Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Bills

Alcohol Reform Bill

Procedure

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Following discussions in the Business Committee, I seek leave for the Committee stage on Part 2 of the Alcohol Reform Bill to take the form of an in principle debate on the issue of age for sale and purchase of alcohol from licensed premises, and for the issue to be decided at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday, 30 August 2012, by way of an election from the three options—18 years, 20 years, and a split age—and if this election does not produce a majority decision from the votes cast, for the option receiving the fewest votes to be eliminated, and the issue to be decided between the remaining two options by a personal vote without any debate; and for the Committee to report progress at the conclusion of the voting, following which any amendments to the bill necessary to implement the Committee’s decision will be drafted by parliamentary counsel.

I further seek leave that, in the event that there should be a second vote required, the bells ring for just 1 minute between the declaration of the vote and the commencement of the second bell.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Child Poverty and Living Standards—Reports

1. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has he seen recent reports on the level of inequality and child poverty in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. I have seen a recent report that says: “A parent obtaining full-time paid employment is the most important event to lift children out of poverty.” That is why the Government’s welfare policies have an unrelenting focus on work, and I look forward to the member’s support for them.

David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “the Government has spent the last 3 years ensuring that it has done whatever it can to help the most vulnerable New Zealanders through.”; if so, why is inequality at its highest level and why has child hardship increased from 15 percent to 21 percent?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The inequality of income in New Zealand is measured in different ways. If you take the report that is produced by the Ministry of Social Development, on page 81 it shows that inequality was greatest during the years 2000-05. We have not got back to those levels. But on the following page it shows a different picture. What I would say is that this Government has recognised, as these reports do, that the global financial crisis has put stress on those on the lowest incomes, and therefore we have had programmes in place to try to make life a little easier for those people.

David Shearer: In light of that answer, does he agree with Paula Bennett, who said last week that she did not believe that measuring poverty was a priority; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, the Minister for Social Development is correct; because there are so many different ways in which it can be measured. What is absolutely clear is that the best way of removing child poverty is to ensure that there is parental and caregiver employment.

David Shearer: In light of that answer, does this mean he has abandoned his view that the Ministerial Committee on Poverty should “have an official way of measuring poverty”, something he said earlier this year?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Far from it. I think the fact that there are so many measures out there that give all sorts of pieces of information—

Hon Member: Pick one!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member over there calls out “Pick one!”. That is something those members cannot do when it comes to getting a decent leader, but I will have a go on this. If I pick two, in the report by the Ministry of Social Development, on page 81, a report showing that during the period 2001-05 there was massive—

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a pretty straight question. I asked whether he was suggesting that he could have an official way of measuring poverty. That was something that he actually mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that is what the member actually asked. If I remember correctly, it was to do with—I think, in fairness, the Minister did actually answer the question. He has perhaps now gone on for a little long, but what he said was “Not at all.” He did not—what is the correct word I am looking for—he did not resile from the previous statement made, and he was explaining why. But I think he has gone on for sufficiently long.

David Shearer: In the four meetings that the Ministerial Committee on Poverty has held, what decisions have been taken to improve children in hardship?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would suggest that the member put that question down to the chairman of the committee. What I can tell you, as a member of Cabinet, is that there are regularly discussions in Cabinet about this particular issue.

David Shearer: Which statement does he stand by: “we have a very targeted system through Working for Families.” or that Working for Families is “communism by stealth … It didn’t work very well for Eastern Europe and it won’t work very well for New Zealand.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Both are true statements.

Hon Peter Dunne: Do the reports that the Prime Minister has seen include any reports suggesting that the imposition of an inefficient and poorly targeted capital gains tax, and the increase in the top tax rate to merely spur further avoidance and evasion opportunities, will do anything to reduce the level of poverty in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

Economic Programme—Economic Growth and Living Standards

2. PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to encourage economic growth and raise New Zealanders’ standard of living?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): The Government has taken a number of very important steps to support sustainable economic growth based on more savings and exports, rather than unsustainable growth based on consumption, debt, and property speculation. Some of those steps include rebalancing the tax system with higher taxes on consumption and property speculation and reducing taxes on work and savings, improving education standards and skills, increasing investment in science and innovation, better incentives to get more New Zealanders off welfare and into work, a multibillion-dollar investment in infrastructure, delivering better public services, reducing government costs on business, and, last but by no means least, getting the Government’s own finances in order by setting a path back to surplus, which provides a stable macroeconomic environment to assist competitive businesses to have confidence to invest and grow.

Paul Goldsmith: Are we seeing positive signs of growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In the midst of a very deep global downturn we expect volatility and low growth, as we are seeing around the world economies. So against that backdrop I was pleased last week, for example, to see the latest monthly overseas merchandise trade figures showing that in July the value of exported goods rose by 8 percent to $4 billion, which helped the country record a July trade surplus. Exports to China rose by 39 percent, led by whole-milk powder. Merchandise imports were up by 11 percent over July last year. These are the kinds of figures that help indicate that, volatility month to month notwithstanding, the country is on course to growing a stronger economy. Of course, this follows the March GDP figures, which the Opposition does not want to know about, which showed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question time should not be an opportunity to make mini-speeches. The Minister’s answers tend to go on a little long. I am sure he will claim he has got lots to talk about. Despite that, this is question time.

Paul Goldsmith: How does economic growth help reduce poverty?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Poverty is reduced in households where adults are in paid work. More than half of the children considered to be living in poverty are in benefit-dependent households. That is why the Government is very focused on economic growth. Growth gives people the confidence to start businesses and grow their businesses, to hire more people, and to pay higher wages. That matters because although issues around persistent poverty are complex and interrelated, what is very clear is that paid employment is the most significant factor in lifting a household out of poverty.

David Shearer: Given that paid employment is so important for reducing poverty, why is it that 40 percent of those people in paid employment are in poverty, and will he agree to lift the minimum wage?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member may not know, but it is very difficult—in fact, impossible—for Governments to legislate their way to prosperity. The only way that you grow wages and actually secure opportunities for more jobs is to give businesses the confidence to invest and grow, and actually add jobs themselves. That is actually done by making some decisions that give businesses opportunities in New Zealand in areas like, for example, intensification of agriculture, oil and gas exploration, and, dare I say it, convention centres. All of those things assist to provide the opportunities to grow incomes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given his admitted concern that primary sector export growth has been adversely affected by the highly inflated value of the New Zealand dollar, how will the Business Growth Agenda—his third economic strategy in 4 years—address this problem?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I would argue that the Government’s economic approach is addressing the problem, because what we have seen—notwithstanding, as the member has pointed out, pretty high rates against the US dollar in recent times—is very significant growth in exports over the last 4 years. I think, from memory, it is about 5.5 percent for goods exports and 4.5 percent in total. That is notwithstanding some of the challenges, where areas like the tourism industry have been hit hard by things such as—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking the Minister to tell me how his Government’s plans intend to address the volatility or the inflated value of the New Zealand dollar, which the Government has admitted. I am not asking about all the rest. How do his plans intend to fix up the volatility of that dollar? That is the direct question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member’s point is fair enough. That is what the question asked, and I think the Minister was not really focusing sufficiently on that aspect. The Minister started by saying that he believes that the Government’s policies are addressing that issue, and went on to talk about exports rather than actually the value of the New Zealand dollar.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, the point I was making was that, actually, exports were growing, notwithstanding the volatility and highness of the New Zealand dollar. My point to the member would be that, in fact, there are no effective means by which Governments can do that. There are many people who promote options by which they can do that, but for a small and open economy like New Zealand’s, doing the sorts of things that are advocated by the member and other members of the Opposition would actually, effectively, be a one-way bet against world markets that are much, much larger than New Zealand. I would suggest that a much more productive approach is looking to improve the environment so that competitive businesses can compete and succeed in the world environment that we have today.

Paul Goldsmith: What programmes is the Government undertaking specifically to support the least well-off New Zealanders?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has worked very hard to maintain support for the most vulnerable New Zealanders during the global financial crisis and, of course, the economic impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes, which are substantial as well. We have maintained indexes of benefits to the Consumers Price Index to maintain their real value, even through the recession. Similarly, entitlements to Working for Families have been maintained broadly through the recession. We have also strived to improve the quality of publicly funded health services that can assist vulnerable New Zealanders—for example, with initiatives like free after-hours general practitioner care for under-sixes, the increased participation in early childhood education, increased immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever, and making a major drive to improve house insulation. All of those things are supporting the least well-off New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he be confident that the Government will meet its export growth targets, given that his latest economic strategy—the third announcement in the last 4 years—contains no plan for increasing the value of primary sector exports and no plan to address major skill shortages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member has misread the document. He will—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ve read it all right.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, he has not read it, because—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Nothing at all.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, that is because it is one of six documents, and one of the things that is addressed in future ones is primary resources and skills. If he had even read the first page, he would know that. Fundamentally, if you want to see further exports in the primary sector, which the Government is certainly very focused on, we need to achieve some things such as the modification of the resource management framework to speed up decision making—and I look forward to the member’s support on that. We also need further capital investment in our primary sector industries. That comes from domestic capital investment and also international capital investment. I look forward to seeing the member’s support of international capital investment in the New Zealand economy.

Incomes, Household—Changes Measured in Household Economic Surveys

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What was the change in real equivalised median household income (before housing costs) of New Zealand households from 2009-10 to 2010-11 as measured in the Household Economic Survey in dollar and percentage terms?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): Over that particular time period real equivalised median household income fell by $900, or 2.7 percent. The report notes that this is a direct result of the global financial crisis and the recession, so it should come as no surprise to members. The measure is quite volatile, and in six of the last 14 observations it has fallen. This means that the long-term trend is very important. Since 1994, for example, real equivalised median household income in New Zealand has increased by 43 percent.

Hon David Cunliffe: In light of the answer the Minister has just given that median incomes fell by nearly 3 percent in the years in consideration, does he agree with the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 3 on 28 August that said: “Median income in New Zealand has risen.”; if so, why does he consider a 3 percent drop to be a rise?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the point is over what period of time the median household incomes have increased. The member has—[Interruption] No, the member has selected a period from 2009-10 to 2010-11. He has to look back only a couple of years prior to that to see that it has actually grown. But the fundamental point is that there has been a global financial crisis. I know that on “Planet Labour” it did not happen, but out here in the real world it did, and that has undoubtedly had an impact on the growth rate of people’s incomes.

Hon David Cunliffe: In light of the Minister’s reply that it was all the fault of the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquake, can he explain to the House why he thinks that the global financial crisis has increased the average and the income of top income earners while decreasing the median and the income of bottom income earners?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The incidence of the impacts of the global financial crisis has occurred with different effects across the income spectrum. I freely acknowledge that. That is largely because there are fewer jobs in the New Zealand economy, and we all know that, because those numbers have been there and the unemployment rate, as we know, has been at 6.7 percent to 6.8 percent.

Hon David Cunliffe: How about those tax cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, tax cuts do not affect people who are on benefits. What affects people on benefits is the opportunity to obtain a job, which means encouraging businesses to have confidence and grow, which means creating opportunities to do so such as intensification of agriculture, gas and oil exploration—all those things that the Opposition shouts down.

Hon David Cunliffe: In light of the answer he has just given that the tax cuts had no impact on the level of upper income earners, why does he believe that policy changes that gave tax cuts to the top, increased GST on the rest, and cost the country a deficit of an extra $1 billion over 4 years—

Hon Paula Bennett: That’s just factually incorrect.

Hon David Cunliffe: —it is factually correct, Minister—have not impacted negatively on median incomes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member makes about four or five propositions that are, frankly, incorrect. He runs a question that is: “Given this, which I believe, given this, which I believe, and given this, which is rubbish, what do you think?”. The answer is this: the tax changes that we made were broadly equivalent across the sector. Yes, some individual elements of them have different effects. [Interruption] They do not want to hear it, but it is true.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister has addressed himself to the precise nature of that question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Where members insert what they claim to be fact into question, the risk they run is the Minister may dispute them, which the Minister did, and that is perfectly legitimate.

KiwiRail—Condition of Sleepers

4. BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that “I think the issue about the sleepers is being over beaten-up.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Yes. Safety is KiwiRail’s key priority, and KiwiRail advised me that it would not be running services if safety had been compromised by damaged rail, bridges, tunnels, tracks, or sleepers. KiwiRail has a number of measures in place to manage rail network assets. At the core of this management practice is safety.

Brendan Horan: Have KiwiRail staff been told to replace rotting sleepers with “visually sound” sleepers, given that a report on inspection standards presented by national structure maintenance engineer Graham Boorman stated: “The internal condition of hardwood timber is required to be ascertained by inspection boring.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are 6 million wooden railway sleepers across the New Zealand railway network. Of those sleepers, 100,000 have been imported from a source that does not meet the Australian hardwood standard, and 7,000 have been found to have some degree of decay. There is a replacement programme. The staff are required to confirm by, presumably, looking at a number on those sleepers that they are meeting the Australian standard. There is a court case currently going on with the supplier of the 100,000 sleepers that are potentially difficult, and there are only 7,000 of those that are being used across a total of 6 million. Yes, they are being replaced.

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member—

Brendan Horan: If I might repeat the question—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat for the moment. I apologise to the member, but that kind of interjection when a point of order is being heard is not on, I say on this occasion to the National Party backbench.

Brendan Horan: The question asked whether, given that the ascertaining of the internal condition of hardwood was best done by boring into the wood, he would not then instruct KiwiRail to use this method when inspecting sleepers, instead of the “visually sound” test outlined in internal memos. This is a question of safety—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. The Minister replied by saying that it was not realistic to do drill tests on a million—what was it, I cannot remember—6 million sleepers. So he did answer the member’s question that, in fact, that process was, it seemed from the Minister’s answer, not something the Minister supported. That seemed a reasonable answer to the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked simply whether KiwiRail staff had been told to replace rotting sleepers with “visually sound” sleepers. That is the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has got a right to raise issues. I invite the right honourable gentleman to check the Hansard, because I am absolutely confident that was not the question. The member went on and inserted a whole lot more information about what was alleged to be in a report. If members want questions answered, keep it succinct to that kind of question. Sadly, his colleague added a whole lot more to the question than that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, my colleague asked whether rotting sleepers were being replaced with visually sound sleepers, given that there was a report saying that the sleepers should be test bored before being used. That is simply adding information; it is not asking a second question, a supplementary question, or an additional question. It simply asked: “Was there an order for rotting sleepers to be replaced with ‘visually sound’ sleepers, given that there was a report saying they should be inspection bored?”. That is pretty clear. He did not add anything else to it. I do not need the Hansard; I have got the question here. It was targeted to make sure it passed even your inspection.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the right honourable gentleman, but I heard the member insert a whole lot more into his question. I could have assisted so much more if the member had asked just a simple question: “Will replacement sleepers be required to be tested by whatever?”. That is a straight question, and I can make sure the Minister, if it is in the public interest, will answer that kind of question. But where a whole lot more stuff is put in, members run the risk of Ministers being able to pick on some of that and dispute it, and that is the end of the matter. I dearly would like to be able to help the member, but I cannot turn the wheel back and say to the Minister: “Look, the member meant to ask this, and therefore I think the Minister should answer that.” I cannot do that. I have got to work with the question actually asked. The member has a further supplementary question. If he asks a specific question, I will make sure that he gets an answer.

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first question I asked was asking about the replacement of the rotting sleepers. It was in the point of order that I actually gave the additional information, but the first question was quite succinct.

Mr SPEAKER: As I understand it, the member has two further supplementary questions. I understand what the member is trying to get, and he has two questions to get it. I urge the member to ask the supplementary questions, keep them succinct, and let us get the answer.

Brendan Horan: If public safety is important to the Minister, why is KiwiRail facing a general structures inspection backlog in the South Island, with some sleeper and culvert inspections being many years overdue?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Largely due to neglect by a previous Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister believe that ascertaining the internal condition of hardwood used in transport structures is best done by boring into the wood; if so, will he instruct KiwiRail to use this method—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: This is as bad as submarines in Cook Strait.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: And this is the man who got fired from his office.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise—[Interruption] Order! Look, I say to David Bennett that I am on my feet. Members will be silent. The National backbenchers know that if they interject like that, it will lead to disorder, which is not going to be helpful to anyone. I just ask them to please be patient. The member was asking a perfectly fair question, and I want to hear it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister believe that ascertaining the internal condition of hardwood used in transport structures is best done by boring into the wood; if so, will he instruct KiwiRail to use this method when inspecting sleepers, instead of the “visually sound” test outlined in internal memos?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The first point I make is that there are many engineers who will tell you that boring a hole into a beam is likely to weaken its structure, so I do not think that is a particularly smart idea in every case. Secondly, I would point out that every sleeper laid in New Zealand since the inception of New Zealand railways has been placed as a result of visual inspection. The third point I would make is that there are 6 million sleepers across the network. They are all supposed to meet the Australian hardwood standard; 100,000 do not, and 7,000 of those are already placed and will be replaced because they do not meet that standard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table a KiwiRail internal memo from Graham Boorman, dated 5 April 2012, stating that the boring test should be undertaken, unlike what the Minister has just said.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Transport Planning—2012-15 National Land Transport Programme

5. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has the Government made around transport investment?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just say to members to please be a little more reasonable on interjections. They have just been too loud today on my left. Please be a little more reasonable.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Earlier today I launched the National Land Transport Programme 2012-15, which details $12.28 billion of transport spending over the next 3 years, the largest 3-year transport spending programme in the country’s history. The programme focuses on key areas like economic development, road safety, and reduction of congestion. The Government is committed to making important investments while getting the best value for taxpayers in this big infrastructure spend.

Jami-Lee Ross: How is the Government showing its commitment to public transport?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government is investing over—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister. [Interruption] Listen, I am on my feet. [Interruption] Can Ministers, on this occasion, please be restrained. How can I ask the Labour front bench to be interjecting less if I have Ministers carrying on like that? Please, members, be a little more reasonable.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it was, but was it not one of the Government members who said he is not as bad as Paul Goldsmith?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the House has had its fun.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government is investing over $1.7 billion in public transport—an increase of 21 percent on the 2009-12 actual spend. This includes spending on new infrastructure like new rolling stock, improvements in ticketing, and real-time systems in urban centres. The Government believes in public transport as an important element in solving congestion problems in major cities.

Jami-Lee Ross: How is the Government investing in local roads?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Another good-news story here: under the National Land Transport Programme 2012-15, the Government is investing over $4 billion, which is an increase of 14 percent on the 2009-12 actual spend. No roading controlling authority is receiving less funding than its previous allocation. In July 2011 the Government formed the Road Maintenance Task Force to drive value for money and seek opportunities to reduce costs in roading authorities around the country. The interim findings will also help the New Zealand Transport Agency and local authorities to work together to achieve greater efficiencies in tough economic times.

Jami-Lee Ross: How is the Government continuing to invest in State highways, including the roads of national significance?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This is a particularly good story. The Government is committed to the State highway network, including the roads of national significance programme. It is investing over $5 billion over the next 3 years—7 percent more than in the previous programme. These roads will improve access to our ports and markets, and are linked to our five largest centres of economic activity. The Victoria Park Tunnel, the first of the roads of national significance, was completed in 2012, under the stewardship of the previous Minister of Transport, ahead of schedule and within budget. The Waikato Expressway, the Tauranga Eastern Link, the western ring route, the Wellington Northern Corridor, the Pūhoi to Wellsford road, and the Christchurch motorways will all be progressed in the next short while.

Phil Twyford: Is it not true that today’s announcements really show that local roads and State highway maintenance continue to be starved to pay for his gold-plated motorway projects, that KiwiRail is being set up to fail, and that now he is having to borrow and raise taxes to make up for his wasteful mismanagement?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, it shows that the member asking the question has a very dismal view of the portfolio.

Child Poverty—Prime Minister’s Statements on Financial Support and Living Standards

6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “I don’t want to see any New Zealand child in poverty”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister): The Prime Minister stands by his full statement, which is: “I don’t want to see any New Zealand child in poverty, and one thing I’m absolutely committed to is making sure they get a decent education, so they can choose their own life, but I think the argument here has to be to move people out of welfare into work.” That was reinforced by the child poverty report released yesterday, which says that a parent obtaining full-time paid employment is the most important event to lift a child out of poverty.

Metiria Turei: Why has the Prime Minister scorned the idea of a new child payment, which has been recommended by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty as a key way to eliminate child poverty in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The comments were made because a universal payment does not target those in most need.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with the household incomes report that shows that universal superannuation has contained poverty for older New Zealanders to just 7 percent, while child poverty is at a high of 21 percent, which is one in five New Zealand children?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It makes many, many assertions and the member can pick off bits and pieces of it if she likes, but overall what it says is that the best way to deal with child poverty in New Zealand is to ensure that there are employment opportunities for people who are caregivers or parents. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Metiria Turei’s question.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman, a member of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, that in New Zealand we have compulsory superannuation for all older people, regardless of their income, and so we should also have universal support for our youngest and most vulnerable children?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: She is correct in what she says about the superannuation system, but what I would say is that when it comes to protecting vulnerable New Zealanders, we have a welfare system that in fact does discriminate in favour of, allocate larger amounts of money to, those who are caregivers. But what we can be certain of is that if parents and caregivers have work, you will lessen the prospect of child poverty.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he acknowledge that two out of five children living in poverty are in the homes of families who are in work?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, and that is why we are placing a huge focus on growing the economy. Our opponents seem to think that people’s income situations can be advantaged by stifling an economy, by saying no to everything that might grow an economy, and that is not going to lift anybody, let alone any child, out of a difficult circumstance.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister think that the Children’s Commissioner is wrong to conclude that a universal child payment for children aged to 6, and then targeted until age 7, would in fact capture very few wealthy families, but ensure that those kids who are most in need get the help that they do need?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not agree with that statement, and I am surprised that the member can come into this House and regularly criticise the Government for apparently putting in place a tax system that advantages the highest earners, and then make a case for the highest earners to receive a universal child benefit. That does not make sense, and it will not lift a single child out of poverty. What will is supporting economic growth in this country, and it is a shame the member and her party do not wake up and realise that.

Jacinda Ardern: If, as he says, his Government’s focus has been on growing the economy for those in poverty, why has the latest income report shown that those in poverty have stayed in poverty, those in the middle have gone backwards, and those on upper incomes have all improved their economic status?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Once again, you go to the particular measure that might be used, and on two pages of the report, page 81 and page 82, there are conflicting informations about the difference between incomes in New Zealand. What it does show very clearly, though, is that between the years 2000 and 2005 the income disparity in New Zealand—inequity—was at its widest point. Even though we have had this spike up, due to very, very real circumstances in this country and internationally, we are nowhere near those huge gap levels of the early 2000s to mid-2000s.

Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that the figures he just quoted from were before Working for Families had had its impact in terms of reducing inequality in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is no evidence to suggest that Working for Families has been taken away, because it has not. Therefore, any suggestion—[Interruption] Well, it is quite simple. The gap between those income groups was in the years 2000 to 2005. I do not think it is fair to say that the figures in here do not show an effect when, in fact, our opponents will not accept that the figures in here do show the effect of the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about the impact that Working for Families has had on inequality, and on the figures that the Acting Prime Minister was quoting. I have not come away with a clear answer from the Acting Prime Minister. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Gerry Brownlee, to answer further. [Interruption] Order!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, in the graph on page 81 that shows the greatest disparity—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister—just one moment. Look, the member asking the question raised a point of order that her question had not been answered. The Minister realised he did not answer that part of the question, he is now answering it and I believe it is reasonable he should be heard. There is too much noise.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: On the two graphs that I am talking to, on pages 81 and 82, the greatest disparity is shown in the years 2000 to 2005, under a Labour Government, but on the other graph between those same years the trend line is flat. So that would not support the argument being put forward by the member.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister tell reporters yesterday that “the very targeted” Working for Families payments were a better option than a universal child payment, when that very targeted in-work tax credit system deliberately excludes the poorest children in this country—those whose parents cannot work?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are two things that need to be pointed out there. The first is “in work”, and that is our focus. We want more people who are currently having to live on benefits to be in work. The second point was “can’t find work”. We want people to make themselves work-ready, and we are prepared to assist them to get work-ready. So let us be very, very clear: if people are working, they need to be given an opportunity to get the benefit of their work. When it comes to people who are not working, it seems strange—you just do not put benefits up to destroy the prospect of work in the first place.

Metiria Turei: Since the Prime Minister has now rejected a universal child payment in favour of targeted assistance, will he support the Green Party member’s bill that replaces the in-work tax credit with a child payment targeted at the poorest children in New Zealand, those who need it the most; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The figures here speak for themselves. There are many people in work who need that assistance, so we are not going to take it away. Therefore, we will not support the Green Party bill.

Welfare Reforms—Purpose

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): My question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Have the members at the back of the House quite finished? Because I want to be able to hear Tim Macindoe.

7. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for Social Development: Why is the Government making changes to the welfare system?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): We believe that work is the best path out of poverty—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. Look, the noise is unreasonable today. The Minister had not even started to say a word and there was a barrage of noise from the Opposition benches, and that is not reasonable. I ask members just to be a little more reasonable—that is all.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We believe that work is the best pathway out of poverty. That is why more than 88,000 people cancelled their benefit last year to go into work. That does not count those—[Interruption] It is in your own time. But that does not include those who have travelled overseas.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, it does.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, it is those who left welfare to go into work—more than 88,000 people. It is well and truly in line with the recent Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty report, which says: “Research indicates that a parent obtaining full-time paid employment is the most important event to lift children out of poverty.” [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Before I go to Tim Macindoe, I say, in fairness, to the Hon Trevor Mallard that the level of interjection is just unreasonable. The continual yelling across the House is not necessary during question time. Interjections can be made, but that is just unreasonable. I call Tim Macindoe. [Interruption] Order! How does that help? Tim Macindoe.

Tim Macindoe: What do we know about—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Look, the House has had a bit of fun today, but it has got totally unreasonable and some members will have an early shower if we do not get this under better control. Let us just take a deep breath and get this under control. We are meant to be grown up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that, seeing as the public are watching this, someone should rush to say that on this side of the House we have a shower in the morning; we do not come here unclean. I cannot speak for the other side over there.

Mr SPEAKER: I think none of this is terribly helpful. We must get on with question time. It is not fair to the public if there is too much noise, because they cannot hear clearly, and that is simply not fair. I ask members to show a little more respect.

Tim Macindoe: What do we know about the outcomes for families and children who are welfare dependent?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are people in work who struggle to make ends meet, and there is no doubt about that, but all research indicates that paid work is generally not just good for your bank account but also good for your mental and physical well-being, and that is why this Government has a clear focus on the benefits of work for those who are welfare dependent.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No.—[Interruption] Supplementary question, Tim Macindoe.

Tim Macindoe: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. There was a member opposite in the House and I was offering her a chance. How will an investment approach support the Government’s welfare reforms?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We currently put 90 percent of our employment assistance funding into the unemployment benefit, yet the expert advisory group highlights that sole parenthood is a major factor of poverty. Surely, then, it makes sense to redirect support where it is needed most, and the investment approach will do that.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she believe that there is a period when a child will be better off with their sole parent at home caring for them; if so, up to what age?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen research that actually shows indications that in some instances it is for short periods of time, and for other parents it is for different and longer periods of time. So I do not put an actual month or year date on it. I think that it is different for different families, and that they should have that choice.

Children, Pasifika—Expert Advisory Group Report and Better Public Services Targets

8. Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister for Pacific Island Affairs: Does she agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that “For New Zealand to do well, Pasifika children must do well”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister for Pacific Island Affairs): I do agree with that statement. That is why the National Government has committed to delivering 10 challenging Better Public Services results within the next 3 to 5 years. Many of these targets prioritise Pasifika children and the aiga. For example, 98 percent of children starting school will have participated in quality early childhood education by 2016, 85 percent of all 18-year-olds will have achieved National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 or equivalent, or better, in 2017, and the incidence of rheumatic fever will be reduced by two-thirds to 1.4 cases per 100,000 by June 2017.

Su’a William Sio: Given that on some measures 40 percent of Pasifika children live in poverty, which of the measures put forward by the expert advisory group will she support in order to halve child poverty among the Pacific community?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: A quality education that secures a quality qualification will put all young Pasifika learners on a better pathway. In fact, the draft report says at page 22: “The most important factors in improving Pasifika schooling outcomes is quality teaching practice and professional leadership that connects with Pasifika students, their families, and the wider community. There are initiatives in hand that aim to address Pasifika underachievement: the implementation of national standards in primary schooling, the development of Trades Academies, a greater range of pathways in secondary education, and the Pasifika Education Plan. We endorse”—says the expert advisory group—“all the Better Public Services Targets for education.”

Su’a William Sio: Does she agree with the expert advisory group that Pasifika children are currently not well served by the New Zealand education system; if so, will she be raising her concerns about current education policies, like increasing early childhood education fees, with the Minister of Education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am concerned that the New Zealand education system has not served Pasifika learners as well as it can and will, and that is why we are investing in not only early childhood education; in Vote Education 2012-13 $47.9 million of equity funding was directed explicitly at the issue of how we raise the level of Pasifika engagement, participation, and retention in early childhood education.

Su’a William Sio: Does she consider it her responsibility to help create job opportunities for Pasifika youth; if so, what opportunities has she created, given that the unemployment rate for Pasifika girls aged 20 years is a staggering 50.3 percent higher than the youth unemployment rate in Italy and just below Greece’s rate?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do indeed believe that both in this portfolio as Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and as the Minister of Education I do have a responsibility to contribute to young Pasifika being able to attain employment. The fastest and most sustainable way of doing that is to raise the quality of educational achievement. Both my portfolios are directed at that outcome.

Su’a William Sio: Is she aware that Pasifika households have seen the biggest declines in income since the 1990s, according to the household income report from the Ministry of Social Development; if so, what action, if any, has her ministry taken over the last 4 years to prevent Pasifika households being disproportionately affected by the recession?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs has been engaged in a number of projects that have been directed to this end. The Pacific Employment Support Services has seen 61 percent of its 434 participants into sustainable employment. The ministry has been involved in the youth skills and development initiatives, working with the churches across New Zealand to secure trade training places—300 of those. It has been involved with the Ministry of Education in revising the Pasifika Education Plan so that we can see 1,100 more Pasifika people achieving an NCEA level 2 or equivalent qualification over the next 5 years, because the most sustainable way of achieving employment for Pasifika learners is for them to have an excellent education.

Su’a William Sio: I seek leave to table unpublished Statistics New Zealand data obtained from the Parliamentary Library for the June 2012 quarter, highlighting significant unemployment for Pasifika youth.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Health Targets—Immunisation of 2-year-olds and Change of Target Age

9. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister of Health: What progress can he report on immunising young children against common infectious diseases like whooping cough and measles?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The latest quarterly national health targets will be published tomorrow. In 2007 only 67 percent of 2-year-olds were immunised on time against the most common childhood diseases. Tomorrow the figures will show that the country has achieved 93 percent immunisation coverage for 2-year-olds. What is most significant is that the families that achieved the highest immunisation rate were the most well-off families in New Zealand and also the poorest families in New Zealand—both on 94 percent. Pacific Island and Asian children have the highest immunisation rates of all—97 percent and 98 percent. With Māori children at 92 percent fully immunised, there is virtually no gap to the overall rate of 93 percent.

Dr Cam Calder: What further progress does he intend making with immunisation rates?

Hon TONY RYALL: We are now changing the national immunisation target to focus not on 2-year-olds but on 8-month-olds, so that they get their primary immunisations at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 5 months. Younger children are the most vulnerable to these infectious diseases—61 percent of all hospitalisations for whooping cough are, in fact, infants. The new target will ensure that our children are vaccinated earlier and on time. The Government is also making it easier for parents to get their babies immunised at the right time. We have introduced at-birth enrolment, which means that maternity unit staff will be able to notify general practices of a child’s birth before the mother and baby leave the maternity unit.

Child Poverty—Expert Advisory Group Report Recommendations on Housing

10. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing: Which of the recommendations on housing from the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty will he implement?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): I note that the paper contains many proposals that are worthy of serious consideration and that complement many existing initiatives. However, the paper is currently a draft. It has been released for public comment and is not expected to be submitted to the Government until later this year in its final form. I look forward to working with my colleagues in due course on the Government’s response.

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that there is a lack of supply of housing, especially in Auckland, leading to overcrowding, temporary housing shortages, and homelessness, and it is linked to affordability?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Yes, I agree with many aspects of the report. Many of them are not news to me or this Government. They may be news to the Labour Party.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Was that necessary? It was a straight question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member’s point is fair enough that the member did, in fact, ask a very specific question. The Minister said he agreed with many aspects of the report. He did not actually answer as to whether he agreed with that aspect. And as he gave an unnecessary comment at the end, he will now get to his feet and answer the question.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I agree with many aspects of the report, and many of the examples in the report. The conclusions that the member read out, I agree with. She raised several about overcrowding, expensive housing in Auckland, and so forth.

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that there is a limited stock of community housing and there are policy impediments to its expansion?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Yes, and that is why we are working hard with community housing organisations to increase the stock in Auckland and elsewhere across the country. I believe that in the last 3½ years we have jointly funded—that is, a collaborative approach, where we have put up $1 and they have put up $2—about 700 new builds across New Zealand, many of them in Auckland. We are very proud of our relationship with the community housing sector.

Hon Annette King: Does he agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that the Government needs to take immediate action to increase the number of social and affordable houses; if so, why, after 4 years as Minister, can he not identify which State houses are in the wrong place, are the wrong size, and are in poor condition?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: We do agree that we need an increase in social housing across New Zealand. We have said—at least, I have said in the last year or two—that the Housing New Zealand Corporation will contribute to new housing. In fact, we have supplied 2,000 new builds or leased new builds over the last 4 years. However, it is the community housing sector that we see as the area for growth. We are saying that State housing and the Government cannot do it alone. That is why I am very proud of our record of working with the community housing sector to increase the housing supply throughout New Zealand.

Hon Annette King: Why is he unable to identify which State houses are in the wrong place, are the wrong size, and are in poor condition—something that he has been saying for 4 years but is unable to provide in terms of an answer to this House?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Well, I will give the House two examples of where houses are in poor condition or they are the wrong size or whatever it is. One is in Farmer Crescent, where we decided to remove those ugly State houses and all the problems that came with them, and the Labour Party opposed us doing that. The other place is in Tāmaki, where we have got 3,000 State houses on quarter-acre or half-acre sections. Interestingly, the Mana Party, the Green Party, and the Labour Party are opposing us fixing up those houses as well. So everywhere we identify old, cold, and mouldy State houses on large sections that are the wrong size, the Labour Party opposes us doing something about it.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance. I asked this question because I have asked it in a written form, and the Minister said he is unable to provide me with the information as to where State houses are in the wrong place, of the wrong size, and in poor condition. But today he has started to provide some answers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the member is now debating the Minister’s answer. I mean, I cannot be party to all that information. The Minister did answer the question asked. The member asked why he could not identify certain things, and the Minister explained what happened when the Government did identify certain things and why it was difficult. It was an answer to the question.

State Housing—Number of Houses Insulated

11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Housing: How many State houses have been made warmer and drier under this Government?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): Over the last 3½ years the Government has taken improving the condition of the State housing stock and the living conditions of our tenants very seriously. Over 19,000 State houses have been identified and found, and then they have been insulated in that time. Over 9,000 houses received a new form of heating. Altogether we have invested over $75 million in energy-efficiency retrofits and heating upgrades. We have got just under 8,000 houses to go. We hope to have those insulated by the end of next year.

Melissa Lee: What other improvements have been made to the State housing stock under this Government?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Government has invested over $300 million in upgrading State housing stock so that thousands more of our tenants are living in houses that are fit for purpose. In addition, we have also spent over $600 million on acquiring over 2,000 new State houses—new builds or new-build leases—in the right place, of the right size, and of good quality. We are partnering with the community housing sector and have co-funded projects that will result in 700 new houses. We have spent, on average, over $200 million a year on maintenance, compared with $133 million a year under the previous Labour Government.

Melissa Lee: What other initiatives has the Government taken to support the provision of housing for those most in need?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Recently, over $37 million allocated in the 2011-12 Budget for social housing projects by community housing organisations was handed over. This will result in 250 new houses for affordable rental and homeownership across the country. A further $104 million is appropriated over the next 3 years. The Government is also looking at opportunities to use Crown land or State housing stock to grow the community housing sector.

Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference 2012—Cost to Government

12. STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What is the cost of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment acting as a founding partner of the 2012 Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference; and what is the total cost of all Government sponsorship of this conference?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): I am advised that the cost to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is $100,000. I am further advised that a number of Crown research institutes are also sponsors of the conference, but given that Crown research institutes are only partly Government funded, it is not possible to quantify the Government funding used by Crown research institutes to sponsor the conference as well. The goal of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s funding of the conference is to promote New Zealand’s expertise in agriculture, innovation, science, and technology, which helps our credibility and reputation in the global market place. One of the ministry’s key roles is to facilitate connections between scientists and users, and an international conference of this scope is an excellent way to showcase New Zealand’s research and development capabilities and advances to a global audience.

Steffan Browning: Is the fact that the Government is sponsoring this conference financially an endorsement that genetically modifying crops is the right direction for the New Zealand economy, despite the risk of this approach to our clean, green advantage?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. The Government’s role in sponsoring this conference and what it is seeking to achieve is to bring a world-quality agricultural biotechnology conference to New Zealand to discuss a whole range of agricultural technology issues.

Steffan Browning: What economic return, if any, has the Government seen from its investment of tens of millions of dollars in genetically engineered pasture plants?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have that particular matter to hand, but what I can tell the member is that, in a broader sense, New Zealand’s investment in agricultural technology has been absolutely fundamental to our economic success over decades and decades.

Steffan Browning: I seek leave to table a report by the Sustainability Council that shows that tens of millions of dollars of Government money have been spent on GE pasture plants, with no return.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Steffan Browning: Is he concerned that the New Zealand Crown research institutes sponsoring this conference have all seriously breached their GE field trial approval conditions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I am not aware that that is the case, but I am concerned that the Crown research institutes periodically get attacked at their GE facilities. For example, recently, I think $100,000 worth of crops were damaged at a Scion facility by Wild Greens activists. I think that is a difficulty because that actually does create risks.

Steffan Browning: I seek leave to table the 2009 Plant and Food Research report prepared for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand that shows that Plant and Food Research breached its own GE field trial conditions.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Steffan Browning: I seek leave to table the University of Canterbury’s 2011 report that shows that AgResearch breached its GE field trial monitoring requirements.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is publicly available.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, members can object. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Steffan Browning: I seek leave to table the 2008 MAF Biosecurity New Zealand report that shows that Scion has breached its GE field trial conditions.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

General Debate

General Debate

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We have been sitting here today—actually, over the last 2 days—listening to the Government desperately trying to defend its record on poverty in New Zealand. It is trying to defend its record against three reports—three reports, not just one. Those are The Netherlands Study, the Ministry of Social Development’s report Household incomes in New Zealand, and the Children’s Commissioner’s report, all of which are saying exactly the same thing: that poverty has gone up in New Zealand. More than 250,000 children are now living in poverty. We now have the highest level of poverty that we have seen in the last 20 years. Not since the 1990s—the early 1990s—have we seen such record levels of poverty. And hardship, material hardship for young people and children, has gone up from 16 percent to 21 percent of children in this country.

That is a disgrace. It is a bloody disgrace that our country is in that situation where children are in such conditions. We are seeing in the hospitals rheumatic fever, skin diseases, and respiratory diseases—all of these sorts of diseases that you would see not in a place like New Zealand but in a place like the Third World. These are places that I have seen and worked in before, and here we are, seeing them in this country. It is a disgrace.

What we hear from the other side of the House is that all we need to do is make sure that everybody is in full employment. Well, I agree that full employment is a wonderful thing, and under the Labour Government that is exactly what we had—3.5 percent unemployment. But I can tell you that the biggest problem here is that 40 percent of those kids who are in poverty—40 percent—are actually from families where there is employment. There is employment in those families. What does that tell you? It tells you, very simply, that we are not paying enough.

This Government, John Key’s Government, is actually aiming for the bottom. It is aiming for a low-wage economy rather than a high-wage economy. What that means is that one in five people who go to the Salvation Army to get food parcels come from families who are in poverty and are working. When this Government says that all we need to do is to put people into work, it overlooks the fact that the rates of pay are so low for many of these families that they will not be able to avoid going into poverty. They will not be able to avoid bringing up their children without the benefits that they need in order to thrive.

The other big question about going for full employment is the absolutely obvious one. Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that are meant to be supplied to those people who need to move into employment? They are not there. John Key gave a number of statements, a number of promises, over the last few months. He said: “I am prepared to commit Government resources to try to lift children out of poverty.” We have failed. He said: “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty.” So is Labour, but what has happened? Nothing. He also said: “We will bring a special focus to improving the results of public services for vulnerable children.” The only problem is that we are going backwards, not forwards. A string of empty phrases and empty promises does not actually help.

The Ministerial Committee on Poverty is a joke. It has met four times. It cannot even come up with a measurement on poverty. There is a really good reason for that, because if you come up with a measurement, you actually have to be measured against it. If this Government is measured against a poverty measure, it will be found to be wanting. It will be found to have failed. So we have this Ministerial Committee on Poverty that keeps on just meeting, month after month after month, and nothing is coming out of it. We actually offered—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this general debate. I listened to the last 5 minutes of the member who has resumed his seat, Mr David Shearer, the current leader—apparently—of the Labour Party, and I looked for, heard, and waited for one solution. There was not one. There, I think, is the essence of what is going on in this Parliament. We have in Government a Government that makes decisions. We have in the Opposition one that does nothing but whinge. Every single thing that this Government proposes for economic growth, the Opposition is against. We can be guaranteed of one thing: whatever it is, the Opposition is against it. The Leader of the Opposition has said that it is against poverty. Fine, so where are his solutions? Is he for growth? No. Is he for mining? Well, possibly this week but maybe not next. Is he for cutting down regulation? Well, no, probably not, because something else might happen. He just wants wages to grow, and yet he does not think about the consequences. He does not think about people actually losing their jobs. He does not think about where we trade, because he is against trade these days. We have now got a Labour Party that is nothing except opposition; it is pro-nothing, except itself.

We have had, in fact, over the last 2 years 60,000 new jobs created in this economy, despite the fact that we have been in one of the toughest financial situations of the world since the 1930s. That is what we have seen. We now have three-quarters of all income earners paying a tax rate of no more than 17.5 percent.

They are incentivised to work. They are incentivised to take on overtime. They are incentivised to get ahead. One of the biggest efforts from this Government—one of the biggest results of the work that we have done in Government—is what we have seen in terms of interest rates. For most New Zealanders who want to own their own home, or do own their own home, a rise in interest rates is one of the toughest things that they will face. What we have now seen are interest rates for our home owners and our borrowers in business down to the lowest rates in 45 years. This means that for someone who has a $200,000 loan, they are saving $200 per week, every week, and it has been going like that pretty much since this Government has been in office. That is all to do with the fact that this Government is keeping its costs down, making sure that all of the money we spend, we spend wisely.

By goodness, when I think about wise spending, none of it has been so wise, might I say to my colleagues, as in the justice sector. Some fantastic spending has gone on there, and some great results. This Government has not just done what Labour did—just build new prisons, which it did in the 2000s under Phil Goff and his leadership in this area. Four new prisons were built. Well, we did not have to do that. My colleague Anne Tolley is getting to close prisons these days. When Labour came into office we had 5,000 prisoners; when it left, it left us with 8,500 prisoners. We have now got the biggest sustainable drop in the prison population since the 1930s, all under a National Government. In all of that, what we have done is we have, in fact—

Hon Phil Goff: So lucky with what she inherited from a Labour Government.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He says that I am so lucky. I inherited corrections from that member and I would like to tell him that it was a mess when I took it over, and it is a great portfolio now.

Let us look at some of the other things we are doing. We are cracking down—[Interruption] See? They are against that, too—against that. What we have got is the lowest crime rate in 30 years, down to 1982 levels. We are dealing with cyber-bullying, we are dealing with child pornography, we are dealing with public protection orders, we are reducing unnecessary parole hearings, we are preventing released offenders living next door to their victims under the changes to the Harassment Act, and we have changed the Crimes Act to make it an offence for someone to stay silent when they know children are being abused in the house where they are living, just like the Kāhui situation. We are dealing with that and we have cleaned up the finances around that. We have done some excellent work, and we have got more to come. That is just some of the work that we are working on.

But, actually, in addition to all of that, we have given renewed confidence to the Public Service to be able to get on to do the best job it can. With the police, we have a police force with public confidence at record highs, as far as I recall, at 84 percent—84 percent. They are even more trusted than family general practitioners. These are unbelievable rates compared with anywhere else in the world. I look around at other Governments in similar countries, in some of the jurisdictions in Australia and the UK and elsewhere. We are seeing police numbers drop in this country. Crime is not going up; it is going down. We have done an excellent job and there is even better to come.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): This week there has been a lot of focus, particularly from the Opposition, on the issue of child poverty. It is very welcome. I understand from my communications with the community that people are very concerned about child poverty and very concerned about inequality, and they want this House and the parliamentary process to address this. They want the Government to provide solutions and to make the choices that will put our children first in all the decisions that are made. What I have heard most is this great disappointment at the dismissive and arrogant attitude of the Government in relation to this issue. The community wants to see much better quality leadership than the National Government is providing to the country on this important issue. It shows that the National Government does not put children as a priority and that it is not prepared to engage in a rational and sensible debate on what can be done to resolve child poverty in this country. Child poverty is not a given in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member speaking. I hate to interrupt a 5-minute speech, but members interjecting across the House and in front of the member speaking, it is so discourteous. I ask members to desist, please.

METIRIA TUREI: Child poverty is not a given in this country. It is not a natural condition and we do not need to tolerate any aspect of child poverty in this country. We can choose something different. We can choose to eliminate it by choosing where we put the resources of this country.

There have been a number of reports that have come out over the last few weeks. The Every Child Counts report on The Netherlands Study showed a very interesting comparison. In the Netherlands, if you take an investment approach to children when they are very young, you reap the rewards. New Zealand has a very low investment in New Zealand children, something like half of the OECD average that is spent for those under-sixes. But in other countries, where there has been significant investment in those little children and babies, there have been significant cost savings and social savings as a result. We know that the cost to New Zealand of child poverty is in the range of $6 billion to $8 billion a year. That is a cost this country cannot afford.

So why do we not, then, take some leadership and invest in the babies and the kids when they are very young? That is part of the sets of solutions that have been put forward by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, formed by the Children’s Commissioner. The Children’s Commissioner’s advisory group has produced a very comprehensive set of solutions that it is consulting with the communities on so that people can have an input into it, as they want to do. But we need the Government to be taking it seriously, and all we have heard since that report came out is constant derision at the solutions that are being proposed, and no engagement in the practical aspects of them.

One of the interesting questions is around universalism, and I have asked a number of questions today and yesterday about this issue, and will continue to do so. If we are prepared to say that older people are entitled to a life of dignity and a basic income to keep them out of poverty, why do we not say that about our youngest babies? Why are our babies allowed to languish in severe poverty? Twenty percent of New Zealand’s children are living in severe poverty in this country, and this Government chooses to allow that to happen. It chooses that, because it refuses to engage with a discussion on how we can support those babies when they need it the most and support those families when they need it the most.

The expert advisory group has suggested a universal provision until the children are aged 6—so investment in those little babies when they need it the most—and then targeted provision until those kids are 17. It is a rational, sensible, and modest approach to child investment. Yet this Government will not even engage in the discussion about where we choose to put our resources. New Zealanders make a contribution to this country every day through their taxes, through their hours of community service, and through all of the work that they do, and they deserve to have a rational response back to them. They deserve to have services that assist them when they need them. The solutions that are provided in this report, Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand, go a very long way to identifying those solutions and what can be done.

What has the Government done? It has effectively thrown it away. It has been dismissive and arrogant in its response. There is still the opportunity for the Government to choose differently. There is still the time for the Government to take a considered view of this report, to look at the solutions, and to engage with political parties and politicians across the board, with the community, and with the experts to look at what is possible. We ask the Government to take this report seriously—

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. In regards to the previous speaker, Metiria Turei, look, everybody in this House, I think, will want to see children do well and children be successful. In fact, I think probably most of us are here to see the future of our children be enhanced and improved for the benefit of the whole country. The problem is the diagnosis of how to do that. The Greens, unfortunately, constantly talk about doing it, but then actually oppose ways in which we can get families to earn more income. They oppose job opportunities for families and oppose opportunities for growing businesses. In fact, right this afternoon there is an example. We had one of the members of the Greens getting up and criticising a worldwide agritechnology and biotechnology conference being held in New Zealand, and saying it should not be here because of some of the subjects that are being discussed—discussed, mind you, not implemented—and saying that that is something that should not happen in this country.

The Greens have no shortage of things that should not happen in this country, and most of the things they want to stop are the things that would give families incomes, and things that would help the economy grow and provide job opportunities and higher wages for New Zealanders. This Government is determined to put our children first by focusing on those opportunities for New Zealanders. We have got a comprehensive plan. One example, just this afternoon, is our investment in infrastructure. Mr Brownlee is going out and laying out the plan, which Labour and the Greens have opposed. They want to stop the plan. They want to invest more in transport that nobody uses, instead of the transport that people use, thereby reducing the competitiveness of the New Zealand economy.

We are also very focused on a natural resources agenda, which is also something opposed by most of the parties on the other side of the House. One thing we can all agree on, I think, is that we are focused on building innovation. We are spending massive amounts investing in that, and that is probably one thing they would agree on. Then, when it comes to capital markets, if you are going to build exports—one for Mr Peters opposite—that needs investment. That investment has to come from overseas, and that means not being paranoid about Chinese investment in this country. That means not being paranoid about Chinese investment. This Government is not being paranoid about that. So when you take infrastructure, our skills agenda, natural resources, innovation, export markets, capital markets, the competitive tax system, which Minister Collins referred to, and our approach to balancing the books and giving confidence to businesses and keeping interest rates low, this Government has a comprehensive agenda, which New Zealanders know and endorse.

The alternative is one of the flimsiest bits of paper that I have seen in many a day—David Parker’s midnight scribblings, Labour members’ so-called alternative. One hundred words in total. One page, 100 words in total, about what they would do if they were in Government. It is no wonder Labour is languishing at 30-odd percent in the polls. This is the most appalling piece of flimsy, lightweight information I think I have seen.

Here are a few examples of some of the initiatives that the Opposition is promoting. Changing gear—they would like to change gear. No idea what that means. There is no elaboration on what that means. There is a website, apparently, that you can go to if you want to change gear. So, there you go, that is the Labour Party’s approach—changing gear. Grow the heartland—well, we are all in favour of growing the heartland. How are they going to do it? High-value manufacturing—well, yes, we are all in favour. Hang on, what else is here? Warm puppies—they are positive about warm puppies. Motherhood—that is another. Apple pie is supported by the Labour Party. In fact, all of these things are simple platitudes. The party that accuses us of being lightweight is the most lightweight party on the planet.

Here is my favourite: saying that New Zealand should save more. Well, I have visions of David Parker being elected one day in the 22nd century, wearing a sandwich board, wandering around the country, exhorting New Zealanders “Save more. Save more.” Well, aside from the fact that, actually, they are saving more—and if they save more that would probably slow down the productive economy a little bit at this point, because they are already saving a lot—and aside from the stupid economics, it is the most appalling lack of any sort of initiatives. And they think that that is some sort of plan. That is not a plan; that is a series of sound bites that say absolutely nothing. They have the gall to get up and criticise the Government’s agenda, and then wander around with a flimsy piece of paper, with 100 words on it, that achieves absolutely nothing.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): In the light of three hard-hitting reports in as many weeks, the best we can get from the Government is mockery. At least Minister Joyce has moved away from his laminated cards for one small moment to spend a little time talking about a party that actually has an economic plan. We have seen an absolute failure from that side of the House to adequately respond to the needs of New Zealand families, which have been highlighted in reports as diverse as the Ministry of Social Development’s own report on household incomes in New Zealand. The report has shown that material deprivation under that Government has moved from 15 to 21 percent. That is the inability of families to do basic things like going to the doctor, like filling prescriptions, and like keeping their homes warm.

But if the Government chooses to use another measure—and this is a controversial point for that side of the House, because measurement is not something they would like us to focus on—such as income, on a basic measure as to whether or not New Zealanders have enough income to survive, 25 percent of our children are now living in poverty. That is an absolute disgrace. Not only is it a disgrace, but it is costing us dearly. So as much as that Government claims that we do not have the money to address this issue, we actually cannot afford not to. Infometrics tells us that we are spending—

Mike Sabin: A family on $50,000 income, parents with two children: tax neutral.

JACINDA ARDERN:—Mr Sabin, $6 billion per annum on children getting a poor start in life. If that Government wants to save money for taxpayers, the best thing it could do is address under-investment in our most vulnerable children. And we are under-investing. We spend roughly half of what other OECD nations do on our smallest, most vulnerable children, and we pay the price of that, and we pay it poorly. Not only do other OECD nations pay just a little bit more than us, they get much better outcomes.

So what is my challenge to that Government? Do not ignore the facts. That Government stands up and says that simply by moving people into work, problem solved. Well, let us look at how it has done that: welfare reforms that actually will not, even on the best estimate, get welfare numbers down to the level that Labour, when in Government, left them in. Labour left welfare in a better state than that Government is even aspiring to: 17,000 people on an unemployment benefit versus 50,000 now. Its own targets are not even aspirational enough to get it back there. First, welfare reforms alone are not going to solve it. Second, is being in work is enough? Not according to the statistics, because two out of five children in poverty are already in the homes of the working poor. That means that that Government’s focus on getting people into work is not even enough for people to survive these days, even with two members of the family in work. Wages are disgracefully low in this country, and that Government claims that job creation and its economic growth strategy is helping working New Zealand families.

Mike Sabin: How many initiatives has that member opposed to grow the economy? Oh, that’s right, all of them.

JACINDA ARDERN: Do you know how it helped, Mr Sabin? In the past 3 years, poverty went static, the middle went backwards, and those on high incomes went up. That was not the global financial crisis, Mr Sabin. That was an economic policy that was focused on two things: trickle-down and tax cuts for those who did not need them. That was your economic plan, and our children are paying for that, Mr Sabin.

What else has the Government proposed? It has proposed immunisation, insulation, and, at best, maybe it might consider lunches in schools. These are short-term solutions to long-term problems. That Government does not want to acknowledge that rheumatic fever will not be fixed by swabbing.

Mike Sabin: Lots of talk, no walk.

JACINDA ARDERN: It will be fixed by decent warm houses, and you are doing nothing on that, Mr Sabin. That immunisation is actually just moving the ambulance around at the bottom of the cliff. We have got to get to the root cause of the issue, and that is something that this Government does not want to do.

This Labour Party in the last election put forward a comprehensive policy on children. We proposed many of the things that the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty has proposed, and we are not afraid to continue promoting them on behalf of those most vulnerable in New Zealand. We will start with a target to reduce child poverty. We are ambitious. We have unfinished business, and we will see it completed under a Labour Government.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): It is a privilege to take a call in this general debate. It is interesting to note that when the last speaker, Jacinda Ardern, came into Parliament, she came at the end of her party’s term in Government and faced her first term being in Opposition. She has, conveniently, been able to pull the door behind her and forget what Labour did not do when it was in Government for 9 years. A lot of the policies that Labour members are now espousing to promote and enhance, they never took anywhere near those people they now want to extend them to.

If we want to talk about Working for Families, we heard the Green Party talk about this earlier on. It is interesting to note that the Labour Party has recently been talking a lot about the Green Party and the sanctimonious way that its members are addressing the issues of today, given that they were there, supporting Labour in Government, but they never encouraged Labour down that track—for instance, to extend Working for Families to the unemployed. That is something that Labour is now wanting to do. Now that Labour is in Opposition, it is promoting something that it never went anywhere near when it was in Government and had the opportunity to do it.

When Labour left office in November 2008 we know that inflation was sitting at 5.1 percent.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How much?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It was 5.1 percent, and now it is at about 1 percent. But apparently that does not mean anything, because the only thing, apparently, that people on this side of the House are interested in is business and tax cuts for our rich mates. I would put it to members opposite that the only thing they are interested in is keeping poor people poor, because as long as they are poor, they are poor and dejected, they are interested only in voting against things that take a community anywhere, and they are interested only in voting for Labour, because Labour will never hold them to account for the decisions they make in their day-to-day lives. Labour was in Government for 9 years, but never—never—made a measure for measuring poverty. Now it wants to put in place a measure—the mean income.

Well, as incomes go up, what do you know? With a measure like that, you will have more people, supposedly, by Labour’s measure, living in poverty. I reject totally the idea of relative poverty. There are not many of us with wrinkles round our eyeballs, like Maryan Street, Annette King, me, and Rajen Prasad, who did not grow up in a lot less comfort than people live in today. If we went by Labour’s measure, we would have been where? We would have been in poverty. We would have been in poverty, if it happened that our most frequently worn clothes that we were wearing used to belong to our cousin or the neighbour next door, or if the groceries that we bought from the supermarket were a hell of a lot fewer, with a lot less of a range, because we did not have the money to spend. The veges that you got, you went and got from the garden.

Apparently, those poor people live in poverty. If they happen to live in a house that has all the opportunities to do the things that our parents did, like grow vegetables, then, apparently, they do not have the will to do that. Why? Because they live in poverty. Everybody on this planet knows that it is not what happens to you in life; it is how you respond to it. And the cards are not always dealt fairly, and people across the House, on all sides of the House, know that, because we are not stupid enough to put people into pigeonholes—

Dr Rajen Prasad: I think you are. I think the member is.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: —like Mr Rajen Prasad would, to suggest that anyone who comes from this side of the House does not know what hardship is.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh, come on.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: But I repeat that it is the way you respond to things. If Mr Prasad looks back at his history and at the way that his family responded to the circumstances they found themselves in, he will see the answer to the question why he does not live in poverty today. For instance, those people relying on the pension—people like my parents, and possibly people like the parents of members opposite—who survive on the pension as their sole income, all live in poverty. You go and ask those old-age pensioners today if they are living in poverty, and they will tell you that life is not easy, they will tell you that life has never been easy, and they will tell you that the whole of this game that we call life in Godzone is about the top 2 inches, and it is about how you respond to those things that are put in front of you. It is not about a bleeding heart and claiming that the Government needs to pay for everything. What we know, for instance, is that in the time that this Government has been in power, in the few short years that we have been here—

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): The Prime Minister has admitted that he could not live on the minimum wage. How does he expect anybody else to? How does he expect anybody else to live on the minimum wage? Forty percent of children in poverty are in homes where the parents or parent are employed, are in work. We are talking about the working poor as a developing group in our society, something that none of us ever thought we would see happen. Chester Borrows has just said that my generation did not live in anything like the poverty we are talking about today, but my parents believed that education was the way out of poverty—education was the way out of poverty. But I want to draw a couple of other things to Chester Borrows’ attention. I want to tell him that the highest income earners in this country have seen an increase in their incomes while, at the same time, middle-income earners have seen a drop in the value of their incomes, and the least well-paid have seen an even further drop.

Poverty is real. We have a report that reinforces some of the causes but also some of the effects of poverty that we know about. I want to make the link between health outcomes and poverty, because it is not sufficient now simply to say, like my parents did: “Go and get a good education, and you can drag yourselves up by the bootstraps.” Let us take one example in this report. Let us have a look at some of the connections between health and poverty. It says very clearly that children growing up in low-income households face multiple risks, so nobody starts from the same starting point. They say that these children have a 1.4 times higher risk of dying during childhood than a child from a high-income household. They are more likely to die of sudden unexplained death in infancy. They are three times more likely to be sick. Hospitalisation rates for these children are higher than for those from wealthier areas. They are at greater risk of contracting infectious diseases as these spread more easily, obviously, in houses that are overcrowded and inadequate. So these children start off way behind the starting blocks.

It is not sufficient for the Government to say that we need to grow the economy by making businesses more productive. If that were the answer, I wish it had done something about it already. But that is not happening, either. But even if it were, it would not be sufficient. There is an undercurrent of poverty in our society now that we have not seen for decades. We have certainly not seen it in my lifetime.

One of the things that I find really disturbing about this report is that we are famous for being a food-producing nation. It says that poor nutrition is a significant problem in New Zealand. Why is poor nutrition a significant problem in New Zealand? We know that poor nutrition in pregnancy can lead to premature births, low birth weights, and childhood learning and developmental difficulties. We know that. So they say we should have a child nutrition strategy. We did not have a complete child nutrition strategy when we were in Government, but we went a long way towards it. We introduced Fruit in Schools, axed by this Government. We introduced Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programmes. [Interruption] Yes, come on. Let us have the correction. Let us find out why it is that private companies are sponsoring Fruit in Schools. Private companies are sponsoring breakfasts in schools. They get really get advertising out of it, for sure. We instituted Fruit in Schools. We instituted Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programmes, which this Government has axed. We introduced tuck shop guidelines in school tuck shops, which made sure that school tuck shops offered only healthy options. What did this Government do? Cancel those.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): One of the things that seems to be a challenge for Opposition members in this House is their inability to connect the dots. The dots go like this: economic growth leads to increased exports, which leads to increased jobs, which means higher wages for families, and for children, which means more children out of poverty. I am somewhat challenged that Opposition members do not seem to get the basics, which is connecting those fundamental dots.

We have heard quite a lot in this debate in the House about the challenges with children. As a mother and as a constituent MP it is always very challenging to deal with cases of families who are not doing well. But, particularly with the Green members, I find it incredibly frustrating when time after time after time on any of the opportunities that lead to jobs, that lead to higher wages, that lead to increased exports for this country, they say no. Well, I challenge the Greens in this House: if you are serious about lifting children out of poverty, just say yes. Just say yes. Even once would be a hallelujah moment in this House. Just say yes—

Hon Member: Or even maybe.

LOUISE UPSTON: —or even maybe. There are a number of things that we have done in terms of protecting children and in terms of supporting families in need. We are realistic about the times that we are in. It would be lovely if we did not have tough economic times. It would be great if we did not. But this side of the House is just getting on, dealing with the realities, dealing with the challenges, and dealing with the circumstances that we are facing. It is not an option, as the Government, to ignore those conditions.

But one thing that is very, very simple—and, yes, it was stated clearly in the report that those Opposition members like to refer to in this debate—is the strong focus on the benefits of work. Let me say that again. The poverty report states the benefits of work. We on this side of the House do not think that work is a dirty word. We actually see that work provides opportunities. Minister Paula Bennett has done just extraordinary work. She has tackled this whole area with complete gusto, with guts, and with courage, and she has got on and done the job.

There were announcements this week around the requirement for drug testing so that beneficiaries are work-ready. Do you know what? I have had so many constituents say to me that they thought that was already the case. They were absolutely stunned. I had a constituent in my office who said that she has to have a drug test to be in paid work. She has a younger brother whom she is so desperately trying to support. She is so desperately trying to support him to get into a job. He has been on and off the dole, and she is trying to support him to get a job, but one of the challenges is that he is smoking too much dope. She is desperately trying to support him, and she said: “Absolutely—yippee!” when the Minister announced that finally we will be doing drug testing to enable people to be ready for work, which is exactly what the welfare system is there for. It is to support people while they are out of work, and support them we must.

But the flip side of that is we cannot support people with a generous welfare system if our economy is not growing. I am going to go back to joining those dots. We cannot have a fantastic welfare system that supports the vulnerable, that supports those in need, unless we have an economy that is growing and exports that are growing.

Just in the last couple of weeks, in the Taupō electorate, one of the things that I have been really proud of is having the trade Minister, Tim Groser, in the electorate. What his connections provide, what he provides as our Minister of Trade, is the opportunity for our exports to grow. We have got targets—to make exports 30 to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. But what that actually requires is a solid plan. Underneath these targets there is a significant amount of work that has gone into then breaking those down to ask how we get from where we are now, in 2012, to achieving those targets in 2025. Being able to be involved in discussions with industry and businesses about growing is what it is all about.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I would like to start by paying tribute to the 40 or 50 young New Zealanders who are working away in this building, not far from here, in the EmpowerNZ conference, organised by the McGuinness Institute. They have set themselves the task of drafting a new constitution for New Zealand. I have had the honour of being the MP hosting them in this building. I am bound to say that I am not entirely convinced that we need a new constitution—in fact, I am not convinced at all. I am proud of the constitutional arrangements that we have in New Zealand at the moment. I think they have served us well. We have inherited them from centuries of tradition in the UK, and we have got a good balance of liberty and simplicity around our arrangements, without too many checks and balances. But I am very glad that these young kids are all there.

It is amazing, the enthusiasm that they are showing in getting into the job. They are a brilliant bunch—mainly law students, too many law students perhaps, but law students nevertheless—wrestling with those difficult issues that we have, and the conflicting rights, and trying to ask “Well, if we were to construct a constitution from the start, where would we begin?”. It is interesting that when they are dealing with questions of rights and how you balance economic rights, of course, there is no right to create money necessarily, and the right to live a life where you can enjoy all the things that life has to give does not give you the right to live off the work of somebody else. So there is all these balances that these young people are trying to work out at the moment. They have been at it for a day and a half, and tonight we are going to have a dinner where they are going to present the results of their efforts. So, anyway, good luck to them, congratulations to the McGuinness Institute for putting that on, and best wishes to those young people.

When we turn to this question that is relevant today, though, about poverty, I just want to quote from Hansard a speech from Metiria Turei in the adjournment debate just before Christmas, when she talked about the: “… National Government’s attacks on beneficiaries and to hear the Prime Minister in his address today restate the myth that work is a path out of poverty.” The myth—the myth—she said: “that work is a path out of poverty. The truth is that it is not.” I am quoting here from Hansard, Metiria Turei. It is true what I am saying here. She said that she did not like hearing the Prime Minister talk about “the myth that work is a path out of poverty. The truth is that it is not. For the two in every five children who live in poverty whose parents work, work is not the pathway out of poverty. Work is the trap, because work is not properly paid.” Heaven preserve this country if the Greens do get the opportunity to have control of the purse strings, and if Russel Norman is finance Minister and Metiria Turei is social welfare Minister, because that is the sort of attitude that drives them, that work is not the path out of poverty; it is a trap. I am mindful, though—on Saturday, I went along to a community lunch organised by the good people of the Remuera community lunch club, and one or two of them were pointing to an article from Anne Salmond a couple of weeks saying that parliamentarians were too combative and—

Hon Anne Tolley: We should all hold hands.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: —that is right—we should hold hands and agree with everything, and we should not talk in slogans at each other and we should not be critical of each other; we should be focusing on the united path. So I do not want to be unduly critical of Metiria Turei and the Greens for their philosophy, but I am amazed that we still have such people spouting such a simplistic view of the world, as if working is not a good thing, and taking responsibility for yourself and your family is not something that is important to the community. So the question I ask them is—you know, we all agree across all sides of this House that poverty, and child poverty in particular, is a concern. Nobody wants to live in a society where there are children who are struggling—genuinely struggling—and we have spent a great percentage of the Government activity that we are a part of taking money off some people and giving it to other people in order to try and alleviate that problem. We have not been all that successful in the last 70 years that social welfare organisations in New Zealand have been redistributing a huge amount of money, and you ask yourself “Well, why hasn’t it been that successful? Why do we continue to have poverty in New Zealand?”. There are a whole lot of reasons for that, but part of it is about addressing those fundamentals of restating that important element of responsibility—people taking responsibility for their families and for their own lives. I suppose when you are in Government the question is what do you actually do about it? This Government, which I am proud to be part of, has done a number of things in that area.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I was not anticipating taking a call in this general debate, but I am pleased to have the opportunity because there are several contributions from the Government side that I would like the opportunity to respond to.

I want to start, maybe, on the comments made on the Prime Minister’s behalf in question time today in relation to the in-work tax credit. There is an interesting linkage there, is there not? Support for children is linked to whether or not their parents are in work. That seems to me, and to the Green Party, to be an inappropriate linkage. Actually, if children require support because of the poverty of their parents, they require support. Children ought not to be punished for the circumstances that their parents find themselves in. That is why we favour a process whereby the support for such families—for that 21 percent of children living in poverty in this country, a statistic that I am sure we are all embarrassed by and ashamed of—ought not to be related to the circumstances of their parents. It ought to be related simply to the need of their parents.

But the Prime Minister went on and talked about the importance, as indeed we have just heard from Mr Goldsmith, of the role that work has in lifting people out of poverty. I do not dispute the fact that work has an important role to play in lifting people out of poverty. Actually, education, arguably, plays a greater role, and also really great health circumstances, but the fact is that under this Government the number of jobs has not increased, so the work is not available for those parents to lift themselves out of poverty. The escape hatch from poverty for 21 percent of New Zealand children is not available to them.

On the Prime Minister’s behalf in question time there was comment about work readiness instead. Well, is it the Government’s intention to extend the in-work tax credit to all of those who are work-ready, or who are judged to be work-ready? Those people will have done what is required to make themselves available for work, so it will take into account the simple fact that the jobs are not available for those people.

Louise Upston, in her contribution, talked about the Greens. She said it was great, I think—I may be paraphrasing—that the Greens brought to the House’s attention the growing inequality in this country and talked about—

Louise Upston: It wasn’t quite what I said.

KEVIN HAGUE: —it may not have been quite what the member was saying—the importance of closing that gap between rich and poor and the importance of creating jobs. She suggested that the Greens said no to everything the Government suggested. Well, I think the member proposed that as a problem with the Greens’ approach, but I want to respectfully suggest that that is actually a problem with the Government’s approach. The problem, the reason that we say no to what it proposes, is that the only things it proposes are the unacceptable ones. It proposes mining—mining in national parks, for goodness’ sake! It proposes other extractive industries as the answer to our problems. All of those are non-sustainable, low-value, low-quality jobs, if they even create any.

Louise Upston: What about roads that get our goods to export markets? What about roads to get our products to market?

KEVIN HAGUE: What we propose, and we have again and again and again—the member talks about roads, and we have provided lots of evidence in this House that roads provide very, very few jobs. In fact, on the one area that does actually provide jobs in that space, which is the creation of cycle tracks, we are working with the Government. We are working with the Government on home insulation. We have provided many, many, many proposals to the Government, both directly and through this House, for ways in which many more jobs could be created, and the Government has been saying no to all of those. The Government has rejected all of the proposals that we have made that would be much better investment of the Crown’s dollar in creating jobs. What does that say? What it says is it is not the Green Party that always says no, but it is, in fact, the Government that says no. In the House today Gerry Brownlee, on behalf of the Prime Minister, was saying no to universalism, but also was saying no to targeting. It is the Government that says no, and it is wrong.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I think I would like to remind the members on the other side of the House that this country will not be a good place for us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. It has been 6 months since I gave my maiden speech on my aspirations as a new member of Parliament and the aspirations I have for this country. I believe it is incomprehensible that this Government, which boasts of having business and scientific minds at its disposal, is not willing or able to address not only the needs of those from my electorate in Manukau East but also the needs of all New Zealanders in general.

Members on the other side of the House need to be reminded of who they are. This is our country. Cherish our natural wonders, our natural resources, and our history and romance as a sacred heritage for our children and our children’s children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches, or its romance.

If I was to sum up the progress of the National Government up to now, it would be in one word and that word would be “betrayal”. But, hey, why not broaden it and include its coalition partners as well? Poverty is still here. It is still with us. It is not getting any better or brighter. Poverty has a huge negative impact on the general psyche and general well-being of our nation—even the bells and honking horns of sycophantic morning talkback hosts who bang on about their beloved John Key cannot mask that. As I look around my electorate the question keeps popping up: where are the houses promised, and where are the better schools, health services, and jobs? I believe they are still sitting with the committees, the talkback hosts, and the Government’s thinktank. The poor have been dispossessed of their housing to facilitate the few who do not pay tax. We are still talking about charter schools, which we know do not work. Health services have been thrown a few peppercorns through Whānau Ora to shut the natives up. I see that they are roping a few well-intentioned, smiley Pacific faces into Whānau Ora just to try to give it a bit of credibility. Pacific people know very well that this does not work and they are throwing good money down a very large public convenience.

Then there is the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs. What Pacific Island affairs? If National does not seem to think it is an important portfolio, then what hope is there for the people in my community in Porirua, Ōtara, Glen Innes, Papatoetoe, and so on, of South Auckland? You would think that with high-end statistics on most fronts, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs would be given a fair go. Can it not be trusted with enough responsibility to design its own realistic Pacific policies? We need to address the issues that our Pacific communities confront with urgency if we are to make any beneficial process or progress. Many of our poorest spend far too long sleeping on friends’ floors. This in turn creates relationship stresses with their spouses and fanau and aiga, who also are poor. They will often be angry and distressed. They will not be supervising their children well enough or caring for them because their capacity to do so is lowered by real options available to them. Many of our people are pouring money into casino gambling machines in the vain hope that they will hit a jackpot. In reality the jackpot for them is either scraping up airfares to Aussie, joining the dole queue, or receiving Salvation Army social services, who not only are doing God’s work but are now struggling with the ever-increasing evil of child poverty. These are the factors that contribute to a bleak future for our people, because their physical, mental, and educational development is restricted.

Knowing what is right does not mean much unless the Government does what is right. New Zealand First believes in creating wealth for our country, not just for the few. We hope our Government wakes up and finds real solutions—real solutions for all New Zealanders.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Fei chang hao. Xiexie. I am proud to be able to stand here today to say what a great job the National-led Government has done and is continuing to do in building a brighter future for New Zealanders. By getting on with the job of responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more competitive and productive economy, delivering better public services, and rebuilding Christchurch, National is delivering on making New Zealand the best place to live, raise children, and retire comfortably.

I know that members of the Opposition will always dispute what we have achieved since we became the Government in 2008. It goes without saying that despite having experienced a global financial crisis, which, unfortunately, is continuing in many parts of the world, New Zealand is well positioned to grow and prosper. National has worked extremely hard to help the less fortunate in our society, but, more important, National recognises that economic development is the key to giving people a better standard of living.

In Chinese philosophy the concept of yin and yang describes how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are linked and how they feed off each other to balance and benefit each other. I am not referring to National’s relationship with Labour or the Greens, but to our growing relationship with China, the second-largest economy in the world. As you know, New Zealand and China are so different in terms of land size, history, culture, language, and, in particular, population. There are over 1.3 billion in China, against New Zealand’s population of 4.4 million, yet we are moving closer together, which will benefit both countries.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the diplomatic ties between our two countries. I have been to numerous events to commemorate this auspicious year, and many of these events are organised by local Chinese communities in New Zealand who are proud of both their mother country and their adopted country. China’s continuous growth has benefited New Zealand as our trade with China has expanded enormously. In 1991 New Zealand’s exports to China were just $0.17 billion, or 1.1 percent of our total exports. In 2001 they were $1 billion, or 3.3 percent of our total exports. In 2008 we signed a free-trade agreement with China.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who signed? Who signed?

Dr JIAN YANG: I will acknowledge the then Labour Government. Unfortunately, the current Labour Party no longer has strategic views, which are essential for economic growth. It is living in poverty—a poverty of ideas. For instance, it no longer supports our foreign investment. After that agreement was signed in 2008, two-way trade between New Zealand and China grew by 150 percent in 3 years. In 2011 the volume of bilateral trade reached $13.3 billion. In the year ended March 2012 New Zealand exports to China reached $5.9 billion, or 12.5 percent of our total exports. China is now our second-largest trading partner and may well be the largest before too long.

We are also benefiting from an upsurge in Chinese tourists. In the year ended June 2012 Chinese tourists numbered 175,000—a rise of about 43,000 over the previous year. Tourism supports nearly one job in 10 in New Zealand and directly or indirectly contributes almost 10 percent of New Zealand GDP. Already, ordinary New Zealanders are reaping the benefits of National’s economic plan, which invests in their future.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill

In Committee

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave of the Committee for both parts and the title and commencement clauses of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 15 August.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): When I took the call before we ended debating a couple of weeks ago, I stood up and said that gangs were cancerous, corrosive, and had absolutely no place in New Zealand society. I absolutely stand by that point of view. I congratulate Todd McClay on bringing this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, to the House, and I congratulate those members who are prepared to support it. I am very disappointed that there are some parties in this House that have seen fit to become almost apologists for gangs, that have seen fit to reject this piece of legislation, and that have seen fit to stand by gangs and say that it is OK for them to wear gang insignia in public places and Government buildings, and to intimidate members of the public, which is exactly what this piece of legislation is aiming to stop.

I congratulate those parties that are supporting it. I congratulate New Zealand First on its stand in this House, on saying that it is not good enough for gangs to be wearing their gang patches in Government buildings and it is not good enough for gangs to be intimidating members of the public. Gangs stand for crime. Gangs stand for all things that are bad about the underworld in this country. I think any moves that this Parliament can make to try to stop gangs from having a prevalent place in New Zealand society should be welcomed, should be accepted, and should be supported in this Parliament.

Finally, before I finish my 4 minutes, I just want to say that I absolutely reject some of the comments that have been made in the media recently by a member of this House, Hone Harawira. Mr Harawira has seen fit to attack Todd McClay on the basis of the colour of his hair and the colour of his eyes. That is absolutely outrageous. To say that attacking gangs, that bringing a piece of legislation to this House that aims to stop gang intimidation, is wrong, and to say it is a racist piece of legislation is absolutely wrong, despicable, and should not be accepted by anyone in this country.

Todd McClay is doing New Zealanders a favour. Todd McClay is standing in this House, bringing in a piece of legislation to try to make New Zealand safer, to try to make Government buildings and local government buildings safer, and to say to New Zealanders that gangs have no place in this country. It is uncool, it is wrong, and we should not have a situation where gangs can wear their insignia, can wear their gang patches, in public buildings. The gang patch itself is what the gangs love to show. It is the gang patch itself that shows solidarity amongst the gang members. We do not want criminals to be showing solidarity out there in the community. We do not want criminals to be coming into public buildings, public libraries, public swimming pools, or anything like that, to show off their colours, to show off their supposed manliness, because they think it is cool to be gang members and to be wearing their patches and their colours.

This is a very good piece of legislation. I absolutely congratulate the parties in this House that are prepared to stand up and say that gangs have no place in this society and we do not want them in our public buildings and we do not want them in our local government buildings. This House should be supporting moves to restrict gangs and the wearing of their patches. I say this bill is absolutely overdue, is necessary, and should be supported by the whole House.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to make my contribution on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. There is one point that the last speaker, Jami-Lee Ross, made that I agree with, and that is about what gangs typically engage in, which is criminal activity. They try to conceal their criminal activity through their gang activities. It is for that reason that this bill should be voted down, because it is totally hopeless, it will contribute nothing to the problem of dealing with criminal activity in gangs, and it is an attempt at gesture-politics that will do nothing. It is cynical, it is poorly motivated, it is a dumb bill, and a dumb piece of legislation. The people on whose behalf I feel embarrassed, actually, are members like my good friend from Rodney, whose name escapes me for the moment—I know his first name, but—

Hon Member: He’s a good friend but you don’t know his name.

ANDREW LITTLE: You do not need to know a friend’s name to get on well with him.

Louise Upston: Mark Mitchell.

ANDREW LITTLE: Mark Mitchell, a former serving officer, and another member, Chester Borrows, another former member of the police force, will know what it means to deal with gangs, will know what they do, will know what it takes to police them, and will know the insidious business they are involved in.

The one I feel most embarrassed on behalf of is Mike Sabin, because Mike Sabin in his life prior to coming to this House made a very honourable contribution to his community, to New Zealand, when he left his role as a high-quality, high-performing member of the police force to embark on a personal campaign to try to rid this country of the scourge of methamphetamine and methamphetamine dealing, and to educate people, families, and communities about it. He knew, like most former serving police officers do, that the gangs are running that insidious, nasty, evil drug as a business. They do it as a business. So any step that can be taken to address that, to do it down, to get rid of it, should be adopted, embraced, and wholeheartedly supported.

This bill is not that step. This bill is hopeless because it does not address that sort of issue at all. It is window dressing of the worst order. Addressing the event that a gang member turns up in a public library to return his or her books with their patch on their back will not address the criminal activity of gangs. Michael Laws found this out in Whanganui, and, with Chester Borrow’s support—oddly enough—passed the by-law, until it was overturned by the court, of course, to rid the main street of Whanganui of gang patches. Of course, after all the hubbub, all the debate, and all the noise they created about it, the people they ended up persuading to stay away from the main street of Whanganui were not the gangs; they were the good citizens and the good burghers of Whanganui, who saw all the messages, heard all the debates, and thought: “Gee, it is a pretty intimidating place to be on Victoria Street, Whanganui. I am not going down there. I am not going down to the public parks of Whanganui.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: The shops are closed.

ANDREW LITTLE: The shops are closed. It did in good businesses that were dependent on good foot traffic, and they were destroyed by that silly gesture. What has happened to gang activity in Whanganui? Nothing. Nothing has changed. They are still there. They are still there doing their nasty, evil trade, their nasty, evil business. They still wear their gang patches in most of Whanganui. It did nothing—it did nothing. So that is the problem with this bill. It gives members who feel inadequate the ability to stand up in this House, puff their chest out, sound tough, and look like they are doing something, but, actually, they are doing nothing. That is the disappointing thing about this bill.

What is very sad is that we have come all this way and after all these years this Government has been able to do nothing to address the very serious problems of gang-driven, gang-inspired crime. This bill is a joke. It will achieve nothing, it does even less, and it is for that reason that it should be voted down.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my great pleasure to stand in support of this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I just want to come back to what my colleague Mr Little said. Let us have a look at what a gang patch actually means. What does a gang patch mean? What does it signify? How does a prospective gang member actually earn the right to wear a gang patch? Is it because he helps an elderly woman across the street? Is it because he has learnt how to tie a bowline knot, or demonstrated an ability to build a campfire? No, it is not.

Normally, a prospect will start with what gangs consider the small stuff: breaking into people’s homes, stealing anything they can find of value, and often damaging people’s homes. And you know what? They may even leave a calling card, like urinating or defecating on furniture or bedding. Then there will be the progression into armed robberies, serious assaults, and drug offences. But to really prove that they are serious about becoming a good, patched gang member, they will find a victim to rape, or, to really make a name for themselves, they might even kill someone. Every time you look at a gang patch or insignia, ask yourself this question: what crime against our society has that person committed, and how many victims have been left in the wake of their efforts to earn that patch?

Although I stand here now proud to be a member of this Parliament, there was a time when in a previous role I was required to deal with gang members constantly. I can assure this House that an important goal for any gang or gang member is to develop a reputation for being as dangerous, menacing, and intimidatory as possible, whether this is through reputation or appearance. The wearing of a gang patch is designed to do two things, and two things only. One is to identify the gang that they are a member of, and the other thing is to try to intimidate all those around them.

I just want to congratulate Minister Tolley and Minister Collins, because—you are right, Mr Little—they are turning up the heat on gangs, and have been turning up the heat on gangs since 2008. And we have to keep doing that. We have to keep doing that. I congratulate my colleague—I congratulate my colleague—

Todd McClay: Todd McClay.

MARK MITCHELL: —Todd McClay. I just want to raise something and speak about something that was brought up through the media by Mr Harawira. I cannot use the exact words that he said, but, basically, he indicated that, you know what, Mr McClay does not really know anything about gangs, so what the hell is he talking about? Well, I can assure you, after having worked in Rotorua, and Mr McClay is the representative for Rotorua, that although it is a wonderful place—it has got the lakes, it has got geothermal activity, and it has got lots of cultural events there—there is one thing it does suffer from, and that is a gang problem. It has a bad gang problem. So Mr McClay witnesses the effects of that, and witnesses the destruction of his community. In actual fact, there are probably not many MPs around the country who have to deal with and confront gang problems as much as Mr McClay does. I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House. He could have made it a local bill, and it is not. It is a bill that is going to have an impact nationally on the negative effects that our communities suffer in relation to gangs.

I would just like to say that when my mum or my daughters walk into a Government office, I do not want them to have to see gang members walking around with patches on, because those patches signify one thing, and that is that they have committed crimes against our society. It is as simple as that. Thank you.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I would like to take a very short call to add my voice to that of Jan Logie in spelling out the Green Party’s opposition to this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. The goal of creating public spaces free from intimidation is a worthy one, and we have heard a lot from both sides of the House about how gangs can be the sources of that intimidation. Fundamentally, this debate is not about being soft or tough on crime. It is about finding practical solutions that actually achieve the outcomes and the sort of society that we want. I think this bill is a pretty good example in that banning gang insignia is really outlawing or trying to address the symptoms but not the cause of the problem. If we do not address the cause of the problem, then we are never going to resolve it.

I think we can all agree that we want a safer society. Certainly, I am sure the member who brought this bill to the House, Todd McClay, is earnest in his desire to do so. So we should undertake a reasonable discussion as to how to create a safer society, and where this bill fits into that context. Unfortunately, banning people from wearing gang patches is at best a very ineffective way. I have to agree with Andrew Little, who spoke earlier. It sounds like a good idea, and it sounds like we are being tough on those bad gang members, but on closer inspection the flaws become quite obvious. Numerous studies have noted that poverty, unemployment, the absence of meaningful jobs, social disorganisation, and, really, just exclusion from mainstream society are what contribute to the presence of, and membership in, gangs. Economic and social inequality, which, as we have seen, is at an all-time high, only exacerbates these factors. So dealing effectively with the issue of gangs requires us to look hard at the causes of poverty and inequality. We need to robustly address those. Without those efforts this bill serves only to make it worse. It disproportionately isolates and confronts people at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum who are already excluded from mainstream society. Why would they be motivated to be constructive members of society if they are consistently discriminated against and excluded from the benefits of the wealth that is being gained by a small percentage of the population?

The provisions in clauses 7(1) and 8 set the scene for increased confrontation with gang members, who may not be involved in intimidating behaviour at the time when police confront them. I think Charles Chauvel made the point well that there is already a provision in the Crimes Act to deal with individuals or groups who behave aggressively anywhere, not just on Government premises. So why is this legislation necessary, if not just to further exclude a group of marginalised people whom we should be trying to encourage to become constructive members of society? Creating opportunities to confront with force individuals who are deemed intimidating purely by their association with a certain group, rather than by their actual behaviour, by definition increases the scope for violent confrontation on Government premises. How is that conducive to the goal that is stated in the bill? How is that conducive to the very worthwhile goal of creating a safer environment?

We all want to work to make our society free of crime and intimidation. To do that we need to address the root causes that drive people to criminal activity in gangs, and to support the vulnerable people within gangs to engage in positive societal contributions. Some already do so, but, obviously, there is a lot more scope to create those opportunities through a rational approach to reduce gang membership in the future. I do not think banning people from wearing gang insignia is going to discourage them from being members of gangs. So stigmatising groups and individuals in a blanket, unsophisticated manner will not achieve the outcomes that I am sure the member would like to achieve, and nobody should be celebrating a bill that fails to address the core issues. Thank you.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Since the start of the first reading of this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, 2 weeks ago there has been significant interest in it around the country. I have received letters, emails, and phone calls of support, and it is true to also say that there are those who have issue with this piece of legislation. Indeed, I welcome all those who have made contact with me, and I thank them for it. This has been an interesting debate, both 2 weeks ago and again today. Notably, it suggests to me that New Zealanders not only deserve to have a say on this issue but want to have a say on this issue. Therefore, I ask the House to send it to a select committee.

Can I say to the last speaker, Julie Anne Genter, that I welcome her comments and the way she put them to the House. This bill will not address all issues around gangs. Indeed, I have never stood here in this Parliament and said that it will. But what I think is important is that we have the opportunity to talk about not only the significant harm that gangs do in all parts of our community where they are and where they operate but some of the reasons why so many young people are attracted to them. When this bill is sent to the Law and Order Committee, I would encourage members of the Green Party—and, indeed, all parties of this Parliament—to come with an open mind to talk about this issue and the harm that it does, not only in respect of the measures in the bill but to, in some way, start to address this.

The Labour Party has said that it will vote against this bill. I would say that this is disappointing. It is disappointing from the point of view that I think it is party politics that suggests this, rather than the recognition of the challenges we face around gangs and gang membership. Mr Chauvel, in his speech to the House, said that the law can already deal with this issue, that the law can deal with it by way of trespass. One of the things that I think is most important is that we encourage New Zealanders, mums and dads, to care more about their children. I encourage gang members who care about their children to go to their schools to support them and to help them. I am not sure it happens anywhere near as much as it should. If it did happen more—indeed, as Ms Genter has said—perhaps some of the effects of gangs upon families and the way young people are attracted to these gangs would lessen.

What this piece of legislation says to a gang member is that if that person wants to go to a school or a kindergarten to support a child, that person has a right to do so. In so doing, we say, they must leave their gang patch or insignia behind, because this is a place of learning. It does not say to that person who wears a gang patch that they cannot go to that school. Indeed, what it says is just that they cannot wear that gang insignia. A trespass notice would mean that that parent was a trespasser at that school for an ongoing period of time. This legislation will not stop New Zealanders from going to seek support from their Government or from their council, or from going to a hospital or a school. It will merely say that we, society, put conditions around that. One of them is that patches that stand for harm in our communities will not be acceptable, and therefore if you choose to wear that you will break the law. Equally, these members of gangs may choose not to do it.

I ask the Labour Party to please think deeply about this when the bill does go to the committee, and come with some rational discussion around it, about how we deal with the influence of gangs in this country. There are others who have said that the Labour Party Opposition is weak on crime and that this is something that it will not support. I do not want to get into discussion or debate around this today. I ask the members opposite to have an open mind, to come forward to the committee, to be responsible, and to think about the harm that gangs do.

Hone Harawira raised some issues outside of this House around race. I do not want to dignify his comments with a response, except to say that this issue deals in the same way with all New Zealanders who put on a patch and who choose to harm others. It is not an issue of race. What I would say is that Mr Harawira is right: young Māori are harmed by gangs more than any other group in this society. Gangs attract them, they pull them in, they ask them to commit crimes on their behalf, and then they send them to jail on their behalf. I believe we in this House have an obligation to think more seriously about this.

I want to thank the Public Service Association for agreeing to meet with me. We have had a discussion about some of its concerns. I have agreed to work closely with it to make sure that its workers and others in the Public Service are not intimidated by gang members, and that this is a piece of legislation that could work for them.

I want to thank members of New Zealand First for their support and their courageous stand on this bill, and also the ACT Party and United Future for their support. This bill will be sent to the Law and Order Committee. I would ask the committee to look at the list of gangs that are mentioned, to see whether it is appropriate for them to be there, to question that, and to look for other organisations that should also be there.

In conclusion, before we vote, gangs cause harm in our society. They ruin people’s lives, they destroy families, they cause misery, and they cause intimidation. This bill sends a clear message to them: this House puts the rights of responsible members of our community before those of criminals. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Honourable members, just before I declare the vote, can I just advise members of the House that there is to be no comment at all during the taking of a vote. It can be seen as intimidation, and could eventually lead to a breach of privilege.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 69

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 52

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.

Bills

State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I move, That the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. This is a very straightforward piece of legislation. It is built on the back of 80-plus percent of New Zealanders who are opposed to their State-owned assets being sold in part or in whole offshore, or being sold back to them and having to use their money for a second time to buy back what they already own. In essence, the bill is about protecting the remaining strategic assets that we have on the schedule—that is, New Zealand Post, Kiwibank, KiwiRail, Radio New Zealand, and others—for future generations. Any Government, under this piece of legislation, trying to sell these assets will need a 75 percent majority in Parliament or to win a referendum. That is a fair policy. The bill ensures that strategic asset sales will need to pass a higher hurdle than they have in recent times with this Government, which has used every device in Parliament, in the face of rising public angst and opposition, to ram through asset sales legislation, abusing the constitutionality of the select committee process and Parliament as a whole.

This will be, I have said publicly, an acid test for the Government, because if it is the Government’s intention not to proceed with other asset sales, it will support this bill. This bill was not drawn from the ballot until after the asset sales legislation was rammed through by the Government, and those assets that are now on the block, of course, are outside the schedule, so this bill deals with those that are inside the schedule. But I have to say for the record that if it went to the select committee, the Labour Opposition would not be opposed to amending this legislation to bring those assets that are now outside the schedule and threatened with sale back inside it, but that is for another day. We would be very happy to accept and propose that amendment. This is about enshrining and protecting what we have left, and if the Government’s intention is to sell only those assets that it took out of the schedule—i.e., Solid Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis, Meridian, and Air New Zealand—then it would have no problem supporting this legislation. If it does not support this legislation, if it does not accept this piece of legislation and back it, we will know that despite the musings of Bill English back in 2008 and again in 2010 about, for instance, finding it acceptable to sell off KiwiRail, it has an open intent to proceed beyond those assets that it has taken out of the schedule to other assets like, for instance, New Zealand Post, KiwiRail, Radio New Zealand, Kiwibank, and others. It is a very straightforward piece of legislation.

It will also be interesting to see whether the Hon Peter Dunne votes for this legislation, because, of course, he made a promise not to sell Kiwibank, not to sell Radio New Zealand—

Hon John Banks: It’s going nowhere. You’re wasting your time.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, I know that it is a waste of time for Mr Banks, of course, because Mr Banks would sell his own grandmother if he had the chance. He would flog everything off. We know that. So my comments are not actually addressed to “Lazarus”, the man who has lurched out the crypt and waddled around, and come back into Parliament. My comments are not addressed to him.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Lazarus was more positive than that.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Lazarus was more positive, that is true. He was a positive human being. But the sort of political cadaver that has come out of the crypt and back into Parliament, I do not address my comments to him at all. It is a waste of time, an utter waste of time. In fact, actually, it is a waste of time addressing any comments to Mr Banks, because 30 seconds after you say something he will have forgotten them, of course, because he has amnesia. With your leave, Mr Assistant Speaker, I am happy to repeat my speech twice or in triplicate so that he will actually remember the words, or, perhaps, his own name.

But more seriously, this is a simple choice for Parliament. Mr Banks can say that it is a waste of time, but it is a simple choice. It is a simple choice that says that we are not prepared to stand by and allow a Government, holus-bolus, to go and sell off the strategic assets that we have. We know 80 percent of New Zealanders are against the National Government selling the assets it has put on the block now.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Bollocks.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We know that—what was that? I will not actually use the “b” word that Mr Coleman used, because I think it was in relation to male anatomy or something like that, and it would not be appropriate. But it is not rubbish to say that 80 percent of New Zealanders oppose these asset sales. It is not rubbish at all. Dr Coleman will remember those remarks as we take this fight out and when we get the referendum. We will have very little talk about mandates when the New Zealand people get a chance to put this to a vote in a referendum. So the choice for the National Party is very, very simple. I invite Dr Coleman to get up tonight. We know that John Banks would sell anything he could, but I invite Dr Coleman and the other Ministers to get up and tell us whether they are prepared to support the bill. If they are not prepared to support the bill, then that tells us clearly that this Government does have an intent to go well beyond, at some future date, the assets it has put on the block. Are they prepared to answer this question, then: is Dr Coleman prepared to guarantee that he will not sell KiwiRail in part or whole whilst he is in Government?

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, there are no plans to.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Sorry? Hang on, let us hear it. Sorry?

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: There are no plans to.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh, there are no plans to. Well, that is in stark contrast to what Steven Joyce said. He said that he could not give a guarantee. He could not give a guarantee that KiwiRail would not be put on the block. So there are no plans to. That is not a guarantee of anything. Those are weasel words, which say that it could well be on the block.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s what Roger Douglas used to say when it was going to happen that afternoon: “No current plans.”

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. And I suspect that Dr Coleman would probably be the last person to be told anyway. But let us look at this—

Hon Trevor Mallard: John Banks would forget.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: And John Banks would forget, that is right; he would forget which way the washroom was, and the Cabinet room was, and his own name. What we have seen with the passage of the State-owned enterprises legislation is that one vote in this Parliament, one vote out of 120 members of Parliament, kissed goodbye to some seriously heavy-duty assets that are bringing in millions and billions of dollars for this country. It was down to one vote. I think Kiwis, by their very nature, think it should not be down to one vote and there should be a proper process. What this bill does is it sets in place a higher hurdle. If the Government will not support it, then the Government has signalled to the people of New Zealand, as have Mr Dunne and “Rumpelstiltskin” in the corner, that it is prepared to actually sell and go further than those assets that are on the block. [Interruption] Well, there were a few dwarves—one was Dopey, I think, but we will not go there, or Sleepy, who I think had amnesia as well.

But the point is that if the Government representatives are not prepared to support the legislation, then I invite them to get up and tell us whether they will not go beyond, in terms of selling assets, those that they have taken out of the schedule. Will they sell additional assets? Will they guarantee that they will not sell additional assets? What this bill will do, whether it is up or down tonight, is tell the New Zealand people very clearly what the agenda is, what the agenda could be, and what the Government’s intent is. I invite the House to support this legislation. I look forward to the contributions. I know we will have some very strange speeches. But the acid test for this crew—not him, John Banks—and Peter Dunne is that if they do not support this, we know that other assets will be on the block.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): The last speaker in the debate was, in fact, the author of the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, Mr Cosgrove, and he asked Government members to stand up and say whether we would support this legislation. I can categorically say to Mr Cosgrove that the answer is that, no, we will not be supporting this. You see, this is an opportunist piece of legislation that continues a discussion with the public of New Zealand that was held for the whole of last year, and that the New Zealand public had an opportunity to vote on. This legislation also is unworkable, and I will address that in a moment.

You see, this Labour member’s bill seeks to entrench schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and schedule 2 of the Crown Entities Act so that removal of any entity from the schedules would require the agreement of 75 percent of the House or a majority of votes in a public referendum. So is that not wonderful? Mr Cosgrove is saying that it would take 75 percent of the members of this House to do anything else around any partial sale or full sale of these assets in the schedules of these two Acts. But what he has not realised is that to amend this legislation or to throw this legislation out, if it became law, would take a simple majority of the House. So one vote more in favour than against would destroy this piece of legislation, which he has thought long and hard about, and would get rid of it.

What I would also say is that in so far as asset sales are concerned Kate Wilkinson last year campaigned on the mixed-ownership model. She campaigned on reducing debt. She campaigned on making sure that the Government was accountable in so far as the economy is concerned. She campaigned on investing in new assets for New Zealanders. And she won that election, and went from being a list MP to a constituent MP.

Hon Nathan Guy: Which seat was that? Which electorate?

TODD McCLAY: From a list MP to a constituent MP in the seat of Waimakariri. We also had the incumbent MP, Mr Cosgrove, who has brought this bill before the House. He did not campaign on this piece of legislation. He did not campaign on it. What he did was campaign against the mixed-ownership model, the partial sale of assets. He campaigned against the Government getting debt under control, investing more in the New Zealand economy, and growing our asset base for New Zealanders. What happened in that election? He went from being the constituent MP to a list MP. The people of New Zealand, all over New Zealand, but in particular people in the Waimakariri electorate had a chance to consider supporting a list MP who was campaigning on a mixed-ownership model of the partial sale of assets, or for an incumbent MP who was saying “Don’t sell these assets. Let’s not have the mixed-ownership model.” I can tell you that the people’s voice was clear.

I also note that one of my colleagues said that during that campaign, when Mr Cosgrove realised that it was not going as well as he wanted, he de-branded from the Labour Party. The Labour slogans were taken down all over the place. He took them off his hoardings. He got rid of them, and he became Clayton Cosgrove, man of the people. Well, the people did not want him as their man; they wanted a great woman, Kate Wilkinson, and good on them.

I want to say that in this bill there are a couple of issues that are of particular concern. One of those is around what has happened in the past and what could happen in the future. The only piece of legislation we have enacted in New Zealand with the same provision currently entrenched in law in this manner is the Electoral Act. That is important, because we do not want parties playing around with electoral law just because there may be a bit of political gain in that. Indeed, all that Mr Cosgrove is trying to do with this piece of legislation is mislead New Zealanders, drag them back to the debate that happened over the whole of last year when John Key, as Prime Minister, made a case to them. More New Zealanders voted for John Key and the National Party than any other party ever under MMP, and actually that was the second election in a row where that was the case. Mr Cosgrove is trying to divert New Zealanders from that and the job at hand.

Let us have a look at the record of the Labour Party on issues like this, which must have motivated Mr Cosgrove to draft this bill, to go out and consult with New Zealanders, and then to put it in the ballot and bring it to the House. So what has Labour done under the mixed-ownership model previously? Well, we know that it never enshrined in law a mixed-ownership model that would guarantee, under the law, 51 percent ownership of any State asset by the Crown. We know that it did not do that. When it had an opportunity, it sold things wholesale, left, right, and in the centre, as fast as it could.

Labour has said that it is opposed to the partial sale of State-owned enterprises. Well, with Mr Cosgrove’s member’s bill Labour wants to entrench the ownership of Government shares in State-owned enterprises into law. Yet when those members were last in Government they established a mixed-ownership model for Air New Zealand and they did not do it then. It was all right for them back then with Air New Zealand. But today, after not campaigning on this issue, after not raising it with the public, after going out and saying they were against the mixed-ownership model but being rejected resoundingly by the public and sent back to Opposition—not just sent back to Opposition but with fewer members of Parliament, fewer constituent MPs, and more list MPs like Mr Cosgrove—now they are in favour of it. Then they sold Government-owned shares in the airline. They sold those shares. They would not entrench them.

In 2007 they sold 49 percent of the State-owned Spring Creek Mine for millions of dollars to an American multinational. That sale was approved by Trevor Mallard. They did not entrench anything then; they sold it wholesale. And when Labour was in Government the time before that, it sold 15 State assets for almost $10 billion in 3 years, supported by Phil Goff, Annette King, and, again, Trevor Mallard. There was no legislation to entrench anything then; it is just today that they want to do that, after having not campaigned on this legislation or gone out to the people of New Zealand to make a case against the mixed-ownership model. New Zealanders voted in a Government that is focused on what is right for this country.

Labour members also do not include any electricity generation on the list of infrastructure assets that they think must be owned by the Crown, and they refuse to commit to buying back a single share sold under the mixed-ownership model. As Mr Cosgrove has challenged us, I ask him to stand up and make a commitment that under a Labour Government they would buy back those shares. I recognise that one party has a position on that, but the party making the most noise on this issue certainly has not.

The reason National will not be supporting this legislation is that it does nothing about what is important to New Zealanders. It does nothing about law and order and making people safer in their communities. It does nothing about getting rid of intimidation from gang members. Labour had an opportunity; it did not support that earlier here today. It does nothing about what is important to New Zealanders and why we were elected—re-elected—with an increased vote. This Government is focused on responsible management of the Government’s finances, returning us back to surplus and reducing debt, building a more competitive and productive economy by investing more in assets for New Zealanders, delivering better public services for New Zealanders—something New Zealanders wanted; they voted for it in the past, and they will vote for it again—and, of course, rebuilding Christchurch. If Mr—who is the member who lost his seat to Kate Wilkinson? If Mr Cosgrove had his way, then he would get rid of all of that. There would be more debt, there would be less responsibility in Government, there would be fewer public services delivered for New Zealanders who need them, and Christchurch—on the edge of the electorate that he used to be the member of Parliament for and now is no longer—would not be rebuilt. We will not be voting for this legislation, and I am appalled that Mr Cosgrove has taken up this House’s time with such an un-useful piece of legislation. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): The member opposite, Todd McClay, had the opportunity to make a reasoned defence of National’s plans to embark on future asset sales, but chose not to. I think he has demeaned his party and himself in advancing arguments as spurious as those that he has just done. To launch into an ad hominem attack on my colleague Clayton Cosgrove on the basis of his seat, rather than addressing the issues at hand, is not worthy of the highest standards of this House.

He said in one sentence that this bill, the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, was unworkable, but then provided absolutely not one shred of evidence or argument to say why. Actually, the bill is very simple, it is very clear, and it only takes the Government at its word by entrenching future assets into a 75 percent threshold, thereby requiring a broad range of the representatives of New Zealanders to assent before what is the common heritage of all New Zealanders is sold. If we had that kind of requirement, the truth is we would have a better informed debate. We would move more carefully through the issues that this Government has run headlong into—things as important and as basic as the Treaty rights debates around water issues. One would have thought the Government would have asked itself, before it committed to this sale. The truth is it could not paddle a canoe down the Waikato River to save itself. It could not organise a party in a brewery, this lot. It is shameful that it is not prepared—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Keep the analogies going.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: We will not go into any ad hominem arguments, which so obviously tempt the member sitting just behind me and to my right.

The argument was raised that the previous Labour Government sold some assets. You know, that is factually correct. The problem with that for the Government today is that we learnt from that experience. The difference between a fool and a wise man is that only a fool repeats the same mistakes twice. We have learnt from it. We know that the privatisation of Telecom, which both parties worked on, was done with an insufficient regulatory framework. We fixed it and we learnt from that. But the Telecom sale did actually include an entrenched Kiwi share obligation, now known as the Telecom share obligation, which includes restrictions on foreign ownership and provides protections to New Zealand consumers. It was not done with no forethought; it is just that those protections were not strong enough. In my view, that privatisation should not have proceeded at all on that basis.

You know, the member then said that there was nothing about gang members and there was nothing about DPB mums. What he was really saying was it is a bill without dog whistles. Well, New Zealanders are sick to the back teeth of being dog whistled at while they are on the dole queue. They want to feed their families, they want decent jobs, and they want a home to live in, and the well-heeled members opposite, who are troughing in their own tax cuts, might laugh, but New Zealanders are very concerned about those issues.

New Zealanders do not want dog whistles; they want solutions. A solution is not selling off the family silver to make up the deficits of today because the Government is devoid of real ideas to grow the pie, to build high-value manufacturing, and to build a high performance economy. Those so-called stewards of the public interest have come up short—they have come up short. A few chips short of a Happy Meal, as the kids would say—a few ideas short of a strategy. Privatisation of existing assets to simply transfer the value to a foreign owner is not a strategy. If it is such a good strategy, we say to the Government to have the courage of its convictions and give us a 75 percent threshold.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): There is one thing that needs to be put on the public record today, and that is that the people of Waimakariri are great judges of character. The ultimate test was election day last year, when they transferred the mantle of authority from that Labour member, Clayton Cosgrove, to the member we have got now for Waimakariri, Kate Wilkinson. That proves that the people of “Waimak” are great judges of character. They would not have—

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed that Mr Banks has notes and I move that we allow him to read from his notes in case he forgets his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member will sit down. That is not a point of order and it is up to the Speaker to judge.

Hon JOHN BANKS: The sponsor of this bill is the former member for “Waimak”, who has been transferred to the Labour Party list, and so he should. Like the sponsor of this bill, this bill will be unplugged. Like the sponsor’s head, this bill will be unplugged by the National-ACT coalition this afternoon in Parliament.

The bill begins with an own goal—the bill begins with an own goal. The explanatory note tells us: “Once a State enterprise or Crown entity company has been omitted from [the Act] a shareholding Minister may sell, … the enterprise or company. Future parliaments would thereby be limited in their ability to reverse such changes.” That is what it says in the explanatory note of this silly little bill, sponsored by this silly little fellow, formerly the member for “Waimak”, who is now transferred rightfully on to the Labour Party list—low on the list, at that.

We do not hear rational evidence based on policy from the Labour Party like we used to. The Labour Party electorate of “Waimak” used to have a member called Mike Moore, and this front-bench list member sponsoring this bill is no Mike Moore—he is no Mike Moore. Mike Moore was a tower of a man, short in height but tall in stature in this Parliament, and “mini-Mike”, the sponsor of this bill, is no Mike Moore. But this is what Mike Moore had to say about this—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you were listening to the member speaking and you will reprimand him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): This is a very robust debate. There have been a number of interjections, and I guess the member is reacting to them, but I would ask the member to speak to the bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you indicating you were not listening to what the member said? Because if you were you would have required him to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I was listening, but I—

Hon Chris Tremain: The member who initiated this debate used all sorts of expletives about the member down in front. It is tragic for this member to stand now and claim that the member in front of me should not be using those sorts of words. It is crazy.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have heard enough. It is one all.

Hon JOHN BANKS: The World Trade Organization was ably led by a man that this side of the House promoted to the World Trade Organization, the former Labour front-bencher Mike Moore. The sponsor of this bill is—sure as hell—no Mike Moore. More recently, this is what the real Mike Moore wrote, and this is what he would have to say about this bill: “What’s the common denominator in success and failure? Open economies always do better. Trade and competition drive up better results and [help to combat] corruption, as well as allocate resources more efficiently. Private ownership, spread through society, works.” That is what the former front-bench member of the Labour Party the Rt Hon Mike Moore had to say about free trade and private ownership.

But the days of Mike Moore towering above this House no longer exist. What do they have today? They have the member of the Labour Party who formerly represented “Waimak” as the towering pigmy of former member Mike Moore, who was the World Trade—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Righto, I have heard enough. The member will concentrate on the contents of the bill. This is the first reading of the bill, and we want to hear the substance of the bill.

Hon JOHN BANKS: The problem with the bill is that it will not work. The introductory remarks of the bill state that a shareholding Minister may sell a public asset. What is the bill all about if a shareholding Minister may sell a public asset, enterprise, or company? “Future parliaments would thereby be limited in their ability to reverse such changes.” We know that Governments are not good owners of public cash-earning assets. We know that the private sector can run public assets better than the public sector. Labour needs this legislation because it cannot defend public ownership on evidence. These have been studied to death. Public or private ownership of assets has been studied to death in many, many studies, and the jury is in. Private enterprise runs businesses better than the Government can. That is why we do not need this bill, and that is why members on this side of the House, in the majority, will be voting this bill down.

When I look at bills like this one today, it is little wonder that the good people of “Waimak” made a solid decision and chose Kate Wilkinson, who will be voting against this bill today and who will be voting down this bill today on behalf of the people of “Waimak”. We will be voting it down today on behalf of the people of Epsom. The ACT Party opposes this bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. In between the ad hominem attacks that have characterised most of the Government speeches so far in this bill, there has actually been some interesting debate around the role of State ownership, and I would like to talk a little bit about that.

The Green Party believes in a mixed ownership of the New Zealand economy, in the sense that we have a combination of the State sector but also the private sector. I think that if you look at most successful modern economies, they involve a combination of the two. For that reason the Green Party just does not have the problem with the role of State energy companies in our economy that, clearly, the ACT Party has and also the National Party has.

In this debate around State ownership the Hon John Banks did make an interesting point. He said that private management is always better. That was the essence of his argument. It is interesting to look at the most recent case, which is, of course, Mighty River Power. Mighty River Power was recently given the award for best energy company of the year in New Zealand. There are a number of energy companies in New Zealand. Mighty River Power is one of the State-owned ones, but there are a number of others that are privately owned. TrustPower is one of them, for example, and Contact Energy is the other major one. There is competition within New Zealand between State-owned energy companies as well as privately owned energy companies or companies listed on the New Zealand Exchange. When that competition was put to the test by the peers—the peers in the industry considered these different energy companies—they came to the conclusion, most recently, that the best energy company, and electricity company in particular, in New Zealand was Mighty River Power. That, I think, demonstrates that it is not always the case that private sector managers are always better than public sector managers.

There are many other criteria you could use to make this assessment. If we were to look at the case of Air New Zealand, after it was privatised and handed over to private sector managers they immediately bankrupted the company when they made a very poor decision to buy Ansett Australia. As a result, the State had to step in again to rescue that company. So we have numerous examples where private sector companies have made very poor decisions that resulted in quite considerable economic damage to New Zealand, and public sector companies, or State-owned companies, have made good decisions and have been good managers. No doubt the reverse is also true. So to say, point-blank, as a kind of blanket argument that private sector managers always do better is to argue against the evidence. The evidence, actually, is a bit more mixed than that and it is not necessarily directly related to whether it is State-owned or privately managed. I think that that is very important to this debate.

Putting aside the question of who are better managers—because you simply cannot argue in a New Zealand context that, looking at the energy companies, the private sector energy managers are always better—the question is what the characteristics of the New Zealand economy are that mean it would be a bad idea to privatise the energy companies. One of the characteristics is that, in fact, it is a small open economy that runs a large current account deficit, and the reference to Mike Moore is, I think, pertinent in this respect. As a small open economy, if these energy companies were privatised it is very likely that they would simply fall into overseas ownership over time. This is, of course, what happened with Contact Energy.

An economy that consistently runs a current account deficit has this problem. How do you fund a current account deficit? There are three ways: the main two ways are you sell assets or you borrow, and, of course, the third way is you print money. The main two ways are to borrow or to sell assets. Once these important companies were privatised, if the Government went down that route, it is very likely over time that they would fall into overseas ownership. That would add to New Zealand’s current account deficit, and that is a long-term strategic problem for New Zealand.

In particular, in relation to the energy companies that the Government is talking about privatising, the Green Party has gone to some length to put up a positive alternative, and that is that these energy companies should be part of a renewable energy sector—an export sector to the rest of the world. Mighty River Power is already exporting geothermal technology to the world, and Meridian Energy is doing the same with some of its renewable projects. This should be New Zealand’s next Fonterra. We should be world leaders in renewable energy exports, but we can do that only if we keep these companies, with their headquarters in New Zealand and with their research and development maintained in New Zealand, and that means keeping them in State ownership. That does not mean that they do not partner with the private sector. Of course they should partner with the private sector. But if we are to get the real economic advantages from a renewable energy export sector in New Zealand, we need to keep these companies in public ownership, and that is why the Green Party has taken that position.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is my pleasure to speak on the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. I have to admire the indefatigable nature of Mr Cosgrove. There is no doubt that we fought an election on this very issue, where it was front and centre right throughout the election. They lost, so the legislation for the mixed-ownership model programme was brought before the House. Mr Cosgrove fought very valiantly at every stage, at every step, and through the select committee process. Now, having failed in that area, we have this bill. I, of course, do not want to engage in any ad hominem attacks, and, like I say, I spent the weekend listening to the Remuera lunch club, when they raised the matter of the House engaging in all sorts of attacks and that we need to work together. So I want to focus on the broader issues of this bill and the broader constitutional issue about how often we should be constraining ourselves in this way.

It seems to me that this bill, which is requiring 75 percent support for the Government to sell such things, would want to freeze-frame the current situation, the current status, and the current asset list of the Government for ever and a day. The Government is creating new assets all the time, every day, and if we were to pass this bill, we would certainly be reducing the flexibility of the Government and our ability to respond to circumstances as they arrive. I do find it hard to imagine that Mr Cosgrove would be introducing such a bill if, indeed, he was in Government. So I will be very interested to see. I am a little bit nervous that this bill will not pass this time round, but I will keep a copy of it, and I will be very interested to see whether, in 10 years’ time or 9 years’ time, when Mr Cosgrove does get another chance to be a Minister, he reintroduces this bill. I do not think he would like to have it constraining his activity when he is in Government.

Indeed, I have been hosting these 40 or 50 young people in this building at the moment, and they are trying to work out whether the country needs a new constitution, and whether we need to change our constitutional arrangements. This very issue of whether Governments should be shackled by entrenched legislation is one of the ones that they are wrestling with at the moment. There are only two pieces of legislation, I understand, that are entrenched in this way, and they relate to some very fundamental aspects of our governmental arrangements, so to throw this one into the box alongside them does seem rather bizarre.

But it is worth restating, before I finish, just why we are involved in this mixed-ownership model process, and that is all about building a more competitive and productive economy, based on savings and investment, and moving away from debt and borrowing and relying on foreign lenders. In essence, this programme is about freeing up some of the capital that we have held up in minority stakes in these large companies, and allowing the Government to purchase new assets without borrowing more on financial markets at this difficult time. That is a very sound and sensible policy. The Opposition, I accept, does not agree with it, but unfortunately it lost the argument, so here we are debating this bill. The Opposition is filling the ballot with all sorts of strange pieces of legislation at the moment. I am afraid that I will not be supporting it. Thank you very much.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the State-owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, which has been brought to the House by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. New Zealand First, of course, will be supporting this bill, because protecting our State assets and keeping the assets of the Crown in State ownership is certainly a fundamental principle of New Zealand First.

This country has but a small population, somewhere between 4.5 million people and a little bit more than that, plus another 1 million New Zealanders living abroad. We have the same geographic area as the UK, which has 70 million - odd people. In order to provide the necessary infrastructure for a small population of 4.5 million people, this country over many, many, many decades and the many great people who have gone before us in this House have had the foresight and the inspiration to provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure that what was about 2 million people when I was born and growing up, and has now grown to 4.5 million people, could have what this country required in terms of reasonably good infrastructure for a First World country—almost on a par with that of our former mother country, Great Britain.

Most of us in this House would be very proud to see the infrastructure this country has developed, in the form of our railways, our roads, our national airline, our transmission lines, or our national grid, our power companies throughout New Zealand, our Television New Zealand—the former New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation—Radio New Zealand, and many of the other significant entities that make up the framework and the fabric, and, in fact, the backbone, of this small country. Without the State backing provided to many of those entities, they simply would not have grown to the size that they are today, because private enterprise and personal investors simply would not have been able to build up that infrastructure in New Zealand to the point where it is today. So we can be very thankful and very proud of our forebears and those who went before us, the many Ministers, members of Parliament, and people within the bureaucracy, local government within New Zealand, and all sorts of parts of the framework of government in New Zealand, who have helped build up what we have today.

Therefore, this is a very sensible bill. It is sensible to say to this House that unless three-quarters of the people in this House support selling off some of these very, very important assets, which my grandfather, my grandmother, your grandfather, your great-grandfather, your great-great-grandfather, and beyond, helped build up, we should really not be considering doing it. I am reminded of what the Rt Hon Winston Peters pointed out to me a few months ago. He can recall the saying of—

John Hayes: Mike Moore?

ANDREW WILLIAMS: No, Sir Keith Holyoake, actually. Thank you. Sir Keith Holyoake had a saying. He used to say that unless at least 60 percent of the people within the House of Representatives would support something, he certainly would not ramrod it through. He would not push something through unless he had at least 60 percent support for it. Yet this Government is prepared to do something with a slim, 51 percent majority—a paper-thin, you know, breath of a majority. I like the thought of going back to a situation where three-quarters of the House—75 percent—would make sure that things were protected, where if things were to be sold off, by far the majority of the House had to have considered it properly and agreed to it.

This bill also refers to a referendum, and, again, I would support this. It states that should there not be support from 75 percent of the House, there should have to be support from a majority of voters in a referendum. Again, New Zealand First supports this, because if we go to the people in a referendum and they support something of this nature, we should be listening to them.

At the present time, the majority of New Zealanders are saying we should not be selling State assets. Most of the polls are showing that 70 or 80 percent think we should not be. This bill brings that in. This a good piece of work. We certainly hope that all parties in this House will give it full consideration. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I would like to begin by reminding Mr Andrew Williams, who just made that contribution, that his much-admired leader, Winston Peters, was the champion of selling assets when he was the Treasurer in the late 1990s. His signature is actually on the documents that enabled the Government to sell its shares in Auckland International Airport. Just for the record, and for Mr Andrew Williams, I would like to say that at the time Mr Winston Peters, the leader of New Zealand First, said that the sale of shares in the Auckland International Airport was to be celebrated as popular capitalism—popular capitalism. So my challenge to Andrew Williams and to New Zealand First is that it is awful double standards. When Winston Peters is a Minister and a Treasurer, he signs documents to enable the quite sensible floating of a very successful company like Auckland International Airport, but now that he happens to be in Opposition, he sings a very different tune. That just shows not only how shallow the argument is but also how shallow this bill is, the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill.

Let me come to the sponsor of this bill, Mr Clayton Cosgrove. I have a very simple question for Mr Cosgrove. Where was he when the previous Labour Government in 2007 sold 49 percent of the shares in the Spring Creek Mine? I have gone back and looked at the Cabinet papers.

Clayton Cosgrove was in the Cabinet room when 49 percent, a shareholding worth tens of millions of dollars, was sold by the previous Labour Government. Did Mr Cosgrove, on that occasion, say that that sale of shares cannot proceed until such time—

Hon Trevor Mallard: All it did was delay the closure.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —as there is a 75 percent majority, as proposed by this bill? Of course not. He did not say boo. In fact, Mr Mallard is interjecting. Mr Mallard’s signature is on the papers that nailed a sale—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Proud of it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —of 49 percent of the shares in Spring Creek Mine. Mr Mallard has just cried out in the House that he is proud of that. So now we know the policy of the Labour Party. When Labour sells shares in State companies, it is a good thing. When some other Government sells shares, suddenly it becomes a bad thing, and that certainly does not stand up to any sort of integrity in terms of policy and history.

I do want to take it back, because in my early days of involvement in politics, I remember very well in Christchurch that Clayton Cosgrove was a campaign worker for Mike Moore.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I was 14 years old.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I was not that much older. But, Mr Cosgrove, I remember it very well because at that time there was a Labour Government. It was not just selling a little bit of assets. It sold 20 State-owned enterprises, which in today’s terms would be worth over $30 billion. And where was Mr Cosgrove? Mr Cosgrove was very strongly supporting those sales. Was he demanding at that time? I will tell you the difference, Mr Cosgrove. Let me explain the difference. In 2011 National went to the electorate with a very clear policy around mixed ownership. What was different, Mr Cosgrove, was that when Labour sold a large number—100 percent—of the shares in a large number of State businesses, there was absolutely no mandate at all, and that is really the difference. The difference between—

Andrew Little: Why didn’t you buy them back? Why didn’t your Government buy them back?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Andrew Little chips in. I would love him to say where he was when he was the Labour Party president and 49 percent of the shares in Spring Creek Mine were sold. Where was Mr Little? Mr Little was silent, and that is where—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I do not want to make a long speech on this bill, the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. I would note, going from the last point, that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove was, I think, at the time a fourth-former at St Bede’s College. I am told that Gerry Brownlee was there, also in the fourth form, but in his case it was for the third time. The member Nick Smith referred to Spring Creek Mine. Spring Creek Mine was a joint venture that was set up between Solid Energy and—it was a subsidiary company that was set up to be a joint venture in order to sell a pile of coal to a guaranteed buyer, a guaranteed offshore buyer, and to keep a pile of jobs that would not have been there if it was not for the setting up of the joint venture. I know Nick Smith hates Kiwi workers having jobs. He prefers Aussies and the Chinese to have jobs, but that was done to give some miners on the West Coast some jobs. I note that now it has been wound up by the National Government, those workers today got the sack, and Nick Smith is the person who is responsible for that. I say shame on Nick Smith—shame on Nick Smith for that.

This is not the shape of the bill that I would prefer. It is not the approach I would have taken, but it is great to highlight the disgraceful approach to State-owned assets that this Government has.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): The members who are promoting this bill, the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, across the other side of this House are economic illiterates. There are three ways of growing a business, and none of those ways involves locking up 75 percent of the ownership of a company in a way that would bring this country to its knees. The bill proposes—

Chris Hipkins: Put some enthusiasm into it.

JOHN HAYES: I do not need to shout. I am discussing ideas. The bill proposes that there should be a public referendum. Well, there was a public referendum at the last election, and I was in Mr Cosgrove’s seat, the electorate that he was busy trying to become the member of Parliament for, and I was listening to what the community was saying. It was not supportive of his ideas because he was campaigning against the National Party. He did not support asset sales. Why did he not phone his good mate Mike Moore in Washington, who is New Zealand’s outstanding ambassador in Washington, who was head of the World Trade Organization, and who was a Minister in Labour Cabinets over a long period of time? I ask why he did not ring his mate Mike and say: “Hey Mike, am I on the right track with this legislation? I’ve got a lot of time on my hands, now that I’m a list MP. I’m looking for a member’s bill to write. Would this be a good one?”. If he had, Mike Moore would have said: “No, forget it. You’re absolutely on the wrong track.”

Mr Cosgrove is also on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and he may remember—if his memory is going to last that long—that John Palmer, chair of Air New Zealand, spent about 30 minutes in our committee extolling the virtues of mixed public-private ownership and its benefit to Air New Zealand. I am not sure why Mr Cosgrove would not have heard what Mr Palmer was saying. He is a well-respected businessman in this community. He was saying: “Forget it. This is not a smart deal. You get much greater synergy, much better decision-making, when you bring in representatives of the private sector to run the board.”

We stood at the last election and said we are going to be selling up to 49 percent of assets in State-owned companies. Why are we doing that? Because we do not wish to borrow more than 30 percent of gross national income as debt, and we are going to invest the proceeds from the sale, first of all, into the community by giving it a broader capital base and share options for older folk who are retiring and want a cash flow into their retirement. We are going to use the money to benefit our young people through better education facilities. My electorate in the Wairarapa has no shortage of need in that area, to bring our 100-year-old schools up to today’s technology. We are going to spend money on hospitals, to again look after our older and young people in the community.

We have passed legislation that guarantees the Government will own at least 51 percent of the energy companies and prevent any other shareholder from owning more than 10 percent. There is no need for this bill. Why would you completely clog up any ability in this community to move sensibly forward with an elected administration? Under an MMP system you have to involve a cross-party selection of other parties in this House. I think that if you go to the community and you get its backing, then this particular draft of the bill is simply trying to fill up this House with absolute nonsense. It is a bill that will not pass. I do not support it because what it would lock us into is higher debt, higher interest rates, and lower gradings from Standard and Poor’s. I think what we need to do is to broaden the pool of investments for New Zealand savers and deepen our capital markets. I am sorry, but I do not agree with this bill at all. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I am not sure whether that was a good impression of Dr Dolittle, Mr Magoo, or Sir Les Patterson, I cannot quite work it out. [Interruption] Yeah, those members are animated now. Can I just say this to the House. Mr Hayes talked about the Government guaranteeing various things. What he failed to say, and what every National member has failed to do when they got up in the House tonight, was guarantee that the Government would not go beyond selling those assets that it has already put on the block. They never got up and said “We will guarantee we will not sell KiwiRail, not sell New Zealand Post, not sell Radio New Zealand”, etc. Not one. In fact, we know from the record of the House that Minister Joyce actually said there was no guarantee that the Government would not go further. That is the one thing Mr Hayes did not talk about when he talked about guarantees.

It has been an interesting debate, because this will come down—as Trevor Mallard said, this State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill highlights what the Government is about. If it chooses not to support this—likewise, Peter Dunne—then we know it is open slather. We know that at any given time in the future, these guys—

Nicky Wagner: No, we don’t.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, Nicky Wagner says no, it will not. But the problem Nicky Wagner has got, as she joins the battle late in the piece, is that none of her senior colleagues have provided any guarantee. That is the difficulty she has. Is she going to stand in the House now and provide a guarantee that the Government will not sell Kiwibank, for instance? No guarantee at all. So the acid test is simply this: if those members are prepared to guarantee they will not go beyond the assets they have already taken out of the schedule, and they are prepared to say they will not sell any more assets and guarantee that to the people of New Zealand, then they will support the bill. If Peter Dunne is prepared to back his election promise to not sell Radio New Zealand and the rest—New Zealand Post, Kiwibank, KiwiRail—then he will support the bill. If those members will not, then there is a gaping hole in their argument and the people of New Zealand will simply judge them accordingly.

It is really interesting the arguments that have been put up. They are paper-thin, wafer-thin arguments, apart from being a bit of good old-fashioned—I do not mind it—colourful invective here and there. We all participate in that. Apparently, I am responsible for all the ills of the 1980s, having been a 14-year-old at St Bede’s College in the fourth form. Gerry Brownlee was hovering around. I am not sure whether he was in a capacity as a student or a teacher at that time, but apparently—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Hey, is it true he used to coach rugby from the sideline, driving his car up and down?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Look, I would not want to bring that fact into the debate. But that is the sort of wafer-thin argument. But it is a simple thing, ladies and gentlemen. Over that side of the House, those members are going to signal to the people of New Zealand that either they guarantee not to go beyond those assets that they have put on the block or it is open slather. That is the simple mechanism that this bill—critical though they have been of it—will trigger when the vote happens. Very simple. If you are not going to do it, then stand up. If those members are not going to do it, they should stand up and say “We will not go beyond what we believe we have a mandate for.”, because that is what, of course, they keep prattling on about.

The fact is that their Ministers—Steven Joyce, particularly—have stated in this House that they cannot guarantee, for instance—as he referred to—the partial or whole sale of KiwiRail by this Government or by a future National Government. He was asked in this House and he provided no guarantee. In fact, he confirmed what we already knew, which is that he would not guarantee that. So that is the acid test for this crew over here. Despite all the hullabaloo, and the sorts of soft tones of Mr Hayes attempting to be a latter-day statesman and trying to be logical—the problem Mr Hayes has got, of course, is that when he talks about what it will do with the money, the difficulty is his Government has stuffed up the sales so badly and mismanaged them so badly that there is no guarantee at all that he will even—thank goodness—get a sale away. But as Mr Hayes pointed out, he has already spent the money. He has already booked it. He has booked the dollars from the sale in his Budget before any sales have gone ahead—before any sales have gone ahead.

Mighty River Power is on the skids in respect of the Waitangi Tribunal and probable court action. We know Solid Energy is in deep trouble now. We know with regard to the share price of Air New Zealand that it has been signalled it is not a good time to sell. Genesis Energy will suffer a similar fate and a similar set of issues to Mighty River Power, and, of course, Meridian Energy is over a barrel at Tīwai Point by Rio Tinto, its biggest client. So the Government has mismanaged it so badly, and it has almost spent the dough—it has booked it—but it has not completed or even started one sale. So this where we are tonight—the acid test. The vote will go through and then the people will know.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Noes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I move, That the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the bill. All of us put ourselves forward in this House because of a particular passion, as well as the broad political framework of our own parties. I am here because of a number of issues, including a river and the river people. This bill is about that river, its wildlife, and the river people, who have suffered from its contamination since 1955—a mere 77 years. Thus, the bill’s correct title is the “Black Drain Bill”, and the Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand created the “black drain:. This bill is a simple amendment to section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act. It puts a 5-year time frame on that section, which permits discoloration and toxic effects from discharges to waterways in exceptional circumstances. We believe the clause should exist, but with a time frame. It has scarcely been used by councils and industries for more than 4 years, and that is as it should be. We support that. However, it is also used in one place to justify one of the longest and most extreme point sources of pollution in our entire country’s history.

In 1954 the Parliament passed the Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Enabling Act. This Act facilitated Sir James Fletcher’s company to use the Tarawera River as the drain next to the Tasman Pulp and Paper mills at Kawerau. Overnight, a sparkling body of water—a whakapapa, a water resource, and a fisheries—was turned black. The enabling Act was the end of farmers’ water supply on that adjacent plain. The Pākehā farmers were given an alternative water supply and the Māori farmers were not. From the outset, those tangata whenua were lied to by Fletcher Challenge, which promised them jobs and a clean river for ever. Neither promise was fulfilled for the blacklisted whānau who dared to stand up to Fletcher Challenge and for the river that turned black. From that day, some staunch tangata whenua stood up and challenged, whether they worked at the mill or not, and many mill workers have stood in this struggle. That upper river, which is a sparkling, beautiful, and dynamic river, was home then, and is home now, to many fish, to many fishers, to recreation, and to people who live alongside it. But the lower river was renamed that day, and still is called the “black drain”. It is still recognised as being compromised for angling and swimming, for food gathering, and for the people’s identity.

The enabling Act was finally repealed, thanks to a campaign led by my partner, environmentalist Gordon Jackman, whose commitment to this issue filled a whole room of our house with written excuses for pollution that we had to address. He even went to university and did a chemistry degree entirely to take on the science of the pulp mills and to support the tangata whenua and local residents, who wanted a simple thing, clean water, and to be able to go and catch a healthy whitebait and to have a job, as well. The river discharges and the air discharges, as well, were then subject to years of debate and campaigning and struggle, until finally it was forced to be heard under the Resource Management Act so that it could be addressed in terms of a consent. Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act was apparently written partially to keep facilitating the pollution of the Tarawera River as an “exceptional circumstance”, which is the section in my bill that I want time-defined.

On one level, this can be said to be true. It is an exceptional circumstance when both Government and regional government have abrogated their responsibilities to set a fair limit on pollution—a time limit on pollution. It is a breach of article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it is up to 150,000 tonnes of pulp mill effluent per day, containing resin acids, which blacken the river, and up to 5 tonnes of organochlorines from the bleaching of that pulp. And, yes, the levels of dioxins have been reduced and the river does not literally foam like it used to up to 3 feet deep, but the invisible contaminants are still in that sediment 77 years later, and the Bay of Plenty is also affected. The effects on trout and native fish, including goldfish, have been shown over years, and they are still alive, but those tuna and those goldfish have been shown to have livers and kidneys that are sick. Like many humans, these species can live in a contaminated environment, but it is not a good living.

Tonight this House could give this bill and this river a chance. We need to hear from the councils and from industry, but most of all we need to hear from the river people about the “black drain” in section 107(2)(a). More than 10 years ago we brought a photographic exhibition to Parliament to show the MPs. We had photographs of the river, we had photographs of the peoples of the river, and we held it down in the bottom foyer, and not a single MP turned up. So here I am, 10 years later, bringing this picture to you today as a positive opportunity to help this river enter the modern world, where cultural and environmental issues and all kinds of relationships with rivers are not trampled on, as if there were no alternatives to clean it up other than to close it down. A select committee could ensure that this bill is both fair and practical.

I want to take my opportunity to pay some respects to the brave ones, to the people of Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Awa, and Ngāti Rangitihi, who have fought so hard and held the line in the face of section 107(2)(a) without its time limit: to exceptional people like the rangatira, the late Jack Fox, Isobel Fox, and their son Tōmairangi Fox; and to the whānau from Onepū and Kawerau, and the Ngāti Awa people from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, who have all worked at different levels through different processes over many years. They have not asked for the mill to be closed; they have asked for the effluent to be cleaned up and dealt with appropriately. And many of us have stood with Greenpeace, which brought the Rainbow Warrior at least three times into the Bay of Plenty to say that enough is enough.

I want to pay tribute to the late Bill Marr, to Tiipene Marr, the man who stood on the “black drain” bridge with his taiaha day after day after day, and to all the Marr whānau who have stood up for this issue, and to Mr Reuben Cohen and the mill watch crew, who gave most of the 1980s to this cause. You might think that is a long time ago. Well, it is a long time ago, and that is our disgrace. So we must stand up for the unrecognised people who are not heard in houses of power, who have fought so long and hard to see this change be debated in this House today. We had a slogan then, “Chlorine-Free by 1993”, which is kind of hopeful. We are not there yet, but my even getting to Parliament is a tribute to the fact that the river still inspires us and that we can have a chlorine-free, non-polluting relationship with the environment and, indeed, with paper and pulp production. I also want to acknowledge the last objectors in the last court case so far: Tiipene Marr himself and also David Potter and Andre Paterson from Te Rangatiratanga o Ngāti Rangitihi Inc.

In 2010 the Environment Court heard an appeal and listened to the so-called experts, who said that 150,000 tonnes of pulp or effluent—including organochlorines, the effects of which have not been properly identified, and concentrated resin acids—pouring into the river was acceptable under section 107(2). But the court also acknowledged that section 107(2) could not be relied upon for ever, and let us make sure that it is not. A 25-year consent was granted in 2010 after the appeal was lost and section 107(2) was relied upon yet again. Of course, employment at the mill is critical, but the excuse that mills must close if required to clean up is not defensible. Pulp mills can carry out pulp and paper bleaching without polluting. They can use oxygen bleaching and they can reuse waste water. It is called closed loop, it is modern pulp and paper production, and it is high time the Bay of Plenty got with that.

I worked in many councils to make sure I would not compromise the emergency overflows and still-water consents, and apart from a couple of historic examples, including one in Tai Rāwhiti, which I was proud to fight every inch of the way and which we eventually won, people are no longer on this clause, except for Environment Bay of Plenty in relation to the Tarawera River. This issue will be a stain on the Bay of Plenty in a very literal way and a stain on the Resource Management Act, so we really need to make this change as soon as possible. Tonight I am asking the House to hear this true story and to give the lower river a chance once that current consent expires. It still gives the pulp mills 22 years to figure it out after 77 years, but it also means that no one else will try to use the law for a permanent and unexceptional dirty discharge. It is time for positive change, and I ask you all to send it to the select committee. Kia ora tātou katoa. Kia kaha, Tarawera!

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I rise to take a call on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, a bill in the name of Catherine Delahunty. Thank you, Catherine, for bringing it to the House, and thank you for speaking so passionately about it. The purpose of this bill is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or coastal permit may be issued to 5 years, and that is when that permit has been issued under exceptional circumstances. I have to say that on face value that seems like a sensible idea and it is attractive.

I had an open mind when I first had a look at this bill, particularly in reflection on what Catherine said about the Tarawera River. But there are actually a variety of good reasons why under section 107(2)(a) the Resource Management Act provides temporary consents, and in some cases—not necessarily in this one, but in some cases—the 5-year limit may actually increase the adverse environmental and economic impacts.

We heard from Catherine about her concerns, about the consent issues for the Kawerau pulp and paper Mills, and about the discharge consent that has been granted and the length of time that is has been granted for, which is another 22 years, I think. I do respect her concerns, and, certainly, we want to clean up our rivers. After listening to the description, and hearing about the people who were so concerned about the river, it sounds like we need to do something about that. In actual fact there has been some improvement, and she certainly also noted that, because when the consent was last renewed it reduced the discharge significantly. The amount of the discharge actually reduces during the time of that consent, so it is a downward spiral. Already the mill is discharging 33 percent less now than the consent actually allows for with that continuous improvement.

I also note that this consent and others sought under this provision have been appealed to the Environment Court. In each case the Environment Court has applied a pretty rigorous test to validate the exceptional circumstances and it has reaffirmed the conditions of the permit issued to minimise environmental effects. This indicates that, in fact, the process is pretty carefully considered and is used only where appropriate. It shows that the section is doing exactly what Parliament envisaged when we wrote the legislation: allowing time to find ways to clean up discharges in the cases of exceptional circumstances.

It is now more than 20 years since the Resource Management Act was introduced, so it is time to look closely at that legislation. National is committed to updating, to streamlining, and to simplifying the legislation, and to making sure that it adequately manages contemporary issues. But I do not actually think that this bill will improve the legislation. Section 107(2)(a), which this bill seeks to amend, is very rarely applied, and there is no evidence, except perhaps in the case of Tarawera, that it has been misused. Section 107(2)(a) affects only a very small number of relevant consents, because “exceptional circumstances” are indeed exceptional. Any change to the law would not affect any of the existing consents—and Catherine Delahunty has actually said that tonight—such as Kawerau, and we do not expect many to be granted under this in the future, either.

So because this section of the Resource Management Act has a very limited use, because when it has been used it has been validated by the Environment Court, because there is very little evidence of abuse of the section, and because it is used in only exceptional circumstances, I am afraid National will not be supporting the bill.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to take what I think will be a short call on this piece of legislation, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. Labour will be supporting the bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have to be perfectly honest. I am not entirely convinced that the bill is needed, but I do think that there is an issue here that is worthy of investigation.

I think that the particular circumstances of the Tarawera River case provide, actually, a really good case study, where we can have a look and see whether the provisions that are currently in the Resource Management Act for the extension of these permits out to 35 years are adequate, and whether they do provide enough protection for the communities that are concerned about the health of the rivers or waterways involved. I do think this is a very good case study, because Environment Bay of Plenty, the regional council that issued the consent, is a very, very good regional council—a very good regional council with good relationships right through its community. So it is not like we would be looking at a case where there are concerns about the quality of decision making in a regional council. This is one where the council has a strong reputation. For example, the company Tasman Pulp and Paper came and asked for a consent extension of 35 years. The regional council said no, 25 years. It put in place a lot of other conditions including that you could not see the discharge in the river, and a number of other things. So I think it is, actually, a really interesting case study as to whether not having any cap—or not having a 5-year cap, or a 10-year cap, or whatever it might be—is an issue in the law, because this did turn into a very, very messy and emotional issue in the Bay of Plenty. I want to recognise all the work that Catherine and her partner, Gordon, who was my former teacher at school, did on the particular issue.

Certainly, as we know looking back through history, environmental practices have varied greatly over time. We have become far more aware now about the impact of a lot of these industrial processes on our environment, and that is why we have laws like the Resource Management Act in place now, which were not there a long time ago. But certainly with this particular river the practices were very distressing for the community, and what I think needs to be put on the record, of course, is that outside of the resource management process there was a memorandum of understanding that was reached with all the local iwi—not just the iwi that took the court case and failed in that court case—where they actually ended up negotiating a really good outcome, but it took an awful lot of money for the iwi involved, it took an awful lot of pain and anguish getting them there, and it was only because of agitation. Now it is not such a big issue, because Kawerau is really pleased about the jobs that were created by the extension of that mill and the boiler. As I have said, they have been able to negotiate environmental agreements with Tasman Pulp and Paper where they work together on the health of the river. So there is a lot less concern about it in the community now.

But the point to that is that it is great, but it relies on both the company involved coming on board and deciding that it wants to be a partner with the local iwi and the local community, and then being able to negotiate that outcome, and that is not something, of course, that the Resource Management Act can deal with. So I think there is a question. This is a very good case study where we could look at where we have had a good outcome. It might not be in every circumstance and I think there are questions around that. I do not think that a sawmill extending or upgrading its boiler is necessarily an exceptional circumstance. I think that one of the key issues is that this was meant to be used only in really exceptional circumstances. This is the kind of thing that goes on with industry all the time. They upgrade, they change, and they are going to need to alter the terms of their discharge consent approval. Is that really an exceptional circumstance? And I think that is where a lot of the debate comes around.

So, like I said, as far as I am aware, I think this is the only case in which there has been this kind of extension, so it is probably a good time to get in early, before there are any others, and have a look at it. Like I said, I think this will be a really simple matter of getting the regional council and some of the stakeholders in to tell their story. It may be that what is needed is a very simple change. It may be that there is no change needed. But, certainly, having gone through and seen the anguish and the money spent on lawyers in that community, I wonder whether there is not something that could be done. I certainly think that we deserve to give the iwi of the Eastern Bay of Plenty who went through this the opportunity to come and discuss what happened in this case and suggest how they might see things working differently. I do not suspect that it would take up a lot of committee time. As the member has indicated, the Government is bringing along some Resource Management Act reforms anyway. Maybe it could be worked in alongside that, but I do think, actually, the committee would benefit from having a look into this case.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to make a contribution on this bill, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, and to make three points. The first of those is that I am quite uncomfortable with bills in the area of resource management that specifically focus on a single resource issue. I have heard the Green Party and others in this Parliament over the years say that we should be very cautious of passing a bill to simply ride roughshod over process and approve a particular development. Equally so, Parliament should be cautious of passing a law that is specifically designed to do just a particular job on a particular river. We have an Environment Court and very robust processes for that. If we look over the history of resource management in this Parliament, what we have found is that piecemeal legislation—which makes a bit of law for this beach, or a bit for that river, or a bit for that mountain, or a bit for that lake—is actually not where Parliament should be focused. It should be focused on providing really good law, so that we can then consistently deal with good resource management decision-making. I think it is a deficiency in this bill, and in the contribution by the member who introduced it, Catherine Delahunty, that it is gunning in on just the issue of the Tarawera River.

The second point is that the bill does not achieve what the member says it will. The bill says that it is going to put a termination on the “exceptional circumstance” provision in respect of this specific application of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill and the Tarawera River. The problem is that the Environment Court has granted a 25-year consent. So even if this bill is passed, it is a bit of a nonsense to say that it is going to limit the provision to 5 years, when the bill is targeted to have a go only at this one river—and that consent has got 25 years to go—and there are no provisions in the bill to override that particular consent. So I think that it is a little bit of misrepresentation to say that this puts a 5-year window on it, when it affects only one consent and that consent has got 25 years to run.

The third issue on which I believe the member needs to satisfy Parliament is that she says there is strong local support for the bill. Well, it is my information that the Kawerau District Council, which is the locally elected community representative voice, does not support it. My understanding is that neither does the Bay of Plenty Regional Council support it. Of course, it could have been introduced as a local bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee does consider those when they come through. For the bill to be supported and to claim to have local support, we really would want to know that the Kawerau District Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, which are elected with the specific role of representing these community issues, have the same view as what the member presents. Our information is that that is not correct.

You see, there is no disagreement in this Parliament that we need to raise the bar around cleaner rivers throughout New Zealand. But equally so, we need to be asking the question, in a very detailed way, about how that impacts on employment and costs. That is, we need to have a very transparent discussion around, if you are going to set the bar at a particular line and a particular time frame, the impact on employment and the impact on costs.

The other part that worries me is that it is very easy to stand up in this Parliament, whether it comes to issues of climate change—where the Greens have a policy of 40 percent reduction of emissions by 2020, without any admission of what cost that might impose—or whether we want to have clean air or clean water everywhere at a particular time, without being open and upfront with our fellow New Zealanders about what the cost and job implications are of those. In my view, if we are to really have an honest discussion, all those things need to be on the table. My view is that we should be looking at improving the overall framework of the Resource Management Act and not looking at legislation that picks off a single issue in a single area.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): How pleased I was that I did not have a split call, having had three or four split calls at 6 o’clock in the last few months. I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. We do support this bill. We see merits in it moving through to a select committee. I think there is a serious and significant issue here, which needs to be debated and needs to go before the select committee that I am on, the Local Government and Environment Committee.

New Zealand prides itself on its image of being “100% Pure”. We have a Prime Minister who is the Minister of Tourism, and he is on record as saying how important it is for New Zealand’s image that we do have the “100% Pure” image. We do pride ourselves on what we offer in this country in the South Pacific in terms of our ability to provide a very pure, clean, green environment in New Zealand, and we trade on that logo, we trade on that motto, and we trade on the fact that we do have something quite special to offer to the world. However, New Zealand does have the situation that we must be very mindful of that at times there can be discharges into our waterways, into our coasts, and into our foreshores, and those discharges can be ongoing, they can be serious, and they can be in place for a considerable amount of time. That therefore must, surely, undermine the whole premise of our being “100% Pure”.

It is for this very reason that our member Catherine Delahunty has brought this bill to the House. There have been instances, and we have heard tonight in the House of the instance of the Kawerau river, where discharges have been ongoing for a considerable amount of time, for many, many years, and continuing. They basically need to be brought to a head and need to be sorted out once and for all. There will be other instances very similar to it around New Zealand that should also be addressed. Any member in this House who is not prepared to allow, or any party that is not prepared to allow, this bill at least to go through to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration, to see what are the real issues here, to see what we should be addressing in this country in terms of these discharges, I think is doing a disservice to the environment of New Zealand and doing a disservice to the people of New Zealand.

We in this Parliament are the guardians of the environment, and the guardians of what is good and what is bad in New Zealand. In this respect, where there are perhaps things going on within New Zealand that are not in accordance with what we would wish, whether it is our wish politically, party-wise, or even personally, we should at least have the decency to put the bill through to the select committee to allow it to be fully debated, to allow the public of New Zealand to have input into it, to allow the businesses of New Zealand to have input into it, and to allow a full and frank debate on the issue. If we just brush it under the carpet, and if we do not allow this bill to go forward, and if we do not allow this bill to have some traction and at least see a reasonable amount of light, then, basically, we are turning a blind eye to the “100% Pure” image of New Zealand, and saying we have it but we really actually do not want to own up to some issues that we should be confronting.

I have been involved in a lot of Resource Management Act issues over many, many years through local government. I know what can occur, what is good and what is bad, in terms of the Resource Management Act, and what can occur, in terms of good and bad, in terms of discharges. There are issues around discharges, as we all know. There are situations where discharges are well treated. They are taken care of. Whatever is discharged into whichever waterway, or into the sea, or into our coastline, through our sewerage systems, through our water systems, through our treatment plants—all these sorts of things, which need long-term consents—is fully treated. But where there is a direct discharge into a waterway that is ongoing, that is actually a pollutant, that is bad for the environment, and that is definitely having an adverse effect on our waterways and our coastlines, we should address it. This member’s bill does that. It brings it to the attention of this House, and every party and every member of this House should be supporting it in order to give the environment the benefit of the doubt in this first instance. Thank you.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): As the member of Parliament for Rotorua, the Kawerau river and the mills, which Mrs Delahunty, the mover of this bill, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, has mentioned, fall in my electorate, so I felt duty-bound to stand and speak on this issue. Can I start by saying to the people of Kawerau that I know how very much they rely upon the mills and what an important part of their lives they are.

Having said that, I want to make a few comments about the importance of these mills to Kawerau and to the wider Bay of Plenty, and then about some of the challenges we face around the environment and why I believe that, as the Hon Nick Smith said earlier, the very best place to have this debate and look to make changes to legislation would be in a wider reform of the Resource Management Act, as opposed to singling out, in a piece of legislation like this, one river, one mill, one area. I think there are some things we need to talk about, without doubt, but a wider review and reform of the Resource Management Act is the best place for that.

The mills in Kawerau have a great deal of history. Indeed, without them the town of Kawerau would not exist. It is probably fair to say that if you were to build mills of that size today, you would not build them on a river the size of the one in question. Nevertheless, that was done many years ago when we did not have the same focus on the environment as we, importantly, have today.

The Carter Holt Harvey pulp and paper mill directly employs 210 people, and approximately 140 dedicated onsite contracting staff on top of that. It produces 290,000 tonnes of market kraft paper per year; 40 percent of that is exported to Asia, and 30 percent to Australia, and 30 percent is used domestically. Its chemical pulp exports from New Zealand in the year ending 2009 were valued at about $450 million, and 39 percent of them derived from the Tasman mill—a value of about $176 million in exports for New Zealand. It also sells locally in New Zealand. Therefore, the value of the work of this mill to New Zealand and the local economy is about $260 million.

There are two mills there. There is also the Norske Skog mill. They share the consent that Mrs Delahunty has mentioned. Collectively, they directly employ 830 people and contractors, and they are responsible for, effectively, creating an additional 3,500 jobs in the wider Bay of Plenty economy. They contribute about $890 million of indirect impact, $169 million to household incomes in the Bay of Plenty, $1.5 billion to the New Zealand economy, and $306 million to New Zealand households, with 7,345 fulltime-equivalent jobs.

The challenge that we have around this resource consent, which was issued a couple of years ago, is that the owners of the mill needed to upgrade the mill. They needed to upgrade it for a number of reasons, including the environmental impact that it was having in its current state. They needed to invest $60 million in a new boiler and other facilities there. They went for a resource consent, and our regional council at the time looked at it. There was an understanding that without this investment the mill would not be able to continue to function as it was, and many of those jobs would be lost.

At the same time, there was recognition of the challenges we face in the environment. I think our regional council did a very good job in balancing some of the concerns of the community about the needs of the environment against the need for investment in a plant that is of absolute importance to the Bay of Plenty and to much of my electorate. So the council was faced with a difficulty there. Indeed, the resource consent was issued. It was challenged. It went to the Environment Court. I think the process did work as was intended when the law was originally written and put in place. All parties had an opportunity to have their say. Since then, the companies concerned have entered into agreements, contracts, with local iwi to provide assistance and funding to make sure that the waterways are kept as clean as they can be.

What I want to do in the moment I have left is just to say that one of the conditions of the consent was that the company needed to continue to reduce the pollution that might be being put into the river. Indeed, if we look at 2004 compared with today, what is being put into the river today is only 30 percent of what was being put in at that period of time. At the end of this consent period there will be one-eighth of the amount going into the river that was the case before.

So I would say that the mills are good corporate citizens. They do have the environment at heart. They work closely with the community. National members will not be supporting this bill, although I do think a debate is important when it comes to the wider Resource Management Act reforms. But to the people of Kawerau, who I know support the mills and the work they do, to the council, and to others there it is very important that if this bill does go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, they have the opportunity to have their say. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I want to begin my contribution on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill by congratulating the Green Party member Catherine Delahunty on having the good luck to get her bill drawn from the ballot, and also the good sense to put this before the House for a discussion. I want to say also that I am extraordinarily impressed at the large amount of public interest there appears to be from the members of the public who are in the gallery listening to this. I did not realise how many people were actually so concerned about the situation in and around Kawerau, but I think it is excellent to see that. I understand that there is actually a long queue of people who are waiting to get here, and I certainly hope that they are able to make it into the public gallery before Catherine Delahunty does her concluding speech. I want to say that it is great to see so much interest in Kawerau, and I am sure the locals will be really, really impressed.

I have to say that I am disappointed with the local member of Parliament Todd McClay, who has just resumed his seat. For him to not know or understand enough about his own electorate as to not support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee for a discussion is really surprising. I am amazed. I thought he was a member who would say that he does not think this is an issue any more, as he did, but if it has an impact in other areas of the country—as it clearly does in Kawerau—why not send it to a select committee and have the debate? It was obviously of much concern previously for the issue to go to an Environment Court hearing.

I listened to my colleague Moana Mackey in her contribution prior to the dinner adjournment. I just want to say what good news it was to hear a member of Parliament praising their democratically elected regional council and saying how committed Environment Bay of Plenty is to the partnership that it has with local communities, including iwi, and to the standards—not just required, but standards that it thinks are better than required—for environmental protection in its area. Actually, more than anything, what a delight it was to hear about a fully elected democratic regional council. Could we please have one in Canterbury? I do not think it is a big ask. We have not had one for a couple of years. Dr Nick Smith, I am sure, recalls taking away our democratic right—

Moana Mackey: They’re very good.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Moana Mackey tells me it is very good. We would like a fully elected democratic council, in the same way as the entire rest of the country. We in Canterbury think we are up to the job of voting for people. I know we have not been able to do it for a little while, but we think it is within our area of competence. I am sure that even the National members of Parliament for Canterbury think we are up to the job of voting for our regional council.

But back to the specifics of the bill. It is, of course, of concern when an issue as serious as this has gone through the Environment Court process. It is a big process and it is an expensive process, and not one that any organisation will take up lightly. The fact that this issue appears to have been resolved in that specific place, from what we have heard from other contributions—or at least attempts have been made—through the goodwill of the regional council, the company concerned, and the local iwi, through their memorandum of understanding, is good news. But that might not always be the case, so the debate that we should sensibly have at the select committee is specifically around the duration of the discharge and the coastal permits. I think it would be a very worthwhile debate to have.

I just want to make just a few concluding remarks towards the criticism that Todd McClay directed at Catherine Delahunty for what he described as the specificity—the narrowness—of this bill. In 2014—not very long—when Mr McClay is a member of the loyal Opposition of this Parliament—

Hon Trevor Mallard: If he’s high enough on the list.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —if he is high enough on the list—and brings a specific and narrow member’s bill to this House, I give him my commitment that I will not vote against it on the basis of it being too specific and too narrow, but only on the basis of it being stupid or something I fundamentally disagree with. When you are in Opposition, you do not have the resources of a Government department or agency and you do not have the Law Commission to do the preparation of a significant report. You do not have those resources, so often members’ bills are—because of the resources available to Opposition members—quite narrow and quite specific. So I give the member that assurance, and I look forward to progressing this discussion at the select committee.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to take a short call on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. It could be called the “Tarawera Black Drain Bill”, because this bill would limit to 5 years the duration of a coastal permit or a discharge permit that was issued under the “exceptional circumstances” section in the Resource Management Act. Section 107(2) of the Resource Management Act is the section that allows the discharge, even if it impacts on fish and other aquatic life, and even if it causes a conspicuous change in the colour of the river.

At present in the Act there is no limit to how long the exceptional circumstances that might justify a regional council allowing a discharge could last for, nor is there any definition in the Act of “exceptional circumstances”. So the bill would improve the Resource Management Act by making it more precise. It is not picking off a single issue, as Dr Nick Smith claimed. It would apply to all polluters who sought to use this provision. It is not addressing just one river, the Tarawera, one place, or one mill, but it would certainly constrain the ability of Tasman Pulp and Paper mills to use this “exceptional circumstances” section to continue to grossly pollute the Tarawera River.

The bill is needed because in 2009 Bay of Plenty Regional Council commissioners granted consent to Carter Holt Harvey and Norske Skog to continue to discharge effluent from the mills into the river for another 25 years, and they granted that permit renewal because of exceptional circumstances. Where the Tarawera River flows out of Lake Tarawera it is a beautiful river. The water is clear enough to see the stones, to see the weed, and to see the occasional trout. It is a beautiful river to walk beside, to see the Tarawera Falls, but lower down, near the sea, the river changes, and that is because of the burden of pollution that has been going into the river for 70 years—70 years—from the pulp and paper mills in Kawerau.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, identified the Tarawera River in its lower reaches as the second most polluted river in Aotearoa. I congratulate Catherine Delahunty on bringing this bill to the House. I congratulate her and the Bay of Plenty iwi, Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Rangitihi, and Ngāti Tūwharetoa, on all of their mahi over many decades to respect the mauri of this river and to restore it to health, so that it is a river that provides them with mana and a river that can provide them with kai. We have a long way to go, but this bill is a step along that path.

One might expect a council to use the “exceptional circumstances” section to justify a stormwater overflow in an extreme weather event or a sewage treatment plant that malfunctions, but it should not be used to justify ongoing discharges over decades. The Tasman Pulp and Paper mills need to invest more in clean technology to clean up their discharges. This bill, by limiting that “exceptional circumstances” provision to 5 years, would provide the encouragement for them to do that when the next consent is applied for. I commend this bill to the House, because it is about having clean technology to provide jobs, not abusing the environment to provide jobs. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I cannot support the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, a bill that seeks to fix a river. I cannot support a bill that seeks to fix a river, because the fabric of the Resource Management Act is designed to set environmental standards for water quality throughout New Zealand.

I also want to pick up on the points that the local member Todd McClay made with regards to the Kawerau River and the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. I think of the industry in my own small home town—even smaller than the one Todd was referring to—and Summit Wool Spinners. It is also a company that employs several hundred of the people of the town, across many generations, actually. There are up to three generations working in this company in my town, in much the same way as people are working in Kawerau at the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. The fabric of the town would be torn apart if the mill in my town and if the mill in Kawerau were forced to close. So it is important to the river—yes, of course it is—but it is also important to the local community. We should not ever forget that people are very important, as is the health of the river.

I also want to note tonight a few facts. I know that the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. has got a good relationship with local iwi. In fact, it is investing, and in the last couple of years has developed very strong collaborative relationships with the three iwi and is concerned with further cleaning up and clarifying the river. The company, Tasman Pulp and Paper, has signed a memorandum of understanding with the iwi that commits $100,000 a year to river projects. To me, that says that that company is one that understands the impact of its activities on the river and one that is actively, together with the local community and together with the local iwi, committing $100,000 a year to river projects. I think that speaks volumes about the company’s recognition of the fact that, yes, it has discharges into the Tarawera River that are causing concerns and certainly do not meet environmental standards, but it is prepared to work with the local community. It is prepared to invest money in improving its water quality and improving the rate of its discharges.

I also note that the mill is continuously working to reduce the discharge. The mill is currently discharging an average of 20 tonnes a day, and that is 33 percent below the allowable limit now. Towards the end of the period of consent, which was granted 3 years ago and which runs for the next 22 years, I understand that the discharges at that point will be something like 80 percent below what has been consented for the period of consent. You are absolutely right: water quality is important. The mill responsible for these discharges has taken that message on board, and it is doing something, together with the local iwi and with the local community, to reduce those discharges. It understands that it has responsibilities to the environment.

My last point that I would like to make is that, given that the consent, which was granted 3 years ago, runs for another 22 years, any impact from this bill will not have any impact on the specific issue to which this bill refers. I cannot support this bill.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I want to begin by congratulating the sponsor of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, my friend Catherine Delahunty, on putting this measure forward, and also note the remarkable luck that she has had with members’ bills. This is, for those who have not been keeping count, I think, her fourth bill to be drawn from the ballot. Members will know that that is, indeed, a very lucky record.

Tonight is a members’ night, and it is being used in the way that the Standing Orders intend that it should be used. Catherine Delahunty has put forward a bill that reflects one of her fundamental beliefs—a commitment to a clean environment. It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make this short contribution to support what she is doing. It will be an absolute pleasure for me to be able to do the same thing in a few moments for my friend and colleague Louisa Wall.

This bill would amend the Resource Management Act to limit the maximum period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued to 5 years. At the moment there is absolutely no limit on the amount of time for which this sort of permit may be issued under section 107(2)(a) of the principal Act. There is only a requirement that there be exceptional circumstances for the issue of such a permit.

My colleagues on this side of the House want to ensure that our coastlines and rivers are protected from pollution, and we support the idea of having a conversation about whether this section is appropriate for New Zealand and the regulation of its environment going forward. For those reasons, my colleagues and I are very proud to say that we will be voting to send this bill forward to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and support its reading for a first time. I hope that enough other members of the House will join my colleagues and me in doing that. With those words I want to conclude my contribution and I look forward, along with others present tonight, to the rest of the business of the House.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koutou katoa. It is great to see the public interest in this moment in history! I am very excited about both my bill, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, and the subsequent one, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, because they are both about passionately held, important issues of justice.

To return to my bill, I would like to thank the speakers from New Zealand First and the Labour Party for their very helpful and supportive comments, as well as my own colleague from the Greens. I have heard some interesting attempts to justify not sending the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. These include that this bill is for only one river. It is at the moment, but in the past, section 107(2)(a) of the principal Act has also been used in the notorious Paokahu - Tai Rāwhiti sewage battle, which some in this House are well aware of, and the Rotokawa Joint Venture and Mighty River Power battle versus Taupō District Council.

What is more, this kind of open-ended section could be used again. I have already seen it used twice, and I have also seen that the lack of a time limit means that regional councils and companies can rely on it, as Environment Bay of Plenty and the pulp mills, in fact, do. They are hoping that they can keep relying on section 107(2)(a) without a time limit. Successive mill owners have told communities that the effluent in the river is so improved that we should not have to worry; they have paid their experts to say this.

When the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research appeared in front of one of the hearings that I was at and told the court that putting 150,000 tonnes of pulp mill effluence into a river every day was enhancing its life-supporting capacity, I thought I had heard it all. But what I had heard was that money talks in the Environment Court, and the poor cannot be heard.

The scientific knowledge about the toxic effects of chlorine bleaching has been considered by the courts according to last century’s level of understanding about the effect of chemicals. The persistent organic pollutants and emerging chemicals of concern, which are associated with chlorine bleaching, are much more toxic than we suspected, and in smaller amounts. We need to catch up with the modern and precautionary understanding of chemicals, rather than license continued pollution. We can have pulp and paper; we can modernise our industry and keep our jobs.

When Dr Russel Norman and others went down the Tarawera River in an inflatable last year, they arrived at the river mouth with bad headaches, because the “black drain”, as it is unfortunately known, is dirty and it smells bad. I urge you to drive through Matatā and have a look at it. If you would like to look at it, you will see Coca-Cola - black water pumping into the Bay of Plenty after 77 years of pollution.

Another argument was that the local council and regional council do not like my bill, therefore it is not local. It may be news to some in this House, but local and regional councils are not the only voices we need to listen to. I know at least one regional councillor in the Bay of Plenty, Tiipene Marr, who has fought all his life for the clean-up of the river, even though he is outvoted and out-lawyered.

We need to hear from people who gave up submitting and protesting but have not stopped grieving for the 77 years of pollution. And all the memorandums of understanding, the experts, and the planting of nice little trees along the polluted river in the world by the pulp mills does not change the fact that the river is still a drain, and the river is black. If companies like Norske Skog and Carter Holt Harvey want to, they can afford the experts, and pay them well, and say that there are no cultural, social, or environmental issues that are ongoing. But I swear to this House that there are people—some living and some who have passed on—who, although they cannot win in court, have a legitimate and profound view that we need to hear about section 107(2)(a), and also about the sludge pond and the contamination hidden behind the barbed wire fence around the wāhi tapu at Kawerau. Just as the gallery tonight may be full of people who are here for justice, this is an injustice they may never have heard of, and it is time that they did know about what is going on behind the pulp mills at Kawerau. It is time that you heard this story.

The workers at the mill and every activist campaigner over 77 years have acknowledged the need for jobs and for food on the table in the Bay of Plenty. But do we really believe that after 77 years of pollution we cannot incentivise these companies to change? We can protect this and other waterways by giving them a clear message about the law. Exceptional means exceptional, and a river is not a drain. I would like to thank all of you who have supported this bill and I say, once again, kia kaha, te Tarawera Awa.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

First Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.

I am proud to be the sponsor of this bill before the House, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, which seeks to define marriage as between two people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. It is generally known as the bill that will enable marriage equality between consenting adults, underpinned by principles of love, fairness, and equality of opportunity for all New Zealand citizens. The bill has attracted passionate reactions from a number of quarters, and the result of that passion has seen statements that reflect a diversity of opinions across our society. This ability to engage and to make a statement and to have a say about this issue is fundamental. I want to highlight that this is an important aspect of a modern, democratic society.

The starting point for this bill rests with our role on the international stage. In 1944, when the founding document of the United Nations, the United Nations Charter, was being developed, New Zealand pushed for a stronger focus on human rights, and in 1948 we again played an important and effective role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We saw the need for such a declaration and participated in its instigation and development. This is not surprising, given that we led the world in enabling women to have the right to vote. We did that in 1893, and it took the United States another 27 years to reach that same point.

That sexual orientation is a ground of unlawful discrimination is not a matter of dispute. In 1993 we as a country amended the Human Rights Commission Act 1977 to outlaw discrimination on a wider variety of grounds, including sexual orientation. This is what we must always remember when we discuss this issue. This issue will make all citizens and people of New Zealand equal under the law, given that, currently, same-gender couples cannot obtain a marriage licence from the State.

What my bill does not do is require any person or Church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a Church has. Section 29 of the Marriage Act remains in place and makes it clear that once a marriage licence is obtained by a couple, it does not oblige a minister or celebrant to marry that couple. That is the situation now and nothing will change. Because we have freedom of religion in New Zealand, no religious body is bound to marry a couple if that marriage is at odds with its religious belief. For Churches and religious institutions, such discrimination would be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, based on the right to freedom of religion—specifically, the manifestation of religion and belief—under section 15 of that Act.

It is the State’s role to uphold our laws and our international obligations and to ensure that everyone has equality under the law. The Church can discriminate, but the State should not and cannot. We as parliamentarians belong to the only institution in New Zealand—our Parliament—that makes our laws and upholds not only these laws but our international obligations as well. It is not the State’s role to sanction heterosexuality or homosexuality. We recognised that as a country in 1986, when we decriminalised homosexual acts. Nor is it the State’s role to judge the marriages of its citizens. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with the marriage laws of the State.

Marriage as an institution pre-dates government and Christianity. It has been part of civilisations and cultures and has, over that time, changed dramatically. Same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero. The Catholic Church initially saw the institution of marriage as tainted and undesirable, and advocated chastity and celibacy. Once the Church adopted and adapted marriage, it was for life. It could not be dissolved. A married woman assumed the identity of her husband and he received all her property. By marriage, the legal doctrine of coverture meant a woman had no legal status. She could not own property, enter into contracts, earn money, or obtain an education without her husband’s consent.

The Church and State have at different times refused to marry people who have been divorced, refused to marry people of different faiths, and refused to marry people of different races. Those restrictions have changed, because they were not fair and just.

Women were not able to be guardians of their children upon a divorce or separation. A law was needed to change that. For women to own property required law changes as recently as 1884. A woman was able to obtain a divorce from her husband only if there was another cause alongside adultery, such as extreme cruelty, desertion, or incest. A man, however, could obtain a divorce immediately on the basis of his wife’s adultery.

These are all part of the historical matrix that is marriage. Thankfully, the need to change some of the laws has been recognised and implemented. With women obtaining the right to vote and finally having legal status, the greatest transformation of marriage began. There are a number of shocking historical facts that surround this subject, and we baulk at how, in a civilised society, they could happen.

Today is the time to open the institution of marriage to all people who are eligible. There is no reasonable ground on which the State should deny any citizen the right to enter the institution of marriage if he or she chooses. That is not the process of inclusion.

To any person concerned about their own beliefs and how they wish to celebrate marriage, it is important to always remember that this bill allows a couple to only obtain a marriage licence. It does not mean that a minister or celebrant must marry the couple. Section 29 of the Marriage Act 1955 says that, and this will not change.

Some people have suggested that the Church cannot share its view about marriage because of section 56 of the Marriage Act. Section 56 says that a person cannot state that another person’s marriage is not legal. That does not concern the general view of marriage but is directed to an individual, and the reality is that once sanctioned by law, the marriage is legal, and no Church person should be stating otherwise.

I want to highlight two specific consequences if my bill becomes law. Under section 3 of our current Adoption Act a joint application to adopt can be made by only spouses or the birth parent and his or her spouse. A spouse is a marital partner, so if you are married, you are spouses. Therefore, under the current wording of the Adoption Act, same-sex marital partners as spouses would be able to make a joint application to adopt. There are shortcomings in our current Adoption Act, and the Care of Children Law Reform Bill, which is also in the ballot, would be unaffected by this bill.

Also an obvious consequential amendment is to section 30(2) of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995. This provision limits a trans person who is married and who gets a Family Court declaration under section 28 of this Act to change their sex details from having those details amended on a birth certificate. This section should be deleted. A marriage stood strong through the significant change of one partner transitioning from one sex to another should remain recognised under New Zealand law.

How any person’s marriage is performed has never been the State’s business. Whether it be cultural, religious, or civil, it is the decision for the couple and their whānau. What this bill will do is enable that decision to be made and for all people to have the same choices about how they make a commitment to one another. Where it requires a licence, the State should not exclude any citizen who is otherwise eligible. To exclude two people from obtaining a marriage licence based on their sexual orientation and gender identity is not tolerable. We have an opportunity as a Parliament to rectify this discriminatory, unequal, and unfair application of the law. Kia ora.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I put the question and call the next speaker, I must remind our guests in the gallery that they cannot take part in any proceedings in the House, much as they may wish to. Visitors in the gallery cannot applaud or express any view on the debate in the House. I apologise for that, but those are the rules of the House.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am pleased to support the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I want to congratulate Louisa Wall on bringing this bill to the House. Today is an important day for New Zealand, because I hope that we are on the cusp of passing a piece of legislation that will strengthen the rights and freedoms of a significant group of New Zealanders.

In this House there is huge diversity. We were born in places across New Zealand—from Takapuna to Ruatōria—and in villages in Samoa. We have MPs of different ethnicities—Samoan, Korean, Chinese, Pākehā, and many more. We have MPs of different faiths—Muslim to Sikh to Christian. We are a House of Representatives. We reflect the diversity of New Zealand, and our families are all so different. What binds us together is a shared sense of justice, fairness, and a heartfelt belief in this amazing, democratic, hard-working country. My grandfather fought for our freedom, as did many members’ relatives, in this House. Ronald Reagan once said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same”.

New Zealand has a proud history of leading in issues of equality. This bill, in my view, is about justice and the basic right of every New Zealander to have equality before the law. Civil union gave us a step forward in that it conferred many rights to New Zealanders who had been deprived of them in the past. However, it did not guarantee every New Zealander the ability to marry the person they love. It did not guarantee an equality of status relationship. I go further and say that this bill not only confers on every New Zealander an equality before the law in terms of their relationship but gives a dignity and an acceptance to a group of New Zealanders who not long ago were criminalised for the people they love.

I stand before you today as a member of the National Party. As the National Party, we have a strong history of bringing together different groups of New Zealanders. Recently, the Prime Minister commented on the founders of the National Party. He said: “… they thought that the individual freedom promoted by National involved many diverse groups with conflicting interests. Tolerance was the key to working through those conflicts—giving everyone a say, but ensuring the Party ultimately focused on the good of the country as a whole.” That is why I accept that being a champion of freedom is also about accepting that others may hold strong opposing views and that they have the right to voice and exercise those views in this House. We may vote differently on this side of the House on conscience issues, but we are bound by equality of opportunity. We are a party that has always treasured freedom of choice. We are a party that is often regarded as the unwelcome hand of the nanny State reaching into the homes of many New Zealand families.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge some of the people and the liberal members in the past who have fought on this side of the House for freedom. Venn Young proposed the first attempt at homosexual law reform, Marilyn Waring dedicated her time in Parliament and her academic career to issues of equality, and the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley proposed and helped pass the human rights legislation. I also stand before you today as the member for Auckland Central. I represent the wonderful suburbs of Grey Lynn, Ponsonby, and Rocky Bay, and a huge lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. But at a personal level, regardless of the fact that I am a member of the National Party and the member for Auckland Central, I support this bill because I actually believe it is the right thing to do.

I know the arguments in opposition. I do not believe that tradition is a good reason to block same-sex couples from the ability to marry. If we had accepted in this House the arguments of tradition, then women would have never got the vote, and women would not be sitting in this Chamber this evening. In terms of religion, there will be ministers and people of different faiths supporting the bill and some who oppose it. Some have raised issues of religious freedom, and I believe that those issues can be worked through at the select committee. I know how important this bill is for many young New Zealanders. Young New Zealanders overwhelmingly support this bill. When I look to the future of this country and the many people who will come after us in this House, I believe that if this legislation does not pass today, it will eventually pass.

I meet young New Zealanders every day who are very diverse. They are more diverse than the previous generation. They have a high level of tolerance and respect for people’s differences. They do not shun those differences; in fact, they celebrate them. I stand here as a New Zealander with eight siblings. I have had lots of parents; several step-parents. I have a mother who has a boyfriend of 25 years and I have a father who has had several marriages. Dad, I think you have used my quota! The point that I make is that New Zealand family structures are very diverse, and a major reason that I support this bill is that I want every New Zealander to have—and I cannot deny any New Zealander—the ability to marry the person they love.

I stand here not just as a New Zealander who believes in equality of the law but also as someone who has seen people prejudiced and teased in the broad light of day in this country. I have seen the subtle prejudice: the people who say that their partners are not invited to work functions, the people who feel uncomfortable holding hands walking down the street, and the people who may not be invited to the family Christmas. I see it through my electorate office. I see it in the street. The prevention of prejudice is not just the role of parliamentarians in this House. Our country would be a lot stronger if we all practised the values of greater tolerance, respect, understanding, and compassion for fellow New Zealanders. I have met through my office people who are scared to come out to their friends, their families, their colleagues, and their community. In fact, the saddest result of prejudice that I have seen has been—and is reflected in—the high number of youth lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender suicides. Some of these people have taken their lives because they cannot see themselves as being accepted. They cannot see themselves being happy.

This Parliament has an opportunity through legislation to help change that. I will vote for marriage equality so that every New Zealander can marry the person who they want to love. This bill enshrines a principle that society supports loving and committed relationships between two people. In all of the over 10,000 constituency queries that I have had, I have never had anyone who has said that they want to be married to more than one person. As a legislator, I support New Zealand having laws that recognise the value of two people making a commitment to each other in law. My idea of strong family policies is initiatives that support the well-being of children and education and health, and that enable two committed people to be in a relationship and have that recognised in law. That is why I believe that the institution of marriage can actually be strengthened by enabling more people to marry.

I want to acknowledge some people who have been on this road and have fought for freedom within our party. I want to acknowledge Sean Topham, Shaun Wallis, and Megan Campbell. I want to acknowledge Tau Henare. Kia ora, Tau. I am pleased to support this marriage equality bill in the House, because I believe that this bill is fundamentally about justice, freedom, and equality of opportunity. It is actually a reason why I am a member of the National Party. Our country, in my view, will be a much better place for enabling every New Zealander to walk with a little more freedom this evening. I commend this bill to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I stand here as an elected representative in this House, elected by the people of Māngere. It is an electorate that is close to my heart. Its people put me here by giving me their confidence that I would fairly and fully represent them. As the Māngere member of Parliament I am privileged with the stewardship that I have been given by the community, and their key priorities determine the things that I advocate for and stand on. They expect me to represent their voice without fear, and even at the risk of standing alone or being called names that hurt and upset families watching on. With that in mind, I appreciate that I represent a different point of view, one that is perhaps contrary to the majority view of this House. So to my colleagues whose views may differ from those that I represent, I stand in opposition to this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, with the total commitment to defend your right to disagree with me.

As a member of the Labour Party, I say that we are a broad and diverse party of people with different points of view on almost every issue, and on this particular issue it is Labour Party policy that this matter be voted on as a matter of conscience. I therefore claim that right to vote on this issue in accordance with the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all MPs the same privilege.

This is a matter that is very sensitive for many in my constituency. Within the Pacific and faith communities, even within my own family, within the fa‘afafine fraternity, and even within the Pacific same-sex community, it is a difficult issue, and the views are very divided. Many in the community want Parliament to focus on the weightier matters of putting food on the table and paying the bills, and not on matters that are considered private, personal, and religious in nature.

In the Samoan community, many recognise Samoan same-sex relationships and fa‘afafine, to the extent that they are given very high-ranking titles, but everyone conducts their affairs within the boundaries of culture and religion. I understand the desire of the gay community who want to have same-sex marriage, but many who oppose this bill believe that the civil union and the statutory relationship laws already provide these legal rights to same-sex couples. Many believe that that legislation ought to be strengthened, rather than changing marriage to incorporate same-sex marriage.

If Parliament is to change this long-held standard of marriage between a man and a woman by passing this bill, we not only change the definition of marriage, we change its meaning and the fundamental basis of marriage. This change will have enduring ramifications for future generations. We do not know what those ramifications are, but there is concern within my community. It is not a small change. It is a significant move. All I would say to members of Parliament and to the wider community as we have conversations about this bill and its ramifications is that I would implore everyone on both sides of the argument to keep the conversation safe, respectful, and dignified. Peace to you all.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I am proud to stand tonight to congratulate my friend and colleague Louisa Wall, and to say that all Green Party MPs will be voting for this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. The New Zealand adolescent health research group has shown that teenagers who are same-sex attracted have disproportionately high rates of alcohol and other drug-abuse problems, depression, other mental health problems, self-harm, unsafe sexual behaviour, including HIV risk, and suicide attempts. In 2007, 20 percent of these young people had attempted suicide in the past year—that is five times the rate of their heterosexual peers. All of these issues are strongly associated with psychosocial risk factors like low self-esteem and feelings of isolation and worthlessness. Research is unequivocal that these in turn are very strongly associated with the experience of discrimination, or, alternatively, the experience of hiding one’s sexual orientation to avoid discrimination.

When I worked at the New Zealand AIDS Foundation in the early 1990s we produced a poster that said, simply: “HIV attacks the body. Prejudice attacks the spirit … Both can kill.” The effects of this corrosive social environment on the individual also include anti-gay bullying, harassment, and violence. If we want to do something about the terrible burden of misery, illness, and death being faced by young lesbian, gay, and transgendered people, then we have to do something about prejudice and discrimination. For me, that is why marriage equality is so important. The message that the State currently sends through this discriminatory law undermines these young people and fuels and gives heart to prejudice. That is why it must change.

A law that treats all couples equally does the reverse. It undermines prejudice, it empowers the marginalised, and it creates a healthier and happier society. That is why even if civil unions carried exactly the same rights and responsibilities, they would still not be enough. All of the time that heterosexual couples have access to the status of marriage and we do not, a message is sent that we are less than normal. If anyone disputes that, imagine if the situation were reversed. How would heterosexual people feel if they could not marry?

My partner and I have been together for 28 years this month. My guess is that that is longer than most heterosexual marriages. At the beginning we could have been fired from our jobs, kicked out of our home, denied goods and services, and arrested and imprisoned for being who we are and expressing our love. To allow us the right to marry would right an injustice, bring great benefit not only to us but to all of those marginalised young people, and harm absolutely nobody. In the words of a former and great member of this House, Brian Donnelly, I used to often tell my students: “You don’t make your own candle shine more brightly by blowing out somebody else’s.” The converse of that adage is: “My own candle will not glow more dimly if I should light somebody else’s.” He asked this question: “How will my own marriage be diminished by the passage of this legislation?”. He was talking about civil unions. The answer, and I am convinced it is the correct answer, is that it will not make one iota of difference. If that is the case, what is so dreadfully wrong in allowing other New Zealanders of a different disposition to make a long-term public commitment to someone they love?

I have friends right across this House and I want to particularly acknowledge those who have changed their minds to support this bill, and also those who will oppose it tonight but have genuinely open minds to the possibility of change. But I say to others that your vote on this bill will stand against your name for ever. It is up to you on which side of history you will be remembered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand has a proud democratic tradition. The principles of democracy are deeply ingrained in our political culture. We are one of only nine countries worldwide that can claim an unbroken line of democracy—that is, holding elections every 3 years since 1854. The concept that every adult is entitled to an equal say is a fundamental part of who we are as a nation, and yet there is still an assumption in this House that members know better than the public when it comes to issues of morality. The conscience vote exists because it is believed that MPs possess some sort of unique ethical view or intellectual capacity that entitles them to a greater say than the ordinary voter. That is an archaic belief that has no place in a modern democracy or 21st century New Zealand. This type of conscience vote is a relic of a bygone age. It is inherently anti-democratic and it is time MPs on both sides of the House consigned it to the dustbin of history. There is no reason why the public should be denied the opportunity to decide the outcome of this debate.

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill will change institutional marriage as we know it. This matter is by definition one of public morality, and if New Zealand is to have a public morality, it must be decided by the public, the voters of New Zealand. We proposed an amendment to Ms Wall’s bill that would require a binding referendum to be held upon the bill’s passage, which referendum, depending on the outcome, would be a catalyst as to whether the bill becomes law or otherwise. That proposal was rejected, on the grounds that according to some media-driven polls 60 percent of New Zealanders support same-sex marriage. That may or may not be the case, but the only way to test and determine that is by way of referendum. Such a major legislative change should be based on the collective will of the people, not 121 temporarily empowered members of Parliament. New Zealanders should make these decisions collectively, as a nation.

There are those here in this institution and outside who would plead “But MPs are elected to make these tough decisions.” If that is true, which party campaigned on this issue? Where was this issue in the lead-up to the 2011 election? Where is the transparency of campaign commitments that would lead some MPs to believe and conclude that they were elected on this issue? The fact is that they were not, for at no time did they ever campaign on it. This Parliament is now wrestling with alcohol legislation, which members themselves decided upon and created an unholy mess. This is a Parliament that decided to legalise prostitution, without real safeguards, and now all over New Zealand communities are alarmed at what is happening in hitherto safe business and community areas. What could possibly be wrong or unprincipled or unethical or immoral in letting the people decide a moral issue for themselves? What unique insights, understanding, or greater level of perception do parliamentarians exclusively have that are not shared by the New Zealand people?

This party began 9 years ago, firmly believing in the far greater use of referendum mandate. We have never changed our view on that, even to the extent that we put a major macroeconomic issue like compulsory savings to the people of this country in a referendum in 1997. We could have just taken the arrogant view then that we should just ram it through Parliament. But we did not. And although the public voted in support of a view different from ours, we accepted the public’s right to have their say. Since that time we have seen all manner of changes, such as the abolition of the Privy Council, changes to the New Zealand Honours system, and the abandonment of Queen’s Counsel, all rammed through this Parliament, with the last two being overturned by a later Government. It begs the question: is this parliamentary superiority a transient, chimeric thing? Not far from New Zealand is Fiji, where the military has seized Government and constantly argues that it is backed by the people. Many of us have responded, rightly, I say, that if that is so, why not hold an election and prove it, and thereby remove all doubt? Likewise, tonight we say: let us ask the people, and obtain a proper, durable mandate.

You know, it is truly ironic to see so many people swearing daily their allegiance to democracy, as MPs do every day, and yet when a true opportunity for real democracy, expanded democracy, is presented before them, so many have no desire to allow it to happen. Those of us who argue for a full public referendum on this issue are satisfied to accept the public’s will. We are satisfied to take our instructions from the people. We believe—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Sorry, I did not hear the bell.

Mr SPEAKER: I gave the member a 1-minute bell.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I apologise. Could I just finish off then?

Mr SPEAKER: Because the member did not hear, I apologise. It was my fault. I will allow the member to finish. It was my fault. I did not ring it for long enough.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What grounds could those who think otherwise possibly have? One has to wonder what priorities some MPs have, when again today hundreds of people face losing their jobs, such as another tranche of goldminers on the West Coast. Any emergency debate about them? Or do we just consign hundreds of families to the scrap heap of the free market, and call this a more important issue?

Therefore, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill without a referendum is opposed by New Zealand First. We oppose this Parliament again ignoring the people’s view, whatever the people’s view may be. I ask: why are so many here not prepared to trust the people on these issues?

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): When this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, was drawn, I indicated that I would vote against it. The reasons that I gave to the media and my constituents at that time remain important to me, but the intense public interest shown in this matter has prompted me to go much further in my thinking. I approach the issue as one who respects and wishes to protect the institution of marriage in its historical and current form. I believe that a major purpose of New Zealand’s civil union legislation, which was passed before I became an MP, was to protect the legal rights of gay and de facto couples. In my opinion, if more protection is needed—and it may be—it should be achieved by amending that legislation, not the Marriage Act. I have offered to meet supporters of this bill in my electorate to discuss what could be achieved by such a compromise.

I accept that ours is a secular society, but for me and many other New Zealanders our attitude is also deeply embedded in our Christian belief in the sanctity of marriage. I chose that word deliberately, not because I expect everyone else to view marriage in that way, but because it is how I see it. New Zealanders have a right to understand what the values and beliefs of their MPs are, especially at times such as this. One of my favourite plays is Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons. Tonight for me might be best described as a Sir Thomas More moment.

For some members of this House and for many members of the public, especially those in the younger demographic, this is a fairly easy question to answer. They have emailed me and written to me, and posted their views on Facebook, urging me to change my mind. To them it is a simple human rights issue, in that we are all created equal, we should be treated equally under the law, and that the State has no right, nor is there any public interest, in denying New Zealanders the legal authority to marry on the grounds that both partners are male or both are female. For me, however, and for many other New Zealanders, the issue is not that simple. Nor is it a question of the State denying the human rights of some citizens. I would never condone the suppression of my gay friends’ and constituents’ human rights. I do not judge them nor regard them in any way as inferior.

Each day we commence our sittings in this House with a prayer that “we will conduct our affairs and those of this country to the glory of God’s holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand.” It has become fashionable to demean the role of churches in society, but our modern nation was founded on Christian values, with a rich Christian heritage dating back many centuries brought to these shores by our ancestors. That heritage underpins our democratic tradition, our legal system, our traditional family structures, and the freedoms that we so often take for granted. We should not take those institutions lightly, and in matters such as the issue we are debating tonight we should be respectful of the voices of our church leaders. Although ours is essentially a Christian heritage, we are increasingly a multicultural and a multi-faith society. Although there are many differences reflected in that diversity, attitudes to marriage and its special status as a relationship between one man and one woman who honour and remain faithful to each other are consistent. I hope we will hear from representatives of those various faith communities during this debate.

Yesterday 70 Christian church leaders, including numerous national heads of major church denominations, both Catholic and Protestant, released a joint personal statement in response to this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and I believe it is important that it become part of the record of this first reading debate. “We have made this joint statement”, said the Rev. Dr Richard Waugh, “because members of Parliament need to be in no doubt what mainstream Christian views are on this matter. This issue is not about equality but about the nature of marriage. All human beings are equal in the sight of both God and society, but not all relationships are the same. Marriage has uniquely been about the union of male and female. The State should not presume to re-engineer a basic human institution. The complementary role of male and female is basic to the very character of marriage, along with having and raising children. Same-sex relationships are intrinsically different, so can never be regarded as true marriage.”

Marriage, as we understand it, has for many centuries been the basis of the traditional family unit. During my lifetime, the family has come under increasing attack in a variety of ways, and I believe our society is much poorer for that. In the joint statement from the churches, the ministers urged parliamentarians “to take seriously that, for a very significant proportion of the New Zealand public, marriage is more than just a legal agreement or social contract, but has a sacred character to it, and that many people—Christian and otherwise—feel very strongly that the nature of marriage should not be interfered with.” I understand the distress of many in our community around this issue. I wish I could say more and respond more to those representations I have received, but I do pray that we will make the right decision this evening.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Some senior colleagues, whom I respect greatly, have requested that I consider seeking a call on this contentious bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and having given the matter thought I now stand in the House to speak my truth on this matter.

Many of you following this debate will know that I am a Presbyterian minister. I have been a part of similar debates in the Church in recent decades. But in this House I do not formally represent the Church. I represent Dunedin North and, in this debate, my own conscience. Across the Church, as across society, there are many views on the issues of sexuality and marriage. Like all MPs I have been lobbied heavily by people on both sides of the argument. I want to relate a couple of stories that have come to me through that experience. The first is of an elderly gay man, a friend of mine, who petitioned me not to support this legislation, because in his view he fought for civil unions. He fought for equality before the law and he got it. He did not want the heterosexual baggage of property rights and other history that is associated with marriage, and, rightly, he pointed to the Christian scriptures where he said there was no model for marriage that is consistent. What we have in the Old Testament is largely polygamy, and there is an absence of advice, certainly from Jesus, in the New Testament on the topic of marriage. I suspect he would say, and would be of the view, that marriage is frequently paraded in the media by those who claim a Christian viewpoint as, really, a thinly veiled defence of Victorian morality.

A second person who petitioned me against supporting this bill was a young pastor from a church in my electorate, who was very genuinely concerned by some research he had read that suggested that children who grow up raised by parents who are not their biological parents are likely to be worse off and have worse life outcomes. He was very serious and genuine in his concerns. I also received many voices in favour of this legislation, particularly from younger members of the gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender community, and many people in that community can simply not understand what the fuss is about. I think also of gay and lesbian couples I know who are fantastic parents of fantastic children.

Personally, I would prefer a model like the German one, where civil unions are conducted by the State for all couples, and marriages are carried out outside the State’s grasp for religious or other reasons. But that is not what is on offer here. I have been persuaded in this debate by two things in particular. Marriage is to most people a secular term, certainly for younger folk. I know, for example, that in the Presbyterian Church, where I was trained and have practised, marriage was never regarded as a sacrament. That is why Presbyterian ministers were amongst the first in New Zealand to conduct garden weddings.

The second thing that has persuaded me is that overseas there is still discrimination against those who cannot claim marriage, who cannot tick the marriage box. The strongest support for marriage equality that I have experienced has come from the age group most likely to be engaging in marriage in the future. It is for those people who will be inheriting and carrying forward the institution of marriage that I am supporting the bill. I am mindful that many of my colleagues from across the House who would claim a strong faith background do not support this view. I am respectful of their beliefs, and although I know that they have carefully and prayerfully examined their own consciences, I am mindful that they may come to a different view from mine. My thoughts are with them and with people wrestling personally with the impact of this bill on their lives. Thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): From the outset I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall and her thoughtfulness and preparedness to speak with me at very short notice both knowledgably and incredibly wisely on this very important bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Secondly, might I acknowledge my constituents in Hunua, who have answered many surveys that I have put out and have thoughtfully and with great effort and passion sent me many emails and letters regarding this bill. I have thought long and hard about it, and despite the New Zealand Herald depicting me this morning as voting against it, and many attempts, I simply cannot construct a strong enough intellectual, moral, health, or even spiritual argument against it. Consequently, I will be voting for the bill.

As was also mentioned by the New Zealand Herald a few weeks ago, within a few hours of this bill being drawn from the ballot, I had the Christian lobby in my local electorate asking for an appointment and they certainly gave me their very clear views, which I respect. But subsequent to that I have had many conversations throughout the electorate with people from many walks of life. I very much respect that Louisa Wall sees the major issue is about ensuring that all New Zealanders have equal rights, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. We have a system of separation of Church and State, and this bill clearly relates only to civil law and preserves the right of churches to decide whom they may marry. I very much appreciate—I very much hope that the churches appreciate—that fact. I would certainly be against the bill if that were not the case.

My initial reticence in supporting the bill came from my concern that some of the issues around it have not been fully explored by way of national conversations, that there is no strong New Zealand evidence base, and that we are travelling fast to come to a result on an issue that many New Zealanders on either side feel very deeply about—issues that have profound sociological implications. I ask: should the New Zealand Parliament be, in the first instance, initiating expert or select committee inquiries into the new birth technologies, adoption, the spectrum of sexuality and gender difference, children’s rights, and the evidence from the New Zealand experience so far, be it fairly short?

I understand that currently a female adult in New Zealand can adopt both a boy and a girl, but a male can adopt only a boy and only in exceptional circumstances a girl. With the passage of this bill that will change instantaneously and that is a big change that does need exploring. But in the end it boils down to the same premise that all New Zealanders should have the right to civil marriage, irrespective of race, sex, or gender.

I was deeply concerned to hear that gay adolescents have a suicide rate five to eight times that of heterosexual adolescents, in a country that already has an appallingly high suicide rate. In conversations with the Hon Maryan Street and Kevin Hague, they both tell me that it will make a profound difference to the marginalisation that adolescents feel.

From a health perspective we should be doing everything possible to create an environment in New Zealand where everyone feels they are included—I accept that. I am impressed that the Anglican Church here in New Zealand is moving, albeit slowly but progressively, by appointing a commission of study led by Sir Anand Satyanand and Tāmati Reedy. I want to see these issues widely debated and studied in a New Zealand context and I hope they will submit to the select committee.

Finally, I sincerely hope that the select committee process will be thorough and robust and will be committed to openly addressing the sorts of issues I have brought up, and many more. Although I would have personally preferred a slower process regarding this legislation, as I said earlier I simply cannot construct an intellectual, moral, health, or spiritual argument against it—in fact the reverse is very much the case. I support the bill.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): In 2005, while I was campaigning for election to this Parliament, many people expressed their concern and anger that the then Wairarapa member of Parliament, Georgina Beyer, failed to represent their views on the issue of prostitution reform. When elected, I undertook to reflect the electorate’s views and I will do that on this legislation, designed to promote the Labour Party’s social reform agenda.

I trust the instincts of my constituents. They provide a perspective that is not imposed by this House, nor forced. Whatever differences there may be among us, as there must be, nothing will shake my conviction from supporting the majority view in my electorate. My judgment on this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is in step with many constituents I have spoken to on the street, in the shops, in the businesses, and in the bars between Waipawa and Martinborough. Like them, I consider the bill to be a sideshow; there are more serious issues that this House should be focused on. My constituents do not understand why a change in civil marriage is important. They say it will impact on a few, be noticed in their daily life by even fewer people, and have minimal, if any, direct impact on most New Zealanders.

In response to my request for constituents’ views, I have received several thousand replies by way of phone calls, letters, and emails. Constituents who support the bill argue that discrimination of any kind has no place in New Zealand. They say we need to look no further than the laws enacted by this Parliament over many years that have broken down barriers and opened doors for all who live in this country. They say our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination and our Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, yet two men or two women are prohibited from marrying. They say that in the 21st century in New Zealand we should not be willing to accept a legal system that effectively casts one group of people into the role of second-class citizens on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

Those in my electorate who oppose the bill do so for a range of reasons. They have widely differing political views; they have differing religious beliefs. There are both religious and non-religious views, set against same-sex marriage. For Christians, marriage involves vows before God and witnesses, for a man and a woman to commit to one another, to procreate, and to raise children. For all religions, marriage is not defined by love; it is defined as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. Many of my constituents believe that marriage was introduced into society through religious channels, and religion shows marriage not to have anything to do with same-sex partnerships. For these people, it is not possible for marriage to be redefined beyond the boundaries of a woman and a man. They worry that if marriage is redefined once, it could continue to be redefined. They see this bill as legalising by stealth the adoption of children by gay parents. They fear the extension of boundaries to include relationships we do not as a society currently condone: polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships. These are very genuine concerns to many of my constituents.

There are many arguments from the religious perspective. However, increasingly, marriage is not based on one religion. Some constituents point out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and predates even the Bible as a foundation for our society. To them I would note that the Roman Emperor Nero entered into a marriage with a male slave. I see plenty of unions taking place in New Zealand between a man and a woman without any religious context. These are sometimes called marriages and use a celebrant rather than a priest, or sometimes these couples choose to have a civil union. Some couples choose not to acknowledge their relationship in any way other than by living together. Many in my electorate consider same-sex couples to have the same means of acknowledging their relationship as heterosexual couples, through civil union. Constituents then ask why same-sex couples need to reclassify this union as a marriage. A New Zealand civil union offers the same rights and benefits to parties as spouses to a marriage. The only major difference, apart from labels associated, is that, unlike a marriage, civil unions are a civil matter not conducted through a church.

It is obvious these issues expose a much deeper question for churches and the wider community: what ought to be the involvement of the State in what are essentially religious and spiritual sacraments. Some constituents would rather that there were a complete divorce between the State’s recognition of a marriage—a civil union—and the churches’ solemnisation or blessing of matrimony, as in the case of many European countries. The fact is that a civil union is the same as a marriage, and a rose is a rose, so the legal issue appears mere semantics.

Each of us present today is a fleeting transient on the stage of this country’s history. We do not have the right to sweep aside the traditions that exist in our communities. They are not ours alone to deal with as we wish. This place belongs to every New Zealander. That is why I have asked my constituents how I should represent their views on this issue.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I am pleased to have an opportunity to outline for the House the reasons why I will be voting in favour of this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. About 9 years ago when I decided to join a political party, I considered carefully the values and beliefs that I feel strongly about. After some time I decided to join the National Party, because National most closely resembles what I believe in. Tonight when I walk into the Ayes lobby to vote on this marriage amendment bill, it is because I want to stay true to the core beliefs of the National Party. Three of these beliefs are equal citizenship and equal opportunity, individual freedom and choice, and strong families and caring communities. When I consider the reasons that I came into politics, and when I consider the strong values and principles I believe in, I simply cannot see a way in which I could vote against this bill. Believing in equal citizenship and equal opportunity is not a part-time belief. If we are to stand in this House and champion the rights of New Zealanders to be treated equally, we must apply that principle across the board.

As a New Zealander of a younger generation I find it hard to fathom that not long before I was born we actually had a law that said homosexuality was illegal. I also find it hard to understand why it was not until a few years ago that Parliament allowed same-sex couples to have their relationships recognised in law. And now I find myself questioning why I, as a heterosexual New Zealander, have the legislative right to marry, when same-sex couples do not.

When my wife and I got married 4 years ago, we did so because we love each other. We did so because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives with each other. We chose to get married because we could, and because that is what you do when you want to have legal recognition of your relationship with the most wonderful, caring, and beautiful person in your life; you get married. Most New Zealanders have the ability to get married, like Lucy and I did, but without this legislation passing, a portion of society does not have that opportunity.

That leads me to the question of why. Why should Parliament tell some New Zealanders that they do not have the same freedoms as others? Why should Parliament tell the nation that we believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility, but only when we agree with the type of relationship the person is in? I believe strongly in individual freedom. I believe strongly in all New Zealanders being able to determine their own destiny. If two loving, consenting adults want to get married, I am not affected in any way. Allowing same-sex couples to marry has absolutely no impact on couples who are already married, and we should not be afraid of it.

We have all been receiving a lot of emails today. I do not agree with everything that people are saying, but I do find myself agreeing with a recurring theme: marriage is the foundation for a loving family environment. If that is true, if that is what we believe is a fundamental basis of marriage, then that can only be an argument in favour of this bill, because, like it or not, up and down this country, children are being raised in homes by same-sex couples. If it is believed that marriage provides greater protections for those children, and if it is believed that marriage gives those children a more loving and caring environment to grow up in, then we should do it for those children.

The law allowed me the good fortune to marry my wife and bring a child into a loving, married relationship. I believe in individual freedom and equal opportunity. I believe that all New Zealanders should have the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of their sexual orientation. I do not feel threatened. I do not think there is anything abnormal about being gay or lesbian. What is abnormal is believing that only some people can be as happy as those of us living in a stable, loving, and caring marriage. I hope this Parliament can extend to all New Zealanders the opportunity to get married.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora anō. In this closing reply I would like to acknowledge that the fight for all New Zealanders to be recognised as equal citizens under the law is one that has been fought in Aotearoa for around 50 years. To that end I wish to acknowledge two women who are here tonight, who were the litigants in the Quilter case that brought this issue to the fore and recognised that the changes necessary to bring about equality were matters for Parliament. Jools Joslin and Jenny Rowan applied for a marriage licence in 1995, almost 10 years after homosexual law reform, and were denied. They and two other couples challenged that action through the High Court and the Court of Appeal. They then took the matter to the United Nations Human Rights Committee to test that denial against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Incrementally, their courage in challenging the discriminatory implementation of the provisions in the Marriage Act set the platform for the consideration of this bill tonight.

I want to acknowledge all people involved in the campaign for marriage equality. They are people from across the political spectrum representing rainbow groups, queer-straight alliance groups, human rights advocates and groups, our religious leadership, and communities and many others who are fighting for legalised love, and those who have blogged, those who have shared their stories in the media, and those who have led meetings and discussions in our families and communities—thank you for your solidarity in advancing the rights of other New Zealanders and proud citizens of our country. I specifically want to acknowledge our Pacific and ethnic communities. I mean no disrespect to you. Your beliefs and values and those of your heritage countries of origin are valid.

The purpose and intent of this bill is very clear. It means that the law and the social and civil institutions that that law governs apply equally to everyone. It means that a couple who so choose can apply for, and receive, a marriage licence from the State. What it does not do is affect a person’s own beliefs about marriage. The fact that a couple wants to make a commitment to each other by marriage is a cause for celebration, and it can only benefit our society and families as a whole. Marginalising and discriminating against particular sectors does not benefit society and families. It is a simple choice. Do we support discriminatory laws, or not? I know I do not, and, hopefully, that is true of most of the members of this House.

History tells us that the struggles of the gay community, as with any minority, have often been cruel. What has been heartening in this discussion has been the positive response from younger people across the board. It is a generational issue, but it is also an issue about personal experience, and the fact that when you have a friend or a whānau member who is gay, you do not want them to suffer or have fewer rights than you. That is not fair or just.

Equality for all New Zealand citizens under the law is not a moral issue. It is an issue of the inherent equal value and worth of every New Zealand citizen in a modern democratic society. The State currently discriminates. That is not fair or just. We should be valuing and including all members of our society. The State does not limit a New Zealand citizen in their ability to get a passport. If you are a New Zealand citizen, fill in the forms correctly, meet the criteria that apply to all people, and pay the fee, you will get one. The State does not limit a New Zealand citizen in their ability to get a driver’s licence. If you are a New Zealand citizen, fill in the forms correctly, meet the criteria that all people must meet, and pay the fee, you will get one. So why do we tolerate the State not giving New Zealand citizens a marriage licence, based purely on their sexual orientation and gender identity?

We know why many of the churches do not support this bill. It is fundamentally because their first principle is that homosexuals are sinners, and homosexuality is a sin. But in New Zealand there is a clear and transparent separation of Church and State. It is about time that that separation was recognised, within the context of marriage in New Zealand, and in the State’s role in the Marriage Act, through the issuing of a marriage licence. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 80

Noes 40

Bill read a first time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 78, Noes 40.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Minimum Wage Amendment Bill

First Reading

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, given that we have quite a significant presence in the gallery, who are currently departing, it is very difficult to hear what is going on. Perhaps we could have a brief pause in parliamentary proceedings before we begin the next bill.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member’s point is not unreasonable. There is a lot of noise as visitors leave the gallery and as members not involved in the next debate leave the Chamber. I would ask members leaving the Chamber to please do so reasonably briskly, so that we can get on with members’ order of the day No. 5.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I move, That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a first time. If it becomes apparent during the debate that scales have fallen from sufficient National members’ eyes and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill has the necessary support, I will nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. I want to start by telling the story of a woman I met recently. We will call her Wendy. Wendy is up at 4 a.m. and off to her first cleaning job. She works two jobs. She is home at 6 p.m. and tuckered out. Wendy does not smoke and she does not drink. Wendy cannot afford luxuries, and for her that now includes heating her house. She recently suffered a broken leg on the job, and receiving 80 percent of her wage whilst off work meant she could not meet her rent. This proud woman, who has successfully raised six kids, mostly on her own, had to rely on assistance from a family member for help. The story does not stop there. Wendy still has one kid at home—a teenager with hollow legs. Feeding her family comes first, but, as a diabetic, her health is suffering in the long term. Her doctor tells her she should eat a more balanced diet. She knows what that is, but can no longer afford the ingredients. White bread is cheaper than brown bread. Wendy is on the minimum wage and has worked all her life. Restrictions on adult and community training mean she cannot afford to retrain. She fears she will one day have to reside in a boarding house.

A minimum wage of $15 an hour will mean $60 a week for our lowest-paid workers over a 40-hour week. A minimum wage of $15 an hour will mean extra earnings of $427 million a year for our lowest-paid workers. Most of that money will be spent on essentials—food, clothing, and health care—and will go straight back into the economy. It is well documented that those living on or below the breadline spend their money on essentials. By contrast, the very top earners are more likely to spend extra earnings on overseas trips and other things that are of no direct benefit to our economy. The minimum wage has to be one that families can live on, that rewards hard work, and that helps stem the flow of thousands of people to Australia, where wages are much higher. Statistics on departure to Australia are familiar to us. Roughly 1,000 a week currently and 1,030 from Dunedin alone last year left permanently to live in Australia.

This Government has the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years. Reports in recent days show that inequalities in New Zealand are the worst they have ever been. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Those in the middle are feeling the squeeze, too, as the median wage recently dropped 3 percent. People are feeling the pinch after the 2010 tax switch. Inequalities are growing since that tax package, which increased GST and gave the biggest tax cuts to those who were already wealthy. These growing inequalities begin to be addressed by my bill. Māori, Pacific people, women, youth, and part-time workers are more likely to benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

Even if the National Party believes that unemployed people are bad and do not want to work—a view I do not share—it should agree with conservative economists who argue that good wages are exactly the incentives required to get people into work. Minimum wage increases have lagged behind productivity increases over recent decades. For the health of our communities, they need to increase in a sustainable fashion. If Government future ambitions for growth are to be realised, the fruits of that growth need to be shared. My bill helps to ensure that that is the case.

Public uncertainty about the effects of the minimum wage increase mirrors general uncertainty amongst economists and other experts. For many economists—I learnt this through my time at Treasury—a direct link between a minimum wage and employment changes is the Holy Grail, and we can expect a Nobel Prize for whoever explains it properly first. Some say a high minimum wage will cost jobs. At some point that is undoubtedly true. If we increase the minimum wage to $30 an hour, some employers will struggle to cope. But the relationship between minimum wage and unemployment is not clear cut. It is best illustrated with an example. Of the 9 years between 1990 and 1999, the National Government increased the minimum wage by a total of 70c in 9 years. Unemployment ranged between 6 percent and 11 percent. By contrast, when Labour was last in Government the minimum wage was increased by $5 over 9 years. Unemployment plummeted to amongst the lowest levels in the OECD.

Australia’s higher minimum wage has proven a boon for attracting ambitious young Kiwis. Its minimum wage equates to nearly NZ$20. No wonder 40 percent of a record 158,000 New Zealanders who have left for Australia under the Key Government were aged between 18 and 30. Young talent knows that it will get paid better in Australia. Australia has, of course, benefited from a minerals boom, but to attribute all its success to that would be a mistake. An aggressive savings policy means that A$1 trillion in investment capital is constantly searching for a home. Australia has also valued its labour market. People are attracted to Australia for the higher wages. The fact that their top earners pay much more tax than New Zealanders does not enter the debate. People are attracted to Australia for those higher wages. In fact, top New Zealand taxpayers have one of the lowest tax wedges in the OECD—and that is those who actually pay tax. If we do not distribute the proceeds of our economy fairly, we will continue to hollow out our workforce as young folk head across the Tasman. They are calling it “Generation Oz”.

What about the effect on business? We know that a modest change like the one proposed will likely have no effect on unemployment. The Department of Labour reached the same conclusions when it studied minimum wage increases under this Government. This is perhaps a surprise to many, but a sober assessment of the facts will also suggest that many small and medium sized enterprises will actually be advantaged by a minimum wage rise. That is because many small businesses already pay above the minimum wage. They know how hard it is for their employees to make ends meet on the minimum wage, they value their employees, and they believe in them. Often these small to medium sized enterprises struggle to compete against other larger firms that appeal to the lowest common denominator. The National Party, if it opposes this bill, will not be the friend of small business.

Inequality has grown dramatically in New Zealand over the last three decades. The last Labour Government began to address this imbalance by ensuring 25 percent real growth—real growth—in the economy, and made sure that it was shared more fairly. Working for Families saw over 100,000 kids brought out of poverty. Income-related rents and better primary health care attacked drivers of poverty, but much more needs to be done. When over half of a minimum wage earner’s income is spent putting a healthy meal on the table for family every night, it is not possible to pay rent, buy school uniforms, meet incidental expenses, and heat the house. We taxpayers effectively subsidise low wages through the health system. All of us contribute moneys that are spent treating the preventable diseases of poverty. It is not good for our social fabric to have kids with empty stomachs, developing respiratory illnesses, rheumatic fever, and other illnesses through living in damp, cold houses, and it is not good for our economy either.

Unfortunately, the Government has put our country in reverse. Our economy is going backwards; only population growth props up numbers in our stagnant economy. GDP per capita has dropped; real wages are lower than when National took over. Kiwis are leaving permanently for Australia at the rate of 1,000 per week. Sadly, the Government’s 2010 tax package has ensured that the fruits of our economy are shared even less fairly than they were before. For the vast majority, any personal benefit of the 2010 tax package was quickly swallowed up in GST increases, inflation, and sundry others like increased prescription charges.

Poverty, illness, and underachievement will not be addressed until we ensure that the conditions are right for all Kiwis to succeed. We need to start by ensuring every New Zealander can afford food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and any family they support. A $15 minimum wage brings us closer to achieving this.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you very much for the chance to speak on this bill, the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. I would just like to acknowledge Labour MP David Clark for his speech in regard to this bill. I have known this member since he joined Parliament. He is a good member of this Parliament, a good representative of his area, and a good Labour MP. But on this bill I am afraid that we have to agree to disagree, because I think there are some fundamental economic and policy differences that you will see between the main political parties as this debate emerges.

I think the first thing I want to do is just acknowledge many of the points that were made in that speech. I do not think anybody disagrees with the issues around opportunities for our young people, especially for children growing up in environments that are difficult. We want those children to have food on the table, we want them to have shoes on their feet, and we want them to be able to enjoy the aspects of New Zealand life. But to do that, we have to earn our way in the world. It is not a matter of our legislating in this House for what we consider to be a minimum wage, in the sense of increasing it to a level that will actually achieve that purpose. The real way to achieve that purpose is by delivering a strong economy that grows wages, that grows opportunities, and that grows business, so that people get rewards for their hard work and can deliver services to, and meet the needs of, their families. So we do not disagree with the ideals, but we do disagree with how we will achieve that. That is one thing that I think is important.

When we look at some of the points that were made in that speech, it is important to look at what he actually talked about. David Clark talked about how people were feeling the pinch at the moment. Well, there is a world recession going on. The world is in trouble financially. This is not a time when we are making hay around the world.

Dr David Clark: How’s Australia? How about our trading partners?

DAVID BENNETT: Mr Clark now talks about Australia. Well, go have a look at its mining sector, the golden part of the Australian economy; it is in trouble. Go have a look at its domestic economy, which is in even bigger trouble. You hear the Opposition talk about Australia having minimum wages, and saying that is what differs and why New Zealanders go there. The New Zealanders going to Australia are not going for the minimum wages. They are qualified New Zealanders who are going into higher-paid jobs in the mining sector and things like that. They are not going for the minimum wage, like the Labour Party said.

The other thing is that people are feeling the pinch because of the world recession, and New Zealand has that complicated by the rebuild of Christchurch. We need to look after our economy—growing it—because that is the real answer for our people going forward.

I look at the thing that was talked about of the relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment. Mr Clark said that it was not clear-cut. So how, then, can the Labour Party say that if it increases the minimum wage there will be no effect on unemployment? The real risk is that there will be an effect on unemployment, and the official advice that we have received is that this could lead to up to 5,500 jobs being lost.

Hon Member: How many?

DAVID BENNETT: 5,500 jobs. That is 5,500 families that do not have the income to provide for their children, that do not have the ability to provide the food on the table, and that do not have the ability to provide the shoes on those children’s feet. And that is what would come if this Labour bill went through.

Metiria Turei: That is wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

DAVID BENNETT: This is the Green Party saying it is wrong. Well, that is the Green Party, which has about as much idea of economic policy as—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Members on the cross benches should be aware that it is convention not to interject, because it has an effect on the microphone of the member who is speaking.

DAVID BENNETT: Mr Clark talked about growing inequalities, and said that this bill is a way of avoiding growing inequalities. He talked about groups that were perceived as being disadvantaged in the community. And there are groups that are highly represented in those lower-income statistics. But those lower-income groups will be the exact ones to be hurt by this bill, because they will not be enjoying a wage of $15 an hour, as Mr Clark perceives; they will potentially be losing their jobs. That will then put them in a situation where they do not have the ability to even deliver the services to their families that they do now. So the disadvantaged whom Mr Clark talks about will actually be more disadvantaged under this bill, because this bill hurts those people. It hurts those people, because it puts them at greater risk. Those people are more likely to lose their jobs if the minimum wage increases. That is the reality of commerce.

This is all about some kind of redistribution of income by the Labour Party. Mr Clark spoke many times during his speech about the need to redistribute income. Parliament should not redistribute income through the setting of costs on business. That does not redistribute income. If anything, it makes it hard to operate a business. When it is hard to operate a business, that means it is difficult to employ people, and that means it is difficult to pay higher wages to people. Redistribution happens through our tax system; it does not happen through the way that we manage the costs of a business. If we want to go and redistribute the income of businesses by looking at their cost structures rather than their profits, then that is a totally different method of accounting from the one that has been employed in the past, and it has not been employed in the past because it will hurt businesses and will, therefore, hurt the most vulnerable people, who have been talked about by the Opposition.

This bill is not good for the people whom the Labour Party purports to represent. It is not good for the people whom it says that this bill will look after. In fact, this bill hurts those very people at the bottom of the heap. It hurts those people on low incomes, it hurts those people who are marginalised, it hurts the vulnerable, and it hurts those who are struggling to get decent wages and a decent life ahead.

Then what do you say? What do you do? What is the answer, if this bill is not the answer? And there is an answer. There is clear economic policy out there that tells you how to raise wages and therefore deliver for your communities. It is through the provision of good education, it is through the provision of infrastructure, it is through the provision of the good and best rules for businesses to operate, it is through the provision of opportunities for business to expand and export, and it is through ambition and hard work. That comes through a tax system that incentivises education, hard work, and ambition. Those things are the things that the National Party is promoting.

The National Party is delivering in education. The National Party is delivering in infrastructure. The National Party is delivering a good environment for businesses to operate in. The National Party is delivering low interest rates for businesses to go and invest in capital equipment. The National Party is making this economy the best it can be in these very difficult times. The National Party is actually providing the environment to look after those most vulnerable people. That is what we are doing in Government. The Opposition will not do that. It purports to have an answer, but it will do the opposite of that. It will hurt those people most at risk. That is why the National Party cannot support this bill. It is bad economics, it is bad for our people, and it is especially bad for those people whom this bill purports to help. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the last bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and to cast proxies on behalf of John Banks and Peter Dunne, voting in favour.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The decision now is Ayes 80, Noes 40.

Bills

Minimum Wage Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a great pleasure to speak in support of my colleague’s bill, the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, which would take the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 1 April next year. I found the previous speaker’s speech quite interesting and typical, in a way. I would like him to explain to those miners in Huntly who have lost their jobs what raising the minimum wage has got to do with them losing their jobs. It has got nothing to do with that. It has got everything to do with the fact that this Government has absolutely no idea about how to create real, well-paid jobs. It is just full of slogans, full of plans, full of targets, and we are sick of hearing them.

Tonight we have made history in this Parliament with the first reading of my colleague Louisa Wall’s bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. That bill is about an injustice that needs to be righted. The bill will go through the select committee process and I am sure it will come back and get through its third reading in the same spirit that we saw tonight. This bill is about an injustice, as well. I want to talk about some real people who are on the minimum wage, and, actually, they are not too far away from us. They are probably up in members’ offices right now, or after midnight, cleaning their offices. They are cleaning out their rubbish bins, cleaning the toilets, wandering around after members, making sure that the mess that David Bennett left behind is cleaned up, so that when he gets back to work the next day his office is sparkling clean.

We met with those cleaners just a couple of weeks ago. Those cleaners, 28 of them, who work in this Parliament are on the minimum wage. That is shameful.

Andrew Little: Embarrassing.

DARIEN FENTON: That is embarrassing. This House of the people is satisfied to allow the cleaners of this place to remain on the minimum wage. What is more, they get only 30 hours a week, so it is not even a full-time job. Most of them are working more than one job. We talked to them. Their ambitions—apart from wanting to feed their families, put food on the table, and those sorts of things—are not for themselves but for their children. It is for their children’s education. Jane, the Prime Minister’s cleaner, who gets $14 an hour because she is the supervisor, and she is in her 60s now, works two jobs. She is really tired. She has now brought her son in to help her, because of the hours and the work she has do. She talked about the ambitions that she has for her children and grandchildren, and how she wanted to be paid $15 an hour so that she could meet those ambitions and help her children at school when they have to pay for things like sports and so on. She wanted to be able to help them with that. They are not being selfish about this. These are real people who work in this place, and they are not the only minimum wage people in this place. Talk to one of the catering workers some time and see what they are paid.

In a place where all of us are very privileged, and we all get paid well, tonight the National Government is about to vote down a bill that would give those cleaners and those catering workers—those minimum wage workers—$60 a week. For us, $60 a week is not that much; for them, it is a huge amount. We have spent a lot of time this week talking about poverty and inequality, and we are seeing the impact of that. We know that inequality is growing. We know that there is poverty in many of our families and that, actually, two out of every five families that are working are living in poverty. Their children are living in poverty. Those families are working but they are not earning enough to make ends meet. This is a simple measure. This is a simple measure that would cost almost nothing to give the cleaners in this place $15 an hour. In fact, it is something like $50,000 a year. That is nothing. We could do this. We could do it in the spirit in which we passed the bill earlier in the evening, where we saw an injustice that needed to be righted. Yes, I know that it has got to go through the processes, but the spirit of this place was really memorable. Unfortunately, the spirit does not seem to continue when it comes to the National Government supporting low-paid workers and the cleaners who clean their office.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): In my last speech in this House I found myself in agreement with 95 percent of the Labour Party on a Labour bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I hope our friends on the other side are not expecting too much of that from me. We are about to return to business as usual. I cannot find myself supporting this bill from the Labour Party, the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, for many of the reasons that my colleague David Bennett outlined and that I would like to outline tonight, as well.

When Labour was in Government it was doing the right thing on the minimum wage. Trevor Mallard, I understand it was, actually ended up rejecting a $15 minimum wage. Labour’s policy along the way has always been to increase the minimum wage only at a rate to maintain its purchasing power.

Hon Tony Ryall: Was that during the good years they rejected that?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: During the good years. Now that we are in a lot of strife, we are struggling, and we have had the global financial crisis—

Hon Tony Ryall: Who was that who rejected that?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Trevor Mallard, I am told. Trevor Mallard actually opposed a $15 minimum wage, because Labour knew that if you were to automatically bump up the minimum wage to a higher level, to $15 an hour, without doing it gradually, you would actually create greater unemployment.

We hear quite often from members on the other side that they believe that unemployment is far too high, and, yes, we would probably agree that unemployment is too high. We have got plans and we have got policies that are leading to more jobs being created, but I have to say that if you are of the belief that unemployment is too high, the last thing you would be doing is implementing a policy that would immediately price 5,500 workers out of the job market. That is exactly what would happen. By increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour, in one fell swoop 5,500 people, we are told, would end up on the unemployment heap. I do not believe that that is appropriate, and I do not believe that what New Zealanders would want to see is 5,500 people being put on to the unemployment heap and being told that they are not able to work, because they have been priced out of the workforce by this Parliament.

We have got a very proud record on the minimum wage, and we are happy to share it. Under National, workers on the minimum wage are actually better off than they were under the last Government. If you take into account inflation, the after-tax income of someone on the minimum wage is 8 percent ahead of where it was 4 years ago under Labour. This works out to be more than $1,800 a year extra in the back pockets of the lowest-paid worker. [Interruption] I can go louder. I can go louder too, if you like.

New Zealand’s minimum wage is actually near the top of the OECD, relative to the average wage. If members on the other side of the House really do care about jobs, then they would actually be supporting a policy that we have got coming up very soon that would actually help more people get into work.

Sue Moroney: What is it?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: It is the starting out wage for young workers. We know that we have to provide opportunities for employers to take on people. The starting out wage for younger workers is in opposition to what we are talking about tonight, but that would actually lead to more people working and actually more people getting into the workforce, which is the most important issue. Getting people into the workforce is the most important issue. Pricing people out of the workforce is the last thing you should be doing. Members on the other side want to price people out of the workforce. We want to get more people into the workforce.

One of the policies that we have had that enabled more people to get into the workforce was our 90-day trials. Did we get support from the other side? Did we get support from the other side? No, we did not. But we do know that 13,000 extra jobs were created under that policy. Here we are with a policy that we have just implemented, which allowed 13,000 people to get jobs, and which allowed employers to take a risk on some people. Forty percent of employers told us that if it was not for the trial period, they would not have hired someone. The 13,000 jobs that were created there, and the jobs that will be created for younger workers with the starting out wage—that is what we believe in. Our opponents on the other side want to price people out of the workforce.

We believe in enabling people and giving people the best opportunity to get into the workforce. We believe in a sensible minimum wage policy, which we have followed for the last 4 years, that gradually increases the minimum wage to enable businesses to keep up and to enable us to put more money into the pockets of everyday New Zealanders, but at a gradual rate and a sensible rate. I do not support this bill. It should not be supported by this Parliament. It would lead to greater unemployment.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou ki te Whare. The Green Party will be supporting this bill, the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. A $15 minimum wage is actually our stated policy, and our policy also includes attaching the minimum wage to the average wage so that it is 66 percent of the average wage. The first minimum wage was introduced in around about 1945, and at that time it was about 80 percent of the average wage. Currently, the average wage is $27 an hour and the existing minimum wage is $13.50, which is about 40 percent of the average wage. If this bill is successful and a $15 minimum per hour rate is set, that would take it up to a mere 55 percent of the average wage.

Today in New Zealand 300,000 workers earn $13.50 an hour, the minimum wage. As we have heard from the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, there are 270,000 children in New Zealand living in poverty and two out of five of them come from families where at least one of the parents is in work. We heard again today from the Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, that the best way to raise these children out of poverty is for the parents to enter paid work, and we agree. But it has to be work that is paid for at a decent rate, and $13.50 is not it.

Parents struggle to feed, house, clothe, educate their kids, and keep them healthy when they are earning $13.50 an hour. Before tax that is $540 a week, and, yes, these families can access the in-work tax credit, which is a discrimination against the non-working poor, but this does not lift wages. It makes low-paid workers dependent on the State. The in-work tax credit is a subsidy to employers, and it allows them to continue to pay wages that are simply too low. It is a subsidy for employers, another deal for the well-off.

We have heard that increasing the minimum wage to $15 is hard on employers, that they cannot afford it. Well, we heard that argument in the 1970s when equal pay was introduced, and guess what—the world did not come to a halt. We heard it again when paid parental leave was introduced in the last decade, and, again, the economy did not crash to a halt. The fact of the matter is that wages have not kept up with the cost of living, and we cannot afford to keep our people poor, because it becomes an increasing drain on our economy. It is uneconomic in terms of health outcomes, in terms of education outcomes, and in terms of crime and antisocial behaviour, and we all pay for that.

Employers should be paying a decent pay rate. Over the last decade, productivity—the rate that workers are working at in New Zealand, what they are producing, and how much the employers are gaining from them—has increased dramatically, but wages have not increased at the same level. We are working harder than ever, but we are not being rewarded. We have not kept up with the cost of living. In the Dominion Post today they are predicting price increases linked to the drought in the US, which has an impact on the wheat crops, which means that in the coming months and years bread prices will be skyrocketing.

This bill is very modest. The call for an increase in the minimum wage is really very timely because tomorrow the Service and Food Workers Union, along with faith-based organisations and community organisations, are launching the Living Wage campaign. They will be calling on employers to commit to paying workers a living wage, basically. We do not know what that is, but in the National Business Review last week they suggested that a living wage was something like $17.70 an hour. We know that on the minimum wage as it is at the moment, workers—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s time has expired. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

(continued on Thursday, 30 August 2012)

Reports

Inquiry into the Identification, Rehabilitation, and Care and Protection of Child Offenders

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Social Services Committee on the inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders. The Social Services Committee has produced this report as a result of our inquiry into the way child offenders are dealt with by our justice system. It also provides an assessment of the effectiveness of the current care and protection model in identifying and rehabilitating child offenders. This is an important issue in my local community in Maungakiekie, and the committee believes it is an important issue across the various communities that form our nation.

Seventeen submissions were received from professional and non-governmental organisations, service providers, individuals, and the courts. We also considered advice from the Ministry of Social Development, the New Zealand Police, and the Ministry of Justice. Our terms of reference of the committee’s inquiry covered four key areas: first, identifying potential child offenders; secondly, the effectiveness of rehabilitative programmes; thirdly, the care and protection referral process; and, lastly, the effectiveness of the care and protection mode.

The law defines child offenders as over the age of 10 and under the age of 14, under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. These offenders have “committed an offence or offences the number, nature, or magnitude of which is such as to give serious concern for the wellbeing of the child;”. There were concerns around delays in processes to deal with child offenders, especially between apprehension and resolution. We know that some child offenders continue offending after they are caught, simply because we lack the tools to address their offending before their case is resolved. Although we cannot treat children as adults, that interim offending needs addressing.

The report also makes a number of recommendations designed to change Government responses from a model too focused on what works for agencies to a model focused on best practice and what works for these children and their families. This, I believe, is a conversation our community needs to have and needs to address, and this report is certainly a step in the right direction. It is about getting behind our young people and making sure we are putting them on the right track to success in life, and it complements the programmes that have been undertaken by this National Government since our coming into administration in November 2008.

So what are we doing? Well, our focus is on building a safer New Zealand. We have embarked on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities, prevent crime, and put victims first. The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Act of 2010 created a dual-track system by empowering the Youth Court to deal with children aged 12 and 13 who commit serious offences. By the end of January 2012, nine of 19 twelve and thirteen-year-olds referred to the Youth Court had been either referred to the Family Court for resolution or dealt with by other means—for example, through family group conferences. Twelve and thirteen-year-olds cannot be transferred to the District Court for sentencing. The only means by which a child can be dealt with by adult criminal courts is if they are charged with murder or manslaughter or if they elect trial by jury.

This National Government is staying tough on criminals, keeping record numbers of police on the beat, and ensuring the justice system focuses on the rights of victims. We are firmly committed to reducing child offending and youth crime, and this is highlighted by some of the policy changes to date. As the chairman of the Social Services Committee, this report has many sound recommendations that will address the serious issues facing our youth today and into the future. Our Government has already acted in the interests of our youth, their families, and our communities. I commend this report to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, our bell sounds a bit feeble this morning. I will see how we go.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in response to the Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders. This was an inquiry in which Labour participated actively on the Justice and Electoral Committee. At that time the committee was chaired by Chester Borrows. I am very pleased that he now has a role as a Minister, which allows him to carry forward the recommendations of this report, and I look forward to working with him as he takes on that role.

But there are a couple of things that I want to highlight from Labour’s perspective that were of concern while debating this issue at the select committee. Labour’s focus when it comes to child offenders has always been very, very clear. For us, it has never been about just dealing appropriately with children when they are found to criminally offend. As Mr Lotu-Iiga has pointed out, those children are defined as being over the age of 10 but under the age of 14, because, of course, beyond that they are dealt with through our youth justice system. But Labour’s concern has always been about what we can do in the early stages of a child’s life to prevent them reaching our criminal justice system, whether it is a hybrid form of care and protection or youth justice. For us, there were several issues highlighted in this inquiry that demonstrated that we were not making the most of our early points of intervention, and that, in fact, our threshold for intervention was particularly high.

There are three areas in particular I want to highlight that are part of the recommendations of this report that I think deserve further scrutiny. The first is the agency that holds accountability when a child begins criminally offending. We had examples from the Family Court, in particular. Peter Boshier very kindly created a mock Family Court situation, using real examples to demonstrate to us the delays that happen in the Family Court. Often those delays are caused by the agencies involved either not taking a primary role of accountability for a child, because there is confusion as to whether or not it is primarily a care and protection or a justice issue, so accountability was an issue there, but also delays generally within the Family Court process. I am very pleased that my colleague Charles Chauvel will be taking a call to flesh out how, actually, recent changes in our Family Court system may in fact make that situation worse, not better. So the Family Court has a strong role to play here, and there are some very strong recommendations in here on how we could utilise that process more effectively.

The second point of debate is the quality and effectiveness of our interventions when we do identify a child offender. Are we using well-researched, evidence-based programmes that are fit for purpose in the New Zealand context? I do think there is more work to be done to make sure that we have quality evaluation of the programmes that are being used. We have a very ad hoc approach to contracting at present. The third area, as I have already touched on, is the issue of our threshold for intervention. Let me give you an example. Early on in my political career, when visiting a school, I met with a school principal who was talking about issues amongst her student body. She raised the issue of, I believe it was at that time, an 8-year-old child who she said clearly had had issues at home in the past. These were not clear care and protection issues, but issues that led her to believe that that child and their family needed assistance. That was manifested by the child one day going out of the school grounds and lying in the middle of the road. That school principal’s only choice was to call a police officer and ask for their assistance. The threshold for intervention for that child, because it was not a clear case of neglect or abuse, was not high enough for Child, Youth and Family to be involved, yet the trajectory that child has since taken was one that would lead them into the criminal justice system.

My point is that we have a child protection system that is under strain. There were 150,000 cases reported to the Child, Youth and Family last year, 58,000 of which required follow-up. We have in this country 1,200 social workers. By default, they are dealing with the most serious end of care and protection issues. We do need a system that responds as early as possible to the needs of our most vulnerable children, before they enter into our criminal justice system. If we are to truly make effective use of taxpayer money and care for those vulnerable children, I would suggest that that is where our attentions thus forward need to be paid.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I am pleased also to speak on this Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders, and I want to acknowledge Chester Borrows for bringing the inquiry to the Social Services Committee in the last term of Parliament. Data shows that children growing up in violent families are more likely to engage in youth offending. The inquiry reiterates this fact, this connection, but then does not deal effectively with this part—addressing these issues of family violence and how we can connect the dots on these issues for our most at-risk kids. The social and economic risk factors for youth offending correspond very closely to those risk factors for domestic violence and child abuse, so joining the dots between these things is critical. Given the findings, an effective strategy to combat child abuse, domestic violence, and youth violence would be a collaborative, community-based prevention, an early intervention effort that aims to reduce the social and economic risk factors for families.

There is a very strong argument for the development of national and local collaborative prevention efforts between these three areas, and that approach is missing from the inquiry and its report. Child abuse and domestic violence often occur in the same family and they are linked in important ways to the serious consequences for the safety of all family members. First, where one form of family violence exists, there is a very strong likelihood that another also does. Second, research shows that the impact of children witnessing parental domestic violence is strikingly similar to the consequences of being directly abused by a parent. Both experiences are significant contributors to youth violence.

There has been some new research in New Zealand by psychologist Julia Ioane, following 600 Māori, European, and Pacific Island violent youth offenders. That research shows a very strong connection between exposure to family violence and the likelihood that those young people will become offenders themselves. More than half of all violent youth offenders involved in the study, regardless of their ethnicity, were exposed to family violence at some point in their lives. There is compelling evidence that exposure to inter-partner violence is associated with a host of negative mental health and social consequences in children and adolescents, and that these children display more negative effects and negative cognitions, as well as more social and academic problems compared with those who do not.

I agree that the thresholds for activating care need to be lowered, as has been set out by previous speakers. What I am concerned about throughout these findings and recommendations is that there is no mention of how this support is going to link together youth-offending, child abuse, and domestic abuse services. When we look for opportunities for that early identification, we could start simply with the 150,000 notifications to Child, Youth and Family that happen every year. They are often described by the Minister for Social Development as false positives—those who do not meet the threshold. They are not false positives. They are indications of concern and problems that need to be addressed. The problem is that those people do not meet the threshold for active intervention. They go into a waiting room and there they stay, waiting for someone to help them. There has been a cry for help and there is no response. We do not have a system that connects all of those things together and provides support to those families at an early stage, when they need it the most.

Where is the protective place? Where is the place that a protective parent can go when they need help? Where are the services that will provide direct intervention for those families? This was identified in The Netherlands Study, which Every Child Counts put out last week. In the Netherlands there are places, community hubs, where families can go at that early stage of need to get their issues addressed, before their kids become young offenders in the future. We need to stop working from a model where we need to identify those children, and work to a model where we have a place for those families and those kids to come for help, and that does not exist in the services we provide at the moment.

The Family Courts have recently announced changes whereby, in a rush to save costs, they are increasing the risk of those who have been exposed to domestic violence to continue to be exposed to that violence by having a family resolution process together, without addressing the issues of family violence and domestic violence. Often, those who are subject to that violence are then exposed to further risk. Are we really so blind that we cannot connect the dots between all of these parts of the family violence issue?

This Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders has been effective in some respects, by raising these issues and addressing and providing some recommendations that are very good. But without a concerted effort to join the dots between youth offending, domestic violence, and family violence we simply will not provide support to those families and those kids who need us the most before they get into trouble. And surely that is where we should put our resources. Kia ora.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this report on the Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders. First of all, I acknowledge the work of the Social Services Committee, which resulted in this report being submitted to the House. New Zealand First is pleased to be involved in the discussion, although it was very much at a late stage, given our return to Parliament at the recent election. There is no question that an inquiry was needed and it is a shame that it was not done earlier. Now that the report into this inquiry is before the House, the Government needs to do something about it.

When identifying potential child offenders, the Social Services Committee addresses the importance of early detection of at-risk children. The Government needs to look closely at the committee’s recommendations, especially around Government agencies, to focus on risk and protective factors. There needs to be a thorough analysis of the severity of risks that children identify with and whether all these risks justify intervention. Having collaborative cross-agency and Government departments is key to creating successful interventions. It is acknowledged that the health and education sectors must have more responsibility and input into the process. However, I believe that the Government should consider a wider approach involving different key ministries—namely, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the Ministry of Māori Development. These ministries need to contribute more towards addressing the social and economic drivers of offending.

Recent incidents arising as a result of poor system administrative processes in Child, Youth and Family services highlight poor strategic thinking. Of child offenders who are apprehended, 57 percent are Māori and just under 6 percent of them are Pacific Islanders—that is, 63 percent are Māori and Pacific Islanders alone. The lack of awareness around cultural perspectives will make rehabilitation hard not only for existing youth offenders but also for those who are possibly at risk. The culturally specific approaches in the Youth Court for Māori and Pacific offenders have been commended. However, there are still loopholes within these approaches. Application of specialised cultural services—for example, cultural assessment and relevant resources—would contribute to addressing some behavioural issues of children falling through the cracks. It should be mentioned that demographic areas need also to be considered when considering where Government resources and funding should be allocated. These should be allocated not by the populations of cities, but by the highest concentration of youth offenders.

There are still concerns surrounding programmes to address at-risk children. The question needs to be asked as to whether there will be a clear difference between rehabilitative programmes for offending children and at-risk children. Compounding these two areas could lead to children ending up in compromised situations. The committee has identified mentoring programmes as a solution for at-risk children. However, the Government will need to look at the effectiveness of such programmes, as this will be very much dependent on the mentors themselves. I would also like to raise the question of parent accountability when it comes to child offenders. In most serious offences the child has been brought up within a dysfunctional and often abusive family situation, which potentially leads to behavioural problems. I do question whether a lack of accountability at family group conferences needs to be addressed. Often these sessions are clouded with political correctness, which then blurs the lines of accountability when addressing the real issues. It has been recommended that educational programmes promoting good parenting are positive and effective ways to address these issues. Most programmes need to be established in terms of early parenting. There are not enough avenues nor sufficient programmes and support during the early maternal stages, especially for first-time parents. This begs the question why parents are not being held responsible, as their actions could very well be a leading factor in the circumstances of their child’s offending. Thank you.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this report on the Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders. Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a young woman—this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so—Lydia Ko, a Korean-born, 15-year-old Auckland schoolgirl, who has done wonderfully well in the United States a couple of weeks ago, and also in Canada, becoming the youngest-ever LPGA winner, as an amateur. Although she did not win the $300,000 prize, she was very happy with the trophy. I do know that she worked really, really hard to achieve that result, and I would like to congratulate her in this opportunity that I have got.

Earlier speakers have talked about the purpose of this report. It does have merit. National is committed to reducing child offending and youth crime. This is reflected in the policy changes we are making to build a safer New Zealand. How we deal with child offenders and the balance that is involved is an important part of ensuring that today’s child offenders do not become tomorrow’s career criminals. The Government is engaging with the child and youth justice sector in the coming months as it develops its response to these recommendations. I will be welcoming that, as a mother of a 13-year-old.

When you look at the child offending age, child offenders are over the age of 10 and under the age of 14—and my son fits right into that; he is 13. As a mother, you do worry. The kind of stuff that I am actually worried about is whether he is going to be naughty in school and be called to the principal’s office. But we are talking about more serious issues here. When you look at the statistics from 2010-11 there were 7,896 apprehensions of children aged between 10 and 13, with crimes like theft and related offences comprising 37 percent of these.

I would like to commend the Social Services Committee in the previous Parliament, which actually began and almost completed this inquiry, because it is a serious issue. Children are the future of this country, and we need to make sure that we protect them, that they are on the right path, and that they are on the right side of the law, but often we do find that a lot of children are not.

There are concerns around the delays in process to deal with child offenders, as my colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has alluded to. We know that some child offenders continue offending after they are caught, simply because we lack the tools to address their offending before the case is actually resolved. Where we cannot treat children as adults, the interim offending needs to be addressed.

As a woman of Korean heritage, what Asenati Lole-Taylor talked about in terms of cultural sensitivity and the way we deal with children of different ethnicities went straight to my heart, because, as a child growing up, the neighbourhood, the community, actually dealt with child offending. I remember when one of my friends got into trouble, and an old man came and clipped him around the ear, dragged him by the ear, took him to the house where his parents were, and told the parents off. That kind of community involvement does not seem to exist in today’s society, and perhaps it is a shame that we do not have that.

I am not in any way supporting the idea that we should actually clip kids around the ear, of course, but what I am saying in terms of community involvement in children’s offending is that perhaps we should care more about what our children are doing. And if our neighbours’ children are offending, perhaps we should care about what we are doing to get them on the right track.

New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their own homes and communities. Our focus is on building a safer New Zealand, and we have embarked on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities, prevent crime, and put victims first. We know that many young offenders have no self-esteem, have uncertainty in their lives, and lack any sense of purpose or direction. It falls on us to ensure that we put in the right systems to prevent further offending. I look forward to the Government’s response.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): Just a couple of corrections: the chair of the last Social Services Committee was Katrina Shanks, and I want to acknowledge her work in the last select committee. She actually worked very inclusively with us. This Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders was essentially a Government inquiry, proposed by Government members, and we went along with it.

The second point I want to make is that this inquiry was essentially finished and ready to be presented to this House at the end of the last Parliament, but for some strange reason it was not. There was no work to be done, and there was no explanation given. So the current select committee has simply kept it boiling for a little bit, and now we are presenting it. But this was an inquiry into three aspects of child offending: identification, rehabilitation, and care. Everything we know from research and from experience tells us that unless we have a comprehensive system and an integrated approach to each aspect of that system, and unless each aspect is well designed and well integrated, and unless the care and protection needs of children are met well—unless we have all of those pieces together—the system will not work.

If we look at the recommendations of this inquiry, there are 25 recommendations, and they are quite serious and far-reaching recommendations. What that points to is the fact that this inquiry did not find such a system. We did not find an integrated system or a system that is actually working well. At each stage of the process around child offenders, there is much more to be done, and our recommendations actually point to that. My suspicion is that if we went at the moment into any other aspect of care and protection or the child welfare system and shone a torch on it, we would find similar kinds of shortcomings. There is something that is quite wrong, quite broken, with the system that needs a major review. I suspect that what this inquiry has shown to me is that it has identified some of that.

If we look at identification, what we found was that there were many, many opportunities for cases to be identified early, whether it was in our schools or even our preschools, but somehow that was not done. The system was not tight enough, was not integrated enough, to say that we could take advantage of all of the opportunities that we have, that the system has, and that many systems have to identify these kids. So the first recommendation under that one recommended that the Government require “government agencies to focus on the risk and protective factors identified in this report,”—and we do not do that. We do not bring together the knowledge base around what the key indicators are, and actually use them in everyday interaction with our young people. What we do is we wait until something really blows over. That notion of early intervention is really, really important, and it is an important aspect of this report. We need to also ensure that we identify the accountabilities of Government agencies—so, who is going to do what, and to what extent that will be done.

When we go to the current rehabilitation system, that was another aspect of what the committee was asked to look at. Again, a really quite serious shortcoming is that the bulk of the programmes are not evaluated, so how do we know that these things are actually working? There are a number of recommendations here around that. When we also look at the care and protection system, it was really quite a worrying experience for us as a committee when the Family Court actually did a mock-up of a number of cases, and we found out how the system prevaricates. It can keep a case going for months and months and months, a year, and even beyond. That has to be fixed, because the system is not integrated. I am sure that Charles Chauvel, my colleague, will talk about that. In the end we did not have time to really look at the effectiveness of the care and protection system well enough.

What this report presents is that the system is good in parts, there are lots of things that need to be done with it, the recommendations are quite serious, and they ought to be addressed. Now that Katrina Shanks is here, I did acknowledge your work as chair of the last select committee, where all of the work of this committee was done and completed, but not presented for some strange reason. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Dr Prasad has just stolen my thunder, because I too wanted to begin by acknowledging, in particular, the leadership of Katrina Shanks as the chair of the Social Services Committee in the last Parliament, and also the very important work that was done by our colleague the Hon Chester Borrows, whose knowledge in these areas is perhaps as great as any in this Parliament and who brings a huge amount of life and professional experience to it.

As my colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the new chair of the committee, has acknowledged, the report of the Inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders straddled two Parliaments and two Social Services Committees, and I think all of us who have had the opportunity to be a part of it have found it both a challenging but also a very rewarding exercise. So I want to acknowledge the fact that there are some members—Dr Prasad is one, and Su’a William Sio, Jacinda Ardern, and me—who worked on the report in the previous committee. We were able to do the work that went into it, and I want to thank the members of this current committee in the 50th Parliament for picking it up and bringing it through to the point where it can be presented to the House, discussed here this morning, and, most important, the lessons that we can draw from it are made available to all the agencies in order for it to be implemented wherever possible.

It is a very important topic. It is one of the issues that really pushes all the buttons for me as a member of Parliament. It is one of the main reasons why I felt it was so purposeful to come here in order to try to assist our society to intervene effectively with young people who are at risk not only of going off the rails but in many cases of getting into a serious lifetime of crime, drug addiction, and all sorts of other terrible social evils that are so devastating for them, but always devastating for the wider communities in which they live. Children in the bracket we are talking about—the ages 10 to 14 years—are probably at greater risk in our society today than ever before. That is simply because we are seeing more and more family breakdowns, more and more intergenerational welfare dependency, and more and more children struggling with literacy and numeracy, which means that they do not achieve what they need to in education in order to be able to set their sights on a pathway forward. Many of them have known no other sort of lifestyle than the one that is leading them on the path to ruin. So a report of this type is very timely and is very important, and I am hopeful that it will lead to some really effective forms of intervention, because, as Dr Prasad has just said, the notion of early intervention is a really important one from the report. We all know, I am sure, that the earlier we can intervene in the lives of these youth at risk, the greater the likelihood is that we will be able to help them turn their lives round.

Others have spoken in this debate this morning about the need to identify the youth at risk of becoming child offenders. That, of course, is absolutely critical. But I do also want to acknowledge that there are many people out in our communities doing great work in this area. We have outstanding teachers, many of whom would be able to tell you very quickly what the problems are and who those at risk are. Equally, we have social workers up and down the country doing outstanding work, and in both of those particular professions the challenges are often considerable. I think it is appropriate that we acknowledge them this morning and thank them all for the vital work they are doing. But it is the interventions and, in particular, the rehabilitative programmes that are most significant if we are going to turn things round. So I do just want to highlight chapter 3 of the report, which commences on page 21, to say that as a committee we acknowledge that to some extent the jury is still out about the definitive view of the effectiveness of the programmes that are on offer. To be valid, each assessment would require comprehensive evaluation over an extended period. There are people doing that work, and we will be monitoring them closely.

I want to acknowledge Child, Youth and Family, which is a vital part of this package. It stressed the need for agencies to work together, which is another theme that I am really very keen on, and we saw some good examples of the way things are moving in this direction. We had an opportunity to visit a number of remand centres, youth offending teams, and the like both in Australia, during our trip, and also around the country. I would just like to finish by praising the efforts of one very close to home, on my own doorstep of Hamilton—the Kauri Centre. It is an outstanding facility working with some young people who are outside the mainstream education system. For various reasons they are not able to be in our usual State schools. The Kauri Centre is working with these young people, and every time I go there I am really inspired by the work that it is doing. I am hugely impressed by the commitment of the teachers and the adults who are working there. I have to say, they are delightful young people. Their lives are, in many cases, in a bit of a mess, but there is hope there for them.

I want to conclude by saying that every one of those young lives that we can turn round and turn back from the path to ruin and on to a path of hope, aspiration, and achievement is good for them, good for their families, and good for our country.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I too am very pleased to speak to this report on the inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders, from the Social Services Committee. I think right across this House we would all acknowledge the very important work that was done in this report, and the difficulties that are confronted by all of the professionals, as well as, indeed, the young people at the centre of this inquiry. It is a very, very challenging area, and I just want to commend the Social Services Committee for commissioning this report and the Hon Chester Borrows for his involvement in that. I think it is work that is worthwhile doing and is very much a moving environment in terms of addressing the challenges.

One of the most challenging features—certainly as a former policeman I can speak to this with some degree of understanding—is the multitude of risk factors and protective factors that are faced by these young people. I would just like to turn to the report and read some specific information related to that on page 13, under the heading “Risk and protective factors”. It states: “We understand that a number of widely recognised factors put children at risk of offending. They include antisocial behaviour or conduct disorders, mental health problems, suicidal behaviour, drug and alcohol use, poor academic performance and truancy, poor health, poor attachment to family, and low self-esteem.” The report goes on to outline a number of environmental factors that are also at play here, such as a dysfunctional family situation, abuse and family violence, parents with a history of mental health problems or drug and alcohol abuse, and poor parenting.

The report also goes on to outline what the committee has learnt about protective factors that reduce the likelihood of children offending. Some of these key factors were “supervision and monitoring by parents, with reasonable and consistent rules and consequences”. A common thread within youth offending is that a lack of engagement and a lack of parental oversight often see children aged 10 to 13 wandering the streets in trouble, and this is something that I have endeavoured to address by way of a member’s bill that looks at the importance of the relationship between a child offender and their parents. This member’s bill, which is currently in the ballot, would actually provide Youth Court judges with the ability to put a parent or guardian who is entrusted with the custody of that young person under conditions such as a curfew, such as a residence clause, such as a requirement not to use drugs and alcohol, and so on and so forth, so that as the Youth Court is endeavouring to deal with these young people it can also be assured that it can get engagement with the parents where the circumstances are appropriate.

The report goes to make recommendations of a similar nature right through to the Family Court, where we are indeed dealing with the 10 to 13-year-old child offenders who will be in front of a judge in only about 10 percent of the cases. Indeed, they will proceed through to the Youth Court only where they are involved in a murder, manslaughter, or an offence carrying a penalty of 14 years or more, which is the very, very significant sharp end of the offending.

Indeed, the fact that this report identifies that the Family Court would be well placed to have additional tools to help keep parents engaged, I think, is a very important part that I have gleaned from the report, and I can only hope that today I am lucky enough to have my bill pulled from the ballot. That would be gratifying, because I think it would go to support exactly the sorts of recommendations made in this document.

One of the other real threads of information that I pulled from this report was that so much of what we are dealing with actually falls outside of the court jurisdiction, and is dealt with by family, community, police, and agencies outside of the Youth Court and the Family Court. If there is one thing we can glean from this report, it is the need for systemic efficiency, the need for stakeholders to collaborate, and the need for all partners and all parties involved to be mindful that preventing offending is, indeed, something that we must be focused on. I could go on. This is an excellent report and we should all take heed of these recommendations.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I want to commend the work of the Social Services Committee in respect of the inquiry into the identification, rehabilitation, and care and protection of child offenders that it has conducted and the report that it has produced. There have been some excellent contributions in this debate, and I particularly in this regard want to mention those of my colleagues Jacinda Ardern and Rajen Prasad, but also the contribution of Metiria Turei. I think the point that she made around the need in this area to stop working from a model where, as she put it, we have to identify them, to one where they have a place to come, is absolutely apposite. I share her despair when I read that protective parents in a violent relationship need and would welcome parenting programmes. Parenting programmes are not designed to work within the dynamics of domestic violence, and they will not keep a victim of domestic violence and her—because it is usually her—children safe. In fact, there is a higher chance that they could be put at risk.

The inquiry clearly got great benefit from having heard from the Family Court. It is obvious from the report at pages 37 to 38 that the evidence given by the court to the committee was very useful in its deliberations. What I want to do is just place on record my gratitude to the outgoing Principal Family Court Judge, Peter Boshier, because I have certainly been a member of committees in this House where the judge has, as he clearly did here, come along to a committee and given very frank and helpful evidence about what it is really like at the cliff-face, the coalface—however you want to put it—in respect of dealing with the sorts of issues that confronted the committee. The judge in his time has done his level best to make that court work, and to make it an efficient and effective place from which interventions can occur. I think he will be missed in his tenure as a judge, but I certainly wish him well in his term at the Law Commission, where I know he will provide excellent advice and support in respect of his areas of expertise.

Having mentioned the Family Court, I do need, I think, to touch on the recent changes that the Government has announced to that court. Some of them are positive: the focus on mediation, the attempts to streamline the system and end the requirement to have representation where maybe that is not necessary, but to allow the parties to get quickly to the nub of a dispute. All those things are positive, and I have said that publicly. What is not positive is the attempt to introduce new charges for accessing the court and the ending of free counselling services. Those counselling services at the moment are a hugely important safety valve, and the ability to access six funded counselling sessions, I know, has been an extraordinarily helpful thing for families who are in trouble, including families who face issues around violence, care and protection orders, and the other sorts of matters that are touched on by this report. It is of real concern that we are changing the rules of access to the Family Court, and in the rush to save costs we are going to really have to take great care that we do not simply perpetuate many of the problems that are referred to in the report.

In this regard I am particularly concerned that although there was evidence given to the committee around the utility of increasing youth advocates, we are actually seeing that service being cut. We are seeing, as I have said, cuts to the free access to the Family Court, the elimination of free counselling, the new fees that have been brought in, and then, of course, there is the likelihood of a coming announcement about court closures around the country. These are the sorts of services dealt with in the report that are not amenable to videoconferencing, so if we do not get all that right we are simply going to be spending more money in the corrections and health budgets. That is certainly not something I want to see. We have to get this area of service right, including in the Family Court and the courts budget.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I would like to commend the Social Services Committee for its thought-provoking report, which raises very important questions around the way we deal with child offenders. National is committed to reducing child offending and youth crime. This is reflected in the policy changes we are making to build a safer New Zealand. Over the past 12 months our youth justice reforms have halved the number of youth needing to be held in secure units, but we need to continue this work. We need to ensure that today’s child offenders do not become tomorrow’s career criminals. Therefore, how we rehabilitate, care for, and, more important, protect these children is of utmost importance.

There are children in our country who, through no fault of their own, grow up neglected, lacking opportunity and aspiration; many of whom are abused and go on to live a life of crime. It becomes a never-ending cycle, one we need to do all we can to break.

According to the Ministry of Social Development, although child offender apprehensions have dropped in the past 15 years, there has been an increase in the number of children apprehended for violent offending. In 2010-11 there were 7,896 apprehensions of children aged 10 to 13, and 37 percent of them were for theft and related offences.

The issue of child offending is not new. A study in 1996 found that most child offenders had the marks of inadequate care and/or abuse. In short, the consequences that might be expected from ill-treatment were that they were difficult to manage both at home and at school, they failed to learn, they ran away, and they experimented with alcohol and other substances. At least a third came from families with a history of alcohol or substance abuse and/or criminal involvement.

We know that many young offenders lack self-esteem, have uncertainty in their lives, and have no sense of purpose or direction. They need help. As lawmakers we believe we can do better. We know that some child offenders continue offending after they are caught. However, often this offending is not addressed because we lack effective tools to deal with it. This interim offending needs addressing.

Child offending is considered to be a protection matter, and such offending is currently dealt with by the Youth Court and the Family Court. However, the Family Court has limited powers to change the personal situations of these young people in a way that would prevent further youth offending. Currently, more than 90 percent of children who offend are dealt with by the police through an alternative action—for example, writing an apology letter or paying for damage. Many of them do not enter the justice system. We acknowledge that there is a challenge before us to ensure that the systems we have in place are effectively addressing the issue of child offending, so that today’s child offenders do not become tomorrow’s career criminals.

The focus of this National-led Government is on building a safer New Zealand, and we have embarked on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities, prevent crime, and put victims first. We are staying tough on criminals, keeping record numbers of police on the beat, and ensuring that the justice system focuses on the rights of victims. We are firmly committed to reducing child offending and youth crime. We know that the investments we are making will pay off many times over in reduced costs in both the justice and social sectors, as well as in the incalculable gain of preventing future victims of crime. But, most of all, we will be giving these child offenders an opportunity to have better lives. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move, That the Legislation Bill be now read a second time. The bill was introduced into Parliament in June 2010, and had its first reading on 3 August that year. The Regulations Review Committee reported the bill back to the House—

Hon Members: 2010?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: —on 1 December 2010. I thank all parties for agreeing to this debate being held in extended hours this morning. I will just correct my first or second sentence—it should have been 2010—and I thank Lianne Dalziel for correcting me on that.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It was actually Ruth Dyson.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Oh, and Ruth Dyson. I thank her as well. The Legislation Bill implements the recommendations of the Law Commission following its report on the presentation of New Zealand statute law and its review of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The bill makes important changes to the law relating to the publication and disallowance of legislation, it updates the law underpinning the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and it contains new provisions for a 3-yearly programme of statute law revision or consolidation. These latter provisions in particular have the potential to make significant improvements to the presentation and accessibility of our statute law.

The last major consolidation of New Zealand’s statute law took place in 1908—I will just check that with Lianne Dalziel, 1908—when virtually all of New Zealand’s Acts were revised and re-enacted, obsolete material was removed, and 47 volumes of enactments were reduced down to five. Such a one-off, comprehensive revision might not now be possible, or even desirable, because new Acts are passed so much more frequently these days. Instead, the new Legislation Bill envisages a rolling 3-yearly programme of statute law revision. This approach will bring with it some significant advantages. It will enable us, for example, to rationalise and consolidate heavily amended statutes, or to bring together provisions on one topic that are currently spread across different enactments. We will be able to repeal obsolete Acts, and to update the language in current enactments to make it consistent with modern drafting style. Over time, this will provide for a comprehensive overhaul of the New Zealand statute book, making it quicker and easier for New Zealanders to find, understand, and apply the law that this House has passed.

The second matter I would like to draw to the House’s attention is Subpart 1 of Part 3 of the bill, which replaces the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989—that is 1989. Previous Regulations Review Committee reports have identified problems with the way that the term “regulations” is defined in legislation. The bill addresses those problems by separating the law regulating the publication and disallowance of delegated legislation. There is a new definition of “disallowable instrument”. In effect, the bill reverses the current default position. At present, when it comes to disallowance, what delegated legislation is called matters more than what it does. Because the new definition concentrates on substance over form, the bill broadens the scope of disallowance. The bill will increase parliamentary oversight of the use of delegated powers by the executive, and make it more difficult to avoid disallowance.

The Regulations Review Committee notes that if the bill is enacted, amendments to Standing Orders will be required to reflect the new definition of “disallowable instruments” and to confirm the committee’s jurisdiction. I support the committee’s recommendation, and I invite the Standing Orders Committee to consider it in due course.

As I have said, the Legislation Bill was referred to the Regulations Review Committee in August 2010—2010. The committee’s report on the bill addresses the issue of revision, and, in particular, the important matter of how revision bills should be handled by this House. These bills will not change the substance of the law, but rather how it is presented, so it is right that they should be capable of being passed by a more streamlined procedure than other bills. The Legislation Bill does not make this provision properly, leaving parliamentary procedure to the Standing Orders. The committee supports this approach, but in its report it encourages the Standing Orders Committee to consider making provision for a separate, streamlined process for passing revision bills into law. Such a process should ensure that these bills will be subjected to the appropriate level of scrutiny by the House, but without taking up more parliamentary time than is truly necessary. I agree with and support the committee’s recommendation in this regard.

Aside from a revision, the main focus of the committee’s amendments is in Part 4, which is the part of the bill dealing with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Several of the recommendations are for amendments to make the bill more accessible to the reader. An example is the recommendation for the clause that sets out the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s functions to be broken up into three separate, shorter clauses. The committee proposes certain clarifying amendments, such as in relation to clauses 60 and 61. These clauses contain the power of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to delegate powers and functions to an employee of the Parliamentary Counsel Office if the office holder is absent or incapacitated. The committee recommends that the power should be expanded to cover a period where the office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel is vacant. The bill contains an important provision that protects the confidentiality of communications between the Parliamentary Counsel Office and its clients. The committee recommends a definition be inserted into the provision to make it easier to identify whether a person is or is not a client of the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Others of the committee’s recommendations are more substantive. By way of an example, clause 63 of the bill requires the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to have a legal qualification granted in a common law jurisdiction. The committee has recommended amendments to this provision. The effect of these changes is to require the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to be a New Zealand - qualified lawyer, or eligible to practise as a lawyer in a specified country. This will ensure that candidates for the position of Chief Parliamentary Counsel continue to be drawn from New Zealand or similar jurisdictions. However, in those cases, which I believe will be extremely rare, where no suitable candidate can be otherwise found, the Attorney-General will retain the discretion to waive the qualification requirement in a particular case. The committee makes similar recommendations in relation to parliamentary counsel, and I agree with and support these proposals.

Should the bill progress to its Committee stage, I anticipate publishing a Supplementary Order Paper to improve the clarity of the bill and to bring the amendments of other Acts in the schedule of the bill up to date. I thank the committee for carrying out its work so thoroughly and for making such positive and constructive recommendations to amend the bill. I commend the Legislation Bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): As we have heard, the Legislation Bill arises out of two Law Commission reports, one dating from October 2008 and the other dating from May 2009. It is clear, I think, that those reports set out a compelling case to update the law relating to the publication of New Zealand legislation. The original Act that is on the books at the moment, the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act, dates back to 1920, so given the changes that have occurred in our society and in this institution since then, it is, I think, timely to be having a look at those Law Commission reports and implementing their recommendations. The Regulations Review Committee was very happy to be part of that process, to hear submissions on the Legislation Bill, and to make some recommendations around how that bill could be improved.

I want to make a particular reference to some of the evidence that the Regulations Review Committee heard in respect of this bill. I want to note that we were privileged to be addressed in the committee by two former Chief Parliamentary Counsel. I want to pay tribute to each of them because they gave very careful and helpful evidence. The first person whom I want to acknowledge in this regard is Walter Iles QC. Mr Iles reminded the committee that I as chair of the committee would probably believe everything that he had to say to the committee, given that his father founded the law firm in Gisborne that my father became a partner in, in 1959. He is absolutely right. I did believe everything he had to say, but not for that reason. The other former Chief Parliamentary Counsel from whom we heard was the late George Tanner QC. Again, I want to place on record in the House my gratitude and the indebtedness of the committee for the evidence of Mr Tanner. Members will know that Mr Tanner passed away from an illness some short time ago, and it seems to me that this is an appropriate juncture for me at least, and I hope other members, to place on record our gratitude for the tremendous service that Mr Tanner gave the House, which he repeated in the evidence that he gave to the select committee, which directly led to the clarifications and improvements in the bill that we are considering and that the Minister of Energy and Resources has indicated the Government will adopt.

What are those changes? Well, I think it probably is worth mentioning a couple of them. Members will be familiar with the concept of legal privilege. That is the ability to communicate in absolute confidence with one’s client. It is a necessary adjunct to the practice of law because if, as a legal adviser, it is not possible to know that your communications with your client are utterly secure, then you cannot possibly give free and frank advice. One of the problems that we found with the original draft of the bill was that, oddly, parliamentary counsel did not have any automatic legal professional privilege when they were advising Ministers or members of Parliament in respect of select committee work or members’ bills. So we thought it was important to rectify that and to give parliamentary counsel the sort of protection that every other lawyer and legal adviser has in practice—the ability to ensure that their communications and advice to Ministers, members of Parliament, and others were utterly confidential and able never to be questioned in legal proceedings or otherwise. That will be accomplished by new clause 58B(3).

One of the other changes was touched on by the Minister, and that relates to the qualifications of parliamentary counsel. Members might be surprised to know that there is no provision in the statute book at the moment around the minimum qualifications that we would expect from those who serve in the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We have tried to rectify that by specifying that, ordinarily, parliamentary counsel will be New Zealand - qualified practitioners, but, again, members will know that we have expanded quite radically in recent times the categories of person who can so practise. We have passed, and the Commonwealth of Australia has passed, mutual recognition legislation, meaning that any person admitted in one of the states or territories of Australia may apply to become a legal practitioner in New Zealand. They have the right to so apply, and it is automatic that it will be granted, and vice versa. I know that there are legally qualified members of the House who have been accredited to practise in Australian states, and I am one of them—I am accredited in New South Wales. That shows that the reality of our deepening trans-Tasman relationship means that we can call on a wider pool of lawyers than we otherwise could have.

If we have a look at the way in which the Regulations Review Committee has recommended that the statute be amended, we have also looked to other common law jurisdictions. Why should we deprive ourselves of the ability to call on a Canadian lawyer, a lawyer qualified in the United States, a lawyer from Hong Kong, or a lawyer from any of the other common law jurisdictions? They might have deep administrative experience or deep law-drafting experience and might well be able to lend that expertise to the New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office. Under this legislation it will be made clear that that is absolutely welcome in New Zealand.

Another important change is made by clause 71A. In the State Sector Act, section 77 of the legislation makes it very clear that provided a public servant is acting within powers and in good faith, then the public servant has no liability. The Crown incurs no liability for the acts taken by the public servant. It is a very important constitutional provision. It means that our Public Service can function more effectively, without having to worry all the time about whether any piece of advice or policy implementation might give rise to litigation. There was no such provision in the statute book relating to parliamentary counsel, and so, because parliamentary counsel are not part of the core Public Service, we have had to provide for that, and that amendment has been added in, in clause 71A.

Finally, there are some amendments to the definition of what sorts of instruments can be considered by the Regulations Review Committee and scrutinised on behalf of the House. We have changed the terminology in the original bill from “legislative order” to “legislative instrument”, recognising that it is not just Orders in Council that will now come to the Regulations Review Committee but other types of delegated legislation will come for scrutiny as well.

There are two other quick points before I finish. The Minister noted that the Law Commission recommended that provision be made for a select committee to be created to hear and deal with revision bills. These are bills that are technical in nature that do not need to take up the time of this House through three readings and a Committee stage, but can be dealt with through an expedited procedure. I think that would make an enormous difference to the efficiency with which we do our work. I am pleased to hear that the Government intends to progress that through the Standing Orders. I urge that it happen sooner rather than later, just from the point of view of being able to do our jobs better.

Finally, listeners and other members might be wondering about the reason for the delay in progressing this legislation. I said that the Law Commission reports came from 2008 and 2009. The Legislation Bill was introduced in 2010. It is only now being read a second time, despite the fact that it was reported back from the Regulations Review Committee last year. We were told in the estimates process by the Parliamentary Counsel Office that this was because the Government intended to combine the Legislation Bill with the Regulatory Standards Bill. I made it very clear on behalf of the Opposition that that would not be acceptable if a bipartisan approach to this Legislation Bill was being sought. The Attorney-General abandoned that course of action. I am very pleased to say that, having done that, I can now commend this bill to the House.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Legislation Bill today. I also would like to acknowledge the recent passing of Mr Tanner and the work that he did in the Regulations Review Committee and in this Parliament, and also on this piece of legislation to get it before Parliament today. This Legislation Bill is about modernising and improving the law relating to the publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official versions of legislation in one single piece of legislation. This contributes towards our regulatory reform in terms of reducing the need for technical remedial legislation, as a consequence of the enhanced reprinting powers. This will also improve our access to law through a programme of revision of old statutes.

So, as this bill has come from the select committee and has taken a little while to get here to have its second reading, it is good to see that the Attorney-General has been working closely with Charles Chauvel in the Opposition to ensure that we do get agreement on this piece of legislation moving forward. It has had two reports by the Law Commission and recommendations on how to improve this bit of legislation, and I know that the select committee worked very hard on it. I would like to acknowledge the role that it, as well, has played in getting it here today.

It does replace the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920, the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989, and also the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989. It allows for some key changes within this legislation. There will be a 3-yearly programme of systematic revision of these Acts. It will modernise the legislation by providing for the disallowance of subordinate legislation. It allows for the provision of enabling powers and related processes to certain types of subordinate legislation to incorporate material by reference. It also updates aspects of the Statutes Drafting and Compliance Act 1920. These are all quite—

Charles Chauvel: Compilation.

KATRINA SHANKS: Compilation, sorry. These matters are all quite technical if you are not within the law. So I think this is a really good piece of legislation, which has been worked on hard to bring it to this House. Obviously, it is about clear and accessible law being a fundamental part of the rule of law. People need to be able to understand legislation and courts need to be able to interpret legislation quite easily.

So this is also about a plain English approach. It has not always been the approach taken in Parliament before, and our legislation has been quite complex, especially some of our old legislation, which is quite hard to read. One real shocker comes from the United Kingdom. It is contained in the Banking Act 1979 Appeals Procedure (England and Wales) Regulations 1979. This is what it says, which is an example of how complex legislation can get, and it is not plain English at all: “Any reference in these regulations to a regulation is a reference to a regulation contained in these regulations.” I do not know what that means. I have read it about 10 times and I am still not quite sure what it means. But it just shows you how complex we can be when we write as legislators. Really, we have got to think about who is reading this legislation, and make it as easy as we can for people to pick up a bit of legislation and understand it.

So this represents a significant step in the process of improving and modernising the New Zealand statute book. I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I too rise to support the passage of the Legislation Bill. But I do want to comment on the sequence of events, because it does seem to me that we have ended up delaying unnecessarily the passage of this particular measure. So we have got two Law Commission reports, despite what my colleague Charles Chauvel said before: Presentation of New Zealand Statute Law in 2008 and Review of the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 in 2009. Actually, that is a good track record to have Law Commission reports that are so recent in front of the House. When you compare how long other Law Commission reports take to get to the House, that actually is quite good progress.

However, this legislation was introduced in mid-2010, and it was reported back from the Regulations Review Committee at the end of 2010, so we actually had 2011 to deal with this particular measure and pass it through all of its stages. It could have been well implemented by now, but that did not happen. In fact, it has been sitting on the Order Paper now for so long, having been reported back from the Regulations Review Committee, that I was not on the Regulations Review Committee at the time that this particular bill was considered. I think it is worth mentioning that it is unusual for the Regulations Review Committee to consider legislation. Normally, we are considering regulations or we are considering regulation-making powers within statutes, but to have a bill referred to us as a committee is actually an unusual step. I think it is worthy of merit, and I think that is because of the content. The content of it does not sit very easily with any other subject committees, because it is more of a general focus on the nature of the legislation itself. So it is not the content but the parameters of the law, which is something that the Regulations Review Committee is very mindful of.

I too want to place on record my personal regret at the passing of George Tanner. In the time he was Chief Parliamentary Counsel at Parliament he gave tremendous service. When he moved to the Law Commission, I felt that the Law Commission had gained something that the Law Commission really needed, which was that quality perception around drafting. That needed to be strengthened within the Law Commission now that it has the responsibility of looking at drafting measures to sit with its reports to Parliament. I really think he was a great loss to New Zealand, and certainly a great loss to the whole issue of statutory drafting. The reason I wanted to mention that is that when somebody of that calibre comes and makes submissions to a select committee, it does make a real difference. I think it is worthwhile mentioning that our select committee process has enabled people of that calibre to come forward and to submit on legislation that might seem so dry but is actually quite fundamentally important to how accessible the law is going to be.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on the bill, because, of course, I was not on the Regulations Review Committee when it considered it, but I want to just make the point that not only did it pick up on those two Law Commission reports but also it responded to recommendations made by a previous Regulations Review Committee on inquiries relating to incorporating material by reference. I was on the Regulations Review Committee when that particular report was undertaken, so I am really pleased to see in the statute a provision that specifically deals with how material incorporated by reference is going to be dealt with in the future. For those who are not familiar with the work of the previous Regulations Review Committee, an example of material incorporated by reference would be a standard that is made by a joint standards body—say, Food Standards Australia New Zealand. If a joint standards body makes a standard that is then incorporated by reference into legislation, you do not need to write in the entire standard and then amend it every time the standard is amended. In fact, by making it publicly available, it is automatically incorporated by reference, with the use of appropriate clauses in the legislation and then with appropriate checks and balances, so that people can access the material that is incorporated by reference. It is all about accessibility but also ensuring that our legislation can stay up to date with regulations, without necessarily changing the law in order to meet an outside body’s standard-setting process.

With those few comments in mind, as others have said, I too am very pleased to see that this bill is progressing. I would have very strongly objected to this legislation going into the Regulatory Standards Bill, so I am glad my colleague Charles Chauvel was able to indicate to the Government that that would cause the bill to lose the bipartisan support that it now enjoys because it is kept separate from legislation that does not fit with this particular framework. I am very pleased to support its passage through the House.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to take a very short call on the second reading of the Legislation Bill, which the Green Party will be supporting. We supported it at the first reading to the Regulations Review Committee, but, unfortunately, I did not have the honour or pleasure to be on the committee. In fact, I do not believe there was a single Green member on the committee, so we were not able to watch its progression through the select committee as closely as we would have liked to.

What the bill is, effectively, seeking to do is very reasonable, and I think it is very important to be able to have regular revision of legislation and to make sure it is able to be made available to be reprinted, to be corrected, and, above all, to be accessible, because, really, one tenet, I think, of a functioning democracy is that what happens at the level of the elected representatives needs to be transparent, clear, and accessible to the people of New Zealand. One of the four key charter principles of the Green Party is appropriate decision-making, and we really cannot have appropriate decision-making if we do not have transparency and the ability of the general public to understand what legislation means for them and to interpret it quite easily.

The changes that take effect in the form of the revision bills, I think, will clearly lay out the purpose of revision. They need to be certified by several experts, including the president of the Law Commission and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Though it remains for the Standing Orders Committee to decide the specific process, we are satisfied that it would be impossible for a revision bill to pass without parliamentary scrutiny. That is really important and is, I am happy to say, not at all in line with other bills that we have seen pass way too quickly through this House that have given far too much power to the executive in the ability to make regulations and make changes to the law through Orders in Council without parliamentary scrutiny, and that is very, very problematic. It is a real pattern, I think, of this Government to try to bypass parliamentary scrutiny and bypass the wider debate that leads to better legislation. I am happy to say that this bill does not do that, and that it does not continue in that pattern of taking away power from Parliament, from the people, and giving it to the executive.

Keeping legislation modern and accessible is fundamentally important, as I have said, to our democracy. The law should be something that everyone can engage with. The ability to revise old legislation to make it clear and understandable fulfils the duty that we have to make laws that everyone can comprehend. We also support the bill’s provision that official versions of legislation are able to be made available electronically, online. That is extremely useful, and I think it encourages us to make better laws, having them available to be perused, criticised, and open to public scrutiny online. This bill is a very small step, but the Green Party is very, very happy to support it, as we do believe that it will shed more light on the activity of Parliament and is a way to make New Zealand more democratic. Thank you.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I must admit that I did not anticipate, as a member of the Regulations Review Committee, ever standing here speaking on a bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What? Oh, come on!

MIKE SABIN: Can I firstly commend the chair of the Regulations Review Committee—it is all quite a mystery to me, I must say, Mr Mallard. Can I firstly commend the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, Charles Chauvel, for the way in which he does shed light on what does appear to be something of a mystery to me at times, and for his leadership of that committee.

This bill, the Legislation Bill, is really about clear and accessible law being a fundamental part of the rule of law. People need to be able to understand what it is about, and the courts need to be able to interpret legislation. Certainly in my former life as a police officer I saw, I guess, the other end of that particular spectrum and the importance of it. As has already been mentioned, the Law Commission has rightly said that our statute law as a whole currently lacks coherence, it is untidy, and it can be difficult to understand and use. This bill obviously goes to the heart of that. This Legislation Bill supports the efforts of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Law Commission to address this problem by tidying the statute book and making it easier to understand, and I think we have all found consensus on that point. This bill aims to modernise and improve the law relating to the publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official versions of legislation, and in fact brings together for the first time the law on drafting, publication, and disallowance of legislation. It ensures that legislation is made available to the public appropriately and conveniently, and preserves and enhances the powers of the House to scrutinise and challenge delegated legislation.

I do not know whether I would go as far as my friend from the Green Party, the previous speaker, Julie Ann Genter, although I would have to say that we do not find consensus in many of our views, but I will not dwell on that point. Lastly, the bill preserves the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the importance and significance of that is not to be understated. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First is also happy to support the Legislation Bill, particularly because it improves accessibility and understandability of legislation for the New Zealand public. Before going any further, I first want to acknowledge the work of the Regulations Review Committee, which I think has done a really good job with this piece of legislation. It is high time, of course, that there is a modernisation of legislation governing the drafting of legislation and concerning the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.

As we know, the bill principally would replace the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920, the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989, and the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989. Most important, I think, it provides for a 3-year programme of systematic revision of legislation. That is a very welcome move, and something that probably should have been done a long time ago. The bill would also alter the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. In particular, the Chief Parliamentary Counsel will be required to publish legislation in electronic as well as printed form, and to issue official versions of legislation in electronic and printed form. That will be very welcome to people who these days—and I think it is the majority—find their way through legislation through electronic means. This just brings that situation up to date, and is most appropriate.

I particularly wanted, however, to make some comments about the part of the bill relating to revision bills. The purpose, as we know, is stated in clause 29(2), which says: “The purpose of revision is to re-enact, in an up-to-date and accessible form, the law previously contained in all or part of 1 or more Acts, but (except as authorised by this subpart) revision is not intended to change the effect of a law.” That is a very important issue, which I think has been well addressed by the committee.

However, the revision programme in clause 31(2) is, as I have already said, for me the crux of the whole thing. It includes such important things as revision of the whole or part of one or more Acts, with the ability to combine or divide them as may be appropriate. Clause 31(2)(c) refers to the omission of redundant and spent provisions, which will also be useful. Clause 31(2)(f) refers to the ability to include new or additional purpose provisions, which will be helpful for the public, as well. Most important, I think, clause 31(2)(i) refers to the ability to make minor amendments to clarify Parliament’s intent. Of course, that word “minor” is open to interpretation, but I do believe that it is appropriate to have it there. Clause 31(2)(j) allows the updating of monetary amounts and that kind of thing, which is just common-sense stuff.

It is important, however, that although clause 31(3) states that “A revision Bill must not change the effect” of any statute, that does not mean that there will not be any substantive changes, which would still be possible. Therefore, great care is going to be needed, I believe, to preserve the integrity of the Acts that are dealt with under this legislation—something that I think the House will need to be careful of when it looks at revision bills as they come through in the future. In other words, we are still going to have to be vigilant.

Clause 34(2) repeats the requirements not to change the effect of any statute, but that is qualified by clause 31(3), which states: “A revision Bill must not change the effect of the law, except as authorised by subsection (2)(i) or (j).”, which I have already referred to. So there is a degree of conflict and some confusion between clauses 31(3) and 34(2), which state that there should be no change to the effect of any statute, and clause 34(3), which says that there may be change to the effect of a statute if expressly stated.

I note that the committee has said that for this purpose it has inserted new clause 33A in relation to minor policy changes to revision bills. The committee considered that the bill as introduced might cause confusion about the relationship between the changes properly made using the revision powers and the changes made by members of Parliament during the passage of a revision bill through the House. That is the dilemma, of course.

The committee goes on to say that it considers that the bill should make the distinction clearer, and for that reason it has put in new clause 33A. New clause 33A(1) says: “A revision Bill, as introduced, must not contain any proposed change to the effect of the law unless the amendment is authorised by section 31.” It goes on to say in subclause (2): “nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Representatives to amend a revision Bill for any purpose and to pass it with amendment.” To me, that new provision, clause 33A(1), does not improve the problem; it simply restates the dilemma without actually improving anything. So although I appreciate that the committee did want to clarify the situation, I do not think it did it with that particular provision.

I believe that it would actually have been better if clause 34(3) and new clause 33A(1) were deleted altogether, and we were left only with new clause 33A(2), which, I repeat, simply says: “nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Representatives to amend a revision Bill for any purpose and to pass it with amendment.” It would be quite sufficient for that to be there, and those other clauses I referred to need not be there at all. However, that is a relatively minor matter. I would have preferred it that way, but it is not something that I think would cause New Zealand First to vote against the bill or, at this late stage, attempt to change it further. I just think that it would have been a better way of going about it.

I want to go on and just briefly mention now the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and to note with approval that clause 58 of the bill is now being divided into the three new clauses: 58, 58A, and 58B. That is very wise. It does make things much clearer to do that. We also welcome new subclause (1)(h) of clause 58, which refers expressly to the rights of the public. It does say in that clause that one of the functions of the Parliamentary Counsel Office is “to examine all local Bills and private Bills, and to examine the Members’ Bills that the Attorney-General directs be examined, and to report to the Attorney-General on the effect of Bills examined, in particular on whether they affect the rights of the Crown or the public, and on their relationship to other legislation:”. I think that is a very good provision, indeed. Advice on that has often been absent in the past, and I think that is a very good provision, which New Zealand First supports wholeheartedly. With regard to the appointment of the functions of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, we completely agree with the need for that person to be legally qualified in New Zealand or in a similar jurisdiction, and the same provision for other parliamentary counsel as well.

New Zealand First has no issues with any of the other provisions of the bill or with the select committee amendments that are being proposed, and will therefore be very happy indeed—with the reservations that I have made—to vote in favour of the bill as amended.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Anyone who listened to the last speaker, Denis O’Rourke, would realise what a complicated task Mike Sabin and I have had getting to grips with the work of the Regulations Review Committee, because he totally confused me. But I also want to just thank both of our team leaders in Katrina Shanks and, certainly, Charles Chauvel for enlightening us as to what this bill, the Legislation Bill, is all about, as we clearly were not part of that select committee at the time this bill came into the House.

I want to comment on the time that this bill has taken to come through the House, because I think we have to realise as a House of Representatives that we are here for ever. We come and go as individuals very quickly, but time is here for ever.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not necessarily.

IAN McKELVIE: No, some of you have been around a fair while, actually. But it is worth remembering that this legislation was last reviewed in 1908, so I do not have great difficulty with the 104 years it has taken to come back to the House.

Denis O’Rourke: I remember it well.

IAN McKELVIE: I am not surprised, given the last speech we just heard. I think the key, really, is to improve the public’s understanding of legislation. I think that one of our great tasks as parliamentarians and as lawmakers is to ensure that people understand the laws we make. I think it is also important that we put laws in plain English—in other words, they are easy for people to get a grasp of. I think this bill, from that perspective, is really important.

I was amused to find mentioned in the commentary on this bill talk about thematically going through things. I had to look up the meaning of “thematically”, because I did not know what it meant. I found out what it meant in the end, and, actually, when you think about going through things thematically, it is probably a better way than going through them in order of clauses. My understanding of a lot of the legislation that we put through this House is that it is very difficult to follow clause by clause, because the clauses are not necessarily done thematically. I think there is some sense in going through things thematically, so I was a bit intrigued with that.

I suspect that there are nearly 1,200 different laws governing our country, and we need to know those laws and we need to understand them. If we do not understand them as people in our communities, we have great difficulty fitting into society. So for this to happen, as I have said already, we need to ensure that they are well written and clearly espoused by our lawmakers. Our lawmakers are, of course, us.

I am going to read one line—or a bit more than one line—from some notes I have got here, because I think they espouse the whole reason for this Regulations Review Committee and the reason for this law. It says that it preserves the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, which is responsible for ensuring, so far as it can, that the primary legislation enacted by Parliament and secondary legislation made by the executive reflect the fundamental concepts inherent in the rule of law, and that legislation passed based on legal principle is effective and clear and can be accessed easily by the public. I think that really captures the basis of what this Legislation Bill is all about. That is really important.

The bill also does away with three of those nearly 1,200 current Acts and merges them into one. I think that is positive as well. So without going any further into the Legislation Bill’s parameters, because they have been well covered this morning, I have great pleasure in supporting the movement of this bill through the House.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my intention to take a very short call on this bill, the Legislation Bill, because members have gone into a lot of the detail that is contained in this bill. I would like to commend the Regulations Review Committee for the work it has put into this bill, and to commend the chair of that committee, Charles Chauvel, for his work.

This may seem like a very technical bill, and in many ways it is, but it is an incredibly important piece of legislation. It really cuts to the heart of how it is that people understand the laws that we make in this House—that they are accessible, that they are written in plain English that people can understand, and that we get rid of some of the archaic language. So modernising and making our legislation more accessible is something that Labour is all in favour of.

The ability of people to engage with what we do here and understand the laws we are making that govern their lives is incredibly important. There is plenty of scope for us to reform how it is that we make laws as legislators in this country. This piece of legislation that we have before us is a start. It is certainly not the end of the reform agenda in terms of legislation and where we could go, but there are certainly some very good starts in here. For this reason Labour is happy to commend this legislation to the House.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is a great pleasure to take a very brief call today on the Legislation Bill. I commend the work of Charles Chauvel and also the work he does on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which I am on with him. As the Hon Chris Finlayson observed in his opening introductory remarks, legislation, not case law, is the major source of law in the land today, and this legislation has assumed increasing importance for Governments, and, thereby, the people ruled by those Governments, over the last 200 years. It is exceptionally important, as many speakers have pointed out, that this legislation is easily understood and is easily accessible.

This Legislation Bill is the Government’s main response to two Law Commission reports. The first Law Commission report focused on these very issues of how to make our Acts of Parliament more up to date, more accessible, and more user-friendly, so people can find the legislation appropriate to them and understand the law appropriate to them. The other report looked at the status and function of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. All members of the House sitting in select committees appreciate the work done by the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

The Legislation Bill will modernise and improve the law relating to the publication of legislation, which is an essential function of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. As we have heard, the bill brings together for the first time the law on drafting, on publication, and on disallowance of legislation. It ensures that legislation is made available to the public appropriately and conveniently. So basically we come back to this major theme of clearer, easier access to appropriate law for the people of this country. I commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Raymond Huo. I understand it is a 5-minute call. I will ring a bell at 4 minutes.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): That is my understanding.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It had better not be that long.

RAYMOND HUO: Indeed, indeed. I would like to follow the good spirit of my parliamentary colleagues this morning and take a short call to support this Legislation Bill.

Hon Member: Not any point speaking if you’re not going to vote. Just abstain.

RAYMOND HUO: Thank you, that honourable member. The purpose of this bill is to modernise and improve the laws relating to publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official versions of legislation and bring them together in a single piece of legislation. The Law Commission put it very well when it stated in its report that “The state has an obligation to make law accessible to citizens. People have to obey the law; ignorance of it is no excuse. So they need to be able to find it and understand it. They will not respect the law if they cannot. Moreover, law which is not accessible is expensive in terms of both time and money.” So the objects of this legislation are to make sure that the law is accessible to people and that the content of what is printed is reliable in terms of what this House has passed.

At the Regulations Review Committee the bill was carefully considered because it deals with important constitutional matters. The bill reflects the serious work that has gone into modernising the rules around legislation. The bill provides unelected officials greater power to change the words agreed on by Parliament as the law of New Zealand. These provisions are carefully constructed to ensure that the powers are limited to only obvious errors.

One concern shared by a number of parliamentary colleagues, as expressed by the Hon Maryan Street at the bill’s first reading, is about any proposed changes to the disallowance mechanisms. At the select committee we looked closely at the regulations and disallowance changes proposed in this bill. The provisions in the bill that separate the publication and the disallowance of delegated legislation, and the broad definition of “disallowable instrument”, ensure that there will be parliamentary oversight of the use of delegated powers by the executive, and this will make it more difficult to avoid disallowance.

This bill establishes the practice of having revision bills, which will be overseen by the Attorney-General, and the bill will provide for the revision of the wording, numbering, title, etc. of Acts of Parliament. The aim of such bills will be to simplify New Zealand legislation and make it easier to access and understand. The bill establishes a 3-yearly programme of systematic revisions of Acts. One of the other changes being proposed under this bill is to modernise drafting style, or plain English drafting. They are good initiatives, and, as the Law Commission said in its report, the State has an obligation to make law accessible to its citizens. Thank you

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am proud to support the Legislation Bill in the second reading. It has been well canvassed this morning, and I do not intend to say anything further than to commend it.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Electronic Identity Verification Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Electronic Identity Verification Bill be now read a second time. Firstly, I would like to thank the Hon Nathan Guy for introducing the Electronic Identity Verification Bill when he was the Minister of Internal Affairs. Can I also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee, led by Ruth Dyson, for its work on this particular bill. This is one of two important bills before the House today that support one of the Government’s key priorities. Our priorities as a Government, as you will all be aware, are, firstly, to responsibly manage the Government’s finances; secondly, to build a more productive and competitive economy; thirdly, to rebuild Christchurch; and, fourthly, to provide better public services.

This bill and the Identity Information Confirmation Bill go to the heart of Better Public Services. The Government is striving to achieve better services within tight financial constraints. To do this we have set 10 key result targets. One of these, for which the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible, is to enable New Zealanders to transact with Government easily in an online environment—

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s not the time for this sort of speech. If you’re going to have stuff by leave, you’re not going to make speeches like this again.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Just for the member across the House, I would just like to point out again that this bill enables New Zealanders to transact with Government easily in an online environment. These two bills enable Government departments, businesses, and other agencies to easily confirm the identity of the people they transact with. This will speed up transactions and reduce paperwork, enabling individuals to obtain services more quickly and easily. The two bills are similar but different, and later this morning we will consider the Identity Information Confirmation Bill, which establishes the igovt identity service.

The Electronic Identity Verification Bill regulates the igovt identity verification service. This service enables individuals to prove who they are online. Individuals prove who they are once when applying to use the service. Those individuals can then use the service to prove who they are to other agencies that are authorised to use the service. The bill supports the wide use of this service to better enable agencies to check individuals’ identity. Most important, it does so in a manner that protects and enhances New Zealand’s ability to control how information is used. As I have said, this bill is at the heart of the Government’s reforms to achieve Better Public Services. In particular, it supports Better Public Services result area 10: that New Zealanders can complete their transactions with Government easily in a digital environment.

The service makes it easier for New Zealanders to complete their transactions with Government, as I have said, online and at a lower cost. The bill enables both Government and the private sector agencies to use the service to reduce their investment and processing costs. Individuals find the service convenient as it will reduce the amount of paperwork and supporting identity documents they must provide when dealing with Government and, importantly, with businesses. Result area 10 is based around a number of key transactions such as applying for motor vehicle licences or renewing a passport. We are aiming to have 70 percent of these commonly used transactions completed online in a digital environment by 2017. The igovt service will contribute significantly to this by streamlining processes for online log-ins when people access services online. By making it easier for people to access online services we will encourage uptake and get closer to that 70 percent mark.

As I have said, the bill is similar to, but different from, another bill that we have coming forward this afternoon. Both bills also ensure that individuals remain in control of their information. People have the choice to join the igovt service and to use it. One of the principles of this bill stresses that agencies using this service should, where practicable, maintain alternative means for individuals to interact with them. This protects both individuals who cannot or do not wish to use the services for various reasons. Submissions to the Government Administration Committee, led by the Hon Ruth Dyson, strongly supported the opt-in nature of this service as a safeguard for individuals. The bill is not about creating a digital national identity card scheme, and that is an important fact to note.

Like the Identity Information Confirmation Bill, this bill has other safeguards to ensure that the service operates securely to protect the privacy of individuals. These include provisions that allow the Privacy Commissioner to review the operation of the service. The Privacy Commissioner can ask for reports on any matter that she considers relevant. This enables the Privacy Commissioner to monitor the service proactively rather than being able to deal with the complaints only when a problem has occurred.

For businesses, I anticipate that the bill will be central to help meet customer due diligence requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. From mid-2013 banks and other financial institutions will be required to undertake more extensive checks to know who their customers are. This bill provides a new, innovative tool for businesses to use, subject to their being authorised to use the service.

While the bill enhances customer and business convenience, contributing significantly to better public services, it will also help to combat identify fraud and crime in New Zealand. The bill does this by requiring individuals to be subject to a passport-strength verification process, supported by information-matching processes and checks against authoritative records. Agencies can therefore rely on the fact that the identity a person is claiming is indeed his or her identity. The bill makes it harder for identity fraudsters and will help Government agencies and businesses fight this increasing problem. These policy underpinnings reinforce the Government’s objectives. The bill enables an individual’s identity information to be used in a manner that is good for the Government, good for business, and, most important, good for New Zealanders.

I want to highlight some of the significant changes that the Hon Ruth Dyson has led through the committee, and which the Government supports. The changes include providing higher penalties for organisations that commit offences under the legislation. I understand that the committee considered that this change was necessary to create a sufficient deterrent for organisations from committing offences and to provide appropriate punishment to those that do so. The committee has recommended creating a regulation-making power to specify the duration for which the Department of Internal Affairs can retain personal information if an individual no longer uses the service. Setting periods under regulation will involve a careful balancing act. On one hand, the service has legitimate needs to store information, even if an individual no longer uses the services. For instance, the photograph of an individual could be used to detect someone trying to use the service in the future using a fake or stolen identity. On the other hand, individuals have a right to privacy, including the ability to be forgotten when they opt out of services.

Another significant proposed change from the committee was to limit law enforcement access to an individual’s record of usage history. This is a record of an individual’s interactions with agencies using the service, but it does not contain any information about the transactions that the individual has undertaken. A law enforcement agency may require access to an individual’s usage history record to investigate and prosecute offences under the legislation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: This is pathetic.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The committee decided it was appropriate to more tightly control law enforcement access to this information—that is the committee, Mr Mallard not the Government, and we are supporting that. Law enforcement agencies will require a search warrant to initiate a request for access, or the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs may provide access to law enforcement agencies in reporting a suspected offence against the legislation. The committee recommended a number of other important changes. The changes would clarify the legal effect of using the services. Other new provisions will enhance transparency of the service by requiring the proactive publication of reports and technical standards. The publication of those reports would be subject to information being withheld in line with the Official Information Act and to protect the security or integrity of the service.

I appreciate the consideration that members of the Government Administration Committee gave to the bill and I appreciate the useful submissions made by members of the public. Once again I acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson’s leadership. I was particularly pleased to see that the Privacy Commissioner was strongly in favour of the bill. I intend to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper when the bill is considered by the Committee of the whole House to address a minor technical matter. Clause 61 protects officials and their agents from liability in certain circumstances. Under clauses 46 and 47 other people may undertake functions under delegation or agreement with the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. They should also be protected from liability when legitimately performing that work. At present the wording of clause 61 does not expressly refer to the people performing functions under clauses 46 and 47. The Supplementary Order Paper will make this clear. This bill represents a significant shift in supporting the way New Zealanders can complete their online transactions and enables individuals’ information to be better used by the Government and the private sector. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all thank the member who has just resumed his seat, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Chris Tremain, in whose name the Electronic Identity Verification Bill is before the House, and say that I appreciate the comments he made in relation to our select committee work. The Government Administration Committee worked pretty rigorously on what is quite a small bill, but one that we thought was really important.

But I am disappointed that he chose to politicise this bill, given the fact that our select committee worked so hard together, regardless of which of the three parties we represented, on that bill.

Hon Chris Tremain: I didn’t politicise it. I just said that it was one of the key priorities of the Government.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Well, the Minister just got up and read his speech. Perhaps he might have considered reading it prior to that, because then I am sure that he would have detected how overly political he had made an issue that was not politicised at all throughout the select committee process.

I want to also acknowledge the leadership of our entire select committee, which broke new ground in the processing of this bill. We decided that we would not just put an ad in the major dailies, calling for submissions; we would leap forward into the current century—well ahead of the rest of Parliament, I have to say. Despite the best efforts of some of our advisers to the committee, and even to the concern of the Clerk’s Office, we decided we would advertise this bill electronically, so that people could go on the internet and find out that we were calling for submissions. It was great to break new ground in that way. We did it within the existing budget, and we thought that it was a good process for Parliament to go through.

So it was with some excitement that I saw that InternetNZ was appearing before the select committee as one of the 12 submitters who put in a submission on this bill. I asked InternetNZ where it had heard about the calling for submissions on this bill, and I expected it to say that it had read it through this groundbreaking measure we had made when calling for submissions. InternetNZ said that it had read it on the regular Clerk’s page of the Parliament website. So it was a great disappointment to me, because—

Chris Auchinvole: It’s a start.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Well, it was a great disappointment to me that despite this huge leap forward, no submitters had responded to it in the way that we had hoped. InternetNZ gave us a very, very helpful submission, actually, as did the Privacy Commissioner, as the Minister mentioned in his speech. We got only 12 submissions, but it is a fairly specific bill, and it does achieve a lot. It allows people to verify their identity online and across different Government departments and agencies, and, clearly, that is important.

The primary concern, of course, is that of identity theft. We do not want people to be able to use that access to represent themselves as another person, but the reality is that that was possible prior to internet access being available. We have seen some pretty distressing cases of that in recent times where people have represented themselves as being somebody else. People are actually more anxious about an increased ability of identity fraud to occur under this system than they were under our traditional systems. The reality is that that is not the case, but I think it was important that through this process we also tried to deal with that perception and made sure that the process of protecting the system was rigorous.

The Minister went through the number of changes that we made. I am sorry that I had not been alerted in advance to the change that the Minister noted as a Supplementary Order Paper. I had not picked that up. I have been at a select committee this morning. I will have a look at that, but I am sure that if it is exactly as he outlined, it should not be a problem for us to support it.

We also considered in our select committee the changes that are outlined in the bill. It caused me some reflection as to why, in such a small bill that was quite straightforward and one that has quite a lot of overlap with the Identity Information Confirmation Bill which will be considered later in the day, and which was looked at by the previous Government Administration Committee, there were still so many areas that needed amendment. I would recommend to the Minister that he give further reflection to this. I do not think that for a small bill—one that does not have any political edge to it at all, particularly—we should have had to make so many changes before we were confident that it met the standards that we considered appropriate as a select committee. I will just leave that with the Minister for further reflection, because I do not think it actually should be the case.

I look forward to the progress of this bill. It has been a pleasure for the select committee to work on, and I want to acknowledge all the members of the select committee, who put a lot of effort into it—nobody dozed off at any time at all during the select committee, which was very fortunate because it did require some rigour—Mr Auchinvole, who kept us all on our toes, from the National Party side, Gareth Hughes representing the Green Party, and my colleague Trevor Mallard. The other thanks that I would like to give before I conclude are to the officials. We did have, as I say, a number of amendments that were made, and they worked really hard and really diligently, and they paid close attention to the points that the committee members made. We have reported the bill back and I think we are now happy to progress it in a much better state than it came to us in.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I too would like to express support for this particular bill, the Electronic Identity Verification Bill, but also comment on the progress of the Government Administration Committee, which handled this particular bill. It was a pleasure to be part of that, but I think the chair of the committee the Hon Ruth Dyson, who has just spoken, is being a little coy and a little modest over her part in the whole process. It was inspired chairmanship. Indeed, I would concur with her remarks that there was full involvement on the part of all members of the committee. I have always enjoyed committee work, but particularly where you get a mix of youth and vigour, and experience and wisdom, and a fair amount of opinion. Trevor Mallard provided considerable guidance, I suppose, in the way these processes can emerge and be corrected, and Gareth Hughes indeed pursued the point of regulations not impacting on private privilege and that sort of thing.

I think one of the most interesting parts of all was the response of the officials, who took our work very seriously and provided information very thoroughly. The only disagreement I really have with the Hon Ruth Dyson was to suggest that we should have less to do. The whole purpose of a committee, to my mind, is to shape a bill, to give it flavour, and to get it right, and we certainly had that opportunity. But from the very beginning—and the bill has had quite an extended life to get it to where it is at the moment—it has been well thought of.

I was just reading the regulatory impact statement, which is quite an interesting piece of work, and it says: “The enactment of the legislation will preserve the ongoing integrity of the service and will maximise the efficiencies that are expected from its full implementation and use, both for the government and for the public.” I think that is one of the principal parts of this particular bill. It is not for the Government in isolation, it is for the public to use in conjunction with Government services.

The regulatory impact statement continues and says: “This is a classic instance of regulation providing certainty for the provision and operation of a government service, therefore maximising the benefits that are expected to result both for the public and for government.” So it is a really good match—it is a really good match.

I know one of the things that particularly appealed to me was that much of our lives, from a regulatory point of view, are paper-driven. As a JP as well as an MP, I am familiar with phone calls from people who have to get documents ready, be it for passport applications, immigration purposes, or any of the myriad of things where we connect with Government. Very often, particularly in the case of immigration—I know we are working on that as part of the improvements to the Public Service system—it is a paper-driven policy arrangement, so you have a need to verify documents.

People in a rural situation—and when I talk about a rural situation, I often mean people who live, say, at Ōtira and have a long way to come before they can get to Greymouth or a centre of government—have to come and have documents copied, and this can put them to considerable expense and considerable time constraints. So it is quite good to have a system where we will be able to have an identity verification system through electronic means.

One of the features that we did take particular note of at the select committee is that we have introduced higher penalties for organisations that commit offences under the bill, in order to create a sufficient deterrent and appropriate punishment. I would commend those changes to Parliament, because I have been in a situation where my own identity information, as a corporate person, a company, has been sold by the agency that held that information. It just sold the whole file to people who were peddling shares. I used to get calls from New York, very persistent people, who would say that I was one of the biggest dealers in New Zealand. I would say: “Honestly, you have got the wrong guy.” There had been confusion in the records—the records that the agency sold were not even correct. But it resulted in a huge invasion of privacy.

So when we looked at the costs associated with abusing that information or selling it, it really was not going to be a very expensive exercise. The penalties were not very severe. And so we got advice on that, and we have certainly lifted the penalties so that people would have to think several times before they engaged. That, I think, has closed it off, and certainly it will make it a very expensive exercise if people do try to commit offences.

In addition, the regulation-making power to specify the duration for which the Department of Internal Affairs can retain personal information if an individual no longer uses the service was another recommendation that we put forward. If people have ceased to use that service, we do not want the information at risk. By the same token, you do not want to get rid of it too quickly, otherwise fraud can continue, and you have not got the records to check it back. So we have made tighter controls, as a suggestion, on that.

There is an amount of other information that I am sure other members of the committee will bring to the attention of Parliament, but it was a very pleasantly non-partisan, non-political bill, with a lot of involvement on the part of all members of the committee. It is a ripper of a little bill, a good one, and it will be useful. Thank you very much.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I did not sit on the Government Administration Committee for this bill, the Electronic Identity Verification Bill, so I cannot comment on the amount of discussion that went on, and no doubt my colleague who has yet to speak will have some things to say about that. I have got a few things to say about the issues that surround what this bill represents. We exist in a digital age, in the era of the internet; almost everything that people are doing in their lives has something to do with the internet. Usage of the internet in our country, as in every other country, is going up. It is absolutely critical that we get legislation and regulation in place to enable transactions, and to enable all kinds of manners of things to happen via the internet in a way that takes into account privacy issues but also enables people to have access to the things that they need to have access to.

We all support this bill. I do not know if I would describe it as a “little ripper of a bill” as Chris Auchinvole did, but it does seem to me, I have to say, that going through it there have been an awful lot of changes made to it since it went to the select committee. I want to make a couple of comments. This is essentially about a balance. It is about getting the balance right between, as InternetNZ said in its submission, efficient administration and the protection of privacy information. If we cannot get this stuff right, then how can we expect the rest of the country, the rest of the population, and the private sector to get it right? It seems to me that we are a bit behind the eight ball in much of our approach to legislation, to the regulatory environment, to the reality of how the private sector is operating out there, and to the behaviours of people in their daily lives, how they access the internet, and what they are doing on the internet. It really concerns me that probably the vast majority of members of Parliament in the New Zealand Parliament really do not have a clue about the importance of the internet in our lives. We pay lip-service to it, but we really do not have a clue. This was evidenced in the last couple of years with all the debate around copyright and people’s general ignorance of what copyright actually means on the internet, what the actual behaviours of people are in the population, and why there is such a degree of illegal online downloading going on.

The two things that I want to say are that it is absolutely critical that this remains an optional system. Although this is the age of the internet, and, I think, something like 86 percent of New Zealanders are on the internet, there is still a proportion of New Zealanders who do not and cannot access the internet. There is a growing digital divide in this country. I certainly note that one of the submitters—I think it was actually the Dunedin community law centre—gave a very good submission around how important it was that the individual’s use of this service remains optional, because of the fact that there are still people who cannot access the internet. It makes reference to the digital divide. For a Government that is putting in place, as one of its flagship programmes, broadband, and making a great big song and dance about how it is all going to give us all faster, cheaper access to the internet, there is no doubt—and there is actually an inquiry going on at this very moment into this issue, and submitter after submitter is telling us—that we have to be concerned about the digital divide. The fact is that the lower socio-economic parts of New Zealand are going to receive faster, cheaper broadband at some point way out in the future and that these people—kids growing up in New Zealand—are not getting the same kind of access that other parts of New Zealand are.

Here we are, putting in place a piece of legislation that is essentially about trying to make things more efficient. I think the regulatory impact statement certainly makes reference to the millions of dollars—between $385 million and $527 million—that are going to be saved through this. That is a good thing. But what about the other side of the equation and the number of children who are starting school today and who will be going through school, and maybe even coming out of school, without having had access to this faster, cheaper broadband at school and also in their homes? This is a critical issue for New Zealand, and members on that side of the House have not got their heads around copyright issues. They have not got their heads around the fact that there is a growing digital divide in this country. Ultimately, although there might be a little ripper of a piece of legislation being put in place to try to make it more efficient for people to actually be identified online, so that they can do their business online, the big issue is how many New Zealanders will have the means to access it.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. I just want to share the love we have seen in the debating chamber this morning about the select committee process. I have got to say that the Government Administration Committee is probably one of the best select committees I have sat on. I want to acknowledge the chair and all the members. I think it was a non-partisan approach to all the issues in a constructive, honest, open, and transparent manner. I would like to acknowledge all the submitters. I know there were only 12 of them, but they did a pretty good job. I also acknowledge the fact that we were able to break a bit of new ground. Advertising online for submissions is not exactly a revolutionary step, but it is one I hope we can see more select committees adopt.

We have heard what the bill does. Essentially, it creates this online passport—a unique online identifier to verify someone’s identity. This is the single log in, and we have had around 400 people using the igovt service. What this bill does is allow that igovt system to take off. It removes the legislative barriers to further adoption, and, hopefully, we will see more Kiwis using it, which is a good thing.

I want to acknowledge the major concern that people in my caucus and some submitters had, which was around privacy. But it was good to see the Government approach, and also I understand Labour had a big role in formulating the policy process before 2008 and towards this, so I acknowledge the role that both parties have played in getting the Privacy Commissioner involved from the get-go. She describes the drafting of the bill as privacy by design. That is the right way to go when you are drafting something as significant and forward-thinking—a bill that is going to have such a big impact over the next 5, 10, or maybe 20 years. So it was good to see the privacy principles at the heart of the bill, and I think we have strengthened that even further.

I would like to acknowledge the changes we saw in the select committee, because I think the members did take an open and constructive approach. We have seen three big changes. The first was around clause 58 and increasing the fines. The bill as drafted took the approach from the passport legislation. I do not know what Act that actually comes under, but the original fines were modelled on the fines for the equivalent passport legislation. What it saw was that an organisation faced a penalty of up to only $250,000. That was not going to act as a deterrent or a disincentive for corporates or organisations abusing this legislation and the powers that this legislation enacts. It is good that the committee has raised it to $1 million. The example I used in the committee was Thompson and Clark Investigations Ltd, the private spy company that was used by Solid Energy, a State-owned enterprise, to spy on protesters and people who disagreed with its plans. Had this system been operating back in the mid-2000s, I am sure a company such as that could be using the igovt system or the Electronic Identity Verification Service legislative framework to get information and to abuse the system, so it is good that we have increased the penalty to $1 million. I think it will act as a disincentive.

The second big change we saw in the select committee was the requirement for a search warrant to access information. As the bill was originally drafted, pretty much anyone, I guess you could assume, but presumably staff members with the chief executive’s permission, could access people’s files. I do not think that is appropriate. We did hear a number of submissions from InternetNZ and others, which said it should be done with a search warrant. We strongly pushed for that and it is good to see the select committee adopt that. It is going to strengthen the privacy inherent in the bill.

Lastly, we saw with clause 65A the changes to what happens with the data when someone wants to cancel their account. Someone might want to cancel their account for a variety of reasons, and you have also got the challenge that what if that person, a week, a year, or 2 years later, wants to reopen their account? What do you do with that data? Do you delete it permanently? Do you keep it on ice, not able to access it, in case they restart it or in case you need to go through and do, say, a fraud investigation or look for any criminal acts used in the account? A bit of a balance was struck. Basically the ball has been kicked up to the Minister of Internal Affairs’ office, and those decisions are going to be made in regulations. I was pushing, and would have preferred the approach adopted by InternetNZ, which would have had a hard limit on when that data was deleted. But, again, it is a balance, as Clare Curran said, between flexibility and practicality. We look forward to seeing what the Minister is going to decide to do in regulations, but we note that the Privacy Commissioner is going to have a large role. I guess the fourth change, which was not of the magnitude of those three changes, was for the Privacy Commissioner to have a greater role in reporting.

I just want to touch on the points raised by the member Clare Curran around the importance for members of Parliament to get it—maybe I was the token young MP on the committee who knows what Facebook and to Google is. It is critical that we understand—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What?

GARETH HUGHES: Trevor Mallard was not the token youth MP on the committee, for sure. What we know is that in 2012 we cannot not get this stuff. We have seen MPs make embarrassing gaffes in the past. We have seen US congressmen make even more embarrassing gaffes, I would say, with recent legislation debates there. What is crucial is that we get this stuff. The debates we are having now are going to increase in importance over the coming decades. We are facing a huge number of issues that we need to grapple with. It is not just privacy. For example, one concern that I am hearing a lot of anecdotal reports on is potential employers, in a job interview scenario, requiring a Facebook log on from the applicant. It is not just to look at their account to see what pictures are or are not on there; they are actually requiring the personal log in so the potential employer can go behind the scenes, as it were, behind the privacy conditions, and see all the photos or comments. I think that is absolutely outrageous, egregious, and a fundamental breach. But there is no legislation on it and there are no requirements.

We are seeing it with the track wire system, which we have recently seen out of the WikiLeaks cables—the strap four cables—where a private company has been employed by American, Canadian, and British Governments to use public surveillance cameras and facial recognition software to identify people going to regular tourism sites, in case they could be terrorists. It is good to say that I have just got a whole bunch of questions for written answers back from various Government Ministers in New Zealand, and it is likely that it has never been used in New Zealand, which is very good news.

We have seen with the copyright debate, which Clare Curran touched on, this massive debate going round the world. We are seeing laws thrown out of the US House of Representatives and the Senate—the Protect IP Act and Stop Online Piracy Act laws—because of the massive online protest. It is the first time, I believe, the internet has actually woken up to its political power, and what it has found is that it is significant. Laws to do with the internet cannot just be made top-down from places like this by members, many of whom do not even understand what they are legislating or regulating. In fact, we have got to bring the internet with us. We see that with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which was recently thrown out of the European Parliament. It is absolutely astounding that this law was thrown out. I was there recently talking to UK conservatives and asking them why even they were voting against it. I think this is a significant issue for New Zealand, because New Zealand seems quite ready to sign up to this deal, which essentially has been drafted by the US, for the US, for its personal interests.

We see it most graphically in New Zealand with the Megaupload case. It was a copyright allegation, and we have seen how the Government responded. In the New Zealand Herald today we see that there was US foreign policy thinking behind the New Zealand Government’s actions. We saw the Government, in response to a copyright allegation, bring in 70 policemen—flying them in with helicopters—to arrest someone for a copyright allegation. There is a noted speaker, Cory Doctorow, who calls it “The war on general purpose computing.” This is what we are in the midst of, and it is going to only increase in velocity over the next few years. These are massive debates, whether it is privacy, spying, or copyright, or the legislation to do with it.

So in summary, we support the intent of this Electronic Identity Verification Bill. We support the drafting. We think it has been significantly improved in the select committee. We note there is going to be economic benefits. One estimate is that $300 million will result from this bill and the igovt system. The crucial thing—the crucial thing—that everyone in this House needs to remember is that this is not an only/or situation. This is not a panacea. This is not about the Government saving money by shutting down offices or providing only telephone services. It is not working for Housing New Zealand Corporation, and it has not worked for the Inland Revenue Department. We need to give people in New Zealand a real option to go to a real office to talk to a real person. I think this legislation will benefit the majority of Kiwis. We know that the majority of us are online, but still, when you look at the Computer Clubhouse estimate, 100,000 families with school-aged kids just do not have computers or the internet at home. There is a digital divide in New Zealand, and especially with our elderly. They will not be using this system. It is important that those services are still provided.

So we look forward to seeing the growth of the system. I think it is going to be pretty powerful in terms of petitions. I think it is outrageous that in 2012 you can get more than 200,000 signatures, which is what the Green Party and the Labour Party have on the State assets bill, but you cannot do it online because there is no unique identifier. This bill, I think, will be the facilitator of that in the future. Good news all around. Kia ora.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal, Mr Speaker. Before I start my contribution on this bill I would like to acknowledge and thank all the volunteers who are doing the fund-raising for the Cancer Society.

I stand to speak on the second reading of the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. The main aim of the bill is to simplify interaction between individuals and agencies. Any process where identification information is exchanged or shared raises inherent questions about the privacy and security of personal information. When that process includes multiple Government agencies, the stakes are higher. It has been, and continues to be, important to get all the fundamentals of this project right.

The bill ensures that the participating agencies can achieve a high degree of confidence in an individual’s identity by providing the individual with the option of verifying his or her identity by electronic means. The ID is electronic and is made up of up to four pieces of information about the person, which can be used by logging into the service and giving consent for the use of your ID. Instead of providing a document that contains a lot of other information, such as a passport, it reduces the amount of detail about yourself. In order to deter abuse of the service the bill also creates a specific offence and penalties regime relating to the improper use of individual identity information.

The bill allows an individual person’s personal information to be checked against information held on a specified Government register and database, or against the information held by the public sector or private sector agencies that are listed in the regulations. The following details should be given to provide a person’s core uniqueness and to validate personal information: full name, the individual’s sex, and the person’s date of birth. The electronic identity is personal to the individual and cannot be transferred. I fully support the bill and believe it will be a vast improvement in the streamlining of our electronic identities.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): As we know, this bill, the Electronic Identity Verification Bill, is intended to regulate the operation of the Electronic Identity Verification Service to give individuals using the internet the option of using a secure channel to verify their identities and to access services from approved Government and non-Government agencies.

I use the igovt service. I find it a service that is secure, very efficient, very usable, and something that I look forward to using as a means of doing business on the internet, which I need to be secure. I think it is a good facility that should be extended to other users and to other agencies. It is the way of the world. It is what people expect of us today. The provisions of the bill will expand the service to all members of the public and will allow more agencies to use the service to identify their clients. So for those reasons, New Zealand First supports the bill. I do, however, have some comments to make concerning the penalty provisions.

First of all, relating to unauthorised hacking, deleting, and altering of information, in respect of clause 56 New Zealand First approves of the penalty increases for individuals being up to $250,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment, and for organisations being up to $1 million now. The only thing I would have suggested, had I had the opportunity to do so at the appropriate time, would be an addition to clause 58(1)(a), adding “or attempts to access” after the word “accesses”. Similarly, to clause 58(3) I would have added the words “attempts to use” as well. I think it is actually quite important that we cover attempts—even though they may be difficult to prove—to show that we wish to have the widest possible coverage for the penalties concerned. However—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Good idea. It’s not over yet; this is only the second reading.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Exactly. So that is something I would like to consider for the future, and something I would like the House to consider.

With regard to clause 58, concerning accessing information and using information, New Zealand First would like to see higher penalties still. We would like to see an increase in the penalty for a person, from up to 2 years or a $50,000 fine to up to 5 years or a $200,000 fine. For corporations we would like to see a further increase from $200,000, which for many corporations is actually not a huge sum, to at least $500,000 for the illegal accessing and using of information. I think we need to understand that the possibility of commercial gain from some of these illegal activities is so huge, especially for corporations, that very high penalties are necessary. Of course, it is very important—as the bill does do—to distinguish between corporations and individuals. Organisations that hack information would be doing so for commercial gain. They cannot be imprisoned, so we need to have very high financial penalties. That is why we would like to see further increases. We could also even consider other penalties, such as the deregistration of a company in New Zealand. However, maybe that is going too far. But higher penalties, at least, would be warranted, we believe.

New Zealand First does approve of the definition of “organisation” that has been inserted as a result of the Government Administration Committee’s deliberations. It includes a person—and under the Interpretation Act, of course, that includes a corporation—and it includes partnerships, Government departments, and Crown entities. That is good stuff.

New Zealand First also supports the committee’s recommendation for ensuring that it is necessary to obtain a search warrant as a condition of access to the service’s records of an individual’s usage history. We think that is a well-tried, trusted, and robust procedure and it is the only one, really, that adequately protects individual rights.

In respect of the regulation of information, New Zealand First agrees with the proposed new clause 65A concerning regulations to prescribe the length of time that electronic identity credentials, photographs, records of usage history, status information, and technical codes are retained after their cancellation, revocation, or expiry. We approve also, in particular, of the requirement for the regulations for those purposes to be subject first to the consultation of the Privacy Commissioner.

New Zealand First also approves new clause 65A allowing a different duration to be set in regulations for electronic identity credentials issued to children under 14 years of age, for the reasons stated in the committee’s report—simply, because children’s appearances change dramatically as they age and, generally, they hold fewer identity documents, which can limit the effectiveness of biometric checks. So that is just sensible stuff, as far as we are concerned.

New Zealand First further supports new subclauses (5B) and (5C) of clause 26 in relation to the situation where an individual’s application to amend their information has been refused by the applicable chief executive, by requiring that chief executive to take reasonable steps to indicate that the information recorded in a credential is disputed. That is the very least that we think should be done in those sorts of circumstances.

Overall, New Zealand First supports the provisions of the bill and the select committee’s other recommendations, especially the roles identified for the Privacy Commissioner. We will wish to debate further the issues I have mentioned concerning penalties, the additions of the offence of attempting to access or attempting to use information, and increased penalties for individuals, but especially for corporations, illegally accessing and using information in the way I mentioned previously. Apart from that, New Zealand First is happy to support the bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to thank the member who has just spoken on the Electronic Identity Verification Bill, Denis O’Rourke. I think in regard to the attempting question, it is a serious point. I cannot remember it being properly considered at the Government Administration Committee. It sounds like it is worth a look between now and the time the bill reaches the Committee stage, because, as all members have indicated, other than the first part of the introductory second reading speech on the part of the Minister of Internal Affairs, this has been handled on a multipartisan, non-political basis.

I do want to say that I thank those who were in charge of the bill—I think it might have been Nathan Guy at the time—for their positive approach, for the work of the officials with the select committee, and, I think, for the view that we should try to get things moving forward.

I do want to say to Chris Tremain that when we do have these sessions in the House around legislation that is unanimous—and that is the basis that we have here—and the select committee keeps going because we are all at one on the legislation, it is not helpful to read from Steven Joyce’s prompt sheet the particular Government lines of the day, and thereby politicise a bill around which there is unanimity. I think that if the Government members want to continue with this approach, which does require the support of members opposite, then the Ministers should be briefed that they should talk to the bill and leave in their offices the sheets that Steven Joyce gives them. Thank you very much.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): I am going to take just a very short call on this Electronic Identity Verification Bill. I was intrigued to hear that the Government Administration Committee worked so well together, and that there was, indeed, unanimity amongst its members. I hope that Mr Mallard will continue with a constructive tone towards this particular bill, which I understand the select committee made some very good progress on.

The changes made by the select committee included higher penalties for organisations that commit offences under the bill in order to create a sufficient deterrent and appropriate punishment, the addition of a regulation-making power to specify the duration for which the Department of Internal Affairs can retain personal information if an individual no longer uses the services, tighter control of law enforcement access to identity information, clarification of the legal effect of using the services, and, finally, enhancements to the transparency of the service by requiring proactive publication of reports and technical standards. Indeed, the select committee did make its deliberations worthwhile, and its contribution is well appreciated by the Parliament.

I did hear earlier on some discussion about the fact that now that we are in the digital age there is concern that some of those who are not so well off are not able to access it. But I would make the point that it was only the National Party that campaigned in 2008 on bringing out ultra-fast broadband, and that is happening today for all our schools and for all our hospitals. That will be benefiting our children right across the board. This is a good bill. I am glad the committee worked so well. I commend the bill to the House.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I endorse my colleague Paul Hutchison’s comments. Of course, what he was really trying to say was that this bill, the Electronic Identity Verification Bill, reflects one of this Government’s four priorities in terms of delivering better public services, and that this bill is another very good example of that.

This bill provides the necessary legislative parameters for the igovt identity verification service, in that it provides easier and more secure access to online Government services, which is very pragmatic and very helpful. It allows individuals to verify their identification to Government service providers via the internet and avoid what most of us will have been through—the need to provide endless screeds of hard-copy documentation to prove one’s identity.

This has been operating successfully in a limited capacity since December 2009, in that one can order birth certificates, death certificates, and marriage certificates online, which I think has proven to be very helpful. This bill really is an expansion of that, so that we can all reap the benefits of online technology. Although that may not be open to all, I think it is fair to say that that is where the world is going. Increasingly, communities demand to have a greater online presence in terms of their interaction, and this bill brings their ability to interact with Government departments more into line.

I will make just a couple of important points. This legislation is supported by the Privacy Commissioner, and again I find myself agreeing with colleagues from the Green Party, which does not happen too often. I see the member Jan Logie raising her eyelids in agreement with me there. But the contribution from Mr Hughes, and the fact that privacy is at the—

Hon Trevor Mallard: This is not helping the Greens. This is a very subtle attack.

MIKE SABIN: Surely not, Mr Mallard. I would not do such a thing. The fact that privacy has been at the centre of this legislation is important, and I think it is important to note the comments of the Privacy Commissioner on that. There are appropriate and stringent safeguards in place in terms of security, and there is a degree of flexibility that ensures that people have the option to join in and use the service, or use it in part, and, in fact, agencies will have to ensure that individuals can still provide identification in the traditional fashion. So the bill provides an adequate degree of flexibility in that regard. It is a pragmatic bill, something that I am sure enjoys wide support, not only here but across New Zealand, and I commend it to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am going to take just a short call on this bill, and again reinforce the Green Party’s support for the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. I echo my colleague Gareth Hughes’ comments in terms of how constructive I hear the process has been. You know, I will just enjoy for a moment that sense of unanimity and agreement in the House.

Mike Sabin: Bring it in!

JAN LOGIE: Feeling the love. It does not happen that often, and it is good to work constructively together whenever there is a chance.

We are supporting this bill for many reasons, and we are very keen on the improvements that have happened in the select committee process. As somebody who hears many stories from people about going into Work and Income offices and the dramas around presentation of materials and the need to verify and have the right paperwork, I say that I am a fan of anything that reduces that demand for paperwork. I really hope that that will relieve some of the pressure and the need for return visits for many beneficiaries, while obviously acknowledging that quite a few of them will not have access to the internet so will not have access to this service.

I would also just like to highlight something that probably is not at the top of most people’s minds, but that I think also is a real benefit of this, and that is that it will provide a potential bonus for transgender people. This will give them the ability to have the passport, which has a lower threshold for gender identification, as their form of identity. That will go across all departments and will relieve them of that quite traumatic experience of having to deal with departments that may demand a birth certificate, which has an unacceptably high threshold for defining gender. So this is a really positive initiative for trans people in New Zealand. On that level alone, I am really supportive of this bill.

Just to reiterate the changes inherent in it, increasing fines for illegally accessing and using the information to $1 million for companies is a good thing. To require a search warrant for the access of information is a good thing. Although we would have preferred the hard limit, in terms of the time the information is kept when somebody cancels their account, for example, we will accept it going to the Minister and being decided by regulation.

We also are happy about the increased role for the Privacy Commissioner. But I will definitely note my concern about the pressure on the Privacy Commissioner that we are seeing in the number of bills coming to this House that are requiring an increased oversight by the Privacy Commissioner, without the corresponding increased support for that very, very critical role. I would urge the Government to look at that carefully, because if we are going to put so much responsibility in the hands of the Privacy Commissioner we need to resource that, because privacy is critical.

Also I reinforce that final message about this being an option, and it is a really positive option. It is not something to transplant the face-to-face interactions or to push everyone online when we know that not everyone can get online. With all those comments, the Green Party will be supporting the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Identity Information Confirmation Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Identity Information Confirmation Bill be now read a second time. Can I start by thanking the Hon Nathan Guy for introducing the Identity Information Confirmation Bill during his time as Minister of Internal Affairs. Can I also thank the Government Administration Committee for its consideration of the bill, which goes back a year or so to the point when David Parker was the chair of that committee, and can I thank him for that guidance through that period. Can I also thank the 13 submitters on the bill, particularly the three who made oral submissions.

This bill goes to the heart of one of the Government’s key priorities, which is Better Public Services. In regard to that—in regard to Better Public Services—we have set 10 key result targets. One of these, for which the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible, is to enable New Zealanders to transact with Government agencies easily and in an online environment. This bill goes to the heart of that result. The two bills—the Identity Information Confirmation Bill and the Electronic Identity Verification Bill—enable Government departments, businesses, and other agencies to easily confirm the identity of the people they transact with. This will speed up transactions and reduce paperwork, enabling individuals to obtain services more quickly and easily.

The two bills are similar but different. Earlier this morning we considered the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. That bill regulates the use of the igovt Electronic Identity Verification Service to verify individuals’ identity over the internet when they are transacting directly with Government agencies or with businesses. The bill being debated now, the Identity Information Confirmation Bill, establishes an automated electronic service to be available for agencies and businesses, and to confirm the accuracy of individuals’ identity information, such as their name and date of birth. This service will confirm whether this information is consistent with the citizenship, passports, and births, deaths, and marriages information held by the Department of Internal Affairs. Individuals will need to provide their consent before their information is checked. This service can be used for a wide range of purposes, including meeting new anti - money-laundering requirements.

The select committee recommended amendments to the bill in response to some of the issues raised in submissions. The Government supports these amendments, as they will improve the operation of the service. The bill originally envisaged each agency having a direct relationship with the service. However, submitters indicated that it could be more convenient and cost-effective for some businesses to have another agency check identity information on their behalf. For instance, a credit reporter could wish to check identity information on behalf of an appliance store that was about to enter into a hire purchase agreement with a customer. The bill now allows this to happen by committing intermediary agencies to use this service on behalf of other agencies.

Using intermediaries can create additional privacy risks, and the select committee has recommended that this bill provide some additional safeguards to mitigate those risks. Intermediaries will be able to check identity information only on behalf of agencies that the service has approved. Before approving an agency’s use of the service a number of factors must be considered. These include the agency’s practices relating to the security of information and the privacy of individuals. Intermediaries are prohibited from using or retaining the results of checks performed on behalf of other agencies, although they can undertake separate checks for their own purposes. Agencies using an intermediary to undertake a check will be subject to a range of requirements that provide protection for members of the public, as will those agencies that directly undertake a check for their own purpose. For example, one of the important protections for members of the public is that agencies must obtain consent before this service can be used to check identity information. The bill also requires agencies to assure the service that consent has been given. In response to one submission, the bill now requires that consent and the assurance of consent be provided in either written or electronic form.

The service generally confirms only whether identity information is consistent or not with that recorded by the Department of Internal Affairs—in other words, a yes or no response. However, a check can result in some exception messages in situations where there is other specified information about an individual. This includes information that a person has registered a name change or has died. There will also be an exception message response when there is an issue with the status of a document that the individual has presented to an agency, such as when a passport has been reported as lost or stolen. In these cases the bill previously required agencies to contact the service to find out which of these exceptions applied. The select committee recommended that this information be provided automatically by the service. So this will make the service more user-friendly and efficient for agencies, which is a good thing, and shows the benefit of that select committee process in addressing the initial bill and making substantive changes to improve its efficiency.

Important protections for members of the public must be included in agreements between the service and the agency. Agreements must be entered into before identity information is checked. The select committee has clarified and improved a number of the protections that these agreements must contain. For instance, they must now specify how members of the public can withdraw their consent for an agency to check their information if they decide to do so. The agreements with agencies can be developed by the service on a case by case basis. Agreements may also include standard terms and conditions designed to apply to certain classes of agencies such as banks. The Privacy Commissioner must be consulted on both kinds of agreements.

The select committee has made some minor amendments, including clarifying when the Privacy Commissioner must be consulted about agreements that allow photographs to be checked. For instance, photographs can be checked only where the photograph provided by the agency is the same photograph as that recorded by the Department of Internal Affairs—for example, in the passports database. Agencies will not be able to take photographs of individuals and submit them to the service for checking.

I understand that Labour Party members of the select committee would have preferred that the Crown, Ministers, and officials not be protected from liability as a result of the service being used to check identity information. However, the bill provides protection from liability as this is an opt-in service. The bill also contains numerous protections for members of the public, including the consent-based nature of the service, which will reduce the likelihood of liability arising. The bill also excludes protection from liability when there has been an act that has been carried out in bad faith or was grossly negligent.

This bill makes it much simpler and easier for Government agencies and businesses to confirm the identity of individuals who transact with them. Knowing whom you are dealing with is vital to any transactional service, and this bill vastly improves identity confirmation services and speeds up other services that rely on confirming customers’ identity. Once again, I thank the Hon Nathan Guy for introducing the bill, and the Government Administration Committee, led by David Parker at the time that this bill was before the select committee. The Identity Information Confirmation Bill will provide a real benefit to businesses to assist them in confirming the identity of their customers while also balancing an individual’s right to privacy. This bill goes to the heart of enabling result area 10: enabling New Zealanders to transact easily with Government in a digital environment. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to commend the Minister of Internal Affairs on the progress he has made in approach between the last bill and this bill, the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. The purpose of this bill is to provide a consent-based service to allow both private sector and public sector agencies to check identity information. It extends the use of the Data Validation Service to public sector and private sector agencies on a strictly need-to-know basis. Labour members are supporting the bill because it allows Government agencies and the private sector to use identity information in the fight against fraud. We are mindful of the privacy concerns around the sharing of identity information, and the Government Administration Committee sought the Privacy Commissioner’s assurances during that process.

Identity fraud is a serious problem. It is a growing problem in New Zealand. It costs New Zealanders and the Government millions of dollars every year. Of course, we are all very familiar with the bizarre saga of David Garrett, also known as “Dave the Jackal”. It shows how easy it is in New Zealand to commit identity fraud. I know that although, certainly, the previous people from the ACT Party, and, in fact, the Prime Minister, were not uncomfortable with that approach, New Zealanders expect higher standards of members of Parliament, and also, in fact, we expect higher standards of systems in order to avoid that sort of thing happening.

There has been a very recent case of the employment of a known child sex offender in six schools around New Zealand. The Ombudsman’s review of that case found systemic failures by Government agencies primarily around the sharing of information by those agencies, which allowed Te Rito Henry Miki to carry on teaching. That is a scandal. It is something that this bill will not totally solve but will make some progress towards solving.

The last point I want to make is that we are not putting this bill through under urgency, but we are using the extended sitting procedures, which we do for legislation that has widespread support in the House. I am pleased that we are doing that, but what I am hoping—and I am looking in particular at the Minister and the Government whip—is that we do not need to wait another 2 years before we make more progress on it. Thank you very much.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): This bill, the Identity Information Confirmation Bill, fits the same description I have used before. It is a grunty little bill, and it has a purpose. I join with the other speakers on both sides of the House in encouraging Parliament to adopt this bill in fast order. It is not always, when you are speaking on a bill, that you suddenly realise the relevance of it to your own situation, but with this particular bill, should members of the public be listening and wondering how it would work, I can actually give an illustration.

The illustration was some years ago. I was in Auckland. I had been to a pay-as-you-go gymnasium, a well known gymnasium in Auckland. Unfortunately, at that particular time there was a gentleman operating in the building, which resulted in theft. He did things fairly quickly. He did not just steal your wallet; he stole a pair of your trousers. It was quick—you simply go in to the changing room and see who is there. As soon as they have gone out, you go to their locker, spring the locker, grab the trousers, put them in your bag, and walk out.

So picture this, if you will. I come back, I have my shower, I go to get dressed, I put my shirt on, and suddenly I have got no strides. So I go up to the reception centre and say: “I’ve lost my breeks.”, or you do if you are a Scottish person. And they say: “How do you mean?”. So you say: “Well, my trousers have been nicked.” And they say: “Oh God, not again. We think we know who did it.” So I said: “Well, would you mind asking them if I could have my trousers back.” It was a brand new suit, bought from a department store in Auckland—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Hang on, I lost the beginning of the story. Where did the member lose his trousers?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: In a gymnasium. All right? This guy was operating—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s better. That’s better.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yeah, yeah. Oh, it gets—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Hearing the story mid-point didn’t sound that good.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It gets worse. It gets worse.

Michael Woodhouse: Never heard them called gymnasiums.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: He says he has never heard them called gymnasiums. Even though we are in a privileged place I will not give the name of it. It would give the place a bad name. But it was a big commercial—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not a very successful gymnasium, obviously.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: A big commercial gymnasium, yes. Anyway, I lost my breeks. This guy was operating. A young guy was there, and he said: “Oh yeah, he does it all the time. He comes in, waits to see who’s got wallets and things in their pockets, and then as soon as you go out he’ll jemmy the locker”. The guy who stole the trousers was a member of a gang. He had his tattoos and everything. I had actually, I thought, befriended him. But, anyway, he nicked my breeks.

So I was standing there at the counter and they said: “We’ll call the police. We know who it was. We will call the police. We’ve had enough of this.” So I said “Righty-o. I don’t mind seeing the police.” So while I waited for the police, I phoned the bank—standing in my shorts, trainer shoes, a shirt and tie, and looking ridiculous. So I phone the bank and I say: “I’d like to cancel my credit cards.” They say: “What are the numbers?”, and I say: “I don’t know. I haven’t got them. They’ve been stolen.” So I had a protracted conversation. Then the police arrive, and they know the individual: “OK, but your chances of getting of your stuff back are very limited. What was in your wallet?” I said that he really had not got much really, because it was only credit cards, a little bit of money—

Shane Ardern: A Scotsman’s wallet.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —a Scotsman’s wallet. I said I had cancelled all the cards so they would be no use to him. The policeman looked at me with old world wonder, and said: “Oh, I think they’ve already been sold, Mr Auchinvole. I think they’ve already been sold.” So I said: “Well, they’ll be no use to anyone. They’re cancelled.” And he said: “Yeah, well, we’ll come and see you in a few months, and you can tell us how useful they were.” So I gave a light laugh.

There was one other amusing part. I went to Smith and Caughey’s, where I had bought the suit, went to the tailor, gentlemen’s outfitter, very professional people, and I said: “I need a certificate.” They said: “Yes, sir. What for, sir?” So I said: “The suit I bought.” “Oh, we remember it, it was a—”, whatever it was. So I said: “Well, the trousers were stolen.” And the guy did not change his expression. He looked straight at me and said: “Were we in them at the time, sir?”.

Anyway, I got the insurance for them, and then I started to get demands for payment from other department stores, which I had never been to, in South Auckland. So I phoned up the financial controllers and said: “I have never been to your store and I have got a bill here for thousands.” And they said: “But you opened an account and we sighted your credit card.” They would not relinquish the demands. So I went to see my solicitor, and one thing and another, and eventually they did relinquish the demands, because the age that the guy had given was not in any way related to my age, but they would not take my name off the debtor’s list, because someone in that name—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s blackmail. That’s blackmail, actually.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, yes, but with a name like mine—there are not too many Auchinvoles around. It affects your credit rating and all those sorts of things, or it could, potentially. The point of the story is that had we had this verification system, that would not have occurred and the cards would indeed have been valueless. And that is why I think this bill is—I try to give it a practical rendition—a very, very useful piece of legislation, which, in fact, in my case would have worked. They did apprehend the person who nicked the trousers. They said he was one of the very, very few people they have arrested who actually said nothing. So I wrote him a nice letter hoping that he had a nice time where they sent him.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to take a call on this bill, the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. Once again, I say that I did not sit on the Government Administration Committee, which examined this bill, so I have been poring over the submissions in great detail and understanding all the important issues. I would like to commend this committee for the work that has been done on this bill and the previous bill before it, the Electronic Identity Verification Bill, because they both address important issues, and, as I said in the previous speech, they are dragging us into the internet age. Whether I would describe it as a grunty little bill as opposed to a little ripper of a bill, I am not sure. It must be great fun on that select committee, I think.

Chris Auchinvole: What did the member call it? A bifurcated bill?

CLARE CURRAN: It is more the “David Garrett (The Day of the Jackal) Bill”, really. But the fact is that there are some significant issues behind this bill, and I think that it is important to put them on the record in the House today. I do hope that the Privacy Commissioner is paying attention to the debate—as I am sure the office is—and paying attention to the importance of these issues.

The key thing about this bill is that it is a consent-based service. My antennae wave when I hear the phrase, because although it a good thing that it is consent-based service, the issues will be in the implementation and how the consent actually is gained, whether there is any coercion around gaining that consent, and whether that consent is freely given. So I think this is an important bill.

There is no doubt that we have to take a responsible position on this as a House and, therefore, although I have read what the Greens, in the first reading debate, said about their concerns around the privacy issues and the surveillance issues, I think that the most important thing is for us to be responsible about ensuring that identity fraud is not happening, and that, as much as possible, we are doing what we can through legislation to ensure that it does not happen. That is the responsible position, because there is identify fraud happening, and there will continue to be identity fraud happening through other means that this legislation cannot protect against. I think that the TradeMe submission, which was quite a good submission, pointed that out. For instance, on many social networking sites there is identify fraud happening, and this legislation does not cover that. People’s identities and information is being taken and used in all sorts of different ways across the internet, and we must be mindful of what we can put in place to protect people.

But we must also be mindful, on the other side of the equation, of the importance of people being able to go about their business and not feel as if they are under surveillance. This Parliament has the role to be responsible around this issue, and it also has the role to be responsible about any measures that involve any regulation of the internet. I want to repeat here today what I said in the debate on the previous bill, and that is a plea to every member in this House, particularly on the Government benches, that you pay attention to the issues that lie behind any legislative measures around the internet, and that freedom of expression and the ability to provide information out there are just as important as trying to prevent people from accessing and using information inappropriately.

There is an important report that has come out from the Law Commission. It deals with a whole lot of issues that could have regulatory impacts on how the internet is used in New Zealand, and there are recommendations that all publicly funded agencies should be subject to the Official Information Act. That debate is yet to be properly had in our country and in this House. So I would ask every member to seriously do the research on these pieces of legislation and not just read the notes provided to them. I ask them to do the research and think about the issues, because they do have implications for all of us. There are implications around protecting the rights of individuals to not have their identities used and abused, protecting individuals so they are not bullied and harassed, but also ensuring that we are not trying to control what people are doing and saying in this most important medium.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a very brief call on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. We support the intent of the bill, which is to help prevent fraudulent activity online. This bill helps with the confirmation and verification service between third parties, and the igovt system relates to the bill. We have just voted on the second reading of the Electronic Identify Verification Bill.

What we have seen is a growth of fraudulent identities online. I think of some of the parody Twitter accounts of some members of Parliament—I think of the Hon Dr Brash and “Big Gerry B”, as he is known, and sometimes funnier—

Chris Hipkins: How do you know they’re parodies?

GARETH HUGHES: That is a good point from the member Chris Hipkins. How do we know they are parodies? That is a good question. I think they are a lot more entertaining than the real Twitter accounts, anyway.

We support the intent of this bill. We have got some concerns. Reading Keith Locke’s first reading speech on this bill, I see that he raised a number of concerns, which he championed over the 12 years he was in Parliament. We note that the bill has been improved in the Government Administration Committee. It is important that we take note of what the member Clare Curran has raised about the need for all MPs to be up to speed with these issues, because they are going to get more and more important as the years go on. The laws we write now are going to impact decisions and events in 10 years.

The key thing when you look at issues like this one is that we do not rush headlong, as we could do and as other countries have done, into a compulsory system, going down the path of electronic identity cards. I do not think it is the Kiwi way. I do not think it is desirable, and I do not think it is actually going to benefit us to a large measure in New Zealand.

We support the idea of a confirmation service. We do have some privacy concerns. We note that the Privacy Commissioner is going to have a role in this, and that is fantastic. I think we should also have a debate, obviously in the appropriate forums, about adequately resourcing the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Her role is becoming more and more important, I believe, and we need to—

Clare Curran: And the Ombudsman.

GARETH HUGHES: And the Ombudsman.

Clare Curran: And the Auditor-General.

GARETH HUGHES: And the Auditor-General. I may as well add the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in there, for good measure, as well.

I do not want to overly politicise this, but we have got to raise the point that I think the public and Parliament should have concerns about how this Government has been addressing the privacy issue. We have seen thousands of New Zealanders’ files handed out to the public. We have seen a Minister make some pretty egregious comments around privacy, breaching privacy, and intending to continue to breach privacy, which I think is terrible. We should not countenance it. It raises serious questions in the public as to whether they have confidence that the Government takes privacy seriously. It has got to be at the core of the system. When you design new systems such as this, I think the Government has to demonstrate that it takes privacy seriously, and we will have that debate down the line. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this bill to attack online fraud, the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. I note from the commentary on the bill itself that it states that the bill “seeks to facilitate the use of an electronic service that allows agencies to confirm identity information provided to them by individuals with information held by the Department of Internal Affairs under the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995, the Citizenship Act 1977, and the Passports Act 1992.” The purpose overall, however, is stated in clause 4 as being “to facilitate the use of an electronic service that allows agencies to confirm identity information about individuals so as to (a) contribute to the prevention of crime … and (b) ensure that agencies can use and, if necessary, record confirmed identity information.” It is limited in those ways, which New Zealand First believes is appropriate.

I note, however, that in terms of the definition of the word “agency” it means any corporation, which, of course, under the Interpretation Act the word “person” includes anyway, whether in the public sector or in the private sector. In other words, it actually means anybody or any corporation at all, and I do not really know why the bill does not just say that instead of using the word “agency”. However, that is not a big issue.

I note also, in relation to the definition of “identity information”, that it includes information about a person’s full name, gender, date of birth, place of birth, other recorded information—for example, in a passport or a photograph on a passport—and the status of any other recorded information. It is good that the kind of information that is covered is so specifically stated, so that it does not go any further than that. I note also the use of intermediaries, and that an intermediary is a person who “is a party to a confirmation agreement with the responsible officials”. So it is limited in that way as well. I approve very much of the way that the bill is drafted so that it provides those limitations and is very understandable in that respect.

Similarly, I think the purpose of Part 2, “to allow an agency or intermediary to check whether an individual’s identity information is consistent with any recorded information.”, is well stated. That itself provides a very significant limitation as well, but there are others. In clause 8 there is a list of conditions for using the confirmation service, which most particularly, of course, requires the individual to consent, whether in writing or electronically. It requires the agency or intermediary applying to give an assurance that that consent has been obtained, and, of course, that they have entered into the required confirmation agreement. All of that seems fine to me, and also the ability for an individual to consent on a one-off basis or an ongoing basis, and the ability to withdraw that consent as well. Those are all important safeguards.

I approve also of clause 9(4), which states: “The confirmation service must not, at any stage, supply to the agency or intermediary any recorded information about the individual who is the subject of the search.” It is confirmation information that we are concerned with here. Clause 9(5), however, does go on to say that subclause (4) does not limit or prevent the disclosure of information relating to the fact that a person is dead, that there is name change information existing, or the status of recorded information. These are good provisions and good drafting, I believe.

Clause 10 gives a long list of requirements, in respect of the responsible officials, requiring a need to be demonstrated by an intermediary before they can enter into an agreement, and also they must have policies and practices in respect of the security of information and relating to the privacy of individuals. Again, these are very appropriate and good ways of limiting the scope of the bill to make sure that it is focused on what it is intended to do.

New clause 11 and new clauses 11A and 11B contain very comprehensive provisions concerning what must be in a confirmation agreement, and, in addition, how those agreements are to be used. I note the addition of new clause 11A concerning how the agency must obtain an individual’s consent and how he or she may withdraw that consent. Again, those are the sorts of things that I would wish to see in legislation of this kind.

For all the reasons I have indicated, New Zealand First approves of the bill, all the remaining provisions that I have not mentioned, those that have been put in by the Government Administration Committee, and also those relating to the role of the Privacy Commissioner. For all of those reasons, and noting all of those limitations, it is very happy indeed to support the bill as it stands.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 12.22 p.m. (Thursday)