Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Volume 687
Sitting date: 26 February 2013
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions
Question No. 2 to Minister, 20 February
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question asked during question time last Wednesday.
Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In response to a supplementary question asked during oral question No. 2 last Wednesday, I indicated that Skycity’s architects had approached Television New Zealand regarding the land. I have accepted Television New Zealand’s statement that it has not had such an approach, and accordingly my answer should be corrected.
Hon Member: Why did you say it?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I thought it was true. I thought it was right.
Points of Order
Questions for Oral Answer—Rewording of Substantive Question
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning I submitted a question to your office—which turns out to be question No. 1 but reframed—which asks the Prime Minister, and was refused by your office, whether or not he had misled the House last week. That statement from the Prime Minister says he did, so why did your office rule out my question? That is what my point of order is about.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, certainly I am unaware of the discussion that took place between your office and the Office of the Clerk, except that it was finally resolved that the question would be asked as it has now been put on the Order Paper, and that is the way it is officially before this House.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Speaking further to my point of order, my point of order is why your office construed the question “Why did you mislead the House last week?”—something that was confirmed the next day by Mr Joyce—as “You can’t make an allegation of contempt.” Simply, that is fallacious advice, but we are forced to have to accept it. I want an explanation for it, because the Prime Minister has now confirmed what my question set out to prove.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think there are two points to make. The first is that the questions are, in fact, your responsibility, Mr Speaker, not the responsibility of your office, and I think that should be made clear. All work that is done is on your behalf. But the second point—and I think it is a most important one—is that to commit a contempt someone has to allege a deliberate misleading of the House. My understanding is that the question did not indicate a deliberate misleading of the House, just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill misleading.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the members. It is time now to move on.
Obituaries
Ralph Hōtere ONZ
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice concerning the death of Ralph Hōtere ONZ.
Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move, That this Parliament mark the passing of Ralph Hōtere, ONZ. Today we mark the passing of a great New Zealander, Ralph Hōtere. The tributes flooding in from every sector of society are testimony to the significance of his life and work. Ralph Hōtere will be remembered as a man of great mana and as a highly acclaimed artist whose work spoke from the heart to all New Zealanders. He embraced the artistic traditions of Māori and European culture. He developed his own distinctive vision, and it is said of his work that he transcended cultural divides.
Ralph Hōtere was a pioneer in New Zealand contemporary art, and well known for his technical innovation. His work as a sculptor, painter, and collaborative artist has had a huge impact on the careers of many artists who have followed in his footsteps. His work often expressed profound statements about the issues of the day. He was not slow in stepping into the fray with his commentary on South Africa’s apartheid policies and nuclear testing in the Pacific, and his opposition to a proposed aluminium smelter at the head of Otago Harbour. His message was made doubly powerful by the elegant beauty of his work and its impeccable execution. Future generations will be fortunate to have his legacy of works in public and private collections throughout New Zealand.
I was very pleased Ralph Hōtere’s stature and contribution to the social and cultural life of this country could be recognised with the nation’s highest official recognition, the Order of New Zealand, in the 2012 New Year’s Honours List. On behalf of all New Zealanders, I express sincere condolences to his wife, Mary McFarlane, his daughter, his wider whānau, and the many friends he left behind. May he rest in peace.
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to join with the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Ralph Hōtere, who will be remembered by New Zealanders as one of our greatest artists. I would like to express Labour’s sincere condolences to his family and friends, who are mourning his passing.
Ralph Hōtere was described by those who knew him as a quiet man with very strong convictions. He did not seek the limelight. He would prefer to let his thoughtful and provocative works speak for themselves. From the very beginning of his career, more than five decades ago, to the very end, he boldly tackled the political issues that divided us as a nation. They included his controversial and memorable Black Union Jack series questioning the Springbok Tour in 1981. Ralph Hōtere also was not afraid to challenge our way of thinking and to champion causes that were dear to his heart. We remember his magnificent Aramoana series where he expressed his fierce opposition to the building of an aluminium smelter. It is for this kind of work that he has been described as a warrior artist, and deservedly so.
Ralph Hōtere’s lifelong service to this country was recognised last year when he was appointed to the Order of New Zealand. It is an honour he richly deserved. At the time, Governor-General the Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae said that Ralph Hōtere’s contribution has been to “enrich the cultural and social fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand”. All New Zealanders would agree with that as we stand here today to mark the passing of a fine man and an artistic genius. His works not only have touched us all as New Zealanders but have resonated with art lovers around the world, and will continue to be appreciated by generations to come. Ralph Hōtere’s death at the age of 81 is a huge loss, but he leaves behind a legacy of artwork that will ensure he is never forgotten, and we thank him for that.
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party is very sad to stand in support of this motion, and we extend to Ralph Hōtere’s family, his friends, and the people of Dunedin, who loved him, our very deepest sympathy. Rather than use my own inadequate words, I will talk about Ralph Hōtere in the words of Hone Tūwhare in this poem “Hotere”:
When you offer only three
vertical lines precisely drawn
and set into a dark pool of lacquer
it is a visual kind of starvation:
and even though my eyeballs
roll up and over to peer inside
myself, when I reach the beginning
of your eternity I say instead: hell
let’s have another feed of mussels
Like, I have to think about it, man
When you stack horizontal lines
into vertical columns which appear
to advance, recede, shimmer and wave
like exploding packs of card
I merely grunt and say: well, if it
is not a famine, it’s a feast
I have to roll another smoke, man
But when you score a superb orange
circle on a purple thought-base
I shake my head and say: hell, what
is this thing called aroha
Like, I’m euchred man. I’m eclipsed?
Kia ora.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First wishes to express our condolences to the family and friends of Ralph Hōtere. He was an original as a painter, sculptor, and collaborative artist. Over a long career, he achieved recognition as a foremost contemporary New Zealand artist. He also played a full part in New Zealand’s social, cultural, and, indeed, political life. It is notable that Hōtere was made a member of the Order of New Zealand in 2012, the only person to be awarded the country’s highest honour that year. This reflected his outstanding contribution to New Zealand, and he made a difference by enriching our world.
Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time, and the people of Mitimiti in the Hokianga from whence he came.
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kōrero ahau mō Te Pāti Māori mō te rangatira nō Te Aupōuri i Te Rārawa, arā, a Hone Pāpita Raukura Ralph Hōtere.
[And greetings to you, Mr Speaker, I speak on behalf of the Māori Party about the respected one from Te Aupōuri at Te Rārawa, Hone Pāpita Raukura Ralph Hōtere.]
Ralph was well known internationally for his wonderful artworks, but he was also a much loved man who was respected within our community. He was born in Mitimiti, Hokianga and schooled at Hato Pētera College in Auckland. Everywhere he stepped through his life he made an impact. He moved to the other end of the motu to Dunedin but also travelled the world to refine his craft. During his time in Auckland we became friends around the whare wānanga. Our crew included Barry Crump, Hone Tūwhare, Buck Nin, and Colin McCahon in the arts world, and then with anthropologists like Pat Hōhepa, Bruce Biggs, and many, many others. Ralph was a humble man. Despite his obvious talents, he would never accept praise. He tangata whakaiti, he tangata hūmārie.
[He was a humble and amiable person.]
He also used his art to speak for itself. He was not one to interpret it for you. It was what it was, and you read into it how you liked. More than an artist, Ralph’s artworks encapsulated much of the struggle that tangata whenua were facing during his time. He was an activist. He was a thought-provoking philosopher. He was an advocate for Māori rights. He was a man’s man, and he may have been a quiet man but he certainly found a way to communicate his thoughts around the world through his artwork. He obviously had a wonderful understanding of the world around. We are proud of his achievements both here in Aotearoa and internationally. He pushed boundaries. He led the way for New Zealand art, and as a result he has earned his place in our history and the world’s history.
His art hangs here in Parliament, it adorns the front of Te Puni Kōkiri building, and at many other places around the motu. Most important, it hangs in the homes of those whom he loved, and who love him. It will remain a reminder of his great talent and his great contribution. He took our culture to the world. He took our aspirations as tangata whenua and enticed people to engage in our history and our stories. He had refined artistic skill but he was also a storyteller at heart. It was our New Zealand stories that he told so well. He will be sorely missed and we send our aroha and condolences to his whānau.
Ki tana hoa rangatira, ā, ki a Andrea hoki. Nā reira, kai te rangatira, takoto, haere. Haere atu ki a rātou e kīia nei ko te mana, ko te tini. Haere atu ki a rātou ko te paepae maumahara, ko te kāpunipunitanga ō-Wairua. Nā reira haere, okioki pai. Waiho mātou i konei taute ai, tangi ai, haere, okioki pai noa.
[To his wife and Andrea as well. And so, to you esteemed one, lie there, farewell. Journey on to they who are referred to as the powerful and the exceedingly great number. Go forth to them the recollection beam, the gathering place of the spiritual. And so, farewell, rest well. Leave us here to grieve and mourn, go. Simply rest well.]
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): Ralph Hōtere lived an extraordinary life and made a huge contribution to this country and, indeed, its future. I was reminded that it is the end of an era for some of our great contemporary artists. It was not long ago that we said farewell to Peter Siddell and Don Binney from Tāmaki-makau-rau, and today, from the far north, Ralph Hōtere, a humble man who spoke volumes through his paintbrush. He could speak through a paintbrush like no one else this country has seen. Ralph Hōtere was one of the great role models for Māori New Zealanders, an extraordinary thinker as well as an artist, an individual of deeply held and passionate views about his country, this country, his world, and our world. His legacy is left in his artistic genius.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): The Order of New Zealand is limited to 20 living people at any one time. It is recognition of their individual greatness in their particular field of endeavour. Ralph Hōtere was a member of the Order of New Zealand. I was privileged to be at the ceremony in Dunedin last year, when a very frail old man—but a very happy old man—received the award in the surroundings of the art gallery, with many of his great paintings in attendance, if you like.
Much has been said of the style of his art, of his passion, his commitment, his dedication, his wisdom, and his skill. To me, the talent that he possessed was to be able to combine all of those very raw emotions into powerful art. His political messages were more than just slogans. They were not just colourful posters. They were works of art in their own right that showed a man of deep sensitivity, deep warmth, huge understanding, and a real sense of awareness about this country and its values. My colleague Mr Banks referred to the recent death of Don Binney. He was another artist who possessed many of those attributes—a different style, but the same feeling for his country.
When we farewell people like Ralph Hōtere and Don Binney, we farewell part of the character of our nation. Ralph Hōtere will be missed. His memory will live on not just for his art but for his spirit, for his compassion, and for his personality. I join with others in expressing my deepest condolences to his family and to his wider whānau. My gratitude goes to them for allowing that man to share his rich talent and his wonderful insight with us for so long. May he rest in peace.
Motion agreed to.
Motions
Māori Performing Arts and Kapa Haka—Te Matatini 2013 Festival
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I seek leave of the House to move a non-debatable, non-controversial motion congratulating all of the performers and those associated with the 23rd Te Matatini festival held in Rotorua from 20 to 24 February 2013.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
TE URUROA FLAVELL: Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātau katoa e te Whare. Ka mōtini au, Kia mihi te whare ki ngā tāngata katoa o ngā kapa haka, me aua hunga hoki i mahi i te taiopenga o Te Matatini i tūki Rotorua, atu i tū 20 ki te 24 o Hui-tanguru 2013. I ngā rā tata kua hipa ake ekengia a Te Arawa e te motu, ki roto i a au o Te Arawa i roto o Rotorua ki te whakanui i te āhuatanga o ngā mahi o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna. Ko Te Matatini tērā. Tīmata mai ai i roto i te āhuatanga o te pōhiri a Te Arawa ki te motu i te Wenerei, ā, haere tonu atu mai i te Tāite ki te Rātapu. Ka kite mai ai te ihi, te wana, te wehi, te whakamataku o te motu i a rātou e tū ana i te papa-tū-waewae. Ko tāku noa ake he mihi ki te hunga nā rātou te mahi nui ki te whakatikatika i ngā mea katoa ka tahi.
Ka rua, ki te hunga i tū ki te atāmira, i whakapau kaha, whakapau werawera kia eke ki te taumata ka mutu, ko ō rātou whānau e noho nei ki te tiaki i ngā tamariki, te whāngai i a rātou i runga i ngā marae, ko tērā, tērā ka mutu, ki te hunga i mahi nei mō te kore moni, me kī, ngā ringa raupā o te wā kāinga. Ko rātou tērā i tiaki nei i te motu i tā rātou ekenga ki runga i tōku waka o Te Arawa.
Ka mutu, ko tōku kupu whakamutunga he mihi ki Te Waka Hūia i eke anō rā ki tērā taumata o te tiketiketanga o tēnei mea o te kapa haka, ka mutu, nō rātau te kaha, nō rātau te mōhio ki tēnei mea o te kapa haka, me mihi rā ki a rātau.
Nō reira, ko tāku ko te kī atu, Te Matatini, me mihi rā ki a koutou ka tika. I eke te kaupapa ki tōna taumata. Ā ngā 2 tau kai mua i te aroaro, ka eke ki runga o Waitaha, mā Waitaha anō rā te motu e manaaki, e tiaki. Ko te wāhi ki a au he tuku mihi ki te hunga i tae ake ki Te Matatini, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.
[Greetings to you and to us all in the House. I move, That the House congratulate all the performers and those associated with the 23rd Te Matatini festival held in Rotorua from 20 to 24 March 2013. In days just past Te Arawa, I of Te Arawa, Rotorua, was overwhelmed by the nation to celebrate the deeds of the elders and ancestors. That was Te Matatini. It began with Te Arawa’s mass welcome of the nation on Wednesday with Te Matatini proper going on into Thursday and then to Sunday. Seeing the nation performing on the stage was just powerful, thrilling, awesome, and scary. I merely want to acknowledge those who played an important role in preparing everything, so that is one.
Secondly, those performers on stage who expended energy, who perspired to reach the top and finally, their families, whose job it was to remain behind the scenes to care for the children, feed those on the courtyards. That is that side. Then, there were the volunteers who worked for nothing. Let us say the blistered hands working at the back. They, indeed, were the ones who looked after the nation that came aboard my Te Arawa canoe.
My final word, then, is to acknowledge Te Waka Hūia, which has reached that pinnacle once more to become the top kapa haka team. At the end of it all, it was their effort and knowledge about this thing called kapa haka that prompts me to say that we need to doff our hats to them.
All that is left for me to do now, therefore, is to say, Te Matatini, I acknowledge you collectively. The event achieved what it set out to do. In 2 years from now, the nation will descend upon Waitaha, where it will, indeed, host, care, and look after the country. To all those who turned up at Te Matatini, I acknowledge and compliment you and us all collectively.]
Hone Harawira: Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: This is a non-debatable motion. Leave was so given.
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): I seek leave to speak to the motion.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought now for Hone Harawira to speak to the motion that has just been put. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Motion agreed to.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Skycity, Convention Centre—Expressions of Interest Process and Television New Zealand Land
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Why did he say last week in relation to SkyCity “Its architects designed such a thing, realised they needed more land, worked out who owned the land, and approached Television New Zealand”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Because I believed it to be true at the time.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if the Prime Minister believed it to be true at the time—and this is his third apology that he has given to New Zealand First on matters in the House—who advised him that Television New Zealand (TVNZ) had been approached by Skycity?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was aware at a press conference I went to when we launched the successful conclusion of the expressions of interest process of the architect’s drawings, which clearly showed the proposed convention centre be built on the land owned by Television New Zealand. I made a pretty fair assumption that that had been the case.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not correct that his staff had a meeting with Ministry of Economic Development officials on 9 November 2010, 2 months after Skycity first signalled its interest in the TVNZ land; if so, how can we be expected to believe that the subject of the TVNZ land was not raised?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no record of what happened at that meeting—I would be prepared to go and look at it, but I do not have it—but I will make the point that the member made some pretty strong assertions last week in the House, which have actually been proven to be incorrect. He said that there was a secret side-deal. Well, what we now know is that there was actually no deal; secondly, there was no approach; and, thirdly, I was not involved in the process.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister expect us to believe that he goes to meetings where the taxpayer is funding the meeting in the first place and his attendance and that of his staff, and no one keeps a record during the meeting, and no one records what happened after the meeting, or, for that matter, no one prepared any notice about what the meeting was being held for in the first place? [Interruption] Tell us about what?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is not about ACC—no.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the—[Interruption] Could the Rt Hon Winston Peters complete his supplementary question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I am trying to, Mr Speaker, but all I am asking—is the Prime Minister expecting New Zealanders to believe that he goes to a meeting, and there is no preparatory notice as to why he is going, that when the meeting occurs, no one takes any notice at all, not even the other side, which he could consult with later on, or that when the meeting is over, no record is kept of what happened at the meeting in the first place, when the taxpayer is funding that meeting?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In certain instances, yes.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he expect the House to believe that he and his staff never discussed the TVNZ land with Skycity or Ministry of Economic Development officials, when the Auditor-General says the Ministry of Economic Development began doing preparatory work for the sale as early as 2010, including Treaty of Waitangi clearance?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct. As Television New Zealand has pointed out, it actually has not had an approach from Skycity. What I was aware of was what I said earlier: I went to a press conference on Sunday afternoon—
Hon Annette King: Just made it up.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I went to a press conference on Sunday afternoon with the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown. At that press conference were presented the drawings from the architect. What was presented was that they would require more land. The place where it was going to be built, it was quite clear, was Television New Zealand’s land. Yes, I made an assumption, but, I would have thought, probably a pretty sound one.
State-owned Assets, Sales—Solid Energy
2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to asset sales “I spent my life starting in investment banking. I know how these things work”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
David Shearer: Will he confirm that he had concerns about the effect of Solid Energy’s business plans on its financial position as far back as 2009?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, that is not what I have said. What I have said is in 2009-10 there was a proposal brought to the Government for a natural resources company, which the Government rejected. Our first major concerns about the company were after the scoping study was completed in, I think—it was presented to us in 2012, but undertaken in 2011, from memory.
David Shearer: Given those concerns in 2011, what was he doing making a statement that “companies like Solid Energy are growth companies and we want them to expand in areas like lignite conversion”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite correct, I did make that statement. I also made that statement some months before the scoping study was undertaken. And I happen to think, actually, there is the potential for lignite development in New Zealand.
David Shearer: Given that he said that he had “robust discussions” around Solid Energy’s direction, why did his Ministers not object to $23 million being paid out to senior executives of that company during those robust discussions?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I understand it—and the member may be better to put the question to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises—the payment was actually made to a wide range of participants, not just the way it has been characterised by the Opposition. But I think it is worth reflecting on this point: when it comes to—[Interruption] No, we are not questioning the number; we are questioning who got the number. As I said, my understanding is it was paid to a wide range of employees at Solid Energy.
Grant Robertson: Oh, that’s OK then.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, they are called the workers, and the last time I looked, I thought Labour liked those people.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That was quite sufficient an answer.
David Shearer: What does he believe his asset programme will now raise with the collapse of Solid Energy, given that he has previously claimed it will raise $5 billion to $7 billion and his finance Minister today said that it would have to be revised downwards?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Minister of Finance tells me he did not make the last comment that the members have come to the House and said, which is so often the case with what we get from Opposition members. They just make this stuff up as they go along, but that is OK. If they want to be absolutely word perfect, that is cool; we can run that on both sides. The second thing is that it has not actually collapsed, although we will need to wait and see the Supreme Court ruling. The third point is this: in fact, a Cabinet paper from April 2011 said—
Iain Lees-Galloway: Read the New Zealand Herald.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No wonder you have got a lot to say, when you do not rank even in the top 20. No one else wants to listen to you.
David Shearer: What does he believe his asset sales programme will now raise from the sale of those assets; what can he tell the people of New Zealand?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think it is worth remembering that they are partial sales. The Government is retaining 51 percent.
Iain Lees-Galloway: Just answer it.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You just answer how many of you did not vote for David Shearer and—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Prime Minister please answer.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK, is it 10, 12? I do not know the answer, whatever you guys—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Prime Minister please answer the question.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course I will. If they would give me just a moment to get the answer out, I am more than happy to answer the question. A Cabinet paper from April 2011 said that Solid Energy had a commercial value of $1.7 billion. That was for 100 percent of the company. Based on this sell-down, where the Crown kept the majority ownership, it would raise somewhere between $0.68 billion and $0.85 billion. In other words, that is the amount that theoretically could have come from Solid Energy. But, for a start-off, there is a 3 to 5-year period that the Government set, so that is one issue. Secondly, we do not actually know what we will actually get for the other shares that we sell, so it could easily be $5 billion to $7 billion. We will let you know after we have completed the programme.
David Shearer: Given that he said yesterday that Solid Energy was now effectively worthless, is he unable to tell New Zealanders approximately what they are likely to get for assets that they themselves own?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member was not listening, so let us run right through it again, so that he can get the answer. A Cabinet paper from April 2011 said Solid Energy—
Chris Hipkins: Show us the money!
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —had a commercial value of $1.7 billion. Yeah, that worked real well for you in the last election campaign! If you want to have that debate again, feel free, sunshine. OK, going back to what may not come out is $0.68—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It must become obvious to you that the Prime Minister cannot go on like a giggly schoolboy in this House when he is answering questions. It is outrageous the way he is behaving, and you should stop him and tell him to get back to his job—if he can do it.
Mr SPEAKER: It would certainly be helpful to the order of the House if the Prime Minister would give a concise answer to the question, but it would be equally helpful if there were not loud objections coming from the Labour Opposition benches.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: So the $1.7 billion that was in the Cabinet paper from 2011 would indicate that if that company was not part of the mixed-ownership model, then somewhere around $0.68 to $0.85 billion would not be released, but because we do not know the time period under which Solid Energy may potentially be back in the programme, and, secondly, because we do not know what we will actually get for the other companies, it is quite possible it would be between $5 billion and $7 billion. In other words, nothing has changed.
Economy—Tax Revenue and Business and Investor Confidence
3. PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In the accounts for the first 7 months of the 2013 fiscal year, the Inland Revenue Department reports that PAYE receipts were $12.66 billion. This is $208 million higher than forecast by Treasury in its half-year update, and $748 million, or 6.3 percent, higher than the same period last year. This higher PAYE revenue of $748 million, compared with a year ago, indicates that more people are being paid, or that those who are in employment are being paid more. So when we try to reconcile increases in PAYE with changing employment figures, it could point to more people moving out of self-employment into wage and salary jobs, or it could point to changes in retirement patterns. But there is no doubt that more people are being paid and we are collecting more PAYE.
Paul Goldsmith: How does this growth in tax revenues compare to levels of investor and consumer confidence?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It could be perhaps the good weather, but recent confidence surveys have shown some increase in consumer and investor confidence. In fact, rates for the investor confidence survey are the highest they have been in 3 years. But, probably more important than that, it is pleasing to see that the ANZ’s regional survey showed that all 14 regions of New Zealand expanded in the December quarter, and that is the first time that has happened since 2005. However, we remain concerned about the ongoing effects of increasing drought conditions, particularly in parts of the North Island, and we are also concerned that this year could follow the pattern of previous years, with higher levels of confidence in the first half of the year tailing off in the second half of the year.
Paul Goldsmith: How will improved confidence affect investment and productivity in the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: At a time of prolonged uncertainty it is important that we do whatever we can to lift the confidence of firms and companies, so that they can invest another dollar and employ another person, and do so in a way that is going to be of benefit to them. Clearly, the increase in PAYE payments of $750 million since this time last year indicates that at least some businesses are taking the decision to employ more people and back that with more investment.
Paul Goldsmith: What other plans has he seen for building investment and creating jobs?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are two sets of plans that I think can be compared. The first is the Government’s plans articulated in some detail in the Business Growth Agenda publications. I have also seen other plans that include opposition to reduced taxes, opposition to major roading projects, opposition to improvements in the Resource Management Act, opposition to work expectations on beneficiaries, and opposition to responsible investment in oil and gas exploration. These, I understand, are the plans of the Opposition parties.
Job Creation and Unemployment—Statistics and Monetary Policy
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member like to start again?
GRANT ROBERTSON: I would, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he agree with the Prime Minister “the number one thing New Zealanders need to rely on is that they have a job, so they can provide for their families”; if so, how many New Zealanders are currently unemployed?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, and that is why the Government is working very hard to provide the conditions for businesses to invest and grow jobs in the New Zealand economy. There are a number of ways to measure unemployment. For example, benefit numbers show that the number of people on the unemployment benefit dropped by more than 13,000, from 67,000—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the answer to this part of the question.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For example, benefit numbers show that the number of people on the unemployment benefit dropped by more than 13,000, from 67,000 in December 2010 to 53,700 in December 2012. Another indicator is the household labour force survey, the latest of which estimated that 163,000 New Zealanders are unemployed, which is 10,000 fewer than in the previous quarter. That is a drop in unemployment from 7.3 percent to 6.9 percent.
Grant Robertson: Is it correct that there has been a net loss of 30,000 jobs since he became the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not accept that number, because, actually, the quarterly employment survey, the latest of which came out a couple of days before the household labour force survey, showed a net increase of 54,000 new jobs across the country over the last 2 years.
Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the household labour force survey, which the Minister described as “the standard internationally recognised measure of employment and unemployment”, tells us that there has been a net loss of 30,000 jobs since he became the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, there has been an increase, actually, in the number of full-time jobs but a decrease in the number of part-time jobs, according to the household labour force survey. But I think it is important to point out to the member, because he is new to the portfolio, that there are a range of measures to determine the health of the economy and the creation of jobs. He mentioned the household labour force survey. The quarterly employment survey, of course, showed a net increase of 54,000 new jobs over the last 2 years. The numbers on the unemployment benefit are an important indicator of jobs in the New Zealand economy. PAYE taxes collected by the Inland Revenue Department are also important, and job vacancies are important, as well. I note that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment online survey released last week showed that skilled vacancies were up by 8.5 percent on the same time last year.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question. It included the idea that it was the household labour force survey that was suggesting that there had been a net loss of 30,000 jobs—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was a specific question, and I invite the member to repeat that question.
Grant Robertson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Is it correct that the household labour force survey, which the Minister has described as “the standard internationally recognised measure of employment and unemployment”, tells us that there has been a net loss of 30,000 jobs since he became the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said in my previous answer, I was not aware of the exact number but I do know that there has been a decline in part-time jobs and an increase in full-time jobs. I said I did not know the exact answer. But I also point out to the member—and I think it was helpful—that there are a range of measures, and I am happy to go through them again for the member, because there are different indicators of the number of jobs in the New Zealand economy.
Grant Robertson: To assist the Minister, I seek leave of the House to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library on the basis of the household labour force survey that shows a drop—
Mr SPEAKER: Whom was the document prepared for?
Grant Robertson: It was prepared by the Parliamentary Library.
Mr SPEAKER: No, whom was it prepared for?
Grant Robertson: For me, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Grant Robertson: Is the Minister prepared to advocate for a change to monetary policy to give exporters a fair go and help New Zealanders find jobs so that they can feed their families?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, although it is interesting to see the member going down the line of printing money. But the important thing is that on the one hand the member is arguing for artificial depreciation of the New Zealand dollar, and on the other hand Mr Parker will be along shortly arguing for closing the income gap between here and Australia, which, of course, an artificial reduction in the New Zealand dollar—
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, Grant Robertson.
Grant Robertson: He has sat down now, but that would have been the point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Has the member got further supplementary questions?
Grant Robertson: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Then ask them.
Grant Robertson: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who said today about the high dollar that “Even for a lot of manufacturers, it’s a big help.”, or Keith Whiteley from HamiltonJet, Gordon Sutherland from A W Fraser, Mike Eggers from Pacific Helmets, and all the other manufacturers who have said that the high dollar and the Government’s monetary policy are strangling their business and stopping job growth?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Prime Minister is correct, and I will point out for the member—
Grant Robertson: Oh, the manufacturers know nothing?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I will point out for the member that he needs to go and look at something called the TIN100, which is the index of high-value manufacturing companies in New Zealand—which, again, he may not yet be aware of—which shows the companies that are doing very well. Different companies are struggling and different companies are doing very well, and the reality is that companies gain also from the benefits of imports from input prices—
Grant Robertson: So the manufacturers know nothing? They know nothing, do they?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, Mr Robertson, it is pretty obvious that you are the one who knows nothing.
Solid Energy—Financial Position
5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement reported in the Southland Times in June 2011 that, “At the moment companies like Solid Energy are growth companies and we want them to expand in areas like lignite conversion”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and I also said at the time: “We know there is lots of resource there and we know they potentially have the capability [to convert lignite to urea or diesel] and so we will see how that progresses,”. I note that my comments were made 4 months before an independent scoping study on Solid Energy was completed in October 2011. This raised questions about the company’s coal price assumptions and its strategic direction, which led to escalating action by the Government and a change of business strategy by Solid Energy.
Dr Russel Norman: Why, then, did he say yesterday “we didn’t agree with the massive expansion of the company.”, when manifestly not only did he agree with the massive expansion, he actually encouraged a $2 billion investment into lignite?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: See, again, this is where the members want to come into this House and misrepresent comments, and make them out to be there and try to fool some people. Here is the answer. The exact question I was asked was in relation to the natural resources expansion of $1 billion, and this Government did reject that, for all of the right reasons. But in terms of the expansions that Solid Energy made under its own balance sheet, that is right, the Government allowed that to take place. I will make the point, though, that it is worth remembering this time line. In 2003 there was the acquisition by Solid Energy of Nature’s Flame wood pellet business. In 2004 Solid Energy began investigating its coal-seam gas. In 2005 it started the acquisition of land in Southland for lignite development. In 2006 it began the investigation of coal to liquid conversion and it started the development of underground coal gasification technology. In 2007 it started the research into lignite briquetting. In 2007 it expanded its renewable businesses into biodiesel. In 2006 Trevor Mallard took to Cabinet a paper that—
Mr SPEAKER: That is plenty long enough.
Dr Russel Norman: Why did he encourage Solid Energy’s expansion into the billion-dollar lignite project when he had never ever seen a business case for this investment?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I think it is worth remembering that Treasury says a business case note is not required, because the only specific proposal that was advanced by Solid Energy was the briquette plant, and that was beneath the required threshold. Treasury sets a threshold of $125 million—or did; this Government actually reduced that to $50 million, and the briquette plant was $20 million to $30 million. I happened to hold the view that there is the potential for lignite. There are many ways, actually, lignite conversion could take place, and Solid Energy could have advanced those, either because it made super-profits in certain areas or because it formed a partnership with other partners, which was certainly one option it was considering. To sit there and say that it had to do it purely by itself, on its own, off its own debt, is actually not an accurate statement.
Louise Upston: Has the Prime Minister seen any statements offering advice on the role that the Government might play in encouraging State-owned enterprises like Solid Energy to get into new business areas?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have. I have seen this statement: “While the government is now actively encouraging SOEs to consider this opportunity, ministers don’t intend telling them how they might do this. It will be up to SOEs to come up with robust business plans that can preferably be funded off their own balance sheet and that meet the criteria.” Of course, those profound words came from the Minister for State Owned Enterprises at the time, the Hon Trevor Mallard—No. 21 these days.
Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Dr Russel Norman.
Dr Russel Norman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Dr Russel Norman for a supplementary—[Interruption] Order! Dr Russel Norman, supplementary question.
Dr Russel Norman: Is it not prudent that the owner of a company faced by plans by that company to spend up to $2 billion on new investments would ask that company for a business plan to justify those investments?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the company was coming to the Government with a proposal for a $2 billion investment, of course it would require that, because it would trigger the Government’s threshold of $50 million. But, in fact, that is not the case. What is true is that this company back in 2003 embarked on a diversification programme of a number of assets under a Labour Government. It carried on all the way through until we became the Government in 2008. In 2008-09 this company was producing record profits, was being revalued up, and the coal prices were high. The Government, I think, was entitled to accept the assurances made by the directors and by the management that they were going in the right direction. By 2011 this Government then said, because of part of the mixed-ownership programme, that it should undertake a scoping study. What that actually proved was that there were a number of issues, and it comes to the very point of why New Zealanders rejected Labour’s opposition to the mixed-ownership model—
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This has nothing to do with attacking the Labour Party.
Mr SPEAKER: I think that the answer has been very sufficiently given and need not go on.
Dr Russel Norman: Given the Prime Minister’s ringing endorsement of Solid Energy’s expansion plans into lignite, which at the time were indicated of a multibillion-dollar order on the public record, why did he endorse those plans publicly when he had never received a business plan from Solid Energy?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite self-explanatory if you look at the comments I have made. I have said to the House this afternoon I genuinely believed that there is the potential for a business opportunity for lignite conversion. The Greens do not agree with that, because they are fundamentally opposed to lignite. But it is really important that the member does not try to misrepresent the situation. Solid Energy never came to the Government with a $2 billion proposal. Solid Energy did come to this Government and propose a vastly expanded Solid Energy into a natural resources company. This Government rejected that. This Government undertook a scoping study in 2011. This Government actually stood up to the issues that we saw in that scoping study—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is quite sufficient.
Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister asking Parliament to believe that in June 2011, when he came out and gave a ringing endorsement of the lignite plans by Solid Energy, he was unaware that those plans involved a multibillion-dollar investment, and he was very happy to give a ringing endorsement of those plans, even though he had never seen a business plan?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member comes to the House and again makes assumptions that there is a ringing endorsement. That is not correct. No, I have not seen a plan, to the best of my memory, from Solid Energy for a $2 billion expansion. What I have seen, and what I was aware of, is that the company was keen on expanding its lignite conversion. It had lignite opportunities in Southland. It had many ways it could potentially do that. It started that programme under Labour, as I have been saying during the weekend. Clayton Cosgrove is saying it is nothing to do with Labour. They are up to their necks in it. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon Annette King allow the supplementary question, please.
Dr Russel Norman: How can the Prime Minister ask us to believe that he did not give a ringing endorsement for the lignite plan, when his actual statement when he was in Southland was that “we want [Solid Energy] to expand in areas like lignite conversion.”? How could the management and board of Solid Energy take that as anything other than support from the Prime Minister of New Zealand?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the fact that someone may think that there is a business proposal and an opportunity to expand in an area does not quantify that. I might happen—[Interruption] Well, I might happen to think that people should vote for National, but it does not mean the numbers should be 50 percent or 65 percent; it just means I happen to think they would do that. I have never seen a $2 billion proposal. What I do know is that it started under Labour, and this Government has been working hard to resolve those issues.
Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response from Treasury of 13 February 2013, which says: “Solid Energy never submitted a business case to the Treasury on lignite developments.”
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Welfare Reforms—Progress
6. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Social Development: What impact have the Government’s welfare reforms had to date?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): The Government’s welfare reforms are seeing real gains for New Zealanders. Future Focus, implemented in September 2010 as a precursor to our current major reforms, introduced clear obligations and greater fairness to the benefit system. Since Future Focus started, more than 171,000 benefits have been cancelled because people found work, which is a good result in spite of a tough local market and a global economic recession. Over the last 2 years benefit numbers are now reducing by 165 net every week, on average, which equates to about 34 people every working day.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What changes has she seen as a result of the annual reapplication requirement?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: One simple policy change requiring unemployment beneficiaries to reapply if they remain on the benefit after a year has seen more than 21,400 people come off that benefit, with savings of more than $74 million to the taxpayer.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What results have there been to date by increasing expectations and obligations for those receiving benefits?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Prior to National’s Future Focus changes, 79 percent of beneficiaries had no work-test obligations at all. Because of Future Focus, it is now around 64 percent and will reduce further with the changes coming through in the second welfare bill. There is no doubt at all that expectations mean that we see better results for people.
Skycity, Convention Centre—Expressions of Interest Process
7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: In light of the view of the Deputy Auditor-General that “… the work through to August 2009 was … reasonable and careful”; did the Prime Minister’s intervention in August 2009 result in an approach that was no longer reasonable and careful?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I am sorry, I was actually expecting another David, but—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister just answer the question.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry, I am just a little bit confused—not that one but not that one either. The full quote, which the member chooses to ignore, is that “the work through to August 2009 was a reasonable and careful exploration of the possibilities presented by an international convention centre.” The report makes clear that the initial exploratory and feasibility stage—the stage the Prime Minister was involved in—along with the current negotiations, has been deemed by the Office of the Auditor-General to be appropriate. The report notes procedural issues with the second stage of the process—the expressions of interest phase—primarily that officials did not do enough planning, and that the assessment of the expression of interest process went on too long.
Hon David Parker: Was the Prime Minister’s handwritten annotation directing officials to “… close off the SkyCity angle …” dated August 2009?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is my understanding, and that forms part of the period that, as I will just say again, the Deputy Auditor-General said of in paragraph 3.32 of the report: “We have no concern that the Government took steps to find out whether SkyCity’s development plans might be relevant to the discussions about an international convention centre.”
Hon David Parker: Is it not the reality that the August date was chosen by the Deputy Auditor-General because it was the subsequent negotiations with Skycity, advanced by Mr Key and his chief of staff, that the Deputy Auditor-General found to lack transparency and were unfair to other interested parties?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, that is not correct. Paragraph 3.32 is perhaps helpful to the member. I have read the first sentence, but if I could indulge the House, it went on to say: “Nor is it unusual for a company like SkyCity to approach government officials and Ministers to explore whether there might be government interest in, and support for, its development ideas.” The paragraph finishes by saying: “Our investigation confirmed that the discussions between August 2009 and March 2010 remained high level and preliminary in nature.” At the end of that chapter of the report it talks about what the ministry should be considering, but, again, it says that it had no concerns about what the Government was doing at that time.
Hon David Parker: Given that the Minister maintains that it was not unwise for the Prime Minister and his chief of staff to pursue negotiations with Skycity in and after August 2009, including possible regulatory breaks that other parties were not aware of, why did the Attorney-General conclude: “… we do not consider that the approach adopted was appropriate.”—
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Auditor-General.
Hon David Parker: —sorry, the Auditor-General—“… we do not consider that the approach adopted was appropriate. The result was that one submitter was treated differently from the others during the evaluation process.”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is obvious from the end of that quote that the member is quite deliberately seeking to conflate the two different parts of the discussion. The parts referred to that the Prime Minister was involved in were in 2009-10, and the Deputy Auditor-General indicated no concern with those parts of the process. The quote that the member has just said was obviously in relation to the expressions of interest process, which the Prime Minister had no part in. I think the member is being a little bit disingenuous, if I may say.
Hon David Parker: Was the reference to the Treasury warning about probity contained in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet briefing note to the Prime Minister on 3 December 2009 expressly limited to public-private partnerships, and when will the Government release the still suppressed Treasury advice to the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Economic Development or Ministry of Tourism report to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the briefing note from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, some of those items that the member raises are affected by the convention by which the executive and Parliament operate. But just in relation to the member’s point, I would perhaps quote to him from the report itself, because it talks about if matters were to proceed to a public-private partnership, and that was the concern. So just going on the report, the reality is that it makes it clear that it was about a public-private partnership that it was concerned. The report notes in 3.44: “the matter became moot because SkyCity did not produce a proposal at this time. Instead, the Minister directed officials”—
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether the reference to the Treasury warning about probity—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There were two clear parts to your question, and I consider that the Minister has adequately addressed the second part.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Then, with respect, the Speaker should take care that he does not allow the Minister to ramble on about things that were not in any part of the question.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that on that occasion the Minister did, although there have been some very lengthy answers today that were not helpful.
Irrigation and Water Storage—Irrigation Company Establishment Board
8. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on increasing New Zealand’s economic and environmental performance through investment in irrigation?
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Last week I announced the appointment of an establishment board for a new Crown company to invest in irrigation projects. The new company, which is to be established by 1 July this year, will act as a bridging investor for regional water infrastructure development. Earlier this year this Government announced that $80 million will be set aside in Budget 2013 for the initial stages of the company’s operation. This is the first step in this Government’s commitment to invest up to $400 million in regional-scale schemes to encourage further capital investment.
Colin King: Why is the Government investing in regional water infrastructure development?
Hon NATHAN GUY: The development of a well-designed storage and irrigation infrastructure has the potential to develop significant economic growth and support, importantly, new jobs. A New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report states that a Government could support the development of over 340,000 hectares of new irrigation. This could boost exports by $1.4 billion a year by 2018, and $4 billion a year by 2026. Reliable irrigation would also be better for the environment, allowing for more efficient water use, replenishing aquifers, and restoring stream and river flows.
Solid Energy—Financial Position
9. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he agree with his predecessor Hon Simon Power that in 2009 the Government was “looking carefully” at the make-up of SOE boards and “commercial expertise is at the forefront of our minds”?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Yes.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that his Government refused a capital injection for Solid Energy’s expansion plans in 2009 and the board moved ahead to progress those plans anyway, two independent valuations in 2010 found that Solid Energy was worth half what the company claimed, and, further, the scoping study that he received in 2011 revealed serious problems with the company, why, given all this information, did he take no action to deal with the precarious financial situation Solid Energy found itself in?
Hon TONY RYALL: The premise of the member’s question is quite incorrect. When Ministers became aware of issues raised in the scoping study, they took the appropriate steps. There were discussions with the board, we commissioned additional advice, and, as the member knows, the chair has changed and the board has changed.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that answer, why does he keep misleading New Zealanders that he could take no practical action to intervene regarding Solid Energy’s financial position, when, in fact, he had at least three options: firstly, under section 13 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act shareholding Ministers may from time to time direct the board of a company to take actions via the statement of corporate intent process; secondly, he could have sacked the board—they resigned, he did not sack them—and thirdly, he could have called the chair in and provided direction in the same way that Bill English, and his predecessor Simon Power, called in the chairs of State-owned enterprises in 2009 and demanded additional dividends for the Crown? Why did he do absolutely nothing of any practical nature?
Hon TONY RYALL: The member can repeat whatever he likes. The simple fact of the matter is when Ministers became aware of the issues raised in the scoping study at the end of 2011 we took the appropriate steps to address the issues that were raised. As the member knows, the company now has a new chair and new board, and we are currently dealing with the banks to resolve those issues.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is it correct that the former Solid Energy chairman John Palmer, after announcing his resignation in November 2012 but immediately prior to his official departure, signed off the renewal of the chief executive’s contract, which included a substantial salary increase, and as such led to a far larger amount of taxpayers’ money being spent on the chief executive’s severance package, and why did he take no action, even though he and the Minister of Finance were from June 2012 receiving, at their request, monthly reports on the state of that company?
Hon TONY RYALL: First of all, the premise of the member’s question is quite incorrect. Mr Palmer had ceased being the chairman in November 2012. My understanding is that the allegations that that member is making are not correct.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a photograph from the National Party Flickr site, which details Solid Energy—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! As I have ruled last week in a considered ruling on the tabling of documents, it has to be something that adds to the quality of the debate—that informs the House. I do not consider that that photograph does.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have ruled that it does not add to the debate.
Mr SPEAKER: Add to the value of the debate.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Add to the value. Well, I put it to you that this is absolutely—
Mr SPEAKER: The member is now disputing my ruling. He will resume his seat.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to make it clear, because I think I and a number of members last week were quite surprised at your ruling. Because of events last week, we thought we would let it run at the time, but are you ruling that you are the judge of whether something adds to the debate in the House? That is something that no Speaker has done before. They have always given considered rulings or groups of areas. If you are taking that power to yourself, I am sure that there are going to be negative consequences.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. [Interruption] Order! The member is trying to assist in that ruling that I made. It was a ruling about the availability of information. I am happy that the member rereads the ruling. It was around the ready availability of the material that members were seeking to debate. It was also around whether the information would be of value to the House, and therefore there was definitely a quality issue in it. It is a considered ruling that was given to the House. I invite any member to come and discuss that at any time, but my predecessor the Rt Hon Dr Lockwood Smith had moved to the extent where we did not have incessant tabling of documents, so that when members actually sought to table documents, they actually had more chance of those documents being accepted by the House. If you consider question time last week, where there were a significant number of documents tabled, they were tabled with the agreement of the House. If you go back some time in the past, it became almost automatic that when Opposition members in particular sought to table documents, leave was inevitably denied. So I am trying to get to a situation where what is tabled is useful to the House. Certainly, that is what I ruled.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking further to the same issue, the changes that the former Speaker introduced were a result of a discussion at the Standing Orders Committee and consistent with that report, in that there were objective criteria set out. What you have done is introduce a subjective area that says that you are the judge of that, rather than, as the Standing Orders Committee and the whole House agreed, that there would be groups of areas that would be ruled out.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: The fact is that I think most members agree that we do not want to waste the House’s time with frivolous tabling of documents, but we are going to make ourselves look rather ridiculous when courts of law accept photographs as being critical parts of evidence and this House says that they are not. So all I am saying is: use caution in your judgment, because that absolutist judgment I do not think we can live with.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has raised a point of order. I will take one more point of order on this matter, and then I will rule further.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: From Mr Peters’ point of order, the item that I sought to table is evidence of both culpability in and support for the expansion of Solid Energy’s lignite programme in Southland. That is evidence of it, and I would have thought that if it is good enough for a court, it is good enough for you.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point. At the end of the day, I think that it is a long bow, but the easiest way to resolve this matter is to actually allow leave to be sought. I am going to do that in a second, but I invite the Hon Trevor Mallard at any time to discuss a ruling that I make. I am quite happy that the matter be further discussed at the Standing Orders Committee, because what we are trying to do is to deliver to the House the opportunity of tabling relevant documents and eliminating the tabling of irrelevant documents. But on this particular occasion, to resolve the matter, I will allow the member to put his leave to have a photograph tabled. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection to that course of action.
Rt Hon John Key: Is it true that in 2004 the then Labour Government started allowing Solid Energy to expand into lignite operations in Southland; is it also true that in 2005 it allowed it to acquire land for lignite conversion in Southland; and is it also true that in 2008-09 when National became the Government—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When did that Minister whom Mr Key is addressing the question to become responsible for Labour’s actions or policy?
Mr SPEAKER: The question was not anything about responsibility—and I think the question has been quite long enough. The question was not about any responsibility; it was about whether the Minister was aware. Would the Minister—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do want to reinforce that, and ask you to consider that the Prime Minister asked a series of questions—is it true that a Labour Government did this; is it true that a Labour Government did that; is it true—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is getting to the stage—
Hon Trevor Mallard: —none of which, I think, can be answered.
Mr SPEAKER: Can I suggest the quickest way forward, without asking the Prime Minister to repeat his question, is to ask the Minister to succinctly answer the question that has been put forward.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Would the member beside Clayton Cosgrove please put that paper down.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You have already heard a submission by the Hon Trevor Mallard that the question directly referred to the Labour Government and alleged actions in that respect. The way to deal with it is not to allow the Minister to answer a question that is out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Ministers may be asked historical information or questions about previous Governments. They should not stray—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I have for you is: if you were to follow the logic of Mr Mallard, then it would mean that if a Minister is new to a portfolio, then any activities undertaken by a previous Minister in that portfolio cannot be questioned by the House. I think that would be a very backward step.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. In this case the question—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not taking any further points of order on this matter. The question is in order. The Minister can and should answer it, but should not stray into anything beyond his own responsibility. The question is: what is he aware of?
Hon TONY RYALL: I can confirm to the Prime Minister that I am aware of that information, and, further, I am also aware that in September 2008 Solid Energy started an at-risk payment system to its staff, where 90 percent of its staff got some of this so-called $11 million that only executives have got. The fact is that that all started under the Labour Government as well.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the financial statements of Solid Energy from the period 2000 to 2008, showing the huge profits that it was making, and I think it also mentions that it won a few export awards as well back then.
Mr SPEAKER: Because of the long period of time of the documents the member is seeking to table, I will put the leave—2000 to 2008 financial reports from Solid Energy. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. The material can be tabled.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No. 10 to Minister
Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Mojo Mathers. [Interruption] I ask the House to please give some silence so that Mojo Mathers can have her question heard.
KiwiRail—Safety for People with Disabilities
10. MOJO MATHERS (Green) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What steps, if any, has he taken to ensure that KiwiRail does not skimp on safety for people with disabilities?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport): KiwiRail is responsible for developing initiatives to improve safety across the entire rail network. Specific initiatives when improving or constructing infrastructure include ensuring pedestrian mazes and ramps are wheelchair-access compliant, the installation of bells and signs for those who are hearing and visually impaired at higher-risk crossings, and the installation of tactile ground surface indicators. KiwiRail has an established track record of engaging with representatives of the disabled community when new and upgraded infrastructure is planned, and investing in improvements to help the disabled community.
Mojo Mathers: Does he have any concern that cutting $200 million from KiwiRail’s spending will have a negative impact on the safety and accessibility of our rail transport system for disabled users; if not, why not?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Government has invested considerably in KiwiRail, almost three-quarters of a billion dollars in this 3-year period, as part of a $4.6 billion Turnaround Plan. I am satisfied that safety initiatives have a high priority in that Turnaround Plan.
Mojo Mathers: I seek leave to table KiwiRail’s Infrastructure and Engineering Business Plan 2013-2015, which says that KiwiRail will be cutting $200 million in spending over the next 3 years.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s previously tabled.
Mr SPEAKER: It is previously tabled, I am advised. I take that as an objection. No? It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Mojo Mathers: Does he believe that amending the Land Transport Management Act so that regional transport committees are no longer required to have access and mobility representatives to advocate for safety and disability issues will make our rail system safer?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am very satisfied that the engagement with the disabled community remains high. KiwiRail, in conjunction with the New Zealand Transport Agency, has developed the traffic control devices manual, part 9 of which concerns level crossings. That plan includes the specific requirement to progressively improve disabled access at level crossings.
Mojo Mathers: Will he ask KiwiRail to work with representatives from the Disabled Persons Assembly to ensure that everything that can be done is being done to make our rail transport network safe for all New Zealanders?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am advised that that engagement is under way, but given the tragic events at the Morningside Railway Station yesterday morning, I am sure that KiwiRail will be redoubling its efforts to engage with the disabled community to ensure that identified risk areas for them are addressed.
Brendan Horan: Will he release the KiwiRail track inspector’s report from late 2012 that revealed serious safety concerns about the Morningside crossing over 3 months before yesterday’s dreadful accident?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am quite sure that all information that is able to be released in respect of rail safety will be, if the member puts the request in the right way.
Education, Minister—Decisions on Canterbury Schools and Wanganui Collegiate School
11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her statements?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes.
Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by the commitment she gave to parents in Christchurch that students beginning intermediate this year would be able to finish their 2 years at intermediate school before any closure decisions would take effect; if not, why not?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I have said repeatedly, in every school meeting that I held at the 35 schools I repeated that they were proposals in front of them and that they would have the opportunity to make submissions on them, which 31 schools did.
Chris Hipkins: Is she calling the parents, principals, teachers, and members of the public who attended those meetings and who claim that they were given that commitment liars?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, I am not. Look, this is a very difficult situation in Christchurch, and schools are naturally, some of them, disappointed. But I can unambiguously say that I made it clear on every occasion that these were proposals, and that is reflected in the fact that we received 31 submissions.
Chris Hipkins: If she is not calling those people liars and accepts that she did make that commitment, why has she broken her promise by now deciding to now close three Christchurch intermediate schools at the end of this year, only 1 year after many of those students started there?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, that member can attempt to reframe what I am saying as many times as he would like, but I am very, very, very clear that I told every school community that these were proposals. We funded the consultations. We received the submissions. I did not give a commitment other than these were proposals.
Chris Hipkins: Will she give parents, teachers, and students in Christchurch a commitment that appropriate facilities at least equivalent to what they have now in their present schools will be available to the students at their new schools at the beginning of next year; if not, why not?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.
Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by all of her statements to Cabinet recommending that Wanganui Collegiate School not be integrated; if not, why not?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: I sought Cabinet input on a difficult decision, and I appreciated that, and I am comfortable with the decision I then made to integrate Wanganui Collegiate School.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not actually the question that I asked the Minister. I asked whether she stood by all of the statements that she made to Cabinet.
Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion the Minister has adequately addressed your question.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Is the member questioning my ruling?
Chris Hipkins: I am, indeed, Mr Speaker. How could that possibly be addressing the question?
Mr SPEAKER: I spoke last week to the House, and I am not going to relitigate and reinterpret questions and answers, because that would attempt to bring the Speaker into the debate. I will listen very carefully to every question, I will listen very carefully to every answer, and I will determine whether I think that question has been satisfactorily addressed. On this occasion I think the Minister has satisfactorily addressed the question. It is not for me to design the answer to the satisfaction of the member.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give the House an assurance that you will also follow your predecessor’s practice of watching the video replays of these rulings, to ensure that you get them right?
Mr SPEAKER: No, I cannot give that assurance. I certainly do go back and study the Hansard very carefully. Is there any further point of order on this matter?
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your predecessor actually used the language of “answer” the question, rather than “address” it. I am just wondering whether we should read anything into the fact that you are saying you are requiring Ministers to address the question, whereas Dr Lockwood Smith said Ministers must answer the question.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to refer to the Standing Orders, he will see it is a requirement that the question be addressed. To try to attempt to design the answer to answer the question to the satisfaction of the member asking is something that would be beyond the previous Speaker and probably beyond the current Speaker as well.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Is it on this matter?
Chris Hipkins: It is. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The previous Speaker indicated that members on this side of the House could expect an answer in accordance or in line with the type of question that was asked. So if it was a very straight question, we could expect a very straight answer. If it was a political question, it would be a political answer.
Mr SPEAKER: And I have ruled that the Minister has satisfactorily addressed the question.
Government Information and Communications Technology—Common Web Platform
12. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What announcements has he made recently regarding New Zealand companies securing key government ICT contracts?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I recently announced that SilverStripe, a Wellington information and communications technology company, secured the contract to create a common web platform for Government agencies. Another New Zealand company, Revera, will manage technical infrastructure. This is a great win for New Zealand businesses, and proves that Kiwi information and communications technology companies can compete with the rest of the world.
Jacqui Dean: What are the benefits of a common web platform?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: There are a number of benefits. Firstly, it will reduce the number of web platforms in use across the public sector. Currently, there are 50 in use. Secondly, it will improve consistency and enable Government departments to share website features, leading to higher-quality websites. Thirdly, there will be significant potential savings of up to $50,000 per website.
Urgent Debates Declined
Solid Energy—Governance and Accountability
Mr SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Brendan Horan seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the State enterprise Solid Energy, the responsibility for its governance and accountability, and the loss of taxpayers’ investment in the company. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be either a new situation of importance or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant a debate being held. The member’s authentication indicates that advice has been provided to shareholding Ministers, and Solid Energy is working with Treasury, advisers, and the banks. Such a continuing situation cannot give rise to an urgent debate. There being no particular case of recent occurrence, the application is declined.
Bills
Child Support Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The Child Support Amendment Bill is the culmination of a process that I began during the term of the previous Government to review and modernise the operation of the child support system. It follows a Government discussion document to which there was a wide response, and it represents the most fundamental set of changes to the child support system since its introduction in 1992.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Would members leaving the Chamber please do so, and show some courtesy to Mr Dunne, who is trying to address and inform the rest of us. Please.
Hon PETER DUNNE: The changes in this bill are about futureproofing our child support system, and recognising also the profound social changes that have occurred in New Zealand in the last 20 years. The bill proposes two main areas of change: first, a new child support calculation formula, which takes a greater account of shared parenting, both parents’ income, and the latest estimates of the cost of raising children; and, second, improvements to the payment penalty and debt rules for child support. These proposed changes are required for one very simple reason: the well-being of the 210,000 children and families who are currently involved in this system.
For the benefit of the debate, I want to briefly clarify what child support is and what it is not. Firstly, child support is not in itself a means of tackling child poverty. To engineer that is well beyond the scope of this bill. It has been suggested that where the responsible parent is in receipt of a benefit, child support payments should be passed on directly to that parent instead of being used to offset benefit payments. But the role of the child support system is not to decide what should be paid as a Government benefit. What the child support system does do is encourage paying parents to take responsibility for their children’s welfare by paying their liabilities in time and in full. The Government believes that this has to be the most beneficial way of assisting the families involved.
But I want to say this: the child support system is, and always has been, a backstop for families when parents no longer living together cannot themselves come together for an arrangement for the support of the children. Child support was never intended to be the automatic default position and nor should it be that. My strong preference is that when relationships break up, parents should be encouraged to make their own arrangements for the maintenance of their children, but I equally recognise that that is not always going to be fair or feasible in a number of cases. So it therefore is the aim of the child support system to ensure financial support for those children for whom those reasonable arrangements cannot be reached on a voluntary basis. To do this efficiently and accurately in today’s context, it is important that the scheme be updated. So the changes that are provided for in this bill make for a child support system where child support payments take account of a greater range of individual circumstances and the capacities of parents to pay, and take those into much better account.
This is important, because if the formula used to calculate child support does not fairly reflect today’s circumstances, it ends up affecting the very children that the scheme is meant to be there to financially support. In my view, the current formula is too blunt an instrument, which fails to take proper account of the particular circumstances of families. It can, for example, often leave non-custodial parents in a difficult financial position, often unable to provide the same level of comfort during access visits that a custodial parent can. It fails to acknowledge also that the custodial parent may be in full or part-time employment of their own—something that is far more common today than it was when the legislation was put in place 20 years ago.
Although it would be impossible to design a system to meet every circumstance, this bill does introduce a far more flexible system than that which we have currently. On the issue of calculating payments, I want to make the point that one thing this bill does not do is change the fact that families themselves are not expected to calculate the payments. That has always been the responsibility of the Inland Revenue Department, which will provide a calculator that will allow parents to check the amounts involved. So I can put members’ minds at ease—no one is going to be required to hire an accountant in order to calculate child support payments under the formula introduced in this bill.
The bill also introduces changes to the rules relating to the payment of child support, the imposition of penalties, and the writing off of penalties, to encourage parents to meet their obligations on time. They are the main features of the bill, but I want to make members aware that I intend to release a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill at the Committee of the whole House stage. That Supplementary Order Paper will introduce a practical measure that will allow a more accurate determination of parents’ income by broadening the time frame, or the window, during which an assessment of income is made. It will also contain a number of changes of a consequential or remedial nature to ensure that the legislation operates as intended.
In its consideration of the bill, the Social Services Committee recommended that the introduction of the main measures be deferred by 1 year, originally intended to be 1 April 2013, to 1 April 2014. I fully appreciate the anxiety that this delay will cause affected families. I know how keen they are for the legislation to take effect as soon as possible, but I do consider that the select committee’s recommendation is a pragmatic one, which takes into account the legislative pressures involved and the time frame that the Inland Revenue Department will need to implement the changes contained in the bill, and, therefore, I propose accepting that recommendation. At this point I want to acknowledge the work that the select committee did, and I want to acknowledge also the broad sweep of the recommendations that it made to further improve the content of the bill. I think that those changes, carried forward now into the legislation, make a difference to the bill and in turn will make a positive difference to the lives of the families and the children who are covered by the child support legislation.
So I am very proud to stand here today and once again commend this Child Support Amendment Bill to the House, and I look forward to its passage relatively soon, so that we can begin the work of reforming our system in a major way for the first time in 20 years, and making sure it is robust to meet the challenges of the future.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to oppose this bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill. Labour supported the bill to the Social Services Committee, to encourage thorough scrutiny of this sensitive issue. We are sorry to say that the concerns that we raised have not been met.
Nobody knows what cards life hands out to our families. Nothing has proved that to me more than a visit I made to a young family in Northall Road in New Lynn during my first election campaign in 1999. I met a young single mother with three primary school - aged boys who had returned from a doctor’s visit that she could not afford to pay for. Her youngest son was calcium deficient. She could not afford to buy milk. She could not afford to buy milk for a calcium-deficient son. She was on child support. The marriage had ended the year before—surprising to her and no doubt to those children. But the system that she faced was inadequate to meet the needs of her family or her. She was trying to study part-time as well as bring up those three young boys. When she told me her story on the driveway of that home in New Lynn, she wept—she wept. Every instinct as a parent told her that she was letting her family down, when she had done nothing wrong. She was working her guts out for those kids and the system had failed them.
This is our opportunity, as a Parliament, to fix the system. God knows the National Party has been saying for a decade that it needed fixing. We agreed it needed an overhaul, and this was the chance. The “Minister for Incremental Change” has served up a whole lot of tinkering, while 270,000 children grow up in our country in poverty, and 133,000 of those, like the three little boys in Northall Road, are the children of single-parent families, most of them dependent upon child support. And the system does not work. The Minister of Revenue knows it does not work. He was so defensive in his second reading speech a few minutes ago that he opened by saying the Government was not going to tackle child poverty—shame, Mr Dunne; shame, Hon Peter Dunne. This Government stands in this House with high unemployment, a declining median wage, million-dollar pay packets for civil servants and State-owned enterprise bosses while the value of their State-owned enterprises is trashed, widening gaps, and the worst economic record in 50 years, and it is not interested in taking this opportunity—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why isn’t that member’s—
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There is the “Minister for Big Noises”. Why do you not make big change, instead of tinkering, with this bill?
Let us for a moment—in honour of Gerry Brownlee—just recount what we do agree on in this bill. What is the common ground? Firstly, it is this: it is impossible for legislation to take account of every specific family circumstance. It needs to be flexible, it needs to be responsible, and it needs to recognise that all families are different. Secondly, it is common ground that the child support system does need a major overhaul, including a modernisation of the formula, but this new formula is neither transparent nor flexible, nor does it put more in the hands of the children who need it. So it is not doing the job. It is not fit for purpose. Thirdly, we are agreed that the system should preserve the opportunity for parents to reach voluntary agreements. That is good, if they can—fantastic. But too many do not, and too many do and then it is not honoured. But this Government has done nothing about enforceability. These agreements are still voluntary and do not carry the weight of the law, and there are too many dads who get behind in the system and then go across the Ditch to Australia to escape the consequences. It is common ground that the penalties system was too strong, so that when dads—and it is mainly dads, let us face it—got behind they could not catch up and they get locked out of the system. Then they run, and then they get separated physically and emotionally from their children, who grow up fatherless. But this bill does not address that. It is a missed opportunity.
It is common ground that New Zealand’s family law, above all, has had a wonderful, world-leading tradition of putting children first, but this bill does not. Indeed, I am told that the National members of the select committee voted against consultation with their own Minister about including in the bill a purpose clause that would have underlined the priority of the interests of the children. They would not even discuss it, Mr Brownlee, and you have the temerity to sit there—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The member has the temerity—the Speaker has no temerity—to sit there preaching to the Opposition about the wonders of this bill.
Finally, it is common ground that fiscal responsibility is important, but this bill costs the taxpayer $42 million more per annum than the old system but puts nothing more in the hands of children. God, that is brilliant, is it not, Mr Brownlee—$42 million more out of the public purse; nothing more for kids. There are 270,000 children growing up in poverty, and 133,000 children growing up in single-parent families, most of whom are dependent upon what we are discussing today. A population bigger than Dunedin, bigger than Hamilton, is depending on this bill, and Peter Dunne tinkers while their lives burn.
There is nothing new about this. Here is a quote from 2005: “Writing off debt sends the worst possible message to absent liable parents.”, she thundered. “Those who do the right thing and pay their way will be left wondering why they bothered.”, she screamed. That was the Hon Judith Collins railing against the accumulation of unpaid child support debt, and when she did it was less than $1 billion. It was $1.3 billion when this Government came into office. Guess how much it is today? It is $2.3 billion. Those members have presided over a $1 billion blowout in child support debt, and they tinker with the system, rather than overhaul it.
The people of New Zealand are so sadly disappointed in this Government. They did have hopes for it and they are rapidly getting over that fallacy. They hoped that this would be a Government with a heart, a Government that would listen to families and whānau and communities and that would build on their good ideas from the bottom up, not tell them how to live their lives from the Beehive down. Well, that was a sad, forlorn hope, was it not? The Labour Party believes that, above all, this bill represents a lost opportunity to address the well-being of children in vulnerable families. The Government has had years—years—to address those issues and to ensure the bill provided a fair way forward. The consultation process took it years, but the Minister has just told us he is introducing amendments in this House that have never been to the select committee. A 2-year consultation, and he cannot even get them to the committee on time! Despite all of that time, the Government has failed to provide an improved system that is transparent, fair, and flexible and that will address the situation of the 133,000 kids growing up in poverty in single-parent families, most of whom are dependent upon child support. Yes, we needed the penalties regime adjusted. Yes, we needed more flexibility. Yes, we needed to put children first. But, no, this bill does not deliver. Thank you.
Debate interrupted.
Business of the House
Business of the House
Hon Gerry Brownlee: What a wasted talent, Mr Speaker—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You have to call me.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, well, I was just saying what a wasted talent.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member calling?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: A point of order, Mr Speaker—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): A point of order. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Following a discussion at the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break following Charles Chauvel’s valedictory statement on 27 February 2013.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. It is agreed.
Bills
Child Support Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Child Support Amendment Bill in its second reading. What a dramatic speech we have just had from the “Prince of Ponsonby”, the member for the New Lynn electorate. I too have actually been out to New Lynn—
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a well-known convention in the House that members must be addressed by their correct names. I would ask you to reflect upon that.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the members can refer to members’ electorates, as well. If the member is the member for New Lynn, then he is quite—
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know you are from South Auckland, but Ponsonby is not in New Lynn.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh, of course. Yes, the member is right. The member must refer either to the member’s name or to the electorate in which the member serves.
ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do withdraw the comment that he is the “Prince of Ponsonby”. He is—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will be seated. The member has been here long enough now to know that he cannot refer back to a point of order. That is actually subverting the course and the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House. The member will not do that.
ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The dramatic speech that we actually had just a moment ago—just in regard to the consultation and engaging with the concerns and the care of children. If that honourable member had actually been part of the Social Services Committee, he would have known of the extensive consultation process that had taken place. There was a child support paper out in 2010, on which there were over 2,300 submissions—over 2,272 participants on online consultations and 112 written submissions. In fact, there was a wide range of extensive engagement with the Minister for Social Development, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Families Commission, and Treasury. So the comment that we as a Government have not consulted is not true, at all.
But this bill, in its second reading—we know that people have strong views on child support—deals with the welfare of their children, and it needs to be a scheme that fits with the realities of parenting and raising and supporting children today. Comments were made about the issues of children and their concerns. Are we meeting their needs? Well, from a submitter—right from the horse’s mouth, right from the people who have this concern—this is what they said: “The system needs to be fair. Families need to be encouraged to sort things out for themselves and I believe government agencies need to keep out of these situations as much as possible as they are often very complex. I think the first option should always be for a private arrangement to be made (with guidelines available), and the child support system should only fall-back if an agreement by the parties can’t be reached.”
This process has been consultative. It has been extensive. We know the issues are very complex. There has been a number of submissions about the complexity. As a select committee, we have considered these and taken these into account, and we believe that the changes that have been made and that have been amended will adequately meet these needs. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill, represents a missed opportunity to address the well-being of children in vulnerable families. We know that the last Labour Government lifted 130,000 children out of poverty with Working for Families. We know that it can be done, and we know that it is a priority for the Labour Party and for several parties in this House. Unfortunately, it seems to be a very low priority, if any priority at all, for this National Government, and that is a tragedy.
That is a tragedy, because we heard in the Social Services Committee from many groups representing the interests of children that made it very clear that this legislation could be improved by referring to and referencing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I moved a motion in the select committee to make sure that we considered the rights of the children so that the legislation would be targeted toward the well-being of children, so that children would be its priority, and that was voted down by the Government members on that committee. I think that that is to their shame. A second motion was moved when there was concern raised about litigation potential if we referenced that legislation. We put it to the vote again as to whether we should take some legal advice and broaden the scope so that there was no room for legislative action, but equally we were referencing the desire to put children at the heart of the legislation. That too was voted down. So what we have here, unfortunately, is a piece of legislation that refuses to put children at the heart of it. That is ignoring directly submissions presented by the Auckland Coalition for the Safety for Women and Children, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Dunedin Community Law Centre, the Families Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the New Zealand Law Society, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, the Equal Justice Project, and the Women’s Studies Association. Others referenced it too, but those are significant groups that raised concern about the welfare of children in New Zealand and the failure in this proposed legislation to deal with the rights and well-being of children. It is a missed opportunity by this Government.
Part of that missed opportunity lies in the way in which the legislation perpetrates the current practice. We know that roughly 25 percent of New Zealand’s children are being raised in poverty—25 percent of New Zealand’s children. The way in which the new payments will be calculated in this legislation perpetrates that same problem. It is based upon a redistribution in the current sense; officials have modelled the estimates of cost of raising a child on the status quo. That means we are missing an opportunity to make sure those most vulnerable children have the resources necessary to give them the opportunities that would raise them and their families in future out of poverty. It would break that chain, potentially, and this opportunity has been passed over. The Government was also advised on the benefits of a pass-on mechanism in the legislation, and it refused to take a position on it.
Overall, we know that this legislation will be bad for women. It will be bad for the taxpayer overall because the taxpayer picks up some additional bills, but it will also be bad for women as the burden of payment shifts on to those who do the majority of the caring. We know that the 28 percent threshold proposed in the bill will mean that costs will be shared between caregivers, but we do not think that represents a fair way of doing things under the current proposals, because those who look after kids for the weekend seldom are buying the school uniforms, seldom are paying the dental bills, seldom are paying the doctors’ bills, and so on. We know that those who are the majority caregivers, those who are the lead caregivers, pick up most of those costs. So apportioning costs directly on the basis of time spent will see the majority of caregivers worse off. We know that the majority of caregivers are women, so we know that this bill is likely to mean that those women who are struggling to raise children will struggle yet more when this legislation is passed.
We have concerns also in the Labour Party about the transparency of the proposed new formula. It is very hard for families to plan ahead in any circumstance. Life presents many challenges. But for those families that have separated, particularly in acrimonious circumstances, and have not been able to reach a voluntary agreement as to how they will share responsibilities and the costs associated with raising children, we find that they now will have to try to understand and try to wrestle with a very complex formula. Forward planning becomes a whole lot more difficult.
I saw that the Hon Peter Dunne was on the back foot on this issue. He began by saying at the start of his speech that you would not need a fancy accountant to work out the formula. Well, I contest that in fact an advanced degree in algebra might be helpful if the amount of time the select committee spent wrestling with this issue is anything to go by.
Mike Sabin: You’ve got to consider the average IQ on the committee.
Dr DAVID CLARK: If we listen to what the officials said, and the 15 percent extra time, Mr Sabin, that they suggested would be required to train up their own staff and for them to carry out their business in future, we would see that the Inland Revenue Department is planning for this to be a much more complex piece of legislation to understand too. So where the Minister gets the idea that this will be transparent and simple to work with is anyone’s guess. The Inland Revenue Department reported that it was expecting a 15 percent increase in workload associated with administering an area that is already its most expensive product to administer on a per-person basis. So this new solution is going to take a whole lot more bureaucracy. And we would hope that if it was involving a whole lot more bureaucracy, it was actually going to deliver a better outcome. That is by no means clear. Women are worse off, children are not prioritised, and there is extra cost involved.
There are number of other little fish-hooks in this legislation. One, for example, is the burden that will be placed on employers, who are likely to receive requests for additional payments to be docked from the wages of employees who are not meeting payments. In principle, that sounds like it might be a fair thing. If employees are not meeting their obligations, then we in Labour believe that they should be encouraged to do so. However, we learnt—again, from officials—that no immediate plans are in place to inform people that this might be happening. We also understand that they have not consulted employers. Employers are going to be expected to administer additional payroll things. They are also going to be required to take care of specific personal information that they will have about their employees that, presumably, their employees had not shared with them, for some reason, cultural or otherwise. Then the employers are going to be expected to keep this information to themselves. If they do not, they may open themselves up to future litigation. As far as I am aware, employers have not asked for nor been consulted on these extra responsibilities that are being foisted upon them by the Government. It is a Government that seems determined to push more red tape on to business.
In addition to the administration costs the Inland Revenue Department is expecting, it is also expecting that the IT rebuild will cost somewhere in the vicinity of $100 million. This is to rebuild a system that is not currently working very well anyway. It is adding on to our current legacy system in the tax department. It has a plan, it tells us, to fix it some time in the next 5 years. We have heard no credible plan to see how it is going to do this. But the Government is saying that it is going to rebuild a little add-on to the system to make sure that it can run it. We have seen it fall over when it has tried to do this in similar circumstances with the student loan. It will have its fingers crossed that it is only $100 million. Then, if it introduces a new tax system eventually, a new IT system—if it gets around to updating our 20-year-old tax system one day—it will have to do it all over again. It is duplicated money. It is poor spending of taxpayers’ money to introduce a system that is not transparent, that disadvantages children, that makes them not the priority, that makes women worse off overall, and that has fish-hooks for employers.
Overall, this is bad legislation. It represents a lost opportunity to address the well-being of children and vulnerable families. This Government has had plenty of opportunity to ensure that the bill presents a fair way forward. It has failed to generate an outcome that is fair, transparent, and representative of taxpayer money. We think it could have done a whole lot better.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How?
Dr DAVID CLARK: It could have listened to the officials, it could have happily—the member asks how. It could have taken it back to the Minister, as was proposed in the committee, to broaden the purposes of the bill so that it actually took account of the welfare of children. That is what was put to the select committee and was voted down by the Government members, who did not want children at the centre of this legislation, who did not want children’s well-being at the centre of this legislation, and who do not seem to care about the 133,000 children dependent on this legislation working correctly.
HOLLY WALKER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. The Green Party supports the objective of a fair, transparent child support scheme to provide financial support to children whose parents or caregivers cannot mutually agree on what financial contributions they will make to support their children—and that is the starting point for considering this legislation. However, we have had concerns about the fairness of this Child Support Amendment Bill and what it proposes since its introduction. We opposed it at the first reading for this reason, will continue to oppose it, and I am pleased to see that the Labour Party has now joined us in that opposition.
Phil Twyford: We always follow the Greens.
HOLLY WALKER: I know, Mr Twyford. Nevertheless we did engage very constructively in the select committee process, because we wanted to see whether we could improve the legislation and ensure that it did achieve that goal of a fair, transparent system, and ensure that it did maximise the best interests of children. Although we were ultimately disappointed that the Social Services Committee did not take the opportunity to use the bill to improve the scheme in the best interests of children, I would none the less like to thank the chair and members of the committee and the advisers and staff for what was, I think, a very informative process.
Unfortunately, that process did not allay our concerns or improve the bill. Indeed, many of the very well-prepared submissions that we heard at the select committee from the likes of the Children’s Commissioner, the Families Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Child Poverty Action Group, as well as many individuals and families submitting on their own circumstances, raised significant new areas of concern or ways that the bill could be improved, which have not been addressed by the select committee process. Chief amongst these, as we have heard from the previous speaker, David Clark, was the missed opportunity to use this amendment bill to enshrine the principle of child well-being as a core objective of the Child Support Act. This could easily have been done by inserting a clause requiring that the best interests of the child be paramount in the administration of the child support scheme, and that could have been easily inserted into the principal Act. It was ruled to be within the scope of the bill for the committee to consider this amendment, yet Government members blocked a request to write to the Minister of Revenue to request that this amendment be advanced, and they also blocked a request to seek further advice from officials on the point, which I think was a real shame. It was a great shame because inserting a clause like this would have helped New Zealand to meet our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is timely that we should be considering this, because on 13 March New Zealand will mark 20 years since the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, yet here we are 20 years later passing up an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to that important international agreement by enshrining the rights of the child in our child support scheme—and if you cannot enshrine the rights of the child in the child support scheme, I do wonder where we do enshrine them.
A commitment in the purposes of the Act to maximise the best interests of the child would, of course, therefore flow through to a number of other improvements elsewhere in the bill, which unfortunately have also been disregarded by Government members. At the committee we heard from a number of submitters, including Child Poverty Action Group and the Children’s Commissioner, that the child support scheme could play a much more significant role in reducing and eliminating child poverty in New Zealand, which is obviously a huge problem facing the country. The child support scheme could help with that, if it allowed for the pass-on of child support payments to parents who are reliant on benefits, and if it allowed for advanced payments to guarantee child support to receiving parents, even if the liable parents are late or behind in their payments.
It may not be widely understood by those not directly affected by the scheme that, at present, if the receiving parent is a beneficiary, any child support payments from the liable parent are retained by the Crown as a way of offsetting the cost of providing that benefit. This means that the money paid by the liable parent does not directly benefit their child in any way, despite the fact that the liable parent is making payments to support their children. The receiving parent has to survive and provide for their children on no more than they are entitled to through the State benefit system, which, as we know, is hardly adequate for the support of children. So this is a huge disincentive to liable parents to meet their child support obligations, as they know that their money will not directly benefit their child in any way.
In fact, there is ample international evidence that allowing child support payments to be passed on to parents who receive a benefit definitely and substantially improves the level of compliance amongst liable parents to meet their obligations. Those parents who have liabilities under child support at the moment think: “What’s the point of meeting my obligations and making my child support payments if I know they’re not even going to reach my child?”. There is significant evidence to suggest that if they knew it would benefit their children directly, they would be much more likely to comply with their obligations. Passing on child support payments to receiving parents who are reliant on benefits would also directly improve the lives of thousands of children, and it would help to relieve child poverty, because there is a significant correlation and crossover between the children of parents who are reliant on benefits and reliant on child support and those living in child poverty. Of course, it would encourage liable parents to meet their obligations. So we are very disappointed that the Government chose not to take this opportunity to improve the scheme by including that provision.
Similarly, having the State guarantee or advance child support payments to receiving parents, to ensure a stable regular income for those parents and their children, would greatly improve the lives of those children, and increase the financial stability of their family. After all, it is not the fault of children if the liable parent is late or behind with their child support payments. They have the same physical and emotional and practical needs that need to be met, and it is of considerable benefit to their receiving parent if they are able to budget accordingly and know that they have a guaranteed income from child support coming in at the same time every week. So, again, a State guarantee or advance of child support payments would have been a significant improvement on this bill, which was passed up.
So much for some of the missed opportunities to improve this bill at the select committee. I now want to move to some of the fundamental concerns with the bill as it was originally introduced that remain following the select committee process. The most fundamental of these is the complexity of the new child support formula that it introduces, and this is really at the heart of the bill and the most substantial change that it makes. Officials acknowledged to the select committee that the new child support formula in the bill is much, much more complicated than the formula it replaces, which is already reasonably complex and difficult for parents to understand. But the new formula introduces a large number of new variables that would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the average parent to calculate their entitlements or liabilities without the assistance of an accountant—and I challenge the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Peter Dunne, when he says that it would be something that parents would not require any special support in order to be able to calculate. In fact, as we heard from the previous speaker, it is an incredibly complicated formula and will be incredibly difficult for parents to negotiate themselves. This complex formula detracts from the simplicity, the efficiency, and the transparency of the child support system, which was a point made by the Law Society in its submission. It is a fundamental tenet, I think, that parents should be able to easily understand their liabilities and entitlements, so that they can have confidence in the fairness of the child support scheme, and the new formula makes this incredibly difficult.
Not only that but it is so complicated that it will put the Inland Revenue Department’s already creaking and groaning IT system under considerable strain. We heard from officials that it will require fundamental changes to the administrative systems of the Inland Revenue Department in order to be able to implement the changes in this bill. In fact, so fundamental are those changes that we have had to delay by a year the introduction of this bill, so that the department can get its systems up to scratch to introduce this complex new formula. These changes that are required at the Inland Revenue Department are so fundamental that the costs of administering the new system have been estimated at $91 million, not including a $28 million contingency fund beyond that, yet with no discernible benefit for the children who are supposedly at the heart of this scheme—or would be, at least, if such an amendment was included in it. So that is a massive cost—an extra $100 million and a $28 million liability—that cannot, in our view, be justified, given the flaws in the new formula and its failure to maximise the fairness and promote the best interests of the child.
It is a complex formula and yet it is so flawed that it does not take into account the vital importance of the early years of a child’s life, from age zero to 3, and accord appropriate weight to the costs of having young children. It is a complex formula and yet it would result in a disproportionate impact on women, especially female sole parents. Figures provided to us at the committee suggest that almost 30,000 mothers could experience a reduction in their monthly child support as a result of this bill. In one worked example provided by officials, a sole parent with two children who spend 2 nights per week with the other parent would have their annual child support entitlement reduced by 36 percent, or more than $3,000.
So we in the Green Party cannot support a child support scheme that is so complex, that will pose a huge additional cost on the taxpayer, with no additional benefit for children, and that disproportionately hurts women and fails to alleviate child poverty. We will therefore continue to oppose this bill.
MELISSA LEE (National): Ahn nyung ha se yo, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou. I would like to start off my contribution to the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill with a comment back to Holly—
Hon Member: Who?
MELISSA LEE: —Miss Holly Walker—who actually made a comment saying that there were people who said they would pay more if they were guaranteed that the money would go to the children. That is what individual agreements between parents are all about. This bill is not about parents who have individual agreements who can pay each other more money. They should pay it themselves. When two people get married and have a child, child support is probably the last thing on their mind, but when that marriage breaks up, the care of that child is divided between the two parents, and if the two parents cannot agree on an amicable financial management arrangement for the care of the child, the payment for the child, the child support, is actually the thing that kicks in.
This child support scheme was created back in 1992, and there are roughly 210,000 children who receive child support. Under the current child support scheme it is assumed that the paying parent is the sole income earner, but we all know that that is not so. The paying parent is not the sole income earner, and the receiving parent is not the only main carer of the child. There are many divorces. I am one of those persons who, having cared for my child in a shared custody situation, know very well that I am not the main income earner or the main child supporter, nor is my ex-husband. We share that care. This comprehensive, new child support formula will better reflect many of the social and legal changes that have occurred since the introduction of the current scheme.
The incomes of both parents will be taken into consideration in this bill, where the income of the parents, minus the living allowance for each parent, will be included in the formula, with the costs of raising children being apportioned according to each parent’s share of the total net income. The formula takes into account the age of the child as well. We all know that when children grow older—I am raising a child who is 14, and in the last year his food intake has increased astronomically. He eats me out of house and home. The cost of providing that food alone is humungous. I think he eats more than my mum and me put together. We all know how much raising a child actually costs.
Non-parent carers may be eligible to receive a proportion of child support payments if they provide at least 28 percent of the ongoing daily care. That may include a grandparent who might be raising that child, who might be looking after the child on behalf of parents who are divorced.
This is a good bill, and I recommend it to the House. I will look forward to the debate in the Committee stage.
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Talofa lava. Manuia fa’afetai. The proposed changes to child support payments in the Child Support Amendment Bill indicate how outdated our current scheme is. We worry about what a child will become tomorrow, yet we forget that he or she is someone today. Our families face different challenges and circumstances from those that families faced in 1992. Our 21-year-old child support scheme no longer reflects the lives of our modern families, and may prove to be more futile than effective.
Questions have been raised surrounding the ambiguous definitions concerning parents and caregivers. Questions have also been raised on the percentage split for payments that are determined by how much time a parent or caregiver spends with the child. I am looking forward to receiving the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister of Revenue alluded to earlier on today.
It is beneficial to see the bill attempting to ensure that we revitalise and construct a new structure for child support payments that is in tune with the present. A child support system is futile if it is unable to keep up with the times. The proposed changes will emphasise the importance of child rearing and should aim to provide appropriate and necessary policies. This will ensure that the needs of the child or children involved are firmly met, and that the caregivers are receiving the right amount of financial support. Full-time caregivers have an important role to play in raising their children. Financial constraints should be the least—the least—of their worries. It is our hope that this new formula will ensure that every child is afforded the right amount of financial assistance from both parents or caregivers, so that they may grow up in a happy household.
For far too long, far too often—[Interruption]—we see separated parents struggling to balance their lifestyles to the needs of their children or child. I can hear Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga trying to make some comments, and I wish they were relevant. The primary parent or caregiver may have to work long hours just to make ends meet, or may not receive sufficient financial support from the other parent. It is our children—
Paul Goldsmith: There’s no need to shout.
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I need you to listen and hear what I am saying, Paul Goldsmith. It is our children who lose out at the end of the day. It is not my fault that I have been gifted with such a quality voice. The children are the ones who will be deprived of essential quality time with their parents. This amendment bill, Paul Goldsmith, enables the parents to receive or pay the right amount of support for their child or children, so that the responsibility is equally and fairly shared.
Paul Goldsmith: That’s better.
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I thought you might like that. Moreover, the proposed amendments reflect trends and patterns of life changes that New Zealand families currently face. The scheme should improve their lives and not become a burden. It is no surprise that families are working longer hours and probably working two jobs just to pay the bills and take care of their families. With the rising cost of living come longer hours away from children, just so parents may chase the buck. The amendment bill should take this into account, with greater emphasis on different living arrangements and circumstances. Not all families are unitary or fit one particular mould. Grandparents and other extended family members may be staying at home, looking after the child or children, if the primary parent is absent. Situations as such should be afforded some leniency, which is good to see in this bill. For the sake of keeping families together and not allowing more children to fall through the system, the child support system should ensure that if the other parent is unable to care for the children, for justifiable reasons, and the children are in the care of the grandparents, then the grandparents should be receiving sufficient support. It is one way of ensuring that their capacity to look after the children is not hindered or constrained by a lack of financial support.
Our children are our future, so we owe it to them and ourselves to ensure that their well-being is at the core of any policy that comes through the Social Services Committee. It will take time to assess whether or not the new scheme will be open to different living situations and arrangements, but the prospects look promising at this stage, I must say. The scheme should aim to align itself as closely as possible to the changes that are occurring in society and that directly affect our families. If it fails to do so, then it is our responsibility to ensure that it does, and we must find ways to implement new changes.
Parents have a responsibility to safeguard their child or children from harsh effects or neglect, and are also obligated to provide the best possible pathways for them. The bill should be effective in assisting parents who have primary care of their child, and treat parents or caregivers who are paying child support with added fairness. Child support ought to help parents, not punish one or the other. It should be a scheme that offers the right amount of assistance, equal to the amount of care they provide for the child. Simultaneously, it should also encourage parents to pay child support, not look for ways to dodge payments.
The obligations, incentives, and penalties attached to the new formula will make it easier and more desirable for parents to pay and receive child support. They will enable more attention to go towards raising children, rather than chasing up late payments or no payments at all. Parents will have more time to invest in making sure that their child is properly taken care of. This is the way it should be. Children should not have to be victimised by relationships breaking down, nor should they be neglected by one parent for fear of child support payments deterring them from spending time with their child. Instead, parents should be encouraged to be positive role models for their children. Every child deserves a happy home and a safe environment to live in.
Legislation we pass through this House is to determine a fair go for New Zealand’s future generations. Neil Postman was right in the 1982 introduction to The Disappearance of Childhood. He said: “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” Today’s children are tomorrow’s future. They deserve to be protected, for they will be the leaders—
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: That’s beautiful.
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: —of this nation in years to come. It is a beautiful quote for you to learn from, Sam Lotu-Iiga. It is time to stop procrastinating and to develop better solutions. After all, children find everything in nothing, whereas men find nothing in everything. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. I will just acknowledge the previous speaker, Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor, and the select committee work that has gone on. It is fair to say that it has been a challenging bill to work on because of the complex and administrative nature of the bill. The Child Support Act itself commenced back in 1992. Is that right?
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Yes.
MIKE SABIN: I am just correcting my facts there.
There were some comments made by Opposition speakers about the disappointment they felt that this bill did not enshrine the notion of children being at the heart of this legislation, and that that was not explicitly stated in the legislation. The reason for that—and it was well traversed—was because it is implicit in this legislation that children are at the heart of what is essentially an administrative tool to ensure that, where separated parents cannot agree on childcare and payment arrangements, this can be achieved by way of legislation. That will never be an easy undertaking. I would submit that although there are indeed many complexities to this legislation and getting the formula right, it is first and foremost about administration, and it is dealing with human complexities, far more so than this formula could ever be. But at its heart it is about ensuring that parents can make arrangements that are in the best interests of their children. Sadly, there are many families who cannot make those arrangements in an amicable manner, and some 220,000 children are subject to child support arrangements.
This legislation really fundamentally drills down to some important changes that are occurring. I just want to briefly traverse those. Firstly, in relation to the formula and a greater recognition of shared care in modern New Zealand, we live in a dynamic environment now, where it seems that more than 50 percent of couples are separated, with children living in blended environments. Many of them succeed and do well in these environments, but this legislation needs to reflect that complexity. Secondly, we are updating the scheme to better recognise significant daytime care, because it is the case now that mothers and fathers have different care and working arrangements, and the involvement of fathers is increasing more as the years go on. I think that is a very positive thing and something that should be acknowledged: that fathers are playing a greater role in the upbringing of their children. The third thing is that it really looks at some improvements around payments, penalties, and debt. Two billion dollars worth of debt is accrued in the scheme, some 60 percent by way of penalties. Although there were the best of intentions in this legislation when it was first drafted, much time has moved on. Unfortunately, as we see, we often get anomalies that not only have a human cost, but also a financial cost to them. That is also being addressed in this bill.
I will briefly cover off and close on a point about the fact that this bill is setting about to be more equitable in terms of the thresholds of care and the shared-care arrangements, and lowering that threshold to 28 percent as opposed to 40 percent. I myself—having personally been in a situation where I was affected by this—think this is a very, very sound move. Also, it takes into account the actual expenditure involved in raising a child, although, as has already been canvassed, teenagers would have one spend considerable amounts of money on their—what do they call them—Androids and textbook-y Facebook things, and all those devices where you swipe your finger across and strange things happen. I am sure the Minister to my left could elaborate further on that one.
In closing, I just want to say that what this bill is setting out to achieve—and make no mistake about it, no one says that this is simple or that you will get the balance right for every single person. But it is about fairness, it is about reflecting New Zealand society today, and it is about better outcomes for parents who are ultimately struggling to reach amicable arrangements. First and foremost, what we should be doing in communities is to try to support the sorts of values that ensure that when things go wrong in relationships, those parents are working to make their own arrangements and to support the interests of their children. I am happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am also pleased to speak on the second reading of this important bill, or rather, a bill that could have been much more important in its effects than what it is going to be. The title of the bill is the Child Support Amendment Bill, and the question has to be asked: does it actually support children in the way that modern society expects our children to be supported? The answer has to be no. I think that the last speaker, Mike Sabin, actually did confirm that the purpose of this bill was not child support. What the last speaker was saying was that it is really just a technical bill and that really it is about the technical transfer of moneys. Maybe that is the problem with how the Government members have seen this bill. This side of the House—ourselves, together with the Greens—will not support this bill, because we do not think the bill achieves the objectives it started off trying to achieve.
Those objectives are well worth reading. The bill was “To improve the fairness of the child support scheme”, and to reflect the social changes that are taking place in our society. On this side of the House, we do not think that it actually does improve the fairness of the scheme, when you look at it from the point of view of children. The second objective was “To promote the welfare of children, in particular by recognising that children are disadvantaged when child support is not paid,”. The point I am making here is that children will be more disadvantaged by this particular bill.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: That’s not true.
Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The chair of the Social Services Committee does not accept that, but if the member wants to listen to the arguments, then I am sure the member will get there in terms of what the purpose of the bill is and what it does not achieve.
Child support through the Inland Revenue Department is usually an indication that the family has not been able to work it out, that couples have not been able to work out, that separating parents have not managed to arrive at any amicable arrangement. If they did, Melissa Lee is right, they would not have been part of this system. So it is right from the beginning that it is fraught with difficulties. The scheme was designed in 1991, so it is an old scheme. Although it has had amendments since then, it is still now trying to deliver to a very different set of circumstances amongst our families. The idea of the review and the promise of the review was something we supported, and it has been going on for some time. Our family form today is very different from what it was in 1971 and the family arrangements today are very, very different. We now have more blended families. We now have more reconstituted families. We now have families living in all kinds of different arrangements, and therefore those arrangements now require different systems for income and for support of children. Clearly, then, the arrangements the bill currently reflects are needing significant reform, and it is not surprising that it has taken some time to get there.
But the bill was also a major opportunity for the Government to address longstanding issues about children. Members from the Government side who have spoken about this have separated that out. Somehow it is simply a technical transfer of funds from one parent to the other in a formulaic way. Well, it is never that simple, and it is always more than that. It is no wonder that the arrangements around children, around child support, are some of the most difficult negotiations, filled with the angst and what have you that most of us are familiar with. I say that the Government has not taken the opportunity to also look at the life experiences of many of these children, and it could have done so with this particular bill. The provisions that this bill could have come up with are very similar to what exists in overseas jurisdictions. But there is this blank wall. There is a refusal to look at it in that particular way.
There are 270,000 children living in poverty in New Zealand, and 133,000 of those live in sole-parent families. Why is the Government so reluctant to address child poverty? By every indication over the past 4 years it is reluctant to do that. The Government is well aware of the impact of poverty on children and what it does. It essentially excludes them from society. It excludes those families and excludes those children. Although income maintenance is an important aspect of coming back into being included in society, when it comes to our most vulnerable this Government is not taking those opportunities. Somehow it is just too difficult, or ideologically it is opposed to it. It wants to keep the gap that exists between those who are well off and those who are strugglers. Here was an opportunity the Government did not take for itself.
The submitters on the bill were very, very thoughtful. One of the things they wondered about was that the effect of these changes will fall disproportionately on those who will be least able to withstand a reduction in income. The regulatory impact statement shows that there will be a reduction for quite a sizable number of families bringing up children. So there will be a reduction, and it falls disproportionately. It arises because of the formula of using 28 percent as the threshold. If you are providing 2 nights’ care out of seven, then you are entitled to a reduction. In fact the cost to the mum—assuming it is the mum—bringing up those children is no less. It does not go any less and yet they will have to manage their children on a reduced income. How does that work? How is it better? How does it not keep people in poverty, if you like, and in sub-optimal conditions as well? That is a major difficulty.
There were many of our major institutions—the Families Commission, the Children’s Commissioner—that suggested a pathway to addressing poverty through these particular provisions. It was the pass-on provisions. The pass-on provisions are simply that the income provided, the money provided by one parent, passes to the caring parent, and that immediately, in one stroke, I say to members opposite, would have addressed poverty for those 133,000 people, many of whom are in this particular group. That would have addressed that, but somehow the Government was reluctant to address child poverty questions. It did not want to look at it. It simply saw, as the last speaker said, this as a technical exercise. But when does a Government take responsibility for the most vulnerable in our society? It spends billions of dollars looking at the impact of poverty, and the impact on our children. It is happy to do that, whether it is in health, in housing, or in education etc. It is happy to test them in schools simply because they are not achieving in those schools. Yet when it comes to spending what in comparative terms is modest income, a modest amount of money to address that, it did not take this opportunity. There is no response. The Government, the members opposite, did not address that so far.
There are just so many things wrong with this particular bill that even though we support, like the Greens do, the object of this particular bill, to create a fairer system that supports children, this bill fails in its provisions. So for those reasons we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): It is a privilege for me to stand and speak on this second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. As chair of the Social Services Committee, which oversaw the work on this bill, may I thank the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, for the hard work that he has put in and for the constructive assistance that he gave to our committee, and also our committee members. Although some here today are voting against the proposed legislation, like the previous speaker, Rajen Prasad, I think it would be fair to say that all members of our committee agreed that the current legislation on the books is outdated and that it required reform, and that is why this bill has come before the House.
One of the Government’s key social objectives is to ensure that New Zealanders have an equal opportunity to take part in, and contribute to, our society. That includes providing a safety net through which the benefit system is working for those who are unable, for various reasons, to support themselves. But this is not a welfare bill per se. This is a bill, as many have already alluded to this afternoon, that supports the calculation of payments between parents who, for whatever reason, have found themselves in circumstances where they are living apart and where they need to raise a child. Those are unfortunate circumstances, and we have all acknowledged that, but it is for the benefit of those children that the financial responsibilities are divided between the parents in a fair, in an equitable, and in a transparent manner. That is what this bill does. It does not provide for child poverty, as Mr Rajen Prasad has asked for, and it is not the silver bullet, as Mrs Lole-Taylor has suggested was required in this legislation, but it is a bill that provides for the upkeep and the maintenance of relationships, and, in particular, it is for our children to be looked after where those circumstances have broken down.
The contention by Mr Clark in his submission this afternoon that we take into account the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is misplaced. It is misplaced because we cannot introduce a subjective test in the way that these calculations are performed in order to determine a payment between two parents. It cannot be done in a subjective manner. I think most people agree that an objective formula is the appropriate mechanism with which to allocate resources for a child. The way the formula has arisen, and the way it was conducted and has been researched—and we looked at the Australian legislation and the way that it approached this area of the law—we all felt resulted in the appropriate mechanism. To introduce another, subjective test to that calculation is inappropriate, in my view. In my view, it would complicate a simplified bill that has come to this House.
The Act is 21 years old, and what has already been acknowledged across this House is that circumstances have changed. We have numerous blended families now that are living in our country. This bill is a mechanism with which we can calculate the distribution of child support between parents, and it is efficient and transparent. The three changes in this bill are that the calculation formula recognises shared care, the income of both parents, and new estimates of expenditure for raising children in our country. We did look at the formulas. We looked at the way that expenditure was calculated, and I think that the amendments that we made to the bill are suitable and appropriate for our country in 2013 going forward. That does not mean, of course, that this necessarily futureproofs the bill in terms of maybe changing circumstances in the future, but, in my view, this bill is appropriate for 2013 going forward, in terms of the factors that we need to take into account. Secondary changes, of course, to update the scheme took into account key factors such as recognising significant daytime care and relying on parenting orders and agreements. Again, I say that those are matters that members across this House have agreed upon.
This bill cannot come soon enough. I have had a couple of cases in the last year where if this bill had been in place it would have led to a better outcome for the parents involved in those two situations. So I support this bill. I look forward to the Committee stage. Certainly, it is a bill that, in a very difficult area of the law, we can come together to decide upon an appropriate course going forward. Thank you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is not a split call. Sue Moroney, 10 minutes.
SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. The bill, as many other speakers have said in this debate, has been a long time coming. It is in fact more than 20 years since this issue was revisited. Of course, we all, right across the House, do recognise the need to review, particularly in situations like this, where family relationships are complex matters and do move and change as society evolves and changes. That, of course, is precisely what has happened in this situation. It is 21 years since the child support legislation was revisited. Things have changed. We all acknowledge—certainly, Labour voted for this legislation at its first reading because we wanted the opportunity to have a good, close look at it in the Social Services Committee—the need to update this legislation, but, sadly, in this instance we think that the Government has got it wrong. Actually, we think that the Government has got it wrong at a very fundamental level—not just in some of the fine detail, but actually at a very fundamental level. This piece of legislation that we are visiting here is called the Child Support Amendment Bill. It is about child support. It is Labour’s view that we would come up with a different set of conclusions in reviewing this legislation if the interests of the child were put solidly at the centre of every consideration that the Government and the select committee made about this piece of legislation.
I want to refer to the speech from the member who spoke immediately before me, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, because I think he put it in a nutshell, actually. He said that he had dealt with two cases recently where the outcomes would have been better for the parents if this piece of legislation had already been enacted. He said the outcome would have been better for the parents. He had no comment to make about whether the outcome would have been better for the children or not. That is the basic mistake that the Government is making, because the whole point of this legislation is to ensure that, in situations where there is a family relationship breakdown, the children are taken care of. That is what this bill is about. It is not about serving the interests of the parents; it is first and foremost about serving the interests of the children. The National MP who just resumed his seat spelt it out loud and clear for us, I think, that the Government has got sidelined by getting involved in working out the whole thing about whether parents win or lose under this arrangement. That is where the Government has gone so badly wrong. This is not about the argy-bargy that goes on between parents. This legislation ought to be about putting children at the heart of it.
I am not a permanent member of the select committee that led this legislation, but I did have the opportunity to sit in on some of the deliberations and certainly some of the submissions during the course of the select committee deliberations on this bill. One of the days when I was present, there was a debate about some wording changes that Labour was proposing to ensure that in the objectives of this amendment bill there would be a statement about the interests of the child and making that central to this piece of legislation. I was alarmed that the National members on that select committee were opposed to that concept. That was an alarm bell that went off for me, because I could not understand why setting that out as a basic premise and objective for this amendment and this review would be opposed by Government members on that select committee. It seemed to me a very basic requirement that should be at the heart of this legislation. So it is not only that Government members have inadvertently overlooked this really fundamentally important part of this legislation; they deliberately opposed amending the objective of this piece of legislation to protecting the interests of children first and foremost.
I am Labour’s spokesperson on women’s affairs and I, of course, am interested in what the impacts of this change in legislation will be on women. The impacts, I am sad to report to this House, are not good. They are not favourable generally for women. As people have said, individual family situations can be quite different from each other, so there is by no means one silver bullet. But if we look across an average of what will happen in this legislation, and accept that, as it is still in New Zealand to this day, most of the parents who are the main carers of children in this situation will be women, and are in fact women—because that is what the statistics tell us—then we need to understand that there are gender implications with this legislation, as well. The legislation does have significant implications for women, because, on average, women earn less than men, and, as I have just said, they are much more likely to be the primary caregivers. The overall effect of this bill is to apportion an even greater share of the cost of child rearing to women. Many women will be worse off as a result of this legislation.
One of the main mechanisms for that effect is the reduced threshold for shared care. That reduced threshold for shared care actually puts in a financial incentive, mainly for fathers, who are the liable parent, not the custodial parent, in the main—not always, but in the main. It puts in a financial incentive for them to want to get involved in the care of their children because it will cost them less—it will actually cost them less.
Paul Goldsmith: That sounds good.
SUE MORONEY: Well, the member says that sounds good, but if the member was to put the interests of the child at the heart of that situation, would we really want fathers to get involved in shared care because there is a financial incentive for them to do so? Is that really what we want? I certainly do not think that is a good outcome. It is not a good outcome. The National MPs may think that is a good outcome, but I do not. I want shared-care arrangements to be genuine. I want them to be in the best interests of children. I do not want them to be based on some accounting book exercise that a father does to work out how he can pay less in liable contributions, because that is what this piece of legislation actually invites. If that was in the best interests of the child, I would be the first to agree to it. But actually putting a financial incentive there to try to increase shared care is not necessarily in the interests of the child.
What it does do, actually, is unfairly impact on women, because we know that parents caring for a child 2 days a week are unlikely to share a proportionate responsibility for providing the basics of life. So although they might share food bills proportionately because they have got the child or the children for 2 days of the week, they are really unlikely to be paying for the cost of school uniforms. They are quite unlikely to be sharing the proportionate costs of the clothing, doctors’ appointments, dental costs—all of those week-to-week, day-to-day expenses in providing for children. It is under this mechanism that we know that on average there will be a shift. There will be a further burden of costs shifted on to women, who are in the main the primary caregivers, by that mechanism.
My contention, and what I want to put before this House, is that we cannot afford to do that. That is why my colleagues have been talking about child poverty and its link to this bill. We already know that women who are sole parents are in this poverty trap and, therefore, their children for whom they have the primary caregiving role are in that poverty trap. That is the link with child poverty. It is not acceptable for this Government to be passing legislation that actually worsens child poverty when New Zealanders are calling out for it to do something about reducing poverty. I am pleased to say that Labour is opposing this bill because it is not necessarily in the best interests of children.
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is my pleasure to take a short call in favour of this bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill. I have not been fortunate enough to be a member of the Social Services Committee, which dealt with this bill, but, naturally, I have a great interest in its subject. I was shocked when reading the details here that apparently as kids get older they become more expensive. As a father of four relatively young kids, I think I am ruined. I cannot believe they could be more expensive than they are at the moment, but apparently it gets worse. That is very sobering reading.
What is it to be a good citizen in this country? I think the starting point surely must be looking after yourself and your family. That is the starting point of what it is to be a good citizen, and it is not optional; it is fundamental. It is a right that is appropriately asserted in legislation. Not everybody will be able to do it, but most can and most should, and that is what fundamentally we are all about as a civil society.
We have heard a lot about child poverty in relation to this bill. I read the report of the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty over the summer, and it was interesting to note that it made it clear that the group of children suffering the highest rates of poverty were those who live with an unemployed sole parent. But nowhere do we have the question asked, that fundamental question, of whether the welfare State that we have inherited is generating more or fewer sole parent households, and whether there is anything we can do about it. I think that is the broader question that we need to be dealing with, but it is not one that is particularly dealt with by this piece of legislation, which I want to draw a little bit more attention to—that is, the question of how we deal with those situations where parents are not able to agree on an arrangement for the care and maintenance of their children. In those cases, it is appropriate for the State to step in and set a basic set of ground rules, which we are reviewing after 21 years.
It makes eminent sense to me that we should be recognising the fact that fathers, on the whole, tend to be having more involvement in the raising of their children, which is a magnificent thing. And I think it is clearly in the interests of children to have a good, strong relationship with both of their parents where at all possible. That, in reality, does need to lead to having some recognition of that involvement in the regular shared-care arrangements. This bill, by reducing the starting point to 2 days a week looking after children, I think, reflects the changes of the times, and I support this bill on account of that. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Corrections Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): I move, That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill has been before Parliament since October 2011. The Law and Order Committee considered it last year and reported it back to the House with several improvements, and I would like once again to thank the committee for the changes it has made.
The bill’s priority to the Government has more recently been reinforced by amendments I introduced during its Committee stage removing any potential uncertainty about the lawfulness of the Government’s smoke-free prisons policy. Since its introduction in July 2011 the smoke-free prisons policy has been a great success, making an important contribution to the health of prisoners and of corrections staff. It has resulted in a 75 percent reduction in fires, and has significantly improved the overall air quality in our prisons. To ensure that the many things this policy has so far achieved can continue, it is important that this bill be passed in a timely fashion. I want to thank the members who have contributed to this outcome.
I do not intend to give a lengthy summary of the many other improvements this bill will make to the safe, humane, and effective operations of our prisons. They have generally been well traversed in previous stages. However, it is worth briefly going over how this bill will help to ensure that the corrections system performs at its best. Security measures in prisons will be improved by a number of changes, including changes to strip-searching provisions, making it an offence for prisoners to dilute urine samples provided for drug and alcohol testing, and enabling the Department of Corrections to obtain unlock codes for SIM cards that have been seized in prisons. Statutory responsibilities will better reflect how health services are delivered in prisons, and the health centre manager’s appropriate role in coordinating them. The bill contains amendments that will allow contractors to better fulfil the intent of the Government’s policy on contract-managed prisons. It will enable them to carry out the same custodial responsibilities, with the same lines of accountability to the chief executive, that are given to managers of public prisons. These are just some of the ways in which the bill removes barriers to the effective and efficient operation of the corrections system.
Although the legislative framework governing the corrections system is generally working well, I believe that the amendments in this bill will contribute significantly to the safe, secure, humane, and effective administration of custodial sentences. It will thereby assist in achieving the goals of protecting public safety and reducing reoffending. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Opposition worked constructively on the Corrections Amendment Bill before the Law and Order Committee, but for three predominant reasons we will be opposing this bill. The first and the most important reason is that this bill further entrenches the ideological view of the National Party that the deprivation of liberty of a person properly for having seriously offended against the law should be the subject of a profit motive, and should be run by the private sector as a commercial undertaking. Labour is fundamentally opposed to that ideological view of the National Party. Yes, we believe that prisons need to be run efficiently and cost-effectively, but no evidence—no evidence—was adduced to show that privatisation of prisons would achieve that particular outcome.
What this bill does is pass from the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, a public servant, certain powers that will be delegated to private sector contractors, such as the security classification of an inmate and the temporary release of an inmate. Our view is that those are functions that are properly carried out by the Public Service, not by a private contractor whose principal motivation in running the business will be to maximise profit. When you are focused on maximising profit, you cut corners, and you cut corners most often by reducing staff. The evidence is very clearly there in private contracted prisons that they have cut staff, and the inmate-staff ratios have increased, to the detriment of public safety and to the detriment of the proper running of those prisons. I want to come back in a moment in a little more detail to the contract management of prisons and why we are against it.
The second reason that we are against this bill is that it puts in a provision relating to strip-searching of inmates that requires that the most intrusive, the most intimate, form of strip-searching applies across the board. At the moment there are two types of strip-searching. I understand that in a prison, where contraband can be smuggled into the prison, at risk to the inmate, at risk to the staff, and at risk to the way in which that institution is run, on occasions you do need strip-searching. But at the moment there is a routine strip-search, where the inmate is simply required to squat, undressed, so that something that may be concealed internally will come out if it is not deeply concealed. The other, more intimate, form of strip-searching actually involves the use of lights and mirrors to illuminate the genital and the anal areas of the inmate. That is deeply intrusive. It is deeply unpleasant, both for the inmate and for the prison officer. If this form of strip-searching was required in every case, then you would think that the group that would benefit most from that, the prison officers, would be in favour of it. Were they in favour? No, they were absolutely opposed to this. They said: “This is not necessary, this is not the right way to do it, and this is going to make our staff members more liable to assault by inmates.”
We have a clear problem and a clear trend in prisons at the moment of increasing levels of assault. We owe it to the people who have to work in those rather toxic environments to listen to what they are saying to us. They were saying to us: “Don’t do it this way. This is the wrong way to go.” It was not just prison officers who said that this is the wrong way to go; it was the Ombudsman. One of the representatives of the Office of the Ombudsmen is a former inspector of prisons, who said that this provision is liable to abuse, and gave examples of how strip-searching had been abused in certain cases, such as at the Mangaroa Prison, now the Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison, in order, specifically, to humiliate and to take advantage of prisoners. You have to listen to what the Office of the Ombudsmen says, because it is set up as the watchdog to advise Parliament as to the right way and the wrong way of going about things. The Law Society made the same point.
All of those groups would be able to draw on the fact that there is not even an increasing problem of smuggling contraband into prisons that might justify examining this approach. To the contrary, when Labour assumed office in 1999, the rate of positive testing of inmates for drugs was a whopping 36 percent. Over a third of the inmates were managing to get drugs in prison. Apparently, in those days it was easier to get drugs in prison than outside. We tightened up the rules governing searching and the security of prisons, we invested in more secure prisons, and that rate was reduced. Today I think it is at about 5 percent—from 36 percent of prisoners using drugs down to 5 percent. That actually suggests that what was being done was working, and that what is being proposed here is not necessary.
I specifically asked the manager of the Rimutaka Prison—one of our biggest prisons in this country—whether the more intimate sort of strip-searching would be a good way of stopping contraband from coming in. His answer was frank. He said: “If you internally conceal the contraband you’re trying to get in, this will not work.” Prison officers said to us: “If you really have good grounds to suspect that somebody is smuggling—it might be a weapon or it might be drugs or it might be something else—then you put them in a dry cell, nature will take its course, and whatever is concealed internally will emerge.” That is the way to do it, not what is proposed here. What I cannot understand is why the Minister of Corrections, when presented with this evidence by groups like prison officers, the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the New Zealand Law Society, ignored those submissions. Why were they ignored? We have never had an explanation from the Minister.
The third thing about this bill that concerns me is Supplementary Order Paper 171, in relation to smoking in prisons, which was brought in at the eleventh hour. The Labour Party and I, for one, are in favour of prisons being smoke-free, but we have in this country a constitutional provision. If you want to change the rules in areas like this, you bring the change in the form of a bill to the House, the House takes it to a select committee, we hear submissions, we get expert advice, we iron out the wrinkles in it, we get it right, and constitutionally we pass the change in rules. Is that what Judith Collins did? Absolutely not. Like Henry VIII she said by decree: “There will be no smoking in prisons.” She was warned that she did not have the constitutional authority to do that, but such is the arrogance of that Minister, the former Minister of Corrections, that she ignored the advice. And what do we get? We get a notorious prisoner in Auckland prison taking a case to court and defeating this Government—a prisoner defeating this Government—because he was able to work out that the Government had not done it right.
Andrew Little: Back in court next week.
Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, “Back in court next week.”, my colleague said, and that may well be the case. Why may that be the case? Because this was brought directly to the House without the opportunity for the select committee to examine it, without us as parliamentarians being able to ask the Ministry of Justice the searching questions to see whether it had got it right, and without the opportunity for submitters from the public and expert submitters to come to the select committee and say: “Yes, finally the Government has got it right.” But, no, the Government rushes it in. It brings it in without notice and without discussion at the select committee, and the chances are that it will get it wrong again.
I just want to say this finally, going back to the question of the privatisation of prisons. Serco is the private contractor given the job of running Mt Eden prison and the planned Wiri Prison. It went to the London Stock Exchange on 11 September of last year to boast that it would make $30 million a year out of running Wiri Prison—$30 million. So that is $30 million from the New Zealand taxpayer that will go out of this country to line the pockets of the private investors in Serco. Does Serco have a track record of running these things well? Not in Australia, not in the UK, and not here in Mount Eden. In the first year of running that prison it released three inmates who should not have been released, it kept in another three inmates who should properly have been released, and it allowed one to escape. It failed to meet 19 out of 37 performance standards that were set down for it. It is not efficient, it is not cost-effective, and the profit motive is wrong.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am rising to speak to the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. I accept that there are a number of points at which the Labour-Greens and National points of view diverge, and those have been well canvassed in this House and, indeed, through the select committee process. On that, I want to thank members from across the House who worked very proactively on this Corrections Amendment Bill, noting our differences and noting also that the Labour-Greens are putting in minority views on this bill. It is accepted that we have different philosophies around this kind of stuff, but, even so, it is my belief that this bill delivers on its intention to reduce barriers to the effective and efficient running of prisons.
Overall, current legislation does provide a pretty good framework for our corrections system, but there have been certain provisions identified as barriers to managing prisons in a manner that is safe and a manner that is secure and humane to prisoners, but is also effective and efficient, and this bill removes those barriers.
The main provisions of the bill include making it an offence to water-load before drug testing. Water-loading is when prisoners know there is a drug test coming along and drink litres and litres and litres of water, thus diluting their urine sample. The provisions in this bill now make it an offence for prisoners to do that. The provisions to make strip-searches of prisoners more effective by having just one procedure have been spoken of many times in this House during the course of the debate on this bill. My contention is that the use of lights and mirrors, and certainty around the procedure of strip-searching, which, let us face it, nobody likes—certainly, the prisoners do not like being strip-searched. Why would they? Certainly, prison officers and personnel do not like the process of strip-searching. But providing certainty around the circumstances, and certainty around the procedures of strip-searching—also, I would also argue with the Opposition’s contention that it is more intrusive. In fact, I would argue the opposite—that using a remote mirror and lighting system is personally less intrusive. So that is strip-searching.
Another provision in this bill, a most important one, is ensuring that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections can delegate powers and functions to an organisation contracted to manage a prison. Again, it is understood that the Opposition cannot see past its philosophical objection to anyone else running a prison, but what we have seen during the course of the examination of this bill is the benefits that new thinking can bring into the prison system. I understand that the Opposition is closed to the possibility that benefits could come into the prison system. Using new experiences and using new personnel, but maintaining those very high standards that are maintained by the contracts, can have a beneficial effect, both on the corrections system and on the welfare of the prisoners.
Another provision in the bill is to allow money earned by prisoners working in prison to be paid to the chief executive, and some of that money to be applied to the prisoners’ board and other associated costs, such as child support. This is an important provision, bringing some responsibility back into prisoners’ lives.
Another provision of the bill enables the Department of Corrections to respond quickly and flexibly to technological advances or policy changes. One example that we had in mind was being able to access SIM cards out of cellphones, which, although in themselves illegal to be held in prison, can be used by corrections staff in the investigation of some offences. It also improves health services by legally recognising the role of health centre managers, giving them status in prisons.
Supplementary Order Paper 171, which was introduced by the Minister of Corrections, Anne Tolley, during the Committee of the whole House stage, ensures that prisons remain smoke-free. How anyone could have objection to that is quite beyond me. The Opposition might not like the process, but why would you oppose a measure, a Supplementary Order Paper, that reconfirms that the prison environment is to remain smoke-free? The benefits are clear. The benefits to prisoners are clear in terms of their personal health, and certainly the benefits to corrections officers are clear in terms of being able to work in a smoke-free environment. But also, most important, the incidence of fires in prisons has reduced almost to nothing. I think you have to stick your finger in a power socket to make a fire these days. OK, some people try that on, but the opportunities for lighting fires and then requiring prison officers to run and put out a fire in a hallway while other prisoners are locked in their cells, breathing dangerous gases, are now almost a thing of the past. I applaud the Minister for bringing in this Supplementary Order Paper and dealing with this problem.
I just to go back to the purpose of this bill, which is to ensure that front-line staff can manage prisons without putting their own health and safety at risk and without compromising the fair and humane treatment of prisoners. I commend the bill to the House.
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I take a call on the Corrections Amendment Bill. Unlike the member who has just spoken, Jacqui Dean, I draw this House’s attention to what this bill is actually about and what it is part of. The Department of Corrections, when it is exercising its lawful authority, is part of that coercive arm of the State that is part of depriving people of their liberty. People go into the care and the custody of the Department of Corrections because the person concerned has been through the proper judicial processes and has been found guilty, therefore, of having offended against our criminal statutes and against society, and of offending so greatly that it is considered that they are best removed from society. That is what we are talking about: the deprivation of citizens’ liberty—those citizens who have transgressed, who have breached our moral codes and our criminal codes, and who must be removed.
Surrounding all of that process, until the point that they are placed into the custody of our Department of Corrections, there are constitutional provisions and constitutional safeguards. We all understand in our type of society and in our liberal democracy that when the State takes the responsibility of depriving citizens of their liberty, there will be appropriate checks, balances, safeguards, and oversight, and people will not be dealt with arbitrarily or improperly. It remains as important while they are in custody as it does when they are being treated by the police and the judicial system that there are safeguards and that they are not treated arbitrarily. The fact that the Labour Party and, no doubt, other Opposition parties stand for that idea in this Parliament puts us in distinct contrast to the Government, which increasingly and more frequently rides roughshod over basic constitutional principle. That is why we are opposed to this bill.
There are some sensible provisions in this bill that make some effective tidy-ups of the administration of the prisons and the Department of Corrections, but there are other aspects that are more insidious, not the least of which is the private prison approach that this Government favours. The reason why we are opposed to it is that we do not think that a private sector motive—the profit motive—should have any role to play when it comes to incarceration and the management of those who are incarcerated. When citizens have been through the judicial process, have been sentenced, and have been placed in the custody of our corrections and penitentiary system, they are under the care and custody of a system that is motivated by the need to protect society, to ensure that a person pays their penalty, and to ensure that, to the best extent possible, they get access to rehabilitation or the care they need to correct their behaviour. That is what the corrections system is about, and it is all motivated by the need to return a citizen to society in, hopefully, a better state than they were in when they went into the corrections system. They have done their time, they have paid their dues to the society that they have offended against, the Department of Corrections has done its bit to the best extent possible, and somebody can leave the system and then be reintegrated back.
None of that is helped or improved when they are placed in the custody of an organisation that has, on the top of all that, a motivation to maximise its profit—to maximise its revenue, to minimise its expenses, and, therefore, to maximise its profit. That adds an unacceptable slant to the role of a custodial organisation, and that is why we are opposed to the bill.
You can see the problem when you look in this legislation at two particular aspects: first of all, the strip-search provisions and, secondly, the delegation of power, or the delegation of authority, provisions in this legislation. They define the very problem that we are talking about. Let us look at the strip-search provisions. Presently in law the State corrections department has two forms of mandated search. Both are strip-searches. One allows the prison authorities to search a prisoner when they have come back from release, whether it is work release or community release; they can conduct a search. The second is also a strip-search, but it is much more intrusive. It allows the use of mirrors and lights to examine and explore the anal and genital regions of a prisoner. This legislation takes away the less intrusive means of strip-search and mandates only one form of strip-search. As my colleague Phil Goff has said—he was there, and he heard the evidence before the Law and Order Committee—the prison staff who have to administer those strip-searches are saying that they fear a bigger risk of reaction, violent reaction, from prisoners when faced with that form of strip-search. So why would you legislate for it? It is an abandonment of the balance and the fairness that we have had, knowing that these are prisoners who are subject to the powers of a custodial institution. They have now lost that balance when it comes to the strip-searching.
Then look at the next aspect of it. Clause 42 provides in new section 199AA that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections can delegate his powers and authorities to a contract prison—that is to say, to a private prison. Subsection (3) of that section says: “A contractor or an employee of a contractor who appears to act under a delegation is presumed to be acting in accordance with its terms and conditions in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” Here is the kicker—here is the kicker. Subsection (5) says: “A delegation under this section does not affect the exercise of any function or power by the chief executive or the responsibility of the chief executive”—that is, of the Department of Corrections—“for the actions of any person acting under the delegation.”
Here we go. Under the private prison the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections issues a delegation of power—issues a delegation of authority. It gets exercised. It is presumed that it is being exercised in accordance with the power, and if it turns out that that is wrong, who is liable? The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections—not the private prison owner, but the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. Who does the prisoner go to for their remedy? They go to the public purse. They go to the public official: the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. There is no constraint on the private prison. It can act as it wishes, and it will claim all along the way that it is acting to provide the best service it can under its contract, knowing, and with this Government knowing, that it is entitled to maximise its profit—it is entitled to seek revenue, minimise its expenditure, and, therefore, maximise its profit. And if it goes wrong, as it surely will, under this provision, who pays for the mistake? Who ultimately gets called to account? The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. And who will pay the chief executive’s legal bill and any compensation that follows? It will be the taxpayer. That is how good the private sector has got it under this Government. Yet again, it is another deal that benefits the private sector at the expense of the taxpayer. How many more times are we going to see this? How many more times are we going to see this?
The next most insidious aspect of this bill is the fixing up of the problem with the no-smoking policy. It was declared from on high by the then Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins, it was found to be unlawful at the suit of a serving prisoner, and now Parliament is being asked to fix it up, not that the members of this Parliament have had the benefit of any oversight, testing of the evidence, or testing of provisions brought in by the Minister. They were introduced as a Supplementary Order Paper and brought in at the last minute to fix up the Minister’s mistake.
Well, I go back to the point I began with. Too often, and too much, this Government is seeking to ride roughshod over constitutional propriety, and it is not acceptable. It is bad enough that those imprisoned by our judicial system, those who have offended against our society, will be sent off to private prisons where there are no real checks and balances, and where the failures of the private prison system will be visited on the taxpayer when things go wrong, but now we are being asked to ride roughshod over the protections that this Parliament ordinarily stands up for when a Minister wants to do as they wish. We have not been able to exercise a protection against it, but it is happening in this legislation. It is happening in this bill, and it is not acceptable. For those reasons, we will be opposing this legislation. It is bad for the prison system—it will not help the prison system—it certainly will not help the prisoners, and it will not help the people of New Zealand.
DAVID CLENDON (Green): I think the best thing one can say about this bill, the Corrections Amendment Bill, is that the title recognises that we are in dire need of amending our corrections system. At every level—at the legislative level, at the policy level, at the level of practice—we need some fundamental change. We need a comprehensive review, an oversight, of the legislation and the policy and the practice in our prisons. We need, effectively, a culture change in terms of both how we develop policy and legislation and how we implement that in our prisons. Sadly, this bill does not go beyond the title in terms of effecting that real, very necessary, and much-needed change. This bill makes some minor tweaks, it meddles around the edges, and it achieves one or two beneficial outcomes, but for the most part the outcome of the changes in this legislation will be negative. They will not serve the ends that the bill sets out to serve. They will be negative outcomes, rather than positive ones.
I just reference the chair of the Law and Order Committee, who mentioned once again the benefits that would flow from this bill, and I say again that the question must be raised: benefits for whom? It would seem, clearly, that the private sector will potentially benefit very much from the embedding of further provisions that enable and facilitate the entry of private sector operators into the corrections system. As we heard from Mr Goff, Serco potentially will benefit to the tune of 30 million New Zealand taxpayers’ dollars each and every year after the opening of the white elephant at Wiri.
Often one hears that the corrections system is in a state of crisis. Commentators often refer to the crisis in our prisons. I actually think that is the wrong language. “Crisis” suggests something sudden, something unexpected, something acute, when actually what we have in our prisons is a chronic situation—a chronic condition of failure. That failure has been accelerating over at least the last 20 years. That chronic condition of failure is represented financially, for example, in the fact that we have seen something like a 250 percent increase in the amount of taxpayer money going into prisons over the last decade or so. In the early 2000s we had a corrections budget of some $460 million - odd a year. Last year it went close to $1.4 billion. That increased expenditure might be acceptable if we were seeing better social outcomes, but equally we are failing there. We are not breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending. Up until a year or so ago, the prison population was increasing dramatically. Failing—a chronic condition of failure. This bill does very little to deal with the key drivers of that failure or the reality of it.
The advancement of this failure, if you like—the decline in the well-being of our prisons, the decline in the economic value of our prisons—has increased considerably, due in part to what I have been thinking of more and more as an arms race. We saw this over a decade or so, driven I think by this false perception of what has been called penal populism—that is, the flawed idea that the public was demanding more and more serious and longer sentences, the false perception that was created by organisations like the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which is sensible in name only. The media were complicit in building this public perception that crime was on the increase in New Zealand, that it was becoming more dangerous to be a New Zealander, and that public safety was being degraded. None of that, in fact, was true. None of the evidence supports that penal populism, which drove policy in a very unfortunate direction for at least a decade.
I would like to refer to a speech made just a few nights ago by Kim Workman, director of the Rethinking Crime and Punishment project, director of the Robson Hanan Trust, and a well-respected person with an extraordinary depth and breadth of experience in corrections. In his speech he set out by saying he “would consider the idea that ‘the wellbeing of a nation is measured not by the absence of disorder, but by the presence of justice.’ ” It is very hard to see that we have improved or enhanced the delivery of justice in New Zealand over the last decade or more when one considers as one indicator the number of people we lock away in our prisons every year. In the late 1980s things began to go very wrong. In 1987 we locked up about 91 out of every 100,000 New Zealanders. By 2009 that number had increased to 200 per 100,000 of population—200 out of every 100,000 New Zealanders by 2009 were being put in prison. It has dropped marginally now. We are down to about 194 per 100,000 of population. We desperately need to address the root causes, to ask ourselves why our prison population is exploding to this extent. This Corrections Amendment Bill, sadly, does little or nothing to address those core questions, to provide any significant answers. To put that number, 194—190 to 200 per 100,000—in context, we look at Germany, where the number is 83; France, where it is 102; and Australia, where it is 130. We have long since caught up with Australia in terms of imprisoning people; we have well exceeded their numbers—not an achievement we should or could be proud of. With the numbers around 190 to 200, we are in company with countries like Moldova, Slovakia, Gabon, and Namibia. This is probably not company that we would aspire to in terms of locking people away in our society rather than dealing with the root causes of crime and offending, and finding better ways of breaking that cycle of offending.
It gets worse. We imprison something like 700 Māori per 100,000 of population—something like six times higher than the non-Māori rate. It is unacceptable that an ethnic minority, our Treaty partner, is being imprisoned at a rate something like six times that of the non-Māori population. Māori are remanded in custody at a rate something like 11 times higher than the non-Māori rate of remand in custody. We have to drill a little bit deeper than fiddling around the margins and talking about efficiency and effectiveness in delivering our prison services. We need to drill a lot deeper than that and address some of the root causes of these inequities.
The point is routinely made that—in fact, it ought to be routinely made. It is not well enough understood that in terms of the relationship between crime and the imprisonment rate, nowhere in the world is there a linear, cause and effect, solid relationship between the imprisonment rate and the crime rate. The imprisonment rate is not a measure of the crime rate. It is a consequence of legislation, of policy, and of practice in our prisons and elsewhere. The longer people stay in prison, the more likely they are to reoffend, not less.
The very late presentation of the endeavour to undo the mischief, or what has been called the monumental stuff-up, of the smoking ban, has been addressed—the point was made by a Government speaker that the Opposition seemed to oppose the process by which that ban was imposed. I would have to say we are in very good company. We are alongside the High Court; Justice Gilbert called the ban “unlawful, invalid and of no effect”. And, yes, a long-term inmate at Pāremoremo prison has successfully taken the Government to court and won. That case is again to come before the court in a matter of a few days, and the court will be confronted with legislation that raises two fundamental constitutional issues, which Supplementary Order Paper 171 did: the question of the imposition of retrospective criminal liability, which it effectively does impose, and the removal of the right of access to court for a wrong that has been done by retrospectively changing the law. It is unacceptable. Whatever one’s views about the benefits or otherwise of reducing or eliminating smoking from prisons, it is unacceptable for this House to accept that that process, that illegal process, should be allowed to stand—should be put right by a retrospective change put in at the last minute to a bill that was never intended to address such a situation.
I would like to say that Mr Noam Chomsky has said: “The more privilege you have, the more opportunity you have. The more opportunity you have, the more responsibility you have.” We have in this House an absolute responsibility to make the corrections regime better. This bill does not achieve that. We will be opposing this. Thank you.
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. I would like to talk a just little bit about Serco. I think it has had a bit of an unfair hearing in the House here tonight. Having met some of the staff of Serco, I would just like to commend them and recognise them for the professional job that they do, for the passion that they bring to their job, and for the excellent performance and service that they are providing to New Zealand.
For some reason—I do not know why—Labour has got something against the private sector. This is not a new model. Serco has been providing these services for a long time to many other countries around the world very successfully. This is not a new model. The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections himself said that the exchange of ideas that they are getting between Serco and the Department of Corrections is helping them in important areas like prisoner rehabilitation. If Serco is performing so badly, if the Department of Corrections is doing so poorly, then explain to me some of the results that we are seeing within our Department of Corrections. Public confidence in corrections is 53 percent higher than what it was in June 2008. Positive—
Andrew Little: That’s not because of Serco.
MARK MITCHELL: Well, Serco is a part of this. Serco is making a contribution to these results. Positive random drug-tests were at a record low last year, down from 13 percent in 2007-08 to just 4 percent in 2011-12. During the course of Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-12, the number of prisoners in vocational training, employment, and literacy and numeracy education increased to 7,529—up from 5,359. That is a great result, and members of the Law and Order Committee and the chair, I am sure, will remember the excellent trip that we did to Rimutaka Prison. Something that really stuck in my mind that I thought was an excellent programme was that we got to visit the prisoners there who were learning new skills like bricklaying, building, engineering skills—skills that actually will go a long way to contributing towards the massive tasks that we have in the rebuild in Christchurch.
So I would just like to say that I support this model and I think there is benefit for the country and for the taxpayer in using it. We were not afraid to go out and involve the private sector in improving services. If it means that we are getting a better service, and if it means that we have more taxpayer money available to spend in areas like health and education, then it is a very good programme. Thank you.
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this Corrections Amendment Bill. In times past we confronted great challenges not with slogans and silly appellations for parliamentary bills but by deploying our best and brightest in search of facts that would lead to meaningful and realistic solutions. New Zealand First is dedicated to ensuring that our nation’s prisons, probation service, and other places of detention are operated in a manner that will comply with legislation and laws of our country, and, furthermore, that international human rights principles are upheld through the introduction of robust and vigorous policies, which will give New Zealand better opportunity to address one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world.
We all share in the notion of promoting a fair and effective criminal justice system in which incarceration is used as a last resort. Its purpose must be to prepare prisoners for release and for productive, law-abiding lives at the earliest possible time. Community involvement and better education are important to form the foundation of rehabilitation and reintegration. This is not necessarily restricted just to reading and writing, but also includes practical life experiences. These experiences help obtain a better understanding of our society, including the importance of those traditional family and community values. More important, our goal is to reduce reoffending, instead of, like the current Government, building more prisons—as if it is in the business of growing criminal offending.
This country must focus on creating more employment to redirect offenders’ focus from community crimes in order to become law-abiding citizens of our nation. The growing gap between those who have and those who have not, the persistence of poverty and its relation to crime, are real and present a danger to social cohesiveness in New Zealand. We as parliamentarians must ensure that conditions of confinement are constitutional and consistent with health and safety regulations and human dignity. For too long now, New Zealand’s corrections policy makers have been too busy or preoccupied in developing plans, in order for many of them to stay employed, knowing very well that those plans have failed for so many years. These plans are based on what is happening in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Western Europe. For far too long New Zealand’s corrections decision-making advocates have been too busy trying to look busy without doing anything at all, just so that they have something to report on, regardless of whether they are successful or not. It is no wonder that this Government is becoming increasingly famous for lip-service and window dressing. It is time we had some accountability, and that includes this current National Government.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Say something nice!
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I am saying everything that is nice, Maurice Williamson. The current incarcerated population among young generations, especially Māori and Pacific people, can no longer—[Interruption]—and should no longer be tolerated, David Bennett. It is simply not acceptable.
However, this Corrections Amendment Bill can be viewed as a way forward, with some progress. The goals set out in this bill will result in a criminal justice system that respects individual rights and increases compliance with public safety within the corrections environment. Having legislation that defines liability on property claims will not only save money and time, but also stipulate better guidelines for corrections staff and outline the responsibility that is required from prisoners. We all acknowledge that prison reform must address problems currently plaguing the incarcerations system, including private prisons run by and for profit organisations or corporations, who drive the demand for more people to be locked up while at the same—
Mark Mitchell: You don’t believe that.
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: —ducking public scrutiny and accountability, Mark Mitchell. And what of the smoking ban? Jacqui Dean has a lot to learn about the prison environment—
Jacqui Dean: Here we go.
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: —and how it operates, Jacqui Dean. Listen to this: tobacco is an insidious drug. It is. Some say that it is harder to kick than heroin—and I am sure the member Mark Mitchell will know that from his previous employment.
Initially, a massive drive was put in place to rid prisons of tobacco. Prisoners were put on notice, and targets and time lines were met. Following that there has been little, very little, in the way of education and ongoing treatment to enable prisoners to stop smoking and stay smoke-free. Yes, I understand that a few nicotine patches have been handed out. However—however—many of these have been brewed up and mixed with tea leaves for the desperate to smoke. What has happened is an extension to the black market in prisons so that, along with drugs, tobacco has become a real money-spinner for prisoners and gangs. There is a constant flow of prisoners through the corrections system, many of whom stay a few months then they go back to an environment where smoking is the norm, then return again. These people will not kick the habit with punitive measures, while prison staff are expected to be custodians as well as case officers, welfare officers, counsellors, providers of recreational activities, and more.
Better rehabilitation plans will help. Denying prisoner access to suitable rehabilitative initiatives, plus restricting appropriate programmes with suitable cultural perspectives, inhibits successful rehabilitation of prisoners and can exacerbate or create mental illness. Prisons should focus on safety in rehabilitation and effective use of suitable providers—providers who deliver real outcomes for prisoners instead of providers engaged by staff for the sake of ticking the box regardless of whether the programme works or not. I was rather astonished to be advised that bureaucratic procedures and more red tape have once again hindered progress in the rehabilitation of Pacific prisoners at the Vaka Fa’aola Pacific Focus Unit at Spring Hill Corrections Facility. Although corrections officers have requested more community involvement in Pacific programmes, and they have been successful in the past 4 to 5 years, it is a shame when some ill-advised manager who claims to be an expert and appears to think he or she knows better drives the local communities, to whom these prisoners are more likely to return to, to give up on supporting our prisons. Prisoners have been treated poorly and sometimes unfairly, and yet these are the very people whom the Department of Corrections and this country need to assist with the rehabilitation of men and women in prison, in addition to our combined efforts to reduce offending and reoffending.
So let me remind members of this House, especially the members of the National Government, that Lyndon B Johnson’s words were these: “You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.” So we do support the bill, but we do oppose the smoking ban along with other loopholes that it has created. Thank you.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I was looking forward to a speech from Richard Prosser, who actually heard the submissions on the Corrections Amendment Bill, but I suppose even Asenati Lole-Taylor is more diplomatic than Richard Prosser. But it is a pretty fine line there between the two. Let me tell her what success in the Department of Corrections is. Success in the Department of Corrections, Asenati Lole-Taylor, is prisoner education and training up from 5,500 places in 2008 to 13,500 places now. Positive random drug-tests in corrections are at their lowest rate ever, prisoner drug treatment has doubled, and public confidence in the department is up 53 percent. So if you want to talk about lip-service, which is all we got from the other side, we are actually seeing results in corrections as a result of policies implemented by National Party Ministers of Corrections.
I want to turn to this bill and outline why I think some of the arguments being put forward by the Opposition are quite flawed. The Opposition is talking quite a bit at the moment about strip-searches. Those members think the strip-searches that are proposed in the bill are absolutely evil—the fact that we are extending it and making that the norm within the Department of Corrections is bad. Well, actually, that form of strip-search is already in the Corrections Act—the Act passed when those members were in Government. If they are saying that that form of strip-searching is so bad, why was it even in the legislation put forward by Labour in 2004? In fact, what we are doing is simply making it easier and making it safer for prison officers. To use the more invasive strip-search right now, the officer has to believe that the individual has something on them. The less rigorous strip-search that they use most actually does not pick everything up. We are making it safer for the officers and safer for the prisoners by giving the officers more scope to pick up any instrument, any issues, that the prisoners will have on them. We are, in fact, making it safer for the prisoners and safer for the officers this way.
On smoke-free prisons, it is interesting to hear the arguments being put forward. Members opposite are effectively saying that “We do not like smoking in prisons. We think smoking should be banned in prison, but we are too good to vote for this piece of legislation. We are too good to vote for this piece of legislation because we do not like Judith Collins.” Well, actually, she was taking a pretty bold step by making the policy decision that she did. It turns out that the courts tended to agree with a prisoner in this case, so we are sorting out the legislative issue. But the key question here is whether you support smoking in prison. By voting against this legislation Opposition members are saying—and David Clendon is smiling over there—that they are voting to support smoking in prisons. If their preferred approach, of voting this bill down, was successful, then smoking in prisons would be allowed. If you do not support smoking in prison, then vote for this piece of legislation.
The ideological point of view that they are putting forward around the chief executive delegation is another strange piece of argumentation. They are saying that we do not like private prisons, but, you know, they are there and so they should perform much better. But when we put in place some legislation that will help them perform better, they are opposing that too. All we are doing in this legislation is allowing the chief executive to delegate some functions that would normally be delegated to prison managers, allowing those functions to be delegated to the prison manager at the Serco-run prison. Let us just remind them that Serco is running at a 95 percent performance rate—meeting 95 percent of its targets. We are going to make it easier for it to do its job, so it can perform even better. But Opposition members are saying they do not want to see it work, they do not want to see it succeed, because they do not think that privately run prisons are good. But, actually, we are seeing some pretty good results there. It is working well, and this bill will make it easier for them to operate.
This is a pretty sensible bill. It will do some good things. It will make it easier for the Department of Corrections, easier for the people working in the prisons, and safer for the people working there and for the prisoners. That is why it should be supported by this House.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I was not entirely sure what I was going to say about the Corrections Amendment Bill, until I heard Jami-Lee Ross speaking. He has given me so much material to work from, so I thank him for that.
I want to reassure Jami-Lee Ross that the Labour Party does not support smoking in prisons, but what we do support is Ministers acting lawfully, which is something that Judith Collins, the Minister of Justice, does not seem to be able to do. One would think that the Minister of Justice might be able to come up with policies and regulations around prisons that actually complied with the law, but, no, apparently not. We have had Anne Tolley come into the House and table a Supplementary Order Paper to fix up Judith Collins’ mess, because Judith Collins had made decisions that did not comply with the law. The Labour Party does not support smoking in prisons, but we think that if we are going to remove smoking in prisons, we should actually do it in a manner that is lawful. This is not lawful. That is the problem. Judith Collins acted in a manner that was not lawful, and now the Government is having to rush legislation through Parliament to fix up her mess. That is what the Labour Party has a problem with. We think the Minister should actually have got it right in the first place.
Did the ban on smoking in prisons go through select committee scrutiny? No, it did not. So now we are passing a law that has not had public scrutiny. Personally, I do not want to see smoking in prisons. I do not want to see smoking in prisons, but I want to see the laws that we make in this House subject to appropriate public scrutiny. That is what the Standing Orders allow for, that is what the public expect, and that is not what they are getting under this National Government. It thinks it is OK for it to retrospectively fix up its mistake, its making an unlawful decision, by passing a law, by way of an amendment to this bill, that fixes up its mistake, without having any public scrutiny of that.
I have a problem with that. If Jami-Lee Ross does not have a problem with it, I ask him why he does not have a problem with it. Why does he have so little respect for the democratic process that he thinks it is OK for the Government to do that? Nothing, nothing at all—nothing at all from Jami-Lee Ross. He has no defence of the National Government pushing through an amendment to fix up Judith Collins’ unlawful decision. He has no problem with it. It seems to be OK to Jami-Lee Ross and the National Party. Well, it is not OK to the Labour Party. We think the Government should do it right the first time, and if it does make a mistake, it should at least go through the appropriate process to fix it and allow public scrutiny of that piece of legislation.
Jami-Lee Ross talked a little bit about what success looks like in the corrections system. Does success look like three improper inmate releases, three wrongful detentions, an escape, and a 72 percent failure rate to put in place inmate plans? Is that success in the prison system? Is that what this National Government regards as successful? Is that what it regards as successful? Are those things successful? Let me run through those numbers again: three improper inmate releases, three wrongful detentions, an escape, and a 72 percent failure rate to put inmate plans in place. Is that being successful? Is that what the National Government regards as successful? Is it successful? Because that is Serco’s actual rate. That is the actual success rate for its current prison, for the private prison that we currently have in place. It is an absolute failure, but the Government seems to think that that is OK.
Let us talk more about the Wiri private prison. The Wiri private prison—let us talk a little bit more about that. It is simply a moneymaking opportunity. That is what it is. It is a moneymaking opportunity. We know that because Serco has told everybody that. Serco has told everybody that it intends to make—I think I have got the figure here for how much it is intending to make. It is quite a significant amount of money that Serco is intending to make out of this private prison—30 million bucks. Thirty million bucks Serco thinks it can make out of running a private prison. That is 30 million bucks that could go into prisoner rehabilitation or any number of other things that the Government might be able to do with that money. Serco is going to take it as profit and ship it offshore. We think that Government money going into corrections should be going into prisoner rehabilitation.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a great pleasure for me to speak on the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. I do not need to deal in too much fact, as I have had some very auspicious previous speakers who have done that for me. It is the first opportunity I have had to open the batting after a break, and I guess I am going to last about as long as the New Zealand openers often do, unfortunately. But I just want to talk about a couple of the previous speakers very briefly. It amazes me that we had 9 years of Labour Government. It did nothing about this sector other than fill the prisons up, and it is now blaming the Government and saying it has all of the answers—I am surprised it did not use them at the time. I think that is the first point I wanted to make.
National came to the Government benches some 4 years ago aspiring to provide for a safer New Zealand, to deliver better public services to all New Zealanders, and to improve our quality of life. An efficient and effective corrections system is the catalyst for the first of these, and the result of the second. The Government has a target to reduce reoffending by some 25 percent by 2017. Having been through the select committee consideration of this bill, I am encouraged to believe that this is achievable.
I also believe that further improvement under the current Department of Corrections management is very achievable. It is achievable because of a heavy investment in education and training of both prisoners and prison staff, and the introduction of GPS technology, allowing low-security prisoners who would previously not have been able to take part in some of those outside work and training to do so.
Much has been made by the Opposition of the strip-search conditions in this bill, and in a very graphic fashion as well. I must say I found the process a little testing myself, until I understood the issues that these prisons face with the smuggling of both contraband drugs and, indeed, weapons into the prisons. Certainly these strip-searching clauses are needed in this bill. The provisions of this bill have been well covered by my predecessors, as I have said, and I am confident, like my chair of the Law and Order Committee, Jacqui Dean, and my Minister of Corrections, Anne Tolley, that this bill goes a long way toward having an efficient and effective corrections service that will take New Zealand into the future. Thank you.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry, I understand this is a split call, so you have 5 minutes.
LOUISA WALL: Thank you very much. It is my first opportunity, I guess, to take first drop on this Corrections Amendment Bill, and to speak to this bill for the first time. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge my colleague Charles Chauvel, who actually opened the batting for us on a number of occasions in both the first and second readings. I guess I would like to pay tribute to him. I have had a look at what he has had to say. I am a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but one of the core issues that we have in terms of this piece of legislation is that at the end of the day, yes, we want people to go to prison when they have done something wrong against society, and we think that they deserve to be incarcerated, but with that incarceration there actually has to be an opportunity for them to change their lives around. I think that for some people who go to prison we talk about rehabilitation, but the reality for some of the people in our prison system is that it is about habilitation; it is about learning the skills needed to be members—functional members—of our society.
I have had the privilege of going to the Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility at Wiri in my electorate, Manurewa, and I think that a number of the initiatives that they are trying to deal with at the women’s prison really speak to some of the systemic issues that a lot of people in prison face, which is actually about coming from abusive backgrounds and living abusive lives. I think that what we want, more than anything, is a justice system and a corrections system that are going to enable people to get the necessary skills so that they can be productive members of our society. I have worked with a number of leaders in my community, one of whom, the Rev. Mark Beale, has spent much time in that Wiri prison, working with the people who are in the prison, and trying to engage with them in a very humane and respectful manner. What I do not like about some of the aspects of this bill is the fact that actually we are removing the dignity and the respect that people actually need to leave prison in a better place. A lot of people who go to prison, I believe, when you understand the social circumstances that have actually driven why they are there, deserve opportunities to have better lives.
It is a very important issue for my electorate. I am going to have a number of families who will move into my electorate with the building of the Wiri Prison for men. What I want to see in a corrections system, in a prison system, is for people to be treated with dignity and with respect. So one of the biggest issues that we do have, particularly with the search and surveillance issue—in fact, I would like to highlight, for example, a summary of the Human Rights Commission’s submission, which opposed the extension of search powers and the removal of safeguards around strip-searches. Why did it do that? It did that because, fundamentally, if we want people to lead better lives, and to, yes, pay whatever price the justice system has deemed of them, at the end of the day we do not want people to go back into prison again. At the heart of any corrections system, I believe, should be the intention to help people correct their lives, not to further punish them, not to treat them inhumanely, and not to treat them disrespectfully. And so I am pleased to have had an opportunity, obviously, to talk to this third reading debate.
One of the other themes that I wanted to pick up on really was introduced by the Minister of Corrections in her first reading speech, where she said that “The statutory purpose of the corrections system is to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society.” I believe in a just society. I believe in everybody having a fair go. I think every New Zealander would. I think there are aspects of this bill that will not enable all New Zealanders to have a fair go and to actually try to transform their lives. The biggest issue that we have is recidivism. Let us get real. We have got a system where all it is doing is providing opportunities for people to go back into prison. We cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford to do that, because it is a waste of human potential. So if we want to create different pathways for people, then fundamentally we have got to—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.
JAN LOGIE (Green): I follow on from that member, Louisa Wall, in also providing my first speech on this bill, the Corrections Amendment Bill, tonight. As it is the third reading, it does seem rather late, but there are several core points of principle that explain the Greens’ opposition to this bill that I would like to outline. Firstly, and it is an issue that is close to my heart, we are opposing this on the basis that we see it as another erosion of human rights. When somebody has committed a crime and is sentenced to a punishment, we have a system that actually acknowledges that the incarceration is the extent of that punishment. There should not be any further erosion of their human rights just because they are in prison. This bill, we believe, will erode those rights in terms of extending the strip-search, potentially limiting access to health care, and also requiring the person to pay more money out of their pocket towards costs that have not necessarily been defined.
We are very, very pleased that the Government has listened and engaged in the select committee process, in respect of the submissions from the Labour Party and the Green Party in regards to extending strip-searches without managerial approval. That now has conditions on it, and the ability to put prisoners in maximum security has also been taken out. That is a win from our perspective.
However, the bill and the changes have not gone far enough, sadly. I do not think we should need to explain in this House why human rights are important. But I just get the sense, and I have been very surprised by it in my involvement in this political process, that there does seem to be a need to explain the importance of human rights. The Human Rights Commission and many other submitters noted that respect for human dignity is a fundamental and universal human rights obligation. It is not something we can put conditions on. That is just something in itself. When we developed these human rights, our thinking around that post World War II was that there were really clear and obvious reasons for holding human rights dear, and I worry that we are losing that sense of consciousness.
Beyond that in itself being important, there are also very clear reasons for supporting the human rights of prisoners, because supporting them is clearly linked to people’s reintegration and rehabilitation. It reduces conflict in prisons and increases the chances of rehabilitation, and, ultimately, that is what gives us a safer society. It is a very sad thing to see legislation continually coming before this House that bit by bit erodes the human rights of prisoners. Ultimately we are all going to pay by having a less safe society.
I want to just speak a little bit more in terms of the strip-searches. I have heard other colleagues in the House raise the issue that we have clear evidence that those people who are in our prisons, although they have committed crimes, are actually some of our most vulnerable people, particularly the women; the majority of them have experienced sexual abuse and violence in their lives. To increase strip-searches of them and to make that mandatory if they are needing to be put into detention to protect them seems unusually cruel to me, particularly when the evidence shows that it will do nothing to protect them or even act as a safeguard against the entry of contraband into the prisons. So here we are actively invading people’s privacy and bodily integrity for an ideological gain, which is the only thing I can see in it. That, to me, is a tragic thing, I have to say. Finally, another reason that we are opposing this bill is that it has been—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, her time has expired.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): We have had several cricketing analogies since the dinner adjournment, and although a few of the previous speakers expressed a degree of uncertainty about their batting ability, I can say with absolute confidence that I will not be troubling the scorers. There have been times when you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, have raised your finger before to indicate that my innings is over, but it is not going to happen now. I simply want to indicate my support for this Corrections Amendment Bill. I want to thank both those who have contributed to a constructive debate and, in particular, those who have worked hard on the bill. It is a significant piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge in particular those who work in our corrections system. It is a demanding job. It is one that many would shy away from, but by and large we are very well served in this country by those who work in our Department of Corrections. I thank them, and I want to put that on record. I believe that this bill will further enhance public safety. It has measures that I believe will reduce reoffending, and I fully support it.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 70
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2 (Flavell, Turia); ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 50
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 1 (Sharples); Mana 1.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 19 February.
Part 1 Amendments to preliminary provision (continued)
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am pleased to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I thought it might be important for people to recognise that the bill before the Committee amends the original Act, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, which this Government passed only in 2010. People may remember that through the original Act of 2010 essentially this Government empowered itself to remove the elected members of Environment Canterbury, who were elected by the community at the time. This Government, under that Act, replaced those elected members by having seven Government-appointed commissioners. It also ought to be recognised that the reason that was argued by this Government in 2010 that gave rise to the original bill was that there were systemic and performance issues and concerns raised by Ngāi Tahu, in a report that was presented to this Government in February 2010 by the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech. People might recall that the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech is a former member of the National Government under Jenny Shipley.
Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s right. Jenny Shipley from Mainzeal.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: That is right. So that was the background to the bill that we now have—the original Act.
The bill before the Committee is to amend the original Act by—and there are a couple of issues that I suspect that people listening to the debate, particularly people in the area of Canterbury, will have some very, very serious concerns about. This bill now delays the election for Environment Canterbury until 2016 with a review occurring next year, despite the fact that the Government Minister then responsible for driving this bill, the Hon Nick Smith, had promised that the election would be held this year. I want to quote the Hon Dr Smith. His words: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” That was what was on the original bill. That 2013—
Hon Ruth Dyson: Say that again.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I will read it again for those members not listening to the quote. This is the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I want to quote him, because these words are important, because in this House we live and die by the words that we use. So, as the Hon Dr Smith said: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.”
Hon Member: When did he say that?
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Well, that is right. The reference is to this year. This is when we are supposed to, according to the original Act, call elections for the people of Canterbury. But the bill that is before the Committee, again, introduced by only—[Interruption] The next election of regional councillors to Environment Canterbury’s governing body is to occur at the 2016 local authority elections. I put to you—
Dr Rajen Prasad: Never-never land.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Absolutely. Look, irrespective of concerns raised, irrespective of the issues that the mayors of the region have, is this the way that we do things in New Zealand? Is this the kind of New Zealand that we have—that if we are not happy with officials elected by the local community democratically, if we are not happy with their performance, we simply remove them? Is this how we are going to do things under this Government, by—
H V Ross Robertson: Dictatorship.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —dictating to the people? They were elected. They were elected by the community to do a job. Surely, rightly or wrongly, we should allow them to perform that job. But that is not so bad. The fact that a Minister of this Government promised that this year the people would be able to re-elect their representatives, and now the Government is saying: “No. That’s not going to happen. People of Canterbury, look, you’re just going to have to wait until 2016”—
Darien Fenton: Tough luck.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Tough luck—absolutely.
So we looked at the bill. I have to say with the greatest respect to the new Minister of Local Government, the Hon Chris Tremain, I think he has been handed an absolute shocker of a bill. The whole essence of this bill denies democratic rights that his Government promised the people of Canterbury they would receive this year in this election. So while the rest of New Zealand will be happily going about campaigning to elect good men and women to represent them in various local governments throughout the country, the Government has decided: “No. People of Canterbury, you are not good enough to elect your own officials.” That is the kind of message this bill says.
I want to say that this is another broken promise by the John Key Government. Many will recall that in March 2010 Nick Smith was very clear when he said that “whatever the circumstances” the next Environment Canterbury election would be in 2013. That is just not going to happen, because the bill says that 2016 is when the election is. But there is to be a review next year. Now people are asking: “Well, what is that review about? If you are saying 2016, make it happen in 2016.” But I do not believe that the people of Canterbury will have any confidence whatsoever that this Government will keep its word. If it failed in keeping its word for 2013, and now it is saying “Yes, 2016, but we’ll run a review first in 2014”—
Hon Member: Maybe 2019.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: That is right.
I want to quote some submissions on this bill that were provided by some very significant individuals. I think it is important that the new Minister takes note. The Beckenham Neighbourhood Association opposes this bill. The community law centre of Canterbury opposes this bill, and it is recommending that the provisions relating to the cancellation of the 2013 election be removed. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand oppose this bill. They believe that this bill will erode not only local communities’ right to elect their own but also their right to be able to take up issues with the Environment Court, because the bill is saying that they can take redress only on matters of point of law. Well, I think that if the new Minister would talk to the community law centre in Canterbury, it would be well worth his time.
The officials’ advice, as I read, says that the bill does not contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but a submission from the Human Rights Commission shows concern about the Act. It says that the way in which it was originally enacted, and the intention to extend it, contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I do not know how the new Minister views the officials’ advice, the actions of former colleagues, and how the people of Canterbury will receive this bill, but I want to say that the essence of what the community is saying is that it opposes the thrust and advance by this Government to continue postponing its democratic right to elect its local government representatives. I believe that the new Minister, who hails from the Hastings area and has a good relationship with local government, would have heard from local government there that there is no way they would accept him saying in respect of their issues of performance that the Government was going to appoint commissioners and replace elected officials. I would ask on what basis the Minister has decided to ram-shot this bill—[Interruption] Well, yes—ram it.
Hon Member: What do you mean, ram it?
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Well, because the Minister is not giving the people of Canterbury their right to choose. The Minister is not giving the people of Canterbury their freedom to be able to elect their own representatives. The Minister is not giving them a choice whatsoever.
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I have been listening to the debate on the Committee stage of the this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, over the last few days—and for a few minutes tonight—and I have been moved to take a call. The reason I have been moved to take a call is that I come from Auckland, and I obviously have some—[Interruption] I am sorry; I apologise for that. But I know that in Auckland people would be rioting in the streets right now if this kind of provision was being put forward. I know we had Rodney Hide’s little adventure with the amalgamation of Auckland, and there was quite a lot of rioting at local level. But at the same time, what I think has happened here, from what I can see from a distance, is that the people of Canterbury are being taken advantage of. The earthquake has become an excuse for ditching democracy.
I have to say that I am deeply disappointed in the new Minister, the Hon Chris Tremain. Chris Tremain and I came into Parliament together, and I had high hopes for the integrity of that Minister—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!
DARIEN FENTON: However, to be fair, Mr Chair, I do think he has been handed something that no incoming Minister of Local Government would want to have to deal with. He has certainly been handed the short straw, particularly given the promises of previous Ministers, such as the Hon Nick Smith, who promised in 2010 that, whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury would take place no later than the elections scheduled for late 2013. I would like to hear from the Minister who is now in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries, what the explanation is for the delay. Has he been back and spoken to the former Minister and said: “You made that promise.”? How does he justify taking away the right of the people of Canterbury to choose the people who lead them, particularly in the circumstances of Christchurch? We have seen dreadful earthquakes in Christchurch and we have seen the people of Canterbury trying to bring themselves together and having to put up with the imposition and the arrogance we are seeing from Wellington about the Christchurch rebuild. People who say anything opposing the Government’s will about the Christchurch rebuild actually get criticised. They are told that they are carping and being a bit of a nuisance—a bit of a nuisance.
I think that is what this bill is about, actually. The people of Canterbury are seen as a nuisance. They are seen as a nuisance and that is what this bill is about. It is about a bunch of people in Canterbury who are a nuisance to the Government and who have been completely disregarded. So those people who are a nuisance do not deserve the right to vote in the people who will represent them!
This year, as my colleague Su’a William Sio pointed out, we will be having local body elections up and down the country. We will be having them in Auckland. We are going to have a fantastic election in Auckland. We are looking forward to that. People will be coming together and talking about what it is that they want for their city. They will be talking about what it is they want for their region. They will be talking about the issues that are important to them, and they will be making democratic decisions and deciding whom they are going to vote for, but what this bill does is deny those rights to the people of Canterbury. It is another broken promise—another broken promise—that we have seen from John Key’s Government.
Hon Ruth Dyson: An outright lie.
DARIEN FENTON: In fact, it is an outright lie, as my colleague says. Of course, as we know, John Key should have listened when the Hon Nick Smith made that promise. However, how many promises have we heard? How many promises have we heard from this Government? How many promises have been broken?
I was also moved to speak on this bill, because I heard that there were 95 submissions on this bill, and, of those, 90 were opposed.
AARON GILMORE (National): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I am always suspicious when we have loaded titles of legislation. It is a bit like Operation Enduring Freedom, which we had under President George Bush. We have got the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and when you hear a Government use a self-congratulatory title like that, you do wonder what is going on.
Well, the real effect of the Government’s actions in respect of this legislation has to be put alongside other legislation. This Government has neutered the freshwater policy statement that came out of Judge Sheppard and went through the Land and Water Forum. The Land and Water Forum came up with a consensual solution that was pretty close to where Judge Sheppard and his panel had got to. The Government then responded to behind-the-door pressure and undermined that. We have had this legislation undermining water conservation orders in the Canterbury area. Everywhere else in New Zealand, except in Canterbury, water conservation orders bind the regional council. They can be changed only through a process that ends up in the Environment Court after the Minister has had a say as to whether the amendment application should be heard, but it cannot be done by a regional council just saying: “Oh, look, we’ve changed our mind. We actually think that way back when, when New Zealand tried to protect a river like the Rākaia River”—they want to change it. But, you know, that is the effect of this legislation. It overrides water conservation orders, which is another thing that threatens water quality and water quantity in Christchurch.
And that is why I am not surprised to see some of the media criticisms of this legislation, particularly in respect of Part 1, saying that one of the background factors to this is not actually the better outcome for the planning of water in Canterbury; it is actually irrigation outcomes that the Government wants to achieve, perhaps through changing provisions in water conservation orders and also through its ill-considered subsidies that are coming from the taxpayer dollar to irrigation schemes, which are effectively increasing the capital value of farms at the cost of taxpayers. So those two factors alone make it a nonsense to call this the improved water management bill.
It is also, I think, an indictment on the poor processes of this Government that it could come to this Parliament 3 years ago and take the Draconian step that it did then, and promise that 3 years later, which sounded like a long time at the time, it would have elections. Here we go, in 2013, and it is saying that we are not now going to have elections. It promised them in 2010; now it is extending them until 2016.
What about the old principle that there should be no taxation without representation? Because that is what rates are, effectively. They are a form of taxation, and ratepayers are forced to pay under threat of their properties being sold if they do not pay their rates. You should have representation. You should have local representation. There is no good reason that we have heard from the Government to justify the extension of these commissioners in Canterbury, who have taken over the proper role of the regional council for an additional 3 years—no good reason whatsoever.
I wonder also whether it is related to the Government’s intentions to ram through, if it can, the abolition of regional councils just about everywhere, moving towards unitary authorities, which might be a good idea for a big city like Auckland, but which I am not convinced is the answer for the rest of New Zealand, yet the Government seems to be pushing forward on that trajectory. So I would like the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries, to take a call and answer the criticisms that I have made and that have been made by submitters on the bill, such as the Fish and Game Council, amongst others, who criticised this process; the Human Rights Commission; and local voters in the Canterbury region who are sad or annoyed that they have lost their rights.
The Human Rights Commission submission said: “The Commission considers that no good reason has been provided for extending the present legislation. The lack of public consultation about content - or the continuing need for legislation - is an abuse of the democratic process …”. They are very strong words from the human rights commissioner—very strong words, indeed. I will say that again: it is an abuse of the democratic process. Then the submission goes on and says: “and does not reflect the real needs of Cantabrians (and could even do real harm).”
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 64
New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 64
New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Amendments to other provisions
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): As we embark on the debate on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, many of the points that were made in the debate on Part 1 about this being a unique piece of legislation in terms of the loss of democratic process apply equally to this part.
The question that I would like to ask the Minister is that I note in new section 17A(1) inserted by clause 5 that “The responsible Ministers must begin a review of ECan on 1 March 2014. (2) The review must cover—(a) the governance structure of ECan; and (b) the membership of ECan; and (c) ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3.” I would like to just ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries—because I do not think we have had an answer to this question throughout this entire debate—about the notion put up that the Government somehow has some sort of support or mandate for this legislation. I think Nicky Wagner, as she was polling her electorate about how unpopular she has become in terms of the Phillipstown School issues and this particular legislation, tried to make a claim that there was overwhelming support in Canterbury for not only Part 1 but Part 2. We know that in terms of the evidence given to the Local Government and Environment Committee there were five submissions in favour and 90 submissions opposed. She forgot about that little detail in her various dissertations.
But I would like to ask the Minister whether he feels that there is widespread support in the community, apart from the National Party in gumboots—Federated Farmers—apart from Ngāi Tahu, and apart from Local Government New Zealand. Apart from Ngāi Tahu, those other two organisations are not grassroots, widespread representation of Canterbury. Where is the support and the mandate for this legislation? There is none. Not one speaker from the National Government—not Ms Wagner, not “Curly”, nor any of the others—has managed to get up—
Aaron Gilmore: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, that is entirely—the member will withdraw that comment.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: How do you know it was directed at him?
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member will withdraw the comment.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw. Not Aaron Gilmore—sorry, that is just clarification for those who are listening tonight. We sucked him out of the pack like the old ace in the pack of cards. He woke up. Not Aaron Gilmore, who promised that there would be Environment Canterbury elections on time—
Nicky Wagner: He got here. At least he’s got here.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh, they are all awake now, including the clucker over there from Christchurch Central. All the low-altitude flyers on that side promised there would be elections on schedule, and then they broke that promise. I would like one of them to get up. I would like the low-altitude flyer over there who has just come back into Parliament, Mr Gilmore—or Ms Wagner, or others—to get up and make one attempt to explain to the people why he feels that National has a mandate to put through this legislation. Would the member like to answer the question now? Oh no, silence. He was quick to take a point of order about such things as haircuts, but, apart from that, no—
Aaron Gilmore: The member likes—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: If he has got something to say, would the member like to answer the question? Could the member get up now—and I would be happy to yield to him—and answer where he believes his Government has a mandate to put this legislation through? Does he have a mandate or not? Is there an explanation?
Aaron Gilmore: Say something sensible.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh, “Say something sensible.” So that member does not believe that he requires a mandate, or public support, to put through a measure that effectively cauterises the democratic rights of people in the province in which he has resided now and again over the last 2 or 3 years. I will ask him again: where is the mandate for that?
Aaron Gilmore: It’s called election day.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh no, “It’s called an election.” That member does not get the legislation. Look, I have to say it is only three pages long, so try reading it. It cancels an election—it cancels an election. Does that low-altitude flyer now residing back in Canterbury not actually get it? He does not read the bill. He does not have a mandate. He says that that is a silly concept to put forward. He says: “Say something sensible. Stop calling for a mandate.” And now, for some reason, he believes that there was an election, when he cancelled it. Well, I have to say that the man who once claimed that he had cheated me in the MBA programme at Canterbury University, when he was not even there—I mean, his CV is growing by the day—this boy is really good. Maybe he should do a political science class and work out what an election is. What a fool!
I say to that member and to all those members opposite that as the Ministers, under Part 2, actually go on to review Environment Canterbury, I wonder whether they will take public submissions for that review. I wonder whether they will actually want to hear from the public, who by that stage, if this legislation is passed, will have lost their democratic rights for two election periods of time. I wonder whether they will allow people to come and say to the National Government: “Why is it you broke your cast-iron promise? Why is it Nick Smith said the following: ‘I propose that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners”—[Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder whether they will allow public submissions on this ministerial review, so that people can ask why it was that the then Minister of Local Government, or Cabinet Minister—and he still is now—Nick Smith, said: “I propose that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing ECan but no later than the local body elections scheduled for late 2013.” We have not had the Minister—
Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s this year.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That is this year—that is right. In case Aaron Gilmore missed it—the lunar calendar prevails—that is this year, 2013. He has probably got a degree in astroscience as well, tacked on to—
Hon Ruth Dyson: He wrote the first one.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He probably did—he probably did. He probably did, indeed.
Hon Ruth Dyson: The Gilmore calendar.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, absolutely. So I wonder whether the Ministers will take submissions. Not one Minister in the chair, not the Minister of Local Government or his stand-in, or any member—including the Canterbury members, and I do not count Mr Gilmore as one; he is the fly-in, fly-out member now and again—not one of those members has stood up and provided justification for this legislation. They have not even got up and defended Nick Smith for breaking his promise—and all the other Cabinet Ministers—because it is utterly indefensible.
I would like to know from the Minister whether, in this great review that Ministers will undertake on 1 March 2014 covering governance, membership, and powers and functions, they will be taking public submissions. Hang on, the empty tin is rattling. Will they be taking public submissions? Oh, silence. They do not know—do not know. Mr Gilmore is hiding under the desk. I am sure he has got the answer. Will they be taking public submissions? I invite a Minister to get up and actually answer that question. I think, after being done over, as the people of Canterbury have, and after being lied to—lied to—as the people of Canterbury have, they deserve to know whether they will actually have a say and a part in that review. It will have been so long that they may forget what the vote is, given that it has been taken away from them.
It will be interesting in the Christchurch local body elections to see whether the venom is released from people who disagree with this measure, because there is widespread opposition to this. Not one member of Parliament—I will give Nicky Wagner some credit. She did get up and say that, as I said, Federated Farmers, Local Government New Zealand, and Ngāi Tahu had said it was a great thing. There were two other submissions in support of it, but she could not remember those.
Hon Ruth Dyson: The irrigators.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The irrigators. But she forgot that 90 of the 95 submissions were against it. But she in her little world, orbiting in the same stratosphere as Mr Gilmore does from time to time, believes that the Government has widespread support. But I ask Mr Gilmore again: can he point to that support? Can he point to a mandate, given that he is the fresh-faced little boy who won the lollipop raffle and got back into Parliament? You know, he won the lollipop raffle, got an extra packet of jellybeans, and bounced back in here on the taxpayers’ purse. He should do his job tonight. He should get on his feet and he should actually answer some questions as a Government member. He should not just sit there vegetating and doing nothing.
Aaron Gilmore: Talk to the bill, Clayton.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Talk to the bill! Well, the bill is actually about you, Mr Gilmore, and your ilk taking away the rights of the people of Canterbury. That is actually what it is about. I will say again that it is only three pages, the print is probably big enough, and there are not too many big words in it—apart from taking away elections—and he might want to read it. So I say earn your $150,000, Mr Gilmore. Stand up tonight as the newly minted member from somewhere, actually answer some questions, and answer the questions as to where the mandate is, where the public support for this bill is, and why you—and every member of your Government, through you—broke your promise. Oh, hang on. The genius is silent on that. He does not have an answer, or, I suspect—more accurately—he knows the truth. It is in writing, it is on the record of the House, and there is absolutely no defence and no justification for his actions or those of anybody else.
It will be interesting to see what happens at the next general election when he pokes his head out of whatever burrow geographically he puts himself in—when he pokes his head out of a particular burrow and puts his head up for election—and is asked on the stump why he did this. The next general election, of course, will be right in the middle of the next period when Cantabrians are experiencing a lack of democracy at the regional government level. It will be interesting. I wonder whether Nicky Wagner in her recent poll of Christchurch Central asked about the Environment Canterbury issue. If she did, why does she not release the poll results?
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): This Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill deals with a review of the powers and functions of Environment Canterbury under Part 3 of the principal Act, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. That part of the principal Act deals with water conservation orders. In the Green Party’s view, there would be no need for the review of water conservation orders in 2014 if the Government was committed to doing something now. It should be committed to doing something now, because in Canterbury we have a legal situation with water conservation orders where the provisions that apply under the Resource Management Act in Canterbury are quite different from anywhere else in New Zealand. The purpose of water conservation orders outside of Canterbury is “to recognise and sustain outstanding amenity or intrinsic values, and to preserve, as far as possible in its natural state, any water body that is considered outstanding”, and to protect habitat, fisheries, recreational, scientific, ecological, and other characteristics of a river or lake that is considered to be outstanding. Yet in Canterbury that does not apply. Those provisions have been substantially weakened by the principal Act, and when officials’ advice was that there was no justification for continuing this different regime in Canterbury, why does the bill continue it? Why does the bill not repeal that? When we were debating Part 1, I challenged the Minister of Local Government to answer the question as to why Ministers have decided to go against the advice of officials, and I repeat that challenge. It is not legally good practice to have two different regimes applying in different parts of the country.
New Zealanders love our wild and scenic rivers. They love rivers like the Rākaia and the Ahuriri, which are protected by water conservation orders. They are an important part of our way of life and our identity, and they are places for people to enjoy recreationally. When we are losing wild and scenic rivers, internationally and in New Zealand, because they have been channelised with stopbanks for flood protection purposes, and they are being taken for irrigation to turn fields green, it is really important that we protect the rivers that remain. This bill certainly repeals the references to the Hurunui River water conservation order, and that is because Fish and Game withdrew its application for a water conservation order to protect and preserve that river, because it recognised that it would not be of much value, given the weakened provisions that apply. There have been no other applications for water conservation orders since the principal Act was passed.
The bill should reinstate Part 9 of the Resource Management Act, which applies elsewhere in New Zealand. Because it does not, it means that we are not getting the protection that some of our Canterbury rivers deserve. In 2010 I rafted the Clarence River. That is a multi-day rafting trip on one of the most scenic and enjoyable grade 2 and 3 rafting rivers in New Zealand. The river starts at Lake Tennyson. People start rafting near the Acheron homestead, and the river is nature’s own highway. It goes through the tawny tussock lands of Molesworth Station, through the Clarence Reserve, and down that fault line between the inward and seaward Kaikōuras. The Clarence River deserves to be protected by a water conservation order because it is one of our outstanding rivers. Yet because the south bank is in Canterbury, and the weakened provisions in the principal Act would apply, why would the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or Fish and Game apply to protect that river?
We have seen no progress on protecting our outstanding wild and scenic rivers under this Government. We had two major reports on water conservation orders by the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment last year, recommending greater attention and expansion of the ways in which water conservation orders work and their application to the land in the catchment. Yet what has this Government done? Absolutely nothing. That is because this Government does not care about our rivers, except as a source of irrigation and to generate hydro power. It has had the opportunity to repeal those sections in the principal Act, and, as Fish and Game said, that would be a demonstrable example of good faith in restoring the law in Canterbury as it prevails elsewhere in the country, yet the Minister has failed to take that opportunity, the Government has failed, and there has been no explanation from Ministers on the Government benches as to why it has rejected that advice, when it would be a sign—
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would like to acknowledge the contribution we have just heard from my fellow Canterbury MP Eugenie Sage. Hearing her talk with such expertise and knowledge about water and conservation in Canterbury, one wonders why she was sacked as a regional councillor by the National Government, and why it is we are here debating this motion tonight. I want to talk to clause 5 of Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and pick on a clause that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove spoke to around the timetable for the review that will be carried out in March 2014. To reiterate some of the questions that my colleague asked on that, we would like the Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, to take a call and let us know whether the public will have input into this review in 2014. Will this be another chance for Cantabrians to try to have their voices heard? They can beat their heads against a wall, because they overwhelmingly submitted against the piece of legislation we are debating here tonight. I think we have heard that over and over again. Fundamentally, this is a Government that does not trust Cantabrians to make decisions about Canterbury. This is a Government that does not have faith in the people of Canterbury to make the best decisions for their province. We want to know whether they will have a chance to have another say on this in 2014.
One wonders what form this review will take in 2014. When you go through the number of submissions that were heard and what this Government—
Hon Ruth Dyson: 95.
Dr MEGAN WOODS: There were 95 submissions, 90 of which were opposed. Then you look at the regulatory impact statement to this piece of legislation and you see all the advice. Not only was the commissioner saying “For goodness’ sake, return to some form of democracy in Canterbury.” but you have advice from numerous organisations. Treasury gave advice that, actually, a transitional arrangement was preferable. We have the Canterbury Mayoral Forum—which this Government actually likes to hide behind and say that it was asked by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum to do it—quoted in the regulatory impact statement as saying that it would like to see a return to at least a transitional arrangement. This is a Government that is ignoring the views of Cantabrians.
As we have heard most expertly from my Canterbury colleague Eugenie Sage, there are a couple of things that lie beneath this. One is the need for National to deliver on irrigation. It is not that the Government does not trust the people of Canterbury; it is that it did not like the elected council, because it would not let the Government do what it wanted to and to deliver on its election promises around irrigation. So, hey presto, here is a solution: cancel the elections and appoint some people to get through what you want, your political agenda. It is truly shocking that we are standing here debating a piece of legislation that is about the cancellation of elections in pursuit of a political agenda by a political party.
Also lurking beneath this legislation is the Government’s desire to explore the notion of a unitary authority for Canterbury. We have the Government making noises in this direction. We have seen this happen in Auckland. It is not going to work in Canterbury.
Nicky Wagner: How do you know?
Dr MEGAN WOODS: Nicky Wagner, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, asks me how I know. Sorry, Ms Wagner, I will tell you why it will not work. It will not work, because it has been tried before. It was called the Canterbury Provincial Government, and the very reason that the provincial government had to be abolished in 1876, the very same tensions that existed, mean that a unitary authority that brings together the city of Christchurch and the city of Timaru and tries to put these competing interests together—you can sit there and laugh, Ms Wagner, but I regret to inform you that those very same tensions are there. If you hold a review and you let public submissions be heard in 2014, you may just find that out. The very competing interest about the economic agendas of the two parts of the province will come to the fore again.
This has been tried before, and we can see—[Interruption] I would like Ms Wagner, rather than sitting in her chair and sniggering, to take a call and tell us whether the people of Christchurch will have a chance to have their voices heard in March 2014, why it is that she thinks a unitary authority—which she was very quick to defend with her interjections, I would like to note—will work, and whether she would like to tell us that this really is the Government’s agenda. We know that water and irrigation are one of its agendas, and we are hearing very much here that, actually, the unitary authority—what we were saying is lurking beneath—seems to be coming to the surface a little bit more in the Chamber tonight. So, Ms Wagner, we welcome your taking a call and explaining to us on this—
Nicky Wagner: Mr Chair.
Dr MEGAN WOODS: Are you seeking a call to explain this, Ms Wagner?
Nicky Wagner: Yes. Mr Chair.
Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, you are welcome to take a call after me, and we look forward to answers on this. We have put forward a range of reasons why we oppose this bill. You cannot get more fundamental than standing in a House of Representatives and saying that we oppose this bill because it is taking away the right of Cantabrians to elect their members. National knows that this bill is not popular, and that is why the chair of the select committee, Ms Wagner, is polling her own electorate at the moment. She knows that this, in combination with her failure to protect Phillipstown School, has done her some damage, because the people of Canterbury do not support this legislation. The people of Canterbury do not want their vote cancelled yet again. They have had it done once, and they certainly do not want it done again.
There is a moral obligation on this Government, as elected representatives themselves, to restore democracy to Canterbury. Labour will return it to an elected regional council after we are elected in 2014, because that is the right and proper way. To hide behind notions of the earthquake—well, actually, earthquakes do not stop you voting. I would like you to point to other parts of the world when you take your call—which we are awaiting with great anticipation—where it was necessary to cancel elections after a disaster, because I did notice that in the select committee report on the legislation the earthquakes are used as a justification for the extension, yet again, of the denial of Cantabrians’ right to vote. So we welcome hearing the select committee chair’s view on that.
Labour opposes this legislation, quite simply because it is wrong to deny people their democratic rights, but we do welcome, and await with anticipation, a call from Ms Wagner where she will answer the questions we have put forward in the Committee tonight. Thank you.
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): It is my pleasure to speak to this bill today, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and particularly to talk about Part 2, because Part 2 focuses on the ministerial review that must be heard before 1 March 2014.
In this bill it is quite clear what that ministerial review will cover. First of all, it covers the governance structure of Environment Canterbury. This means we can have a discussion about that governance structure, and it has been interesting to hear the discussion here tonight. It is an open discussion that can be had by the people of Canterbury. The bill also discusses the membership of Environment Canterbury and Environment Canterbury’s powers and functions.
It was particularly interesting listening to Mr Clayton Cosgrove about the submissions on this bill. There were only three submissions on this part of the bill, and those three submissions all supported the idea of a review, so we had three submissions in support of this part of the bill. The inclusion of clause 5 reflects the intention to transition the regional governance of Canterbury back to democracy and to identify the best long-term governance solutions for the Canterbury region. The bill did not seek to specify the process, so that process will have to be worked through, or to limit its scope, but you can be assured that the review will be comprehensive.
So I think what we have been discussing tonight in Part 2 is the importance of this review, the fact that it will be held by 1 March 2014, and the fact that it will be comprehensive. I commend this bill to the Committee.
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Was it not very interesting, hearing that from Nicky Wagner, the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who obviously does not understand the process of submissions in that she misled, in a sense, the people of New Zealand listening tonight by saying that only three people submitted on Part 2? Well, the average New Zealander does not submit to something on the basis of parts of a bill, Ms Wagner. The average New Zealander—if you know anything about democracy—simply gets told about a bill and they simply submit on a bill. They do not submit on parts of a bill. Only those who are very, very knowledgable about legislation will submit on a part of a bill. So that was extremely misleading.
But it is understandable because this Government has commented on the five submitters who supported the overall bill and has ignored the 90 others, out of the 95 submitters, who opposed the bill. So, typically, it makes note of Federated Farmers, it makes note of Business New Zealand, and it makes note of its cronies and mates who support it, but it ignores the other 90 because that is not convenient. It was very interesting sitting around that committee table—in Christchurch, as well—hearing how the National Party members gave lip-service to many of the submitters. They patronised them. In the case of the Hon Nick Smith, a young 14-year-old submitted to the bill—a 14-year-old—and the Hon Nick Smith said to him: “Why should we be listening to you when you can’t even vote? You’re not even eligible to vote.” It was shocking.
Nicky Wagner: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to point out that the Hon Nick Smith—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no. [Interruption] Order! No, that is a debatable point. It is not for me to judge the validity of comments made. They are debatable points. Members wanting to disagree can take another call.
ANDREW WILLIAMS: So in this regard, let us just remind the National Party that after the next general election, when there is a new Government, there will be local body elections in Canterbury. The Labour Party has said that, New Zealand First has said that, and the Green Party has said that. There will be elections in Canterbury, for all of Canterbury, for all elements of local government in Canterbury, after the next general election. We will ensure that that happens. Any Cantabrians listening to this tonight need to remember that with a change of Government there will be elections in Canterbury.
Can I also remind the people sitting on the other benches over there—the people sitting there smirking, who smirked through the submissions at the select committee—that they sit on a very, very slim majority in some cases. We are talking about democracy here. We are talking about election to local government, but I will remind the member Nicky Wagner, for instance, who is sitting on 12,064 votes, up against Brendon Burns on 12,017 votes, that she is sitting on a very slim majority and that majority will not be there in 18 months’ time if she continues with it. I will remind “Curly-tops” over to the right—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!
ANDREW WILLIAMS: Oh, sorry—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, do not say “sorry”. We have already had a caution on this. If any member is going to breach my rulings, their speech will be terminated. The member will withdraw his comment immediately.
ANDREW WILLIAMS: I am sorry. I withdraw, Mr Chairman. I do not know the gentleman himself, but I was just referring to a former comment about that individual. But in terms of Mr Aaron Gilmore, I will remind him that he got 10,225 votes and lost to Lianne Dalziel, who got 15,559. At the same time during the same election—and we were going for only the party vote—New Zealand First got 1,801. So in terms of Christchurch East—which the Prime Minister descended on in a helicopter and visited only by helicopter; he thought that was sufficient to go and visit the Christchurch suburbs—you are dog tucker in terms of Christchurch East. Your party is dog tucker. You are gone—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! You must not bring the Chair into the debate.
ANDREW WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair. You are certainly not dog tucker—nothing like the sort. I would never ever think of you as dog tucker—do not ever think that.
Thirdly, the Port Hills. We have now the Speaker of the House, David Carter, who got 12,640 votes and lost to the Hon Ruth Dyson, with 15,737 votes. Lost again—another electorate lost again—and in that electorate New Zealand First got 1,609 party votes. I am reminding the National Party, you will be gone—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The speech is terminated. I have cautioned the member.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I would have thought, Mr Chairman, that the debate on Part 2, which is the more substantive part of the bill, is a debate that is probably overarching, and probably you will hear quite robust discussions from this side of the Chamber. So when my colleague there who spoke just then, the member Andrew Williams, talked about dog tucker, it reminded me of a saying that the farmers will appreciate, and that is it does not matter how much perfume you pour on pig kaka, it stinks. It still stinks. That is really how many people whom I have heard from refer to this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and the way this Government is treating the members of the public, particularly the people of Canterbury.
The substantive part, Part 2, essentially removes the promise, breaks the promise that the Government made that elections would be this year, 2013. It is now saying elections will take place in 2016. This part of the bill also establishes this review in 2014. The question being asked by my colleagues Dr Megan Woods and Clayton Cosgrove as to whether there would be public consultation for that review is an important question that needs to be addressed. I would hope that the Minister of Local Government—any Minister—will confirm whether there is public consultation on this. I will tell you why. Whatever the case behind this bill, the people of Canterbury have told the Local Government and Environment Committee that there is no justification for cancelling their elections. As ratepayers, Canterbury residents deserve a say in who represents them and makes decisions on their behalf. The people of Canterbury feel strongly that this is a basic right. This has been backed up by numerous submissions. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, submitted that “Our view continues to be that the undemocratic way in which the original legislation was introduced, and its continuance, is simply wrong from a human rights perspective.” I have to say that residents have been outraged over their treatment. Time after time this Government either fails to act for them—to consult or listen to them—or overrides their rights for the Government’s goals.
If there is any doubt about the passion of the people of Canterbury, I refer you to 19 September 2012. The day after the first reading of this bill there was a protest at the Bridge of Remembrance in Christchurch against the axing or merging of 31 local schools and the decision to delay the Environment Canterbury elections till 2016, and the perceived loss of democracy in that city—that entire city. If you do not believe that, I refer you to 27 September 2012. The Christchurch City Council voted overwhelmingly to express its opposition to the move and to seek a meeting with the Minister to ask why the elections were postponed. On 12 December a 1,000-strong crowd rallied in Latimer Square, calling for a return to democracy. Those are just examples of how the people of Canterbury are saying to this Government: “We want our democracy back.” The Government does not have the right to remove the basic rights that these people are entitled to.
I am going to ask the question: will the Minister confirm whether there will be public consultation in terms of the review? I tell you that this is so important. If there is silence from that side of the Chamber, then I am going to refer this Committee to the regulatory impact statement. It says: “We recognise that there has not been a Crown led public consultation process with Canterbury stakeholders and communities on the options in the RIS … In our view, it would be appropriate for further specific consultation to be undertaken …”. Here are the authors of the regulatory impact statement identifying that there has been no public consultation prior to this bill being introduced. If there is silence, and this Government will not confirm one way or the other that it is its intention to consult with the public over the review in 2014, then the message will remain with the people of Canterbury and the general public that it does not intend to do so, despite the rhetoric from some on that side of the Chamber.
I think it is important because despite an earlier comment from that side of the Chamber—I agree with Mr Andrew Williams—overwhelmingly the submissions made by the public on this bill have been a general no, a general vote against this bill. Let me quote some of the names. I think this is important. Adam Brasell votes against this bill. He says: “The removal of voting rights and democratic procedures …” is wrong. “The taxation of Canterbury residents without representation.” is something that they are up in arms about. Alan MacRae opposes the bill. Angela McPherson opposes the bill. She believes that the Government’s plan for Canterbury is a “takeover of governance and resources.” Annette and Michael Hamblett oppose the elections being delayed until 2016, concerned that the bill will continue to undermine water conservation orders. Chrys Horn opposes the bill. Cliff Mason opposes the bill. Dirk De Lu opposes the bill. Dr Bronwyn Hayward opposes the bill. Edward Snowdon opposes the bill. Elsie Edgerton-Till opposes the bill. George Moon opposes the bill. Helen Elizabeth Lowe opposes the bill. James Adams opposes the bill.
What I am pointing out is that these are real people in Canterbury who are opposed to what this Government is proposing. I have heard tonight that the Government intends to do consultation on this review, but we on this side of the Chamber are asking whether the Minister will confirm one way or another that the people of Canterbury will be consulted in the review that this bill introduces. If it will consult with them, then it needs to tell us tonight whether that is going to be the case. I tell you why: if the Government does not say one way or the other tonight, then the people of Canterbury are left with what is in the regulatory impact statement, where it says that the public were not consulted. They should have been consulted, particularly when this Government breaks a promise. This year is 2013. At the end of this year New Zealand will conduct the election of our local body representatives, except for Canterbury. Canterbury people expected to elect their own representatives. It is not right, and I point out that in this particular section that we are talking about tonight not only is the Government removing elected representatives, but it then goes ahead and pays the unelected representatives from the rates of the people of Canterbury, who have not had a say about who their representatives are.
So it is really very, very important that the Government be quite clear: is it going to consult with the people of Canterbury over this bill and the proposed review or not? It is a simple question. I am hopeful that the new Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government, will take up the reins. As I have said before, I have listed off names of individuals who have taken the time to come before the select committee and oppose this particular bill. I think the least that this Government can do is to invite those people to come forward and talk about why it is that they oppose the change, the postponement of the election that this Government is proposing. It is a simple fact. If the Government is going to use taxpayer money to pay for certain individuals to run a city, it is the right of the people paying taxes to be able to elect those representatives. That is not the Government’s right. I pose the question again: is this the kind of future that we are looking towards under this Government—that any time you dislike the people’s representative, you remove them?
Hon Ruth Dyson: Chuck them out.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Absolutely—you chuck them out. Is that the kind—
Hon Member: Is this Fiji?
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Absolutely.
Hon Member: Bainimarama.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Is this the Bainimarama culture that has been brought in? Is this Government just too close to Frank Bainimarama that that is the sort of thing that we can foresee in the future? If it is, I tell you: the people of Canterbury will vote this Government out.
MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to speak to Part 2 of this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and I would like to focus on clause 5, which provides for the proposed review of the governance structure, membership, and powers and functions of Environment Canterbury. Like others before me, I have the same questions around public participation, and about whether the public will be genuinely involved in this process of the review or will they continue to be, as they have already been, sidelined, marginalised, and disempowered. I also have questions around the transparency of the process. Will the process be transparent? Will we understand and get to see the reasoning and rationale for the decisions that they have come up with, the factors that have been involved and weighed upon in making any decisions? I also would like to know how consistent, in particular, the powers will be for the new Environment Canterbury, when we get the council back, compared with other regional governance powers. This is particularly important in relation not only to water conservation orders but also to powers relating to the management of our environment.
I would like to talk a little bit about water conservation orders. Along with other protection mechanisms such as national parks and ecological areas, water conservation orders represent a kind of bedrock of the foundation of sustainability in setting aside areas that are so high in conservation and ecological value that they can be protected for all time. I know people who put in an enormous amount of time and energy to ensure that the best possible water conservation orders or national parks are established, and I know the lengths that some people who are passionate about the rivers and protecting the rivers will go to. I know a couple who actually sold their only boat. They live in a very modest cottage. They had a boat to go boating on the Rākaia River, but they cared about the Rākaia River so much that they sold their boat in order to help fund the putting together of a water conservation order to protect that river. These people are absolutely heartbroken that, as you know, the Rākaia River water conservation order is being weakened, and that has come about through the different powers that have been given to Environment Canterbury under the original legislation and that continue to be extended.
The problem with constantly betraying the kind of social contract that we have with people, and with conservationists who are wanting to protect the environment, is that it is just not sustainable for people who care about the environment to constantly fight these battles. You think you have gained protection for a river and then discover, 10 years down the track, that what you have worked so hard for to protect that river is no longer applicable. When we are looking at the review of Environment Canterbury’s powers, for goodness’ sake, I hope that we can come to some kind of national agreement around the status of water conservation orders so that we have a consistent process and a consistent status, so that people know exactly what kind of protection they are investing their time and energy into to gain protection for these rivers, because if they are being constantly eroded, ultimately you cannot have a sustainable economy to protect the environment without these factors in place.
The other thing that I am really concerned about and have found extremely difficult—and I mentioned it in the debate on Part 1—is this continuous justification of using the earthquake to justify both the removal of democracy and, indeed, the extension of the powers of Environment Canterbury. There is just no way on earth that you can use the earthquake to justify those outcomes. As I said, after the earthquake, there were some people who went around and broke into people’s homes under the cover of the earthquake. They were highly condemned by the public when they were brought before the courts, and rightly so, and—[Bell rung]—it is the same kind of thinking that is allowing the continuing—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Does the member wish to continue?
MOJO MATHERS: I will finish now. Thank you.
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I am delighted to take a call on this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, which raises some serious concerns for this side of the Chamber about the Government’s commitment to democracy. I am disappointed not to hear too many contributions from the Government side of the Chamber defending it and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Immigration, shortly, who I am sure has a valuable contribution to make on this matter—it is certainly the case that good heads in the south need to be giving this consideration and feeding back just why it is that this decision cannot be taken sooner, why full democracy cannot be restored to the people of Canterbury sooner, and why Nick Smith’s promises to make sure that the council elections in Canterbury will take place in late 2013 are not going to be honoured.
It is a disgrace. It is another broken promise by this Government. It is a Government that talked about, in its early days, having higher standards. It talked about a brighter future. How that language has disappeared from the vocabulary. How it has disappeared from the vocabulary.
Tim Macindoe: And we have delivered. We have delivered.
Dr DAVID CLARK: We are hearing from the other side that it has been delivered, so I would ask the people of New Zealand to judge whether they think that this has been delivered, whether they think a brighter future has been delivered.
Real per capita wages have dropped under this Government and that means, if we take out the technical terms, that people are hurting, because the cost of living has gone up and wages have not kept pace. Inequalities are greater than they have ever been, and I do not think that represents a brighter future by any stretch of a long bow.
It is also a Government that promised not to raise GST and then promptly did. It fits into the pattern of broken promises, it is fair to say. We see that the wage gap with Australia that was promised would be closed has this week been announced to have gone up 50 percent—50 percent—since this Government took office in 2008. We are seeing a thousand Kiwis a week leave for Oz. This is, I guess, typical of a Government that is becoming in the habit of breaking promises. It does have the worst economic record of any Government in New Zealand in the last 50 years, as I have been reminded from the other side of the Chamber.
Nick Smith was very clear, even in his Cabinet papers: he proposed that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing Environment Canterbury, but no later—no later—than the local body elections scheduled for late 2013. That is not what we are seeing here and it is a great disappointment, because we on this side of the Chamber value democracy. We think it is the appropriate way to make sure that we have the leaders in charge of making sure that populations’ interests are taken account of. So we think it is a disgrace that this is not happening.
The Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, submitted that the view of the Human Rights Commission continues to be that the undemocratic way in which the original legislation was introduced and its continuance is simply wrong from a human rights perspective. So we have condemnation from those who have examined the issue. We have a gut feeling, we have an uprising in Christchurch and thereabouts saying that this is just wrong, and we have many, many, many other examples that we could draw to mind. Councillor Glenn Livingstone has said there are strong feelings in the city over the issue and that that has been galvanised by the debacle over the restructuring of Christchurch’s schools.
There is a groundswell of feeling here. There is a view that is shared by the people of Canterbury and shared by all of those people who are concerned for democracy. We need this Government to stump up, we need it to announce that there will be proper elections, and we need it to honour its promises. We have seen it break too many promises, and the people of New Zealand are disappointed—particularly those who did support this Government once upon a time are disappointed that it is failing to deliver. They feel that they have been let down by this Government—and rightly so. We see that people are urging us—I was out there on the street, collecting asset sales signatures not so long ago—to petition for an early election, because people believe in democracy and they are getting sick and tired of this Government. So I just want to say that is something that needs urgent attention, we need basic democratic rights restored, and we need the new Minister—
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am very pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by picking up the point that my colleague Dr David Clark—recently promoted, and a well-deserved promotion—the member of Parliament for Dunedin North, concluded on, and that is the huge disappointment and anger that people in Canterbury feel about this legislation and the primary Act that it is amending. I suppose the most important reason, the driving force, for the disappointment and anger is the fact that we trusted the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he said publicly, consistently, and strongly: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” We believed the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Some people think we may have been foolish to believe him, but I am old-fashioned enough to think that if a member of Parliament says that in this House or out in the public arena, if he is quoted in the media, if he says so on TV, on the radio, in the press, we should be able to believe them. But we have discovered that that was an absolute direct lie to the people of Canterbury, which has made us incredibly frustrated and angry.
The anger was very evident at the Local Government and Environment Committee hearing in Christchurch. The current member of Parliament for Christchurch Central got very agitated during those hearings, when members of the public, while presenting their submissions, got so upset and expressed it in very strong ways. I know that she is concerned about the impact of this legislation on her wafer-thin majority in Christchurch Central, because she has been polling recently. The poll that Nicky Wagner has conducted asked six questions, none of which directly related to this bill, but actually all of which arose as a result of this amendment legislation. Her poll in Christchurch Central asked how people were going to vote in the next election with their party vote and with their candidate vote, and whether they knew who the MP for Christchurch Central was. I would love to see the results of that. I think a lot of them said: “Who cares?”. Then, in a very courageous move, she asked them to rate her. What did they think of her performance? I would love to see the results of that too. And then she asked whom they had voted for in the last election, both in the party vote and in the electoral vote.
That poll will be reflecting the anger and frustration that Cantabrians feel at this legislation not just taking away our democratic right to vote, not just making an absolute liar of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, which I think in itself is a pretty offensive thing for colleagues to do, but also taking away our water conservation orders, and that is referred to in Part 2, in new section 17A(2)(c), inserted by clause 5, “ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3”. Those are the reasons that Cantabrians are so angry. We are losing our vote. We have been lied to. We are very angry and frustrated and disappointed that we believed a Minister who said we would have our right to vote back this year. We were angry that it was taken away, but we were assured, regardless of the circumstances, Nick Smith said, that we would have our vote back next year.
Of course, we know that the submissions to the select committee were overwhelmingly reflective of the points I am making—of anger, of frustration, of extreme disappointment. There were 95 submissions received on this legislation, and 90 out of 95 were opposed to it. What bit of that maths is too hard for Government members to understand? Ninety out of 95 submissions said they did not agree with it. People said it undermined their basic democratic rights. Well, that is actually not rocket science. That is the point of the legislation. The point of the legislation is to take away our democratic rights. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner was very upset, not just about the outcome of this legislation, but about the totally undemocratic process that it had undergone in order to be introduced. He talked about the Cabinet paper that accompanied the original legislation. It was specifically stated in the Cabinet paper that the deferral of what was then the 2010 election should be seen only as a temporary measure because of concerns that it constrained the right to public participation.
I suppose as a member from Canterbury what I am most disappointed about is that the Minister who took over from Nick Smith, the Rt Hon David Carter, who signed this paper off, is also a Cantabrian. I really thought that when the new Minister, the Hon Chris Tremain, was given the job, he might say: “You’ve got to be joking.” Why would anyone in their right mind—and I have always assumed that he is in his right mind—why would any Minister in their right mind, want their name attached to this filth, this bit of dirt, this blight on the face of democracy? Why would any Minister want their name attached to it? However, I suppose that is the price you pay for getting into Cabinet. But I certainly know that other members would have said: “No—enough. I’d rather make an honest man out of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith.”
The final point I want to make is one I referred to earlier, and it is also alluded to in Part 2. It is the continuation of the removal of the water conservation order processes. In paragraph 45 on page 11 of the regulatory impact statement that accompanies this bill, it says this: “The WCO processes are set to return to those in the RMA (the special provisions are scheduled to lapse at the expiration of the Act). ECan has advised that it does not expect any more amendment applications with respect to the existing Canterbury WCOs and is not aware of any new applications for WCOs in the Canterbury Region.” This is the critical bit. In the Government’s own regulatory impact statement, it says this: “On this basis the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Primary Industries”—three critical advisers on this legislation—“consider there is insufficient justification for continuing special provisions for WCOs in the Canterbury region.” Maybe the Government was waiting for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to say that it is all right to get back to proper processes under the Resource Management Act for water conservation orders. Maybe it was waiting for some sign, for the stars to be in alignment. Frankly, there is very little else that could happen to give advice to Ministers that this legislation is the wrong thing to do in regard to water conservation orders.
Their own regulatory impact statement—unanimous advice from the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry for Primary Industries—says that this should not happen. And once again we see ignorant, arrogant, dismissive—I do not know the corrective adjective to use, because it just beggars belief to think that a Minister in his right mind would ignore that advice, would ignore 90 out of 95 submissions, and would ignore, I suspect, the pleading of the chair of the select committee, the current member for Christchurch Central, Nicky Wagner. I am sure that she would have raised concerns about this bill. But if she raised concerns about this bill as quietly as she has raised concerns about Phillipstown School, no wonder this bill is going ahead and no wonder Phillipstown School is scheduled to close at the end of the year.
This bill is a huge disappointment. It has caused anger and frustration for people in Canterbury. That was strongly expressed at the select committee. It has made a liar out of a Minister who has recently been returned to Cabinet, and I personally am offended at that. I do not think there should be any attempt by this Parliament to position a Minister of the Crown into that position. I am sure the Hon Dr Nick Smith deeply resents it as well. This legislation, just frankly, should not proceed. It is wrong. In Canterbury we have endured a lot and we have shown how resilient we are. We are now asking for one request to be granted, and that is for our right to vote for our own regional council to be restored to us in the way that was promised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is not a big ask, and it is one that I want Parliament to reflect on.
AARON GILMORE (National): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to just follow on from my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson’s comments. Cantabrians are not just losing the right to vote; they are losing appeal rights. One of the provisions of the existing legislation, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, which was passed in 2010, was to deny Cantabrians the right to appeal regional plans and also changes to water conservation orders. Normally, those processes carry with them appeal rights to the Environment Court. I can understand, at one level, the National Government wanting to sort out the regional water plan in Canterbury. I do not think that that justified the abolition of the regional council back in 2010, but given that that was the Government’s intent, I can understand its desire to sort out the water plan. But what I cannot understand is why, 3 years after that, it needs to retain the right to change that plan without appeal rights to the Environment Court. It is outrageous that not only have Cantabrians lost the right to elect their councillors but they have lost the right—which New Zealanders have in every other part of the country—to appeal provisions and plans that they disagree with to the Environment Court.
I see with some suspicion that in Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill we have the promise that “The responsible Ministers must begin a review of ECan on 1 March 2014.” Then it says that the review must cover, amongst other things, “ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3.” It worries me that we are going to see through that review process new proposals that we are not yet aware of that may, for example, for ever take away the appeal rights on plan provisions in respect of the regional plan of Environment Canterbury. We may also see the abolition of Environment Canterbury and the merger of it with the Christchurch City Council. Neither of those things has been acknowledged by the Government as yet, but you wait—you wait. Well, not you, Mr Chairman. We should wait, because I, for one, am suspicious that there is an ulterior motive here. I cannot understand why else the Government would breach its promise of 3 years ago.
Su’a William Sio: What do you think that might be?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I think the ulterior motives are the reorganisation of the councils in Canterbury to a vast degree, and the effective subjugation of those interested in environmental outcomes in the rivers of Canterbury—having their interests subjugated to the more powerful interests of some people who do not want to do enough to improve water quality in the region or who want to extract more water from those lowland rivers, particularly, than is sustainable. I think that this extension, together with these powers and functions of Environment Canterbury that are talked about in Part 3 in respect of their being reviewed, as well as looking at the membership of Environment Canterbury—again, code for looking at whether it should bring all of these bodies together—portend some future changes for Canterbury that I think will not suit Canterbury well in the long run.
Can I also endorse the comments of Ruth Dyson in respect of conservation orders. Conservation orders apply only to outstanding water bodies. There are only about 10 conservation orders in New Zealand. There are two or three in Canterbury. I cannot remember which. Is the Ahuriri River within this catchment? Is the Ahuriri River within this, or is it the Otago Regional Council? I am not sure. I think it is Canterbury. We have got the Rangitata River—
Aaron Gilmore: Waitaki’s the boundary.
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, the Waitaki River does not have a conservation order on it. You would need to understand what conservation orders are. It is the Rangitata River, the Ahuriri River, and the Rākaia River. I think they are the main rivers in the Canterbury region that have conservation orders. The Rākaia River was the first conservation order that was granted in New Zealand. It went all the way to the Court of Appeal. There were scraps between all of the people who had competing claims to it. I actually remember it well, because I was a junior in the case before the Planning Tribunal. But that and the other conservation orders that are there are precious.
It is very, very hard to get a conservation order to protect a river. These few rivers that we have protected with conservation orders are listed and have rules for their protection. These few rivers that have conservation orders in the country have special protections that are attached to them that put them beyond the control of the regional council. That is after a very thorough process that starts with the Minister for the Environment having to be convinced that there is a real issue to be looked at, followed by a first hearing by a panel that is appointed by the Minister, followed by appeals to the Environment Court. The Environment Court eventually makes a recommendation, and then the Government of the day chooses whether or not it implements that by way of a statutory regulation, which then has force against the regional council.
These few rivers that we have in New Zealand that have been identified as having outstanding characteristics are truly precious; they really are truly precious. By and large, most of them rise out of our national parks and are quite high-volume rivers, but none the less they are precious rivers, both for the aquatic environment that is maintained through those river flows for fish and for the biota and for the morphology of the rivers, which are maintained by decent water flows in these braided rivers and which, in turn, protect bird habitats and other things. These rivers are absolutely precious, and this legislation—
John Hayes: You’ve said that 10 times.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, actually, you still have not heard the message. These rivers are precious, and they should be preserved for New Zealanders and put beyond the ability of regional councils to modify them. This legislation alters the status quo of those conservation orders and puts them within the jurisdiction of Environment Canterbury without any appeal rights to any Environment Court or anything like that to change. It is wrong, it is unprincipled, and it puts at risk these precious rivers.
So the Labour Party, for those reasons and others that have been covered by my colleagues, wants the Minister of Local Government to explain why it is that it is necessary to strip our rivers in the Canterbury region that are protected by conservation orders from the legislation, which protects rivers elsewhere in the country.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I move, That the question be now put.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The silence from the Government benches has been quite astonishing, and I think it shows that there is nothing that Government members can do to defend this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and the very spurious reasons that they gave in the first reading for its introduction. As the Christchurch Press said in an editorial, the continued suspension of democracy at Environment Canterbury is “the most radical denial of voting rights that this nation has experienced in recent times” and it is something that “besmirches the Government” and denies Cantabrians a fundamental right. I think it is consistent with what this Government is doing in local government. The Hon David Parker talked about the way in which the bill overrides or denies the right to appeal to the Environment Court. Are we going to see that same denial of rights of appeal to the Environment Court in the local government reforms that the Government introduces later this year? Are we going to see a continuation of the centralisation of power in Wellington, and local government regarded as an agent of central government rather than having a mandate in its own right because its councillors are elected, and get that mandate from that election?
What we have seen in Environment Canterbury and in this bill, with the denial of appeal rights to the Environment Court, the appointment of commissioners, and the changes to water conservation orders, is a fundamental denial of democracy in Canterbury, and we think it is symptomatic of the other changes that this Government is putting on local councils and local government. It is rich, because this Government derides the term “nanny State”, and yet it is taking an awful amount of power to the State, to central government, and cutting right across the ability of local government to represent the people that elect it. We have seen that with the changes in the Resource Management Reform Bill, which deny the Auckland Council the right to appoint the hearing commissioners to hear submissions on the Auckland Unitary Plan. Here in the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, we have had councillors denied the opportunity as elected representatives to make the policies for the region through regional plans. That has been supplanted with appointed commissioners. Are we going to see the same in terms of changes to local government where we have councils around the country denied their right to make decisions on their plans through increased intervention powers for the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government? We have seen that in the Local Government Act changes last year, with the Minister able to much more easily intervene.
Yet this bill that we have now could have implemented the advice of the Minister’s own commissioners at Environment Canterbury. It could have moved to a transitional model. It could have implemented the advice of officials to restore the water conservation order provisions of the Resource Management Act fully in Canterbury. That is why there is Supplementary Order Paper 176 in my name, which actually makes changes and inserts a new clause 10 after clause 9, which would restore the law that applies elsewhere in New Zealand to Canterbury in regard to water conservation orders. As David Parker noted, there are several water conservation orders in Canterbury. He missed Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere. There are other rivers that deserve that status. Water conservation orders are the mechanism to recognise that rivers have outstanding values that deserve protection. Both the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the New Zealand Conservation Authority recognise their value and the need for a representative range of rivers throughout New Zealand to be protected through water conservation orders. What would the Government lose, except to admit that it cares about rivers only for irrigation? If it agreed to this Supplementary Order Paper, it would be restoring some measure of good faith to water management in Canterbury by making sure that we have the same law across all of New Zealand.
The Minister has not taken a call recently. I would encourage him to take a call to say why we cannot have the same law in Canterbury in relation to water conservation orders as applies everywhere else. It would be too big an ask of this Government to restore democracy, but given the radical denial of our voting rights, again without any substantive reasons from the Government, I would be interested in the Minister’s comments as to why—
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this very important Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, involving Environment Canterbury and the temporary commissioners in particular. In doing so I would like to refer to the regulatory impact statement. This was, of course, published by the Department of Internal Affairs and also by the Ministry for the Environment jointly. For those New Zealanders out there who may be watching this broadcast, and who, perhaps, are not aware of the background to the preparation of papers for Parliament, these reports are prepared by officials to give guidance to Government and to Parliament as to the recommendations of the various ministries in terms a particular bill.
I would remind the Minister of Local Government—the new incoming Minister—and I would remind the members of the National Party sitting on the other benches of what the regulatory import statement stated in regard to the commissioners for Environment Canterbury. It suggested that there were five options. Option one was “Legislation to establish a transitional mixed governing body for ECan (with provision for Minister of Local Government to review the arrangements by 2017)”; that was option one. Option two was “Legislation to establish a permanent mixed governing body for ECan”. Option three was “Legislation to extend or entrench a governing body for ECan of appointed Commissioners”. Option four was the “Status quo - returning to a fully elected governing body under the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Electoral Act 2001”. Option five was “Ministerial direction for an independent review of matters relating to ECan governance”.
In this particular instance the officials of both of those ministries recommended that option one be the preferred option adopted by Government and by this Parliament. Option one, I will remind you, was “Legislation to establish a transitional mixed governing body for ECan”—in other words, a transition back to elected representation. In that regard the commissioners themselves, under Dame Margaret Bazley—probably the most experienced public servant in this country, who has led many Government departments and has now a damehood obviously for her services to public service—also recommended that there be a transition back to democratic representation in a mixed governing body. So over a period of a year or two you would have a mixture of the existing commissioners and elected representatives with the intention to then fully return to an elected body in due course.
That was a sensible solution for everyone. We could all probably live with that. We would say it is not ideal, it is not returning to full democracy, but it is a step in the right direction. I think the Hon Nick Smith would have been very supportive of that. He gave indications, certainly, in that direction. It seemed that that was a fair way to go so that everyone would basically get a reasonable shake of the stick out of this whole situation. We would have a situation where those commissioners who have sat there for a couple of years now could have helped the newly elected people to move back into the transition and helped that handover process. That often happens in all sorts of corporate situations and all sorts of governance situations, and that is a common model. Certainly that would have been a workable model. It was very interesting.
So all the advisers were suggesting this—the ministries, the commissioners—everyone was advising this. It seemed sensible. But what does this Government do? It does exactly the opposite. It just says: “No. We are not going to have elections. We are just going to leave the commissioners there, and we are going to extend this from the 2013 elections out to 2016. We are going to ignore all the advice that we have.” It is a little bit like the way it ignored the advice in Auckland where the royal commission wrote an 800-page report and the Government threw that out, and 8 days later Rodney Hide came out with a 34-page report that did exactly the opposite to what the royal commission was recommending.
That is the modus operandi of this Government, that it just ignores the advice. It just ignores the good expertise that it has around it, from the ministries, from the officials, and from the likes of Dame Margaret Bazley. The Government just ignores that and goes with how it wants to do it. That is what the Government does. When you are a money wheeler-dealer, and you are trading things around the place, and just throwing things in the pot, like Skycity and all sorts of other things, you just throw things in the pot, you run with the hares, and then you try to push your way through and forget the actual democratic consequences.
It is very interesting that this Government is working that way. Interesting too that the Christchurch City Council itself recommended that there be a return to local democracy in Canterbury. There is Mayor Bob Parker and his council saying: “No it’s time that we—
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I wonder just how much more insult this Government can add to the injuries of the people of Canterbury. It seems that not only the Environment Canterbury debacle but the Christchurch school closures show that the Government, for all its using the Christchurch earthquakes as an excuse, does not care a jot, really, about the opinions of people who live in the Canterbury area.
I just crave your indulgence for a moment because I want to tell a story from Nelson that goes back a couple of years. But it is related to this bill intimately. We all know that Anzac Day services are non-partisan events. Anzac Day services are traditionally moments when we all respect the sacrifice of all of those who gave their lives and were injured in the course of fighting for democracy and freedom. It is extremely rare ever to hear a political speech at an Anzac Day service. Yet two Anzac Days ago in Nelson a returned serviceman of reputation and gravitas in the Nelson area had been asked to be the guest speaker. He started with some of the usual tributes that we pay, quite rightly, on Anzac Day to fallen soldiers, and recounted some of his experience. Then his tone changed and he said that one of the things that he had gone to fight for was democracy, and for the freedom for people to be represented by people whom they directly elected. One could hear in the crowd the collective intake of breath amongst the, I think, more than 1,000 people in Nelson in Anzac Park at that Dawn Service. One could hear the intake of breath as they realised where this man was going. He laid very squarely at the feet of the Government profound criticism at the abolition of democracy in Christchurch. This man lived in Nelson. He was not a Cantabrian. He had not been a member of Environment Canterbury. He was not anybody, to my knowledge, who was intimately involved with any environmental issues in the Canterbury region, but he was incensed and outraged that the Government could, at the stroke of a pen, overturn a democratically elected body and replace it in the way that this Government did.
It was a shocking speech, because, as I say, we do not expect political speeches on Anzac Day. But it was so profoundly felt by this man and by numbers around him who went up and congratulated him afterwards on being brave enough to mention it, and who were distressed and profoundly offended by this Government’s affront to democracy. Add to that, then, we had—here we go; here is the Nelson connection again—the Hon Dr Nick Smith saying of those changes in March 2010 that “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” That is now offended against. The promise that he gave unequivocally has been either completely overturned—perhaps despite Nick Smith’s protestations; I do not know whether he protested about it. I do not know whether he protested about the overturning of the commitment that he had unequivocally made, but the upshot is that it was overturned. It is difficult to understand. If one cannot take the word of a Cabinet Minister and believe that that commitment will endure, then one’s faith in the Government, in this Government, in the John Key - led Government, is profoundly shaken.
So there is another broken promise from John Key’s Government. It ended up being a lie from Nick Smith. Whether he intended it to be a lie or not, only he knows, or perhaps some of his colleagues know as well. But it ended up being a lie. At times that member has had a fleeting relationship with the truth, but on this occasion I do not know whether it was intentional or not. Whatever the upshot, the whole Government now has to wear the fact that that is a broken promise, and that the repercussions of that broken promise go far beyond Canterbury. They have rippled out to Nelson. They have rippled across the country, because there are more than just the returned servicemen—like Mr John Gardner spoke at the Anzac Day service in Nelson 2 years ago—who have been offended by this.
I would like to say a couple of words about Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of Eugenie Sage. I think this is an important measure. It goes to the points that my colleague the Hon David Parker was making earlier about appeal rights, and also to the points that Eugenie Sage made a moment ago in speaking to her Supplementary Order Paper. The regulatory impact statement prepared on the bill notes that Environment Canterbury, the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry of Justice all considered that there was insufficient justification for continuing the special provisions for water conservation orders in the Canterbury region. In other words, they said there was no reason, no sufficient reason, to continue to exclude the Canterbury region and the water conservation rights applying there from the procedures that exist everywhere else in the country. Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper, as I understand it, would implement the advice of all those groups. It would implement that advice. It would restore to the Canterbury region the water conservation order provisions that apply everywhere else in the country.
One could argue that the water conservation orders in the Canterbury region are amongst the most important in the country. If we were to rank water conservation orders—and let us not—it would be hard to find rivers elsewhere in the country that required the protection of conservation orders to the extent that these rivers do. So I would urge the support of the Supplementary Order Paper. I would wish that the members opposite would listen to the people who are distressed about the affront to democracy and the whittling away of protection for those precious rivers, as my colleague earlier referred to them, in the Canterbury region. This bill is an affront on all sorts of levels. It is an affront to democracy, it is an affront to environmental protection, and it should be an affront to everybody who cares about the protection of our precious and rare environment in this country. Thank you.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 64
New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.
Motion agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have an amendment in the name of Eugenie Sage to repeal sections 46 to 59, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176. This amendment is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Just for the member’s sake, in future, if a member wishes to move an amendment that is outside the scope, it has to be done by way of an instruction, and I refer the member to Standing Order 173. That might help in the future, if you want to do something outside the scope of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 64
New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.
Part 2 agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 3
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now come to clauses 1 to 3. I just remind members that they are very narrow, tight debates, specifically on what the clauses relate to.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Is it just one debate for all three?
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, no, at the moment they are separate, but if you want to move—oh, sorry. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move that clauses 1 to 3 be taken as one debate. Do I seek leave for that?
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, yes, they are, in fact—my apology—so we do not have to put that leave.
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is a privilege to speak before my colleague Dr Megan Woods. I do look forward to what she will say in the debate shortly, as a Cantabrian and someone who has spoken passionately about this issue before, alongside her colleague and mine Ruth Dyson, from whom I expect we will also hear.
This is a debate that needs to be had in this Parliament, because it is one that affects all of the people of Canterbury, as their democracy has been taken away from them. The debate around the title and commencement in clauses 1 to 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill lends itself to some suggestions about, of course, making sure that democracy is restored sooner, but more specifically that the title of the bill is made more appropriate and tighter to what is actually happening in the bill. We see, as we canvassed in the earlier debate, that rights of appeal are disappearing. So it might be more appropriate to talk about the “Environment Canterbury (Rights of Appeal Removal) Amendment Bill”—that would somehow seem to reflect more nearly what is going on here—or the “Environment Canterbury (Failure to Restore Proper Democracy) Amendment Bill”.
Paul Goldsmith: Is this the modern face of the Labour Party?
Dr DAVID CLARK: These are the kinds of things that are happening in this bill that are hidden behind a title that seems somewhat more positive, perhaps, to those who are at home who hear the simple title as it is expressed on the Order Paper: the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Something is being suggested here that is neutral when, in fact, the bill has some unfortunate side effects, if we can be so kind as to call them side effects.
Mr Goldsmith across the Chamber was interjecting in the debate, and I must say that I look forward also to his contribution, because we have had very few from the Government side of the Committee in this debate. There has been a remarkable silence, and one wonders why that is, when we have a bill that is doing so much harm in the view of the majority of Cantabrians, that the Government will not get up and justify this bill—
Andrew Williams: Unjustifiable.
Dr DAVID CLARK: —and perhaps explain why it is choosing to put it through in this way, with this kind of generous sounding title, when there are mischiefs being done to the people of Canterbury. And my colleague Andrew Williams there says that it cannot be defended, and that is perhaps why we have heard so little from the National benches. But I challenge Mr Goldsmith across the Chamber to make a decent contribution, one that does attempt to defend this bill, because someone has got to stand up and defend it.
We have not heard anything from the Minister in the chair for some time, the Minister of Local Government. He has been very quiet, and perhaps he is a little embarrassed. He has had the bill dumped on him. Maybe it should be changed to the “Environment Canterbury (Minister Has the Bill Dumped on Him) Amendment Bill”, which would also perhaps reflect something of the dynamic we are seeing in this Parliament. We are certainly not hearing from the Government as to why this bill should proceed. I think the general public are owed an explanation, but more particularly those people in Canterbury, whose democratic rights have not been restored, despite promises in that direction—very clear promises—by Nick Smith previously.
So I suggest that the Committee does consider those other options. That would make clear the real agenda in this bill, so that we are not left with this misleading title that would suggest that the bill is more harmless than it really is. Thank you.
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Clause 1 talks about the title of the bill. Certainly, in that title where it says “Temporary Commissioners”, that must be an incorrect title. We, surely, cannot believe that if you do away with local elected commissioners in 2010 and do not intend to replace them until 2016—that is 6 years. That is hardly temporary. Not many people would ever look on something as being temporary when it has a 6-year lifespan and shelf life. In that regard, it is quite misleading to say that these are temporary commissioners, when in fact they are not.
In 2010 the National Government said that this would be just a temporary arrangement while it sorted out the Environment Canterbury situation. Then Canterbury got hit with the earthquake 1 year later, and there were some understandable difficulties there, with the major February earthquake suddenly hitting Canterbury, which gave some reason to try to consolidate things in Canterbury and get things back on a level footing. At that time, therefore, one could understand that there was a need for a temporary situation—a sort of holding situation—to try to get things back on their feet. But, having now seen 2 years go by—we have just gone past 22 February, which is 2 years down the track from the major, secondary earthquake in Canterbury—it is quite false to be still talking about temporary commissioners. When we have heard from all sorts of officials and from Dame Margaret Bazley that there should be a transition back to more permanent and elected people, getting rid of the temporary commissioners, then certainly that is the way that it should be going.
New Zealanders have gone to war for democracy, for the right to vote, and to stand up for what is right and proper in a civilised world. Cantabrians are no lesser people in our democratic system. They also deserve the right to have a vote—to go to the ballot box, put their name on a piece of paper, and say whom they would like to elect. It is unfair for Cantabrians to be stretched out for 6 years and be told this is a temporary situation. After only 3 years, already they are saying: “This is enough. We’ve had enough. We don’t need this to continue.”
What is happening here is that, basically, the Government is trying to hide behind the commissioners’ situation and the Environment Canterbury situation in terms of the water rights in Canterbury. The Government is using the democratic process and abusing the democratic process to prop up an arrangement it has put in place for water management in Canterbury. That is a great shame, because the two do not necessarily meet eye to eye. You have the needs of the rural community and the farming community and the needs out there on the Canterbury Plains up against the needs and the democratic rights of people living in Christchurch and in the greater Christchurch urban metropolitan area. Quite frankly, those things are at odds. It is a shame that this Government is basically giving away those rights, to ensure that some of those water arrangements are upheld.
We at the Local Government and Environment Committee were all very disappointed to hear the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, say that this was a huge attack on democracy, that this was not the correct thing. The people in Canterbury needed some reassurance—they were very delicate. He said that they were very exposed, that they were feeling very threatened by their predicament in Canterbury, and that the last thing Cantabrians needed was to have their democratic vote and their democratic rights also removed from them. When you are in a difficult situation, when you do not have a lot, and when you are facing a lot of adversity, the last thing you want to lose also is your democratic right. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner said that. He also said—and I know National members of the committee took offence to this—that New Zealand went to war to stop such regimes from occurring in Europe, and we cannot point the finger at regimes in Fiji and other places that do not provide democratic rights. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner very clearly said that we stand up for democracy.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I am very pleased to take a call in this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, as the representative for West Coast - Tasman. We are very conscious of the health and well-being of our visitors “over the hill”, as we say, there in Canterbury, and we are, of course, alarmed at what is happening here in the Committee.
I will focus on the three clauses here. The one word I go to, following on from my colleague Mr Williams, is “temporary”, which is something that we assume means “for a short period of time”. The concern we have is that we have heard many assurances given, originally from the Minister Nick Smith. You cannot trust much of what he says on most things, I have to say, but particularly in this area where he has proven, in black and white, in this House, time and time again, to the public of Canterbury, to the public of the West Coast, to everyone, that he was not going to allow the continuation of something. It was in his words temporary, but, indeed, by anyone else’s definition, it would not be.
The word “temporary” means “briefly”, “impermanent”, “not permanently”, “transitionally”. The issue is that by anyone’s definition this is not temporary. It is 6 years, by my colleague’s assessment—if we can trust that. How can we trust this piece of legislation when we are given assurances from the mouth of Nick Smith—from the horse’s mouth? He gave us assurances, but in fact a court of law has said in respect of that Minister—or member, as he was—that you cannot trust what comes from his mouth.
This piece of legislation, initiated by him, with assurances given by him, is in the Committee, and the Government expects us—myself as MP for West Coast - Tasman, the good people of Canterbury, and the MPs from Canterbury and the South Island—to trust the Government. “Oh, this is temporary!”, he said. Well, clauses 1, 2, and 3 deal with the title, the commencement, and the amendment to the principal Act, and in respect of temporary commissioners and improved water management, we do not know whether in fact these are permanent appointments that will just be rolled on. Dare I say, the outcome of the next election might determine whether the title of this bill is indeed accurate or whether it is as misleading as the assurances given by the Minister Nick Smith at the time.
So we have an obligation here as representatives in the South Island, as Her Majesty’s Opposition, to challenge the Government for indeed putting through legislation and putting through a title that is misleading or could be misleading. So, once again, it comes back to this—and we have raised it, dare I say, time and time again in speeches in the Chamber: how can we trust this Government? Up and down the country, local government and territorial local authorities—the Minister of Local Government will have spoken to them. He will be getting it in the ear, I am sure, as he goes around trying to patch up the mess left by the Hon Nick Smith. He will be trying to patch it up and trying to build some confidence back.
There is indeed a collaboration of South Island mayors and territorial local authorities, because they know they have to lobby the Government to get a fair deal, to get even temporary relief from some of the pressures from central government and the fact that the Government is now going to say: “You’re not going to be able to put up rates, but you are going to have to do this and this and this, and we will not allow you to do any social programmes in your community.” I have got people jumping up and down now because Tasman District Council is pulling back on social programmes. The Government is saying quite clearly “that is what you have to do”, and, indeed, it does not know where this Government is going with local government reform.
The title of this bill, saying “temporary commissioners for Canterbury”, in my view—in my cynical view, my suspicious view—is misleading, because the Government intends after the next election to push through and appoint more commissioners up and down this country, wherever territorial local authorities dare question the Government’s objectives.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): What a misnomer of a title: the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. A much more accurate title for the bill would be the “Environment Canterbury (Denial of Democracy and More Irrigation) Bill”. The earthquakes in Christchurch would be a reason why democracy—
Progress reported.
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.