Wednesday, 17 October 2012

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Motions, Members’—Process for Debating

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there a process to have my motion, which was submitted in time this morning, debated? In view of its importance, when?

Mr SPEAKER: It will be set down tomorrow as a members’ order of the day, which is the normal process.

Hon David Parker—Statement Regarding Withdrawal from Chamber

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon David Parker, point of order.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Does the member wish to raise a point of order?

Hon DAVID PARKER: How can the Speaker know that, until I call—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no question—[Interruption] Order! There is no question in front of the House, so if the member seeks the Speaker’s call, he must be raising a point of order. I have sufficient—[Interruption] Goodness! I have sufficient courtesy for members to treat them with that kind of courtesy. Where there is no question in front of the House, if a member gets to their feet, they are clearly raising a point of order, and I recognised the member on that basis. Does the member wish to raise a point of order?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yes, I do wish to raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, for the first time in 10 years I was ejected from this Parliament yesterday, and I did not even have the opportunity to put a point of order before you ejected me. I want you to note that point. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We all have our foibles.

Motions, Members’—Process for Debating

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to you was whether there is a process in respect of that motion; not whether it appears in the business of the House tomorrow, but what the process is thereafter, particularly—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: This is not a matter for the proceedings of the House right now. It is not a matter that should be dealt with in this manner. The member knows how notices of motion are dealt with. They sit on the Order Paper, and if nothing is done with them for a period, I think, of 5 sitting days, they drop off the Order Paper. The member knows that.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Economic Growth and Job Creation—Progress

1. PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to support new jobs and build a productive and competitive economy?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is entitled to ask a question. Before the Minister has got a word out there were lots of interjections. That is not reasonable.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I am pleased to get a question on jobs today. I did not get one yesterday, so the crisis must be over. The Government has worked through an economic programme to support business investment because it is business investment that leads to more jobs. Specific measures include a 90-day trial period and reducing company tax to 28 percent. ACC levies have been reduced, saving $600 million this year, we have removed 170 unnecessary and excessive regulations, and, in terms of direct intervention on behalf of young people, we have the $152 million Youth Opportunities package, which includes 4,000 places in Job Ops.

Paul Goldsmith: How have the New Zealand economy and employment market performed over the past 2 years, and what is the outlook for the next few years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A very good question. In net terms, almost 60,000 more New Zealanders have jobs now than 2 years ago, and unemployment is forecast to fall. That has happened because the economy grew by 2.6 percent in the year to June, and annual growth is forecast at between 2 and 3 percent over the next 4 years—better than most developed countries. The after-tax average wage is up by 20 percent since 2008. New Zealand now has the lowest inflation rate since 1999, which means that the cost of living is increasing at its slowest rate in 12 years. All of this will help support jobs.

Paul Goldsmith: What examples has he seen of jobs being created in the infrastructure sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Through the recession the Government, despite tight financial times, has maintained a consistently high level of investment in infrastructure. Here are just a few examples of those projects: there will be about 1,000 construction jobs on the new Wiri Prison, for which the contract has been signed, 1,000 new jobs over the next 4 years at the height of the Waterview construction, and nearly 2,000 people employed in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, which has been assisted with $1.5 billion of investment by the Government.

Paul Goldsmith: What recent reports has he seen on jobs and output in the manufacturing sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports that there is a crisis in jobs in the manufacturing sector, and, as is often the case with what the Opposition parties say, that is wrong. The household labour force survey shows that the number of people employed in manufacturing has remained quite steady since the beginning of 2009, although it did drop somewhat in the last 18 months of the Labour Government’s time in office. The number is now fluctuating between 245,000 and 255,000 people, depending on the season. Over the past 2 years employment in manufacturing has actually gone up a little, from 239,500 to 246,500. Manufacturing output, in GDP terms, has risen by 8 percent since June 2009. Latest GDP data shows the manufacturing sector growing by 2.5 percent over the last year.

Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Staffing

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Specifically, have there been staff issues associated with the Government Communications Security Bureau and Dotcom affair brought to his attention by the Government Communications Security Bureau or members of the New Zealand Police, in which such staff members no longer work in their previous capacity for the Government Communications Security Bureau or any government agency; if so, what were the circumstances?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for the GCSB): The director of the Government Communications Security Bureau has raised some staff issues with me. As the member will be aware, the director made a public statement last week, which advised that an investigation had commenced within the bureau as to whether there had been unauthorised disclosure of information, and if so, its source. I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to make further comment about staff matters, which are clearly the responsibility of the director.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister have any knowledge at all of disciplinary action being taken against an individual working for the Government Communications Security Bureau in respect of the Dotcom affair; if so, why will he not tell the House when he was first informed of it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to discuss staffing matters; they are a matter for the director, and best left with him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not asking him to discuss staffing matters; I am asking him whether there was a discussion relating to staffing matters that came to his attention. That is a different question.

Mr SPEAKER: I am prepared to let the member repeat his question, but that was not what his question actually asked. In case I am in error, I am happy for the member to repeat his question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he have any knowledge at all of disciplinary action being taken against an individual working for the Government Communications Security Bureau in respect of the Dotcom affair; if so, why will he not tell the House when he was first informed of it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to confirm whether disciplinary action has or has not been taken. I am advised by the director as he sees fit. But they are ongoing staffing matters and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that he is not aware of a member of the Government Communications Security Bureau being specifically and particularly put on “gardening leave” in respect of the Kim Dotcom affair, despite the name and role of that person being widely known around Wellington?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am prepared to say is that any matters involving personnel at the Government Communications Security Bureau are a matter for the director. It would be inappropriate for me to publicly comment on those at this time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In another case, can he assure the House that an officer of the New Zealand Police force with a record of 15 years’ service in the Diplomatic Protection Squad never spoke to him about Dotcom prior to 19 January 2012, the date the PM now finally admits he first learnt of Kim Dotcom?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no recollection of any Diplomatic Protection Squad agent speaking to me about that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he saying as Minister that a member of the Prime Minister’s protection squad with a record of 15 years’ service to Prime Ministers, including himself, never told him as Prime Minister of his intention to leave the Diplomatic Protection Squad to go to work for Kim Dotcom?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is referring to a chap whose last name I do not know; his first name is Regan. He does not work for the Diplomatic Protection Squad; he works for—or he used to work for—the VIP Protection Squad in Auckland, and, no, I was not aware that he went to work for Kim Dotcom.

Dotcom Case—Briefings and Prime Minister’s Statements

3. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Further to his answers to the first supplementary question to Oral Question No 1 on 26 September and the first supplementary question to Oral Question No 1 yesterday, does he now know on what date the Government Communications Security Bureau was first told that its surveillance of Kim Dotcom was illegal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I am advised by the Government Communications Security Bureau that the first time it became aware its activity in relation to the Dotcom case was unlawful was between 7 September, when an affidavit was filed in the court, and 13 September, when my office was informed. As I have previously stated publicly, there were two main aspects to the human error at the heart of this matter: first, the Government Communications Security Bureau originally relied on the police information about the residency status of the people in question and did not check further, and, second, the error was compounded after the operation was concluded by a simple wrong interpretation of the law, which occurred in February, as I have stated publicly several times.

David Shearer: Did the Government Communications Security Bureau mention the police operation of Kim Dotcom at either or both of the briefings that it gave him on 14 and 24 February?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

David Shearer: Given his answer yesterday, has he now gone and asked his department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, what, if any, knowledge it had of the Kim Dotcom case prior to September?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A member of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was aware of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement after the raid took place; that would have been in late January. That information was never passed on to me. We have looked at all of the records and notes and email correspondence, and the person has confirmed that they never discussed the matter with me, and has actually never discussed the matter with me.

David Shearer: Who was that person who did not pass on that information to him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Roy Ferguson.

David Shearer: Which of his ministerial colleagues, other than the Attorney-General, did he discuss the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom with prior to the bureau’s actions being made public?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know the answer to those questions.

David Shearer: How, then, can he be sure he actually spoke to Ministers if he cannot actually recall who they were?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I remember having a discussion; I think it was with the Attorney-General. I am sure there were another couple of Ministers there, but I do not recall who they were.

David Shearer: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the—[Interruption] Order! Order! I say to the Labour members to show their leader some courtesy. I want to hear his question.

David Shearer: Will he confirm that he had not heard of Kim Dotcom or Megaupload prior to 19 January?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of the Prime Minister’s knowledge or memory, does he stand by his written answer to my question of 7 May when he was asked what dates between 7 April and 23 July 2011 he met with the Hon Simon Power following Mr Power’s seeking further information on Kim Dotcom, and can he assure the House that Mr Power did not raise the subject of Kim Dotcom at that 13 June 2011 meeting?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can confirm he did not raise the matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister make that assurance when in his written answer to my question on 7 May he claimed: “There is no record of what was discussed … and I have no recollection of the discussion.”? How could he give that assurance to the House today?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I distinctly recall, the first I heard of Kim Dotcom was 19 January 2012.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister possibly give an assurance that that matter was not raised by the Hon Simon Power with him back in June 2011, as he just did, when in his formal writing to me in a written answer he said: “There is no record of what was discussed … and I have no recollection of the discussion.”? How can he reconcile those two statements: the one today in the House and the written one?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite easily, because I do not recall the exact conversation of why Simon came to me on that particular occasion, but I know for a fact it was not about Kim Dotcom.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been called.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table this question and answer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not table questions for written answer. They are available to all members anyhow.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, a further supplementary question?

Mr SPEAKER: The member, I think, has used his allocation of supplementary questions available.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I seek leave to get the truth out of the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can seek leave only for a procedure of the House to be followed.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The idea that you would indicate that getting the truth out of the Prime Minister is not a procedure—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. This is the House of Representatives. We do not need that sort of nonsense.

Grandparents and Other Kin Carers—Parenting Support

4. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding providing extra financial assistance to grandparents raising grandchildren and other kin-carers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I have announced my commitment to provide extra financial assistance to grandparents raising grandchildren and other kin carers. Although this group of carers get the same basic payment as those fostering children in the care of Child, Youth and Family, they do not receive additional assistance for things like clothing, which Child, Youth and Family caregivers get through the foster care allowance.

Tracey Martin: I seek leave for the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill in my name to be introduced and set down as members’ order of the day No. 1 today.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Alfred Ngaro: Why do you think grandparents and other kin carers need this extra financial support?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Grandparents have brought up their own families and are often now in a period of their lives when they are not financially prepared for the costs of raising a new family. It is likely that these children have had a hard time in many cases and need extra support. We know that these children will have better outcomes if they are raised within a loving and stable environment. I have huge admiration for these kin carers who take on the significant responsibility of raising these children often in need.

Alfred Ngaro: How will you work with these groups to see that they get the financial support they need?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We will go out to these groups and these people to work out with them what this will look like. We need to know from them what is most important to them. It will not look exactly the same as the assistance that non-kin carers get. We do not want to undermine or override familial responsibilities. For example, I think it would be inappropriate to give grandparents money so that they can buy their own grandchildren presents, but there are certainly areas where they need and deserve more support.

Manufacturing Sector—Comparison of 2008 and 2012 Export Statistics

5. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: When he said yesterday that with a “relatively high” exchange rate, our exporters “have been sufficiently resilient to be able to grow export volumes and value” did he mean that all export sectors have been growing, and according to Statistics New Zealand, in 2008 dollars what is the percentage change in exports of simply and elaborately transformed manufactured goods from the 2008 to 2012 financial years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): To the first part of the member’s question, what I meant was that exporters have been sufficiently resilient to be able to grow export volumes and value, and, indeed, that is what has been happening. To the second part of his question, I am advised by Statistics New Zealand that there is no existing series that perfectly covers his request. In fact, it does not make a lot of sense to deflate exports by the Consumers Price Index, but a close approximation can be made from the export volume index for non-food manufactured goods. This series shows manufacturing exports in constant dollar terms, which is what the member appears to be after. The series shows that there has been an increase in manufacturing export volumes of 3.9 percent between the year to June 2008 and the year to June 2012, despite the recession and a global financial crisis.

Hon David Parker: Why is the Minister using volume terms? Is it because, outside of primary products, in real terms manufacturing is declining? In fact, there is a 14 percent decline in simply transformed manufactured exports and a 10 percent decline in elaborately transformed manufactured exports. Is he not aware of that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We can have a contest of different statistics if the member likes. The fact is that the Statistics New Zealand series of export volume for non-food manufactured goods shows an increase, even in constant dollar terms. Total exports have been rising after a bit of a dip from the global financial crisis. The value of exports has risen 13 percent in the last 2 years. Both volumes and prices have risen over that time. As I have pointed out in the answer to an earlier question, the number of people employed in manufacturing did drop in the last 2 years of the previous Government’s time in office, but, actually, since 2009 it has fluctuated between 245,000 and 255,000 people. So the member can look as hard as he likes, but it will be difficult for him to create a sense of crisis for manufacturing.

Hon David Parker: If, according to his own Government statistics department, there has been a 14 percent decline and a 10 percent decline in value in simply and elaborately transformed manufacturing exports but he still thinks the sector is doing well, how much more would exports in these sectors have to decline in value before he thought there was a serious problem?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There may be categories of manufacturing exports that have declined. That is the nature of the recovery that we are in. Some businesses are doing well; some are doing poorly. Some sectors are doing well; some are doing poorly. The fact is that for manufacturing the measure that means the most, in my view, is the number of people employed in it, and the number of people employed in it declined in the last 2 years of the previous Labour Government. Since 2009 it has fluctuated between 245,000 and 255,000 people, so there is not a crisis in manufacturing over job losses. There is a lot of pressure on exporters, who are trying to be profitable despite the global financial problems.

Hon David Parker: Given that the International Monetary Fund’s most recent World Economic Outlook said that New Zealand’s current account deficit this year will be second worst after Greece, and in 2013 and 2017 is projected by the IMF to be the worst in the developed world, how can he sit back and not take seriously the decline in non-primary manufacturing and the related job losses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been pretty clear, we dispute the member’s conclusion. The fact is that the job numbers in manufacturing have been remarkably constant despite the global financial crisis and worldwide recession. That is a tribute to the businesses and their staff, who have shown remarkable resilience and attention to productivity and profitability, and have maintained hundreds of thousands of jobs through one of the worst economic times we have seen in decades.

Hon David Cunliffe: With New Zealand’s current account deficit forecast by the IMF to be the worst in the developed world next year, and with inflation for the year at 0.8 percent below the target range of the Reserve Bank, does he now agree that boosting exports should be a higher priority than further reductions in inflation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The effective decisions about the interest rates will actually be made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The Government and the new governor re-signed a policy targets agreement that is not substantially different from the one that was in place before or, in fact, the one that was in place under the previous Labour Government. It is up to the governor to make those kinds of decisions about whether he believes interest rates should be raised or lowered.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Actually, the question was carefully worded to seek his opinion, asking “does he now agree”, and it was on a policy matter, not on an operational matter to do with inflation control, because it addressed the balance—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hear the member, but I think the member is experienced enough to recognise in the Minister’s answer that the Minister answered all that a Minister of Finance can. The member knows that under the current New Zealand legislation it is not a matter for the Minister of Finance to even express opinions on those matters. Ministers of Finance need to be careful about expressing opinions on those matters. They are the responsibility of the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the policy targets agreement that the Minister has just referred to sets a midpoint target of 2 percent inflation per annum, and given that inflation is now at 0.8 percent below the bottom end of the target range, may I repeat: does he believe that promoting exports and the use of policy tools by his ministry, Treasury, and not the Reserve Bank, would now take a higher priority in his Government’s policy programme than achieving further reductions of inflation by compressing the economy further into a rut?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not quite sure what the last bit means, but the Government has focused strongly, since taking office, on reinforcing the competitiveness of our export industries. They lost a lot of competitiveness through the first decade of this century. In the light of the global financial crisis and recession around the world, it is vital that we continue the programme laid out in a number of documents that have been published, and some that will be published, on the Business Growth Agenda, which is designed to enable our businesses to more easily make the decision to invest, to expand, to employ more people, to make profits, and also to pay tax, and the Government will stay focused on that.

Child Poverty—Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill

6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, in response to a question about whether he will support my Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill that “she wants to give the same millionaires yet more money to raise their kids”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which made reference to the member’s support in general for a universal child payment. That full statement in relation to children living in difficult circumstances was: “This Government spends a huge amount of time, money, and energy focused on those young New Zealanders and on trying to give them help. If the member thinks that that will be resolved without giving them a decent education—because she does not support all the measures that this Government has taken to lift education standards—then she is dreaming. If the member thinks that that can be achieved by a universal payment, as I said to the member some time ago, she comes into this House and she bags the Government because she argues that we have people who are well off, and then she wants to give the same millionaires yet more money to raise their kids.”

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister aware that my bill is an opportunity to lift 100,000 children out of poverty, but would have no effect at all on millionaires and the rich, who would remain ineligible for the in-work tax credit, just as they are now?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, broadly I am aware of it, although I am also advised that if the in-work tax credit equivalent was paid to beneficiary families, it would cost more than $1.5 billion over 4 years. I do not know the financial costs of the member’s payment.

Metiria Turei: Is he aware that one of the key goals of the Working for Families package when it was established was to lift incomes “for families with dependent children … as a means of tackling child poverty;”, and does he think that it is fair for the poorest children in New Zealand to continue to be excluded from that goal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, but in terms of the second part of the question, the member should be aware—or is aware—that, in fact, benefit-based households receive Working for Families. What they do not receive is the in-work tax credit.

Metiria Turei: Does he think that it is fair to deny this little bit of extra financial support to the 36 percent of Māori children who live in benefit-reliant households and who do not get access to the in-work tax credit, even where their parents also work?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot comment on the last bit, because it is subject to everybody’s household, depending on whether they get the in-work tax credit or not, because if their income is high enough, then it is abated. But, in principle, the in-work tax credit when it was designed by a Labour Government was to make sure that there was always a differential between working and welfare. And the reason for that, and rightfully so, when Michael Cullen put that scheme together, was that he wanted to make sure there was an incentive for people to move off benefits into work. He was right to do that, because quite a lot of research indicates that the fastest way to lift poor households that have children in poverty out of that poverty situation is through work. In fact, the Children’s Commissioner’s expert group said this: “Research indicates that a parent obtaining full-time paid employment is the most important event to lift children out of poverty.” If the member wants to lift those children out of poverty, may I suggest she work and focus on getting their families into work.

Metiria Turei: Is it fair that because Māori joblessness has grown by 80 percent under his Government, thousands of Māori children have lost access to the in-work tax credit as a direct consequence of his Government’s economic failures?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refute the last point. Firstly, this is a Government where growth has been 1.6 percent for the first half of this year, where 57,000 jobs have been created in the last 2 years, and where we are growing faster than most other OECD countries. Secondly, what is true is that if somebody is in work and then loses their job, they will lose the in-work tax credit. But I would also hasten to add that if someone then takes a part-time job, even for 20 hours or more, to the best of my memory, they then get the in-work tax credit back. So therefore I think that is a pretty good scheme.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister not understand even the existing policy, which says that whether they work 20 hours or not, if they also are in receipt of a benefit or a student allowance or superannuation they are not eligible for the in-work tax credit, because they receive a means-tested benefit, and that is the discrimination that has been found to exist that traps—locks—100,000 children or more into poverty, because he does not even understand his own policy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do, but what the member is arguing is that someone should get an in-work tax credit when they are on a benefit. What you cannot do is get both. What currently happens, though, is that everybody under a certain income level gets Working for Families.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister accept that children are actually going hungry in this country, and that their parents do not have enough money to feed them or to accommodate them in warm, dry homes, and will he help thousands of these children today by supporting a simple, pragmatic bill to extend the support that is given to other children to those who need it the very most?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the last part of the member’s question, no, we will not be supporting the bill. In terms of whether there are some children in New Zealand in very poor conditions, the answer to that is yes, but then I think we also need to take a step back and say that the Government does a huge range of things, including making sure there is universal provision of welfare support. There is emergency or hardship support, there is State housing provided, there are accommodation supplements, and there are many other provisions of support from the Government to those who are in the worst scenario. I say to the member that this is a Government that is working hard to address those issues with all sorts of things, from insulation of homes to trying to get rid of rheumatic fever.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister think that the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Every Child Counts coalition of community organisations, and other experts are wrong to conclude that my bill would make a real difference to the poverty suffered by thousands of New Zealand children every day? Are they all wrong?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Around 60 percent of kids who are living in poverty are in benefit-dependent households. That is why, to quote her, the Children’s Commissioner’s expert group—the very group she just quoted—said, and I quote this again, “Research indicates that a parent obtaining full-time paid employment is the most important event to lift children out of poverty.”

Primary Growth Partnership—Successful Bids and Purpose

7. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on the Primary Growth Partnership Initiative?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries): I have recently announced the Government is to fund nearly half of a $14.6 million programme, led by PGG Wrightson Seeds, to develop new pasture and forage crop technology. This successful bid lifts the total amount of Government and industry funding under the Primary Growth Partnership to around $600 million. In just 3 years the Primary Growth Partnership has worked with industry to develop some of the most exciting primary sector research and innovation proposals that New Zealand has ever seen.

Shane Ardern: Why has the Government committed funding to improving innovation and productivity in the primary sector?

Hon DAVID CARTER: This Government has set ambitious targets of increasing exports to 40 percent of GDP and encouraging the business sector to double its expenditure on research and development to more than 1 percent of GDP. As the primary sector makes up 71 percent of New Zealand’s merchandise exports, it is clear that this sector will play a crucial part in achieving these targets. Increasing innovation investment in our food, fishing, fibre, and forestry industries is crucial to the success of the New Zealand economy.

Shane Ardern: Has the Primary Growth Partnership been successful in providing funding to a wide range of firms?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes, it certainly has. I am very pleased to report that over a quarter of a billion dollars of Government funding has been allocated across a wide range of firms, big and small. The Primary Growth Partnership initiative is encouraging buy-in by industry right across a range of business, it is encouraging new, innovative investment, and it is encouraging industry to work together in order to make New Zealand a more productive and competitive economy. The Primary Growth Partnership has been highly successful.

Social Development, Ministry—Reports on Security of Private Information

8. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What vulnerabilities were identified in the report prepared by Dimension Data on the security of the Work and Income kiosks?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): The Dimension Data report found an issue with the lack of network separation whereby the kiosks were connected directly to the Ministry of Social Development network, meaning that sensitive documents were accessible from the kiosks. This report sparks the obvious question of whether this issue was addressed and the problems fixed, and given the situation we are now in, it is clear that they were not. This is why the chief executive and I decided to release this information publicly yesterday, in an effort to be upfront and honest about what we are actually dealing with.

Jacinda Ardern: Did she receive any reports, either verbal or written, on vulnerabilities within the ministry’s systems at the time that that report was prepared?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.

Jacinda Ardern: What did her monitoring of the roll-out of her new automated systems involve, given this is what she undertook she would do in 2009?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That monitoring of those systems was more than just the kiosks, actually. As you can see, we have got My Account, where people can now access their own information online, and we have about 12 percent who actually go into the kiosks—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The Minister was looking at their accounts?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Oh, let us not be ridiculous, Trevor Mallard, like you like to be. So what we have got now is we have got—so that whole question of we are going more online was about more than just the kiosks; it was about a range of information. I was advising the Minister that we would be looking at how quickly that is rolled out and what the cost is, and that is exactly what we have done.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was very specific in my question around what the monitoring exactly entailed. I would have liked the Minister to address the substantive part of that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I think the member’s questioning is, in fact, serious, and is appropriate questioning. I think it should be treated with more respect by the member’s colleagues. The member’s colleagues sought to interject and the Minister responded to those interjections. I am not going to now ask the Minister to ignore all of that and give a precise answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, just protecting the weak Ministers.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot do that. I am not sure on what basis the member, the Hon Trevor Mallard, thinks that that is appropriate. I am not going to ask the member to leave. I do not want to give the member that dignity. I just want him to know how childish I think that is.

Jacinda Ardern: Did Dimension Data contact the ministry to correct the chief executive’s claim that it had not reported on vulnerabilities in the system, or did someone within the ministry check the report?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I first saw the report on Monday night at about 8 o’clock. It had been seen that day. It was after 1 o’clock, when we had done the press conference. It was then brought to our attention that, without a doubt, it had raised this particular issue. By quarter past 9 the next morning we had put out a press release letting everyone know that.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically who identified that the report had found the vulnerabilities, but that was not reported.

Mr SPEAKER: The member may repeat her question.

Jacinda Ardern: Did Dimension Data contact the ministry to correct the chief executive’s claim that it had not reported on vulnerabilities in the system, or did someone within the ministry go back and check the report?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As far as I know there was not a phone call from Dimension Data, but I do not know that. There may have been. But, as I say, it was first brought to my attention that night, and as a consequence we put the press release out the next morning.

Jacinda Ardern: Is public confidence in her ministry’s management of sensitive data an operational issue?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think the confidence of this is everyone’s issue, and it is one that I am taking very, very seriously. It has been undermined. I think it is appalling that this information has been accessed. I have done everything I can, since knowing this on Sunday evening, to make sure that we get to the bottom of it, we fix it, and we make sure it never ever happens again.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister said yesterday concerning the Work and Income New Zealand kiosk security breach: “I have not leaked private information about individuals.”, does she deny that in July 2009 she instructed her staff to release the benefit details of two women on the DPB, without their permission, prompting a Human Rights Commission investigation into her actions and the Director of Human Rights Proceedings finding that she had deliberately breached these women’s privacy?

Mr SPEAKER: I have some difficulty with this supplementary question, because it bears no relationship whatsoever to the vulnerabilities identified in the report by Dimension Data. I am thinking back on the Minister’s answers today, and the Minister has not mentioned any of those issues in her answers. I do not want to deprive the member of her supplementary question. I invite the member to ask another supplementary question that really relates to the primary question.

Metiria Turei: How can it be anything but a clear failure of her leadership, when she has legitimised the breach of privacy by her ministry by having previously done so herself, without remorse, and when she has failed to demonstrate any oversight of ongoing breaches of privacy by not ensuring that her ministry fixed major security problems brought to its attention not once, not twice, but now three times in 2 years?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have not leaked any information or any beneficiaries’ information. That member may struggle with that, but I transparently put it out there and did it myself without any private comment. I know that the Opposition struggles with that, because those members prefer to pass little notes under doorways to the media, and everything else. I point-blankly went out there and said what I said. So there has been no leak from me.

Metiria Turei: Given the Minister’s assurances to the public that she was mortified by the breach by the ministry and that she was looking for the utmost transparency in dealing with the issue, how can she expect New Zealanders to have any confidence at all that a Minister who would deliberately release private information of people who question her policy, without their consent, can be trusted to oversee any kind of privacy management in the ministry?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have a serious system flaw that this Government has taken very seriously. We have taken action—the best and the quickest that we possibly can. We will not undermine it. Actually, that member is not the only one who gets to wring their hands and do angst. We are very concerned on this side and are taking it very seriously.

Surgical Services—Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programme

9. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on improving the quality and efficiency of health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Under the Government, public hospitals are making smarter use of their resources to treat more patients and get these patients home to their families sooner. Part of this is the new Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme, which helps people recover more quickly and safely after their operation, so they can have fewer complications and get home to their families sooner. This is now being used in South Auckland, the Bay of Plenty, Wellington, Nelson, Marlborough, Southern, and Waitematā, and is expected to be rolled out to other district health boards over time.

Dr Jackie Blue: How does the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme help to get patients home sooner?

Hon TONY RYALL: Under the programme, patients are given a comprehensive early preoperative assessment, where they are encouraged to get their bodies as fit as possible in preparation for surgery and anaesthesia. Then the surgical techniques used are less invasive and with different types of anaesthesia. For example, prior to this programme a patient receiving bowel surgery would take several days before they could get out of bed, and many more days before they could return home. With this new programme our clinicians are now able to see that these patients are able to eat and drink and are out of bed on the day of surgery, and walking the ward on the very next day. This means that these people are home with their families sooner, and I think everyone would join with me in congratulating our clinicians on their leadership in changing their approaches to surgery to provide this better service.

Television New Zealand—Māori Programming Strategy

10. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Broadcasting: How does he ensure that the legislative requirement for TVNZ to provide high-quality content that reflects Māori perspectives is reflected in the programming strategy for TV1 and TV2?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting): Although I am not responsible for programming for Television One and TV2, I meet with the chair of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), Wayne Walden, who I note is the previous chair of Māori Television. I am confident that he takes seriously TVNZ’s statutory obligations, and provides high-quality content that reflects Māori perspectives.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is he satisfied that the only programming on TV2 that reflects Māori perspectives is the Aotearoa Social Club, which runs at the prime time of 11.30 p.m. on a Thursday, and I Am TV, which was recently cut from 35 hours a year to 12.5 hours; if not, what will he do to address the less than 1 percent coverage on that channel?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Again, although I am not responsible for the programmes on TV2, I note that today New Zealand On Air has announced funding for Poppet Stars, which will animate songs in both English and Māori, as well as funding in 2013 for Tiki Tour. Both of these programmes will be shown on TV2.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with the Māori programming strategy that Television New Zealand should focus on “Māori programmes mainly in English” that make “a conscious effort to reveal something of the past, present or future [world of Māori]” and where “at least two of the three key roles of producer, director and writer/researcher must be Māori”; if so, what programmes would he identify as meeting this definition?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Yes, I do agree with and believe in that strategy. I think it was put out by New Zealand On Air, and it relates to all broadcasters, not just Television One or TV2. I am sorry, but I do not have at hand examples of programmes that meet that definition.

Schools, Canterbury—Criteria and Consultation Process for Proposed Closures and Mergers

11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that the information she relied upon in deciding on proposals for school closures and mergers in Christchurch was robust and reliable; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): No. The Ministry of Education has acknowledged that there was a small number of errors in the original data for the 215 schools. The ministry has assured me that the latest information given to schools last week was the best available. In addition, I have asked the ministry to put in place a special team inside the ministry, to be based in Christchurch, to receive and review all new information.

Chris Hipkins: Was she provided with, or did she ask for, a physical assessment of the damage at each of the schools proposed for closure or merger and the likely cost of repair, prior to finalising her proposals; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I was provided with a range of assessments that went from an exterior inspection, depending on the age of the school, through to a thorough physical site inspection, as well as desk-based information, and as well as advice obtained from independent contractors who are geotechnical structural engineers, property managers, quantity surveyors, and others who are experts in property assessments.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very helpful answer, but—

Mr SPEAKER: It was not an answer to the question asked. I could see it coming. The Minister was actually asked whether she asked for evidence of physical examination of the schools involved in the proposals in respect of merger and closure, prior to making any final decisions on those matters. I hope—I have paraphrased the member’s question, but that was the guts of the question: whether the Minister asked for physical examination of those schools.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I think the question was whether I asked for or whether I received; I had both. In some cases, the schools are of a particular age such that we know that they will not meet the earthquake standard. We got a range of assessments done, all of which contributed to the range of proposals that were put forward.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she ask?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, yes, for some, and I received some.

Mr SPEAKER: I think this time the Minister has indicated that, yes, she did ask. I suspect there is more ground for supplementary questioning there.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that in your paraphrasing of my question perhaps we might have lost some of the meaning. It was a question of whether she asked for and received a physical assessment of the damage at each of the schools she has proposed for merger or closure. I think that is quite specific. It could be a yes or a no or whatever, but we could at least get a bit closer to the actual question that I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Clearly the member is not satisfied with the answer he has received. The Minister has indicated that, yes, she sought advice in respect of physical examinations of some of those schools. I think the reasonable thing is to ask further supplementary questions to dig into that answer, rather than to endlessly pursue the one question. I think it is possible to dig further into that answer.

Chris Hipkins: Did she ask for or receive a physical assessment of the damage at some of the schools proposed for closure or merger and not at others; if so, why did she not ask for that for all of the schools that she had proposed for closure or merger?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The schools that have had proposals made to them have proposals on the basis of a mix of information. That information does relate to direct earthquake damage, but also it relates to the weathertightness of the buildings, it relates to the geotechnical integrity of the land, and it relates to the functionality of the buildings. It related to a range of issues, all of which, coming together, related to the particular proposals that were considered.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that the Minister is being helpful in her answers in giving probably more information than I am asking for, but in doing so she is not actually giving me the information that I am asking for.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is asking pretty straight questions—I agree with that absolutely—but I think what the Minister has indicated in her answer is that for some of the schools involved in closure or merger, information in respect of earthquake damage was not asked for, because there were other matters that affected those schools, like geotechnical stuff relating to the ground and existing weathertightness issues. If I am wrong there, the Minister had better correct me. If the Minister wishes to correct me—if I am wrong there—she is welcome to. Was that a correct interpretation of what the Minister told the House? If it is not, the Minister had better correct it.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I think I have given a comprehensive answer. There are 215 schools, of which 42 have had direct proposals. Those 42 schools have different permutations of effect that have led to the proposals. Some have had direct earthquake damage, some have had weathertightness issues, some have had functionality issues, and some have had strengthening issues. It is permutations of all of those that have led to the basis of the proposals.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I am bit more confused now, having heard the Minister’s extra answer. It is even further away from the original question I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! National Party members know that this is a point of order. The member has, in my view, some legitimate grievance. He has asked very straight questions and he has not received very straight answers. [Interruption] Order! The member has asked some very straight questions. When I interpreted the Minister’s answer and the Minister got to her feet, I think she repeated exactly my interpretation of a previous answer. The dilemma is that the member has only a limited number of supplementary questions available. I think he has three more, by my reckoning. It is unreasonable if Ministers avoid answering straight questions. On the previous question I said that the member had more supplementary questions to dig into it. What I am going to invite him to do, because a certain amount of time has gone by now since he asked the question, is to repeat his second supplementary question.

Chris Hipkins: I will give it a go, Mr Speaker. I am not entirely sure I can remember it. I think it was whether she asked for or received a physical assessment of the damage at some of the schools but not others that she proposed for closure or merger, and if she received that assessment only for some but not others, why she did not ask for it for all of the schools that she was proposing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think—[Interruption] Order! On listening to the question, my interpretation of the Minister’s answer was exactly right—that, in fact, for some of the schools there were other issues involved, and that is why she did not seek the information about earthquake damage. It seems to me that the Minister has, in fact, answered that question, and I think we should go on to the next supplementary question.

Chris Hipkins: Why did she state in her answer to my primary question yesterday that the categories “restore”, “consolidate”, and “rejuvenate” did not relate to individual schools, when her written answer to exactly the same question stated that the criteria for determining whether an individual school was classified under one of those headings were “the extent of damage, cost of repair, demographic projections and opportunities for … renewal.”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The learning community clusters have been categorised under “restore”, “consolidate”, or “rejuvenate”. The question the member asked yesterday mixed the individual schools and the descriptors of the clustered communities. So that was what I was trying to answer. There are, for instance, in the “restore” category 65 schools in, I think, about 12 clusters. They are not all exactly the same, except that—[Interruption] As I was saying, there are 65 primary schools, for instance, in 12 clusters within the “restore” category. There are criteria that apply to the clusters that do not all apply to the specifics of the individual 65 schools, but the 65 schools do have some or all of those criteria. It is that complex.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that that was the Minister’s explanation that she gave yesterday, but if that was the case yesterday when she answered the primary question, it was also the case when she answered the written question. I asked her to explain why she gave different explanations in her answers to the written question and to the primary question, and she has not actually addressed that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members should respect the fact that there was a point of order being raised. The member is raising legitimate points of order, because the question the member asked related to the difference between the answers to the oral question yesterday and to a written question previously submitted. The Minister indicated, as I heard her, that the difference was that some of the criteria do, in fact, apply to individual schools, and that is why her written answer indicated that, whereas yesterday she indicated to the House that her criteria applied principally, I would understand, to the clusters, and she is arguing that it is complex like that. That seems to explain that difference.

Nikki Kaye: Are there any other measures that she is putting in place to ensure that the sector, parents, and school communities can be confident that information received on these proposals is robust?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: In addition to the special team I have already mentioned, I have asked the ministry to appoint an appropriate independent Christchurch person to oversee the consultation process, to ensure that the views of parents and school communities are heard. The person will ensure that community feedback is incorporated in the ministry’s final advice to me.

Chris Hipkins: Is she confident that the assessment of damage at each of the schools proposed for closure or merger provided her with an accurate basis for decision making; if so, why, given that Central New Brighton School was identified as having 13 damaged buildings, when, in fact, the most damage the school can identify is two cracks in its paintwork; and why did she not ask for a physical assessment of all of the schools she was proposing for closure or merger, prior to putting that proposal forward?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I acknowledged in my answer to the primary question, there are some errors in the information that was originally used for the first proposals. That is why I have asked for a team to be set up to ensure that all new information that becomes available is used for this process. We are in a consultation. We are keen to learn of these issues. If the member has more helpful operational detail he would like to offer, I will refer it to that special team.

Chris Hipkins: Will the schools proposed for merger or closure be given extra time to consult with their communities, given that they were given the ministry’s estimate of the costs to repair earthquake damage, geotechnical data, and demographic projections only on Monday—over a third of the way through the time that has been allowed for consultation—and given that secondary school students, in particular, are focused on their exams at the moment rather than on worrying about the future of their school; if she will not extend that consultation time frame, why will she not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: From the time the proposals were launched on 13 September, and the time line that I set out in my letter to schools on 28 September, it makes it clear that there are different phases available for this consultation through to April next year. There is, overall, a 6-month period. However, it is a process. I am keen to listen to the views of parents and the school communities, and I will take, along with them, the time that it will take. We—all of us—are interested in getting this right and getting in place the best possible education system for the Greater Christchurch region.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not entirely sure the Minister has answered. I asked her whether the time frame—it is a legal time frame that I was asking her about, and I am asking her whether she is extending it now. That answer could be interpreted as either a yes or a no. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask her—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think Ministers are at liberty to answer—in my view, that question was answered. The Minister made it clear that where there are issues at a school that would take more time to sort out with the school, more time would be made available. And although it may not have been exactly the wording the member expected, I believe that that question was answered.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What I said was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot by way of a point of order now add to her answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, you sought to adduce an answer that the Minister clearly does not agree with. Nor do I, and nor do most people in this House. We are sick and tired of having Ministers’ non-statements interpreted as other statements and those interpretations becoming the record of the House, except that we cannot quote them, because the words are from you, not from the person who gave them—namely, the Minister. I am sick and tired of it, and I think the House and the public are.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I am very grateful to the member for his views.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to indicate that the Labour Party will not object if the Minister wants to seek leave now to correct the answer as interpreted by you.

Mr SPEAKER: To simplify this process, if I in fact interpreted the Minister’s answer wrongly there I will give the Minister a chance to correct that. What I said in declining the member’s point of order was that the Minister had answered the question and that she had indicated that if more time was needed for some schools to sort out the issues, that would be made available. That is my paraphrasing of what I thought the Minister said. If that is wrong, I am inviting the Minister to correct that and answer the member’s question.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: What I said was that I have outlined an overall consultation time line of 6 months, within which there are particular phases. So we have the opportunity to work our way through that. That is what I am saying.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table a letter that the Minister wrote in response to the five schools in Aranui where they specifically requested her to extend the time line because of the many difficulties that they face. Actually, the answer is somewhat confusing, as that one was—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is—[Interruption] Order! 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.

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table a letter from the Ministry of Education dated 16 October 2012 to the director of the Labour research unit, responding to an official information request for the advice provided to the Minister prior to her making her decisions, withholding all of the information.

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.

Canterbury, Recovery—Insurance Cover

12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on the availability of insurance cover to support the rebuilding of Canterbury following the seismic events?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I am pleased to report that in addition to the maintenance of existing insurance cover for Cantabrians, new insurance cover packages are now offered by Westpac, BNZ, Kiwibank, ANZ, ASB, and existing insurance companies. There are now a range of providers competing to cover existing, and the construction of new, residential properties. Contract works cover for the construction of new commercial facilities is available, with brokers actively touting for that business. Insurance risk will not be transferred, therefore, to the taxpayers, and that means that the ongoing risk continues to lie on international balance sheets.

Chris Auchinvole: Has the Crown been asked to take over insurance cover provision in Christchurch?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There were a number of calls from Opposition members to take on insurance risk for what will be a multibillion-dollar rebuild of Christchurch. But as professional risk assessors monitor Canterbury they are noting the GNS Science predictions of reduced seismic risk. With that information, they are increasingly willing to increase the level of insurance available in the region, which means that insurance risk need not be transferred to the Crown beyond the Earthquake Commission and Southern Response—former AMI—exposures.

Questions to Members

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Commentary

1. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: Is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill a “snake oil solution that would achieve nothing”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill): It is demonstrably nothing of the sort. It is a vital and urgently needed bill. The bill will enable the Reserve Bank to take positive action to lower the value of the New Zealand dollar and bring relief to the hard-pressed export sector, most of whom are in National Party electorates. We are in a new economic era and need a Reserve Bank Act that reflects the new realities.

Andrew Williams: What are businesses and, in particular, broking houses saying about the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is wide support from the business and export sectors for the bill. For example, according to Bernard Doyle of Australian broking house JBWere, the Reserve Bank’s current orthodox monetary policy is becoming “a rarity in the global economy” and “Unfortunately, in a world where the major central banks are breaking all the rules, this is not an advantage.”

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Proposed Changes to Bank’s Function

2. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: What are the flaws in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill seeks to address?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill): Another superbly drafted question. The current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act puts unwarranted emphasis on price stability, and does not allow the Reserve Bank to pursue a broad mandate for economic policy that covers growth, exports, and jobs. The original Act, of course, was to try to combat the dogs of inflation unleashed by the neo-liberals in this country—much subscribed to by the present administration. The focus on inflation in the current Act, to the neglect of other important economic indicators—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Us neo-liberals hate being attacked like that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and Maurice Williamson has learnt nothing as well in all that time—has lead to a chronically overvalued exchange rate, which is seriously undermining New Zealand’s international competitiveness.

Andrew Williams: Why is it necessary to broaden the primary functions of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 as this bill proposes?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reason is that the current Reserve Bank is no longer fit for purpose in the current economic era. The general consensus among economic commentators is that in the wake of the global financial crisis the international economy faces a prolonged period of sluggish growth and increased volatility. All manner of senior economists and the IMF say the same. What we do know is that our current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is now seriously out of kilter with the prevailing international economic conditions—in particular, low inflation, along with the intense efforts by many countries to hold the value of their currencies down. The West Coast and Rodney would love to have this, as well.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Proposed Changes to Principal Act

3. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: What other functions will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill seek to include in section 8 of the principal Act?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill): The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill will allow the bank to incorporate into its monetary policy the goal of achieving a stable and competitive exchange rate, and all over provincial New Zealand they cannot wait for this bill to pass. The bill will enable the appropriate authority and importance to be attached to economic growth and employment, as well as the desperately needed promotion of exports in an export-dependent nation.

Andrew Williams: What would the latest CPI figures mean for the Reserve Bank if the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill became law?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a very apposite question. If the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill was treated seriously by serious legislators, and not jeered at because of neo-liberal antagonism, and became law, it would mean that the bank could take a full account of prevailing economic conditions—that is, that inflation no longer needs to be the primary target and the only imperative of economic policy. The Reserve Bank would, as an example, be better able to take into account the latest CPI figures in formulating a rational monetary policy that met New Zealand’s broader economic policy objectives. If a man as bright as Lee Kuan Yew could see the sense in this, I wonder why those members cannot.

General Debate

General Debate

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This is a Government in total disarray. There has never been a time in New Zealand’s political history when so many Government agencies have been out of control, and without leadership. The Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Government Communications Security Bureau are the examples just this week, and it starts at the top.

It starts at the top with the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who says “I don’t know.”, “I can’t remember.”, “I’m not in a position to comment on that.”, and “Who knows? I crack jokes from time to time. I crack jokes about all kinds of important material.” Well, the message for John Key is this: New Zealanders want hope; they do not want Bob Hope. And that is what they are getting from this Prime Minister—he is cracking the jokes but not doing the job that New Zealanders expect of him.

His Government is in disarray, and it starts at the top of the Government Communications Security Bureau. We entrust in the Prime Minister, as the Minister who is in control of the Government Communications Security Bureau, the responsibility on behalf of all of us to look after the spy agencies, to look after our security, and yet this Minister—John Key—has no idea what is happening in his own agency. He has not been briefed. He does not know what is happening. That is the story he is asking New Zealanders to believe.

That is the story he wants New Zealanders to believe, but day by day his story unravels. Day by day he has to admit that he got it wrong. He said “It was not September; it was really February.” and “I am not going to be talking about Kim Dotcom in Hollywood. Oh, no, I am going to be talking about Kim Dotcom in Hollywood.” Mr Key’s story is unravelling day by day, and his lack of leadership, his lack of focus on these agencies, is going to come to this House again, and we will see it.

But it goes right across the National Party front bench. If the National Party had a Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It, he would have a desk placed in Hekia Parata’s office. It would be there permanently as he tried to unravel what it is that she is telling this House. But what we know on this side of the House is that she has treated the people of Christchurch shabbily. That is what she has done. She has not gone down there and looked at these problems. She has not even got a proper assessment of each school. She has simply gone there with a one-size-fits-all solution, and that is disrespectful to the people of Christchurch. Her story unravels every day as well.

Then there is Paula Bennett and the Ministry of Social Development. The ministry was told about the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in its system, and it did nothing. It did absolutely nothing. In 2009 Paula Bennett told John Key that she would be closely monitoring everything that went on, and she completely failed to do that. She is overseeing an agency that is in disarray. We have had that, we have had ACC—this Government is letting New Zealanders down.

New Zealanders have a right to be disappointed in this Government, because John Key came into office and told New Zealanders: “I expect high standards from my Ministers.” That is what he told New Zealanders. Well, he, today, in his ministry, has a Minister in John Banks who has consistently misled New Zealanders and who has consistently misled the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister clings on to the political corpse that is John Banks to save his Government’s majority. Well, what he is doing is letting down the standards of ministerial behaviour and letting down New Zealanders. He is not upholding the standards he said he would, and he is not upholding the standards that New Zealanders would expect. He is now seen in the eyes of many New Zealanders as being the one thing that John Key always feared: just another politician. But he is worse than that. He has lowered the standards of ministerial accountability, and New Zealanders have every right to be disappointed in him.

The other thing that this Government is doing is overseeing a decline in the New Zealand economy. It is not even prepared to take its head out of the sand, to stop practising the ostrich economics that this Government seems to think are OK, to actually look at the loss of jobs around New Zealand and say to New Zealanders “We will be there with you.” Instead, it is prepared to sit on the sidelines of the economy, waiting for something to happen. Instead of doing what any good Government would do, which is to get in there, get its hands dirty, and help New Zealanders create jobs, the Government waits, and it sits on the sidelines. This is a Government in disarray, managing a decline. New Zealand can do better. Labour will have a better path for New Zealand than this.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I wonder whether Grant Robertson asked David Shearer: “Where’s the tape?”.

Hon Member: No.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think he did. I wonder whether he asked him in caucus: “Where’s the tape?”. I wonder why he asked the questions he did yesterday in the House designed to make David Shearer look stupid over the tape. There is one thing that has become very clear from watching those Opposition members, for that very small number of New Zealanders who bother doing it, which is that they are much more ambitious for themselves than they are for New Zealanders. There is absolutely no doubt about that, because this lazy, trite Opposition has almost nothing to contribute to the real debates. I am sure those members will debate for the next week, or month perhaps, among themselves whether the name of some guy who found the problem in the Work and Income computer was leaked or not leaked, because that is the stuff they like. That is the stuff they like. Was it leaked? Did Grant say to David, the right way round: “I support you.”?

Actually the big questions are being addressed by the Greens and New Zealand First. Should we be printing money? Well, the answer is no. Should we throw out the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act? Well, the answer is no, we should not. But at least they are putting up something substantial that is relevant to the concerns of every New Zealander—that is, their economic security. David Shearer is totally focused on the security cameras in a building most New Zealanders have never seen.

Grant Robertson: He’s more focused on it than John Key is, and he’s meant to be the Minister.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, he was put there as Leader of the Opposition to be like John Key, and I just want to say this: David Shearer is no John Key, and I think everybody knows that. Everybody knows that.

The Prime Minister is leading a Government that is relentlessly focused on the economy, and the performance of the New Zealand economy, by international standards, has been very good. I was going to say pretty good, but as more other developed economies trend towards recession, the New Zealand economy is maintaining 2 to 3 percent growth. That is providing higher after-tax incomes for New Zealand families. It has provided more opportunities for New Zealanders to get jobs. It has provided the opportunity to maintain and improve public services under the leadership of the outstanding Ministers that were attacked today by the Opposition. That is in sharp contrast to what is happening in virtually every developed economy around the world—including, I might say, Australia, where large-scale public sector redundancies, falling house prices, and growing unemployment are now what is happening in the economy that has in recent years served us so well as an engine of growth.

We will stay relentlessly focused on economic opportunity and on creating jobs. The Government has published three or four documents so far, with several to come, which outline in great detail the numerous ways in which we are attending to the one decision that makes a difference to economic growth, and that is the decision made in a workplace by a business, its management, and staff, to grow. Until they decide to employ another person, there is not another job. So we owe a debt of thanks to all those businesses and workplaces, which through the most difficult economic times in a generation have continued to grow, and have continued to pay the wages, and to provide a living for families. That has made it easier for the Government to continue its programme of support for businesses, through the largest research and development investment that New Zealand has ever had; for families, through the most income support New Zealand has ever delivered to families; and for public services, which, at the same time as going through tough times and radical change, are offering the highest level of services and satisfaction that New Zealanders have ever expressed.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): So Mr Shearer is no John Key? Well, maybe Bill English is right, because I do not know Mr Shearer to be full of bulldust, I do not understand him to be racked with amnesia, and I do not understand him to be a “spray and walk away” merchant.

Who knew about Kim Dotcom? Well, that man who just sat down did, Bill English, and he sought to not disclose a public disclosure matter. The Hon Jonathan Coleman, the then Minister of Immigration, got Dotcom here in the first place. The Hon Maurice Williamson, the Minister for Land Information, approved the Chrisco deal of sale to Kim Dotcom. Simon Power, the then Associate Minister of Finance and Minister of Justice, declined Dotcom’s purchase of the Chrisco mansion, and got Williamson to do a U-turn.

Who else knew? John Banks knew—well, he did know back then. The New Zealand Police, the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand, and hundreds of others all knew about Dotcom. And we have seen the backtracking from the Prime Minister. First he said he was told about Dotcom the night before the raid. That was demonstrably false. He knew in February this year about the Government Communications Security Bureau involvement in the Dotcom case. We know that he was briefed by the bureau in February on three separate occasions. But things are heating up. The information we are getting in is getting us closer and closer to the Prime Minister.

In April 2011 Simon Power was in a bit of a pickle about Dotcom’s Overseas Investment Office application. Although his colleague Maurice Williamson had rubber-stamped the document, as Maurice always does, Power was not so sure. He wanted further advice, and on 18 July Power declined Dotcom’s application and phoned the Prime Minister to tell him—except that the Prime Minister has no recollection. Why would Power call the Prime Minister’s office to relay that information to him, if it did not get to him? More importantly, what happened on 17 April 2011 and 18 July 2011? Well, we have found out, from a written question, that on 13 June 2011 Simon Power met the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister claimed in his reply to that written question—in his answer, that is—“no record, no recollection”. Yet today, when asked “can he assure the House that Mr Power did not raise the subject of Kim Dotcom at that 13 June 2011 meeting?”, he said yes. One of those answers is palpably, demonstrably false.

Is this man’s memory improving with age? He could not remember about the June 2011 meeting and answer, and today leapt to his feet to give an assurance. Frankly, that will not do. He is caught out again. We have already got two apologies from him, and here will come the third one. I hope that this time we are not delayed weeks and weeks and weeks on the most demonstrable, apparent deceit, and, in my view, a breach of the privileges of this House and a contempt of Parliament—all in one.

His answer today cannot be correct. He said that there was no such conversation between Mr Power and himself. But he could not remember when he, on record, read it out in the House. He cannot remember the Tranz Rail shares. He cannot remember the winery that he did not have a stake in. He cannot remember the BMWs that he was involved in. “Don’t know, can’t remember”—these are the words that will be the legacy of this Prime Minister, and they will come back to haunt him, because the good news is, Mr Brownlee, that there is lots more to come. If the Government even dreamt that this is going to go away, if it even dreamt that the issue is going to go away, it should wake up and apologise now.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): Well, that last speech by Winston Peters really did read like the opening chapter in a Jeffrey Archer novel: complete fiction based upon the member’s own loose grasp of facts, in his own case, throughout his own political career. There is no one in this House who is more condemned by amnesia than that member over there.

We have had a very interesting week so far in Parliament. Last week we saw the Opposition parties’ David Shearer, Winston Peters, and Russel Norman cosy up on a bench—oh, I am sorry, David Shearer and Russel Norman were cosying up; Winston Peters was an arm’s length away—showing the nation what an alternative coalition might look like and claiming that there is a job crisis in this country. So having gone out there and spruiked all this up, what did they do when they came into the House this week? They went back on to the old stuff of Mr Dotcom, the Government Communications Security Bureau, and everything else that is completely irrelevant to the daily lives of New Zealanders.

I have got to say that this side of the House is delighted to look at the question sheet every day and see that the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party have once again failed New Zealanders by choosing to look at all of the beltway stuff that makes very little difference to New Zealanders’ lives. We had Mr Grant Robertson come into the House today, and in his speech in his contribution to this debate, first up, was he talking about jobs? Was he talking about the difficulties that people have in their daily lives? No, he was talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau and saying what a terrible situation has developed around it. This is the first member of Parliament I have ever seen stand up and take a point of order asking the Speaker to stop the member giving the answer from giving the answer because the answer did not suit his narrative. That was what we got from him yesterday—completely irrelevant—and now, today, another attempt to try to push along this Jeffrey Archer - type novel that these guys are collectively writing.

I heard Mr Robertson also say that the Minister of Education has failed people in Christchurch with the education plan. That is typical of the Labour Party. There are 9,500 spare spaces in schools in Christchurch, there are 4,500 students off the rolls in Christchurch, and the Labour Party says: “Do nothing. Just leave it all. Just put up with it.”—just have shonky facilities for these children in their learning opportunities going forward, and ignore what is a very, very big challenge. I am sorry if some of the members and their mates feel that that does not represent them, but that is what Mr Robertson had to say in the House today.

What I can say is that in Christchurch, yes, there is disappointment about this and, yes, there is disappointment that there were ever the earthquake events in the first place. But there is also a deep realism about the need to make good decisions so that we get a solid recovery, and our young people and our children’s learning are central to that.

I go back to that job summit those members had last week, trying to create the idea that there is a crisis. The media, sadly, always want to cover a story about some job losses somewhere, but just look at the record. Since this Government came to office—in fact, just in the last 2 years—60,000 more New Zealanders have found jobs in New Zealand. There are 60,000 more jobs net in the workforce than there were 2 years ago. There have been 13,000 jobs created through the 90-day trial. Labour said no to that, but it created 13,000 new jobs. There are 1,000 new jobs on the Waterview Connection motorway, which is part of a whole programme of roads of national significance creating jobs throughout the country. Labour is saying no to that, as well.

There are 350 jobs in the expansion of the Marsden Point refinery, which is a big infrastructure project. We can look forward to that being replicated in other parts of the country through different projects. There are 400 jobs at the IBM centre at Unitec, 500 construction jobs at the Methanex plant in Taranaki, and 1,500 jobs at Fonterra’s new dairy plant at Darfield in Canterbury. These are real jobs for New Zealanders who need them, real opportunities for New Zealanders who need them, and they occur only because we have a growing economy.

New Zealanders look every night at the news and they see what is happening around the rest of the world.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table a profile of the Diplomatic Protection Squad, which explains the relationship between the Diplomatic Protection Squad and the VIP protection squad mentioned today—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the member just indicate to the House the source?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The source is the New Zealand Police News, page 34, March 2010. It sets out what the various people in the police-associated—

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.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): At a time when 160,000 people have gone to Australia, when youth unemployment is approaching 20 percent, and when we have got the second-highest current account deficit in the world after Greece—and next year it is projected by the IMF to be the worst in the world—we have got the Government members saying that they are managing the economy well. Well, I have got news for them: they are not, and I know why. It is because they are beset with scandal after scandal. Their own problems are diverting them from the job of looking after New Zealanders through proper government. We have got non-primary manufacturing in decline, and the Government denies there is a problem there. We have got job losses from the north to the south, and the Government denies they are there. Mr Brownlee just quoted job statistics that include every job of an hour long. Those statistics are a complete misrepresentation of what is happening in New Zealand.

What are the scandals? Well, of course, the most recent one is Kim Dotcom. At the start of the year it was the teapot tapes. Does anyone remember that? John Key and John Banks getting caught out at a public meeting, being recorded, complaining to the police, using the police against the media in the election, and then miraculously dropping that because it was going to be embarrassing for the Prime Minister and John Banks to stand up in court. Then we had the ACC. We had the Bronwyn Pullar affair, followed by the resignation of the Minister for ACC and the forced resignation of the chair and the board. Then we had the Budget. In this year’s Budget, the centrepiece was to improve student outcomes with larger class sizes. Does anyone remember that? There have been so many scandals since that that one almost fades into obscurity. What a clanger. Now we have got the Ministry of Social Development. In the middle of it we had John Banks, who asked for donations, received envelopes with donations in them, made sure they were banked in Queenstown, thanked the people who gave them, and then signed a declaration that the donations were anonymous. We know what a farce that is, and we have got the Prime Minister trying to pretend that that was in order.

In terms of the economy, what is happening? Well, we had mining in national parks, and now the centrepiece for this 3-year triennium is the sale of State-owned assets. We had “shares plus” off on Monday; now we have got some shares reserved for iwi on Wednesday. What a shambles. No wonder the economy is not doing what it should. In terms of Mr Dotcom and the Government Communications Security Bureau and Mr Key’s role, well what did he say? He said he did not know anything about it until 17 September. These are all facts that are now proven. Then he said he was briefed on them on 29 February but could not remember, but accepts that he was. Then Labour sources revealed via David Shearer that on the same day, John Key spoke to the staff in the cafeteria. What did John Key do initially? He denied it, and then under further questioning from Patrick Gower he said that he remembers that he did—recovered memory.

We had sources claiming that he had spoken to people in the cafeteria. Again, John Key initially denied it and now he says he cannot rule it out. Now he actually admits it happens. Then we said there was a camera there, and they denied it. Now they admit they hunted for a camera and they found a camera on a tripod. Now they admit they have got print photos that were taken—single-shot photos. All of this was previously denied by John Key and somehow the National Party says that reflects poorly on David Shearer. What a nonsense! There is only one person that reflects poorly on, and that is John Key. Duncan Garner asked whether there was a camera on a tripod, and then finally the Prime Minister admits that there was. We have got the other allegations made by Winston Peters today that have not been properly answered.

Scandal after scandal, all year long, and in the meantime we have got Bill English not even understanding his own statistics that outside of primary manufacturing we do have a serious decline in the face of the world’s worst current account deficit. How will we plug that big hole in New Zealand’s account? There was a $10 billion loss in our current account last year. It is projected to get worse—second only to Greece this year and worst in the world next year. Job losses—160,000 people off to Australia. The Deputy Prime Minister stood up and said “Oh, it’s going to get better.” Well, it will, eventually, after 160,000 people have left. That is more than the total population of Dunedin and Invercargill combined, and 40 percent of them are between the ages of 18 and 30. Of course, eventually, there will not be that many people left to leave. This Government is in a shambles and our economy is suffering.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): It would seem to me that all the Opposition members are worried about—and I disagree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee; I do not think it is Jeffrey Archer; I think it is the forensic novels they are into at the moment—is what is hidden where. They have forgotten where the tape is, but they are worried about who said what to whom, and when. So it is Tess Gerritsen, Kathy Reichs, or Patricia Cornwell they have been reading, instead of going out and asking New Zealanders: “What matters to you, New Zealanders?”.

I can answer that question for Opposition members. If you want to know what matters to New Zealanders, it is their take-home pay, it is their mortgage rate, it is their interest rates, and it is whether they have got a job. But guess what? This Government is concentrating on that, not on what was leaked to whom or what is happening on what day or the next. New Zealanders want to know that this Government has a programme of action, and it is about growing the economy. Because, guess what? Governments do not create jobs. Governments create the environment for jobs to happen in, and that is what this Government is doing.

Our plan is to deliver a more competitive and productive economy, a robust economy, which means more jobs for New Zealanders—real jobs that are sustainable. Already the Hon Gerry Brownlee has listed a whole lot of new jobs, and in my own patch of Rangitata we had an announcement just in this last week of 75 to 80 new jobs. Salmon processing is happening here in New Zealand, instead of overseas. You will not hear anyone in my electorate saying that that is not a good deal.

What other good deals have we got going on here? In the last month 5,230 people left a benefit. But that is not what Opposition members would have happen. They certainly do not want to see that. We have got GDP figures for the June quarter at 0.6 percent and annual growth of 2.6 percent. It is the same as Australia, and better than most. But we do not hear the Opposition celebrating that either, do we? What we have got at the moment is the lowest inflation rate since 1999. Does anyone hear Opposition members talking about that?

Interest rates are at their lowest for 45 years. What does that mean to New Zealanders? New Zealanders care about those interest rates, because if an individual has a mortgage of $200,000, what that means is $200 a week more in their pocket. That does matter to New Zealanders, and the Opposition could not give a—whatever.

We have heard about lots of new jobs, but the problem that we have to face at the moment is that every time the Government talks about how to create the environment for new jobs, Opposition members say “No, we don’t want you to do that.” They have totally, all the time, opposed everything we have tried to do, such as reform of the Resource Management Act, and the 90-day trial, which has created a whole lot of new jobs for New Zealanders.

The additional programmes of action we put in place over the recession period have kept people getting something on their CV, like Job Ops and Community Max. They have kept those people occupied, and have been very, very successful during that time. There are many, many companies that are going to be taking on New Zealanders, such as Xero, and Orion Health. The International Convention Centre, when it is being built, will employ heaps of new people. Woolworths, and Heinz Australia are coming back to New Zealand. There are new jobs here in New Zealand. We have got jobs happening all over the place.

But Labour members do not want intensification and development of agriculture—of course not. They do not want more irrigation, because that might actually mean more jobs. Labour members would prefer to see people kept on benefits. Just remember, right now, what are they talking about? They are definitely not talking about vulnerable children, are they? No, they are not. They do not want public sector reform. Actually, they do not want any of our labour market reforms. They are not that interested in the $1.5 billion we have put into ultra-fast broadband and what that will do for New Zealand. Remember, they are not that keen on The Hobbit either—3,000 jobs were created over The Hobbit.

Labour members are also very much against our emissions trading scheme. What they would do is penalise households and businesses by having a far more onerous emissions trading scheme. They are not interested in local government reform. They should get out there and ask the people who are ratepayers whether they are interested in local government reform. Listen to the people of New Zealand, Opposition members, and you might actually get a clear story, without having to rely on your forensic novels.

They are not the slightest bit interested in what we will do with the money from the State-owned enterprise mixed-ownership model. In their view they would be better to take that off New Zealanders and not raise it in that way. I rest my case. It is forensics for the Opposition, and it is real live action for the Government.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): We had the Deputy Prime Minister talking about economic security. But what National fails to understand is that if you want economic security, you need environmental security. On “Planet Key” you have a very hostile Government, in terms of the environment. On “Planet Key” you have lots of golf courses. But on “Planet Key” the rivers are either identified for giant irrigation schemes, like the mega-expensive, mega-risky Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme, which the Government Ministers are trying to foist on Hawke’s Bay. It is trying to encourage the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to burden its ratepayers with an $88 million debt for that scheme. Those rivers would either be identified for irrigation, hydro generation, or they would be dirty. On “Planet Key” wild nature is not to be valued for its own sake. It is not valued as a place where you can spend time with friends and family. On “Planet Key” wild nature is something that you encourage large corporates to exploit, whether that is through risky deep-sea oil drilling, digging coalmines on conservation land, or manipulating our rivers, reducing their flows, and increasing the pollution burden.

Mr Brownlee talked about the Darfield dairy plant—Fonterra’s new dairy processing plant. There will be jobs at that plant, but they will be at the expense of the Waimakariri River and Rākaia River. They will be at the expense of the water quality in our aquifers, which people depend on for drinking.

On “Planet Key”, the Minister for the Environment does not even bother to issue a press release about the ministry’s latest report on recreational water-quality, about whether our beaches and rivers are fit for recreation and summer time swimming. That is because the news is bad. So the Government simply lets the ministry upload it quietly to its website and bury it. But at least the ministry is honest when it says in those river report cards: “There are many freshwater swimming spots which should be avoided.” The Green Party analysed that data. Of 160 river sites that were monitored for recreational water-quality nationwide, 52 percent of those sites were unsafe for swimming because the water quality was graded “poor” or “very poor”, and another 28 percent were graded only “fair”, so there was a risk of illness. The National Ministers do not care about that.

We promote our country as 100 percent pure and 100 percent Middle Earth. But to swim in our rivers, which is the birthright of Kiwi kids—you cannot do it in the majority of the rivers that the Ministry for the Environment monitored. Kids cannot drop off a tree, into a pool, without the risk of getting sick. Only 20 percent of our rivers that are monitored by the Ministry for the Environment for recreation make the grade. That is appalling, and that is because the National Government regards nature as something to exploit for irrigation and dairying development. That is because National is missing in action when it comes to strong policies and sensible policies to clean up our rivers. It is just missing in action. If we want clean, fishable, swimmable rivers, we need to get serious about controlling the land uses that cause that pollution run-off.

In Rotorua the regional council has recognised that we need to phase out dairying in the Lake Rotorua catchment, but National refuses to recognise that there are other rivers, other lakes, where that needs to happen. National will throw a few million dollars at Te Waihora, Lake Ellesmere, and expect that to clean up the lake, but it will do nothing about encouraging regulation of land uses in the catchment of that lake to improve water quality.

We have not had any national standards to prevent stock having access to rivers and streams. We have got a toothless National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011, which means that regional councils can avoid adopting clean water standards until 2030. We have got no national standards that set limits for pollutants in waterways and set some clear standards for clean water. This Government is missing in action as far as clean water and clean rivers are concerned. We have got no national standards on nutrient limits. Yet when we have got a regional council and an Environment Court, which, on plans like the One Plan in the Manawatū, seek to put in place rules that will control intensive dairy and sheep farming, and will seek to protect water quality by having riparian planting rules, what does the Government do? It makes sure that the Department of Conservation is not involved in defending the Environment Court decision at the High Court. It leaves it to non-profit organisations like Fish and Game.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The Green Party member there, Eugenie Sage, has just attacked the basic industries of New Zealand—the farming industries, which provide the backbone of this country and pay for those members to sit in their cushy seats and tell the world how it would operate in some kind of dream fantasyland that does not exist.

The real world out there is a world where this country has to earn its way and pay its way. We do that in a balanced way as much as possible, unlike the Green Party that can sit there and lecture this country—the economic strength of this country—and do it in a quite unproductive and sad way. I heard that the members from the Hawke’s Bay were very much upset at the comments made by the Green Party there—not understanding the wider implications of what this Government is doing for the best interests of New Zealand going forward.

When you look at this Parliament and this Opposition, the Labour Party is in crisis. It has no policy. It has no people standing up and putting any direction forward. It does not have a leader of any consequence, but that is good for us. We are quite happy to keep David Shearer there. The Labour Party does not know what it is doing in this Parliament. It has to go around and talk about petty issues that make no difference to people’s lives. People out there are smart. The people of New Zealand are smart. What do they want? Do they want low interest rates? Yes, they do. Do they want a country and a Government that is going to keep inflation rates low? Yes, they do. Do they want a Government and a country that is going to get into Budget surplus? Yes, they do. Do they want a country and a Government that is going to provide as much employment as it can in these most difficult times? Yes, they do. And what are they getting? They are getting a Government that is delivering all those things.

On the other side of the Table—on the other side of the Table—they will not even talk about those issues. They will not talk about the economics of New Zealand. They will not talk about our vulnerable children. They will not talk about jobs or growth, because if they could get a growth rate of 2.6 percent for a year, they would be loving it. When we came into Government, the country was in recession—a recession started by the Labour Party before the rest of the world.

The Green Party has actually gone out there last week and put a plan out. And we must commend it for that. But it is a plan that will never work. They want to print money—print money! They say the dollar is too high. Well, the dollar is high because that is a reflection of a good Government doing good economic policy in this country. The way the dollar will go down is if you ever got a Labour-Green Government in, the dollar will crash, because that will be the international market saying it has no confidence in the economic plans of those parties. That is what happened last time the Labour Party got in, did it not? The Labour Party got in last time, and the dollar went down to 40 cents. That is because of its economic mismanagement, which the market knew would happen.

We have had to pick those pieces up and turn it round. It has taken 3 or 4 years to do that, in the world’s biggest recession since the Great Depression, and in that time we have had to rebuild our second-biggest city, but we have still done it. We have rebuilt this country and got it back on track.

The New Zealand First Party—it comes into this Parliament, and it has got only one type of campaign, and that is the conspiracy theory campaign. There has been a conspiracy theory in New Zealand for 30 years, under the New Zealand First Party. Everybody has got something to hide. New Zealand First members should be in Eastern Europe, in the middle of Communism. That would have suited them, because that was what they grew up understanding and thinking that that is how government works.

Well, government is not a conspiracy. Government is an open book. What you see here is what you get, and it is in the best interests of New Zealand. The New Zealand First Party needs to stop looking for a conspiracy, because the people do not vote for conspiracy politics. They vote for real politics. Real politics in Hamilton means that we are building an expressway that is creating jobs in our city, because we are getting the right transport options for our city. In Hamilton we are building the broadband network before the rest of the country—providing real jobs for our city. In Hamilton we have industrial growth, and we see that through Government departments wanting to come to Hamilton, like the Earthquake Commission coming and providing 150 new jobs in Hamilton. This Government has delivered, is delivering, and will continue to deliver good economic results for New Zealand going forward, and that is in the best interests of all our people.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Not only is this Government in disarray, many of its Ministers have lost their way. We had Bill English lead off the debate for the Government. One minute he is saying that “shares plus” is not a goer; today he is saying “Well, it could be an option.” The real question for New Zealanders is whether New Zealanders want assets sold. No, they do not. Gerry Brownlee was the next speaker. He proposes that it is important to consult with Cantabrians around the reorganisation and renewal of Christchurch, but what does he do? Drag the chain on residential zoning and close Christchurch schools. What is the question for Cantabrians? Do they want schools closed in Christchurch? No, they do not. Then we had Jo Goodhew. She is the Minister of Women’s Affairs, for those of you who do not know, who voted against paid parental leave. But the real question for women throughout New Zealand is whether they want a Government that will not support the extension of paid parental leave. No, they do not. This Government is steering a train wreck to disaster and leading the country in a direction that will not benefit the great majority of New Zealanders.

But I specifically want to focus on two other Ministers, because they are guiding the most important portfolio that will support the future generation of our country, and they are Minister Parata and Minister Foss. We need to be thinking about the way in which their actions are critically affecting a number of children and the direction of education, and impacting on teachers throughout the country. Their performance has been an absolute shambles—bungle after bungle after bungle. The education portfolio is in a mess. First, we had larger class sizes being proposed in favour of teacher quality. Now that is off the table—both larger class sizes and now teacher quality. We had also the idea of putting ropey national standards on the database, even though the Minister acknowledged the fact, and the Prime Minister supported it, that this data was ropey. It is all “It is OK, let us put it on the database, it should work itself out.” And then we got league tables—league tables with a very inaccurate and skewed picture of what was happening, the good work that was happening, within our schools. There was a consultation document down in Christchurch saying to that community “We want to engage with you. We are concerned about the renewal and opportunities for people in Christchurch. Give us your feedback. We will take on board what you say.” What do they do? Steamroll their way through reforms, sweeping reforms, that will see closures of schools and mergers that are not supported by the community. In fact, the community is throwing its hands up in despair and saying “What is the data that led you to think that these sweeping reforms will be good for our kids and good for our community?”. That is not proper consultation and it is shameful.

I want to come back to something that Jo Goodhew raised, actually. She said that on the minds of many New Zealanders—what they are really worried about—is their take-home pay. Well, I would have to agree with that. So the question to that Government is what it is doing with regards to teachers’ take-home pay. What is it doing to fix Novopay, the teachers’ pay system—

Hon Craig Foss: It’s gone up under National.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Oh, it is the first word today in the House from Associate Minister of Education Foss, who is overseeing that particular process. It is not doing well at all. Four years it has taken from the time that the business case was lodged before the Minister, approved, and the $25 million paid, to develop a database that is not working. Minister, you should fix it. It is absolute rubbish to say in this House that it is fixed, because even today, after the fourth cycle of the Novopay pay round, members in this House—I suspect some of your own members—are raising concerns about the fact that Novopay is a mess and it is not being fixed.

Let us look at some of the issues. Waiting times for pay staff to report the types of deficiencies in the system are over an hour—unbelievable. It is over an hour to wait for someone to get on the other end of the phone to then say: “We can’t help you, go on to the website and report.” What else have we heard? We have heard that the data input system is inadequate to be able to properly account for the work that teachers are doing to be able to be paid the correct amount. Teachers deserve to be paid the correct amount for the time that they have spent within schools.

Grant Robertson: The fourth pay cycle.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, this is the fourth pay cycle. Reliever teachers in particular are feeling the brunt of a pay system that is not working. It is simply not good enough for them now, after the fourth pay cycle, to be saying that they have not been paid arrears for three pay cycles ago, which is when the system switchover was happening.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Ask any person in any street in any town in New Zealand what is the single most important thing to them. It is the economy; it is jobs.

Grant Robertson: Where are they then?

LOUISE UPSTON: Interesting, Mr Robertson, because in question time yesterday and today I was waiting. I was waiting for the question from the Opposition members about jobs. They had this manufacturing jobs crisis last week, but there was not one question in the House. It was interesting, because actually I think that was more of a photo opportunity, and given the number of people who attended you could have taken that photo in a phone box.

Instead, this side of the House is focusing on what matters to New Zealanders, to hard-working New Zealanders who are doing their bit. Every speaker on this side of the House has spoken about growing the economy and has spoken about jobs. I do not want to repeat the wonderful facts and figures about what this Government has produced in that space. I want to turn my attention instead to the fantastic work that is being done in the area of welfare reform, because this Government is ambitious for New Zealand. I want to read you a quote: “We are actually trying to do something about the cycle of disadvantage that children of single parents on welfare dependency experience. The evidence is that those children have fewer opportunities in life if their parent continues on welfare payment and does not get an opportunity to connect to work.” So this quote—is it from the Children’s Commissioner’s expert panel? No, it is not. Is it from the Minister for Social Development or the Minister for Economic Development or the Minister of Finance? No. This is a direct quote from the Labor Government in Australia and its leader of the Senate. It is introducing welfare reforms that go way further than what we are doing here in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Read it again. Read it again.

LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, it is quite interesting. We are actually trying to do something about the cycle of disadvantage that children of single parents on welfare dependency experience. So our Minister Paula Bennett is making gutsy decisions. We are doing the reforms that that side of the House did not deal to when it had the opportunity. As a result, there are 10,400—[Interruption]—no, listen to the facts—fewer New Zealanders on welfare. Join the dots.

Hon Annette King: Oh, yeah!

LOUISE UPSTON: I have just quoted you. I am quoting your partner party in Australia—and I thought actually that the two Labour parties were very close—about the fact that welfare is not the answer in terms of lifting children and families up, but work is. That is why Labor is putting full-time work requirements on sole parents when their youngest child is 8. It is not the Liberals; it is the Labor Party.

I am really proud of the results that this side of the House is achieving in Government: 2,300 more people who were on the domestic purposes benefit took up part-time work, and 13,000 people went off the domestic purposes benefit into work. Those are results we should be proud of, because that side of the House is quite quick to talk about child poverty. What is the path out of poverty? It is work. But, no, that side of the House is not willing to deal with the tough questions. Its counterparts in Australia are; they are doing it. If we look at the evidence, the evidence suggests that the most effective way to achieve long-term, sustained reduction in child poverty is to address its causes directly. That is what the Government is doing.

I am really proud of the record that this Government has in welfare reform. We have tackled the tough issues and we will continue to tackle the tough issues, because that is what is important to the hard-working New Zealanders whom we represent. We are in touch with them, we are asking them, and we are listening to them. That is why we are clear that it is work, not welfare, that provides a brighter future.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): This Government, which came in with such ambition, such aspiration, and such promise, is turning into a profound disappointment for the people of New Zealand. If there is anything that characterises the second term of this Government, it is disappointment. We have children living in poverty. We have 270,000 children living in poverty, and we have a Government that has no interest in addressing the causes of the illnesses and diseases that come from poverty, such as housing or wages or jobs, but proceeds with targets that are now becoming meaningless in the health sector. Children living in poverty are at a 1.4 times higher risk of dying in childhood than children in higher-income households. Children living in poverty are more likely to die of sudden unexpected death in infancy than their peers. They are three times more likely to be sick. They are at least 1.5 times more likely to be hospitalised than their peers. They are likely to be hospitalised at 5.6 times higher a rate than those in wealthier areas for injuries from assault, neglect, or maltreatment. They are more likely to have poor outcomes in adulthood, including higher risk of heart disease, alcohol and drug addiction, and worse oral health by the time they are 26.

Between 2007 and 2010 the increase in children admitted to hospital with socioeconomically sensitive conditions—that is, things that are transferable, like infectious skin diseases and respiratory illnesses—was 4,800 admissions per year. It increased by 4,800 per year, compared with the 3 years previously. And let us have a look at some of the Māori and Pacific Island statistics. Māori babies are five times more likely to die from sudden unexplained death in infancy than New Zealand Pākehā babies. Māori and Pasifika mothers are more likely to have stillbirths and neonatal deaths, compared with New Zealand Pākehā. Pasifika children and young adults from birth to 24 are nearly 50 times more likely than Pākehā children to be admitted to hospital with acute rheumatic fever. These are not the statistics of a Government that has aspirations or ambition for its people. These are the statistics of a Government that is a disappointment.

We have a “Minister of Illness”, not a Minister of Health. We have New Zealanders who are disappointed across the board in the way this Government has been performing in the health sector, despite the set piece song-and-dance routines that the Minister likes to give in the House. We have people from west Auckland to Porirua who are disappointed that funding for their Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programmes has been cut and that they are no longer able to provide those services, unless they do it through volunteer labour, for those who are most at risk of obesity, diabetes, and chronic illness.

This Government is a disappointment to 120,000 type 2 diabetics in the process of changing blood glucose meters. Twenty thousand type 1 diabetics, and particularly the parents of children with type 1 diabetes, are disappointed in the way the Government has handled, proposed, and overseen the change to blood glucose meters. There are 507 recipients of the Johnson and Johnson DePuy hip replacement device who are disappointed that there will be no inquiry, as Australia saw fit to have. There are 106 recipients of the Smith and Nephew hip replacement device who are disappointed that there will be no inquiry into that either. The Government resists inquiries and resists any examination of anything that might be going wrong in the health system, and in the meantime one gets very disappointed people and health consumers in New Zealand.

There are 790-plus pharmacists who are disappointed that they have been bullied into a contract that does not have any prices in it post 1 February next year. That is no way to run a very essential health service in our pharmacies. We have a very disappointed Pacific Island diabetes support worker out in Porirua, whom Kris Faafoi knows, who now has to retrain elderly Pacific Island people with diabetes in how to read their new blood glucose meters. The time that that is taking brought that woman to tears. We have 48 percent of nurses who were surveyed say that the pressure they are under at the moment caused them so much moral distress that they wanted to give up nursing. Those people are disappointed.

The disappointing legacy of this Government’s efforts in health is not a brighter future but a blighted future for the children of the poor.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this general debate. New Zealand has, and continues to be, a resilient economy. This is clearly visible when one considers a number of economic indicators. Despite the uncertain global outlook, these economic indicators have shown positive signs.

Some of us love to talk about Australia. I have the pleasure of sharing that our GDP growth for the June 2012 quarter was 0.6 percent. This was equivalent to Australia, one of the really resilient economies during the global financial crisis. Our GDP growth figure is far ahead of many developed economies. Another testament to how productivity under this Government is working is our annual growth figures. New Zealand’s analysed growth stands at 2.6 percent. This is the highest rate since 2007, before the domestic recession and global financial crisis. In addition, our rate of inflation is the lowest in the past 12 years.

Pragmatic steps by the National Government have ensured that interest rates are at the lowest level for the last 45 years, and this results in direct savings for homeowners and new home buyers. By our estimations, a household with a $200,000 mortgage stands to save $200 a week. Our Government is ambitious, yes, but realistic in goals. Our ambition is to build a more productive and more globally competitive economy, with the creation of high-paying jobs at the core of the ambition. To ensure that, we walk the talk. I am pleased to share that we have created almost 57,000 jobs over the past 2 years. Here I would like to mention one of my colleagues, the hard-working member of Parliament for Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. He mentioned to me the other day that a new outlet of The Warehouse in his electorate has created a couple of hundred jobs there. In the next few days there will be the opening of a couple of Countdown stores on the North Shore. This will also help to create another couple of hundred jobs.

The private sector is playing its role; the Government is playing its role. We are investing a lot of money in infrastructure, which is helping in creating jobs. The National Party, under the very able leadership of the Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, has facilitated this job creation by cutting company and personal tax across the board. We have reformed the Resource Management Act and are investing a lot of money into infrastructure.

Business depends on capital. To expand the operations, of course, capital translates into access to liquid cash, and access to raw material and resources, along with a skilled workforce and infrastructure, which is reliable electricity, broadband, transport networks, and other infrastructure facilities. This is one kind of support that the National Government has provided to our businesses. Our exports have increased significantly over the last few years. Recently I was in Sri Lanka, where we went to visit the Fonterra facility. They mentioned that they are importing almost $350 million worth of raw materials from New Zealand, which is quite significant for our country.

Although we on this side of the House are trying to do positive work, the result is betterment for everyone. We humbly accept that some people are better off, although some may struggle. However, we remain optimistic that with a prudent plan we can get New Zealand to a situation where no one struggles. To address the issue of inequality, we are increasing the war disablement pension and surviving spouses pension by 5 percent from 1 April 2013. Before I conclude, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon Nathan Guy, on considering this. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill

Second Reading

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe i tēnei ahiahi, otirā, ki a tātau o te Whare Pāremata.

[Thank you Mr Speaker. I acknowledge you greatly and us indeed of Parliament House this afternoon.]

I move, That the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. The Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill is an important bill on two counts, if I can start that way. Firstly, there is a local nawe, an issue of local concern to the people of Rangataua Bay and, more broadly, across Tauranga Moana. The second note of significance is the national picture—how the legacy of this bill will, we hope, influence greater power-sharing with Māori right across the motu.

If I can turn your attention firstly to the local perspective, and give some background to those listening, this bill repeals the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, so it has been around for a while. The area we focused on in the bill was taken by the Mount Maunganui Borough Council for the purposes of establishing sewage ponds at the eastern end of Rangataua Bay, Te Tāhuna o Rangataua, in my electorate of Waiariki, and in the Tauranga area. In essence, the 1975 Act gave the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board the authority to transfer part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, and then, to add insult to injury, authorised the council to undertake reclamation of that part of the harbour for sewerage and other purposes.

Ngā Pōtiki, as the local iwi, and individuals like the late Wīremu Ōhia, Chair of the Tauranga Moana Māori Executive, and Paraone Rēweti, the MP for Eastern Māori at the time, were very, very vocal in protesting that the area was a source of food for the people and had an important history attached to it. In the submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee, their point of view is clearly outlined, and I quote from the submission: “For Nga Potiki and indeed Tauranga Maori, the discharge of human waste into the pristine Te Tahuna o Rangataua, that had served as a pataka kai … for centuries was and remains utterly repugnant.” So you can understand that Tauranga people were not happy.

What was particularly disturbing for Ngā Pōtiki was that the outfall pipe was going to head to the ocean by way of an urupā and wāhi tapu—in other words, a cemetery and some sacred sites. This was their ancestral landscape, confirmed by the awards of the Papamoa Block to Ngā Pōtiki by the Crown commissioners in the late 1880s. During the select committee, what I found of particular interest was that the objections of that day were not voiced just by Māori alone. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Transport also opposed the proposal to reclaim the foreshore and the seabed. At the same time, an environmental impact report established in 1974 concluded that “a flourishing ecosystem on the tidal flats would be lost” through reclamation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment concluded that the reclamation could not be justified, because of the impact on the area and the possibility of other sites being used. So all parties, if you want to put it that way, were agreed that this was an area of significant environmental and cultural value. Yet, despite all of these objections, the Parliament of the day went ahead anyway. And 37 years on, here we are, and we are finally listening to the wisdom of those who have gone before us.

It has not just happened overnight, and I want to firstly acknowledge those people who some 13 years ago started taking direct action to restore the land to its essence. I want to be clear that the relationship that we are repairing in this legislation is not just between mana whenua and the respective council; it is actually also about Ngā Pōtiki and its close relationship to the land—in particular, Te Tāhuna o Rangataua. We are recognising a history honoured through oral tradition, through waiata, pepeha, and whakataukī, proverbs.

This relationship was constantly referred to in the evidence submitted by Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua to the Waitangi Tribunal held at Mangatawa Marae in 1999. At that time, the people unanimously resolved to establish the trust to be known as the Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust to represent and advocate Ngā Pōtiki’s interests with the Crown. In 2000 the Tauranga City Council started a consultation process, establishing the Tangata Whenua Tauranga City Council Standing Committee to facilitate improved engagement between Māori and the council. Four years later the Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Collective was established, bringing together representatives of all 15 iwi and hapū resident within the boundaries of Tauranga City Council. Thirteen of the 15 have protocol agreements with the council, which outline how they will work together.

So if we fast track back from then to this bill, I want to commend the Tauranga City Council for its recognition that although it has inherited an area that is still being utilised, a significant portion of the land originally taken will not be needed, and so it has moved to hand it back to the people—awesome. For me it is great to see that the council and iwi are working together, and I cannot work out how this has not happened far more often. When it does happen, it usually removes the angst by iwi, hapū, and whānau about not being engaged and involved in decision making as tangata whenua, and yet we saw with the Rena disaster that a unified approach is always the best approach.

Finally, this is where I want to focus on the broader and nationwide issues that this bill represents. The Māori Party has always advocated for local government that it should—and must, in fact—successfully engage Māori and secure full confidence, trust, faith, and participation in decision-making processes. We invested considerable effort in the last term of Parliament in establishing the Māori Statutory Board in the Auckland Council. We see mana whenua statutory boards as an important mechanism in power sharing with Māori. I see what happens in this bill as another important step in assisting local government to be accountable and responsive when working with mana whenua. And I have to say how great it was to read the submission—and there was only one submission on this bill—which was yet another example of a truly collaborative approach. I want to commend the Tauranga City Council for its declaration that it has no intention to further reclaim land in Te Tāhuna o Rangataua.

Finally, my thoughts return to those pakeke, those kaumātua, from Ngā Pōtiki who protested against the original Act and, indeed, the representatives and advocates from local government and across the community. The repeal of the 1975 Act will, I hope, go some way towards healing the hurt caused by the impact of that legislation. I am proud to have been the sponsor of this bill in its healing capacity.

I want also to acknowledge the very real potential there is as an important consequence of this legislation to strengthen and inspire a constructive and ever-growing respect between Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council. The pathway has been set, and I truly believe that there is a positive way forward. That has been acknowledged both by the city council and by Ngā Pōtiki and hopefully, on the broader issue, across Tauranga Moana. I note that in the select committee report there was just one small amendment around a sunset clause, which seems appropriate under the conditions, simply to try to tide the bill over to allow for the enactment of the bill, if you want to put it that way. Over and above that, with the one submission that came in to basically tie the two parties together, it seems to me that there should be unanimous support across the House for this bill to pass as it sits, with the addition of a sunset clause, which would basically tidy it up and allow the iwi to have their land back, or at least an acknowledgment that the land was wrongfully taken—it should never have been taken—but that the bridges have been built to bring the parties together. I will leave that with the House. Ka nui te mihi ki te hunga o roto o te kaunihera, ka mutu, ki a Ngā Pōtiki mō te kaha ki te whakatutuki i tēnei kaupapa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[I acknowledge those in the council greatly as well as those of Ngā Pōtiki, who worked hard to complete this proposal. Congratulations and well done to you collectively and to us all.]

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It gives me pleasure to speak in support of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill at its second reading. Te Ururoa Flavell, who is the sponsor of the bill, gave a pretty good account of the bill in his speech, and he has just resumed his seat. National does support this bill and, as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered this bill, it was a bill that was well drafted and well supported. The Local Government and Environment Committee received one submission on it, and that submission, on behalf of two parties, was in support of the bill. So this bill proceeded through the select committee process in a pretty orderly manner.

It was an interesting bill, however, and pretty significant, I have to say, for the local Tauranga / Mount Maunganui iwi and community. So what this bill does is repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, which now has no legal effect. This bill came about because it was a requirement of the Tauranga waste-water comprehensive discharge resource consent. So in order for that consent to proceed, this matter had to be dealt with in the House, and that is what is happening. The bill returns the legal status of the land to what it was before the Act took effect in 1975.

In terms of the background and main provisions of the bill, the Act transferred—and I am referring to the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975—part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, which was the predecessor of the Tauranga Borough Council, and authorised it to carry out reclamation work for sewerage and other municipal purposes quite usual for growing communities. The area authorised to be transferred under the Act totalled in amount 73½ hectares, and the council reclaimed approximately 23½ of those hectares.

The authority to reclaim the balance of the area was revoked by subsequent legislation in 1991. The principal Act, therefore, no longer has any legal effect. So during the application process to upgrade the Tauranga City Council’s waste-water treatment plant, the local iwi and other stakeholders expressed grievances regarding the scope of the land that could be reclaimed under the Act and the adverse impacts and effects of waste-water treatment on that land.

The Tauranga City Council and stakeholders agree that the repeal of the principal Act and the returning of the legal status of the land to what it was before the 1975 Act is appropriate in the contexts of these grievances and concerns. In the second reading of the bill I support it to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Kia ora. I rise to speak to the second reading of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I want to express Labour’s support for this bill. As you can see from the Local Government and Environment Committee report that has been brought back to the House, there was no dissent. There was general agreement that this was a small but significant bill to progress, for all the reasons that Te Ururoa Flavell mentioned in his second reading speech.

Alongside my contribution in the first reading debate, I also want to acknowledge the ongoing relationship that the Tauranga Moana District Māori Council has with tangata whenua in its area. I hope that the opportunity provided post this bill will continue to strengthen their relationship, because if there is an important point that was raised in the House going forward with regards to district planning processes and regional resource management processes, it is that iwi want to play a constructive role in that whole decision-making process.

I also want to acknowledge that when I introduced a member’s bill in the House regarding the recognition of iwi management plans, Te Ururoa Flavell was one of the first members across the House to express his support because he understood the importance of ensuring that front-end engagement of iwi and of tangata whenua in the decision-making and planning process could only strengthen local decision-making overall. I suspect that his contribution with regard to the interests of Ngā Pōtiki and Tauranga Moana really enhanced that perspective.

I do not want to take up too much time on the bill in particular. A small but useful amendment was made by the select committee regarding the repeal of the legislation.

I simply want to acknowledge that the Ōhia whānau, who are members of Ngā Pōtiki, have advocated strongly historically and in contemporary times for the interests, first and foremost, of the health of the harbour and their particular connection with the resources in that harbour, as well as their cultural connection. It is an important thing to recognise your relationship to your environment in the way in which you play an active custodial role in your rohe.

Again, in summary, I would like to highlight that it is my sincere intention to support the good work that is under way with the tangata whenua of Tauranga Moana to see their harbour continue to be a harbour that provides food—kai. Not only is it a place where people can go for recreational benefit but also it is a place where all peoples within the Tauranga community, Māori and Pākehā alike, can contribute to positive decision-making for the health and well-being of the harbour and their wider community. Kia ora.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My contribution is going to be as short as the importance of this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. This bill repeals the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, which has absolutely no legal consequence at all. So what we are doing is simply getting a useless law off the statute book so that people can move on. Parliament spends an awful lot of time passing new laws. We on this side of the House are about actually reducing the amount of law and regulation that we have on the book. Having an Act of Parliament that has absolutely no legal impact at all is serving no useful purpose. The House should get on, pass this bill, and repeal this law that has no effect, so that we have one less law on the book that is complicating the lives, in this case, of people who live in the Mount Maunganui and Tauranga area. The Local Government and Environment Committee has done a very fair job. It heard submissions and confirmed those facts. Let us simply pass the bill and repeal this piece of law, which has well and truly passed its use-by date.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Although the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill may not have a lot of legal consequence, I think it is very significant in terms of its cultural consequences. There has been a long history in this country of local authorities not paying due regard to Māori interests when it comes to siting rubbish dumps, oxidation ponds, and sewage plants, and those have often been sited by, or discharged into, waterways.

I am very grateful to Te Ururoa Flavell for his explanation of the history of this bill. It was certainly brought to the attention of the Local Government and Environment Committee, too, in the joint submission by Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council. The reclamation that the Mount Maunganui Borough Council did was of gross offence to Ngā Pōtiki. That was because the harbour is a taonga. The reclamation and the discharge of sewage were offensive to the values of that ancestral landscape because they did not recognise the significance of the harbour as taonga, in terms of both the siting of the waste-water treatment plant on the reclamation and the proposals to discharge effluent into the southernmost part of Tauranga Harbour. Then, as Te Ururoa Flavell explained, the siting and construction of the pipe took the effluent out to an ocean outfall through an urupā, a sacred burial ground. These sorts of things have been done by local authorities repeatedly. It is in this bill, by repealing the legislation and repealing the ability for the council to continue with the reclamation, that we are putting things right.

The whole sewage treatment plant and the discharges were opposed vigorously in the 1970s. I think we need to remember that when communities and Māori are active on other issues to protect their taonga and to protect their natural environment, they have a very valid point in protecting what is important to them: the natural environment. We should not just dismiss that opposition as getting in the way of development, as this Government often does. It was back in the 1970s, if you read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report, that you had the kaumātua vigorously opposing the reclassification of the waters of the harbour that would have allowed the discharges, and opposing the reclamation, and Government agencies, like the Ministry of Fisheries and the Commissioner for the Environment at the time, opposing the reclamation, and yet it still proceeded.

We have moved on since then. It was enormously heartening at the select committee to have one submission on the bill—a joint submission by Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council, which has, of course, succeeded the Mount Maunganui Borough Council—supporting this bill and explaining some of the history. Those submitters gave evidence that there is now a much more constructive working relationship between Ngā Pōtiki and the council. That has been manifest in a standing committee on the council to facilitate better engagement with iwi, and a commitment by the city council to the establishment of wetlands and other treatment that removes the solids from the discharges that go through the ocean outfall. This is a very good bill. It is a bill that the Green Party supports, and it should be passed into law. Thank you.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to stand and speak in support of this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, which is in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell on behalf of the Tauranga City Council. I too am going to take only a very short call, but I do want to address the extraordinary contribution of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is just so incredible how he manages to be offensive even on the most innocuous pieces of legislation. Here is a very simple piece of legislation, which everyone supports, and yet he still manages to find that one angle to offend people by saying that because this bill means nothing to him, this bill does nothing, and we should just get rid of it. Well, actually, this bill is extremely important to the people of Tauranga and to the iwi of Tauranga, who see this, as Te Ururoa Flavell outlined in his speech, as addressing a longstanding issue. Just because it does not matter to Nick Smith, it does not mean that it is not important. But perhaps this shows the kind of arrogance that we are seeing from the National Party in terms of its engagement with Māori over asset sales and Māori interests in water. Perhaps that is why we are seeing such a dog’s breakfast being made there, because of the very kind of attitude that we just saw from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, which is “I don’t like it. Get rid of it.”

Maggie Barry: Talk to the bill.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh, Maggie Barry tells me to talk to the bill, yes. Maggie Barry never reads the bills. That is why she does not realise that I am talking to the bill, which is about recognising the interests of iwi and how important this piece of legislation is to them.

I just want to point out one other thing that the Hon Dr Nick Smith said. He said that National does not pass pieces of legislation to do nothing. Well, we have just had an emissions trading scheme bill reported back to the House today that will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will do nothing to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and will do nothing to do all the things that an emissions trading scheme is meant to do except provide enormous cost and bureaucracy for industries that are in it. You could not get a more classic example of a piece of legislation that achieves absolutely nothing except compliance cost and will do nothing to achieve its stated aims of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I do not think there has been a worse example of legislation that does not do anything except cause compliance costs for everyone involved.

I am very disappointed that the National Party has taken this position on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. This is an important piece of legislation for the people it affects. We deserve to show them that respect, and not say that just because Nick Smith does not care about it, it means it should be ridiculed and rubbished in the House. I hope future National Party speakers take a slightly more moderate line on this and show the Tauranga City Council and the people of Ngā Pōtiki the respect that they deserve. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. As we have heard from other speakers this evening and during the other readings of this bill, this is basically putting right something that was put in place 30 or 40 years ago in terms of providing for reclamation of land in the Tauranga Harbour, which no longer is applicable. The Mount Maunganui Borough Council, as it was then, created its sewerage system. It had 73.5 hectares, but in total it required only something like 23.5 hectares to be reclaimed for the project for its sewerage scheme, and therefore the balance of the concession of this area of land and water is no longer applicable and is being revoked. We support this.

We congratulate those involved in bringing this to the House: the Tauranga City Council, the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell, and Ngā Pōtiki in particular. This is very special to Ngā Pōtiki in the Bay of Plenty area, who wish to have this encumbrance removed from some of that land and sea water area. As a result, this is a very special occasion for it to have that encumbrance removed from this particular area of designation. We are in support of this. This cleans up a statute that is on the book that is no longer applicable. We do support this and New Zealand First is fully behind it. Thank you.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to be speaking on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner; Te Ururoa Flavell, the sponsor of this bill; and also the local MP and Minister, the Hon Simon Bridges, for the great work that he has been doing in Tauranga. As has already been mentioned this afternoon and this early evening, the purpose of this bill is to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975. The purpose of the principal Act, as we know, was to transfer 73.5 hectares of the seabed and foreshore of Tauranga harbour from the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board, as the owner of the land, to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. As we know, the borough council reclaimed approximately 23.5 hectares of the total area. We know, as well, that this principal Act no longer has any authority, because the authority to reclaim the balance of the area was revoked by the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991.

What was really pleasing, and it was mentioned by a couple of speakers this early evening, was that there was one submission, and it was a joint submission—that is my understanding—from both Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust and the Tauranga City Council. The key thing about that one submission was that it was collaborative. The submission supported the purpose of the bill for several reasons. The first was that the Tauranga City Council has no intention to reclaim further land. The second was that the repeal of the principal Act will provide—and I think this is a very, very important point, and it has been made by a number of other speakers as well—some vindication to those Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua and other members of the community who actually protested against the principal Act. My colleague Nick Smith quite rightly articulated that really what we are doing here is we are repealing an Act that does not have any significance, but it does, at one level, for Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua and other members of the community who protested against the principal Act, have significance because they actually did protest against that. The repeal of the principal Act, as has been mentioned by Te Ururoa Flavell, will help heal past conflicts and strengthen an already positive relationship between Ngā Pōtiki and Tauranga City Council.

The only other thing that I would like to really cover is that in the Local Government and Environment Committee there was actually an amendment within the committee that recommended inserting a new clause, a sunset clause, which effectively says the Act would expire 28 days after it comes into force. The whole purpose of that is that without that clause, one Act with no continuing effect would be replaced in the statute book with another.

We are all aware of the history. Effectively, this Act did transfer that part of the seabed of Tauranga harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. We are aware that only 23.5 hectares of that piece of land was transferred. We are also aware that there was a piece of legislation that effectively revoked that principal Act, but the purpose of this Act, and we saw this through that very collaborative submission from Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council, is actually to also acknowledge and vindicate—I use this word from one of the departmental reports—Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua and other members of the community who had protested against the principal Act.

The final point that I would like to make is that during the application process to upgrade Tauranga City Council’s waste-water treatment plant, and when these other iwi and stakeholders expressed grievances at the time, Tauranga City Council and stakeholders actually concurred—and I think this might have been in 2006—with the repeal of the principal Act and returning that legal status of the land to what it was pre-1975, and that was appropriate. So it has been a couple of years since this has come to Parliament, but, as I said before, that one submission was incredibly collaborative. I think what our select committee managed to do was make a very worthwhile clause around that sunset clause, and it was a very collaborative process across the select committee. I would like to reiterate my support for the chair of the select committee, Nicky Wagner; for the member who sponsored this bill, Te Ururoa Flavell; for the local MP, the Hon Simon Bridges; and for my other colleagues Paul Goldsmith, Maggie Barry, and Jacqui Dean. I support this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): As the House has heard, Labour supports the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell. I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House and getting it through with a lot of support. But I did wonder why the local member, Simon Bridges, who we have just heard does so much hard work up in that area, did not bring the bill to the House, and he had the opportunity to do that. But congratulations to Te Ururoa Flavell.

As you have heard, this bill seeks to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, an Act that gave the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board the authority to transfer part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council. It then authorised the council to undertake reclamation of that part of the harbour for sewerage and for other purposes. Subsequently, the council, we are told, reclaimed less than half of the available area, and the authority to undertake reclamation of the rest was then revoked by the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act of 1991. Therefore, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act has no legal effect. The change made by this bill is to insert, as you have heard, a sunset clause that would provide for the Act to expire 28 days after it comes into force, because without such a clause, one Act with no continuing effect would be replaced on the statute book with another. One thing I do agree on with Nick Smith is that he said we would have a useless Act on the statute book and what this does is get rid of it.

I think what was of interest to me during the debate on this bill was the historical perspective that was put forward by a number of members. It really did enlighten this House as to the effect on Ngā Pōtiki of changes that were made over the years. Nanaia Mahuta and Shane Jones, in particular, gave a very good perspective of what it meant historically, and Shane Jones pointed out his family connections and ancestral connections to the area. Also, I thought Te Ururoa Flavell was able to set out the environmental and cultural importance of the area to Ngā Pōtiki, and the many people who had protested against the original changes must be delighted with this bill today. I also thought that Shane Jones brought a sense of balance to the debate at the first reading, when he pointed out that, sure, this had affected Ngā Pōtiki, but, in fact, effluent does not draw a distinction between colour, race, and creed. In fact, the disposal of effluent affects all people in the area, and being able to tidy up with this bill will probably be of help to everybody.

I would like to also acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was not on the select committee for this bill, but we are told there was only one submission to the bill and that it was a very collaborative approach. Changes were made that have helped the bill and people will be very keen to see its passage through this House. I would just like to say that I think that this is one select committee that works reasonably well together and that Nicky Wagner does a good job of chairing that committee. I hope that that continues with the rest of the bills that we have, particularly the local government amendment bill that we are going to be looking at over the next couple of weeks. I would hope that same cooperation and collaborative approach will take place with another very important local government bill. However, I do fear that this bill is being driven by the former Minister Dr Nick Smith who also sits on this committee, and maybe we will not see the same cooperation and collaboration. So, as we said, we support this bill. Congratulations to Te Ururoa Flavell on bringing it to this House and on having a bill to be passed in his name. No doubt, when this happens to people, they feel a certain sense of pride.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise with pleasure to speak to the second reading of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill, having heard Te Ururoa Flavell, the sponsor of this bill, speak earlier about the history of it and the clear need for redress and the need to put things right that were wrong. This bill is an effort to rectify a situation and it does seem that the repeal of this Act is long overdue.

As has been referred to by many other speakers in this debate so far, there was only one submission on this bill, and for the benefit of the list MP for Gisborne, who was clearly not paying much attention—this is the person who formerly held the seat and now it is with the Hon Anne Tolley—I would like to go over a little bit of the background of it. When Colin Reeder, the chairperson, on behalf of Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust, and Christine Jones, who was the acting chief executive on behalf of the Tauranga City Council, came before our Local Government and Environment Committee, she spelt out some of that history, and it really is worth recapping. I think this is not an untypical situation. It is one where the expediency of the local council took over from common sense for a little while. That is how I see it.

Looking back to 1972, the Mount Maunganui Borough Council proposed a waste-water scheme that required a substantial reclamation within that area of water. That was then done, but the trouble was with the construction of the oxidation ponds from which that effluent would be temporarily discharged into Te Tāhuna o Rangataua. That discharge would occur only until an ocean outfall was constructed at Papamoa, so it was always going to be a temporary measure, but for Ngā Pōtiki, and, indeed, for all of Tauranga Māori, the discharge of human waste into those pristine waters, which had served as a very important food resource for them, was an utterly repugnant measure. The proposal was particularly abhorrent for Ngā Pōtiki, as the submitters said to us—and for those on the select committee on the day who were paying close attention to what they were saying, because we care about legislation and we do assume that the select committee process is taken seriously by even the most languid and lacklustre members of the Opposition who sit on the committee. But this proposal was spelt out to us in heartfelt terms.

Andrew Williams: How dare you! What a rude woman you are.

MAGGIE BARRY: We had a situation where the tangata whenua were particularly vociferous in their opposition to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council’s proposal, because what we had was a flourishing ecosystem. It was absolutely flourishing, but the tidal flats would be lost to reclamation, and it claimed that the ongoing effects of the oxidation ponds would be minor. It would appear as if people on the other side of the House have actually woken up. “How dare they!”, said Mr Williams. Well, he knows all about faux outrage. He is a specialist on it, as I know only too well on behalf of the lemon trees and pōhutukawas on the North Shore, but that is another story.

Let us get back to the 1974 environmental impact report that stated that the ecosystem and the tidal flats would actually be lost through reclamation, but, in fact, that has not proven to be the case. We are very relieved to know that in 1989 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council and the Tauranga District Council—and the Tauranga City Council presented the submission, I thought, with eloquence and a heartfelt passion—decided that those waste-water systems would then become jointly managed. So after about 10 years they embarked on that consultative process. Yes, these things do take time, but for Ngā Pōtiki that reclamation of the foreshore and the seabed, the construction and the presence of the oxidation ponds, remained a difficult thing. The effluent represented, as they saw it, the failure of the Crown to protect Ngā Pōtiki.

So this is an essential piece of legislation, because once the job has been done—and it has, and everyone agrees that it has—we now look at the repeal of this Act. I think that with that repeal, there is a certain amount of closure. The people who stood before us at the select committee talked about the vindication that they felt on behalf of their late ancestors, the Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua, who had worked tirelessly on this measure in the 1970s and 1980s. They were people—men and women in their senior years—who, as a group, over more than 25 years, had protested against what they viewed as a shocking invasion of their ancestral landscape and their cultural values. The relationship between Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council had been a good one. It had always been based on mutual respect. This had caused a great strain on that relationship. As they said as they detailed the history of it, this was something that needed to be put right, and they needed to work collaboratively and constructively.

As my colleague the honourable Nikki Kaye mentioned earlier, it is a very important thing that collaboration and cooperative ventures were agreed upon in a way that was really very heartening, indeed. I think that the submission really summed it up for me. Although there was only one of them, it was a very important one, and it put into context the importance of this bill. So Ngā Pōtiki-a-Tamapāhore Trust and the Tauranga City Council both supported this Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill in its current form because there is no intention for a further reclamation. That has been pointed out by previous speakers. The repeal of the Act will provide, as I have indicated earlier, some vindication to those Ngā Pōtiki kaumātua, and to other members of the community who protested against the original Act, because they were not alone in that. The repeal of the Act will help to heal the past conflicts and strengthen the relationship now between the iwi and the Tauranga City Council that was put under enormous strain.

So it has been, I think, a long time coming and it is long overdue. I look forward to the third reading of this bill, and I think that it is long overdue for the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill to be passed. Thank you.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is my pleasure to also talk on this bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I do want to start by paying tribute also to the work of Nicky Wagner as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was very pleased and heartened to hear the comments of our colleague Annette King about how useful and effective Nicky Wagner has been as chair, and that has certainly been my experience over the last year on the committee. We have steered a careful course in a committee where the Government has no clear majority, and have got through in a spirit of collegiality and all working for the best of the country.

I want to talk about the local member, Simon Bridges, as well. Indeed, I was with Mr Bridges on Monday this week, and we had the opportunity to go for a run around Mount Maunganui, which is a beautiful part of New Zealand. Notwithstanding the fact that he looks quite pudgy, Simon Bridges is quite a fast runner and quite fit, and it was quite a challenge for me. But he is a very effective local MP, and a very effective contributor to this part of the country. I was in Mount Maunganui to have the opportunity to talk to a large and boisterous crowd about the progress the Government is making. I touched upon issues of welfare reform being one of the most essential elements of this Government’s programme for the 3 years, and how important it is for New Zealanders to get some boundaries round that system. I recall that back in 1938 when Michael Joseph Savage introduced welfare to New Zealand he promised that he would end poverty and that it would bring about the kingdom of God on earth. We have not quite reached those goals yet, and it is important that this Government does, for the first time in many decades, bring some careful consideration to that broader system that is so important to the lives of many New Zealanders.

I also talked about how, in the dangerous and difficult world that we find ourselves in—the difficult financial situation—this Government is making great progress, steering a careful path, returning us back to surplus, and governing this country’s economic services in a very effective manner. With that, as by way of introduction, I want to get on to the main point of this bill here, which is the Local Government and Environment Committee’s having sent back to the House for its second reading this Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill.

We have heard, but I just would like to reiterate, that the bill seeks to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975, which gave the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board the authority to transfer part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council, and authorised the council to undertake reclamation of that part of the harbour for sewerage and other municipal purposes. This is always a very difficult issue for councils around the country—balancing the need to have a cost-effective system with the need to preserve the environment. Many councils struggle with this. This council struggled with it, and we had legislation to get us through, and thankfully, a number of years later, the council reclaimed less than half the available area, and the authority to undertake reclamation of the balance was revoked by the enactment of the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act of 1991. Really, the upshot of that was that the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act had no substantive legal effect. Nevertheless it is worth repealing this Act because it is useful to tidy up the statute book, and the symbolism is important, because this has been a source of grievance for the local Ngā Pōtiki people. It has been something that has irritated people, and sat on the statute book there in a way that they found difficult. So this bill repeals that Act, and the Government, of which I am very proud to be a member, is supporting this bill.

I think the main thing that the bill reiterates to me is that it demonstrates the way that this Government has been very effective in its coalition arrangements and in working effectively with the Māori Party on a number of issues. It has all been about working together so that we can have a coherent and stable Government, doing the best for New Zealand in difficult times economically. The results speak for themselves when we cast our minds around the world and look at most of the developing world, which is struggling under a lack of negative growth, high inflation, and watering of the milk with quantitative easing. New Zealand is continuing to have growth over these last few years, effectively, and that all comes down to the sensible, considered, and logical settings that have been delivered to this country through Bill English, John Key, and this National Government. With that in mind, I will be very happy to support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I would like to take a short call in support of the bill, the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I think it is excellent to see this progress being made in the House, and I would like to commend Ngā Pōtiki and the Tauranga City Council for this healing relationship that is being manifest through this piece of legislation. I think it is quite a significant piece of legislation. Most people have made very constructive and informative comments on it. I think it is an opportunity to do that when we all have consensus in the House, so that is a good thing.

I would like to reflect on the fact that the 1960s and 1970s were a particularly ugly time in the history of development in this country, and Ngā Pōtiki are the victims, if you like, or the survivors, of that particularly ruthless time, when the Treaty was pretty much treated as a nullity and the environment was pretty much treated as a dump. So it is really good to see the progress from those days. What happened in Te Tāhuna o Rangataua in the Tauranga Moana area is damage, and that damage is not easily fixable, but the social damage is being rebuilt at the moment, which I think is a very positive step in the right direction. However, when we read the history of it and we listen to particularly Te Ururoa Flavell’s account, we realise the depth of experience of Ngā Pōtiki and others when they tried to stop sewage and reclaimed land being dumped in their pātaka kai.

I think one of the previous speakers said that this is a shared issue where Māori and people katoa, if you like, are all affected, and that it does not distinguish. But in a weird way, in my experience, it does. We have often built sewerage plants, and reclaimed land, and put outfall pipes over Māori land, on wāhi tapu, including urupā. In fact, in my working life prior to being in this House, I was often involved in campaigns led by Māori, with very little Pākehā support—namely in Tai Rāwhiti, namely in the Bay of Plenty—around issues where sewage was being dumped into the rivers and the ocean, and tangata whenua, like Ngā Pōtiki, were forced to take protest action and major leadership. I think the reason for that is that for people who get their food from the supermarket it is not so concerning if there is an outfall pipe going into the water. People who do not gather their kai from the river, who do not gather their kai from the ocean on a daily basis, and who do not feed manuhiri through collecting kai do not have a concept of how deeply offensive it is to other people who not only rely on that food source, as Ngā Potiki did in Tauranga, but also are culturally offended at the most profound level.

Having been through this journey as a mediator between Whāingaroa, Āwhitu, and the district council, and having been through this issue in Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa, and now hearing the story of Ngā Pōtiki, what comes home to me as a Green is that we all have a responsibility as humans who produce waste to take responsibility for where that waste ends up. What happened in Tauranga Moana was an overriding of voices, so that is why today is a positive day, because for once we are all united in hearing those voices and moving forward. It is just regrettable that it has taken so long, and that it has been such a difficult process.

So this is not just something to tick off. This is an opportunity for healing and an opportunity for learning, and for thinking about what happens to sewage. We can get man on the moon—and I say “man” advisedly—but we still do not have systems for dealing with sewage that actually work, and we still use the oceans, waterways, and wetlands as dumping grounds for sewage. If you know anything about what tangata whenua all around the motu have called for, it is for land-based disposal. It is really interesting, having been through a number of court cases on these issues, to realise how complex that has now become, because our waste—which Ngā Pōtiki so strongly protested about, because of the environment that they were trying to protect—is no longer something that we can put safely anywhere, because of the contamination of our food and the contamination of the environment.

This has been a hara—a deep hurt—for many iwi. I guess, when I think about Tauranga Moana, which is an exceptionally fertile, beautiful waterway area, it is good to see that the Tauranga City Council has stepped up to the plate in the critical issue. And the critical issue in healing is always relationship. It is always relationship. It is forming the right relationship, and I would like to echo the comments that Te Ururoa Flavell made about the reason this bill is important. Firstly, it rights a wrong. But, secondly, it focuses on a relationship that was presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee as a positive one for overcoming past hurts.

Regrettably, in other parts of the country you do not see councils even now being willing to take the step that the Tauranga City Council has. I was present when the Gisborne District Council voted down the opportunity to have a relationship with tangata whenua. That was disgraceful. The mayor had the casting vote and voted it down. I am also aware that the Thames-Coromandel District Council just voted down an opportunity to have a formal memorandum relationship with tangata whenua. Thank goodness that the Tauranga City Council, in the face of a challenge that has happened since 1975, decided it was more important to build a relationship and work collectively to get a positive result, unlike other councils that are still acting as if co-governance under Te Tiriti o Waitangi is some kind of threat. Actually, it is an opportunity for healing and for harmony, and for mutual education, and for strengthening in terms of things like how we deal with our waste.

That is why the Green Party is very happy to support this bill. We really want to see waste dealt with in a way that is culturally appropriate and environmentally sound. Ultimately, we have got to get waste out of water. It is a waste of water, it is a contamination issue, and it is culturally offensive. We have to find other ways of dealing with waste that are safe, because mother Earth actually could deal with sewage, but unfortunately sewage is now full of all kinds of weird contaminants—as are we. So it is a serious issue.

I want to thank Ngā Pōtiki and the leadership of tangata whenua throughout the motu for constantly in the last 50 or so years saying no to outfalls, even when they lost, and no to the contamination of wetlands and wastelands, and upholding their cultural rights. Every single place, every single story, every single pipe, every single oxidation pond that has been dumped on a taniwha in Raglan, or piped over the Raglan golf course, or pushed into the wetlands and the reclaimed lands at Tauranga Moana—every one of those stories needs to be told and sorted.

Today is a good day because we are sorting something that is overdue, so all credit to the select committee, all credit to Te Ururoa, all credit to the people on the ground who have led the struggle over a long period of time. It is great to see change and it is great to be here to be moving forward on this. I consider what others have dismissed as a minor bill as nation-building. This is where we actually start to see a change in this country. This is where people start to understand each other better and to talk about something as fundamental as sewerage. If we cannot get sewerage right, we are not going to get the rest of it right, so I really applaud the relationship that has been built in Tauranga. I hope that it applies not just to Te Tāhuna o Rangataua but also to the aspirations of tangata whenua as a whole in Tauranga Moana, because they have been through enough with the Rena. There are still issues with the Rena. Those relationships are going to be the critical things that are going to get us through these kinds of disasters, which, hopefully, never happen again.

But the sewerage disaster, which was created by bad planning and by denying of the Treaty, can be healed. That is why I am heartened by this bill today, because if we actually look to the articles of the Treaty, we will find an opportunity to build a right relationship ever since 1840, and even though it has been trampled on, there are people upholding it. That is what this bill is about, and I am very delighted that the Green Party supports this from a Treaty perspective and from an environmental perspective—because they are not that separate. If you listen to tangata whenua, what they are talking about is the environment being in a state where people can express their cultural relationships and gather kai, and where other people too, manuhiri as well, can express enjoyment of, and a food-gathering relationship with, nature. Nature gave it all to us, and what have we done to it? We have made a mess of it. But thank goodness for bills like this where we start to build relationships so that we can start with integrity to put these things right. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I move, That the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to make a contribution to this second reading debate on what is, I think, a very good augmentation of the Acts that currently preserve this piece of Christchurch. Just to be clear, Riccarton Bush is the last remaining kahikatea remnant on the Canterbury Plains, and it is situated right in Christchurch City, right in my electorate, as it happens. It is also the home of the original settlers in Canterbury, the Deans brothers, who came out in about 1840 and struggled away for quite a few years before growing into the family that has been so influential in Canterbury since.

Their original story is a little tragic. The two brothers came out from Scotland in the late 1840s. They originally went to the Wairarapa, and then moved to Canterbury. One of the brothers was drowned, tragically, trying to get sheep across a river. The other brother established the farming operation at Riccarton and one of the features of his work was his closeness to Ngāi Tahu. He had a lease for 6 miles in all directions, in a radius, from Riccarton Bush. I recall at the time that we brought down a new management plan for the bush, about 1991, Rick Tau from Ngāi Tahu made the comment that they were pleased to see this happen. The place is known as Pūtaringamotu, or “place of the severed ear” in Māori mythology—or Māori folklore, I should say. His view then was that when the New Zealand Company, the first Canterbury settlers, came in the first four ships to the province, both the Māori and the Deans brothers got done—an interesting part of our history. It is also suggested that Hagley Park was put in place to keep the separation between the Anglicans in the centre of the city and the Presbyterians at Riccarton. As one of Catholic persuasion, I have no particular view about that.

It was my great honour to be the third chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust. The trust is a body that has had great continuity since 1914 and during the time I served on the trust we faced the prospect of losing the house and quite possibly losing the bush as well. But it was due only to the foresight of the Deans family that that bush remains now. John Deans was originally quite alarmed, as was his wife Jane, at the rate at which timber was being cut down in the near vicinity of Christchurch City and made the conscious decision to preserve that piece of bush. You know, Jane Deans was a remarkable woman. She lost her husband, one of the original two brothers who came to Canterbury, within 12 months of her coming back to New Zealand, having waited for him in Scotland for about 11 years while he established the farming operation at Riccarton. It is a great history for people to read and to understand the struggles that early settlers went through, and I think that, given the circumstances in Christchurch at the moment, it is quite an inspirational sort of story.

What this bill does is make sure that protections are in place for that very, very special taonga—the kahikatea forest—and that the other grounds, which are much more of an English country estate style, remain available for people to use and to enjoy. I think it is a good thing that we are able to have a body like this that has a long history in New Zealand terms and has not been swallowed up by other local government activities, etc. They do work very, very closely with the Christchurch City Council, and it is the legal team in the Christchurch City Council that has promoted this bill, and I have been delighted to sponsor the bill because of that past association.

With those few words, can I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members for the work that they have done on this bill. They have made a small change, which recognises the fact that between the bill coming to Parliament and today there have been the earthquake events. That has meant that the long-term plan for the Christchurch City Council has been pushed out to 2015. The amendment here allows the plan for the trust’s stewardship of the assets here to be also pushed out to a similar date. With those words I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its rapid passing through the remaining stages.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Labour supports the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the local member, Gerry Brownlee, for bringing this bill to the House. I also acknowledge the Riccarton Bush Trustees for the work they did alongside the Christchurch City Council’s legal services team, which did much of the work in preparing this bill. I would also like to say that I have fond memories of Riccarton House. This is my only association with it, as I am not a Cantabrian, but many a good party was held at Riccarton House in my days as a student and I met many fine people at those parties, I have to say.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Narrow it down a little.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Gerry, you were not one of them, but I have many fond memories of the house itself. But, seriously, I do know how important Riccarton Bush and the Riccarton buildings and land are to the people of Canterbury.

I was interested when I listened to the first reading speeches—and we heard some of it today from Gerry Brownlee—and heard the history of this land and the buildings. Dr Megan Woods, when she was speaking—what she said was the historian in her—set out how the bush itself had been a very important part of the natural history of the place, and that there were protected remnants of bush that you once used to see over the entire Canterbury Plains. There are species and plants that you see growing there that, if you look at them, you are able to see what the Canterbury Plains looked like. She also set out, along with Rino Tirikatene, how important Deans Bush, the buildings, and so on were to Ngāi Tahu. It had been a very important site for them. In fact, many of the carvings for the waka and their important carvings had come from that bush. It had also been a very important gathering place for pigeons and food sources. So it was, I think, a really good exercise in people getting to know more about this historic site.

But what this bill set out to do was to modernise and update the governance arrangements of Riccarton Bush, of the trustees themselves who manage Riccarton House and the bush, and define what the trustees’ functions were more precisely, and also to provide for the continuation of the trust’s work and to improve the finances and the administration arrangements. There were only two submissions to be heard on this bill. I was not there, because the Christchurch members were very keen to sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee that day. The submissions were heard in Christchurch. My understanding is that the Deans family themselves turned up in force for the hearing of those submissions on that day.

The select committee did make some amendments, and one of the amendments that was made was to change the date when the first financial plan must be prepared, from 1 July 2013 to 1 July 2015. This was to line it up with changes that had been made because of the Christchurch earthquake. The Canterbury Earthquake (Local Government Act 2002) Order 2011 has the long-term plan for the Christchurch City Council being prepared in 2015. So what the committee has done with this date for the implementation is to align the bill with that Order in Council. With those few words, we support this bill and wish for its speedy passage through this House.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very happy to rise in support of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill at its second reading, and congratulate the Hon Gerry Brownlee on his second reading speech. It was good to be reminded of the importance of the Deans family—not the Dean family—to Canterbury and Christchurch, and to be reminded of the rich history and the generosity of the Deans family to the people of Canterbury and to New Zealand. I have a family member who lives on Kahu Road in Christchurch and so I often, when I can, go past Deans Bush. It is a beautiful place in the middle of Christchurch, and so it is with great pleasure that I am speaking today on this amendment bill. It is special. My colleague Maggie Barry is going to be speaking later in this debate and I do hope she touches on some of the special botanical features of Deans Bush. In particular, we know that it is a kahikatea flood plain forest. To me that means something; it means kahikatea, which I know to be rather beautiful, but that is it—that is all I know. So I am looking forward to Maggie Barry’s contribution later in this debate, as it will indeed round out the knowledge of this House of this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill.

The purpose of this bill—it is always good to get around to the purpose of the bill—is to modernise and update the governance arrangements of the board that administers Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, and they are known as the Riccarton Bush Trustees. The purpose of this bill is to provide a better definition of, to better define, the board’s functions—which is very important—to provide for the continuation of its work so that it can continue doing its work, but also to make provision for better definition and enhancement of its finance and administration functions. It also vests with the board the land at 30 Kahu Road in Christchurch, so that is part of the purpose of the bill.

What the bill does is it amends the Riccarton Bush Act of 1914, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act of 1947, and the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act of 1949—here we are in 2012 having another crack at it. I understand that the trustees are not finished and would like some further work, and that might come to the House at another time.

The Deans family were the first European settlers on the Canterbury Plains in 1843. Riccarton House, which is a wonderful old building, is a grand—and it is grand—Victorian-Edwardian homestead that was built in stages between 1856 and 1900. Subsequent to the Christchurch earthquakes, those buildings have become even more precious to the people of Canterbury and to New Zealand. It was about that time that settlement also occurred in the town I live in, Ōāmaru. My town, luckily, has missed most of the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes that have blighted Christchurch and the people of Christchurch. I think the people of Ōāmaru are very well aware of the importance of these buildings to Christchurch and are very supportive of every effort to rehabilitate those buildings that can be rehabilitated.

The 15 acres of Riccarton Bush were gifted by the Deans family—a significant gift—to the people of Canterbury. That happened in 1914, and the Riccarton Bush Act of 1914 was passed by Parliament to provide for the preservation and management of the property. At that time the board was constituted to become the controlling body of that gift by the Deans family to the people of Christchurch. Then, in 1947, the Christchurch City Council, the Waimairi County Council, the Heathcote County Council, the Paparua County Council, and the borough of Riccarton joined together to purchase Riccarton House. Thank goodness for local government amalgamations, I say. They are much more efficient. So they banded together to purchase Riccarton House and the associated grounds from the Deans family, to add to the original gift from the Deans family.

The Local Government and Environment Committee considered this bill, as with the previous member’s bill. There was not terribly much dissension amongst the committee. We had a look at this bill, and I guess we will talk about the amendments made when we get to the Committee stage. But we did recommend some amendments to clause 2(1) and to proposed section 23(7), set out in clause 10, by extending the date on which clause 16 would come into force, and that is around the provision of the first financial plan, from 2013 to 2015. Of course, as previous speakers have noted, that takes into account the time frames, which have now been extended because of the Canterbury earthquakes. We also recommended amendments to proposed section 23 to provide for the event that the council does not approve the board’s draft financial plan.

The Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, at its second reading, is getting a thorough going-over in this House, and so it should, because it is a bill and a matter that is very important to the people of Canterbury and also to the Christchurch City Council. I recommend it to the House.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill at its second reading. I do want to, as did my colleague the Hon Annette King, acknowledge the local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who has brought this legislation to this House. But I also want to acknowledge the Riccarton Bush Trustees for their very hard work that they have put into this piece of legislation, along with the Christchurch City Council’s legal services team, who have done much work in preparing the bill that we are examining now.

Riccarton Bush is an incredibly important part of Christchurch and its natural and built history—Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, which members have alluded to—stand on that land. It has been an incredibly important part of our city for some time, but I would like to suggest that it is even more important in Christchurch as it is recreated post-earthquake. That heritage has become something of a contentious issue in our city. This is a very important part of our heritage. It is part of our natural history and it is also part of our built history. We are having the second reading of this legislation at a time when much of Christchurch’s heritage buildings are being subjected to the wrecker’s ball. There are many people who are feeling a great sense of grief and a great deal of loss of heritage in our city. So anything that this House can do to protect heritage, and to ensure that something of our past remains in Christchurch, is something that members on this side certainly are pleased to support.

I noted that Gerry Brownlee in his speech in this reading of the bill talked about Hagley Park and its role in dividing the Presbyterians and the Anglicans in settlement Christchurch. I would like to suggest that maybe some new parks are going to be needed between the current Anglican Church synod and the people of Christchurch over its decision to bowl the Christchurch Cathedral. These are things that Christchurch people feel dearly. Their attachment to our history and our built environment is something that runs very deep. As members and I have noted in the previous reading of this bill, this is an incredibly important part of our history. It speaks to so many aspects of it, from, as I said, our natural history, through to very early Māori settlement history pre-dating Ngāi Tahu, through to the colonisation of Christchurch, and to how it was that our city grew, where it grew, and the different strains of migration involved in that.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to acknowledge in this call that I am taking on this bill. I have already acknowledged the work that the trust board has done in terms of preparing this legislation to bring to the House, but I would also like to acknowledge the Riccarton Bush Trust and the members of that trust who did come along to the Local Government and Environment Committee hearing in Christchurch. It was probably somewhat of a surprise for committee members there to know that members of the trust had gathered around listening to the first reading speeches on this piece of legislation, and that it was an incredibly important occasion for them. It was important, because they had put so much work into this. They know that to preserve this incredibly important part of our history, that work was needed. I think it was touching for all members of the committee to know that those trust members had watched the first reading and had taken it on board. It is also worth noting that members of that trust did bring a book to gift to our Parliamentary Library that further outlines the history of this incredibly important part of Christchurch. I would like to acknowledge the members of the trust who did that and to thank them for their gift to our library.

One of the things that I would especially like to commend in this legislation is the way in which the board was very involved in putting together this piece of work and the way in which the local people were consulted. I think the way in which this piece of legislation was worked through, the way in which local communities were involved, and the way that there has been absolutely no contention whatever with this piece of legislation, shows us what happens when you actually do involve local people in decision making. When local people feel that they have a stake in what is important to them, be that their heritage building, their local school, or anything else that is important—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Their regional council.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: Their regional council—that is right, the Hon Ruth Dyson—and whether or not they get to vote for their local regional councillors. So it is very important. You can see the difference. What we see is great anxiety in Christchurch about so many decisions that this Government is making at the moment. But when, such as in this bill, local people are consulted, and it is done very well, we can see the very real difference that is made.

We do support the tidying up that is in this legislation. People have talked about the various pieces of legislation that it tidies up. I think an important point to note in this is that although there was some suggestion that there should be a repeal and a new piece of legislation, for many people it was incredibly important that there was the perseverant of the historical Acts, because they were as much a history of Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House as the grounds and the flora and fauna itself. The legislation was an incredibly important part of the story of how this part of our city had come to be such a protected part of our land. So we very much welcome this tidying up.

We welcome this particularly—and I made this point in my first reading speech—in light of the local government reforms that are currently going through this House. Who knows whether Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House would be deemed a core service under the new regime that we are going to be living under soon, with the local government reforms that would come through? This bill gives this incredibly important historical site within our city protections and, importantly, it gives the funding that it receives some protection, even under those local government reforms. There are many people, ourselves included, who are sort of not quite sure what is going to fall under this core funding and whether or not it is going to fall outside of what the Government opposite considers to be core—you know, V8 Supercars races, garden shows. Who knows when it would come to Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House?

So we congratulate the local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, on bringing this bill to the House and sponsoring this local bill to the House, so that we can ensure that this incredibly important part of our heritage is preserved. In fact, we would welcome that honourable member bringing more bills to this House that would look to preserve the heritage of Christchurch. We think that it is a great road for him to go down. [Interruption] We look forward to the “Cathedral Bill”—that is right, Ruth Dyson. We would welcome it, and indeed offer support, if the Hon Gerry Brownlee were to bring a bill to the House seeking to protect the Christchurch Cathedral, Cranmer Court, and the list really could go on. Perhaps the Hon Ruth Dyson in her call on this bill might suggest a few other bills that the Hon Gerry Brownlee could bring to this House, because it will be a very long catalogue of heritage bills that we would like to see here.

So, well done to everyone in bringing this legislation. It is important. It was important before the earthquakes in Christchurch, but it is even more important in post-earthquake Christchurch. I think that it shows us what can be achieved when we work with our local communities, rather than imposing decisions on them, and when we involve local people in local decisions and we let their voices be heard. There are so many salient tales for us in this piece of legislation, and so many key learnings that we need to draw out from how this was done: involve local people, have good and accurate information to make your decisions on, and respect your past. Labour is happy to commend this bill to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, which, as other speakers have noted, amends the Riccarton Bush Act 1914, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act 1947, and the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act 1949. I join with other speakers in congratulating the member for Ilam, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, on bringing the bill to the House and also on his interesting explanation of the history of Deans Bush.

The Green MPs’ office is just along the road from Deans Bush. It is a very attractive part of Christchurch. It has got a very nice cycle route through it to the university. The remnant kahikatea forest, and the work that has been done there in putting a predator-proof fence around the forest to sustain its biodiversity values and to allow for the introduction of skinks and other fauna so that they are safe from predators, have been really important in providing such a fundamental natural asset in the heart of the city. Also, because of the buildings there—Riccarton House, which is an Edwardian-Victorian wooden building and is a category I heritage building, and Deans Cottage, which is also one of the oldest wooden buildings in Canterbury—it has got significant heritage values. As Dr Megan Woods alluded to, it is very unfortunate that we are not treating some of our other heritage buildings in Christchurch with the respect that we are giving to Riccarton House and Deans Cottage. They similarly have that significance by being listed in the city plan, and they deserve to be treated as more than old dungers.

Coming back to the bill, we certainly support the bill. The area was given in 1914 to the Mayor of Christchurch as the representative of Canterbury people. The trust organisation is a council-controlled organisation. Six of its nine trustees are appointed by the Christchurch City Council. Given that the trust has had quite substantial funding assistance from the city council, particularly to renovate and refurbish Riccarton House in the 1990s, what will the local government changes that this Government is introducing mean for the future care and protection of Riccarton House, Deans Cottage, and these surrounds and grounds? With the changes to the Local Government Act and the deletion of the four well-beings—social, economic, environmental, and cultural—as the purpose of local government, and their replacement with a much more restrictive purpose, which limits local authorities to meeting the needs of their communities for “local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.”, will Riccarton House and Riccarton Bush still qualify for that funding assistance from the city council? Given that organisations like Westfield have challenged the city council in submissions on the long-term plan for funding that goes towards social housing in the city, will we see other organisations challenging the city council’s funding for Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House with the changed purpose in the Local Government Act?

This bill is a good one, but it is potentially affected by other legislation. It is a good bill because it better defines the trust board’s functions, and it improves its financial reporting and its administration by requiring a financial plan. It certainly makes sense to do this, given the important assets that the board is charged with caring for. New section 14 in clause 7 of the bill updates the existing legislation and will allow the board to charge the public for services, such as the guided tours around the kahikatea forest remnant, but not for entry to that.

The bill also allows the board to grant a lease or a licence over all or part of Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, and when Riccarton House is refurbished again and the cafe becomes operative again, that is the sort of lease and licensing that the bill envisages. The Local Government and Environment Committee recommended amending clause 21 so that the terms of any lease or licence that the board grants must reflect the protection and conservation responsibilities that the board is charged with, and must recognise and protect that right of free access.

As others have alluded to, certainly there was the suggestion, which the Green Party made in a first reading speech, that the four pieces of legislation be consolidated into one. That would make it more readable and it would modernise it, but that was not legally possible, because the notice of the bill was of a certain scope and that would have gone beyond the scope of that notice. It was also not the wish of the board and the trust that the legislation be merged, because it preserves that sense of history by continuing as separate enactments.

This bill is a good one. It is timely, but we do have a concern about the changes to local government and to the purpose of local government, and potential challenges from those who do not see funding going to the trust as being valuable. We think that the area is really important, because of both the protection of the built heritage of Christchurch and the very substantial amenity values in the grounds of Riccarton House, which many people enjoy on a day-to-day basis and at the market. We congratulate the trust on the work that it does to maintain these natural and built assets for the people of Christchurch, and the member on bringing this bill to the House. We support it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): We should firstly acknowledge the vision of 98 years ago when Parliament initially passed the law for the protection of the Riccarton Bush area and the original Deans home in Christchurch. The area that is covered by the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill is of both natural and historical heritage value. In fact, as we reflect on all of the challenges of Christchurch, the magnificent stand of kahikatea trees is a reminder of what Canterbury was prior to substantive settlement, both Māori and European. The original Deans family home is an iconic piece of heritage from that both internationally and “New Zealandly” significant period of colonisation that occurred in the mid 19th century. It is entirely appropriate and I join with other members in congratulating Gerry Brownlee on bringing this bill, which modernises those arrangements that were put together nearly a century ago.

I want to make just two points. Firstly, I do find it extraordinary that both the Green member Eugenie Sage and Labour have argued that without the four well-beings in the Local Government Act—social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being—you could not have a Riccarton Bush. Well, that is a bit interesting, because for 90 of the 98 years of Riccarton Bush, we did not have those four wishy-washy terms in our local government law. Most of us would say that Riccarton Bush was wonderfully protected between the period of 1914 and 2002, when the previous Government with The Alliance gave a blank cheque for local government to do everything. We on this side of the House think that local government should not be doing everything. But one of the things on which we are very clear is that a core purpose of local government is to provide for those reserves, those public spaces all over New Zealand that make our country special. What we would argue is that our councils are more effective for concentrating on these sorts of things, rather than being all things to all people, replicating that which is the responsibility of central government and the private sector. That is a far more logical place for us to be.

It is my view that at some stage we should consolidate the legislation around Riccarton Bush. If we are serious about having an efficient economy and not having legislation on the books for the sake of it, it does not make sense for us to now have four Acts of Parliament to manage and govern the area of Riccarton Bush. That does not make sense. I do not accept the argument that somehow you expunge the history by consolidating the legislation. I would challenge the Riccarton Bush Trustees, as well as the Christchurch City Council, that at some time in future we consolidate it down so that we need have only a single Act of Parliament for the management of the Riccarton Bush area. That is something, as the Green member noted, that the Local Government and Environment Committee explored but was not able to do within the scope of this bill, and I hope we can do that at some time in the future.

The very last point I want to make is that protecting both the natural and historic heritage of Christchurch today is actually probably more significant than it has been for a number of years. The huge challenges that that city has with the devastating earthquakes in both 2010 and 2011 have put huge pressure on a number of heritage properties. Thankfully, the Deans buildings, dating back to the 1850s, are able to be protected and are able to be managed for the future, and I think every member of Parliament would welcome the fact that at least that part of Christchurch heritage is going to be able to be maintained in the future.

This is a good bill, and we should get on and pass it. We need to let the trustees continue with their excellent work of maintaining this very precious part of Canterbury, of Christchurch, and of New Zealand’s history.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Deans Bush, with its remnant kahikatea forest, and the Deans homestead since 1843 is an area of extraordinary beauty on the banks of the Avon River in Christchurch, as we all know. It is, therefore, a very important Christchurch City asset—one of many assets in Christchurch that should never be sold. The current Acts and, now, this bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, will continue to ensure this—we hope.

This property has been well cared for, but, I think, since only about 1990 using ratepayers’ money, and that needs to continue. Before that, in fact, the property fell into disrepair. The early 1990s was the first time that the Christchurch City Council committed the adequate funding necessary for the preservation of this house and the grounds, including Riccarton Bush behind it. I was a member of the council from 1989 to 2004, and I remember going to the property and inspecting the roof, the unsafe rooms that could not be used in the house, the fencing, and the state of the bush itself. The fencing was important, because cats, dogs, and all sorts of other animals were able to enter and do damage to that valuable piece of kahikatea forest in Christchurch. So we committed as a council—voluntarily—the funding necessary to make sure that the past regime of neglect would all change. What we see now is a property that we can all be proud of, despite the earthquake damage that it has received. We knew it was worth preserving, because it was valued by the people of Christchurch—and still is—all of whom can, of course, visit the property free of charge. I am glad to see today in the Press that the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust has given $128,000 to repair the building after the earthquake damage it has received. This, together with insurance money from the property, will ensure the building’s survival in the future.

This bill will help to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the house and Riccarton Bush, and that is what all Canterbury people want to see. But what about other Christchurch heritage buildings? The member in charge of this bill, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, knows that he has the powers and that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has the powers, under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, to ensure that buildings like Riccarton House are preserved and ultimately restored, in whole or in part. As others have said, what about the Anglican Christchurch Cathedral? Why is that different from Riccarton House? Gerry Brownlee has said that it is a matter for the Church, but that is not correct. Gerry Brownlee knows that it is not just a matter for the Church; it is a matter for the whole community, and, I think, for this Parliament as well. Like Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House, where there is a trust board, so is there a trust board for the cathedral, and there is an Act under which that trust board operates for the cathedral. It is very much like the situation with Riccarton House.

So why has no action been taken at all on the preservation of the most important building in the city, and one of the most important buildings in New Zealand in terms of heritage, the Anglican Christchurch Cathedral? It obviously can be preserved, in just the same way that Riccarton House is being preserved, in whole or in part. The whole Canterbury community contributed to the construction and maintenance of the Christchurch Cathedral, including a lot of council ratepayer funding. I was on the council when that was committed—hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So it is not just a Church concern, it is not just a Church asset, it is a community asset. The Minister and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority must act now to apply the funding they have, which includes provision for heritage buildings, to save the cathedral and, in due course, to see that it is restored, at least in part. Many Cantabrians want answers on that, and they want them now.

For the same reasons, this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill should now be supported. It updates the old 1947 Riccarton Bush Amendment Act, as we know. The new sections 5 and 5A in clause 14 of Part 2 provide for a board of nine people: five are appointed by the city council—two of them must be community board members—the Deans family appoint two, the Royal Society one, and the board itself can appoint one as well. That is an appropriate mix of members of the board, and the council supplies the money. It is therefore appropriate, on behalf of the community, that the council should appoint five out of the nine board members.

The reservations that New Zealand First had when the bill was introduced related to some aspects of the financial plan. The city council, in the new section 23(3) in clause 10 of Part 1, could only approve, not disapprove, of the financial plan, which was a defect. It was actually not good law to make it possible for the council only to approve the plan and not to disapprove it. The Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that this be remedied by the addition of new section 23(3A), which says: “If the council does not approve the draft financial plan … the council must provide its reasons for not doing so to the Board; and … the Board must, within 90 days after receiving those reasons, deliver a revised draft financial plan to the council.” This meets New Zealand First’s concerns as expressed in my speech some weeks ago by allowing the council to not approve the financial plan and to give its reasons. The board must then provide a revised plan within 90 days. The council has a majority, as I have said, of appointees on the board, including two community board people, and so should be able to influence the board to ensure that a sensible, achievable, and, I might say, affordable plan is achieved. In this way we can be confident of an appropriate balance—that the board’s aspirations for funding of its financial plan are achieved within reason and within prudential limits, while on the other hand protecting the interests of ratepayers, who will, in the end, be the funders. I am glad to see that the concerns I expressed when the bill was introduced have been met in this way. Therefore, New Zealand First can now support the bill without reservation.

I want to finish by again pointing out the inconsistency between what we see here with this piece of legislation and the very welcome intention to ensure that Riccarton House, as a very important heritage building, is preserved and ultimately restored—in fact, it has been substantially restored, except for earthquake damage, and that will be done—and what we see about the Christchurch Cathedral in Cathedral Square, possibly one of the most important heritage buildings in the whole country. There is a gross inconsistency between the way that Riccarton House is being dealt with and the way that the cathedral is not being dealt with.

I put it to Gerry Brownlee, who is the sponsor of this bill and who is also responsible as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, to see that he acts consistently and actually does something about the heritage buildings in Christchurch that have not been attended to so far. Christchurch people are still waiting to hear what the plans for the preservation of the heritage buildings in Christchurch are. Why is there this silence? Why is Gerry Brownlee silent? Why is the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority silent? Why is nothing being done about that cathedral? It is high time that it was. This piece of legislation demonstrates the inconsistency and the incompetence of both the Minister and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority with regard to heritage buildings in Christchurch, and it is no wonder that people are getting so upset. If you were in Christchurch, you would know how upset people are. I am upset. We should all be upset to see a building like the Christchurch Cathedral being ignored in this way. It is high time that we saw action happen, as it is with Riccarton House.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to be speaking today on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I want to also acknowledge the trustees. They obviously came and submitted to us. I also want to acknowledge the many members for Canterbury. As has been expressed by many members in this House this evening, at a time when Canterbury has been through a huge amount, we must recognise what are community assets. Riccarton Bush is very important to the people of Canterbury, and that is why I am pleased—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

NIKKI KAYE: As I was saying, I just want to acknowledge, obviously, the Hon Gerry Brownlee as the local member for this bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, but also, next to me, the Hon Amy Adams, and all Canterbury members across this House—I can see Ruth Dyson as well. It has been a tough time, so I think it is right that we acknowledge a community area of significance like Riccarton Bush through this bill. We also acknowledge the generosity of the Deans family in gifting this bush area—just like in areas of Auckland, where we have had families like John Logan Campbell, who gifted Cornwall Park—and the significance, particularly given the last couple of years and the issues that we have had in Canterbury as a result of the earthquakes.

I want to just touch on a couple of things. I want to, obviously, mention the purpose of this bill. We have got three primary purposes: to modernise and update the governance arrangements, to better define the board’s functions and provide for the continuation of its work and enhance its finance and administration, and also to vest the land at 30 Kahu Road, Christchurch, in the board. The Local Government and Environment Committee did make several amendments. One of them was to amend clause 2(1) and new section 23(7) in clause 10 by extending the date, which has already been mentioned by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, on which clause 16 would come into force. The second thing was to acknowledge and recommend that amendments to new section 23 provide for the event that the council does not approve the board’s draft financial plan, which was mentioned by Denis O’Rourke. I want to acknowledge as well that the select committee did make a decision around the issue of consolidation of legislation—not to go down that road, as we did believe that it went further, actually, than the scope of the bill. But we have heard from, obviously, my learned colleague the Hon Nick Smith around the difficulty of having several pieces of legislation on the statute book. But there was a submission from the promoters of this bill saying that they actually did prefer the fact that you could see that legislative history.

Finally, I want to make a couple of comments. I know that Maggie Barry is going to address the significance of Riccarton Bush. It is right that she does that. She is a horticulturalist by background. She also, I understand, through Maggie’s Garden Show has actually been to Riccarton Bush and had a programme on the bush itself. She studied at Lincoln University, so she knows this bush pretty well. So I am going to leave to her the intimate knowledge of Riccarton Bush. I know that it has also had an international profile via the David Bellamy show.

Finally I just want to say that it is an area of significance to Canterbury. It is a result of the generosity of the Deans family. The bill is, I think, a particularly collaborative piece of legislation—we have seen members across the House work on it. It is the result of a good local member, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It is also important that we have made several amendments via the select committee process, and we acknowledge that we did not go down the consolidation road because it was outside the scope of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): That was a very gallant effort to drag that out a little bit by the member who has just resumed her seat, Nikki Kaye.

Can I begin, as the Hon Nick Smith did in his contribution, and just acknowledge and comment on the vision of the original supporters of Deans Bush and the people who ensured that this piece of Canterbury was protected by legislation nearly one century ago. I acknowledge their vision and say that I wish there was a bit more of it around at the moment, as we watch huge swathes of our city getting bulldozed over, when they could be protected and saved. To compare the lack of vision being shown by the current Government with the amazing vision shown nearly a century ago is pretty tragic.

I want to acknowledge Gerry Brownlee, the local member of Parliament, for his efforts in bringing this bill, the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill, to the House and also to acknowledge him as the former chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust. I want to acknowledge the trustees for their work. This is a pretty small bill in the scale of things in Parliament, but for the trustees who have worked on it, it is a lot of effort. They were very ably assisted by the legal services team of the Christchurch City Council, and I want to acknowledge them as well.

The Local Government and Environment Committee heard only two submissions on this bill, but it did make the effort of coming to Christchurch. Committee members considered the bill very carefully. They did not just rush it through or dismiss it, and I want to acknowledge them for their work and the Department of Internal Affairs officials who assisted the committee.

I was very surprised to hear the contribution earlier of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because one of his questions to the submitters on the bill was, basically, “Why the heck should we protect Riccarton Bush? There’s a lot of bush in Nelson that could do with a bit of legislation, and I can’t for the life of me think why we should protect this bush as opposed to Nelson bush.” He left his colleagues and those of us on the opposite side of the table sitting there with our mouths open. The submitters thought he was joking, which I think was a relief to everyone, actually, and they just moved on and got on with the bill. But I was pleased that he has since been pulled into line in supporting the bill and he realises that the reason we should do it, and perhaps extend it to areas of Nelson, is because of that original leadership that he referred to in his contribution.

There were very few amendments needed for this bill. One of the amendments aligns the bill with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Order in Council in relation to the position that the trust would find itself in if a draft plan did not meet the approval of the city council. All that amendment really does is allow for a proper process to go through so that the city council would have to give the trust its comments on why it did not support the draft plan back to the trust; the trust would then revise its plan in accordance with the city council’s concerns. I think that is a very sensible modification that was made.

Other people have alluded to the clear passion of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the local member of Parliament, in regard to this piece of bush—this kahikatea that is within his own electorate. I would encourage him, as Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First did earlier in this debate, to have the same sort of passion for the heritage that we are currently losing in Christchurch. A lot of people have talked about the cathedral. Other people have mentioned in this debate Cranmer Court, but it is not just the odd one or two buildings. Fifty percent of the listed heritage buildings within the four avenues in Christchurch have been demolished. Many of them have been demolished needlessly. They could have been saved. They should have been saved, and in my view the haste to go ahead with demolition, and the inability of the Government to show leadership and say “This is our heritage. This can be protected and saved for the benefits of future generations, and here is some financial support to allow that to happen.”, have meant that we have lost a huge part of our history. I regret that. I think it is an embarrassment to the people of Canterbury, and it is something that we will regret for a long time.

The final point I want to make is in regard to the consolidation of the legislation. Other members have spoken of it. It is unusual for so much legislation—three separate pieces of legislation—to be on the statute book, on our list of live statutes, for just one small area of the country, and I think it is a legitimate debate that we should have. Nick Smith raised concerns in this contribution that even though he agreed it was outside the scope of the legislation to amalgamate the legislation under this amendment bill, actually, you might not need historical pieces of legislation in order to restore the heritage. If we do need that to maintain our historical links, I think we should keep all those pieces of legislation on the statutes register, particularly given how much we have lost in Canterbury.

We have lost it needlessly. We have lost it because of a lack of leadership and a lack of financial support. It particularly irks me when I see that $196 million was spent on making Eden Park a place where we could play rugby in the Rugby World Cup 2011, but in Christchurch heritage buildings have received only $10 million, and that has been only when that funding has been matched dollar for dollar by community contributions. So the lack of support for retention of our heritage is tragic. I wish that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, who happens to be the same member who is in charge of this bill, would show as much passion for the rest of his city as he does, deservedly so, for Riccarton Bush.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise with great pleasure to talk to the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill in its second reading. As others have alluded to, I am very familiar with Riccarton Bush. I have been there many times during the period when I studied horticulture at Lincoln University. Subsequently, we filmed it for Maggie’s Garden Show on many occasions. That is because it is unique to New Zealand, and that is part of the reason why I am particularly in support of this effort to make sure that it is set in proper governance and that the ability of the board to preserve, protect, and conserve this remnant of New Zealand native bush is allowed to happen in the best way possible.

It seems to me, as someone who has looked at native reserves over a long period of time—nigh on 30 years—that this, as the oldest protected natural piece of bush in New Zealand, really does require our protection as the people who legislate. Before us, there was the Deans family. We have heard from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the sponsoring member of Parliament for Ilam, that this has a proud history and a unique history. The brothers Deans, one of whom drowned at an early age—and I guess the mantle of protecting that wonderful piece of bush was then taken up by his widow, Jane—and the Deans family were original colonial conservators. They decided that this was a piece of land that needed to be preserved and they took a leadership role that, I would have to say, many have followed down the decades, but perhaps not quite as diligently as the Deans family.

When the Deans gifted it to New Zealand, they did so with sums of money involved and they did so with a rigorous governance structure around it. It really did set a benchmark and a gold standard for the sort of governance that we have seen in covenanted land with the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust and so forth. Riccarton Bush remains a unique feature. I am going to explain a little bit about why it needs to be preserved in the way that has been suggested by this legislation.

As I have said, I have filmed there many times. It is highly significant in this country. It was formed at a time when Victorian gardens were the vogue, so therefore we have the oldest pear tree in New Zealand, which is a French cultivar that was planted in 1846. It is still fruiting, I believe—I have not seen it in the last few years—but it is something that is a unique species and a unique feature. I know that people who do heritage fruit growing and so forth have taken cuttings from it, and it continues to live on. This is one of the truly attractive elements of people like the Deans, who were visionaries and who made sure that something was preserved in perpetuity. Gardeners then take on that mantle in their own way. For me, that pear tree, this French cultivar from 1846, lives on in thousands of gardens through the Canterbury area and throughout New Zealand.

At the time when the Deans were putting their own private garden down, conifers were in vogue—that was the Victoriana moment—so it has the oldest living conifer in New Zealand that has been imported. It is a Western Himalayan fir. At nearly 30 metres tall, it is a remarkable tree. It has been protected, and, again, that would not have occurred without the visionary determination and tenacity of the Deans family.

For most of us who have ever been to the bush, it is the kahikatea, as it is known, the white pine, that really sets it apart. This is a tree that has truly been part of our colonial heritage. It was cut down and used for furniture, for buildings, and for butter boxes—can you imagine—to send butter back to the United Kingdom. It was not highly valued, but it was decimated. It was originally called a podocarp when John Banks came here—no, not that one; Joseph Banks—with Captain Cook, back in the mid-1700s. He looked at the way in which it was classified and thought it was a unique species. He thought it was a podocarp. It was subsequently renamed—

Hon Shane Jones: Did he get investigated?

MAGGIE BARRY: —and it is called a Dacrycarpus. So there you go—say that fast three times, Shane Jones, and see how you fare.

The kahikatea is called the white pine, but it is not a pine at all. The Deans family, when they did chop it down, used that colonial approach of making the most of what was around them but not over-abusing it. Many of the existing older buildings that remain at Riccarton Bush have actually come from the felled kahikatea. The buildings have been made from those trees, which is a fantastic living legacy, once again.

Fossil remains of the kahikatea date back some 130 million years. It is a Gondwanaland tree, and it has been recognised internationally. David Bellamy came across to New Zealand in the mid-1990s and filmed a programme, Moa’s Ark, which was based at Riccarton Bush because of its unique heritage. He was endlessly impressed—in that knowledgable and lisping way that he had down to a fine art—and said that this was a remarkable piece of bush. He praised these New Zealanders, the Deans, for having the foresight to make sure that it would be preserved in perpetuity.

It has also been a sacred place to Māori. It is called Pūtaringamotu, which translates to meaning, basically, that the location is “Pū”, “taringa” is the ear, and “motu” is the isolated clump of trees that is Riccarton Bush itself. Māori legend has it that at a clearing in the bush, if a trained person put their ear to the ground, they could hear people coming. They could hear if there was an enemy approaching, because this is very swampy land. I think, ultimately, that is why the Deans were so successful in keeping it intact, and I commend them for that.

When we were at the Local Government and Environment Committee—and many other members have talked about how we went as a select committee to Christchurch to hear the submissions—we had a great-grandson of the original founders of Deans Bush come to talk to us. We were also privileged to talk with Brian Molloy, who edited a book on Riccarton Bush, Riccarton Bush: Pūtaringamotu. He donated that book to our Parliamentary Library. In fact, I went and had a look at it. I have got one at home, but I went and got it out of the library this afternoon to remind myself of what an extraordinary heritage the Deans family have left us.

And what a huge responsibility we now have, as legislators, to ensure that it remains as easy as possible for this family to continue to keep this piece of bush and the surrounding historic buildings in perpetuity. The trustees were very excited when they came to talk to us, because the cottage had been damaged by the earthquakes and they were looking to raise funds and to restore the cottage. There is an enormous amount of support.

As I think Gerry Brownlee said very eloquently earlier, it remains a symbol for the people of Christchurch, who love their gardens. It is, of course, the Garden City. It remains a symbol of what is possible. It can uplift people and carry them through difficult times, because of its longevity and because it has been there for a long time and will endure beyond this generation and successive generations. So as legislators I think we take that responsibility very seriously. Certainly as someone who has visited the area and the city after the earthquake, I was encouraged to see that Riccarton Bush had not sustained very much damage. As to why that would be, more educated seismologist-orientated people than I could hazard a guess, but it seems to be, without getting too fanciful about it, that the spirit of the Deans family has enveloped it. I think that as a group of Christchurch people—Cantabrians—they have led the way in an inspirational way.

It behoves us as legislators to ensure that the board and the chief executive officer of Riccarton Bush will be able to do what they want to do in as easy and as expedient a way as possible. They have struggled with bureaucracy. There are three pieces of legislation that inform the governance of Riccarton Bush. It is pretty complicated. I know that the Hon Gerry Brownlee looked at it carefully, and decided to take this course of action with this piece of legislation so that it could be done in a fast way and would be done in a way that keeps the integrity of this extraordinary property.

So in the second reading of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill I commend it to the House, and I commend us all in the select committee, which was very well led by our select committee chair who made sure that we argued this through in a very good way.

In fact, as with the previous piece of legislation we talked about today, this has been relatively trouble-free. The Opposition has had the occasional pot shot tonight about protecting other heritage and has tried to broaden it out into a political issue, as is its wont. But I think, generally speaking, as we heard the submissions when we went to the people of Christchurch and they came to us and said that this needs to be preserved because of these reasons, we listened to them carefully with an open mind, and also with the sort of tolerance and informed decisions that I have not seen on very many other occasions in my 10 or so months in the House. The political stuff was pretty much left to one side, and I think that is, again, something that reflects well on us as politicians. Even the most obdurate Opposition person could not possibly not support this bill in the spirit and intention with which the Hon Gerry Brownlee put it together.

Riccarton Bush, of course, was gifted by the Deans family to the people of Canterbury. That is going back to 1914, but beyond that I think it has spread to encompass, I suppose, their affections, and has gone well into the hearts of all of us in New Zealand who like to go to see intact bush. Last week I was at Outward Bound, and the kahikatea grove there was a place where we climbed the trees. I think the spirit and intention of that white pine and these Dacrycarpus are things that I—

Hon John Banks: Who climbed the trees? You climbed the trees?

MAGGIE BARRY: —personally treasure and want. Yes, I might go and climb the trees at Riccarton Bush—this is entirely possible, Mr Banks. I will not be falling out, either, much as the Opposition might like that to occur. People like us who are gardeners—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, your time has expired. I am advised that call 11 will not be a split call—it is going entirely to the Greens. It is not going to the Greens now.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is very much my pleasure to take a call on this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill’s second reading. During the dinner break I had the pleasure of going to hear an angel investor talking about his work in the city. It was very interesting to hear about listening to 300 or so people coming up with business ideas, filtering them down to 20 that they would look at very carefully, and actually investing in three or four. It was very encouraging to me to hear about so much entrepreneurial activity going on here in Wellington and in New Zealand. It is highly relevant to the issue of Riccarton Bush because fundamentally here we are celebrating the protection of a fine stand of kahikatea and bush in Christchurch, but the foundations of it, of course, lie on the success of the Deans brothers and the Deans family who came to New Zealand in the 1840s from a little village called Riccarton in east Ayrshire in Scotland. They were entrepreneurs and that is what this country has been based on: people going out to the other side of the world, and taking on enormous risks in order to create the wealth that we in New Zealand enjoy. They had to navigate their way past floods, disease, fire, sharp depressions, wars, diseases of their own body and mind, and also diseases of the sheep and the cattle back in the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s, in order to build the great sheep stations that the Deans owned and that provided the wealth from which they were able to hold on to and preserve this Riccarton Bush, which this piece of legislation seeks to continue to preserve as it has.

When we look at that question of entrepreneurship, which has been so central to the history of New Zealand and the formation of our economy, what do we look at? What do entrepreneurs like to have in their environment? What do they need for a supportive environment? When you start running through the list of things, one of the things is a good sound rule of law—one of the great inheritances we had from the system of government that came to New Zealand through the United Kingdom. They need access to capital. A lot of them brought that, their few carefully saved gold sovereigns, in order to buy the sheep and the land, to survive the years when it took a long time to convert these sheep stations into places that were productive, and to get through the many depressions—a very sharp depression there was in the 1850s. They needed access to capital, as they do indeed today, but they also needed and relied upon sound money. There were not politicians around back then who were trying to water the milk and somehow think that this was going to create wealth in the country by debasing the currency. No, they were relying on sound money, the gold standard back in the 19th century. They were relying on access to resources, because they had the ability to go out there, and there was a clear understanding that New Zealand was a relatively empty wilderness. There were maybe 100,000 Māori living across the whole of New Zealand at that time. Maybe a thousand or two living in the South Island, so there was a very large area waiting for—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: A thousand or two. Where have you been?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: I read my history books, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you haven’t.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: It is true that you may feature in the history books, but I read my history books, and you have been around for a very long time. It is probably not unfair that we should celebrate such a long and extended career in the House, but perhaps it has come towards the end of its usefulness. I am not sure. That is not for me to comment on.

When we focus on things that were so essential to the formation of the wealth that is the foundation of our economy, then we are looking at that access to resources. Then, I suppose, another issue is our access to skilled workers, workers who can work out on the field, and that was so important to how the Deans built their stations and created their wealth. Funnily enough, when you run through all those sorts of things—rule of law, access to capital, sound money that has not been watered down by tyrannical politicians, access to resources and workforces—those are just the sorts of things that this Government has been promoting and proposing in its Business Growth Agenda, which underlines most of the activity of this Government in the economic growth area, which underlines the strength that we have here and the ability for us to keep on doing what we are doing.

I would just like to now draw at this point of the speech towards the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill itself, where we look at the objects of this, being the Christchurch City Council’s promoted bill. It is all about modernising and updating the governance arrangements for the board known as the Riccarton Bush Trust, in order to better define the board’s functions to provide for the continuation of its work and to enhance its finance and administration—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is this guy Don Brash’s biographer?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: You are just jealous that I have never written anything about you. The bill vests the land at 30 Kahu Road, Christchurch—

Hon Member: Yes, you have—I read it on a dunny wall.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, that is true. Well, you know, I write about interesting people, people who have achieved things—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like Don Brash?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, that is right. If we drill down further to some of the things, I just want to draw attention to some of the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did. It received and considered two submissions. I remember it very well. At Antarctica New Zealand we listened to the submissions, and the committee recommended that the bill be passed with amendments. On that matter I would like to continue just to say that I very much recommend this bill to the House and congratulate the MP Gerry Brownlee on his fine work in bringing this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 19 September.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) 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

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I move, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. In 1989 when Parliament passed the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, it was hailed as a watershed moment in New Zealand’s political and economic history. In fact, it represented a major ideological shift in the way monetary policy is implemented.

Paul Goldsmith: Thank goodness for that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Not only did it result in a new interest rates - centred framework but also the Reserve Bank was given full operational independence from the Government for the first time—and if anybody says “Thank goodness for that.”, well, if his predecessors had not unleashed the dogs of inflation, so bad were they that the overnight rate, at three times the lending rate, went past 1,100 percent on 3 different nights. The proponents argued that this was a fundamental step change necessary to lift New Zealand out of the depths of social—

Paul Goldsmith: It took you a whole minute to come up with that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —no, this was when you were running around in school pants—and economic despair by conquering the greatest evil of all: inflation. In fact, controlling inflation became an end in itself. They told us this would lead to a more efficient, more productive, more stable, and more prosperous economy. We were all going to be better off. They based this on the belief that raising or lowering interest rates can create price stability without any long-term costs, and all but a few of us believed it. The fact is that they were wrong, and 23 years later we are grappling with the consequences.

The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to challenge those failed monetarist ideas. The belief that inflation should always take precedence over other critical macroeconomic factors is not only absurd but also reckless in the extreme for a nation like ours. The biggest side effect of all has been a high and volatile exchange rate—the most volatile in the world. We are seeing it right now. The dollar is at US83c and climbing. This has put enormous strain on the tradable sector, the engine room of the New Zealand economy where real wealth—and I emphasis that: real wealth—is created. Since 2008 a total of 40,000 jobs—where people are concerned, the human factor, and families as well—have been lost in the manufacturing sector alone. On average that is almost 100 per week—not foreigners and aliens, but New Zealanders and New Zealand jobs being lost—and those numbers continue to increase. In the last month there were 100 jobs lost at Tīwai Point, 120 redundancies at Solid Energy’s Huntly East mine, and up to 100 job losses at the Kawerau mill, not to mention the 400 jobs on the line at Spring Creek—

Hon John Banks: How will this bill help it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —or the many other foreclosures and redundancies that go unreported in the news media. It is great to see someone has turned up at last to hear an economic lesson he should have learnt a long time ago, when he used to say that he represented provincial New Zealand. Some of us remember the facts; some do not, of course. Meanwhile, the latest Statistics New Zealand data confirms that the real economy is still not recovering from the economic downturn of 2007. There those members were, boasting just 2 months ago about the outcome of the latest figures. That was a blip and we are back going down again. The Manufacturers and Exporters Association estimates that the overvalued dollar has cost the sector up to $10 billion over the past 3½ years—$10 billion. Ten billion dollars; 40,000 jobs.

Maggie Barry: How many?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, for the horticulturalist—$10 billion; 40,000 jobs. And I tell you, if you are in the kiwifruit industry and in horticulture, or in the flower industry, all this is crippling and damaging.

We can no longer continue to ignore the cost. It is enormous. The context is the global financial crisis, which has had a profound effect. The recession it has triggered with the collapse of US financiers and bankers Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch and others is still with us, and the consequences of the financial and economic crisis are still being felt. You know, I would not laugh, when the fact is that very soon those members are going to be gone. I would not giggle about that, because I know what the polls are saying, and it is goodnight nurse for you. The global economic crisis is not over, and, indeed, the end is not yet what they would be getting when they get into their private moments.

Hon John Banks: How will printing more money help?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I did not talk about printing money at all. I have not said that and it is not in the speech, either. Indeed, the end is not yet in sight. China’s prodigious growth is slowing. Europe is in the grip of crisis. In the US, the recovery is faltering. Internationally, there is a pervasive air of uncertainty. Under these conditions, a persistently overvalued exchange rate is destructive. All around the world central banks are actively intervening to trade against their own currencies. Governments from the UK to the US, to Japan, and to Switzerland, Singapore, Taiwan, and Malaysia are all using competitive devaluation as a tool of monetary policy, so why are we not? Or is it that Mr Carter and Mr Banks are smarter than the Chinese and the Malaysians and the Singaporeans and the Taiwanese? Do they think they are smarter than these people, because their economies are going that way and ours is going that way? The high dollar is crippling New Zealand’s international competitiveness at a time when the competition is intensifying.

We have entered a new economic era in the belief that central banks should focus on only one goal. It is pure outdated ideology. Our exporters do not live in the world of economic theory. They are in the world of harsh economic reality, and one day soon they will wake up around this country to just who it is that is their financial oppressor. Inflation is important, but it is not everything, particularly at a time when inflationary pressures are historically low. Mind you, they are not as low as when I was the Treasurer, when they were the lowest since 1975. That is our record. What is theirs? Since 1975 it was the lowest in those 3 years. Our priority must be the productive economy—exports, economic growth, employment, and jobs. After all, the tradable sector is where real wealth and jobs are created. This has to be the focus of monetary policy in 2012, so why is it not? Now just about everyone, from the IMF to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, acknowledges the problem and concedes we have a seriously overvalued dollar.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, they don’t.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes, he did. You see, that is Nick Smith. So blind is he to his ideology, his ears are not even open. Yes, the IMF and the governor did say that. All manner of people—Blanchard, Stiglitz—are saying it. Lee Kuan Yew says it. [Interruption] No, no, Nick Smith, from the badlands of the top of the South Island, knows better. How arrogant can you get? Back in March the Reserve Bank warned the dollar was too high. It said this was preventing the rebalancing of the economic growth of this country 6 months ago. Now it is soaring past US80c, US83c, with no signs of falling. It has reached the point where many financial analysts say it is no longer a question of if, but when, New Zealand reaches dollar for dollar parity with the US. Oh, that will give those members a jolt, and they will still come out with their measly excuses that “We cannot do anything.” That would be disastrous. So why are they not taking action?

When the dollar was at US76c in 2007, the bank took action resulting not only in a lower dollar but also a $411 million profit. That is a fact. This demonstrated back then that the Reserve Bank does have the ability to act when the dollar is overvalued. It has had a foreign exchange intervention policy since 2004. Section 16 of the Act provides for the bank to deal in that fashion. Section 17 provides for the authority of the Minister of Finance to direct the Reserve Bank governor, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer directs the equivalent English bank. They do it, but, no, no, no, Mr Carter and Mr Nick Smith are smarter. Thus, the legal framework for intervention already exists in the principal Act. What is holding them back? Well, Mr English could do something tomorrow, if he would, but he will not, unless this bill gets through.

Hon John Banks: Oh, that’s not much likely.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, it will be a fact one day—maybe not today, because of the narrow, blind ideology of people like Mr Banks, whose political career is so successful that his party is going to oblivion and he can hold any caucus in a telephone booth. Around about then I would think “My policy is a bit out of date.”, would you not? I would. I would think “My policy is a bit of a problem. I can’t fill a telephone booth.” [Interruption] Oh, no, New Zealand First packs halls all over this country. That is a sign of consumer demand. That is a sign of market share. It is a sign that our policies on monetary policy are relevant and people are wanting them. I might say, as the Bible says, the numbers are growing and they are becoming legion, and one day those members will be gone.

The time for dithering, delay, and indecision over the exchange rate has to end now. It could pass tonight. It could become the fact very, very shortly, but all we are asking for is all sides of the House to give it a select committee hearing. Let all New Zealanders have their say—those for and against. It is called democracy, and why would the Government be against that, unless it is too scared to have its shibboleths exposed to the light of day?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I rise to oppose the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill. I suppose that the first point I would make is that the rhetoric of the member Winston Peters is somewhat extravagant compared with the content of the bill. We heard a lot about shibboleths, ideology, extreme monetarism—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, that’s not how you say it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have got a lisp. You would think from that—

Hon John Banks: Fabian socialism.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Socialism?

Hon John Banks: Fabian socialism.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Fabian socialist—no, that was not used, actually, but it could have been. The member used quite extravagant rhetoric, which would lead you to believe that what was proposed in this bill was some radically new vision of monetary policy, but, of course, it was not, actually. It was not. This bill represents a variation on the monetary policy framework that just happens to be one that cannot work. But it is not something completely different.

I will just read out for the benefit of the House what the member is actually proposing: “The new section 8 provides that the primary function of the Reserve Bank is to formulate”—this is in the clause by clause analysis—“and implement monetary policy directed to the economic objective of maintaining stability in the general level of prices …”. So for all his abuse about inflation targeting, actually, this bill includes inflation targeting, and that just simply reflects—

Hon John Banks: He hasn’t read the bill.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is possible he has not read it. Then it says: “while maintaining an exchange rate that is conducive to real export growth and job creation.” That is the other objective. So in the first place we are not talking here about some radically different view. We are actually talking here about a proposition that somehow you can use the Reserve Bank interest rate mechanism to lower the exchange rate, or, I presume, raise it, if he thought that was conducive. That is simply not the case. You just cannot do that—you just cannot do that.

What we did hear from the member proposing this bill, alongside the extravagant rhetoric, was the illusion he has long held out to audiences around the country for over 30 years. It is that there is some kind of free lunch to be had, if only the mandarins in the Reserve Bank would decide to grow the economy, that somehow growth will just magically appear, that growth in the economy does not depend on how well you run your business, does not depend on how skilled the workforce is that you work with on the shop floor, and does not depend on the state of the markets to which you are selling, and that growth in the economy depends on the Governor of the Reserve Bank choosing it. The Greens suffer from the same illusion, and both of them have taken over what used to be some common sense in the Labour Party, and have now turned it into a bunch of illusionists as well—that there is a free lunch to be had, if only the Governor of the Reserve Bank would decide—

Phil Twyford: Tired old orthodoxies.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, tired old orthodoxy! Well, it happens to be the orthodoxy that has come from 30 years of inflation targeting across the Western World. That is where it comes from.

Phil Twyford: Wake up. You’ve been left behind.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, left behind? Well, at least the former member for Tauranga has come up with a proposition. The Labour Party has not. The Labour Party has just said: “There is a free lunch to be had, but we are not going to tell you how you can get it for free.” Winston Peters has said: “There is a free lunch to be had, and how you get it is that you target the exchange rate as well as inflation.” Well, at least he has put up a proposition. I would agree with that, but it happens to be a proposition that does not work. That is the point. It just happens to be a proposition that does not work.

In fact, one thing has become reasonably clear. If you look at how Reserve Bank monetary policy frameworks are specified around the world, you will find that they all amount to inflation targeting. The Federal Reserve’s mandate is written a bit differently from ours. The Reserve Bank of Australia’s framework is written a bit differently from ours. But what is pretty clear is that all governors of reserve banks make similar types of decisions for similar reasons. What every governor of any of those reserve banks will tell you is that they cannot substitute monetary policy decisions for real effects in the economy—that is, if your economy is getting less competitive, nothing the Reserve Bank does can change that; if your economy is getting more competitive, nothing the Reserve Bank can do will change that.

That is the illusion that is embodied in this legislation—that somehow the way the Reserve Bank makes its decisions about interest rates is going to have an impact on how skilled a workforce is, or that somehow the way the Governor of the Reserve Bank makes this decision about interest rates is going to make the genetic stock of New Zealand’s farming capacity a higher quality. Well, it will not. It does not matter how you specify the monetary policy framework. The key to generating incomes and creating jobs is the competitiveness and the productivity of our businesses. There is no free lunch, and that is where the Opposition parties have got out of touch not just with the analysis but also with public opinion.

Voters in New Zealand, Australia, Europe, and the USA have never been more awake to snake oil than they are now. They have never been more awake to snake oil than they are now, because they have learnt the hard lesson, and the hard lesson of the developed world is that politicians who promised you free stuff in the end had to borrow the money for it. Eventually they have borrowed too much, and you have to pay it back, and the public understand that. They also understand that when people come along saying that we have got to print money and that that is the way out, they know that that spells future danger, and they know that you do that in only extreme circumstances. When someone comes along and tells you that they are going to set the exchange rate, that is a gambler in the casino of international markets, and that is what this bill is about. This bill is about saying the New Zealand taxpayer, via the Reserve Bank, should start gambling in the casino of international financial markets. I thought that that was what Winston Peters was against, not what he was for. If he is trying to force the exchange rate down, do his voters, Labour voters, and Green voters understand that that means forcing their standard of living down and their cost of living up? I thought that is what they were against.

So the bill is not the radical revolution it is made out to be. It is simply a way of operating monetary policy that cannot work. It operates against the interests of the supporters of the parties proposing it, which tells me that they just do not understand this bill. They just do not understand what they are advocating. We understand. It will not work. Inflation targeting is a well-established method right across the developed world that has had at least 30 years of testing and trial. We support the current regime, and that is why we are voting against this bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The problem for the National Party is that its members have painted themselves into another corner. It is a dead end where they are. They accuse others of being snake oil merchants. We heard it again from Bill English. Well, who are they accusing? The International Monetary Fund? The head of the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, said: “Giving primacy to inflation targeting over other important aspects of economic management, like your exchange rate, is wrong.” That is what the IMF says. Who else are National members criticising? Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz. Who else are they criticising? All of these other countries in the world that are doing better than New Zealand. Mr English, New Zealand has a 30-year current account deficit. Under the settings that the National Government is fixated on retaining, this year we have got the second-worst current account deficit in the developed world after Greece, and next year we are the worst in the world. Two years later, we are the worst in the world—the worst current account deficit in the world—because we do not cover the costs of our imports and interest from our exports. One of the reasons for that is we give primacy to inflation targeting in New Zealand, by law, under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, which this bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill, attempts to fix.

Inflation targeting is not an end in itself; it is meant to lead to a more stable and prosperous economy. If it is not, if there are other aspects of our economic management that are being subjugated to the primacy of inflation targeting, when they should have more weighting but cannot be given more weighting because of our law, then the law needs to change. We should not be surprised that these things change over time.

Of course, when inflation targeting was introduced in the 1980s New Zealand had an entrenched inflation problem, and I can see why the decision was made to give primacy to inflation targeting then. But it is not the current problem. If we look back through history, we see something that another expert in monetary policy said to me recently—Jeffrey Frankel from Harvard University. He said two things that are common sense. First of all, he said that no one system of monetary policy is right for every country in the world. Then he said that no one system of monetary policy is right for any country all of the time.

We should not be surprised by those two propositions. Look at the history of the world. Until the Great Depression the gold standard worked pretty well. But we found then that in a downward spiral in a depression, the gold standard works against the better interests of the economy, because countries could not reinvigorate their own economy. So the world ditched the gold standard and they moved to Bretton Woods arrangements, and under that we had capital controls, we had relatively fixed exchange rates, but we had control of our local economies. After a while under Bretton Woods, we actually had stagflation. That system of monetary policy stopped working and so we moved on to monetary policy that focused initially on the supply of money. That stopped working, and then we moved on to inflation targeting, and that has stopped working.

But even if you did not believe that it has stopped working, when everyone is doing it, most countries in the world are not, and the few countries that are left doing it are being slaughtered by competitive devaluation in the countries that are pursuing a new route.

Hon Member: That’s wrong.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is true. That is true. China holds its currency at a low level despite the largest trade surplus in the history of the world.

Hon Bill English: It’s appreciating.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is appreciating a little. I agree it is appreciating. It is appreciating, but it is still held at falsely low levels while ours is held at falsely high levels.

We have got the Singaporeans managing their regime by moving to a moving range, and they are doing better than we are. We have got Germany benefiting from a euro held falsely low because of problems in Greece and Portugal, to the advantage of their exporters, and that too is driving New Zealand’s currency high. We have got the Swiss printing money to manage their currency to a fixed amount, and that is hurting New Zealand, and we are ignoring it here.

We face competitive devaluation abroad. We are not going to get out of the hole that this Government has got us into—a $10 billion deficit externally last year. That is $10 billion more of external debt into New Zealand, and asset sales to foreigners. This cannot continue. It cannot be fixed by changes to the Reserve Bank alone, but it is an important part of the cure. Why are the National Party members not willing to have a debate at select committee and to hear from the economists, to hear from the manufacturers, and to hear from the 160,000—or their representatives—who have gone to Australia? One more thing; sit back. We have had the best terms of trade in a generation in New Zealand, and not one current account surplus. Australia has had a minerals boom for a decade, and they have not had one either. The emperor has no clothes; inflation targeting has passed its use-by date.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Minister for Regulatory Reform): The people of Epsom will be saying “Thank God we voted for Banksie.” The coalition of losers are on that side of the House in Parliament tonight. The “Parachute Man”, David Parker, has just given his dissertation on the monetary policy we can expect if those rabbits get in charge of the Treasury lettuces. His proposition is that we wind up the printing machines, because printing money is the answer. We should wind up the printing machines. And who supports those members? Who are the coalition of losers? There is Winston and his cronies, and there are these dudes over here. The old fogies and the young dudes in the Green Party—they are all lining up after this bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill.

If that approach worked, if it could work, Greece would not be in trouble today, Spain would not be suffering today, Italy would be going—[Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not want to interrupt the member on his feet, but we are now in a barrage situation. I just ask members to keep interjections rare and reasonable. That was inappropriate.

Hon JOHN BANKS: At least we have seen—

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just trying to help him with his—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Hon JOHN BANKS: At least we have one of the coalition of losers getting up on his hind legs in Parliament tonight and proposing a bill—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are well acquainted with the rules requiring members to describe each other by their proper and correct names and parties. I did not question whether the phrase “the honourable John Banks” was an oxymoron, and I do not appreciate—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member has just destroyed his own point of order, and I would ask him to take a seat. Let us have a little decorum. I think the point is that all members are honourable members, and sometimes I wonder a little bit about that. Let us prove that that is the case.

Hon JOHN BANKS: Creating wealth takes hard work and diligence. You cannot do it by printing money, and this proposition is about printing money. The Reserve Bank faces a fundamental trade-off. It can run the printing presses faster or it can slow them down. We can have an economy that creates investment growth, jobs, and wealth, or we can have the coalition over there, which believes that printing money is the answer to New Zealand’s problems and those in the rest of the world.

The Labour Party spokesman for finance matters, the “Parachute Man”, who was parachuted into my electorate to take me out and got 500 votes, says that he has recently spoken to “Joe Stiligitzy”, and now he wants to play God with the economy. He is taking his advice from “Joe Stiligitzy”. “Joe Stiligitzy” would have no idea in the context of the New Zealand economy.

The old dudes and young fogies in the Greens heard about making money years ago. Their idea of making money is making it up on The Terrace at Treasury. The Green Party believes that the mandarins in Treasury are fruits, but they are not fruit loops; the Greens are the fruit loops, because they are going to line up behind the bill from the—what is that party—New Zealand First. It would not be “New Zealand First”; it would be “New Zealand Last” if we went with this proposition, went up to The Terrace, and got Treasury, the mandarins up there—not fruit loops, the Greens are that—to print more money. It might do something for the dollar, but it would not do anything for inflation. It would not do anything for the cost of food, it would not do anything for the cost of petrol, it would not do anything for the cost of technology, and it would not do anything for your farmers, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the bottom of the South Island, except raise the cost on everything they use, on their enterprise, and on their farm, to make money. Higher prices will leave exporters—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am delighted—first of all, you cannot use the word “your”, because that is bringing you into the debate—but I am glad he has got his memory back.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, I did not hear the member. I did not hear the point of order, but the point about including the Speaker is noted.

Hon JOHN BANKS: What is noted is that the people of Epsom said no to these people—no to these people. They said no to Labour, they said no to New Zealand First, and they said no to the old fogies and young dudes of the Green Party because the people of Epsom are good judges of character. And they said no to the Labour Party spokesman on finance matters because he wants Treasury to print more money to raise inflation, to raise costs, and to lower jobs and opportunity for New Zealand.

ACT believes that a dollar today should be worth a dollar tomorrow. This party, the ACT Party, believes that a dollar today should be worth a dollar tomorrow. New Zealand First says that a dollar today could be anything tomorrow, but this will help the exchange rate. It might do something for the exchange rate. It will do nothing for inflation. It will do nothing for costs. It will do nothing for jobs. It will do nothing for opportunity. It will do nothing for business. It will do nothing for the New Zealand economy.

Higher prices will leave exporters no better off, because consumers will be worse off. I did not have to go to Harvard University to talk to “Joe Stiligitzy”. Did the member get parachuted into Harvard University from the Labour Party aeroplane that it used to parachute him into Epsom? The people of Epsom say his ideas on the economy are wacky, like the leader of New Zealand First and like the old fogies and young dudes in the Green Party. Their monetary policy is wacky. That is why the people of Epsom said “Banksie, on balance, you. We don’t want them.”

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The previous speaker, the Hon John Banks, made a statement that was misleading the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise to speak on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill, which is looking at changing some of the monetary policy settings for New Zealand. The reason why this debate is important is that the greatest challenge facing the New Zealand economy at the moment is the external imbalances.

What the Government is either oblivious to or is trying to downplay is the fact that New Zealand is currently running a 5 percent of GDP current account deficit—5 percent, or $10 billion a year. Under the Reserve Bank projections it is expected to increase to closer to 7 percent. This is a major problem for New Zealand, and the reason it is a problem is that there are only two ways to pay for a current account deficit. The first is to borrow more money, and New Zealand already has a very large problem with overseas debt, and the second is to sell more assets.

As people who have followed the debate in New Zealand will know, we have sold off large numbers of New Zealand assets into foreign ownership over the last 25 years in order to cover a chronic current account deficit. If we do not deal with the current account deficit, then, fundamentally, we will undermine our long-term prosperity because we will rack up more and more international debt, and we will have to service that debt, and we will sell off more and more of our assets into overseas ownership—both the land and the companies—and we will lose the profits from those companies overseas.

We know, when we speak to actual exporters, that one of the major problems that they face is around the dollar. This is both in the farming sector—the most recent Rabobank survey found that the overvalued exchange rate was a problem—and it is also across the board in manufacturing, where we have lost 40,000 jobs in the 4 years to June 2012.

The overvalued dollar is driven in large part, but only in part, by the monetary policy that New Zealand has run for the last 20 years, and that, effectively, has been a high exchange rate and a high interest rate policy. In the current context, where other countries are involved in competitive devaluations, that has created an enormous problem for New Zealand that has exacerbated the pre-existing current account deficits. That is why it is so essential that we do something about it.

We have heard from the Government that what people who want a lower exchange rate want is to increase the price of flat-screen TVs, and this is clearly the Government’s populist appeal, I guess, against changing monetary policy settings. The thing is that if we do not deal with our current account deficit, we have a long-term economic problem where we increase debt and we lose ownership of the New Zealand economy.

So when the Government makes short-term appeals and says to people: “Oh, the Government will keep a high exchange rate. Sure we will have to fund everything through borrowed money, but your flat-screen TVs will be cheap.”, that is the Government’s economic strategy, and that is the Government’s political strategy. It wants to be popular by having a high New Zealand dollar, so that imports are cheap. This has been the Government’s argument time and again around monetary policy. But we should be clear. Sure, imports will be cheaper in the short term, but the way we will pay for those imports is to borrow more from overseas.

Remember that our net debt is now at 75 percent of GDP, or $150 billion. So we will pay for these imports by borrowing or by selling more assets. That is the Government’s economic strategy. It is not a sustainable, long-term future for New Zealand. That is why we need to intervene on monetary policy, to bring the value of the dollar to a lower level so that our exporters can survive and compete from overseas, just like our trading nations are doing.

The Green Party has put forward various proposals around that. Some of them are very much in line with the bill that we have here today, which is about changing some of the policy settings in terms of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. The International Monetary Fund in 2010 put out a paper about rethinking monetary policy. One of the key recommendations of that is that in small, open economies the central bank should target not just inflation but also the exchange rate. The reason it said that is that it recognises that small, open economies like ours are vulnerable to overvalued exchange rates that undermine the tradable sector and result in dramatic imbalances building up very quickly. That is why other small, open economies, like Switzerland, are intervening to bring down their dollar.

This bill is a sensible bill. The Government is completely out of line with international best practice in supporting completely out-of-date monetary policy. It is time to move on. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to support the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill. It is really interesting that we have this bill as a member’s bill, because this is one of the bills that will be remembered as a turning of the course of economic history in this country. It may not get up, but the debate is showing already that the old orthodoxy is crumbling. John Banks—and the word “Banks” does not mean he is an ATM, even though you wonder—said that he wants “investment, growth, and jobs”. Is not that what we all want? Is not that what we all want? All around this House, we want investment, growth, and jobs. The question is, on the facts, is the current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act delivering? The answer is patently no. Here is what it has delivered. It has been extremely successful at inflation control, and in the last 2 weeks we have had the new data—0.8 percent inflation this year; 0.8 percent. It is well below the new target the Government has brought in of 2 percent. It is even below the bottom end of the range of 1.3 percent. We have overdosed on inflation control.

Meanwhile, what is going on in the real economy? Well, let us take the financial economy. The ratio of New Zealand dollars being traded to our actual external trade and investment flows is 400:1 More dollars are speculated in the Kiwi dollar in a day than it takes to finance our trade in and out for a year. Is it any wonder, when we are a speculator’s plaything, that our exchange rate is climbing and climbing and climbing? It is 83c, 84c against the US dollar, and it is 73-odd cents on the trade-weighted index, and it is killing our exporters. There have been 40,000 manufacturing jobs gone since 2008, when this Government took office—40,000 manufacturing jobs. They are high-value manufacturing jobs. Nobody has told Bill English and Steven Joyce. Today Bill English stood in this House, and virtually misled the House. I say “virtually” because he was using different statistics. He said that there is no crisis in manufacturing. Well, here are the facts. Simply transformed manufacturing export value declined 14 percent in the last 4 years, and elaborately transformed by over 10 percent. It is on its way down—that is in real terms. In real terms, it is sliding and the jobs are going. That is not an accident. It is a direct function of the settings of current policy. If we want to change the outcome, we change the policy.

This is actually a moderate bill. This bill just says to change the objectives of the Act. It says nothing about quantitative easing. That is a complete straw man argument by John Banks. It is not Labour’s policy to have mandated quantitative easing. That is a matter for the Reserve Bank’s good judgment. It is good enough for the United States, it is good enough the United Kingdom, it is good enough for the financially literate Swiss Government, it is good enough for half of Europe, and it is good enough for Asia. Well, who knows whether it is the right thing for New Zealand, but we say leave it to the qualified experts. But do not rule it out, National, just because it is not part of your ideology or your orthodoxy. Do not hamstring the bank and do not tie the bank to a set of objectives that belong to the days of the credit bubble before the great global financial crisis, in a different world.

I do not know who it was who said “A reasonable person, when confronted with new information, changes their mind. What do you do?”. The world has changed. The bubble has burst. We do not have an inflation problem. Inflation is below the target range. We have an employment problem. We have the world’s second-highest current account deficit—by next year, the highest current account deficit—in the world. That is a crisis. That will take a coordinated policy response, and changing the Reserve Bank has got to be part of that response, because when David Parker and I tour around manufacturing and exporting businesses, as Andrew Little and others of our colleagues have done, every time—every time—they tell us: “For God’s sake, the exchange rate is killing us. Help us to earn a decent day’s wage. Help us to take New Zealand forward. Give us a level playing field. Please, change the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act.” This bill does.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): The last speaker in the debate right now, David Cunliffe, said a reasonable person when presented with new information would change his mind. It reminded me of seeing Mr Cunliffe on television last night. You know who it was who said that? It was his leader, David Shearer. But would Mr Cunliffe, on TV3 news last night, stand up and back his leader, and say that he supported him and agreed with him? Not at all. When presented with new information, he did not change his mind. He scurried back to the same place that all those plotting against the leader on the Labour side scurry to.

You see, the problem we have—and I rise to oppose this legislation, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—is that whilst Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First are trying to talk down our economy, and promote money printing and more taxes, this National Government is getting on with the job of responsibly managing the country’s finances and helping build a more competitive economy and a more productive economy.

Mr Cunliffe said investment, growth, and jobs—that is what they are all about. Well, guess what? The economy grew by 2.6 percent over the last year. It is one of the fastest rates of growth in the OECD in that period of time. That is growth. Labour would love to get rid of that. The Opposition parties do not like hearing this, but the simple facts are 2.6 percent growth, and interest rates and inflation are the lowest they have been for some time. A family with a $200,000 mortgage is now saving $200 a week in interest costs alone, compared with 2008 when we came into Government.

The Opposition parties want to sweep that aside and have got all sorts of new ideas about how we can fix some of these problems. Mr Parker said earlier that 30 years of policy to keep inflation low has been working. Now he wants to chuck it out so inflation rates will go up again. He liked it for 30 years, but now in Opposition he has changed his mind and does not want it any more.

We heard about growth in jobs. Well, here are the cold, hard facts. New jobs are being created in New Zealand. Almost 60,000 more New Zealanders have jobs now than 2 years ago, and our manufacturing sector is actually growing. What did we see last weekend? We saw a rushed summit of political parties from the Opposition—some of their friends in the union movement came in to fill a few seats. There were more seats empty than there were full at that meeting—a crisis we had in manufacturing. We have not heard anything about it this week, have we, after that? Not one question in the House. In fact, the first question in the House about jobs and growth in jobs came from the Government to our Minister.

Our public finances are improving. The deficit has halved over the past year, so we can return to surplus sooner. This is something that the Opposition, the Labour Party, has all of a sudden adopted. Yes, it wants to get back to a surplus now, as well. The bill before us would put these things at rest. It would send inflation and interest rates soaring, and there is absolutely no reason for it.

As for the latest idea from our opponents the Greens, who seem to be leading the Opposition on the other side of the House, printing money can only be described as wacky. What would this mean? Let us think about a year or two from now, if New Zealanders were unfortunate enough to have a change of Government. We would see the Greens printing money, Labour spending money, and Winston denying any knowledge of it—and good on him for that. If I were him, I would keep well away from that other lot as well. You see, if printing money was a way to fix problems in the economy, I say to the Greens, photocopying carbon credits is going to fix climate change as well. It is absolutely wacky.

Our economy is not in crisis. Mr Parker raised the example of a couple of countries in the world. Let us look at those. Let us look at a couple of these examples—Japan and Switzerland. The Reserve Bank published a paper earlier this year that looked at intervention by the banks of Japan and Switzerland, and the relevance of that to New Zealand. It noted that the currency intervention in 2008 has largely resulted in financial losses for both the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan, and they have been ineffective at lowering their currencies. Since 2008 the Swiss franc has actually appreciated by 27 percent against the euro, and by 15 percent against the US dollar. Since 2008 the Japanese yen has appreciated 29 percent against the US dollar and 37 percent against the European currency.

Thank goodness we have a National Government that is focusing on what is important. Thank goodness we are working hard under disciplined conditions to get this economy back on track. And thank goodness we are not supporting this legislation, because the cost to New Zealanders of inflation that would run away in higher interest rates would be devastating. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I would like to bring this debate back to reality, having heard an incredible amount of rubbish from National members in the preceding speeches where they have spoken about money being printed and all sorts of other fantasies, just to try to put the people of New Zealand off the fact that a review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is overdue after 30 years—and we have got two Ministers now leaving—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

ANDREW WILLIAMS: After 30 years the old, tired, worn out National Party cannot even let the New Zealand people, New Zealanders, come to a select committee of this Parliament—organisations, manufacturers, exporters, farmers, all sorts of parts of our economic sector—and put their views about how our economy can better perform with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act being reviewed, so that the Reserve Bank is not concentrating on only inflation.

This economy is not just about keeping inflation between 1 and 3 percent. That is what this National Government would have us believe. That is its sole way of controlling the economy, it would seem, rather than, like most other countries in the world, looking at other mechanisms that the Reserve Bank could act under, which would help control our exchange rate, would help keep a lid on our exchange rate, help perhaps push our currency down a bit, and help make our exports more competitive on the global market. But does this National Government want that? Not on your life. New Zealanders out there listening to this on Parliament TV and radio world: listen to this. You are being led—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Sorry. The people of New Zealand are being led by a National Government that does not want to review the Reserve Bank, after 30 years of the current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act being in place, and does not want to give this economy a chance for a review.

The Manufacturers and Exporters Association has estimated that because of the high value of the New Zealand dollar, manufacturing exports have lost $10 billion in the last 3½ years under a National Government. That is an appalling, appalling figure. The International Monetary Fund itself, which our Minister of Finance said were basically snake-oil merchants—he said anyone suggesting some of these things are snake-oil merchants—estimates that the New Zealand dollar is 15 percent overvalued. This is causing serious harm to the tradable sector. Many exporters are going out of business or being forced to scale back their operations, and the result is economic malaise characterised by low growth and high unemployment.

Forty thousand manufacturing jobs in the last 3 years have been lost. Unemployment under this National Government has gone from about 5 percent and is heading towards 7 percent. That is not a good direction for unemployment to be going in, and if you are then not even prepared to look at all the different mechanisms to perhaps help keep employment in this country, then you really are emus and ostriches with your heads in the sand. We are seeing Tīwai Point in Bluff, we are seeing Huntly East coal mine, we are seeing the Kawerau mill, and we are seeing many, many other major industries in this country laying off people, left, right, and centre, many of which are in the very National Party electorates of this country.

The people of New Zealand need to get on to their local MPs, get on to their National MPs in the rural provinces, in the towns of this country, out there in the working provinces of this country, and tell their local MPs to get in behind a review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, because at the very least this bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill, which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has brought to this House, will at least explore avenues to make this economy more competitive. If we do not do this, we basically consign this economy to continue as it is.

New Zealand is the one country in the world at the moment out on a limb, with totally different policies to many of our other major trading partners. Why would we follow along similar lines to this, in a situation where the New Zealand economy is in dire straits and where unemployment is also increasing? I urge all parties to give this bill a chance, let it go to a select committee, and let New Zealanders have a say on it.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I have listened to this debate with great interest, and I thought the statement that the previous speaker, Andrew Williams, made about setting the record straight was an apt one. I think it is time that the House actually had a look at some facts, rather than concentrating on the sort of rhetoric that we have heard in this debate to date. Let me point out a couple of those facts for the House. I see that the Deputy Leader of the House is smiling. Well, I hope that by the end of her—

Hon Anne Tolley: I’m always smiling.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: She has a sunny disposition, just like the junior Minister over there, Simon Bridges, but there we go. Let us hope that they are still smiling at the end of the debate.

On 19 September during question time, in response to a primary question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Prime Minister said this: “Interestingly enough, also, that member will know that, because he was part of a Government that had Charles Chauvel chair the Finance and Expenditure Committee in 2008, and what that select committee found was the following. It found that New Zealand’s monetary policy approach is now standard among small, open, developed economies, and is regarded as ‘world’s best practice.’ ” The Prime Minister repeated the burden of that statement on 26 September, in response to questions from Dr Russel Norman. He said that I had “chaired the Finance and Expenditure Committee as part of the”—quote unquote—“old Government in 2008, and what it found was we had world’s best practice”.

As seems to be the case time and time again, John Key had not read his papers, because what actually happened in respect of that committee is as follows. We heard 92 submissions from a number of distinguished experts in this field from Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries. We received very good advice, I think, from Treasury. We had independent advisers, including Dr Stephen Grenville and Dr Dean Parham from the Australian Productivity Commission. What is most interesting is the composition of the committee, because we produced a unanimous report. I want to remind the House who was on that committee. Although I chaired it, there was the Hon Bill English, there was Craig Foss, there was Hone Harawira, there was Rodney Hide from the ACT Party—

Hon Members: Who?

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Ah, yes, we remember him well. Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith was the deputy chairperson, we had Chris Tremain, and we had representatives from the Greens, United Future, and New Zealand First. That was a committee from across Parliament, and it carefully considered the evidence. And quite contrary to the claims of the Prime Minister in question time last month, this was the key finding of that committee—I am going to read it in full—“While monetary policy has largely succeeded in delivering low inflation despite challenges, the long-run economic performance remains less encouraging. GDP growth per capita has not been strong enough to close the gap with other OECD countries; the stock of capital equipment per worker remains low; and the country’s export performance appears disappointing. It is also a concern that recent imbalances in the economy at present have manifest in a high exchange rate.”

That is the so-called ringing endorsement that the Prime Minister’s speech-writers and note-takers told him was what we had said in our report on monetary policy. But never mind that. We know he never reads anything, and we know he does not have his hand on the tiller; he simply does what his advisers say and reads out what they suggest he reads.

Those are the problems that need to be addressed. Those are the sorts of problems that sending this bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill, to a select committee would allow to be debated. They are issues that need to be confronted and that are facing us in our economy at the moment. That is why we support sending this rather modest bill—it is the sort of bill that would put in place, for example, the Singaporean approach in the New Zealand economy—to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for careful submission. That is what this legislation deserves, not the sterile ideological rhetoric that we have heard tonight from Bill English, even though he sat on the committee and joined in the endorsement that I read out, and from Todd McClay, John Banks, and others.

I want to commend the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his initiative in introducing this bill. I am proud as a Labour member to stand with my colleagues, with the Greens, with Mana, and with others in supporting this very sensible bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate, because the differing views on this bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill, really do identify the difference between the rational, sensible economic policies of this Government compared with the voodoo economics and the snake oil that we hear from parties opposite. It is, firstly, fascinating to hear the Labour Party say that these are the new ideas—the new ideas for taking the New Zealand economy forward. Well, they are not very new. I heard them in 1990 when I arrived at this Parliament as a young pup. I heard them regurgitated again by Winston Peters in 1996. I heard them again in 2002. These are old, tired ideas that have little relevance to the challenges that face New Zealand today.

I actually want to recall what occurred in 1996, so that people can understand the level of snake oil that is going on in this debate. People will recall that in 1996 Winston Peters campaigned on changes—these very same changes—to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. When he became the Treasurer in 1996, he sat down with the Governor of the Reserve Bank—a very well-known person, Dr Don Brash. And do you know what Winston Peters said about these changes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act when he became the Treasurer in 1996?

Michael Woodhouse: What did he say?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He said: “Well, now I’m actually the Treasurer, that was all just political sales stuff to get me some votes. You don’t really think I believe in any of this stuff? Don, just carry on with the sensible monetary policy that has been practised for the last 6 years.” And so we did.

It was very telling, on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, to hear that well-respected Governor of the Reserve Bank, Alan Bollard, only a few weeks ago. There was a universal respect around the select committee table for the job that Alan Bollard has done for New Zealand, and, equally, there were unanimous congratulations for the significant appointment that Alan Bollard has as the new executive director of the APEC Secretariat in the Asia-Pacific region. I would point out that Alan Bollard was not an appointment of this Government. In fact, he was appointed to that role as Governor of the Reserve Bank by the previous Labour Government.

I think it is particularly significant when you have retiring people making their comments. I would note that some of the very best speeches that we hear in this Parliament are from retiring members. People say things as they are, not trying to please any particular audiences. We put to Dr Bollard whether the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that we currently have is fit for purpose and whether changes like those proposed in this bill would in fact have either a significant effect on the exchange rate or help New Zealand with its challenge of jobs. Dr Bollard was absolutely plain and frank in his advice to all members of the select committee, and that was that proposed changes of this sort to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act would make no material difference—no material difference—and that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, even post - global financial crisis, was fit for purpose. He advised all parties—all parties in this Parliament—against the sort of bill that we now have before us.

You see, what really worried me over the adjournment was the claim by the Green Party that somehow you could solve New Zealand’s problems by just printing money—by just printing money. Do they really think New Zealanders just came down in the last shower? Next minute they will be telling us that there is a money tree down by the library, next to the parliamentary buildings. That is the extent of the integrity of this bill. It is rubbish. The House should reject it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Of course, what Dr Bollard said was that it was “a moot point”. So Nick Smith’s memory is not even accurate. This is the master of voodoo and snake oil. Back in 1990 he did not mind Winston Peters coming down to Richmond to pack the hall when he was a new candidate in the Tasman electorate, because he could not fill a telephone booth. Oh no, it was good policy then. “Oh yes, Winston, come down and help out”—just like Tony Ryall up there in Whakatāne, who could not get a telephone booth full. Oh no, everything that Winston Peters was saying then was great stuff. So you can tell how much credibility they might have.

You see, Nick Smith cannot even get history right. Back in 1996 we changed the policy targets again when I became the Treasurer, but then his future leader, Brash, totally ignored what we set out to do, and that is why the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill is here today.

You know, they are saying that you can have only one target. It is like saying that it is either protein or carbohydrate. That is just ridiculous. It is stupid. It is not intellectual. It is voodoo. It is snake oil, and that is what that man is a master of—although he should take more of it, because it might help his appearance. It is certainly absurd to suggest that a country’s economic policy should rest on one single objective. That is nonsense. It should rest on a Reserve Bank Act geared to deliver jobs, growth, exports, and price stability, and a hope in the future, and keep young people living in our own country. We are stuck in a 1980s time warp. All obsessions are dangerous, and what you have heard from the far side of the House tonight has been that sort of déjà vu.

I want to thank all those from the various parties—the Greens and the Labour Party—who have got up and supported this legislation. Anyone could have presented it, but the fact is that the debate has arrived. This is a sea change day, and they are going to find out very shortly—very shortly—what it means, when they are back there, out of the ministerial cars, where they belong, bumping up and down the streets in taxis.

The Manufacturers and Exporters Association says the loss of $10 million from the last 3 years does not concern the National Party. There are 40,000 jobs lost, real human circumstances—that does not include the spouses, it does not include grandad or the kids—and no, the National Party could not give a darn. National gets up and puts up a straw man, and then thinks it is intellectually honest in knocking it over.

Here is the truth: what is not working is the current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. Everybody can see it. New Zealand companies are going to the wall. Others are on the brink of closing. Hundreds of jobs are being lost every week. Productive capacity is shrinking. Our international indebtedness deepens as our export growth is held back, and up gets the Minister of Finance, who I think has borrowed more money in his time than all the other finance Ministers in the past all together. That is what he has done. It is absolutely astonishing. He is heading for $78 billion of borrowings, and he has got the arrogance to get up here as a paragon of economic virtue. Everything he has touched—it is the Midas touch in reverse—has turned to rubbish. And then he talks about interest rates. Well, we have got New Zealanders out there paying three and four times what they pay in Europe.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Lowest rates in 40 years.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Did you see that? He cannot even see that it is a comparative measure. What is the comparison between us and the UK, us and the USA, us and Europe? Well, it is three to four times. That is the difference.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We’re in better shape.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, we are in better shape. Oh, you are in better shape than Greece—just. Are you in better shape than Scandinavia? Oh, a deafening silence. Are you in better shape than Singapore? No—a deafening silence. Are you in better shape than Taiwan? A deafening silence. Not a mutter, not a murmur, not a sensible syllable or sound. They compare themselves with the bottom league and say “Look how good we are doing”, while we belong to a country that once dreamt to be at the top of the league. Twice in our great history we made it, and soon, with a new Government, we are going to make it again.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Members, you know that when there is a vote being taken it is to be heard in silence, because any comment at all can be seen as intimidation, and it can ultimately lead to a breach of privilege of the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) 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

Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill

First Reading

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare. I move, That the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry, Metiria. I am just not sure that I heard that you nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill.

METIRIA TUREI: I was just about to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): My apologies.

METIRIA TUREI: No problem. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider this bill. All New Zealand children deserve a good life and a fair future. New Zealand can be, and should be, a great place for our kids to grow up. But we cannot deny that for many thousands of children it is not great. It is a cold and hungry place to grow up. It is easy for us to turn away, to blame the parents, to blame the economy, to blame earthquakes or Europe or acts of God, but it is impossible to deny the facts—the facts of poverty in our own country—or to deny that we have the solutions in our collective hands.

The Children’s Commissioner says that 270,000 New Zealand children live in poverty. That is more than a quarter of a million New Zealand children. Fifty percent of these children are Māori or Pacific, and more than 150,000 are reliant on families who rely on a benefit. These facts are why we see on television screens day after day empty lunch boxes in school-bags; teachers desperately seeking funding to help give their kids breakfast; increasing illness, hardship, and deprivation of our littlest citizens; and even reports of kids looking through pig bins for food. These are children whom we know. They go to the same schools as our kids, they play in the same playgrounds as our kids. They have the same dreams and aspirations, but they do not have the essentials, and therefore they do not have the opportunities that many of our kids have had.

We could wait for a miraculous growth to provide thousands of new jobs—and that is certainly what John Key crosses his fingers for. We could wait for some new economic boom to bounce our economy back into the black. But we are not the ones who are waiting. It is the 150,000 poor kids who are waiting and paying the price for this ongoing delay. It is a price that is paid in empty tummies, cold feet, and poor learning. How can we possibly justify leaving 150,000 beneficiary kids in poverty? We simply cannot justify it on any grounds. Such a huge disparity can never be justified in a country that prides itself on fairness and opportunity.

The solutions to this poverty suffered by kids every day in this country are in our hands, and we can, if we choose to, give them a fair future. So here is my first step towards that fair future for our kids. My bill that we are debating tonight will relieve the worst poverty for these 150,000 children. My bill transforms the in-work tax credit into a genuine targeted child payment available to all low-income families. It is a step towards a universal child payment supported by so many in our community.

My bill removes the requirement that a person must work a minimum number of hours from the current criteria for this tax credit. It also removes the restriction that a person must not be in receipt of a means-tested benefit, whether that is a welfare benefit, a student allowance, or superannuation—and we know that many grandparents on superannuation take care of their grandchildren. So this extends the eligibility for the payment to all low-income families. The bill does not alter the means-test aspect of the payment, so John Key’s supposed millionaires will not get the payment from this bill, no matter what he says.

The in-work tax credit was designed to provide an incentive for people in paid work and to alleviate child poverty. But it is not delivered as an incentive. It is actually delivered as a child payment to alleviate child poverty. The tax credit is paid on the basis of the number of children in the family, and it is paid to the carer of the children, not to the income earner. It is not related to the cost of work nor to the hours worked. It is, in effect, a child payment, and it has been operating well for low-income working families.

People should be encouraged to work, and increasing the minimum wage and making the first $10,000 of income tax-free are just a couple of ways to make work really pay. If this Government is serious about creating an incentive for families and for work, it should not pay that incentive by denying to the poorest kids in this country a child payment that will help alleviate the worst poverty.

My bill will cost the Government money, and so it should. It will cost between $300 and $400 million a year. But compared to the estimated $6 billion a year—the cost of keeping kids in poverty—it is a very good and very small investment to make in our littlest citizens. And we do need to make it now, because our kids deserve it. The bill has been described as a practical and just way to address child poverty, by Auckland University economics professor, Susan St John. She says that excluding the poorest kids from the payment as they are now cannot be justified on moral or ethical grounds.

David Bennett: You rely on Susan St John—far out!

METIRIA TUREI: It is disturbing that the National members of this House are barraging from behind me given the serious issue of child poverty that we are facing today. I think it shows their attitude to the issues of poor children who go hungry every day in this country. In fact, the High Court has held that the in-work tax credit is discriminatory in part, and the Child Poverty Action Group is preparing a case for the Court of Appeal, seeking a ruling that the in-work tax credit discriminates against the poorest children. I sincerely hope that they succeed to get justice for our kids.

Some from the Government would have you believe that the poor in New Zealand are bad parents by definition and deserve nothing more. But through this bill I would unashamedly put at least $60 extra each week into the back pockets of families who desperately need it to house, clothe, and feed their kids.

David Bennett: It’s called communism.

METIRIA TUREI: Did you hear that comment from the National member that feeding kids is communism? I refuse to condemn ordinary New Zealand mums and dads who are without work. I was one of those mums once, as were many in this House and thousands of those in our communities. We know how tough it can be, and we only shame ourselves when we judge others or kick the ladder out from behind us, as we know some have done.

Over the past month, like many New Zealanders, I have been appalled by the Prime Minister’s scorn for the seriousness of child poverty, by his refusal to entertain any solution for these 150,000 children, and by his ignorance of the targeted child payment created by my bill. I urge New Zealanders to take this step for children and to join our Green Party campaign to end child poverty, to become champions for children, and to make poverty a political issue so that no politician could ever turn their face away from the facts or the solutions—to make it such a political issue that even John Key could not reject those children who go hungry, who go cold, while he has his holidays and plays his golf on “Planet Key”.

I urge the House to send this bill to the select committee to allow the debate to be had as to what kind of support we should be providing to families and children and how we might best do it. All New Zealand children deserve a good life and a fair future, but we cannot deny that for many thousands life is not great. It is a cold and hungry place, New Zealand. So let us make New Zealand a great place to grow up for every single New Zealand child and do that tonight. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. I want to start by paying tribute to Metiria Turia because I do believe that she has brought this to—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a deliberate mispronunciation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I hope it was not deliberate. Pronunciation is a very important thing and some people do have difficulty with it, but I would hope that the member does his best.

TODD McCLAY: I apologise; it was not intentional. If it was intentional it would have been much, much longer than that, but I thank the member opposite for correcting me on that.

Hon David Cunliffe: It may have been your accent, Todd.

TODD McCLAY: It must have been my accent—exactly. I want to pay tribute to the member—Ms Turia?

Metiria Turei: Turei.

TODD McCLAY: Turei—hooray! I got it right. I pay tribute to Ms Turei for bringing this bill to the House. The reason for that is that I do believe she has brought it here with good intention. But, having said that, it is not something the Government can support, and the reason for that is we do not believe that this legislation will achieve anything close to what she actually wants to achieve with it.

The Government is committed to investing in ways to eliminate child hardship and improve the economic and social well-being of individuals, families, and communities. We are doing that through supporting families and individuals into work and, importantly, recognising those families who do work. I think this legislation would blur those lines about what we need to do in this country and what is achievable for those who deserve support to be able to do more for themselves.

The welfare reforms that we have introduced and the measures that we are taking to support New Zealand families will ensure that we are getting New Zealanders off benefits and into work, where they are much better off. I challenge members of this House to find examples of where families who work are not better off—every member of the family being better off. On this side of the House we are committed to fairness and an unrelenting focus on work, and we are focused on what people can do, not on what they cannot do.

Dr Rajen Prasad: This is jargon now.

TODD McCLAY: It is what New Zealanders voted for at the last election. It is a commitment and a promise we made, and one we are delivering on.

This bill, from a member of the Green Party, seeks to pay people to stay on benefits, rather than supporting working families. I will say that again: it seeks to pay people to stay on benefits, rather than supporting them into jobs and into work. There is a very important difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House. You see, the current in-work tax credit offers an incentive for people with families to gain and retain sustainable employment, helping to ensure a better living standard and a secure future for them and for their families. Evidence suggests that the most effective way to achieve a long-term, sustainable reduction in child hardship is to address its causes directly by encouraging and helping people into work, while continuing to provide support in the shorter term.

This is about making sure that we support those people. As a society and as a Government we absolutely must support those on welfare, who need the assistance of their society, but we also need to take responsibility to help them to do more for themselves and for their families. I do not believe that this bill will achieve that. Evidence suggests that the most effective way to achieve a long-term, sustainable reduction in child poverty is to address its causes directly by encouraging and assisting people into paid work, while continuing to provide that support in the short term.

I want to touch upon some of the things that we have been doing in this area. The issue of children, how they are raised, what support is available to them, and their livelihood around them is extremely important to us in Government, and I do take it that it is important to all members of the House. Where we are different is the approach to how we combat this problem. The Government is committed to investing in ways to eliminate child hardship and to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities, both economically and socially. Some of the changes to welfare reform that we are putting in place currently through this House are a step in that direction.

The Ministerial Committee on Poverty is working through a number of issues critical to improving the lives of low-income New Zealanders and their families. This committee is focusing on ensuring that the Government is getting results from the billions of dollars it spends on a wide range of social services. I will say that again: the billions of dollars that it spends on a wide range of social services. We are able to commit and spend that money to support New Zealanders who deserve support only because hard-working other New Zealanders are out paying their taxes. Where we can encourage people and help them into the workforce, they and their families, their children, are better off. The Government has invested in increasing our knowledge about the nature, extent, and persistence of material hardship amongst families with dependent children in New Zealand, and we are committed to continuing to make progress on eliminating this hardship where it exists in New Zealand.

I hear members opposite say: “Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs?”. We are hearing that a lot, but 60,000 jobs were created by this Government—60,000 jobs have been created. Members opposite might not like that, members opposite may be disappointed by that, but the cold, hard truth and the fact is that jobs have been created. What we do have a challenge with in this country is people who do not have the skills to be able to fill these jobs as they are created. It is a very important piece of work the Government is doing to look to support them, to help them, to bring more skills to them, and to give them confidence and at the same time skills, so that they can find their way to the workforce.

We make no apologies for saying that families are better off when a member of their household works. It is an overarching ambition and a challenge, and the direction the Government is going in is to help more New Zealanders into the workforce. Again—I come back to where I started—to the member who has sponsored this bill: I do recognise that she is concerned about the hardship of children and families in New Zealand, and I think there are many areas where we will be able to work with other parties in this Parliament to find ongoing solutions to these problems. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this bill is one of those solutions, and therefore the Government will not be supporting it.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I found that speech from the member Todd McClay, quite frankly, offensive. The implication from that side of the House that we hear continually is that somehow members on this side of the House, all of the Opposition members, do not have an interest in improving the lives of children, particularly those who are in the homes of people on Government support; this notion that we pay to keep people on welfare rather than trying to move them into work, where apparently everything in life gets better when you are on a meagre minimum wage.

Well, I have news for that side of the House: 40 percent of the children living in poverty at the moment are in the homes of people who are working. They are the working poor. If you want to improve the lives of children in the homes of families who are already in work, you could start by lifting the minimum wage.

This bill, the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, is about poverty. That side of the House is ignoring that it is not just about those who are on Government support. Even in work, families are struggling. And that side of the House has tried to claim that there is not any incentive in this country to be in work. Do you know what the best incentive that we currently have is? How much, Mr McClay, does a sole parent on the DPB receive? How much does a sole parent on the domestic purposes benefit receive?

Todd McClay: How many kids?

JACINDA ARDERN: With one child. With one child, what is the main benefit rate—the main benefit rate—for the DPB? I hear silence. That, Mr McClay, is the best incentive we have to move into work. We pay $293 to a sole parent on the DPB. And what do we pay a 20-year-old on the unemployment benefit? Anyone? Anyone on that side of the House? I will take offers. It is $170.

It is time we broke through the rhetoric. On that side of the House there is a constant implication that people are making a choice—a lifestyle choice—to be on Government support, that they live in the lap of luxury, and that they are making poor and irresponsible choices on behalf of their children. In most cases—in the vast majority of cases—that is simply not the case. They do not have the means to provide well for their children. And the longer that that Government spins rhetoric that it is solely about parental responsibility, all it is trying to do is take responsibility off itself to provide an environment where there are opportunities; where families are able to move into decent, sustainable, well-paying jobs; and where sole parents who are primary carers are able to provide adequately for their children when they have no choice but to be the carer and, in fact, when that is the best place for them to be in that vulnerable stage of that child’s life.

That Government is disowning responsibility for an issue that is affecting 270,000 children. Let us not desensitise the issue. This is not just a number; these are kids who are, as Metiria Turei has said, going to school without food in their bellies and shoes on their feet. And this Government implies that this is simply a state of irresponsible parenting. It goes well beyond that, and any attempt to detract from the issue in that way is an insult to the children who are affected by it.

Let us look at this Government’s record when it comes to child poverty. It dismissed the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty’s recommendations on increasing incomes for children in poverty. It called them “dopey”. It dismissed Labour’s policy of food in schools, saying that fruit in schools was surely enough. It even dismissed my bill, which was simply about setting measurements for poverty and subsequent targets. This is a Government that has no political will to address child poverty.

This bill should be going to select committee. Labour, when in Government, lifted over 100,000 children out of poverty through Working for Families. But we are quite honest; we left unfinished business. Last election one of the policies we put forward as an idea to address this was the extension of the in-work tax credit. We have not removed that policy from the table, but we have been very open that we are looking at alternatives to see whether there is another and better way to increase the incomes of the households with children who are in desperate poverty, and we will continue on that search.

But until that point we will be supporting this bill. This Government should too, if it wants to prove that it has any political will to address an issue that is costing all of us dearly, not least children.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, suggest that she was offended by what this House was saying. I am not so easily offended, but there is a constant refrain that comes from that side of the House that this side of the House does not care about people and it does not care about children. Well, frankly, I find that offensive. The reason why this Government is moving ahead with welfare reform is precisely that the current regime, which we have had for the last few decades, is not working effectively. We do it because we need to do it for the sake of the children of this country.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Labour had 9 years.

PAUL GOLDSMITH: And it has had a long time. I just want to start off with a couple of quotes because what we seem to be boiling down to here this evening is diverging views about the importance of work. I will quote here from Metiria Turei in this House on the first day of this session where she talked about the Prime Minister restating the myth “that work is a path out of poverty. The truth is that it is not.” This is Mrs Turei speaking: “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.” There you have that astounding comment from the Greens, whose members do not believe that work is the way out of poverty.

I recently came across a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935. It is an interesting quote, I thought, from the man who probably more than anybody started welfarism in this country, for those who do not know their history. He said: “Continued dependence on government support induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” Well, I am not sure what to make of both those comments, but the point that I am making is that this side of the House believes that work is a good thing, and the whole point of the Government’s activities and proposals in its welfare activities and its growth promotion and the way that it focuses on building the economy is because we believe that it is best for children to be raised in households where people work and find meaning in their lives for earned success. We go back to Michael Joseph Savage in this country promising that he would end poverty with the welfare State in New Zealand, and 70 years later we still have more of it.

So this National Government is committed to investing in ways that eliminate child hardship and improve the economic and social well-being of individuals, but our welfare reforms are measures taken to support New Zealand families to ensure we are getting New Zealanders out of benefits and into work, where they are so much better off. On this side of the House we are committed to fairness and an unrelenting and unapologetic focus on work. We are focused on what people can do, not what they cannot do. We do not accept that it is a good thing for a child to be raised in a house where nobody has worked for generations. The essence of this bill and the Greens’ policy is just to somehow think that the problem will be solved by giving yet more and extending benefits, when we should be focusing on finding ways to encourage people to get back to work, which is what this Government is all about. I am afraid we all in this House agree that child poverty is an issue for this country. It is that we disagree on how best to remedy that, and this bill, unfortunately, is not, in my view, one that would remedy it at all in the long term. Thank you.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Malo le soifua i lau susuga. The Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill proposes to amend changes to the criteria in the Working for Families package by removing discriminatory elements that are attached to the in-work tax credit. The bill intends to assist vulnerable children, and that is a good thing—it is a good thing. So Mr McClay’s misinterpretation of this bill is a real concern. To say that it is to pay people to stay on welfare is astonishing, in my view. My advice to Mr McClay is this: he needs to do some exercise, and the only thing he should exercise is caution—caution, Mr McClay. No one was born to be a bad citizen. Exposing them to risk and unhealthy environments contributes to the negative outcomes that the National Government has been creating in the last 4 years.

This package is supposed to support families with children on low and middle incomes, and it is worth $60 per week. Is that right, Ms Turei? It is $60 per week for poor families with one to three children and an additional $15 per week for each additional child. However, there are implications. [Interruption] It is weekly? All right. OK. However, there are implications in this package regarding parents who do not meet the threshold for working hours—and I am talking about the 30 hours between a couple. Parents who receive income-tested benefits and parents who receive a student allowance will get $60 per week less in the current framework of the Working for Families package because of their eligibility under the IWTC, or the in-work tax credit.

The proposed amendments to the in-work tax credit are based on elements of the Working for Families package that discriminate on the basis of parental work status. It does discriminate. So this bill aims to amend the Income Tax Act 2007 to capture all children of beneficiaries, students, and families under the in-work tax credit. The proposed amendments would require the criteria under the Working for Families package to emphasise income, rather than work—income, rather than work. Income and work are both interrelated, but if parents are unable to meet the requirement to work 20 to 30 hours per week and their reasons are justified in some way, then the package should recognise this, rather than turning a blind eye to the actualities that people are confronted with.

There are also issues surrounding high unemployment periods, where it is difficult for parents to find work. Work is something that has become a foreign environment on that side of the House.

Todd McClay: Very good speech!

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: It is. If changes do not occur, children will continue to suffer at the hands of the system, and that will contribute to greater poverty rates in the future. The estimated cost of the bill is around $300 million annually, which is a very small amount compared with the $6 billion annually to target poverty. This bill will invest in the future of our children and will contribute to a more equal society.

New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the Social Services Committee. Let the people of New Zealand have their say. It is time that democracy was given a fair opportunity to be exercised in this House. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That was actually quite a reasonable speech from New Zealand First. I was quite surprised and I thought it was pretty good from those members. But let us have a look at what we are dealing with in this House tonight.

This bill, the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, is not so much about work. This is about increasing the welfare State or providing—

Sue Moroney: It’s about communism!

DAVID BENNETT: That is what this is about. That is what the Labour and the Green parties are about. They come to this House and they play holier than thou. They stand up and they say that the Government does not care about children, that we do not have a heart, that we do not make the right decisions, that they do, that they are standing on some pedestal, and that they know what is right. What they are actually doing, though—the Labour Party and the Green Party, and the New Zealand First Party—is preying on the most vulnerable people and their emotions. That is what the left wing is all about. How dare they do that to our most vulnerable people! They are preying on their emotions—preying on their emotions.

The National Government is doing the right things to build an economy that delivers the solutions. The solution is not giving more money to people so that those members can say that they have taken them out of poverty. I ask members of this House: are there members of our communities who are on benefits who are not in poverty?

Hon Member: Yes, there are.

DAVID BENNETT: There are. There will be. There will be people who can manage their benefit to provide food for their children, who can provide a roof over their head, and who can provide shoes on their feet. Not all people on a benefit are in poverty. That is the assumption that the Opposition is making, and it is a wrong assumption. Even the Labour Party came out today and said that 40 percent of the people in poverty are actually in work; they are not actually on a benefit. So that is a reflection of the need to get more income. It is not a reflection that welfare is the problem.

What we are doing here is we are looking for a solution through welfare—a solution that does not fit the problem. The real problem is that we need to deliver an economic solution for New Zealand, so that people can get good jobs, can get a good education, and can make their way in this world. There is nothing wrong with work as the way to get yourself into the better series of income, and the Green Party can disagree all it likes, but that is the secret. It will not come out of this place. It will not come out of this place giving $60 to certain families. That will not take those families out of poverty, will it?

Hon Members: Yes, it will.

DAVID BENNETT: Is $60 going to be enough? Sixty dollars is all the Labour Party says we need to give to beneficiaries to take them out of poverty. Well, how about working people, then, who earn more than beneficiaries and are still in poverty? Does it take them out of poverty? No, it cannot. How can the Green Party say that $60 will take people out of poverty, and yet working people who earn more have still got poverty with the $60? How does it work? Is that the Russel Norman approach to economics? Is it based on his theories? No. It is not true. It is not going to work. It is not going to achieve the purpose. Do not come into this House and try to say to the Government: “You’re mean. You don’t care.” Do not prey on people’s emotions to put your arguments across. That is all that the Green Party is trying to do.

This is the Green Party, the Green Party that, before the last election, said: “We never do personal attacks.” Its members went on TV and said: “We’re bigger than that. We never do personal attacks.” Here tonight, what does a co-leader of the Green Party do in her speech? A personal attack on the Prime Minister. It is all the Green Party can do. Stick to the knitting, look at what you should do as a green party, and do not try to change the economic framework of the world. To the voters out there, be aware. The Green Party does not put up bills about helping our rivers and our lakes; it puts up bills about spending other people’s money, and that is all that it would ever do if it got into Government. The Green Party is all about social reform and it is all about spending other people’s money. It is a classic left-wing party; it is not a real green party. Those members should be ashamed to call themselves that and to be in this House under that name.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. I found that last speech quite patronising, and I believe that that speaker, David Bennett, is blind to the poverty that exists in his electorate in Hamilton. I want to welcome the introduction of this bill, the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, by Metiria Turei, as an opportunity to debate and discuss the issue of poverty that many families—beneficiary families and working families, including middle-income families—are now facing, especially families that have young children. We need to really talk about what we do with the 270,000 children who are living in abject poverty in New Zealand. We in Labour are totally committed to reducing child poverty, and we are looking at a range of ways to achieve this. Extending the in-work tax credit in the way that this bill introduces is only one of those ways. That has been part of our policy in the last election, and it is part of our goal to try to reduce child poverty. That is a goal that we remain absolutely committed to, and as part of our policy process we are looking through a range of options, including the options that the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty has thrown up. We are going to consider those, because we know it is a real problem, and we believe that if we do not tackle it now, it will be dire for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.

David Shearer has also rolled out Labour’s commitment to ensure that children are not learning while hungry in decile 1 to 3 primary and intermediate schools. We have pledged to work with community groups to provide free food in every decile 1 to 3 primary and intermediate school that needs and wants it. Of course parents are responsible for looking after their kids, but that will not change the reality that some children are turning up to school hungry, turning up to school without shoes, and their learning is affected, and that should be unacceptable to all of us. Labour makes no apology for committing funding for the sake of our children. I think that we have got to commit ourselves for the sake of our children.

There have been an additional 30,000 children living in benefit-dependent households since this Government came into power. Again, this is unacceptable. According to an OECD report, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child poverty, and one of the lowest levels of investment in the first 5 years of life, among the 34 OECD countries. Again, this should be totally unacceptable to all of us. Research shows that poverty and income inadequacy are key drivers of poor outcomes for children. There is a need for more houses, quality and warmer homes, especially in Christchurch, and they have to be affordable for all. We have got to be prepared to acknowledge that there is poverty and be prepared to measure progress of what we do about it. It is unacceptable for any Government—any Government—to allow significant numbers of people to live in persistent poverty. The number of children living in hardship has increased from 15 percent in 2007 to 21 percent last year. It is unacceptable, I say, for any Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—to promise incessantly during an election campaign a brighter future for all New Zealanders, and then fail to deliver after he got everyone to buy into that promise. Every New Zealander, I would say, would be disappointed, and has every right to be, in the failure of this Government to keep that promise.

Once upon a time there was no poverty—not the kind of poverty that we see today. People had jobs. People were well paid. Most families could generally have one person working. Everyone had a house that was affordable, everyone had food on their table, milk was delivered to people’s doorsteps, everyone had a family doctor, education was free, and as a country we collectively looked after one another. We came together. Everybody pulled together, did their bit, and afterwards we celebrated over a barbecue. That was the New Zealand way. That was the Kiwi way, and sadly we have lost that. I have to blame, to a large extent, this Government being in power and the kinds of policies that it is introducing. I want to say to National members that they have got to recognise that there is a real problem, and unless they do that, nothing is going to be done under this Government’s watch. Labour and Shearer will fight to ensure that we get rid of the poverty.

JAN LOGIE (Green): As the Green Party spokesperson for income support, it is an absolute pleasure to speak to this Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. This legislation will actually do something, pretty much immediately, to reduce child poverty if it is introduced, and all without stigmatising anyone. It is like a miracle. Of course, it will not fix everything, but it will make an immediate tangible difference, and that is more than any other idea I have heard in this House recently. As a country, we can find the money to make sure everyone has a good life and a fair future, if we just make the commitment to do it—and that is not a Communist conspiracy. Extending the in-work tax credit would cost between $300 million to $400 million a year. Child poverty is estimated to cost this economy over $6 billion a year. The benefits of extending the child payment are more than the costs, no matter which way you look at it. Metiria has already outlined several compelling reasons for supporting her legislation. I would now like to add just a couple more. The primary one for me is that benefit levels are just too low and the consequences of child poverty are far too high.

Now I would like to bring in some of the words of young people and their experiences of poverty, as found by the Children’s Commissioner. This is their view of what it is to live in poverty in New Zealand: “You get sick easily. Being left out. Not having enough money. Shame, neglect, lack of warm clothing. Living week to week. Not accepted by your peers. Debts. Phone and electricity cut off. Hard to fit in and take part in things like sport. Going without necessities. Moving a lot. Scary and stressful. Bad housing, overcrowding. Can’t go on school trips. Choices you can’t make, choices taken away. Lack of warm clothing. Can’t afford to go to the doctors. Cold, grotty disgusting housing. Not enough food. Hungry. Can’t afford school uniforms. Get picked on at school. Missed opportunities. Feeling of worthlessness. No good clothes. Getting pick on or bullied. Sad, disappointed, frustrated, angry. Children paying the price for parents’ mistakes. Lack of school books and stationery.”

I have heard the Government’s view that the way to improve child outcomes is to get their parents into paid work, and of course this has an instinctive appeal to pretty much everyone because actually we all want to work. But there are three problems with this. One is that parenting is work; two, there needs to be paid work to get into; and, three, child outcomes improve only when the parents are in reasonably paid jobs with decent conditions and flexibility, and there is plenty of research to back that up that I am happy to provide to any member of this House. Our benefit system even tacitly acknowledges that. For sole parents with children under 14, their focus may need to be on the care of their children. Despite the erosion of this principle in the new welfare reforms, our welfare system still retains this core value. Full-time work expectations kick in only when the youngest child is 14, so this Government even acknowledges that parenting for children under that age is work and should be able to be a focus, and yet it refuses to allow an increase in income to those families and to those children.

Finally, I would like to finish with a poem from a student from Ōtāhuhu:

Poverty is just a word …

but a word that means a lot

not when said

but when seen.

Poverty is just a cycle

but an on-going cycle

not being altered

but left aside.

Poverty is on our conscience

but at the back of our minds

not acted on …

but why not?

“PLEEZZE To people in power + the Government—don’t tuck us away as a statistic.”

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. Even the name is ridiculous. It is, of course, a natural extension for a party that wants to print money, put us on the path that Zimbabwe is on, and make us the richest country on the planet. Quantitative easing—literally printing money—is a flawed notion for a party that thinks it is helping out people who are poor. It is very consistent with the bill it has put up now, which we utterly oppose. Perhaps I will come back to quantitative easing, because there is so much to say about it.

I would like to firstly outline why we are against the bill. The John Key National-led Government is committed to investing in ways to eliminate child hardship and to improve the economic and social well-being of individuals, families, and communities. This is a bill that would work against that. Our welfare reforms and the measures we are taking to support New Zealand families are going to absolutely ensure that we will get New Zealanders off benefits and into work, where they will be much better off, instead of leaving them imprisoned in a benefit system. On this side of the House we are committed to fairness and an unrelenting focus on work. This is what people do, if they can. Being on benefits, being cocooned, being on “Cloud Green”, or whatever you are calling yourselves these days, is a ridiculous thing—as ridiculous as the name of this bill and the notion that underpins it. This is a bill from the Greens that seeks to pay people to stay on benefits, rather than support working families. [Interruption] Of course it is. There are none so blind as those who do not see.

Let us go back to one of the favourite things that Dr Norman put out last week about quantitative easing. I mean, how ridiculous—hitting the poor the hardest. If you printed money in the way that Zimbabwe does, and Dr Norman and his band of merry Greens would have us do, then everybody who goes to the supermarket, goes to the petrol pump, goes to buy children’s clothing will have to pay more. So what is the point of that? How is that going to relieve child poverty and hardship within families? It will make it worse. The 1+1=2 scenario is lost on the Greens. Arithmetically they are utterly challenged, and this is yet further proof of it.

I looked through this bill. The current in-work tax credit, which is offering currently an incentive for people with families to gain and retain sustainable employment, is also helping to ensure a better living standard and to secure a future for them and their families—not borrow, borrow, borrow, get further into debt, get indebted not just for this generation but for future generations. Again, it is the printing money thing. You know, we should remind ourselves about the “Watermelon Greens”—green on the outside and bright red to the core. It is a very socialist—and that is putting it mildly—measure that they come out with repeatedly. It is nonsense. So I am very proud to be part of a Government that does not support it in any way, shape, or form.

Let us look at some of the evidence, shall we? I mean, this is something you probably cannot google in 2 minutes, which is what the Greens and their research unit tend to go in for, rather than substantive evidence and substantive proof. It is just kind of what they do, really. So let us look at the evidence. It suggests that the most effective way to achieve a long-term—not just a short-term, little, tiny, Green-minded one, but a long-term one—sustained reduction in child poverty is to address the causes directly, and that is why encouraging and assisting people into paid work while continuing to provide support in the short term is targeted. The pained expressions, the unbelieving faces of the Greens! They really do not get it, and maybe they never will. But we will certainly not be voting in favour of this bill.

I am very proud to be part of a Government that in fact does things that really make the future secure for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. We care about the environment. The Greens purport to. How many questions do they ever ask in the House about the environment? There is the odd one on fracking, the Māui’s dolphin, one or two on—what is your favourite, Ms Logie? Sex-change people going into prisons. There has been a lot of talk of these fringe issues. And the other stuff they prattle on about? Well, it is about the economy, because Dr Norman wants to be the next Minister of Finance, if the unholy alliance of Labour and the Greens ever actually makes it across the line. I fervently hope they do not, for the sake of New Zealand and our long-term future.

There is an international consensus, too, that the Greens tend to miss out on. The medical community knows and understands—our esteemed Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, does as well—the general health benefits. People’s recovery from illness or injury is improved. To be in an environment where there is not benefit dependency is a good thing. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.