the Rugby World Cup.

A number of things happened last Friday that we all believe should not have happened. They were in relation to two matters: the handling of the crowds down at the waterfront, and the transport issues that arose during the evening in Auckland. Nobody was happy with those outcomes. On Tuesday morning I met with the mayor and also with Auckland Transport in Auckland, and we had a very good discussion. Yesterday afternoon the Auckland Council published the reviews of those events, and it made a number of comments. Under the letterhead of the organisation Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development—ATEED—it noted in terms of its own organisation a number of things it was unhappy with that need to be sorted, which were the crowd management on Quay Street, insufficient provision of services, the main screen gantry being too close to the ferry building, and some technical failure of the big screens. The council has put its hand up and said it will work with the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and fix those issues.

In relation to transport, there is no doubt that the numbers of people who tackled the public transport in Auckland last Friday night were much larger than anybody expected, and there were a number of issues. As a result, Auckland Transport has stood up and said it will make some changes for this weekend, and I support those changes. It will arrange much larger capacity between Britomart and Eden Park, with 100 additional buses. It will offer additional security: there will now be 100 staff at Britomart, whereas previously there were 60. It is increasing its security presence across the network, placing security staff in all carriages, limiting loadings to 10 percent below the maximum, and improving the number of announcements on the trains. I think those are good moves. I am confident that Auckland Transport has taken on the responsibility and the lessons from last weekend, that it will act on those this weekend, and that it will act on—

Phil Twyford: Why didn’t you do those things before?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a very interesting discussion point. Let us look at some of Labour’s attacks on the Government on this issue. Some of them are very shameless political attacks. I think it is really important that we always look not at what those members say but at what they do. A few members on that side of the House—Greens and Labour members—are suggesting that the network should have been electrified by now, and that perhaps that was the Government’s fault. Well, in Budget 2007 the then Government—I cannot remember which side of the House it was—said that it would set up electrification by charging Aucklanders a 10c per litre regional fuel tax. The question was when it would be done. The actual quote from Michael Cullen was “The aim is to have electrification completed by 2013.” But the Rugby World Cup was due in 2011, was it not? Oh! Michael Cullen continued: “The government has investigated the possibility of having electric trains up and running for the Rugby World Cup in 2011, but this would be too risky and costly”—oh—“in terms of sourcing material …”. This statement was made on 17 May 2007. We already knew then that we had the Rugby World Cup. And now the members of that Government have the shamelessness to get up in this House and suggest that the National Government should have sorted out the electrification in time for the Rugby World Cup.

Ms Ardern, who lives somewhere in Auckland—or does she live in the Waikato—has suggested that somehow the central business district rail link should have been built for the Rugby World Cup. Well, excuse me, but the 9 years of the previous Labour Government would have been needed—and some—to do that. Then, of course, we have Mr Twyford and his issues. He is blaming the issues of Auckland on the council organisations and saying that somehow it is the Government’s fault. Well, council-controlled organisations have been around for a wee while now, and the reality is that Labour in its 9 years in Government was quite happy to have council-controlled organisations. Labour was quite comfortable with those. Labour now believes they should be cancelled. This is another shameless political attack, and for “Mr Twifford’s” benefit I say that Auckland Transport is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—ARTA—enlarged.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is common courtesy in this House to pronounce members’ names correctly. Mr Twyford’s name is pronounced “Twy-ford”, and the Minister knows that.

Mr SPEAKER: It is correct that members should try to pronounce other members’ names correctly. Sometimes we are less good at doing it than we would like to be. All of us make mistakes now and then.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not accept that that was a mistake. The Minister has—

Mr SPEAKER: We all make mistakes. I have repeatedly made mistakes with members’ names, which I regret. I can think of a couple of members whose names I have mispronounced repeatedly, and I regret that. I trust that the Minister will now use the correct pronunciation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with you. We now trust that the Minister will use the proper pronunciation, but I do not think that anyone in the House other than you accepts that it was a mistake. He did it deliberately. He laughed as he did it, as he has done on a number of occasions. If Mr Twyford were a Māori member, the Minister would have been admonished a long time ago.

Mr SPEAKER: Believe me, I have heard members in this House mispronounce Māori members’ names appallingly badly, too. I ask the Minister to please show members respect by trying to pronounce their names correctly.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. It is just that I have heard the name said so often in a certain way in this House that I assumed it was said that way. But I will not pronounce it that way any more.

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not acceptable for a member to comment on a decision of the Chair, which is what the member was doing. He was relitigating the matter and trying to justify his mistake. The member has withdrawn and corrected it, and he should just leave it and move on. By saying that it has been a common mistake made in this House he is belittling your decision and belittling Phil Twyford, whose name he mispronounced badly—and deliberately, in my opinion.

Mr SPEAKER: I assure the honourable member that if I had thought the Minister was belittling my decision, I would have pulled him up immediately, but I do not think he was. We can get too sensitive about these things. I have allowed language to be used in the House in the last 20 minutes that perhaps has not previously been used in the House. I do not believe we should get too sensitive. This is a robust place. But I ask the Minister to please try to pronounce members’ names correctly.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Twyford wants to blame the council-controlled organisations. He reckons that the reason it all went wrong is that those council-controlled organisations, rather than the council, were running the show. With the greatest respect to Mr Twyford, the reality is that the councillor with the most skin in the game, in terms of Auckland Transport, over the last several years was Mike Lee. I do not know that I would want Mike any closer to it. As it is, he is on the board of Auckland Transport. If he got any closer, he would have his nose right up to the engines, and we do not need that to occur in order to get a better result. The reality is that it does not take elected people—as much as we are all elected people and like to think we are pretty good at things—to run airlines, railways, bus companies, or freight companies; it takes operators to do that, and Auckland Transport is capable of doing it. To be fair to Auckland Transport, the numbers last Friday were much larger than expected. Mr Twyford and his dear friend Trevor—the sensitive one—say that somehow the Government was warned some time ago about Auckland transport issues.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order. Members in this House, when referring to other members, should use their correct names, not just their first names—their correct names. I ask the Minister to please do that. This is twice now that he has been pulled up for mispronouncing a member’s name or not using a member’s name correctly. I do not want to do it a third time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have another one. I would not have interrupted the member’s speech, except that the description of me as being sensitive, I think we all know—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I stand corrected on that matter, of course. The point is that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority report referred to by Mr Twyford and Mr Mallard was addressed by Auckland Transport, and by continuing to harp on about it they are criticising Auckland Transport for not addressing that report. Auckland Transport addressed and put in place all the matters that were raised in that report. It dealt with that report, and it had its preparations peer reviewed. The challenge for that organisation was that the numbers greatly exceeded what it expected. There were some operational issues between Auckland Transport and its operator, which it is working on, and as we know there is an inquiry under way on that. Auckland Transport is determined to take action to fix those issues. I think that is what we can ask of it, and as Minister of Transport that is what I will require of it. That is its responsibility.

As I say, the Opposition’s history in these matters is, frankly, laughable when its members seek to criticise the Government. Their arguments and their negativity are not, I think, appreciated by New Zealanders. The reality is that, yes, of course Opposition parties have the responsibility to raise issues, but the relentless negativity about the Rugby World Cup by the Opposition, which is trying to lift itself off its own desperate position on the floor of politics, is not going down well with New Zealanders, and it is not doing New Zealand well with the Rugby World Cup.

I will finish by saying to the organisers of the Rugby World Cup, to the players, to the supporters of the teams, to the police, and to all those who are involved in working on the Rugby World Cup event—including the transport workers, the wonderful performers, all the volunteers, and all the other staff all around the country—that I personally think they are doing a wonderful job. I think the tournament is going very well, and I think the world is celebrating with New Zealand. We will have a wonderful tournament, with or without the Labour Opposition.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): There is definitely ministerial responsibility for this debacle, and it is ministerial responsibility that goes back many years. As has come out in the reports on the debacle that were released last Friday night, the big problem was the lack of sufficient transport infrastructure, particularly rail infrastructure, combined with, on the day, a lack of fall-back options in terms of extra buses, communications between trains and control centres, and things like that. And, of course, there was a problem with underestimating the numbers. That should not have happened. As I wandered around Mount Eden last week all sorts of flags of different nations were going up on people’s houses and cars. Everyone was getting into it, so the size of the crowd in the downtown area, particularly with the fireworks display and everything else, was to be expected, and adjustments should have been made.

The real problem is the lack of transport infrastructure in Auckland. We have a city of something like 1.4 million, which is about the same size as Perth in Western Australia. Yet Auckland could not handle 60,000 rail passengers, when Perth manages twice that amount, 120,000, every day. There is ministerial responsibility for that, as the Deputy Mayor of Auckland, Penny Hulse, pointed out on Radio New Zealand National yesterday morning. She said that all the mayors had gone down to Wellington years back—4 years back—to plead for money for rail and electrification and they had been turned down.

The Green Party was pushing and pushing and pushing and had petitions and everything else in 2006. We were saying we had to move ahead fast with the electrification, but there was stalling and stalling and stalling. We were saying at the time the Rugby World Cup was granted to New Zealand: “This is our target: 2011. We can get electrification by that stage. Let’s get the money in. Let’s do it.” Of course, as the lack of funding continued, that target had to be cut back, but at least we could have got one of the railway lines to Eden Park electrified. Mike Lee, as mentioned by the previous speaker, was pushing that as well. The present Government has slowed up the process even more by knocking off the fuel tax that was going to pay for some of these improvements, including electrification. There has been delay and delay and delay, and look where we are now.

It is not a problem of Aucklanders not wanting public transport. When the North Shore busway came on stream, the patronage was much greater than expected. Everyone has liked that busway. Even on rail, despite its great inadequacies, the patronage has gone up over the last decade from 1 million journeys to 9 million journeys. So there is no problem of people not wanting public transport. The event last Friday showed that if there is a bit of push to use the rail, if people can see it will be useful, they will take the rail. Sixty thousand people tried to and, of course, the infrastructure did not match up.

Steven Joyce has been pooh-poohing for the last couple of days—and the last few weeks—the idea of a central business district tunnel. He is saying it is too expensive, it is not needed, and all the rest of it. Surely if that silliness on Friday showed one thing, it was that we do need it. Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that if we had had a tunnel, and if we had had a circle—as they have in Sydney, for example, and other major cities that have circles, connected routes, and things like that—all of the people stuck at the Britomart Transport Centre on Friday night could have gone out on the trains two ways, rather than one way as at present.

The situation in Auckland has been covered around the world now. Our public transport system and rail system is a laughing stock around the world because of the delays over years. It is tragic right now when 35 times more is being spent on roading in the current Budget than on public transport infrastructure. That is a disgrace.

Then there is the question of the extension of the party zone. It is a common-sense thing to do—to have more room for people to move, and to have more toilets and other facilities down there. That is a common-sense decision. But for the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to just kick the mayor and the council in the face—the council that the Government, in effect, put in place with its legislation—to say the council has failed, and to declare an extension of the party zone is completely unacceptable. A very interesting article in a Victoria University paper has just come out, I think yesterday or today. It is by Dean Knight, a lecturer there. He said that the Minister himself was breaching the law and that the way these urgent applications worked under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act was that the authority had to receive the application and then make a recommendation to the Minister to decide. If the Minister decides in advance of that recommendation going before the authority, then the Minister should disqualify himself. I ask now that Murray McCully disqualify himself from that decision—I do not think it has, technically, been made yet—and let another Minister decide, as suggested by Dean Knight in this legal journal.

It shows the problem of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act and the Major Events Management Act—the two Acts that were passed in preparation for this World Cup. Although there is good reason for streamlining some of the consent processes for such a big occasion, what these two Acts have done, in some ways, is make the situation worse. Ministers and planning people have thought that if anything goes wrong at the last minute, they can just rush through what they like. And there has been a dramatic failure of planning over the years. The legislation, as well as being a bit of a transgression on people’s rights, also allows Ministers like Murray McCully to strut around saying they can rule what they like, even though, technically, they are going against the fine print of the legislation. That concept of all-powerful legislation is one that the Green Party has opposed in this and other cases. I think this is a good case for Parliament to be more considered in what legislation we pass.

The whole question of the Government attacking a local body, as Murray McCully has done over the last couple of days, is very important. It is just not the way that democracy should work. As Brian Rudman said, another person with a surname beginning with “M” tried to make the trains—I think in this case the Italian trains—go on time. Every time we see that sort of behaviour rearing its ugly head we should be concerned.

A lot more can be done to look at this whole matter and, hopefully, to point the way ahead for greater public transport infrastructure: to put the money in, to speed up the process, to speed up the electrification, to speed up the central business district rail tunnel, and to speed up a railway to the airport. It would have been great to have that for our visitors for the Rugby World Cup. And there is also the connection with the North Shore. That might have helped when there is a block-up on the ferries. An underground rail tunnel from the North Shore that brought people into the central city would have been great, too.

Obviously, people want to come downtown. They want to develop the wonderful Auckland downtown. Of course, there is a lot to do in terms of the waterfront. The Wynyard Quarter has been a big step forward, but there is a lot more to do. But if we are to develop the downtown, we have to have the transport to bring people into it.

We should do more in this Parliament to discuss this issue. My colleague Gareth Hughes asked that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I understand, hold some sort of inquiry that fits under that select committee. That was turned down by the majority on the committee. We cannot run away from this. We have to take responsibility as a Parliament. We are discussing ministerial responsibility here, but as a Parliament we have to deal with this.

The Green Party will be making the question of public transport in Auckland, particularly rail transport, a major issue in this election. I think the people of Auckland see that this Government and, I am sad to say, the previous Government have failed to really speed up and provide what Auckland requires.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT): I rise to speak to this urgent debate on behalf of the ACT Party. I would like to say to start with that it would be nice to see some facts involved in this debate, but perhaps that is too much to ask. Mr Mallard, when he first got up to speak, used this as an opportunity to attack the Government. He seemed more upset, I have to say, that the Prime Minister had not acknowledged the contribution of Labour in getting the Rugby World Cup here than he does about the provisions of the urgent debate itself. Minister Joyce in response took the chance to have a swipe back at Trevor Mallard by using 2006 press clippings, amongst other things. Although the Greens speaker used the opportunity to publicise much more broadly the Green Party’s public transport policy, he did, in fact, get to the crux of the matter. I was very pleased to hear him acknowledge Dean Knight’s contribution, his paper Nationalisation of RWC party central?. This is the only summary I have seen—the only comprehensive narrative on the issue—that actually gets to the crux of the matter of this urgent debate.

Anyone listening, of course, would be much more taken, I think, with the political bickering opportunities that have been taken in this debate than with an examination of the facts involved, which largely revolve around the two laws put in place: the Major Events Management Act and the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act. I would contend that this action is much more about perception than it is about reality. I think it does bear some examination. What exactly is it that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has done? What does the announcement made by Minister McCully mean?

The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act was passed late last year to provide for special procedures for regulatory approvals for Rugby World Cup activities and liquor licences. Of course, the independent Rugby World Cup Authority was constituted to consider these applications. The legislation itself allows for application and the process it follows, but also it provides for an even more expedited process “in circumstances of urgency that for good reason was not foreseen”. A much higher threshold was required. A different and more expedited process was provided for, as I have said, but rather than being determined by the Rugby World Cup Authority, as some seem to think is the case, the authority itself only assesses the application and makes a recommendation to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. There is no obligation to subject the application to a participatory process; it is merely a handing on once it is assessed.

The decision about whether the approval should be granted then falls not to the authority itself but to the Minister responsible, Minister McCully. He is obliged to consult the Minister for Economic Development and any other relevant Ministers. He must take into account, but is not to be bound by, the recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority, and his decision is final at that point. And that is it. Those are the only special powers under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act, and we should not lose sight of that, notwithstanding the events of last Friday that have sparked this debate today. The Minister’s role, which should be noted, is a reactive role as ultimate decision maker once an urgent application is made, and then only after the independent Rugby World Cup Authority has scrutinised it.

The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act, thankfully, does not give the Minister the ability to take control of the waterfront or to run parties on that waterfront. A jolly good thing that is too; I do not think any of us would want to see that. So what is it that is happening now that the applications have been made? The applications presently being made urgently are conjoint applications by the Ministry of Economic Development and Auckland Council’s events team. It seems that these applications were already in the process of being prepared collaboratively before the Minister’s announcement, and the fast-tracked approvals currently being sought are, I have to say, largely mundane. The most recent application is a joint one between the Ministry of Economic Development and Auckland Council’s events unit. The Ministry of Economic Development is seeking to use Captain Cook Wharf for fanzone events, and the Auckland Council is seeking to extend the existing liquor licence over the wharf. So that will now be passed on to the Minister to decide. The Rugby World Cup Authority is considering both applications following a brief period for public submissions, and it is holding a public hearing today.

So what exactly are the problems arising from that? Well, in listening to the debate today, I think that probably nobody is very clear what the problems are, but from an ACT perspective this is how we see things. This is not about taking control, and, as I have already said, that is a good thing. This is not about taking control of the waterfront or taking control of any parties. Rather, it is a perception that the Government is doing something. So, on the other side, I contend that the Government has made a meal of this when in fact very little, other than what has already been talked about, is happening.

This is to do with the Minister’s special power to approve urgent applications under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act. It does raise a potential issue of law. It is a basic principle of administrative law that decision makers exercising statutory powers must keep an open mind and must not predetermine the outcome of applications. That ensures applications are properly considered and there is no conflict of interest. Keeping that in mind, there is a live question about whether Minister McCully’s directives and public statements mean he has compromised his ability to personally consider the urgent applications. My Green Party colleague Keith Locke raised that very pertinent point in the speech he has just delivered. In such circumstances there is provision for something else to happen. Under section 7 of the Constitution Act 1986, another Minister is able to exercise that power. One of the things that I think this House should be interested in, in the interest of transparency and accountability, is to see whether that does in fact happen. Again, my Green Party colleague raised that matter.

Looking more broadly, what is more worrying, I think, of the issues that have been raised as a direct result of the events on the Auckland waterfront of last Friday afternoon is the fact that the Government does appear to be saying publicly that it has no confidence in the new Auckland Council to handle these waterfront events. If it has no confidence, that is indeed worrying not just for the Rugby World Cup but, I would contend, well beyond. It is something that we will certainly be looking at.

I will finish by saying that we politicians as legislators need to be very careful before putting in place legislation that gives wide-ranging powers to a Government or to Ministers. We need to be very careful about empowering legislation and the power that it gives, particularly, to individuals.

I hope that I have injected a little factual information into this debate and taken it away slightly, if only temporarily, from a “he said, she said” debate about who is doing the best job of getting the Rugby World Cup here and how it is being run, because that is not what this debate should be about. It should be on the provisions in place in law already and how those are being put into effect.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou katoa. I have to say, I was sort of standing in the middle of the field, listening to the Hon Heather Roy. Get it? In the middle of the field? Anyway, I digress. On the one hand, I have that sense of real pride around the events in the opening ceremony, because I was there with a number of colleagues, and, on the other hand, I experienced the other side and the issues that have been well documented. For that little group of parliamentarians in the New Zealand Parliamentary Rugby Team—which won the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup, I might add—a range of events happened. For example, I arrived early. I got there on private transport and went straight into the game with no problems. The crowd was great. Yet all of my colleagues rolled in at various times, having come in on public transport, and were telling me about their stories. Some missed the start of the opening, and they were pretty brassed off, I would have to say. Some even missed the start of the game, and they felt worse.

Across the length and breadth of that Friday evening, we had the full range of things that one could actually think about in terms of this particular debate. But the one thing that really worries me about this whole debate—and it is not to get into what the Minister for the Rugby World Cup should or should not do—is the issue of public safety. If there is an issue of public safety, then I reckon we have to do everything we can to make sure that that is dealt with.

I have to say that there were some warnings. There were some warnings. I can report that in my first reading speech on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—looking back, it was on 22 June last year—I spoke about three key things. The first one was the problem of one person, namely the Minister, making all the decisions over matters pertaining to the Rugby World Cup. That was problem No 1. The second issue I suggested was that of the involvement of the Minister of Māori Affairs with the Rugby World Cup Authority. I thought that was quite important. The third issue that I spoke about was alcohol consumption. There were three issues, and I have to say that there were some warning signs there right from the very start.

Following on from that, on 17 November last year my colleague Rahui Katene said these words—I think they are quite important, which is why I pulled them up—“We have been keen to ensure appropriate management to avoid public disturbances or mass arrests from the specific liquor-licensing requirements, but I raise the concern that we might be placing too much emphasis on liquor licensing and allowing people the opportunity to become inebriated while watching the rugby. For a significant sector of our population, simply getting to the game itself will be an issue.” She carried on to say: “alcohol is already playing too prominent a role in the World Cup, and we are concerned that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has too much power under the bill,”. That is what my colleague Rahui Katene said and, lo and behold, here we are today just after the start of the World Cup, and most of those issues have come to pass. I reckon we sort of got it right.

In reflecting on this, the key concern that I had was around public safety. Clearly, it is not a good idea to have a lot of people in a small space with alcohol. We know the various reports about delays, the aggression of some people spilling out into the crowds, hundreds of people on stalled trains, and crowds packed in like sardines. There were elements there that could have caused some serious chaos. For all intents and purposes, all of us agree that the scale was just huge; it was immense. In fact, Mr Shane Jones was talking about it yesterday in the Māori Affairs Committee. He reckoned that it just needed something to spark and it could have turned that whole environment into something pretty dangerous. Having been down to the Cloud I saw that one piddly little iron fence by the side of the water might not have saved some people from going in.

The reports also talked about some technical difficulties with some big screens further up Quay Street. That also contributed to people massing down at the waterfront. There were technical delays, there were transport delays, there was alcohol misuse, and, of course, as has come to light more recently, some of our waka paddlers were assaulted and abused. Again, they recount that alcohol was at the heart of it. We had this awesome scene of 20 waka coming down the Waitematā Harbour and berthing there, and our paddlers getting out, doing the haka, and trying to get back to where they came from. Lo and behold, we had some alcohol-fuelled crazies who decided for whatever reason that they wanted to take certain feathers and also get in the road of our people. Young people—young girls—were assaulted and all of that. Bottles were thrown, and the paddlers were physically and verbally abused, simply while they were walking from point A to point B. Hair was pulled and taonga were taken. Some were questioning why the carriers—the waka kaihoe people—did not hold their waka paddles up high. Instead, they held them down the side as a form of protection for those people involved, especially the young people.

I was pretty sad and brassed off to read the account from a 14-year-old girl who attends Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Puau Te Moana Nui a Kiwa. Her name is Binny McGee-Repia. Binny’s memory of the grand opening of the Rugby World Cup was of getting pushed back and hit on the head, which eventually led to a CAT scan to investigate a possible head injury. One other girl suffered from shock, and another girl ended up with broken ribs. All of this is not a good look, and it sort of soured the occasion, really, because it was such a good day.

I have to say that the other unfortunate aspect of this particular situation about the kaihoe was that despite calls for help to the police and security people, or indeed to the general public, there was no attempt to intervene.

Hon Judith Collins: It’s just not true.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: The Minister says that it is not true, but it is the account from some people to us that the general public did not help out. That is a disappointment that we hope will be addressed in future.

In talking about dealing with what could have been a catastrophe, a number of people turned up at Auckland City Hospital. There was a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Herald on Tuesday from a gentleman, Les Galler, who is an intensive care specialist at Auckland City Hospital. It was his assessment that Friday’s opening celebrations could easily have turned to tragedy because of the large crowds, the cramped conditions, and limited access and escape routes. He reported that the hospital was basically overloaded with drunk and injured revellers on Friday, and that ambulances had to take patients to other hospitals.

Against all that and on the positive side, we had Precious Clarke with the sound of the karanga to open the Rugby World Cup, we had the Pacific Island dancers and drummers, and we had, of course, Te Arawa kapahaka Te Matarae i Ōrehu. The ceremony, as I say, was awesome. We also had Ria Hall, who sang. She is from Tauranga but lives in Wellington. I send a special message to her to say that she was awesome. There were some great things there—the fireworks and all that sort of stuff—and, of course, the moment with Jonah Lomu walking hand in hand with the young boy from Canterbury. That was pretty powerful in itself. It was a great, great occasion to be at, and we hope that the positiveness takes over from all of the negativity that we have had to run through.

In the end, I think it is important that we consider where we go to from here. We welcome the news that the Auckland Council will compensate for Friday night’s fiasco by rewarding affected fans with tickets to the semi-finals, but we would really like to talk about crowd control as opposed to compensation. Our collective efforts must be given to ensuring that party central on Queens Wharf is well managed in order to avoid more Rugby World Cup chaos. I think it is important that we get it right. Things are tracking along quite well, as other speakers have said, with the games being managed pretty effectively. The test may come this weekend.

I reflect on the reaction from the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown, who urged us all to keep calm and carry on. In that regard, he has probably set the scene for what we need to do. If the measures that are being contemplated today are about taking us through to having a positive end to the Rugby World Cup, then we should all get right behind them and ensure at the end of it that not only is public safety dealt with and taken care of but also everybody has a good time while we are at it. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It has been a remarkable few days, and I mean remarkable in a number of ways. It is remarkable in the sense that the opening of the Rugby World Cup really was a world-class event. It is something that we are particularly proud of. As New Zealanders, I think we can be particularly proud of it. Many of the events that have been going on around the country have been remarkable as well. People have touched on some of those great games that we have seen being played already, and we are only a few days into it.

I pay tribute to the many, many people who have helped to put the Rugby World Cup together, right from its inception right through its organisation. They are the people associated with the rugby, along with the various councils around the country that have been trying so hard, and still try so hard, to make this an amazing success for New Zealand.

But the last few days have also been remarkable—and we have touched on this today—for what happened down on the waterfront in Auckland and on the way to Auckland. We had some problems and we know what those are. We know what those are. There was a failure of the public transport system. There was an under-catering for the number of people whom we expected to be down there. One cannot just ask everybody to come down and party and not think about how many people will come down.

What we really needed after that was some cool, calm thinking about what happened, what went wrong, and how to fix it for next time. But instead what we got was “Mr Panic Pants”—Murray McCully—coming down, waving himself all over the place, and saying that he will declare martial law down on the waterfront of Auckland, and he based that on the Rugby World Cup (Empowering) Act. That was a very, very dubious means to use as the basis for being able to do that, I say to Mr McCully. He might have wanted to think about what exactly he needed to do before he made all those blustering, sweaty announcements just the other day. He should have talked with the Auckland Council. He did not even give the council the courtesy of a phone call. If he had sat down with them he may have found out that they had been looking at this issue for many, many days and had actually worked out a plan of action. That plan of action was publicised yesterday, and it addresses many of the problems that we have been facing on the waterfront and in our transport system. But, no, we have had “Mr Panic Pants” coming down and blowing himself around the place and declaring that he is in charge now, yet he does not even have the legislative backing to enable him to do that.

His incompetence and his inability is matched only by that of Mr Joyce; the rear-visionary Mr Joyce, who spoke in the Parliament just a few minutes ago. Mr Joyce says he has been very busy over the last few months opening up railway stations all over Auckland. He has been claiming credit for the double-tracking of the western line, the electrification of the railway, all the increases in rolling stock, for turning up and opening the railway stations at Onehunga, New Lynn, Kingsland, and Newmarket, and also the northern bus route. But these were all things that the Labour Government put in place in its last few years. Mr Joyce has had the ability to open them, but he has given no thought to what comes next—absolutely nothing.

He has done nothing for public transport since he took on that job. All he has done is been at the opening of Labour initiatives. He has done absolutely zero. In fact, he has managed to neglect Auckland’s transport, pour cold water all over the rail-link, which is so important for Auckland’s transport future. He looks backwards and thinks what we need to do is build bigger and wider roads. Well, Aucklanders do not want that; they want a world-class transport system for a world-class city. They want to see National Party members sitting down with the Auckland Council and working this out together.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to speak on this urgent debate. The first thing I want to say is that although there were a number of issues last Friday night, there have been a lot of things happening that we have to be proud of in this country. I just want to reflect on the month that built up to Friday night, because Auckland has had an incredible month. We opened Wynyard Quarter, we reopened the Auckland Art Gallery, and we opened the new Q Theatre. I personally opened many different public amenities within Auckland. When we combine that with one of the greatest fireworks displays and an early September summer, we see why we had an extraordinary turnout of 200,000 people on our waterfront.

We have to acknowledge that there were some serious issues on Friday night in respect of Auckland’s transport system and the crowd management on Auckland’s waterfront. In terms of the transport system, I am very pleased that members on this side of the House are focused on resolving these issues because the world is watching New Zealand. As I said before, we have delivered on a number of things for the Rugby World Cup. The message that I have been given from Aucklanders is that they want these issues addressed and they want them fixed, but they are very proud of all of the things that are happening around the Rugby World Cup.

In terms of transport, the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has moved quickly to meet with the Mayor of Auckland and to resolve the issues of Auckland’s transport system. In terms of the waterfront, it is not OK to just sit and do nothing. The mayor is working with the Rugby World Cup Authority to ensure an application that is currently going through will be considered by Ministers. But the real message that I want to get across today is that we are focused on fixing these issues because we have 95,000 visitors who have come here from around the world, and we are determined to ensure that they have a wonderful tournament. We are also determined to ensure that Aucklanders are able to celebrate the Rugby World Cup.

I will mention a couple of other areas where I have had incredible feedback from around Auckland, and from around New Zealand actually, about the Rugby World Cup. Firstly, there are cash injections for many small businesses happening as we speak. They have had a couple of really tough years because of the recession, but we saw figures out the other day that there is an estimated benefit of at least $400 million to the New Zealand economy. We also know that 2,000 international media have turned up, and we have exceeded expectations in terms of the 95,000 international visitors. We have 5,000 volunteers. They are ordinary New Zealanders who are stepping up to ensure that this tournament is a success. We are focused on fixing the issues with transport and fixing the issues around crowd management, but there are many great things happening around New Zealand and around Auckland. We are very proud of these things.

Let us contrast that with some of the arguments that have been raised by certain Opposition members. I can tell the House that Aucklanders are saying to me that they can see through this. Three or four arguments have been raised. The first was that we should just get rid of the super-city and that for some reason the transport problem is just a failure of the super-city. That is absolute rubbish. All of the people involved—and many Opposition members turned up to many of the openings that I mentioned—can see that Auckland is finally progressing, whether it is through the opening of Wynyard Quarter or the reopening of the Auckland Art Gallery. We are finally seeing our city come together. I am just very proud to see that the mayor and the Government are working together to resolve these issues, to ensure that we take Auckland to that next level and ensure that Auckland becomes a world-class city.

The second argument raised is that somehow this problem is a failure of council-controlled organisations. As the Minister of Transport mentioned to Opposition members, council-controlled organisations have been around for a very long time in this country. The third argument raised by Opposition members is that somehow this is about public transport and a long-term problem with infrastructure investment. I am proud that our Government has invested $1.6 billion in the electrification of rail, and Auckland will be getting 57 new rail carriages. The fact is that that would not have solved the issues that happened on Friday night.

Finally, I say that we have a very clear contrast in this House. We have 95,000 international tourists in this country who are here to celebrate the Rugby World Cup, and we have many New Zealanders—a record audience—who enjoyed a wonderful opening ceremony. It celebrated our nation and our sporting prowess as a nation. I tell members that we are focused on ensuring that this tournament is a success. I am proud to be part of a Government that is not only addressing the issues but also ensuring that we are showing our best face to the world in what is the greatest tournament ever. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I agree with one or two things in the speech made by the member for Auckland Central—amazingly, I do. She is right that some really exciting things are happening in Auckland. But you know what? Most of them were begun by the last Labour Government. The Rugby World Cup was secured by Helen Clark. The Wynyard Quarter revitalisation was begun under the last Labour Government. All of the improvements to the Auckland rail network and transport system—the Northern Busway, electrification of the rail network, double tracking of the western line, new stations at Kingsland and Newmarket, and the New Lynn upgrade—were committed to and funded under a Labour Government. Nothing—nothing, as my colleague David Shearer has just said—has been added to that list of achievements since Steven Joyce became the Minister of Transport under this Government.

Nikki Kaye raised the issue of council-controlled organisations, so for the benefit of Ms Kaye and Steven Joyce, the transport Minister, I will explain to them and remind them why three Government departments advised this Government that the Auckland Transport Agency should not be set up as a council-controlled organisation. Treasury, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Ministry of Transport all advised this Government that the transport agency would be more accountable to the public if it were run as a unit of the Auckland Council, but all that Steven Joyce could do in the House today was launch a nasty personal attack on Mike Lee, suggesting that he wanted to manage the day-to-day operations of the transport agency. Well, no one is suggesting that. The transport agency in Auckland that is corporatised is the only transport organisation that is run by a council or that belongs to a council. It is the only one in New Zealand that is corporatised, and this Government imposed that on a reluctant Auckland against the advice of three Government departments, which all said that it would be less accountable.

If there is one issue we have been debating for the last week in this House, and if there is one issue that has jumped out of the fiasco that occurred in Auckland on Friday night, it is accountability. Day after day in this House, since the fiasco on Friday, we have seen duck-shoving by this Government, and a refusal to stand up and take responsibility for the debacle that occurred on Friday night in Auckland.

There are many reasons why this Government should be accountable for the fiasco that occurred. We have had John Key standing up and putting his smiling face in front of the camera on dozens and dozens of occasions, as he has invited the world to come down to party central, a party zone that he personally selected. It is a tiny little strip of land on Auckland’s waterfront that can hold a maximum of 15,000 people. But what has he done week after week, for the last 2 years? He has been out there exhorting the world of rugby fans to come down to party central. Is it any surprise that 200,000 people turned up to his party? No, it is not. New Zealanders love a party, rugby fans love a party, and the Prime Minister has been inviting them down there.

Because of the Prime Minister’s advocacy for party central, the original plan that was put up by the Auckland Council for a number of different fanzones, a number of different party zones, fell by the wayside as all the attention went on to party central. But where is the Prime Minister, now that it has turned to custard? He is nowhere to be seen, because you know what? No decent photo opportunities are to be had when train passengers are dangerously scrambling up banks after getting out of railway carriages they had been locked into for the previous couple of hours. That is not the kind of glamorous photo opportunity that this Prime Minister seems to like.

The Government has been micro-managing this issue; its fingerprints are all over it. Only a couple of weeks ago this Government made the decision—against the advice of Government officials—not to grant a half-day teacher-only day for Auckland schools. If the Government had taken that decision differently, 300 buses would have been freed up to run as a reserve fleet in case something went wrong with the travel arrangements last Friday night. But what did this Government do? It rejected that advice. The upshot and consequence of that was that there were no spare buses in Auckland as an emergency fleet when things went wrong with the transport operation.

This Government made that decision, yet day after day we have seen that its Ministers have refused to stand up in this House and be accountable for it. What have they done? They have taken every opportunity to sheet home the blame for what happened last Friday night to the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown. Of all the people in this drama, Len Brown has shown a dignified, positive, and constructive response. He has been willing to take his share of the responsibility for what went wrong on Friday night—unlike this Government. Len Brown’s officials were working with Government officials from last weekend to try to sort out the problem, and to work out what needed to be done to make sure another debacle did not occur. From Sunday, council officials were working with Government officials to work out what needed to happen. But what did Murray McCully do? Just like Muldoon, he called a press conference and issued an edict. He did not even have the common decency to ring Len Brown and tell him what he was doing. Like some little tinpot dictator, he pretended to extend martial law over the Auckland waterfront as if he were the big man, as if he were taking control, and as if he were taking responsibility. But what was he doing? He was simply enacting the same reserve powers under the Rugby World Cup legislation that the council and Government officials were planning to use together in a positive and constructive way. What has Murray McCully done? He has publicly given the elected Mayor of Auckland a slap in the face.

Well, what is it with this Government? What is it with this Government that it cannot work constructively with Auckland? Its relationship ranges from finger-wagging and lecturing, to abuse. What did we see 6 months ago? We saw Murray McCully abusing the chair of the Auckland Regional Council on television, in the media, because he did not have the social skills and the political skills to negotiate some kind of constructive agreement with the elected leadership of Auckland over what was going to happen on Queens Wharf. That is typical of this Government’s relationship with Auckland. Every step along the way, the behaviour of this Government has looked like a calculated insult to the people of Auckland. The Government has treated Auckland’s elected leadership with contempt. We saw that the other day when a number of Cabinet Ministers sat down with the Auckland Council to give it feedback on the draft Auckland plan. What did those Ministers say to the Auckland Council? They said: “Oh yes, we think your plan’s really good, except don’t think that this ridiculous idea of having metropolitan urban limits in a compact city is going to fly—don’t think that is going to fly. We don’t support your idea of a compact city, and while you’re at it, you can forget this idea of a city rail link, because that’s never going to get off the ground while this National Government is in office.” They treated the Auckland Council with contempt, like a bunch of hick gangsters blowing into town and pretending that they know best.

When it comes to Auckland, this Government always knows best. We saw that in the super-city process. We saw it with all the discussions about the council-controlled organisations, where this Government insisted on corporatising Auckland Council’s operations—75 percent were turned over to the council-controlled organisations. We saw it by the way they rammed the super-city down the throats of Auckland, without giving the people of Auckland a say in a referendum.

David Shearer made the case that this Government has no interest whatsoever in modernising Auckland’s transport system, giving it an overhaul, and making it a world-class transport system. If there is one thing that we can conclude from the debacle last Friday night it is that Auckland is desperately overdue for a modern, world-class transport system. But this Government does not want to pay any attention to that. Every single opinion poll in the last 2 years in Auckland has shown that there is one thing that Aucklanders want to see fixed by the super-city, and it is public transport. Yet what is this Minister doing? He is robbing every other piggy bank in the transport budget, he is robbing rural roads, he is robbing road safety, and he is robbing urban public transport to fund his gold-plated “roads of National Party significance”. What did the Minister do when he rocked up to the Auckland Council meeting a couple of weeks ago? He poured cold water on the thing that Aucklanders most want to see: a modernisation of the rail system, and construction of the city rail link.

Friday’s debacle showed that the Auckland public transport system is antiquated and run down. We are using rolling stock that came from Perth 20 years ago. It desperately needs an overhaul. It is time this Government opened its ears and listened to Auckland, and learnt to work constructively with Auckland. That is what Aucklanders want to see.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs): Labour is desperate to get back in the game—absolutely desperate. What we have heard this afternoon is more desperation from Labour members, with their rock-bottom polling results. They are worried about their marginal seats, like that of the previous speaker, Mr Twyford, in Te Atatū. So what are they doing? They are raking over a few of the issues that happened during the opening of the Rugby World Cup, and they are forgetting about all the positive aspects of the Rugby World Cup. They are raking in the mire, trying to score political points and shore up a few votes in the marginal seats of Auckland, in the last dying days of this sitting of Parliament before we move into the true campaign. But I have some news for Labour members: no one is listening to them. Not one person in Auckland is listening to them.

Let us move to some of the positive things. I was there at the opening. It was fantastic. I tell members that we showed what a fantastic culture we have. We showed our Māori and Pacific heritage; we showed the pride we have in sport and also in winning. The fantastic thing is that this was broadcast to over 200 countries around the world. Was it not fantastic when the Prime Minister got up to speak? Practically the whole of Eden Park roared with joy. I thought that was fantastic.

What we are hearing this afternoon from Labour is just what we heard when we had the debate over The Hobbit. They hate The Hobbit; now they are rugby haters. They hate The Hobbit and they hate the Rugby World Cup. What they should think about, in relation to just the first couple of days after the opening ceremony in Auckland, is the fact that it has generated, for retailers up and down the country, $2.8 million of foreign transactions over 3 days—in just 3 days. We all know that we are going to have a huge stimulus from the Rugby World Cup. Yet in the last 2½ to 3 years all we have heard from the other side of the House was: “Where are the jobs? Where’s the stimulation? Where is the regional economic development?”. Now they want to tear down the Rugby World Cup and stamp all over it. They should be ashamed.

Let us think about some of the positives that came out of that opening. April Ieremia wrote in the New Zealand Herald: “better than Olympics … a phenomenal opening ceremony, … I have been to a number of Olympic and Commonwealth Games … and it surpassed them all.” Even the Daily Telegraph had a headline, which read: “Kiwis light up night on and off the pitch”. There is already a sense of carnival taking place.

Yes, there were some issues, and I will talk about those now. I think it is appropriate that the Rugby World Cup Authority steps in and works closely with the council, and with Auckland Transport as well. Yes, there were some issues. Yes, we need to open up more capacity at the waterfront. Yes, there were some issues in transport that have now been addressed. Moving forward, they will be tested this weekend. There will be an extra hundred buses, 400 extra security staff—moving that to a hundred at Britomart—which will be really important, and extra security on those trains. Yes, there is a message that has come out of this: we need to look at getting tourists and New Zealanders to Eden Park in a multi-model system. They cannot expect just to get on trains, because when the trains stop it means that the network stops. So we have to think about getting on the buses also, utilising the trains, and using private vehicles. In some cases tourists and New Zealanders will choose to walk to the ground.

There are a couple of other things that I will conclude with. It is not often that I agree with Trevor Mallard, but this afternoon when I heard him speaking I did agree with one thing. He said that the cultural festival was a damn fine job, and well done to them. I presume what Trevor Mallard was mentioning was the REAL New Zealand Festival. The Lotteries Commission gave $9.5 million to get that off the ground, which is fantastic. It was oversubscribed: there were $74 million worth of applications, and 170 applications were chosen. Up and down the country now we see New Zealanders engaging with the Rugby World Cup, and Rugby World Cup tourists getting off the highway and engaging with provincial New Zealand, and getting involved in some of the activities that are happening from the Far North down to the bottom of the South. They are things like A Taste of Southland, the Whitianga Scallop Festival, and the celebrations in the giant rugby ball that is up in Auckland—these fantastic activities.

Labour wants to tear down the Rugby World Cup and trample all over it. On this side of the House we want to embrace it. We want to celebrate that a hundred thousand tourists are in New Zealand. We will ensure that these issues are sorted out for New Zealanders, and for our visitors. We should be celebrating the biggest event in this country, not dragging it down into a cesspit as Labour wants to do.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will be recommending that this bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its consideration.

The student loan scheme represents a major financial investment by the New Zealand Government in New Zealanders’ future. It is a generous scheme that since its introduction in 1992 has supported many thousands of students through our tertiary institutions and into productive careers. However, the support provided through the student loan scheme is subject to the same responsibilities and obligations as any substantial financial loan assistance—that is, it is a loan and it is expected to be repaid.

Currently there are some 621,000 borrowers who have a loan balance with the Inland Revenue Department. The nominal loan balance is about $12.07 billion, so it is important that the Government takes all necessary steps to ensure that the student loan scheme is managed as efficiently as possible. That expectation was outlined by the Government in Budget 2011, and it is central to the changes proposed in this bill. The bill introduces a range of proposals designed to improve the value, efficiency, and fairness of the student loan scheme by encouraging greater personal responsibility and accountability on the part of borrowers towards their repayment obligations.

To introduce greater fairness across the student loan scheme, the bill proposes to maximise loan repayments made by New Zealand - based borrowers by removing the ability to offset losses against net income in order to reduce their liability for student loan repayment purposes. As a consequence of this measure, the bill also proposes to extend pay period assessments to the earnings of all borrowers, thereby removing the need for the annual square-up assessment for borrowers’ salary and wage earnings. However, borrowers who have significantly overpaid their repayment obligations on a pay period basis will still be able to apply for a refund, and those who have significantly underpaid will have catch-up deductions.

In a further measure to help improve borrower accountability, the bill also gives the Inland Revenue Department the ability to receive a borrower’s contact person details from StudyLink. The purpose of this change is to help facilitate the Inland Revenue Department’s contact with borrowers who are in default and who have not updated their current address details so that they re-enter the repayment system. Although this is a particular problem among borrowers who have left New Zealand to embark on overseas travel, it is equally relevant to New Zealand - based borrowers who may change address frequently after they complete their studies. For this reason, from 1 January 2013 all new loan applications will require a contact person to be nominated by the borrower. It is worth noting that a contact person will be contacted only for the purpose of providing a borrower’s most recent contact details, and they must be willing to act in that capacity. They will not be made privy to any details relating to a borrower’s loan balance.

To further improve the repayment levels of overseas-based borrowers, the current repayment holiday provision will be reduced from 3 years to 1 year. Since 2007, borrowers have received an automatic 3-year suspension from their loan-repayment obligations upon leaving New Zealand. This is a very generous provision aimed at giving young New Zealanders the flexibility to undertake overseas travel at a time when their earnings can be sporadic. However, after the 3-year holiday has ended, some borrowers become out of touch with the Inland Revenue Department and become unaware that their repayment obligations have resumed. So to encourage borrowers in this position to resume their repayments when the repayment holiday come to an end, the bill proposes that borrowers who intend to go overseas from 1 April next year will be required to apply for the repayment holiday up to 6 months from the date of their departure, and to supply a New Zealand - based contact person as a condition of their application.

Finally, the bill contains a number of small, minor, technical amendments to ensure its effective operation. For the vast majority of loan borrowers who do the right thing and repay their loan on time, the changes proposed in the bill will be a welcome step towards improving the overall integrity of the student loan scheme by instilling greater fairness and accountability in the system. For the Government, it is a matter of good governance to ensure that the student loan scheme operates efficiently and with fairness. The measures contained in this bill are designed to achieve those objectives by ensuring that student loan borrowers continue to pay back their loans according to the rules. I commend the bill to the House.

STUART NASH (Labour): I will support the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill through to select committee consideration only, because I have some major concerns about a couple of the provisions within the bill.

However, before I start I will say that this bill amends legislation that passed through this House about a month ago. I wonder why the provisions of this bill were not included in the original legislation, because surely that would have saved Parliament a little bit of time and given certainty to a group in our society—that is, students. I hope that perhaps the next time a student loan bill comes through, the Minister of Revenue is a little bit more organised and we can get all these provisions into a single bill.

Let me make it clear first and foremost that Labour supports any attempt by the Inland Revenue Department to ensure that students take responsibility for their loans. That is why we will support this bill going through to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As Mr Woodhouse knows, as a member of that select committee, we have always supported Government bills that ensure that students take responsibility for their student loan repayments. However, there are provisions in this bill that do concern me, and I would like to run through them very quickly.

For example, excluding losses from investments in business from the calculation of net income for the student loan repayment concerns me, as it may inhibit entrepreneurial activity at a time in a person’s life—that is, straight out of university—when they may be in a position to undertake what may be termed riskier business behaviour. That is, they have no children, perhaps they have no mortgage, and they are at a time in their lives when if it turns to custard there is still plenty of time to get back on their feet; if it is successful, then that is fantastic. I will be interested to actually read the advice and thoughts of submitters, officials, and our expert advisers on this matter.

I also have concerns about the legislative necessity for a borrower to provide a person’s contact name, address, and details. I understand what the Minister and the Inland Revenue Department are trying to achieve in principle. However, I have concerns about the practicability of this step. We can work through this at the select committee, but I ask what the liability or responsibility of these contact people will be in response to the Inland Revenue Department’s request for information on a student’s details. Like I say, I have only concerns and questions; I have no doubt these will be drawn out and answered in the select committee process. I am just laying them on the table at the moment.

A third concern I have is the shortening of the repayment holiday from 3 years to 1 year. Again, I understand the thinking behind this change, but my gut feeling is that it misses the mark. Young New Zealanders have headed overseas on their OE since ships sailed from these fine shores. By shortening that holiday period, the Minister runs the risk of perhaps forcing young New Zealanders to stay offshore permanently as interest costs on their loan balance blow out. Leaving it at 3 years gives young New Zealanders the time to live a little—or a lot—to find a job that pays a little more than pulling pints, or to return home and set themselves up to the point where they are ready to start paying off their student loan. I understand that the Inland Revenue Department has advised against this part of the bill, so yet again I will be interested in hearing the advice from the department, as well as from our expert advisers, and submissions from interested New Zealanders.

As mentioned, Labour will support this bill to go through to select committee, but many questions need answering before it gets Labour’s support beyond this stage, even though we understand what the bill is trying to do in principle. I reiterate once again that we absolutely understand that every New Zealander who has taken out a student loan must accept responsibility for repayment of that loan. Thank you very much.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I am delighted to take a call in the first reading debate of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. I think it is worth putting on the record that our interest-free student loan scheme is one of the most generous in the world. But, as previous speakers have said, we all have a very firm expectation that those who are lucky enough to avail themselves of it should meet their obligations to repay that loan. As members have heard the Minister of Revenue say, the loan book sits now at over $12 billion, and it should be a concern to every New Zealander that the impairment of that loan book is currently well over 40 percent. This bill has a raft of measures, which the Minister has outlined, to support and enhance repayment obligations. I think they are very worthy steps that we must look at, and I look forward to a full debate on them at the select committee. I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Following on from my colleague Stuart Nash, I say that Labour will support the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill going to a select committee. In principle it is something Labour supports. Access for New Zealanders to a tertiary education is something we hold as an extraordinarily important principle here in New Zealand, and we obviously oppose anything that might detract from that and make access less easy. I point out in that regard that Mr Key himself was looking at doing away with the interest-free element of student loans, certainly before he became Prime Minister. He even said he would oppose interest-free loans with every bone in his body. He also suggested at Victoria University as recently as last year that there might be some changes—that the interest-free provision might, in fact, be in some jeopardy.

We completely support the idea that loans need to be repaid, and they need to be repaid on time. Again, we see that as being fair. The issue of the contact details, which Stuart Nash referred to, is something we look forward to discussing in the select committee. I think if there is one particular area, though, that we have some reservations about, it is cutting the repayment holiday for overseas borrowers from 3 years to 1 year. We understand why that will happen. It makes it look like National is being tough on those borrowers. But at the same time it may actually have the opposite effect from what we expect. I will quote from the Ministry of Education: “This can be expected to have a negative impact at the margin on the borrowers’ decisions regarding whether to return to New Zealand.” and it will result in an ongoing increase of student loan debt held by the Government of about $12 million a year. So although we support the intent, we may need in the select committee to take a better look at the actual part of the legislation—I think it is clause 17—that deals with this change. With those remarks, I look forward to this bill being brought up at the select committee and a better discussion being had there.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is great to be addressing student loans again in this Parliament so soon after we debated the last student loan bill, especially considering the crisis we are facing in this country. More than 600,000 Kiwis collectively have a debt millstone round their necks of more than $12 billion. But, of course, this bill, the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill, is not dealing with the crisis of student loans in our country; it is just tinkering around the edges.

I think it is important to discuss the bill, given that yesterday was the Nationwide Day of Student Action, where hundreds, if not thousands, of students protested at universities against this Government’s disastrous tertiary education policies, and also given that the voluntary student membership legislation is about to pass with the support of National and United Future, I understand. Along with the regulations delivered yesterday, which were made possible with the passage of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4), we are seeing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce, not students, deciding what is best for students.

I will first comment on Amy Adams’ use of the word “generous”. I think this is a good example of the Crosby/Textor mantra that National and United Future keep reiterating, which is that we are being overly generous to students. The fact is that our student loan structure and student fees structure mean that Government money is going via students, via the student loan, directly to the institutions. The fact is that we spend $3,000 less on our students than the OECD average. It is unfair, and it is a bit of political spin to keep calling the scheme particularly generous.

The Green Party will be opposing the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. We are not like Labour, which is supporting it being referred to a select committee. We will be opposing the bill, but we will go into the select committee deliberations with an open mind. The bill essentially does three main things. It tries to maximise repayments from New Zealand - based borrowers by excluding losses from the calculation of student loan repayments; it allows the Inland Revenue Department to ask for a contact details person; and, lastly, it shortens the repayment holiday from 3 years to 1 year, and it now requires borrowers to apply for a repayment holiday. It is not the automatic system, as we had when the current Minister of Revenue implemented the legislation in 2007. The Greens will be voting to oppose this bill. We support real action to tackle the student debt issue. We prefer an incentives approach to reduce the student debt burden. Obviously, although there are parts of the bill we support, on balance the Green Party cannot support it.

I will quickly go through the three main elements of the bill. The first element is about excluding losses from calculations for the repayment, for student loan purposes. It closes a loophole. I think the reason why people are exploiting it is that the 10 percent compulsory student loan repayment, once someone reaches the threshold, is quite significant. Ten percent of my salary is automatically deducted every week, and it is the same for many New Zealand graduates and student loan holders. Essentially it is like a 10 percent tax increase on graduates in New Zealand. We cannot forget, of course, that there are legitimate loss-making reasons for companies. Some businesses, especially start-ups run by keen graduates who are starting a business, want to make a loss in the short term so they can build up the business over the medium to long term. This change essentially will mean that the Inland Revenue Department will get more money, but it is the person who will receive less money and of course the business will receive less money as well. The irony of course is that we may see more Kiwi entrepreneurs heading overseas. But I do look forward to hearing a robust debate about it at the select committee.

The second element is the contact person. This is the most uncontroversial element of the bill. We think it is a good, common-sense idea. It is pretty amazing that no one has thought about it before, over the long years the student loan scheme has been in existence. But we note that there will be no penalties in the legislation. It will be interesting to find out how the Inland Revenue Department is expected to deal with the fact that many people might just say: “Well, I’m not going to tell you. What are you going to do about it?”. It is also good to know that they will not be chased up for the borrower’s current tax status—that will not be passed on—and that the contact person’s tax status will not be chased up by the Inland Revenue Department as part of this process.

The third and most controversial element is the repayment holiday. Currently borrowers overseas automatically receive a 3-year repayment holiday. There are about 38,000 Kiwis overseas who have a student loan, and they have a total student loan balance of about $930 million. I will give a little bit of history. It was the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne—the perpetual Minister of Revenue under no matter what colour Government—who introduced the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) in 2007, which brought in this repayment holiday. Of course we cannot forget those borrowers overseas who are still paying an interest rate of around 6.6 percent. I went through Hansard and found Peter Dunne’s first reading speech on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). Mr Dunne said: “The new rules will make it easier for people overseas to repay their student loans, and will offer the chance of a fresh start for those who have fallen into arrears. There will be a repayment holiday of up to 3 years for borrowers going overseas. During that time they will not have to make repayments, although their loans will still attract interest. This change recognises the fact that it is not always easy for people to repay their loans while doing their OE or working overseas …”

In the first reading debate Nandor Tanczos, representing the Green Party, said that the Green Party was pleased with this, and that the 3-year repayment holiday was good. He said that many of these people overseas are doing casual work, and they are not necessarily in a position to make repayments. The Green Party, then, thought 3 years made a lot of sense. In the Committee stage of the debate Mr Dunne said: “The reality we face, and what drove this legislation, was the recognition that significant numbers of young New Zealanders were living overseas, for a variety of reasons.” Of course many Kiwis move overseas. Some feel pushed, and some are pulled overseas. But the fact is that the problem of Kiwis going overseas has not got any better under a National Government. In fact, it has become worse.

The problem we were trying to identify by bringing in this 3-year repayment holiday in 2007 has not got better in 2011. In fact, it has become worse. In 2008, when National was campaigning at the election, 2,700 Kiwis were moving across the Tasman. Now we are seeing the highest figures since 1981. For the year ended July we saw 31,600 Kiwis migrating to Australia. The arguments that Mr Dunne used to bring in a 3-year repayment holiday are stronger in 2011, when he is reducing the repayment holiday. When Mr Dunne said in the Committee stage that we needed to take a pragmatic approach to this, and being someone who places a great virtue on pragmatism, it struck me that the logical course of action was to derive the solution that we have, to extend the holiday period for 3 years, recognising the fact that young New Zealanders take that extended period overseas. I am not sure what it is. Is it less logical now? Is it less pragmatic? What exactly has changed?

The fact is that 3 years is an appropriate and a fair length of time for the Kiwi OE. The traditional Kiwi OE is in fact greater than a year, which is what the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill is changing. When we look at probably the only data that has studied Kiwis overseas, the Kiwi Expat Association survey, we see the largest block of time that Kiwis spend overseas is in the 3 to 5-year category, followed by the 6 to 10-year category. In fact, only a minority are overseas for 1 year.

One particular element of the bill that I think is quite controversial, and I hope it will not be—I hope it is just a simple drafting error or an error that has an official explanation—is the requirement for the 6-month application period. When we read the officials’ briefing, it states: “To be considered, an application must be received by the borrower before the borrower becomes overseas-based, typically 6 months after the date of departure.” I am not quite clear what it is. Is it before the borrower becomes overseas-based, or is it after the date of departure? It is absolutely not clear. I hope it is not that the borrower has to apply 6 months in advance of departing the country to get this overseas repayment holiday, because that seems particularly stringent and particularly silly.

What we are seeing in the bill is a grab bag of things. We agree with some, we disagree with others, and we are going to have a keen eye at the select committee to see how this bill goes. But I guess the key thing again is that we are ignoring the real issues to do with tertiary education and the decline. We saw last week five of our six universities decline down the world rankings, we are seeing a lack of funding, and we are seeing no will from the Government to tackle the student debt problem. The fact is that Peter Dunne has been a Minister in various Governments, but he has still not been able to implement his key policy, which the Green Party does agree with, which is a bonding scheme—more carrots to help Kiwis reduce the student loan burden. That is where the priority of this House must lie.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. If I can cut to the chase on this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill the purpose, as others have said, is to make the retrieving of student loan repayments from overseas-based students easier. In that respect I suppose we might say that it is not so much about the cost of education but about the administration of loan repayments.

The Minister of Revenue puts a reasonable case, I think, that overseas-based borrowers are not paying their share of the student loan bill. This is an issue, because the cost burden naturally falls on the Government, and overseas-based loanholders are not contributing to the economy or to the development of the country, because they are not here. As I understand it, according to the Minister, the least they can do is pay back the money they owe for the education the country afforded them through an interest loan scheme, and we as a party have some sympathy with those general views.

The Māori Party policy around student loans is to reduce the cost burden to students. This bill obviously does not increase the cost burden in any way; it simply makes the repayment of these loans easier to enforce, at least from the Government’s end. But it does raise, I think, an interesting age-old issue for debate: what should be free and what should we expect students to pay for. The questions could be whether the State should pay for basic degree courses, and then, if students want to take their education further, whether they should pay for those extras. I ask these questions because education and jobs are not about individual gain and benefit. They actually benefit the whānau, the hapū, the iwi, the community, and the nation, and those extras also benefit all of us.

The Māori Party believes that education and job security are about the future of the nation, so the nation should be responsible for educating all of its citizens to the extent necessary to ensure its citizens have secure futures. Those citizens should then be responsible for making that same opportunity available to those coming after them. The costs of education should be met by all of us, through the State. But it is about the application of kaupapa tuku iho, about rangatiratanga, whanaungatanga, and manaakitanga, and the restoration of mana through utu and muru.

If I were to look for a relevant example, I would want to turn back the pages of history to an organisation many may not have heard of, namely the Māori Education Trust Board. This trust was established many years ago—and I think it is still available at present. In the case of anybody who is applying for Māori Education Trust Board money, those who apply for assistance are interviewed firstly and are expected to give back to the whānau, to the iwi, to the hapū, and to the marae in return for the contribution made to their education. So it is our contention that we should expect the same from those who seek taxpayer money—that they have to give back to the taxpayer. Whether they use taxpayer money through free education or through student loans, they should reciprocate in some tangible way, so we should not make repayment an insurmountable hurdle.

An interesting point that came up in our discussion around this bill was the possibility of making repayment not necessarily in money; it could be in kind, which is probably an interesting concept for many. We thought of possibly saying to loanholders that if they were going to pay back the loan, how about donating back, in time, to voluntary organisations, helping out at schools, or helping out at hospitals, here or overseas. We might have to be creative in providing students with opportunities for using what they have learnt for the betterment of the community. I like to think it is an innovative idea that may well be worth pursuing.

These are, perhaps, ideals, but in the meantime we are of course aware that the total student loan book held by the Inland Revenue Department was around $9.1 billion last year. That is a lot of money. During our discussions with relevant parties about this particular bill we got some notes from one particular Māori student, who has been in the leadership of a students association, about the changes and what might be expected from them. The view of this particular person was that it is pretty difficult to argue against reducing the repayment holiday because the reality is that if a student is spending more than a year away from home, then it is pretty clear they are on holiday. That is what he said. Furthermore, people who have spent 3 years out of the country are likely to stay overseas. According to this particular student leader, the Government may as well get on with recouping the student loan debt sooner rather than later.

It would be fair to say, however, that not all students share this particular view. Jacqualene Poutū, tumuaki of Te Mana Ākonga, the Māori students association, could not support anything in the bill. Her question about the repayment holiday was: “Why are we treating adults like teenagers?”. For younger students she could see some rationale for it, but not for grown adults. In her view, she believed that the bill was an attempt to force students to stay in New Zealand, but the reality is that the salary ranges in New Zealand are not enough to enable students to repay their loan at a reasonable pace. I wanted to place those questions on the record and to put the views out there, really to get a response as to whether age matters. Should it be different for younger or older students, and should we be placing more focus on incentives to stay in New Zealand rather than accepting the inevitable drift offshore?

There are many issues we could be raising about student loans, and in particular the relationship to the barriers faced by Māori students and how they participate in the tertiary education sector. The disproportionately high uptake of the student loan scheme by Māori students is indicative of the fact that many Māori students need financial support in order to be educated at tertiary level. I do not think there is too much doubt about that. For many Māori students, the student loan scheme provides the financial backing that is necessary for them to participate in tertiary education. Although the cost is still a major barrier, Māori have seen the student loan scheme as an opportunity for them to gain qualifications that they otherwise could not afford to even contemplate. I think we should support that.

I know, of course, that this bill is singularly focused on student loan repayments from overseas-based students, and it is not, as such, an opportunity to talk about the adequacy or, more to the point, the inadequacy of financial support available to students. But they are critical issues for the future of the nation, and the House can rest assured that even if this debate does not provide the chance to debate the range of issues that we in the Māori Party, at least, would like to debate, there is another chance coming up in another few weeks or so. It is called the election, and we are looking forward to that. Kia ora tātou.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I will take just a short call to say that I support the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. It is about making the student loan scheme sustainable into the future. It reduces the need for the Government to borrow against the scheme, whilst still allowing students to prepare for their future.

It builds on a statute we have already passed this year, which allowed for defaulters of loans to be recalled in full. Essentially, we are cleaning up an area of defaulting student loans and addressing the overall size of student loan debt, which, as we know, grows year on year.

Our Government has maintained interest-free student loans. We are really about getting value for money from the scheme as it goes into the future, so we have introduced performance criteria. We have focused lending on those who really need the money, who are prepared to pay it back, and who are succeeding in their studies. I support this bill.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I congratulate the previous speaker, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, on a very profound contribution to this particular debate on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. I will respond briefly to some of the comments that Gareth Hughes from the Green Party made in his speech. It was quite a good speech from Gareth Hughes, in which he pointed out some of the inconsistencies in the position of the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, and quoted back to him comments that he had made during the term of a previous Parliament. I simply note that Mr Dunne is very consistent when it comes to all matters, in that he supports the Government. I think he has been relatively consistent over quite a long period of time with that. We probably do not need to say any more about that.

The Labour Party is very proud of our track record when it comes to student loans. We introduced interest-free student loans, and we stand by that policy. We are very proud of the policy of interest-free student loans. It has made it a lot easier for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to repay their student loans. All of the doomsday predictions made by the National Party when that policy was introduced, when John Key stood up and said that it was the biggest bribe in New Zealand’s electoral history and he would fight it with every bone in his body—well, that is kind of interesting—

Carmel Sepuloni: No bones.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Obviously there are not many bones there.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Spineless.

CHRIS HIPKINS: It is pretty spineless. But, in fact, the doomsday predictions that John Key and his colleagues made have not come true. The policy did not result in a massive increase in borrowing. It did not result in a massive increase in the amount of time students take to pay back their loans. In fact, the average repayment time for a student loan since interest-free loans came in has halved. Students are paying back their loans a heck of a lot quicker than they were when they were being charged interest. It has actually done the opposite of what National said it would.

I note that John Key said before the last election that National would not reintroduce interest on student loans in its first term. I notice that National members have made no such unequivocal commitment for their second or third terms, should they get them. In fact, I understand that Steven Joyce is very keen to introduce interest back on to student loans if National is re-elected.

Carmel Sepuloni: And who will that hurt?

CHRIS HIPKINS: We know who that will hurt. That will hurt the people who are already struggling with the rising cost of living, whom this Government is not interested in hearing about. It wants to reintroduce interest on student loans. If the Government is going to do that, then it should come clean with the people of New Zealand, front up, and say that that is what it will do. We know that in National’s heart of hearts that is what it actually believes in.

The Labour Party will support most of the provisions in this bill because we believe that students should pay back their student loans. They should not take off overseas and not meet their repayment obligations, because ultimately that penalises the people who do pay back their loans, and we do not think that is fair. However, we do have some concerns about this bill. In particular, I am concerned about the shortening of the repayment holiday that someone can apply for from 3 years to 1 year. Treasury says it will not work and the Ministry of Education says it will not work. For once they agree with each other, and for once I agree with both of them. The Government has been told that shortening the repayment holiday will not have the effect that it wants it to have—in fact, it is likely to have the opposite effect. It is likely to lead to more people defaulting and creating more problems. I agree with Treasury and the Ministry of Education on that, and I think this is a very short-sighted move. The Government should actually listen to the advice of its officials in this particular instance and not do it.

We also have some concerns about some of the technical details of the bill, which we will canvass during the select committee process on the bill. But, overall, I think it seems to be a reasonably good bill. It builds on some of the positive changes made earlier on and some of the changes that we opposed earlier on, but the overall intent of the bill is good. It is to make the repayment of student loans quicker, easier, and more efficient. I think we should support that.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I am very happy to take a quick call on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill too, and certainly to address the issue raised by the member who has just resumed his seat, Chris Hipkins. It was a very clear play with statistics by Mr Hipkins when he said that the duration of loan repayments has actually reduced since the introduction of interest-free student loans. That conveniently overlooks the fact that an unsustainably large proportion of student loan debt is not repaid at all and, therefore, cannot be measured—49c of every dollar was not being repaid when this Government took office. I am very pleased that it has gone down to 43c. The measures that are introduced by this bill will further—

Chris Hipkins: Average repayment times have halved.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, that is right—another very clever play on statistics. If someone does not repay at all, then that is not included in the denominator.

I also want to raise the issue and reassure Mr Nash that the issue of the contact point is, in fact, a red herring. Those people are not being asked to do anything else but be a contact point. There are no guarantee obligations on them or any other burden, but I am sure that will be raised in the select committee. I support the bill.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. As has been said on this side of the House a number of times during this debate, Labour supports the overall intent of this bill, but there is some concern around the reduction of the repayment holiday from 3 years down to 1 year. But we should not take away from the overall thrust of the bill—that it seeks to encourage the quicker repayment of student loans. I think it was Gareth Hughes who alluded to the fact that he was still repaying his. I am still repaying mine.

Carmel Sepuloni: Finished mine.

KRIS FAAFOI: Carmel Sepuloni has just finished paying hers. We should encourage all New Zealanders who have a student loan to make sure they can repay it as fast as they can, because when those students enter a contract with the Crown to take out a loan to enter tertiary education, there is an obligation on their behalf to make sure they do pay it back. I take the point of the member who spoke before me, Michael Woodhouse, that there are a large number of people who take out a loan who may, in fact, have no intent of paying it back at any stage whatsoever. Nonetheless we do support the efforts to recoup loans and ensure that the commitments and obligations that students make when they do take out a student loan are met.

But Labour wants to ensure that any changes that are made to the laws around student loan repayments are fair for all students. We think it is fair that borrowers provide a contact for the Inland Revenue Department if they go overseas, to make sure that there is somebody in New Zealand who can be contacted if a borrower is overseas. I know that in my situation, when I went overseas, I did not have that kind of contact here and it would have been beneficial for the Inland Revenue Department to have had that contact person here. I think it is also a common-sense move that borrowers cannot offset any business or investment loss to reduce their repayment obligations. I think it is a good move in the fact that it will make sure all New Zealanders, regardless of their ability to change or influence their own income, pay their fair share of their student loan repayments.

I want to reiterate our opposition to the change from 3 years to 1 year for the repayment holiday. I think Chris Hipkins has already alluded to that fact that Treasury thinks this will not increase the improvement rate for people repaying their student loans. In fact, it did say in some Budget documents that this will encourage people to stay away from New Zealand and that may be unfair and it also may discourage people from going on their OE at all. As I said, those Treasury documents did say that there would be little evidence that this will improve repayment rates, so we on this side of the House will support this bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but we do that only because we are hoping to have that particular part of the bill removed. That is why I stand before the House in support of the bill so far, but only to select committee stage.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 11

Green Party 9; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Natural Health Products Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Natural Health Products Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee. In April 2009 National and the Green Party announced that we would work together to develop a New Zealand - based regulatory scheme for natural health products that are sold in New Zealand. We said then that our key objectives were to have a New Zealand - based scheme that is cost-effective and gives New Zealanders confidence that the natural health products they use are safe. We wanted a scheme that gives the public an assurance that the natural health products they use are true to label and can provide the health benefits claimed for them. We also wanted a scheme that would recognise that natural health products are generally low risk, and that would be as simple, streamlined, and low cost as possible for industry and the Government. This bill achieves our objectives.

We have worked effectively with a very wide range of stakeholders, and their feedback has been incorporated in the final form of this bill. The bill will introduce for the first time in New Zealand risk-based regulation of natural health products. The bill will also for the first time allow industry to make legitimate claims about the health benefits of natural health products to those who use them. It will provide for a scheme that gives the public an assurance that the natural health products they use give them the health benefits claimed by the manufacturer or importer when used as directed, and are safe and contain what the labels say they contain.

The scheme enables product manufacturers and importers to gain market authorisation by self-certification against the scheme’s requirements. Product sponsors will use an online database to notify the regulator of products. The database will automatically accept the notification, provided the product meets the scheme’s criteria, which will be built into the online system.

To provide certainty for the industry, a list of prohibited ingredients and an open-ended list of ingredients that can be used in natural health products will be introduced. The bill will also provide a simple process for adding new ingredients to the list of those that can be used.

Sponsors will be required to show evidence to support claims of the health benefits of their products. The regulator may audit this evidence and may randomly audit the information provided as part of a product notification and in response to complaints. The bill will provide for regulation-making powers to set labelling requirements, manufacturing standards, and standards of evidence required to make a claim of health benefit. It also enables the natural health products regulator to recognise the decisions of recognised authorities, whether in New Zealand or overseas.

This bill exempts export-only products from the requirements of the scheme. However, if an exporter requires an export certificate from the regulator, then it must meet the requirements of the scheme, including product notification, in order to obtain an official Government assurance. The New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers have signed a statement of intent detailing their agreement to move to a joint New Zealand - Australia regulatory regime for therapeutic products, including a joint agency, the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency. The New Zealand regulatory scheme for natural health products will sit alongside the agency. The Natural Health Products Bill will provide for a stand-alone scheme separate from legislation regulating other therapeutic products. The natural health products regulator will be in the Ministry of Health, but separate from Medsafe, New Zealand’s regulator for therapeutic products.

This bill will provide for a robust scheme that gives the public assurance about the safety and efficacy of natural health products. The scheme will be straightforward and low cost for the industry, which will for the first time be able to make legitimate claims about the health benefits of its products. I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Natural Health Products Bill. It is difficult to sit on this side of the House and listen to discussions about this matter when we know that when in Opposition National continually played politics with this issue.

Carmel Sepuloni: Who did?

GRANT ROBERTSON: National continually played politics with this issue. This whole issue of regulation could have been resolved if National, when in Opposition, had been prepared to take a responsible approach to looking at this issue. Instead, it became a political football. It is useful to refer here, I think, to an email from 13 August 2007. It is from Michelle Beckett, who at that time was the executive director of Natural Products New Zealand. The email reports on a meeting with Tony Ryall, which she described as “greatly pared down”. I am not quite sure what that means, but she said that Mr Ryall “quite clearly, previously indicated his inflexibility” on the issues related to natural products. Ms Beckett said that she and her colleagues left the meeting with a feeling that the natural products industry was “of little importance to the new leadership of the National Party”—that was Mr Key—“and that this sector is seen only as a political football to be leveraged to any political advantage, regardless of the consequences to what has been a growing New Zealand export industry.” That is the truth. On this issue National has no credibility whatsoever.

National members have come to the House today with a bill, and Labour will support its referral to a select committee because our position has been consistent. Our position has been that we want regulation in this sector. We want New Zealand companies to be able to develop their products and to grow their exports in an area that is undoubtedly a growth area. This all could have been done as part of a comprehensive arrangement that involved a trans-Tasman regulator and a comprehensive regulatory framework. It all could have been done 5 years ago if National had not used this industry as a political football. The Minister knows that. He knew when he introduced it that the credibility of his party was in tatters on this issue.

A regulatory regime for natural products is a good thing. These products are used by many New Zealanders. It is important that we know that they are safe, that they do what they say they will do, and that consumers have good, clear information about them. We also want to send this bill to a select committee so that the public can have a say on this issue, so that they can understand what is being done here, and so that the industry can ensure that the rules are both fair and also protect the health and safety of New Zealanders. We think that the health and safety of New Zealanders should come first, but also we believe that New Zealanders need to have the ability to understand the products that are in front of them.

We have some concerns about this bill. We have some concerns about the way in which this arrangement will work alongside, as the Minister said, the arrangements that are being put in place in terms of a joint regulatory framework with Australia. I refer to the regulatory impact statement for the bill, which indicates that elements of the proposal being put on the table today by the Government will be problematic in terms of addressing a joint regulatory body.

Government members are very keen to be able to say that they are supporting a New Zealand - based regulatory body for natural health products, but the truth is that they have put into the arrangements with the Australians the same 5-year window that the Labour Government had in place in 2007, which will enable natural health products to become part of that wider trans-Tasman arrangement. Should that be the Government’s plan in the future, then who knows where National will go on this issue. It has flip-flopped around so many times on this issue that it is quite difficult to know. But if it decides to go with a trans-Tasman arrangement that includes natural health products, this regulatory impact statement is telling us that that may well be problematic. So we need to be very careful as we work through this proposal as to whether those problems are so great that it will actually provoke some difficulty in the future for New Zealanders.

Another issue that I think all of us will be very keen to look at when we get into the select committee process on this bill is the question of cost. Associate Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman mentioned the issue in terms of cost. I will mention briefly two aspects to that issue. One of those is the question of cost to the country—the cost of setting up an independent regulator outside Medsafe. The Government on the other side of the House likes to trumpet that it has reduced bureaucracy and reduced costs in Government. Here we are setting up a new agency. We will be looking very closely at the best way in which such an agency can be set up and how it will be able to deliver its outcomes and be cost-effective at the same time. The other element of cost is the question of cost to the industry. Again, I will make some reflection from the regulatory impact statement, because it makes it clear that it is very difficult to work out what the cost of regulation will be on the industry, particularly at a per-product level. The estimates that underlie this paper and give the reasons why it is a cost-effective solution are quite flimsy in many ways. In fact, the regulatory impact statement says that all of the estimates in the papers that back up this bill are provisional. So it will be very important in this process to look at both the cost to the country in terms of setting up an independent regulator and also the cost to the industry itself. I think that both of those matters deserve a significant piece of work by the select committee.

From the point of view of members on this side of the House, we find it difficult to stand here and look at these issues without reflecting on what has happened in the past. This side of the House has always been committed to a regulatory regime that works for New Zealanders. We will support this bill to go to the select committee, because we believe that regulation in this area is overdue and needed. But what we do not want to go through again is National’s flip-flopping on its position and playing politics with the natural health products industry. We look forward to the debate in the select committee, and we want to make sure that all New Zealanders get a chance to have a say on it, but we do not want to limit our options in the future for a trans-Tasman regulatory agency.

I know there are those in this House, including my colleague Sue Kedgley, who feel very strongly about what a trans-Tasman regulatory agency might mean to New Zealand’s sovereignty and our ability to make decisions. I respect that view. It has been consistently held by Sue Kedgley. My own view is that there are benefits for New Zealand in a trans-Tasman agency and benefits for those who wish to export their natural health products. I do not want to see an overly bureaucratic regime, but I do think the future of these kinds of regulatory arrangements lie in trans-Tasman arrangements that protect New Zealand’s sovereignty. That is completely possible, and the benefits for New Zealand and New Zealand consumers of access to more information, more expertise, and more markets for our exporters are good benefits. I think they deserve to be investigated, while ensuring that New Zealand sovereignty is protected. We will support this bill to go to the select committee, but with the reservations that I have outlined.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to take a very short call on this important and timely Natural Health Products Bill. It is great that National has been able to work with the Greens to finally get this bill into the Parliament.

I must say that this is a very important area. The natural health products registry estimated that in 2011 there will be a billion dollars worth of exports—$150 million worth of mānuka honey. It is important that these products are safe and that any regime makes sure there is no harm. I think it is important that people understand the regulatory impact statement, and also are aware that there will be a 5-yearly review.

Finally, there are some challenges that will be important for the select committee to grapple with. Firstly, there is the definition of what natural health products are. They are defined in the bill, among other things, as bringing a health benefit, and that implies that there will need to be some degree of proof. Other challenges include the Wai 262 claims and also, of course, how we fit in with the trans-Tasman arrangements.

There will be some very interesting challenges for the select committee to grapple with. I believe that this is a timely and highly worthwhile bill. It has had its genesis over 20 years, according to the regulatory impact statement, and I commend it to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the Natural Health Products Bill. The choice of words—the use of the word “timely”—by the previous speaker Dr Paul Hutchison was very interesting.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Timely!

KRIS FAAFOI: It is quite laughable, because we have wasted 5 years in this Parliament while the National Party when in Opposition was flapping its arms around and saying that a trans-Tasman agreement on this issue was bad, evil, and what have you. We have wasted 5 years, then when National came into office in 2008 it cosied up to the Greens, and all of a sudden this bill was the best thing we have ever seen. So when Mr Hutchison says that this bill is timely, I tell him we could have been dealing with this legislation 5 years ago. But National decided to play politics with it. I reiterate the words of Michelle Beckett, the executive director of Natural Products New Zealand, which my colleague Grant Robertson mentioned earlier: “The National Party is using this as a political football to be leveraged to any political advantage.” To now say that this bill is timely is just quite laughable.

However, having said that, Labour will support the bill to the select committee. But we do that with a number of reservations. Our reservations echo a number of the concerns that were picked up by the Ministry of Health in its regulatory impact statement. One of those concerns was around the inadequacy of the scheme to be rigorous enough, and therefore to be up to date with international best-practice, and the robustness of the scheme in terms of being able to guarantee that the products were safe and true to their claim. The concern also was whether it had been recognised by some of our trading partners, and whether it would be up to that level of scrutiny. We believe that in sending the bill to the select committee we can try to iron out some of those concerns raised in the regulatory impact statement.

There is also some concern in that statement about the small amount of information that is known about natural health products. We think that if we are going to introduce a regulatory framework, we need to know the size of it. We need to know what is going on within the industry. We need to get an idea, as Grant Robertson said earlier, of the costs involved in bringing in these regulations, and also some of the constraints that may be put on the Ministry of Health as it polices these regulations. On that aspect we welcome the proposal to phase in some of the regulations to collect information, and also to see what products are out there in the market at the moment and to figure out what kinds of fees and levies can be charged over time. As we say, there will be significant costs within this bill to make sure that it achieves what it should achieve, and what we hope it will achieve.

The most important thing about this bill is the health and safety of New Zealanders. It has been noted that a lot of these natural health products claim to have quite significant therapeutic qualities or benefits. When looking through some of the information around this issue, I was quite surprised what little regulation and oversight there is at the moment of some of the ingredients that go into some of these natural health products. Since the legislation that currently polices this area was introduced in 1985 quite a significant amount of additives have come into existence, which are going into these products. I think we need to make sure there is significant oversight. Given the nature of some of these things—we are talking about pills, tablets, syrups, and powders, which all claim to have some positive effect on health—it is surprising that we have little oversight. It is, again, a little disappointing that we could have done this 5 years ago, but it was not done, especially when we consider the ailments or illnesses that some of these products claim to treat. We are looking at conditions like arthritis and psoriasis, and some of these products even go into mānuka honey, which of course has some therapeutic qualities, I am told. But I guess when we are looking at some of these very serious illnesses and the nature of some of these products, we need public scrutiny of the ability of this bill to meet its purpose. That is why Labour will be supporting it to the select committee.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party is delighted that the Natural Health Products Bill, which will set up a stand-alone natural health products regulator within the Ministry of Health, is before this House. Instead of lumping in natural health products with medicine and food, the bill sets up a system for the regulation of natural health products as a separate low-risk category of product.

The bill, which the Green Party has helped to negotiate with the Government, has been a long time in gestation. I do not intend to dwell on the past, but, just for the record, I will point out why I believe that the regulatory system we have come up with in this bill is a vast improvement on the proposal previously before this House, which was to regulate natural health products through a heavy-handed trans-Tasman regulator. The natural health unit that we are setting up will be located here in Wellington, not in Canberra. It will be staffed by New Zealanders, not by Australians, and we will retain our sovereignty over it. Grant Robertson said he believed that New Zealand could have retained its sovereignty through the trans-Tasman regulator, but let me assure New Zealanders that we could not under the previous scheme. Basically all regulations were delegated to an official based in Canberra, and we had no ability to exercise our sovereignty.

The scheme we have come up with is a low-risk regulatory scheme that is appropriate for the low-risk nature of natural health products. It is not a heavy-handed regime, as was previously proposed. There will be a relatively straightforward system for approval. An online database for products and ingredients used in other countries with recognised regulatory schemes will be automatically recognised. If a natural health company has its products already approved in Australia, those products will be automatically approved here, as Australia will be recognised under our scheme as an approved overseas regulator. There will be an open-ended list of ingredients, not a so-called permitted list, as exists in Australia. The problem with the Australian permitted list is that if an ingredient is not on its list, it would be an illegal product. We do not want to see a situation whereby natural herbs that have been used for millennia—for example, traditional herbs in New Zealand—could be deemed to be illegal.

We are, effectively, setting up a disapproval system such as what exists in countries like the United States, by which there will be a presumption that new products coming to the market are acceptable unless the regulator has reason to be concerned. This is very different from the onerous approval process for new ingredients that exists in Australia, where an applicant has to undergo an extensive and expensive process to prove that a new ingredient is safe. Many companies have said that the Australian system is so expensive they cannot afford to bring new and innovative products on to the Australian market. That system discourages innovation, and we do not want to see that happening here.

The practice of rongoā Māori will be exempt from the bill, as it is a taonga of Māori and should be governed for and by Māori according to tikanga. Products made for consumers and low-risk products like homeopathy products will also be exempt. The Green Party wanted to have a clause in the legislation to recognise the Treaty, and we will still be seeking to amend the legislation to include such a clause. We also want to see dedicated Māori representation within the new regulatory body provided for in the legislation.

We are pleased that the Government will fund the costs of regulatory policy advice, compliance, and monitoring, and start-up costs. When we began work on the bill, our aim was to set up a scheme that protected consumers and ensured that products were safe and true to label but that was not so onerous that it would put a whole lot of natural product businesses out of business. I think we have achieved that, and I am delighted that the bill is strongly supported by the natural health industry. It is a flourishing industry with about 450 companies, and we want to ensure that the industry continues to flourish.

I believe that the Green Party has made the legislation better—considerably better—by our involvement in helping to negotiate the bill. We have worked closely with officials and listened to submitters, and I think we have an improved regulatory system. This demonstrates the value of small parties like the Green Party having an input into the policy and legislative process. It implements the promise we made before the last election that we would work with whoever was in Government to try to progress key issues that we thought were important, such as natural health care. It is satisfying that having led a campaign to defeat the previous trans-Tasman regulatory scheme, which we thought was heavy-handed and undermined our sovereignty, we have been able to work constructively on what we think is a much better alternative.

More and more New Zealanders are turning to natural health products to keep themselves well. The Green Party strongly supports natural health care. Indeed, I believe that we are the only party in the House that actively supports natural health care and wants to see it integrated into mainstream health. We worked with Labour during the last term of Government and secured funding for a small unit to investigate how natural health care could be integrated into mainstream health, but I believe, sadly, that that work has virtually been suspended over the last few years. The Green Party wants to see in New Zealand what exists in other countries overseas: traditional health care like acupuncture and naturopathy being recognised and accepted throughout our health system. We want to see natural health practitioners working alongside nurses and doctors, using whatever treatment is judged to be most effective, and to see natural remedies and treatments being offered in public health organisations and hospitals.

This may sound radical, but I remind members that many policies that we have advocated and that have been dismissed as being radical at the time are now widely embraced in this House and by the public: climate change, peak oil, capital gains taxes, and many others. So I hope that our vision for natural health care being implemented into the health system will in time be accepted by this House.

Finally, I will say that some have questioned why we need any regulatory scheme at all, given the low-risk nature of natural health products. The reality is that more and more natural health products are imported into New Zealand and some are imported from countries with a poor safety record. So it is important that importers, in particular, know that we have a regulatory scheme that requires every product sold in New Zealand to be safe and true to label. The other thing is that the law needs updating. The present law means that making claims is illegal and it does not cover many products. We hope that this bill will be widely supported and will progress rapidly through the House. We will be listening very keenly to submitters on the bill at the Health Committee. Thank you very much.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. I will take a brief call to voice the support of the Māori Party for the exclusion of natural health products and rongoā from the new trans-Tasman agency to regulate medicines, medical devices, and new medical interventions. We are pleased that the traditional practices of healers and the natural products they rely on for rongoā will not be included in the requirements of the joint regulatory scheme for therapeutic products. We say it is pretty good news for Māori that the plants used in rākau rongoā do not come under the jurisdiction of the new controls. To be clear: this Natural Health Products Bill does not impact on rongoā Māori except when it is mass produced and sold. That means that, as Sue Kedgley said, the framework for rongoā is not being dictated by Government. Basically, if rongoā was being put on the commercial market, then we would want exactly the same standards applied to it as for any other commercial product.

A strong and sensible regulatory scheme will ensure quality and safety, again as Sue Kedgley alluded to, for both consumers and manufacturers alike. The public should be and can be confident that products are safe and are true to what has been stated on the label. I did not realise this, but there are about 450 companies that supply natural products to the New Zealand market. We noted a positive comment from a group called Natural Products New Zealand. It stated: “Regulation that allows the industry to inform and protect New Zealand customers and at the same time facilitates innovation and export growth, is desperately needed.” That is a good line to at least start on, in advancing the debate. It is a positive line that opens up the door to discussion, as many speakers have said this afternoon.

Finally, Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned Wai 262. That is an important kaupapa for us. We are mindful of the importance of settling the Wai 262 claims before proceeding to the final stages of this bill. We hope the select committee process will enable sufficient time for the representatives of the Wai 262 claimants and rongoā practitioners, providers, and consumers to put forward their submissions on this issue, in order to address issues to do with indigenous flora and fauna. That includes, obviously, intellectual and cultural property rights. We look forward to the debate as this bill moves forward, in particular, in respect of the Wai 262 claim—obviously the report was released only a month or 6 weeks ago. Thank you very much. Ka nui te mihi.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I rise to take a quick call. I am absolutely gobsmacked today at the flip-flop in politics. It is interesting that Minister Coleman is leading this and is keeping Tony Ryall’s hands away from the introduction of the Natural Health Products Bill today. I will start by quoting Mr Ryall in 2006, when he led a campaign to undermine the Labour approach at that time. It began much earlier, in 2002, with an inquiry. He said that the agency that would regulate health care products, which we all agreed was required, would be “costly, restrictive and unnecessary”. Well, is that not funny?

I congratulate Sue Kedgley in the House today on having her bill before the House today. I call it her bill.

I do not believe for a minute that National is tolerating the process of this low-cost regulator. We know that the Minister of Health has completely flip-flopped, and he has done that under the leadership of John Key, who confused the public at the time. John Key was right behind Labour’s legislation at the time, but then he suddenly changed. That was because Tony Ryall went to him after a cross-party meeting and said: “For politics, pull your support for what Labour is proposing.”, and he was so spineless that he pulled his support. That confused both the industry and the public at the time.

Everyone in this House knows that we had an inquiry. That was a valuable process. We all reached the conclusion that we agreed that these products needed to be regulated. We were moving on this. But I say to the Greens that I have some cynicism that once we have this bill through, National Ministers, through the trans-Tasman relationship, will move to fold this regulatory agency into the Australian agency. Mark my words. I may not be around to see that happen, but that is exactly what National wants to do. Those members know that it is more cost-effective, they know that they would have a pan-regulator that would cover the Pacific, Asia, and New Zealand. That is what they want to do. This bill is just a little bit of pandering to the Greens, to get their support.

I congratulate Sue on the bill. We will support its referral to a select committee. It will be interesting to hear from the industry. It will be interesting to hear about the costs to the industry of having a stand-alone regulator. We have heard that there will be a cost of $1.1 million to set up the regulator, $1.8 million for operating costs, and then $36 million every year to maintain it. So let us just watch what it costs the industry, which will have to pay fees to license their products. Therefore, let us hear from the industry on that basis.

Dr Paul Hutchison: You’re scaring the public again.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: No, we do not scaremonger, actually; we wear our hearts on our sleeves. We always wanted to move with a regulator. This country has lost 5 years of economic benefits that it would have had from having a regulator. We were moving on it, and it was canned by National.

We will monitor the costs, we will monitor the industry responses, we will monitor the way that this regulator is set up, and we will be watching very closely what happens with our trans-Tasman partnership. We support this bill’s referral to a select committee. We look forward to those responses.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour): Just following on from the Hon Steve Chadwick, I will add to what she was saying about the flip-flopping from members opposite. The plans to establish a trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency is a staggering display of flip-flopping by the National Party. We have seen so much of that in this term of the National Government. National has flip-flopped on the issue of natural health products, which led to a 5-year delay—as Steve Chadwick has said—in the planned creation of a trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency. This is something that when National members were in Opposition they were totally against, and it is typical of how the National Party has played politics with the issue.

This was exemplified by Michelle Beckett, the executive director of Natural Products New Zealand, who stated that the National Party sees the natural products sector only as a political football to be leveraged to its political advantage.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Who wrote this speech?

CARMEL SEPULONI: I say to Mr Hutchison that that is what Michelle Beckett said. The Government’s flip-flopping is astounding. When we look back, we see that Tony Ryall told Parliament in 2006 that a joint agency would be costly, restrictive, and unnecessary.

I will not go on, because I think my colleagues have done us justice. We support this bill; we just do not appreciate the inconsistencies from that side of the House that keep occurring. Aside from the general politicking that has surrounded this bill, Labour believes that supporting it going through to a select committee will allow it the due process it deserves, and the opportunity for New Zealanders to have a say. Thank you very much.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. This bill reflects the Government’s, and I hope Parliament’s, determination to prevent the abuse of the most vulnerable in New Zealand’s society: our children and vulnerable adults. In addition to work in other portfolios, such as the recent Green Paper for Vulnerable Children, one of the goals of the Government when it came to office was to develop an appropriate response from the criminal justice system to violence against children. Consequently, in 2008, in the course of carrying out a review of Part 8 of the Crimes Act, which is about offences against the person, I invited the Law Commission to give specific regard to how the provisions of Part 8 could better protect children. In response, the Law Commission recommended that the scope of the offences and duties relating to care of children be broadened, that an objective standard of care be imposed, and that penalty levels be adjusted to better reflect the gravity of offending. As it eventuated, the Government has decided to give priority to these specific measures over and above the wider reforms that sought to tidy up Part 8 of the Crimes Act.

This bill will strengthen the ability of agencies to hold individuals to account for harming the most vulnerable in our community. It will ensure that not only will the perpetrators of these acts be held accountable but also, significantly and importantly, those members of households who witness those incidents and turn a blind eye to the abuse or fail to take measures to stop ongoing incidents will be held accountable. The changes to the Crimes Act will also mean that those who have responsibility for children and who ill-treat or neglect a child can no longer use ignorance or thoughtlessness as a defence. They will be held accountable according to more objective standards of conduct that are to be expected of parents and caregivers.

The bill also makes other important changes to the criminal law. The scope of the sexual grooming offence is clarified in order to support active policing and the protection of children from the predatory behaviour of those using the internet as a medium. A property right criterion is added to the definition of “claim of right”, to ensure that use of this defence conforms to common law and comparable overseas jurisdictions. The bill also increases the penalty for the offence of possession of an offensive weapon. But it is my hope that the biggest impact of this bill will be to help to encourage those in day-to-day contact with endangered children to come forward if they know that abuse or neglect is taking place. We all know that the price of silence in such cases may be the perpetuation of abuse and neglect over an entire childhood or, in some cases, the savage loss of a young, blameless life. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a final call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which, as the Minister has said, is important legislation. I hope he is satisfied that the Opposition has treated it as such, and that at every stage, including the select committee deliberation, we ensured that the interests of children were at the forefront.

This legislation does address some aspects of the history of child abuse in New Zealand. The abuse is awful, and there is a level of public disquiet about it, in particular about a number of recent cases, and this is an attempt to address that. Citizens also feel a level of frustration about the inability of some parents to keep their children, and the vulnerable people in their care, safe. It is important for those reasons. Expectations of parents have been codified, particularly with respect to children and vulnerable adults. It is a good response to that; it is also a response to public expectations that these matters will be addressed, and we have supported that.

The bill makes it a legal duty for caregivers to keep their children safe, and that is no bad thing. Those who do not do so commit a criminal offence, and the penalties for that offence are quite severe; 10 years of imprisonment is a severe punishment. So at least it will be in the minds of parents, and that is to be supported. Parents and caregivers now have a duty to provide a level of care, to provide the necessaries, and to take steps to protect those whom they are caring for from injury and harm.

The thought does go through our minds that in the way the bill has addressed the problem there is an assumption that this was the problem—that there was a lack of willingness of parents and caregivers to provide for the safety of people in their care. That, I believe, is debatable. Why people do this is actually a much bigger question; certainly, the bill does not address it. Those closely connected with taking care of children and vulnerable adults will now have to take reasonable steps to protect the victim. No reasonable person will find any of these provisions troublesome, especially if they are focused only on holding those who abuse accountable to be appropriately punished. That was the view.

The other point I will make is that it would be a mistake to believe that these provisions will actually solve the problem we have before us or eliminate the problem of abuse and neglect of children and vulnerable adults. I do not think on its own it will do that, although it goes some way. The Children’s Commissioner in this case made perhaps the most valuable point: if these provisions are to work, they must be complemented with an investment in preventive and other responsive services for those children and families who find themselves in vulnerable positions. Many of those who have been abused and neglected have had terrible lives, and whether there are issues with mental health, depression, lack of confidence or self-respect, poor education, etc., those issues need to be addressed as well. That is the other part of this issue that has not been addressed here.

We have reminded the Government throughout that those issues need to be taken into account, especially where it comes to the effects of poverty. Many of these people—many of those who abuse in identified cases—are poor, and those issues have not been addressed. Certainly, over 2 weeks of questioning from this side of the House we have not been satisfied that the Government speakers—and, indeed, the Ministers—have answered that question fully for us.

I just wanted to also say very briefly—and it is the last point I will make—that it was perhaps a mistake and an error to have the claim of right issue embedded in this particular bill. The way that has been done, there are, as Charles Chauvel was saying in the Committee stage, unintended consequences. That is that those in cases in which a claim of right appropriately applies now do not have that defence before them.

With those last words, I am pleased to support this bill, and now that it has come to this point, we look forward to seeing its effectiveness. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). Over the course of the time that we have debated this bill, it has been a rigorous debate, and we have debated the merits of the bill. Labour, of course, supports any measure to prevent and mitigate harm or abuse against children. However, we have reservations about certain provisions and their ability to be effective in combating the actual problem. I will not go on for too long; I will point them out just very briefly. I feel that my colleague Rajen has done a good job of discussing them, and we discussed them fully yesterday when we were debating the bill.

Firstly, the lack of urgency demonstrated by the National Government with regard to child abuse and family violence is of concern to this side of the House. National members put up legislation like this, and act as though they are taking it seriously, but we know that they are not. The bill is not being pushed through under urgency, like some of the other legislation that really should not have been urgent at all. I refer to legislation like the fire-at-will bill. I will say it over and over again: the Domestic Violence Reform Bill continues to languish at the bottom of the Order Paper, despite the fact that it was widely consulted upon and the sector is waiting for this Government to implement it. The lack of urgency demonstrated by the National Government with regard to child abuse and family violence is of concern to us.

Second is the National Government’s continual emphasis on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. Although Labour is supporting this bill, that is what it is. It comes after the fact; it will not stop a child getting abused. This bill is about what happens after abuse has occurred. We have heard many speakers on this side of the House talk about the correlation between poverty and abuse, and we have seen nothing from the National Government that responds to the poverty that we as a country are facing. If that problem is not addressed, how can we possibly pretend that we will be addressing the issue of abuse at all?

Thirdly, the issue that was raised by my colleague Charles Chauvel last week was the proposed modification of the defence of claim of right. He discussed that proposal in full last night. Those are the reservations that we have. Although Labour supports this bill, I think it is very important that we note those concerns. Thank you very much.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): As we approach the closing of Parliament, the heat and speed increases as the Government rushes to push particular priorities through. This is one area: proposals to further protect children from assault, neglect, and ill-treatment have been put on a faster track than I think was originally intended. Although the Māori Party has not supported much of the justice-driven agenda of this Government, we do support the concept of creating a new offence to deal with the failure to protect a child or vulnerable adult from the risks of death, grievous bodily harm, or sexual assault as a consequence of an unlawful act by a third party. This is about failure of legal duty—taking reasonable steps to protect a child or vulnerable adult, knowing that they were at risk. It is good that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) is not just about those in the household but, more broadly, covers a staff member of a hospital, an institution, or residence where the victim lives. The thing we should all realise is that violence is not colour-blind or class-specific in any way, or confined to any suburbs or any particular population. We must be broad in our thinking and we must universally condemn any attacks made on our most precious tamariki, our children.

The Māori Party supports the prevention of ill-treatment, neglect, and violence against our tamariki and those who are vulnerable, including those who are in care because of mental incapacity and those sorts of things. In one of my earlier speeches I raised the importance of recognising the need for a defence when the adult accused of failing to protect is a battered woman, and also our concern that criminalisation and increased penalties are used as a means of addressing serious social ills. These are expensive responses, with no evidence to show they work, but we are in a no-win situation with this particular bill when the health and safety of our tamariki is at stake. In that regard, the Māori Party supports absolutely this bill.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. It is good to see that the majority of the parties in this House are supporting this bill. I think it will certainly make a difference to the lives of our most vulnerable people: our vulnerable adults and our young children. It is disappointing to see that the Green Party cannot support this bill and I really have problems understanding what part of this bill it does not like in terms of protecting our most vulnerable from abuse and neglect.

I thank the officials who worked on this bill in the Social Services Committee. We worked well as a team. I also thank my select committee members. We do not normally get bills like this in our select committee, but we are a select committee with an absolutely huge heart, and we have, as members would expect from the Social Services Committee, the interest of the vulnerable always at the forefront of what we are doing. I think we asked the right questions, and we held the officials to account either when we did not understand what we were being told or when we disagreed with some of the reasons we were given. We challenged them, and we sent them back and back and back again. I think that shows members that we, as a select committee, took this very seriously. We think we have put together legislation that will protect our most vulnerable.

This bill has four main objectives. It clarifies the claim of right defence, aligning it with the original purpose of the defence at common law. That was spoken on at length in the select committee, and in the House it has been debated pretty thoroughly, especially last night. It toughens the law around sexual grooming. It seeks to protect our most vulnerable from abuse and neglect and to bring those who are accountable for those horrific offences to justice. And it increases the penalty for possession of an offensive weapon. The bill is an essential component of National’s work to tackle violent crime and to make communities safer. It is also an important move to ensure that New Zealand children and vulnerable adults have a future free from assault, neglect, and ill treatment.

Throughout the debate we have heard that New Zealand has one of the worst instances of child neglect and abuse in the OECD. It is not good enough that these children and vulnerable adults are forgotten. Every single one of these children and vulnerable adults could have had a future, and this National-led Government wants them to.

The bill makes three key changes to ensure they are adequately protected. It creates a new offence of failure to protect a child or vulnerable adult from the risk of death, grievous bodily harm, or sexual assault as a consequence of an unlawful act by a third party, or failure of a third party to perform a legal duty. It doubles the maximum penalty for cruelty to a child from 5 years’ to 10 years’ imprisonment. It extends the offence of neglect or abuse to include vulnerable adults, and it extends a legal duty on parents and caregivers, who have a duty to provide the necessities of life, to take reasonable steps to protect a child or vulnerable adult from injury also.

This bill is about responsibility, it is about protection, and it is about justice. We know that this one piece of legislation is not a silver bullet to protect our children and vulnerable adults from abuse or neglect, but we hope that it will send a clear message that it is not OK.

It was my pleasure to chair the select committee that had this bill before it, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Of course Labour supports any measures to prevent and mitigate the harm of abuse against children. We therefore support the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2).

We do have some reservations—in particular, about the link between poverty and violence, which is one that is being ignored by this Government. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 11

Green Party 9; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.