Wednesday, 12 June 2013

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Australia—Delegation, Parliament of Queensland

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Parliament of Queensland, Australia led by Peter Dowling, chair of the Ethics Committee and leader of the delegation, is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): In accordance with discussions at the Business Committee, I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break following the maiden statements of Paul Foster-Bell and Claudette Hauiti today.

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

Points of Order

Visitors—Purpose of Visit

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is really to you and the Ethics Committee from Queensland, and it is to ask why they came here.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a helpful point of order.

Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of Political Parties

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to give a considered ruling, and I am going to ask you to review your ruling of last week with regard to the presence of the leadership—whether or not Peter Dunne is recognised as a leader of a party. I do so in light of the revelations that have become apparent today from the Electoral Commission, where it has indicated that United Future will be treated as a new party for registration and it will not be a matter of re-registration. My view is that that certainly casts a different light around 34(1) and 34(4) in the Standing Orders.

The second point that I would like to make, which comes out of there, is that the president of the United Future party has said that the commission’s requirements are too difficult for any party, because it will require signatures as opposed to the electronic methods that are used for a re-registration process. The question I have got is whether you are prepared to wait until they have gone all the way around their members to get the written signatures from those people as opposed to using electronic methods, because that will extend the time. But the most important question is whether, when the party is clearly not re-registering but being treated as registering for a first time—which is not how we understood it last week—your ruling can be reconsidered.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the same point of order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am. New Zealand First also seeks for you to review your 6 June decision. Just to quote you briefly, you said: “He has given me an assurance that his party expects to file an application for re-registration early next week.” If you go to the comments by, first, the Electoral Commission and also the president of United Future, Robin Gunston, he has affirmed, in his own words, “the registration of a brand new party,” is being sought. In his words again, it is “not one just de-registered”. Then he goes on to say: “for a new party registration, [they] will only accept”—and that is what the Electoral Commission, which is the statutory body that is applying this law, has said. Then you will be reminded that you said that you were giving the party time to sort itself, but your purpose at the time was to find that they were re-registering. Demonstrably, this is not new. The Electoral Commission, though, has made it patently clear how the law applies, and on that basis I am asking you to review your decision, because the party called United Future does not exist.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Notwithstanding those pleadings from the two previous speakers, it is a fact that the recognition of parties in Parliament by the Speaker and in the Standing Orders is quite separate from the requirements of a political party to become registered under the Electoral Act.

Denis O’Rourke: Nonsense.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is patently clear for anyone who is capable of reading, Mr O’Rourke. If we were to take the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is also a point established by previous Speakers from quite some time back. Standing Order 34(1) makes it clear that if a party is registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993, and then a member is elected to Parliament from that party, they are entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes. All of this was gone through in 2002. I think the suggestions that you need to now change your mind, Mr Speaker, because of a statement either from the Electoral Commission or from the president of the party does not take away from the fact that your prime responsibility is to ensure that members are treated fairly according to the Standing Orders.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Speaking to Mr Brownlee’s contribution, the problem in respect of Mr Brownlee’s interpretation of Standing Order 34(1) is that it asserts that the words inside the commas add to the breadth of the primary part of the clause. In my respectful submission, that cannot be the case. The Standing Order absolutely says that to be entitled to be recognised as a political party for parliamentary purposes, you must be a party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993. That is the common-sense and clear interpretation of that clause, and it would, with respect to Mr Brownlee, be a nonsense to interpret it otherwise. What he tries to do is say that the words inside the commas, which effectively say “Well, you’ve got to be elected for this rule to apply.”, somehow extend the definition beyond registered political parties. That, with respect, Mr Speaker, is a nonsense. So I agree with the submission from my colleague Mr Mallard that on the basis of this latest determination you should re-determine your earlier finding.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I do not think the member who just spoke can reasonably leave out the qualification in Standing Order 34(1), which is “elected at the preceding general election”. That, Mr Speaker, was the position that was taken by the Speaker back in 2002 when you had Mr Anderton’s Alliance breaking up. You had Mr Grover, who claimed to be the leader of the Liberal Party, in fact, recognised as an Independent. You had the Green Party members, at that time, also recognised as Independents because the Green Party was part of the Alliance at the preceding election and not elected as the Green Party.

Hon David Parker: But they were registered parties.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, they were not recognised in Parliament, even though they were registered outside.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient to rule on this matter as at the moment. As I gave a ruling last week, I have interpreted that we are charting new waters in the fact that we had a party that was recognised at the start of this Parliament, legitimately and according to the Standing Orders, that then has subsequently become deregistered. So I am treading carefully, in that we are charting new waters. The second point I want to make is that when I ruled last week, I was expecting a timetable of 6 to 8 weeks. I am watching current developments that may extend that time line, and may potentially extend it substantially. On that basis, I will certainly give consideration to the points that have been raised, particularly by the Hon Trevor Mallard, and I will come back to the House when I have done so.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Government Communications Security Bureau, Review of Compliance—Investigation into Leak

1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Is it his responsibility to “get to the bottom” of who leaked the Kitteridge report; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I saw it as my responsibility to attempt to determine how the report was leaked. Therefore I asked the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau to launch an inquiry into the leaking of the compliance review. That inquiry has taken place and it has resulted in an outcome. Peter Dunne has resigned as a Minister. He did not meet the inquiry’s request for information, and that inquiry is now over.

Grant Robertson: Given Peter Dunne’s insistence that he did not leak the Kitteridge report, why did he not give him the opportunity to go on oath and clear his name?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure that he could have chosen to do that if he had wanted to. That was not actually relevant. What was relevant was that he failed to comply with the inquiry.

Grant Robertson: Why is he not now prepared to do what he said he would do when he called the inquiry and get to the bottom of who leaked the Kitteridge report?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, a Minister has failed to comply with the inquiry. I think in itself that speaks volumes, and people can take their own conclusions from that. Secondly, to take the matter further, realistically, would require me to reconstitute the inquiry and to demand those emails, and to do that I would need to see both sets of the emails. As I have made clear, I am not prepared to do that.

Grant Robertson: Why is he not prepared to let Mr Dunne go on oath?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because there is no need for me to do that. The inquiry has been completed and the Minister has resigned.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can the Prime Minister tell the House who leaked the Kitteridge report?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Conclusively, no. But I think we can determine from actions or inactions of people that will speak volumes for New Zealanders to make a call on what they think is taking place. But I would remind the member that a member of his party has written to the Privileges Committee. The Speaker will have to make a determination on whether that is referred to the Privileges Committee, and if it goes to the Privileges Committee, then members will have to decide whether, firstly, they want to follow the course of action that the member has discussed, and, secondly, whether they wish to subpoena the emails from both a journalist and, obviously, the former Minister.

Grant Robertson: Did he and Mr Dunne agree on Mr Dunne’s resignation on the evening of 5 June?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I am not quite sure I would describe it that way. What happened on the evening of 5 June was that I made quite clear to Mr Dunne my expectation that he was to comply with the inquiry. I made it quite clear to him that in the end if he failed to do that, he would have to resign. He made it clear to me on that evening that he would not be complying with the inquiry. I think that spoke for itself. We finally got his letter of resignation on Friday, 6 June or 2 days later, whatever that date is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister see the review of the Government Communications Security Bureau report that Sir Bruce Ferguson, former head of the Government Communications Security Bureau, described as not “just sensitive” and, further, “It was more than that.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the person the Prime Minister appointed to do the Government Communications Security Bureau review, the Secretary of the Cabinet, Rebecca Kitteridge, show the Prime Minister the report Sir Bruce Ferguson saw, or another version described by Sir Bruce as—[Interruption]

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just show us your emails.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would you shut “Noddy” up over there?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member—[Interruption] Order! Would the member just ask his question. [Interruption] Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: All in good time. Did the person the Prime Minister appointed to do the Government Communications Security Bureau review, the Secretary of the Cabinet, Rebecca Kitteridge, show the Prime Minister the report Sir Bruce Ferguson saw, or another version described by Sir Bruce as “a sanitised version”, and where he went on to say “there was lots missing.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have three points. No, I did not see that report; secondly, no, I did not see any other version than the final version. It might be an unusual way of running an inquiry, but under this Government we let people get on with the job and present the final reports. And the third point is “Noddy” has a point.

Mr SPEAKER: And the third point is not helpful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister please explain to the House and the country why was classified information in the original report then moved into the appendices of the final report and then those appendices were withheld from final publication?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know whether deliberately or by accident or for whatever reason the member seems to be confusing different lines of questioning, but is the member talking about the inquiry into the potential leak, or is he talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau report?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am talking in this question about—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the difficulty I have now got is that the Prime Minister, in answering, has asked a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is right, and I am happy to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way forward is that I am going to invite the member to re-ask his supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is very gracious of you. Could the Prime Minister please explain to the House and the country why was classified information in the original Government Communications Security Bureau Kitteridge report moved into the appendices of the final report and then those appendices were withheld upon publication?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have two points. The first is that I think the member is basing his question on a presumption of which I do not have any knowledge or may well not be correct. My understanding of the Government Communications Security Bureau report was—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table an article that debunks the Prime Minister’s claim that I am making assumptions. It is a spokesman for the Government Communications Security Bureau who is saying this, and a spokesman for the Prime Minister who is saying it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! What is the source of the document?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it is the New Zealand Herald, page 10 today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not putting that leave. Has the member got a further supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: OK. If—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the right honourable member, but we do have a problem when we have the spokesperson for the Prime Minister making a statement and the Prime Minister denying the facts of that statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order was around the tabling of a document. I have ruled that we are not tabling bits of the New Zealand Herald.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the report, in today’s New Zealand Herald, page 10, under the name David Fisher, it says: “A spokesman for the GSCB said the production of the final report saw it prepared for public release with classified information moved into the appendices. A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said the only copy Mr Key ever received was released in full with classified appendices withheld.”, was the report sanitised because the Secretary of the Cabinet feared there was a leak in the Intelligence and Security Committee—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to an end; it is a very long question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, the Prime Minister gets up and denies—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —a comment from his own spokesperson—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to stay in the House and continue his line of questions, he will not object to me when I ask him to bring his question to a conclusion. It was an excessively long supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason why—and I thought it would be understood—I needed to put it on the record is that we had a denial, in the prior answer, of its existence and an inference that I was being confused on the issue. I am quoting from the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard quite sufficient. The difficulty the member has with this point of order is that as the Prime Minister was answering, the member raised a point of order and sought to table a document. So he cannot really say the Prime Minister denied it. Is there a further point of order?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, Mr Speaker, you—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This will take us a long way. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be heard and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’ll save a sausage roll for you, Gerry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member knows the rules. He objected to a point of order being heard with noise from that side, and then immediately started his point of order with talk about a sausage roll. That is not helpful to the House, and the member Clayton Cosgrove has to learn to behave himself in this House. Does the member still want to raise a point of order? [Interruption] We will listen to the point of order in silence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: My first, shorter, point of order—and I accept your ruling and admonishment completely—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member just get on with it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: —is that I would just like some consistency when people are interjecting on points of order.

Mr SPEAKER: That is challenging—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: My second point—

Mr SPEAKER: Sit down, please. That is now challenging me and suggesting that I am biased. That is a very serious offence. [Interruption] Well, the member is asking for consistency; I read it no other way. And if the member continues with those sorts of points of order, he will not have the benefit of seeing out question time.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: And this is a fresh point of order?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Indeed it is.

Mr SPEAKER: I am looking forward to it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: As am I. My second point of order is on the length of answers, and I seek your advice. You have, as is your right, with answers to questions, allowed significantly long answers, and that is as it should be. I would simply ask for your ruling in terms of what length is permissible for a question. I accept that Mr Peters’ question was slightly longer, but you have allowed lengthy answers from Ministers in the past.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just ask the member to look at Standing Order 377.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have a point of order, first of all, from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the point; I have not answered your question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I asked a question of the Prime Minister, and I am waiting for an answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, that is true—and I presume that was the Prime Minister’s point of order, so we will now hear from the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to the last part of the question was no. It is also important to understand that the point I was making was quite correct. My office was asked about whether we saw multiple copies of the Kitteridge report. The answer to that is absolutely no. We saw the final report only. The point the Government Communications Security Bureau spokesperson was making, which the member was trying to conflate, was actually about why information was moved from one part of the report to the other. I was not advised about that, but the assumption I have made—and it would be self-explanatory—is that one report, the report itself, was going to be fully released into the public domain. There was obviously confidential and sensitive information held in the appendices, which were never going to be released.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Prime Minister says he was not advised, does that include any member of his staff who was working with him on this matter; if so, when the Prime Minister spoke to Mr Dunne, who reportedly said “He couldn’t explain it.”, what was the “it” he could not explain?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot answer for Mr Dunne. That is his quote.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You could ask him.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, that is his quote, and, no, I cannot answer for Mr Dunne.

Grant Robertson: Did any member of staff in his office or from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet update him on David Henry’s progress in completing the inquiry before 5 June?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was not kept up to date with the inquiry from Mr Henry or Mr Kibblewhite. Mr Kibblewhite advised my chief of staff that there was an ongoing process, and that things were taking some time—

Grant Robertson: And he didn’t mention that to you?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, no, I did not say that. I said there was an ongoing process that was going on. I did not see any final reports until the last report that came along.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked whether any staff member in his office or from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet updated him on David Henry’s progress. The Prime Minister did not answer that question. He described a conversation between Mr Kibblewhite and—

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Prime Minister prepared to answer that question more specifically?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I made clear was Mr Kibblewhite kept Mr Eagleson broadly updated. Mr Eagleson made it clear to me it would take some time longer, and there were issues of Ministers having to comply. I was aware of that issue and I made it clear to Mr Eagleson—

Grant Robertson: But you got up in this House and you pretended nothing was wrong.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You did not ask me when exactly that question took place.

Intelligence Agencies—Contracts with Palantir and Use of Data-mining Software

2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: What intelligence agencies that he is responsible for, have contracts with Palantir; if so, what is the nature of those contracts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It is not my practice to discuss the operational capabilities or contracts of the New Zealand intelligence agencies. I do not believe it is in the public interest to do so.

Dr Russel Norman: Does intelligence data-mining company Palantir have any contracts with other New Zealand Government agencies or departments, such as the Police or Defence Force?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the intelligence agencies, it is not my practice to talk about who they have contracts with and who they do not. In terms of the Police or others, I am not in a position to answer that question.

Dr Russel Norman: Will he allow Palantir to embed one of its analysts in his Government, given that the company is advertising just such an embedded position?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What takes place in terms of the operational matters of intelligence agencies and any company they may contract with is a matter for them, and they would not reference that to me.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the job advert from Palantir for an embedded analyst in Government New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document, please?

Dr Russel Norman: It is a job advertisement from a company called Palantir—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but where has the member sourced the advert from?

Dr Russel Norman: The document is from May 2013, and it was printed off the Palantir careers website.

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

Dr Russel Norman: Given that it is obvious his Government is using Palantir, will he cut Government ties with the company if it is proven to be involved in violating the privacy of New Zealanders through the PRISM spy system?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have said on numerous occasions, it is not my policy—nor has it been any other Prime Minister’s policy—to talk about the operational matters of the Government Communications Security Bureau or SIS. What I can reconfirm for the member, though, is the same point I made yesterday: I am confident, on the legal advice that I have received from my agencies, that they act within the law at all times, and there have not been any occasions where the Government Communications Security Bureau has advised me that it has sought to circumvent the law.

Dr Russel Norman: Is his Government using Palantir to replicate the US PRISM spy system so that it can more intensely spy into every aspect of New Zealanders’ online activity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is basing his question on a hypothetical assumption. As I said, I am not in a position to comment about what capability our intelligence agencies have or do not have. But what I can say, though, is that the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS have very clear rules under which circumstances they can gather information about New Zealanders. Those rules require, not least of all, me, as the Minister in charge, to sign the warrant. That warrant has to be recommended and supported by the Commissioner of Security Warrants. It is a very detailed and significant process. The member knows that, and the reason he shakes his head in answer to those questions is that he is trying to delude members of the public. He sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee, he knows what goes on, and if he wants to carry on the act, he is free to do so, but I do not think he will convince very many New Zealanders.

Dr Russel Norman: How many times has he met or spoken to billionaire Peter Thiel, Palantir’s largest investor, and on what dates?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details with me, but if the member wants to put that down in writing, my office will be able to supply it to him.

Dr Russel Norman: In his talks with billionaire Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel did they ever discuss the opportunities for intelligence-related work in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have made it clear yesterday that I have never spoken to Peter Thiel about Palantir.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is an interesting answer from the Prime Minister, but my question was more general than that. It was about whether they ever discussed opportunities for intelligence-related work in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Prime Minister adequately addressed that question.

Dr Russel Norman: The Prime Minister discussed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have ruled that the Prime Minister adequately addressed that question. Does the member—

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member—[Interruption] Order! The member is now disputing a ruling I have given. The member has an additional—[Interruption] Order! The member has an additional supplementary question, if he wishes to use it.

Dr Russel Norman: How would he describe his relationship with Peter Thiel; is he someone he barely knows, like Ian Fletcher, who turned out to be his friend who he eats breakfast with and whom he called and offered a Government Communications Security Bureau top job to, and is this another example of the crony Government looking after its mates at the expense of New Zealanders’ right to live free from constant Government surveillance?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister can choose to answer that if he so wishes.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would describe my relationship as cordial. I have met Mr Thiel on a few occasions—I would have to go to check exactly, as I said, if the member wants to ask me. I have never had a discussion with Mr Thiel about Palantir or about intelligence matters. He is someone who happens to live a certain period of time in New Zealand. He was extremely generous after the Christchurch earthquake, as is a matter of record, and just because “Noddy” over there does not seem to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I acknowledge it was a very political question.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is calling a point of order, I will hear Dr Russel Norman.

Dr Russel Norman: I take offence at that comment. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: And many on this side of the House would have taken offence at the question that was asked by the member.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If members took offence at the question, they should have taken a point of order. To describe members of this House as “Noddy” is just not on.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And I have ruled on the matter. In hindsight, I would have been better, probably, to rule the question out of order. The member got as good as he gave on that occasion.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If this is questioning a decision I have made, I am not prepared to entertain it. If it is a—[Interruption] Order! If it is a fresh point of order, I am certainly happy to entertain it.

Dr Russel Norman: Sure, a fresh point of order. In an earlier supplementary question I asked the Prime Minister how many times—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member is now starting to dispute a ruling that I have given.

Dr Russel Norman: No, I am not. It has got nothing to do with your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: The member had better not be.

Dr Russel Norman: The Prime Minister gave an answer to that question on how many times he had met Peter Thiel by saying he did not know and he would have to look it up, which is fair enough. It was a specific question. He now, in answer to supplementary question No. 7, has said: “Well, actually, I did meet him”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite sufficient. The member now is using the point of order system because he does not agree with the answer from the Prime Minister. That in itself will lead to disorder.

Clare Curran: Did the Government Communications Security Bureau—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would Clare Curran please ask her supplementary question.

Clare Curran: Did the Government Communications Security Bureau receive information from offshore intelligence partners about Kim Dotcom’s activities in New Zealand during its spying operation in December 2011?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that question is considerably wide of the initial question, and I am not in a position to answer it. I do not have those details with me in the House.

Clare Curran: Point of order. I am happy to rephrase that question.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! The Prime Minister has answered it quite adequately. He said that he did not have those details in the House.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table selected pages from the affidavits supplied in the Kim Dotcom case, providing selected data that sets out the Federal Bureau of Investigation as being the source—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I accept that, I just want some advice from the Clerk as to whether that is now a matter before the courts. Leave is sought to table selected pages of the affidavit. Is there any objection to that being tabled? Yes, there is.

Financial Systems—Stability

3. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent steps has the Government taken to help protect the economy and financial system from damaging boom and bust credit cycles?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last month I signed a memorandum of understanding with the Reserve Bank Governor on measures aimed at providing extra security to the financial system. Banks already have to meet increased capital and liquidity requirements that make them safer. The memorandum provides four new measures for the Reserve Bank to apply, if necessary. These measures allow the Reserve Bank to require registered banks to hold additional capital on their balance sheets as a buffer during an economy-wide credit boom; secondly, to hold additional capital against loans in specific sectors if risks emerge; thirdly, to adjust their funding ratios to use more stable sources of funding to avoid short-term funding shortages; and, finally, to apply quantitative restrictions on the share of high loan-to-value ratio loans in the housing sector.

Hon Tau Henare: How will these extra capital and liquidity tools help to promote stability in the financial system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is important to have stability in the financial system because we have seen the effect on economies around the developed world when financial systems become unstable. These tools will not necessarily be the answer to all problems, but they will certainly help at the margins. They will increase the resilience of the financial system during periods of rapid credit growth by requiring banks to make themselves safer and stronger in case excessive growth in credit and asset prices stops and those prices fall. Without these tools, banks could be put at risk.

Hon Tau Henare: Why is it important that the Government guards against excessive credit and house price cycles?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One reason is to avoid recessions of the nature that New Zealand had. We had an excessive credit and house price cycle through the 2000s, which meant that by 2008, before the global financial crisis, New Zealand was in recession. We have seen also around the world that where house prices rise rapidly on the back of fast credit growth, this creates problems for interest rates and exchange rates on the way up through the cycle. Then, when the house prices crash, as they inevitably do, that can create real problems for homeowners and for the wider economy.

Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen the report from the OECD this month that warns that house prices in New Zealand are overheating and that a capital gains tax, as used in almost every other OECD country, is very important to help deal with this imbalance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen that advice and do not necessarily agree with it. Economies that are struggling either through low growth or because of excessive housing prices generally had capital gains taxes and it has not prevented the kind of devastation that housing bubbles cause when they burst. We believe that a more direct approach is to dampen, if not prevent, the capital gain in the first place, and that is by ensuring that there is more flexibility in the supply of housing, so that when there are more people willing to pay more for houses, more houses get built more quickly.

Hon Tau Henare: Can the Minister tell us what are some of the risks for homeowners in the current environment of low interest rates and rising house prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure banks are advising homeowners to ensure that they could afford to service substantial loans if or when interest rates rise. Whether they do is a matter for the Reserve Bank Governor. For instance, some banks are currently offering shorter-term fixed mortgages at record low interest rates, below 5 percent. Floating rate mortgages are currently at around 50-year lows. Homeowners are being advised by banks that they should not believe that this is a permanent state of affairs. It is possible that at some stage in the next few years interest rates will start rising. If house prices continue to rise very rapidly, it is possible that interest rates could follow the track of the last housing cycle, where first mortgage rates reached 10 percent at their peak.

Export Sector—Performance

4. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement “There’s going to be a lot of jobs, a high level of activity for the next three or four years, that’s picking up speed now. But it does divert us a bit from the need to rebalance the economy and that is get our capital and our people and the export earnings sector”; if so, how many jobs will be created in the export sector over the next three or four years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do stand by my statement, which was following on from a statement I made where I directly attributed that level of activity to the Canterbury rebuild. The Canterbury rebuild will cost $40 billion, and most of this activity will be in the non-tradable sector. The necessity of rebuilding Christchurch is redirecting capital and people who would otherwise be available to an increasingly resilient and competitive export sector. This will put some pressure on the share of the economy that is in the tradable sector. On the second part of the question, I am advised by Treasury that there is no forecast of export jobs. What I can tell the member is that exports have increased 16 percent in the last 3 years and we are looking forward to continued expansion of the export sector, after it went into recession in early 2008.

Hon David Parker: Is his own department forecasting exports to decline in value by 2.8 percent in the year to March 2014?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That may well be the figure that Treasury is using, which I understand is driven by a view about declining terms of trade. Treasury has expressed, I think correctly, a concern that the persistent high level of the dollar up until about 3 weeks ago has made it difficult for exporters to be profitable and therefore to be able to reinvest in the expansion of the export sector. However, in the face of those difficulties our exporters have proven to be remarkably resilient. They have continued to grow exports. It is the Government’s view that it would be very helpful to the export sector if the currency declined somewhat in value.

Hon David Parker: Is it also correct that under current settings, excluding primary processing, manufactured exports have declined by 17 percent in real terms since 2008, with thousands of job losses?

Hon Steven Joyce: So we’re trying to exclude areas that have grown, as always.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is right—as my colleague Steven Joyce has pointed out, if you exclude the areas of manufacturing that have grown, then you are probably going to show that the other ones did not grow. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called the Hon David Parker for a supplementary question.

Hon David Parker: Why is the Minister so sanguine about a forecast of 2.8 percent overall export decline in the year ending March 2014 on the back of a 17 percent decline in manufacturing exports since 2008 outside the primary sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not a matter of being sanguine; it is a matter of sticking to a plan that we believe will support our resilient export sector when it has been through a difficult time. It is not a surprise that when the currency has been at record highs some exporters have found that too hard, including in the manufacturing sector. Others have been able to adapt to it or change their markets, so the sector as a whole has grown. The Government’s Business Growth Agenda is a series of up to 300 initiatives, all designed to support our businesses to make the decision to invest and employ. In the context of a difficult global economy, a recession—the largest in a generation—and the damage wreaked by the last Labour Government, that sector is doing pretty well.

Hon David Parker: Does he agree that the flat projections for exports, some real problems in some sub-sectors of exports like manufactured exports outside of primary processing, and the fact that the current account deficit is projected by his department to get worse every year until 2017 show that he has failed to rebalance the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. If the member is going to insist on debating the current account deficit today, then, despite all the difficulties I have pointed out, the current account deficit stands at half the level it was for the final term of the Labour Government, when it enjoyed the best economic circumstances in a generation. Today the current account deficit is half the level than when it reached record levels of 8.6 percent. The previous Labour Government could not have done a worse job than it did.

Business Research and Development—Primary Growth Partnership and Other Investment

5. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Primary Growth Partnership helping to boost productivity in New Zealand’s primary sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): On Monday night I was privileged to attend a function alongside the Minister for Primary Industries to mark 3 years of the Primary Growth Partnership, which has so far committed $658 million of combined public and private funding for 13 different projects designed to boost productivity in New Zealand’s farming, forestry, fisheries, and food sectors. The potential benefit to the wider economy from these projects is over $7 billion per year by 2025. The Primary Growth Partnership is a key part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. These investments in productivity will play a big part in achieving the Government’s goal of doubling primary exports by 2025, as well as leading to improved environmental outcomes.

Ian McKelvie: What are some examples of projects funded by the Primary Growth Partnership?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are many, but let me focus on just two for the House. The Primary Growth Partnership is funding a $171 million programme over 7 years aimed at transforming the dairy value chain by creating new products, increasing on-farm productivity, reducing environmental impacts, and improving agricultural education. The Primary Growth Partnership is also funding a programme along with Aotearoa Fisheries, Sanford, and the Sealord Group to develop a new wild fish harvesting technology that will result in more precise catches, allowing fish to be landed fresher, in better condition, and of higher value. Both of these projects have the potential to significantly improve productivity in the dairy and fishing industries.

Ian McKelvie: How much is the Government investing in business-related science, innovation, and research?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Science and innovation are key drivers of economic growth and international competitiveness. That is why the Government is now investing hundreds of millions of dollars annually in co-funding business research and development across all sectors, including food and beverage manufacturing, digital technologies, health technologies, high-tech manufacturing, and agricultural technologies. Overall, the Government’s total cross-portfolio funding for science, innovation, and research has increased 28 percent over the last 4 years, up to $1.36 billion in 2013-14.

Child Poverty—Measurement

6. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement “our priority, of course, is to focus on those in persistent deprivation”; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I also stand by the accompanying statement I made in response to this parliamentary question asked by the Greens almost 12 months ago, so it is good that the member has got round to it. The rest of the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member just answer the question, without that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The rest of my statement was: “Through one of the more significant recessions we have seen in many decades the Government has protected the income levels of those in our lowest-income households. … The Government is focusing on mobility—that, in fact, a lot of families who at some times and in some periods experience low incomes actually get out of that situation.”

Jacinda Ardern: If his priority is persistent deprivation, why, after another 12 months, will he not measure it or even set a target to reduce it, as recommended by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty and as set out in my member’s bill on child poverty?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because measuring it is not fixing it. I think that is why. There are many measures of incomes. We have no shortage of measures of income. The fact is that what those measures show is that income is a very poor proxy for deprivation. So the Government is focusing on the clear indicators of deprivation such as rheumatic fever, such as housing overcrowding, and such as high levels of interaction between particular families and social services. We are endeavouring to do a harder job than measure income; we are endeavouring to get results from the large amounts of Government money we spend on our most vulnerable, most dysfunctional families.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with Hekia Parata’s use of a quote yesterday that “Without data, you are just another person with an opinion.”; if so, what does that say about his refusal to measure child poverty across income, material deprivation, relative poverty, and persistence of poverty?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is more data on these issues than anyone knows what to do with. What is lacking is a strong focus on action to deal with the problems. Of course, we have a series of measurements around crime levels, and around child abuse levels for vulnerable children, and we will be publishing progress on those measures within a month or so. We have introduced some new issues to focus on recently with overcrowding and rheumatic fever.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he disagree, then, with Treasury’s concern that “There is currently a gap in the monitoring of the material living standards of New Zealand children,”; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do disagree with that. I do not think there is any lack of analysis. In fact, for too long central government has spent tens of millions of dollars measuring problems as a substitute for trying to solve them. Trying to solve them means getting out of the office block and into the street, knocking on the door, going into the family home, and understanding the complexity of difficult issues and pressures that make those families’ lives so hard. That is what we are focusing our efforts on.

Budget 2013—Support for Low-income Families

7. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives in Budget 2013 provide further support for families on low incomes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): A lot. There are a number of initiatives that are actually addressing support for families on low incomes. We have a strong record over the last 4½ years of targeting assistance to those who really need support the most. In Budget 2013 we announced a vast programme of initiatives and policies targeted to vulnerable and low-income families, and particularly those with children. These initiatives will target them by providing an extra $1.5 million for budgeting services, partnering the community to establish microfinancing loans, and providing better value by procuring whiteware.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How will the Government’s microfinancing initiative make a difference for families?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: A real issue of concern within our communities is the financial difficulties some families get into, resulting in unsustainably high debt. We are looking into a microfinancing initiative where community-based organisations provide low or no interest loans to people with debt or who cannot access affordable credit, and we are also looking at whether or not we consolidate the loans of those who have been in the hands of loan sharks.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How will the whiteware procurement initiative provide better value for both beneficiaries and taxpayers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we currently see is that taxpayers pay out about $10.6 million a year on whiteware for beneficiaries. That, of course, has to be paid back by them. More often than not they buy a second-hand, poor-quality machine. It breaks down relatively quickly. They are then stuck in a situation of having to either get it repaired or get another one while they are still paying off the first one. This procurement means they can get a new machine for probably around the same cost that gives them a warranty and certainty that at least what they have got is of a high quality.

Jacinda Ardern: Is it academic to measure a problem and set a target to reduce it, as she has claimed via interjection in question time today; if so, has she told that to her colleague Tony Ryall, or to Hekia Parata, or, in fact, to all of her colleagues who are content to measure and target everything related to poverty, but not poverty itself?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member misrepresents, as usual. So what the situation is is that I am not debating whether we should have a measurement; I am saying we have got plenty of measures and the measures are there. I am saying, actually, the country does not need an academic argument on which measure one chooses; what it needs is action. What it needs are the real consequences that are happening in the streets, and that is what this Government is addressing through the Budget initiatives that we have seen and the work that has been going on for the last 4½ years.

Medical Equipment, Subsidised—Glucose Meters

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): To the Minister of Health, has MedSafe received users medical device incident reports in respect of the CareSens blood glucose meters; if so, how many reports were received in 2012 and in the 2013 year-to-date?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a question is put down in this form for an oral question on any given day, that question must be repeated exactly how it is written.

Mr SPEAKER: I felt it was repeated—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I felt it was not, because he added in the word “the” before CareSens blood glucose.

Mr SPEAKER: Then on that basis—[Interruption] Order! On that basis I will ask Brendan Horan to please repeat the question. I did not pick up that minor iteration.

8. BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to the Minister of Health: Has MedSafe received users medical device incident reports in respect of CareSens blood glucose meters; if so, how many reports were received in 2012 and in 2013 year-to-date?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that of the 90,000 patients who have switched to CareSens blood glucose meters, which includes 93 percent of eligible patients for a fully funded meter, Medsafe has received 14 incident reports: three in 2012, and 11 in the 2013 year to date. For 12 of these reports no further action has been taken, I am advised by Medsafe. Two of the reports remain open while further information is being requested. Pharmac has worked closely with the specialist diabetes subcommittee of the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee to obtain clinical advice on the CareSens meters. Their experts advise that the meters are clinically acceptable. All three of the CareSens meters have been tested in New Zealand for accuracy and precision. Each meter has also met regulatory standards required in the United States and Europe.

Brendan Horan: Given that the reports are exponentially increasing, is the Minister confident that when diabetics either submit incident reports or email the diabetesfeedback@pharmac.govt.nz email address regarding CareSens, they receive responses that are clinically appropriate and focused on patient safety rather than bureaucratic box-ticking?

Hon TONY RYALL: There have been 14 incident reports: three in 2012, 11 in 2013. I suppose you could describe that as an exponential increase, but there have been 90,000 patients who have switched to the meters. Managing diabetes is an incredibly personal thing, and of course many people do not like changing the devices that they have used. But the devices have been approved as safe by Pharmac’s advisers, and all concerns and complaints are being dealt with.

Brendan Horan: Is the Minister willing to work cooperatively with people, including this member of Parliament, to ensure that his officials, Medsafe, and Pharmac work with diabetics who have CareSens problems, and to ensure that the focus is on patients’ safety and welfare?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think it has been made very clear to Pharmac and everybody who is involved in this that patient safety is of the utmost priority. That is the reason why we have a number of systems, such as the medical device incident reports, so that complaints can be dealt with and investigated.

Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table an email sent from the diabetesfeedback@pharmacy.govt.nz email account highlighting that if the meter is incorrect because it is too cold, to warm it up under the armpit.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.

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

Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Ruataniwha Scheme

9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Is the Ruataniwha irrigation scheme one of the schemes he believes will have “real benefits for the environment”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: Yes.

Eugenie Sage: If the Ruataniwha will have real benefits for the environment, why is the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council promoting a plan change for the scheme that would increase allowable levels of nitrate in the Tukituki catchment by more than 1,000 percent?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have all that information to hand. The reason that the Minister for Primary Industries is in favour of the environmental benefits of the Ruataniwha scheme is that it will return the summer flows in the Tukituki River to close to natural summer flows. It will provide enhanced recreational opportunities primarily with the reservoir. It will create a safe habitat for threatened species within the reservoir, and it will reduce pressure on groundwater extraction because it anticipates replacing existing groundwater extraction with a combination of run of river and stored water. So improved summer flows and flushing flows will assist the management of nuisance weed and algae growth.

Eugenie Sage: How does building a dam, which would block fish passage and prevent threatened species such as long-finned eel from migrating, provide real benefits for the environment and improve habitats for fish, as the Minister for Primary Industries claimed in a press statement about irrigation in May?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, I think I probably answered that to some degree in the previous supplementary question, in the examples I gave, where I stated that it would improve the environmental benefits for the river and for the catchment. These examples were, of course, the returning of the summer flows close to natural levels, enhanced recreational opportunities, creation of a safe habitat for threatened species, and reducing pressure on groundwater extraction. That last one is probably one of the most important ones. I would have thought that the Greens, rather than just going through their standard response of “Don’t do anything.”, would probably consider the environmental benefits of this project.

Hon Chris Tremain: What reports has the Minister seen in opposition to the Ruataniwha dam?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I think we can take it as read that the Greens are opposed to it. The interesting question is other people. I saw a news article from last month where a spokesperson from a particular organisation was quoted as saying that that organisation is against the dam and would not support the dam, or, indeed, any future water storage schemes. Unfortunately, there was another article from another spokesperson for that same organisation from October last year, who is quoted as saying that the dam will potentially provide a big economic boost to the region. So it is little bit confusing. Of course, that organisation is the Labour Party. But it is not the first time. Of course, they opposed the Skycity convention centre, but three of their members were actually in the Skycity box last weekend.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question, Eugenie Sage—[Interruption] Members have had their bit of fun. I have now called Eugenie Sage for a supplementary question.

Eugenie Sage: Does he consider—

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made an error in my previous answer. Apparently the number is four.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to seek to change an answer, there is a more appropriate way to do it.

Eugenie Sage: Does he consider that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has received good advice on environmental and water-quality issues associated with the Ruataniwha scheme, when the mayors of Napier and Hastings have said there is a risk around independent advice being provided to the council, when the council has the same chief executive officer as the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company, which is promoting the dam scheme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would note for the member that the consents and the application for consents for that particular project are actually being called in and heard by the Environmental Protection Authority, which means it will not be a matter for consideration by any of the councils in the region. It will actually be dealt with by the independent board of inquiry, which is probably the best place for it to be.

Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table a letter from the Mayor of Napier City Council, Barbara Arnott, and the Mayor of Hastings District Council, Lawrence Yule, to the Chair of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Fenton Wilson, about their issues with the—

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

Solid Energy—Deloitte Report on Crown Monitoring and Governance

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): My question is to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and asks: does he agree with the finding of the Deloitte report on Treasury’s monitoring of Solid Energy that—

Hon Steven Joyce: How was the beer and the sausage rolls?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Good old trotters.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, you did not get an invitation because there was not enough tucker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is what happens when we get interjections when a member is attempting to read out a question. Would the member please start again.

10. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he agree with the finding of the Deloitte report on the Treasury monitoring of Solid Energy that “The removal/refreshment of a Board by Ministers is a crude lever and has a high threshold for use. Notwithstanding this, with the benefit of hindsight, it is evident such a move may have been warranted”; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): With the benefit of hindsight, yes. As is pointed out in the Deloitte report, this would have ideally happened in 2008, when the previous Government could have rejected the company’s statement of corporate intent. I think at that time, though, the then Labour Government was behind the eight ball, trying to minimise its looming defeat. It is worth understanding that the company’s collapse is due to two main reasons: its investment in non-core enterprises that ultimately proved unsuccessful, and a 40 percent collapse in world coal prices in the middle of 2012.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does his Government take any responsibility for Solid Energy’s bank lenders having “a view that SOEs were backed by an ‘implicit’ government guarantee”, as stated on page 52 of the Deloitte report, given that in February of this year the finance Minister said in regard to Solid Energy: “We will not let it go into receivership.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is absolutely clear that there is no guarantee from the Government to the lenders of Solid Energy. Those lenders made their decisions based on the information that the company made available to them and their understanding of the coal industry and the investments made, and they must take responsibility for the lending that they made.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which of Solid Energy’s five major bank lenders—ANZ, ASB, BNZ, Westpac, and the Bank of Tokyo—had a view that the State-owned enterprise was backed “by an ‘implicit’ government guarantee”, as found by the Deloitte report?

Hon TONY RYALL: That would be a question that would be better put to Deloitte in another format—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple and precise question. It may be the Minister’s opinion that it should go elsewhere, but he is the Minister for State Owned Enterprises.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty with the question is it asked which of the lenders, and then it quoted that the banks had understood they had the implicit guarantee. Surely, that is a question that only the banks could answer. I cannot see how the Minister could possibly answer it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, the Deloitte report was about the monitoring of Treasury, and the involvement of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises in that. It was a report about a Government department and their monitoring. It was not about the banks’ view; it was about statements that were made by a Minister, which the banks took account of.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty is that they may well be so, but the member’s question was which of the banks took an implicit guarantee. But if the Minister wants to add further, I invite him to do so. [Interruption] No, he does not. Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that all of Solid Energy’s major bank lenders—ANZ, ASB, BNZ, Westpac, and the Bank of Tokyo—have interests in State-owned enterprises and proposed mixed-ownership model companies, can he rule out there being any flow-on effects from Solid Energy’s dire financial position, such as lending constraints or higher lending costs, as a result of the realisation that State-owned enterprises and mixed-ownership model companies are not backed by an implicit Government guarantee?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think that matter is hypothetical. It is an evident fact that the State-owned enterprises are not backed by a Government guarantee. What lenders have to look at is the success or otherwise of the businesses and their balance sheets. In fact, banks may have drawn opinions similar to this opinion that was given to Mr Palmer and Dr Elder, and it is a quote: “you’re bringing private sector commercial disciplines and expertise, obviously you must be because you’re performing well,”. That is a quote that the member opposite made to Dr Elder in April 2012.

Courts and Corrections Facilities—Audiovisual Links

11. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made around using audio-visual links technology to improve public safety?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): Today the Minister for Courts, the Hon Chester Borrows, and I announced a $27.8 million expansion of audiovisual links between prisons and courts. Over the next 2 years a further 14 district courts and nine prisons will have audiovisual links installed, allowing a greater number of prisoners to appear in court while physically behind the wire. The risks—to the public, to corrections staff, and to court staff—associated with transporting prisoners outside the wire are completely removed with the use of this technology, along with any risk of escape. Audiovisual links also improve the security of our prisons because they reduce the opportunity for prisoners to smuggle contraband back behind the wire after appearing in court.

Jacqui Dean: What other benefits will the use of audiovisual links bring to the corrections system?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Approximately 40,000 remand court appearances are made every year, and, where installed, audiovisual links are expected to be used in a significant number of these. Audiovisual links mean that corrections staff do not have to spend time planning and carrying out escorts from prison to court and back again, and they also reduce the cost to the taxpayer, because it means the Department of Corrections does not have to spend money needlessly, transporting prisoners back and forth from court.

Jacqui Dean: What prisons already use audiovisual links to connect to courts, and what benefits have been seen?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The audiovisual links are a joint initiative between the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice. Mt Eden prison, Waikeria Prison, Christchurch Men’s Prison, and Whanganui Prison are already connected to the Hamilton, Manukau, and Christchurch district courts by audiovisual links. This technology has seen to date a saving of over 8,000 external trips for prisoners to and from courts. This means that corrections staff can focus more on prison security and reducing reoffending, rather than transporting prisoners to court for administrative matters.

Education, National Standards—Standardised Assessment Tool and Data

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of the answers she gave to Oral Questions yesterday?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her assertion that the Ministry of Education did not change the results of individual student’s assessments in writing using the e-asTTle tool; if so, how does she explain the notice that was posted on the e-asTTle website advising teachers that “changes to the levels,” had been made and that there had been “changes to students’ e-asTTle scale scores.”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I stand by my response from yesterday. I am advised by the Ministry of Education that it does not, has not, and will not adjust the assessment data provided to it by schools. The assessment data that teachers have put into the e-asTTle writing tool has not been touched. What has been changed is the alignment of the scores to the curriculum levels. I reiterate to the member that e-asTTle is just one of the assessment tools available to teachers to inform their overall judgments. As the member has himself said: “e-asTTle is only a tool, and the results it produces need to be weighed up against a number of other things including teachers observations, interviews and a child’s written work.” Schools were informed of the changes through both the system itself and the ministry’s website. This is a standard practice. In April 2010 e-asTTle reading was aligned. In September 2010 e-asTTle maths—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, without any intervention, you stood Mr Peters down for a question that was a fraction of the length of the answer we have already heard, and I think one of the reasons why we sometimes have disorder in this House is that that is the sort of thing we find a little inconsistent.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the point the member is making. It was a long answer, and I fully accept that, but there were quite a lot of questions around this yesterday. The House was relatively silent, which I interpreted as the fact that they were actually appreciative of the answer. I note members behind the Hon David Parker acknowledging that. The answer has now finished, and the member has further supplementary questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand your ruling to be that you interpreted that the House was appreciative of the length of that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not what I said.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The length of the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes—certainly the answer; not the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Righto. I apologise that you thought it was that the House appreciated the length of that answer. What led you to suggest that the House was not appreciative of the length of my question on a very serious matter?

Mr SPEAKER: Because I could certainly tell by the angst and noise and unrest that was coming as the question went on.

Chris Hipkins: How many standardised assessment tools for writing are available to schools and teachers? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please repeat the question. It was not heard by the Minister.

Chris Hipkins: How many standardised assessment tools for writing are available to schools and teachers?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have that level of detail.

Chris Hipkins: Given that only one standardised assessment tool for writing is available to schools and teachers—that being e-asTTle—and the Ministry of Education is altering the results it has produced without telling the schools, on what basis are teachers expected to form their judgments about where an individual student is at with regard to the standards?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I gave quite a substantive response because I was dealing with the member’s assertion that the ministry has altered them, and the ministry has not. I have explained what that process was. As to the point about the tools available to teachers, they are observations in the classroom, discussion with other teachers, and an overall teacher judgment. We have chosen an approach that relies on the collective body of professional judgments, and that is why we have not chosen a national test.

General Debate

General Debate

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We have now progressed into the world that George Orwell wrote about only fictionally. We have moved into a world of a total surveillance State. What has been revealed internationally in the last week, and in the last few days, is the existence of PRISM, a secret software that is run by the National Security Agency in the United States, which enables the US Government to spy on basically all online communications in the United States and on anything passing through the United States. We have now moved into the world of, essentially, the total surveillance State. Everything we say or do can, and probably is, being recorded by the National Security Agency and various other security agencies.

It seems to be a remarkable turn of events. The internet was supposed to give us freedom—and, of course, it has. It was supposed to give us access to information—and, of course, it has. But what we have seen is that it has also become a tool that is being used by the repressive State to invade our privacy, to take our personal data, and to read our emails on a scale never seen before and never imagined possible.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member, but he is having to cope with a level of noise that is unnecessary. Would members who want to carry on conversations please do so in the lobbies. I am sorry to interrupt the member.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we are now seeing is that we have a Government in New Zealand that will not come clean about its involvement with the PRISM organisation. How many reports the Government’s communications agencies have received from PRISM is something it will not tell us. We know that hundreds have gone to the UK Government from the National Security Agency. We know that the Government has entered some kind of contract with Palantir. Palantir is a data-mining company that was established in part by the CIA and by various Silicon Valley executives, including Peter Thiel. Palantir has established itself in New Zealand and, apparently, according to its ads, has people embedded in the Government. Presumably the purpose of Palantir is to replicate the data-mining capacity of PRISM at a national level. It is very difficult for us to be entirely clear, because as we saw in question time today the Prime Minister refuses to give answers when very simple and straight questions are asked about Palantir.

It seems to me that a Prime Minister who is doing his job of protecting our democracy, doing his job of protecting our freedoms, and doing his job of protecting our privacy would give very clear answers about the role of PRISM and give very clear answers about the role of Palantir. But, of course, the Prime Minister is not doing his job. As we have seen time and again, the only democratic oversight of the Security Intelligence Service is the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister has failed miserably over and over to ensure that those agencies are operating within the law and are doing their job.

We all know that you cannot have democracy and freedom without some degree of security, and so we accept the need for security. You cannot go to the vote if you are fearful of the gun. But we also know that when security agencies become so overbearing and become so self-confident of their ability to interfere in all of our private lives, every minute of every day, reading all of our emails, and watching all of our digital and online communications, then we are losing something that is critical to our freedom: we are losing our privacy. Without privacy and without the ability to have a private thought or to write a private email, it is impossible to develop fully as a human being. If you never have the opportunity to speak freely with other people confidentially, you never have the ability to develop freely as to what you really think about the world. You never have the opportunity to be free of the State and of the Government of the day.

When this Government and others think that it is acceptable to mine the data, the online communications, of all people around the planet, including all New Zealanders, I think that they have fundamentally crossed a line as to what it means to live in a democratic society, and it is time to put the security agencies back in the box from whence they came. They do not have the right to read everybody’s emails or to watch all of our online communications. In doing so, they are destroying the very freedom that they argue they are acting to protect. Once they cross over that line, the very freedom that those who work in the system say they are acting to protect is destroyed and demolished by those kinds of breaches against privacy, against democracy, and against, fundamentally, our freedom. So it is the responsibility of the Government of the day—and, in particular, the Prime Minister, who has oversight of these agencies—to intervene and to tell us what is going on inside the security services in New Zealand.

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I think they used to say it was reds under the bed. Well, now it is just paranoia from the Greens. Actually, you might have a little bit of sympathy for that argument if it was not from the “Chicken Little” of New Zealand politics. Every time he talks about anything, the sky is falling in, it is all so difficult, and it is big business, big politics, and those on the right all against the little innocent Greens, who have been spending, like a drunken sailor, the taxpayers’ money on their silly little referendum, which has gone absolutely nowhere.

But, look, I want to ignore the marginal and the single figures in polls. I want to look at the double standard that has really been revealed in the last couple of days, and that is the double standard of the party opposite—the Labour Party. This is a party that has railed against Skycity Casino. Do you remember the days of questions about Skycity—the Government in the pocket of Skycity, the gambling throughout the community, and the evil of Skycity? And what do we find? Supping from the gambler’s cup on Saturday night were Cosgrove, Mr Faafoi, Mr Shearer, and one other. Who was the other—who was the other? And here is the other thing. What did Mr Shearer say today? He did not admit it—he did not admit anything until today. What did—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I have just been informed that I am not allowed to interrupt the member’s speech with this point of order. I will wait.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member has now interrupted the speech of the Hon Tony Ryall.

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, was Trevor Mallard the fourth member? Oh no. Was it Sue Moroney? No. Was it Ruth Dyson? Actually, it was Phil Goff, was it? Was it Phil Goff? Well, that might be right. But, look, what did David Shearer do? He did not say a thing until today, and he said: “Ah, yes, I was there. I was only there for a little while. I didn’t eat anything. I didn’t drink anything.” Actually, the only thing he did not say was: “I didn’t inhale.” That was the only thing Shearer did not say. He was there for only 5 or 10 minutes. He did not drink anything, he did not eat anything, and he did not smoke anything.

Hon Craig Foss: He probably put a bet on.

Hon TONY RYALL: Did he put a bet on? Well, that is the question. This is just so typical of David Shearer. We have a failing Opposition with weak leadership—such weak leadership that now he has got to the position where he never wants to stand up for anything. So there is the double standard. Members opposite rail against Skycity, and then senior members of the party opposite, Cosgrove, Faafoi, Shearer, and one other, possibly Mr Goff—it is all a bit of a right-wing group. Was it Mr Goff?

Hon Craig Foss: He’s not denying it.

Hon TONY RYALL: Will he deny he was with Skycity at the rugby? Ah, no denial. So I think someone from the media will be ringing there. But, look, I also want to ignore those falling in the polls and with weak leadership, and focus on a party that focuses on what really matters for New Zealand, and that is this Government and our very strong commitment to seeing the rural economy in New Zealand moving forward.

When rural New Zealand moves forward, our country moves forward. A successful primary economy is still the backbone that supports our economy. There are $30 billion of exports, and this Government has a vision that that will double over the next years up to 2025 because we know that agriculture is important to New Zealand. So we are supporting the primary sector in a myriad of ways, getting right the fundamentals that you would expect. We are reducing red tape, simplifying the Resource Management Act, keeping taxes down, keeping interest rates down, making sure that Government spending is under control, and making sure that we invest in trade opportunities for New Zealanders with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and with China and India. Everything that this Government is focused on is on making sure that the New Zealand economy moves faster. We are working cooperatively with the primary sector in the Primary Growth Partnership and investing in research and innovation to boost the New Zealand economy, with $658 million in 13 projects supporting the New Zealand productive sector. So this Government is delivering for rural New Zealand.

We are delivering for the economy. There was 3 percent economic growth last year, which is higher than in most developed countries. You do not get that from flailing around with weak leadership. You get it from a strong, strong focus—

Hon Anne Tolley: Rural fibre.

Hon TONY RYALL: —and rural fibre. We have huge investment in putting out rural fibre right throughout the New Zealand economy, and we have got company taxes down. This means every small business pays less tax.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): National, Mr Banks, and Mr Dunne—the bad, the mad, and the sad. That is what this Government has become. We just had to put up with the Hon Tony Ryall accusing the Labour Party of having low standards. This is from the Government led by John Key, who said that National would not go into Government with the Rt Hon Winston Peters and that it was going to bring higher standards to the Government.

I want to deal a little bit with the scandal that has beset the Government and overshadowed its Budget for the last 2 weeks since the Budget. The Prime Minister, after the leaking of the Rebecca Kitteridge report, said that he wanted to get to the bottom of what had happened. We then had Mr Dunne refusing to answer questions, but denying that he was the source of the leak.

Since then, the Prime Minister has tried to misrepresent the position of the Opposition and, indeed, the position of the media. I have got to say I have been a little bit sad at some of the somewhat misguided taking of that line by some in the media, who have swallowed the line that the Prime Minister has dangled out there. The Prime Minister has tried to say that the Opposition has called for Andrea Vance’s sources to be disclosed. We have never done that—we have never done that. It was not us who used the police, like the Prime Minister did in the tea tapes, to get a warrant to go into news media organisations during the election and get information from them on the recordings of the tea tapes. It was not us in Government who used the Serious Fraud Office to use production orders against the National Business Review to find information about the South Canterbury Finance debacle. It is us who have protected media freedoms, and we have never once said that the information that Andrea Vance had should be disclosed by her. But what we have said is that the Official Information Act ought to be complied with. The Official Information Act ought to be complied with so that the emails from Mr Dunne are disclosed, because there is no public interest in their not being disclosed. They are ministerial emails and they ought to be disclosed.

We have a Prime Minister who said he wanted to get to the bottom of what had happened, and who is now content not to have got to the bottom of the matter. Why? Because he wants Peter Dunne’s vote. It is the same lack of scruple that enables him to put up with John Banks, who is currently on trial before the courts for electoral fraud, where he is accused of filing a false declaration claiming anonymous donations that he actually personally received from Skycity and from Kim Dotcom. It is the same lack of standards that is applied by the Prime Minister there that allows the Prime Minister to say: “Look, I haven’t read the police report. I don’t want to read the police report.”, because he wants to believe that Mr Banks is a proper person to prop up his Government.

So we have got John Banks in the dock, we have got Peter Dunne having been stripped of all credibility, and, all of a sudden, just because the Labour Party wants to get to the bottom of this, we are accused of having some double standard. The Prime Minister then says: “Look, it’s no different from Phil Goff disclosing things that have been leaked to him.”

Hon Tau Henare: That’s right.

Hon DAVID PARKER: And we have the National Government saying that that is right. It is completely different. It is completely different for a Minister to breach his duty of confidence than it is for the media or for the Opposition to disclose what has been disclosed to them. It is the proper role of the media and it is the proper role of the Opposition to disclose things that are embarrassing and show incompetence on the part of the Government. It is a completely different matter for a Minister to breach a duty of confidence. If the Prime Minister and the National Government do not understand the difference in that matter of principle, then they are even more stupid than I thought they were. The reality is that they do understand the difference; they are just trying to obfuscate because underneath all of this is the desire of the National Government to hold on to its grasp of power, which is reliant upon Mr Dunne and Mr Banks, both of whom are disgraced.

Then we could look at the third of the Government’s coalition partners, which is the Māori Party. It is invisible—invisible today, invisible virtually every day—but it is still propping up the Government. It is a disgrace.

Lastly, it is wrong that the United Future party is receiving political funding for its leader’s office when it has no registered political party.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): This week we have Fieldays at Mystery Creek. So it is pretty timely, I think, to reflect on which party in this Parliament really understands the rural economy, regional New Zealand, and rural New Zealanders. If it is any party, it has to be the National Party, the National Government. The primary sector is without doubt the backbone of New Zealand’s economy, and this Government understands the pressures faced by rural communities. Why? Well, it is actually worth reflecting on the make-up of the respective caucuses in this House to understand who really gets rural New Zealand. So National has Bill English, David Carter, Amy Adams, Eric Roy, Shane Ardern, David Bennett, and Ian McKelvie—all people of the land. Other members are Mr Auchinvole, Colin King, Mike Sabin, Kate Wilkinson, Jonathan Young, and Phil Heatley—all with experience—and the Hon Anne Tolley, of course.

Scott Simpson: Simpson in Coromandel.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And Simpson in Coromandel. They all understand the rural economy. I want to contrast that with the Labour Opposition.

Louise Upston: Heaps! You better get this right.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Louise Upston—that is right, there are so many. The list goes on, and I have got only 5 minutes.

I want to contrast that with the men of the land in Labour. There is Damien O’Connor, the most confused member of this House. He does not know whether to support regional New Zealand or not. There he is imploring the Minister of Conservation to tell the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society to pipe down as it opposes mine development after mine development. Then his colleagues and his party rail against the decision that very Minister makes. What about Phil Goff, that hobby farmer from Auckland? Well, here is my advice to Mr Goff: if one is going to go in a glossy magazine with photos showing off the hobby farm, one should at least learn how to carry a lamb.

Members on this side of the House will remember 2 years ago this month that past member Stuart Nash railing against dairy farmers, who, he claimed, paid only 3 percent tax—except that was not tax on income; that was tax on revenue. The revenue spokesman for Labour did not understand how revenue was collected in New Zealand. I can tell members that Dr David Clark has also made comments like that. And what really makes me sad is that Stuart Nash in the past and David Clark in the present are actually the brainy ones of the Labour Party. See where it got Stuart Nash, I think.

What about other parties? The Greens? Are there any people of the land in the Greens? No, farm haters, I would suggest. And New Zealand First? None. So let there be no doubt about which party is the party that understands that most important part of New Zealand economically, culturally, and socially.

As Mr Ryall said, this is such an important—

Dr David Clark: What does the member know? What does the member know about the rural economy?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, quite a bit, actually. We will come to that in a minute. The $30 billion of exports from that economy that Mr Ryall spoke of are only the direct exports. The indirect costs and benefits of that economy include transport, stock agents, farm suppliers, and fertiliser, all of which support those industries that export our growth.

I want to go through quickly some of the things that this Government has been doing to assist that important part of our economy. The Primary Growth Partnership has so far committed $658 million for at least 13 projects. That has a benefit to the economy by 2025 of $7 billion per year. There is some really good red meat sector collaboration, mānuka honey trials, harvesting trees from steep land, improving precision of seafood catches, and so on. None of that would be possible were it not for the need to have a really effective agricultural workforce. As Minister of Immigration, I am very aware of the importance of making sure we have good, skilled workers.

I want to just touch on the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, which not only benefits the horticulture and viticulture sectors in Hawke’s Bay, Central Otago, and Marlborough but is actually a really, really important foreign policy objective. It creates very good aid into the Pacific. It creates skills that those countries so badly need. I support it and I think, as Minister of Immigration, that it will continue.

If the rural economy is so important to the future wealth of this nation, then the party best placed to lead this country and the one that best understands that sector is not the farm haters and is not the hobby farmer unionists but is the National Party.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I would like to address the concerns of diabetics, who have had funding removed for their tried and tested blood-sugar meters, which have been found to be reliable at all times. Now the Minister of Health funds only the CareSens meters, and many diabetics are finding serious problems with these meters. This is an issue of patient safety. It is no good for the Hon Tony Ryall to say that the vast majority of diabetics are accepting CareSens meters. Blood-sugar meters must be accurate. Blood-sugar meters must be reliable.

The latest figures state that there could be 305,000 New Zealanders with diabetes currently, and about 30,000 to 40,000 of those would have type 1 diabetes. This is an incredible disease, which affects so many people. Of those 305,000 who are diabetics, many are children and many have families, so it affects not only the person but also the family members.

There have been many concerns about the CareSens machines and I would like to address just some of those concerns. One of the very worrying issues is that the Minister says that there may be a 20 percent variation in readings between meters. Well, that is simply too wide. For a child with type 1 diabetes, 20 percent could be the difference between a normal reading and hyperglycaemic event. The CareSens meters also do not have a back light. That might sound trivial to members who have iPads and iPhones and the like, but for a diabetic having a blood-sugar crash at night, they may not even make it to switch on the light. Time is precious. There are concerns that the testing strips supplied with the CareSens meters will fail or give erroneous readings if the package has been opened for more than 6 months, but there is no warning at all on the package.

Here is a doozy: the operating temperature needs to be over 10 degrees Celsius. How ridiculous is that? Can you imagine subbies, contractors on building sites, or, actually, anybody in the South Island during our winter being able to read their meter or get an accurate level when it does not work accurately under 10 degrees Celsius? I have had many, many people emailing me and facebooking me with problems that they have had at low temperatures, and it is heartbreaking to read.

The testing strips supplied with CareSens meters are quite small. They are difficult for the elderly and also for children to manage. Many elderly people have diabetic or arthritic fingers and they just cannot get the strips into the meters. There is another problem where these meters cannot be placed flat when taking a reading. I was at the Christchurch Diabetes Centre just on Monday. I went through the testing with a diabetic, and to think that these meters could not be placed flat in case they flooded through the blood. What happens is that you are supposed to hold the meter, insert the strip. Imagine I am an elderly person or somebody with shaky hands and here I am trying to fit this very small strip the correct way into a meter, and then I have got to prick myself, and then I have got to lift it up and get the strip on to the finger, and it is like this. I mean—

Hon Craig Foss: We already know the answer to that one.

BRENDAN HORAN: —it is absolutely ridiculous, is it not? Well, that member may interject and may think it is funny, but it is not funny for the diabetics, and it is not funny for the families of diabetics, and it is not acceptable for that member to make a mockery when children in New Zealand are suffering like this. Wake up, over that side. I would ask the Minister to wake up and fix the problem. It is quite simple. Give diabetics in New Zealand machinery that works, that is accurate, and that is reliable.

Diabetes is very closely linked to depression. When people have diabetic attacks, when their blood-sugar levels are up and down, their feelings are affected. Their mannerisms and their complete state of mind are affected. There is a connection between diabetes and suicide, and I do not find that a laughing matter, at all. Also, I am concerned at the advice the Minister received today from Medsafe regarding the number of user medical device incident reports received. On Monday, when I visited the diabetes centre in Christchurch, over 40 had been submitted.

Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute in this general debate this afternoon. Was it not interesting what the Opposition speakers’ chosen topics of debate were? The Green leader seems to be demonstrating paranoia about privacy. Is that really the most important issue facing New Zealand today—the Greens’ privacy issues and whether somebody is snooping on them or eavesdropping?

Then the next leader of the other Opposition party—well, one of the leaders—spent his whole 5-minute contribution talking about personalities. There was not one skerrick of substantial argument in his contribution. It was all about personalities, and perceived and imagined scandals. Is that really what is important to New Zealand and New Zealand’s economy? Is that really what we should be focusing on? On this side of the House we want to focus on the issues that matter. We want to focus on policies that will help New Zealand and we want to focus on policies that will help our economy grow and make the boat go faster.

This week is one of the most important weeks, I believe, in the calendar of our agricultural industry in New Zealand. We have the Fieldays this week. It is the largest agricultural event in the southern hemisphere. It is important, I think, and timely to remember actually the huge importance and impact of the primary industries on our economy. We have already heard that the industry is worth, in exports alone, something like $30 billion. It is not the sunset industry that the Labour Party predicted. In fact, as my colleague Minister Woodhouse has already elucidated, it does not appear that there is a rural bone in any of its members over there, on the other side of the fence.

This is a very significant week for New Zealand’s primary industries and I would have to say we should be proud of our farmers, of our primary industry contributors. I believe that we have some of the best farmers in the world and I believe that we need policies—which we are delivering on—to support those farmers. We need to support those farmers, just as they support our economy, and we have already seen the huge contribution that they make to our economy.

This week we have also announced the 3-year anniversary of the Primary Growth Partnership. That growth partnership is about investing in research, investing in innovation, and boosting productivity in our farming, forestry, and food sectors and it is about making our contributors in those industries the best in the world and world leading. So far we have heard that Government and industry have committed $658 million in 13 projects alone. I commend the booklet that has been produced by the Ministry for Primary Industries because some of these projects are absolutely mind-boggling, with one of them being $85 million of Primary Growth Partnership funding and $86 million of industry funding to transform the dairy value chain.

The policy of the Opposition is to put a cap on cows. That is not going to grow our economy, but actually investing in our farmers will grow the economy. We do have that vision of doubling those exports by 2025. This economy would be in a sad, sad, sorry state if it were not for our primary industry. If it were not for our exports to China and other countries we would not be able to pay for the world-class education, health, and social welfare systems that we have in place.

Some of these projects are absolutely fantastic. We are investing $15 million in the merino wool industry, and the industry funding of that is $21 million. This is not just about the Government throwing money at research and innovation; it is about the industry itself participating and putting its money where its mouth is. It is about the industry investing in its own future.

There is a variety of projects in that Primary Growth Partnership programme, with one of them including worker safety in forestry—the steep-land harvesting, which I think has already been mentioned. National is delivering for the rural economy, for the rural sector. It is about time the other side of the House realised it. We need our farmers.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Ask any farmer what the most important thing has been for them in the last 5 years and they would say it is winning access to the fastest-growing market in the world, China. That free-trade agreement, where exports have trebled from $2 billion to $6 billion a year, was negotiated under a Labour Government. Ask any educationalist what is the most important thing that happened to education funding. It was opening New Zealand up to international students, and that was done by a very far-sighted Minister of Education in the Labour Government before that. I am too modest to acknowledge who that might have been. Where Kate Wilkinson got it wrong was when she said that David Parker was talking about personalities. David Parker was not talking about personalities. He was talking about honesty and integrity, and the fact that this National Government clings to power on the back of two MPs whose credibility and integrity in the eyes of the public have been absolutely shattered.

John Key, who promised higher standards from his Ministers, has put his fingers over his nose and kept John Banks and Peter Dunne on as supporters of his Government because he wants to cling to power. I want to say this about John Banks. He turned up at Kim Dotcom’s mansion, and reckoned he could not remember seeing the fattest man in the biggest house, which he visited by helicopter. He asked for $50,000: “Oh please, Mr Kim Dotcom, two cheques of $25,000 so I don’t have to declare it.”—that was not the law, anyway. And then he told the public that the donations were anonymous. That broke the law, that was a lie, and that man has no integrity.

John Key said this: “to make a contribution, you have to have integrity, and to have integrity there has to be a directness and fullness in your answers.” Well, perhaps he should give that advice to Mr Dunne. Mr Dunne would not pass over, in confidence, to David Henry the texts of his messages to a journalist, because it would have incriminated him as being the person who leaked the document on the Government Communications Security Bureau. What did Mr Key say about that 2 months ago? He said that “these leaks undermine the integrity of the entire Public Service.” Mr Key said that he had a responsibility to get to the bottom of that if he could. You know, the last thing Mr Key wants to know is the truth about who leaked that document. He knows. [Interruption] John Hayes knows. Everybody in this Chamber knows, and New Zealand knows, that those documents were leaked by Peter Dunne, and that is why he would not, in confidence, give those texts to the head of the inquiry, David Henry.

When Mr Dunne took his oath of office, and the Ministers in the House will recognise this, he swore, in front of his colleagues and in front of the Governor-General, that “I will not directly nor indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in [the Executive] Council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful Councillor. So help me God.” That was the oath that Peter Dunne took as a member of the Executive Council, and he breached that solemn promise. He broke that promise. I want to know this from Mr Key. Why is it that when staff members at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, without any evidence against them, are suspected of leaking information, they have to swear on oath that they did not, but Peter Dunne was never required to say on oath that he did not leak that document? John Key could require that of him tomorrow. He could require that of him tomorrow, but John Key does not want to know the truth because he knows that a man who broke the oath of office is not a man fit to sit in this Parliament, and yet he, Mr Key, relies on Mr Dunne and Mr Banks to keep National in office. There is a stench over there of members of Parliament who have breached their basic responsibilities.

I say this about Mr Dunne. He is no whistleblower. Whistleblowing is an honourable occupation, where you throw sunlight on things that it is in the interests of the public to know. Peter Dunne had no such honourable motive. John Key keeps those people in the House, when they have lost their integrity and the public have lost confidence in them.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): My goodness me, what an exhausting speech that was that we have just heard. Sadly, it was exhausting to listen to, Mr Goff, it really was. The energy that went into it was magnificent, the delivery was loud and violent, but it was yesterday’s speech—it was yesterday’s speech.

Scott Simpson: From yesterday’s man.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh well, those are the words of my colleague here—yesterday’s speech from yesterday’s man. I do not know about that. Hopefully there is a chance for him yet—tomorrow, perhaps—in the leadership debate.

However, let us use this general debate for talking not about yesterday’s news but the fact that the Government recognises the rural sector in New Zealand as the economic backbone, through agriculture, aquaculture, horticulture, viticulture, and so it goes on. There is $30 billion in primary sector exports—$30 billion. This Government wants to double that by 2025.

Scott Simpson: Double it?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Double it. New opportunities have seen the Government and industry committing $658 million for 13 projects over the past 3 years in research and development, and the potential benefit is over $7 billion per year from 2025.

Scott Simpson: How much?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is $7 billion. This makes our economy innovative by making our primary industries sector more innovative. It has been a season of two halves, as any farmer will know. We even had the West Coast being declared a drought area.

Scott Simpson: Where?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: West Coast, the South Island, and it was rugged. It is still tough for the farmers there, but none the less there is positive news. Golden kiwifruit, for instance, are absolutely delicious, and I would encourage anyone to buy them. The viticulture boys, I am told, are doing quite nicely out of the prolonged dry period and good sunshine.

The West Coast’s Westland Milk Products is the second-largest dairy company in New Zealand—part of the New Zealand economic solution, with export-led opportunities. I was speaking to its chief executive officer today, Rod Quin. Turnover is expected to be $700 million—

Scott Simpson: $700 million?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —$700 million from the West Coast. The company has invested $60 million in new technology and processing. There was direct economic benefit last season of $390 million in milk payments and wages within the community. That is $13,000 per woman and child on the Coast. The total economic benefit, with a multiplier effect, means the dairy industry is by far the biggest sector and the key sector for West Coast development. Growth rates—another 10 percent growth over the next 4 years, to supply the ever-growing demand for the safe, high-quality good food that is produced from Hokitika and the people there. I am proud to be associated with them and the team that they have at Westland Milk Products.

Cross-portfolio funding, as we heard this afternoon, for science, innovation, and research has increased by 28 percent in the last 4 years, up to $1.36 billion in 2013-14.

Scott Simpson: That’s good.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is good. It is good news. As you say, my colleague on my right Scott Simpson, it is good news. But there is, sadly, bad news if things go funny. When I talk about things going funny, I mean if they go funny politically—if we were to have the much-vaunted, in some quarters, Labour-Green coalition, the snarly political combo; the snarly political combo. How many Opposition members have had a background in real agriculture? I think I could count around and I would say two—two—on that side of the House.

Let us see, though, what they would actually do in terms of what I consider bad news. With a Labour-Green coalition the following measures would be put in place to drastically hinder the primary sector, for purely ideological reasons. I can think of three points immediately. A Labour-Green coalition would introduce a capital gains tax, including a 15 percent capital gains tax on all farm-gate sales. Not only would farmers have to pay a tax but farm values would dramatically decline as they would be less attractive investments for people. A Labour-Green coalition would immediately bring agricultural emissions into the emissions trading scheme, imposing large costs on both farmers and rural businesses. A Labour-Green coalition would impose higher income and company taxes.

And if that were not bad enough—if it were not bad enough that that is what those members want to do—here is what they do not want to do. A Labour-Green coalition would oppose the Future Investment Fund and irrigation and water storage development. It would knock reforms to allow greater aquaculture development in the Marlborough Sounds. It would be a disaster.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Last Friday, 7 June, I convened a conference on climate change in the New Zealand Parliament. It was held in the Legislative Council Chamber, the elegant chamber that has been mostly empty since the Upper House was abolished in 1951. It was the second conference of the kind—the first, in November 2010, having focused on a sustainable economy. The reason I convene these conferences rests on an underlying philosophical view on the nature of democracy. In the debating chamber, with green carpet, MPs strongly debate things in an adversarial manner. This is defended and explained to horror-struck schoolchildren in the gallery as free and robust debate that is essential for the health of democracy. That may or may not be the case. My own view is that the rules of debate, the Standing Orders, might be strengthened for greater civility to the benefit of democracy. Be that as it may, adversarial politics is the nature of the democratic pursuit in the New Zealand Parliament, and I can live with that, although I believe that, to some extent, the country is demeaned.

But I also believe that adversarial democracy needs to be complemented with consensual democracy. We need an avenue, even if an informal one, where MPs can come together in a different atmosphere to exchange views in which we seek common ground—what unites us rather than divides us. Consensual politics is surely the most critically important issue when it comes to crisis situations. The Green view is that the world faces a global ecological crisis, the importance of which transcends partisan politics. All the more reason, then, to have this kind of conference in the Legislative Council Chamber—red carpet and all. The idea was to see whether we could find common ground between the Greens, Labour, and National, all of which were to participate on a political panel that day. Regrettably, neither National’s Minister for Climate Change Issues, Tim Groser, nor Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues, Simon Bridges, was available. The seat was left vacant. Labour accepted, and its climate change spokesperson, Moana Mackey, was there. Representatives from business groups, including Federated Farmers, the New Zealand Forest Owners Association, and the New Zealand Wind Energy Association, and also from an iwi Māori perspective offered some insightful points on what is required.

Peter Weir argued that historic forest growth is the only reason New Zealand is able to meet its international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, but the price of this reprieve will be serious problems when the forests are cut down. The forest industry can give New Zealand much-needed time to adapt to the reality of climate change, but only if the right policy settings are in place. Chris Karamea Insley emphasised that Māori are very involved in many aspects of the primary product industry, partly as a result of Treaty settlements. He suggested that the strategic long-term orientation of the Māori world view helped to underline the imperative, in his mind, for stronger action on climate change. So much for the conference at which National failed to show.

If we were to explore the differences between National and Greens on climate change, what might they be? National opposes alarmism over climate change, and will proceed with great caution and deliberation in national policy. Failure to do so, it thinks, threatens the short-term financial interests of established economic sectors. The Greens, by contrast, see the scientific evidence and UN policy prescriptions as requiring greater and faster national action by New Zealand, and contend that failure to do so constitutes a breach of international responsibility—in short, it would threaten the planet. These are the commonalities and differences in perception and policy between National and Green views, as I understand them to be. I would not have thought that it would be impossible to have had a reasoned dialogue on this matter between the National Party and the Green Party. Failure to do this encourages polarisation of party politics and a lack of predictable national policy, as a result, on an issue that is simply too important to allow that to happen.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): Can I first of all address some of the comments made by the last Green speaker, Dr Kennedy Graham, and simply say to him that the National Government is committed to meeting our climate change obligations, but we are not going to lead the charge. Unlike Labour, we will not meet our international obligations at the expense of the primary sector, and we will move forward only at the same pace as our trading partners. But we are leaders in improving the way we tackle greenhouse gas emissions without reducing production on our farms, through our $45 million Global Research Alliance and the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre.

Can I say also that it was quite astonishing to sit in the House this afternoon and listen to the Labour Party speaker Phil Goff—full of integrity—overlooking the fact that his Government clung to power with people like Taito Phillip Field, who spent some years afterwards residing in jail, and with people like Chris Carter and Darren Hughes. And then to have the temerity to accuse us of a lack of integrity—when I could stand here and name the person who leaked a Cabinet paper, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to him. I could do that, except that it is subject to a court case, and I will not do it. But, please, do not give us stuff about integrity when you have none—not the slightest skerrick—yourself.

I want to bring to this House some comments from the heartland, the Wairarapa electorate that stretches from Palliser Bay up to Waipawa and almost to Ōtāne, from the top of the Tararuas and the Ruahines, out to the coast. The heartland is the backbone of the primary sector in New Zealand and it is the backbone of the economy. If our heartland succeeds, if our farmers and vineyards succeed, we all succeed. The heartland is New Zealand’s essential ingredient in the National Government’s plan to create real jobs, raise incomes, and build a more productive economy. We will do that by cutting red tape, sorting and simplifying the Resource Management Act, and supporting rural families.

I watched, as an Opposition member of this House, as business after business fell over under the Labour administration. I think of Norsewear in Norsewood. I think of the Ōringi meat plant just south of Dannevirke.

Andrew Williams: That’s closed.

JOHN HAYES: Well, that is closed, but I took the Prime Minister into that area about 10 days ago. First of all, I showed him the area of the Ruataniwha dam, which is going to irrigate 20,000 hectares of the Takapau Plains, provide thousands of jobs, and be a serious game-changer in that economy. Then I took him down to Norsewood, where Norsewear had failed. Norsewear has now been replaced by local ownership again, and it is called The Kiwi Sock Company, employing 17 new employees. It has just been re-kitted with great new knitting machines from Italy. Then I took him down to meet 150 people in the Dannevirke Chamber of Commerce, who were bubbling with enthusiasm about the changes that the Government has made to support their industries. Then we went down to the failed meat plant at Ōringi. Did you know that there are now 90 new employees there because it has been turned into an industrial park? It is another success story, simply because of the policies of this Government.

Unlike Labour, which destroyed these companies, we in the National Government are creating the conditions for these businesses to re-establish and flourish. Rural communities rely on critical infrastructure to stay connected with their markets.

If anybody drives through my electorate they will see huge improvements to the road infrastructure on the Rimutaka hill. If they go to Woodville now they will see roadworks between Woodville and Dannevirke, where that highway is being fixed. Work on that has been going on for at least a year and it is coming to fruition. We have committed $300 million in investment to roll out faster broadband services to hard-to-reach communities and schools, and we have committed $1.2 billion to improve the State highways across the country. There are huge examples in my electorate to show how this Government is lifting the game.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. John Key and his Government of double standards—double standards. As my colleague Phil Goff said, honesty and integrity are completely lacking on the other side of the House. For the uninitiated, it means that there is one rule for them and another rule for the rest of us. That is the way that Government operates. There are so many examples that my colleagues have spoken about today. John Banks is in the dock. Peter Dunne has been stripped of all credibility. He had a brain explosion, and would not let us see into the conversations that he has had with a reporter in terms of the leak of that Kitteridge report.

They have been stripped of all credibility and they are holding up this Government. There are so many examples of this Government getting owned today: Kiwi political parties of one, John Banks, and none, the party formerly known as United Future are holding up this Government. It is an absolute farce. The three amigos: Key, Banks, and Dunne. How is that for a triumvirate of trust? How is that for a triumvirate of trust: Key, Banks, and Dunne? But we could add another layer of a triumvirate under there: the three amigos of the Māori Party. They are all wanting to be leader. No one actually knows who the leader is: Tariana, Pita, and Te Ururoa. Again, all of these pathetic parties are holding up this absolute sham of a Government.

We are familiar with the Epsom cup of tea; we know what happened there. John Key did not mind laying a complaint with the police and sent all the powers in to find out exactly what the man from the New Zealand Herald had taped. But fast forward to Mr Dunne and those 86 emails about a leaked Government Communications Security Bureau report, and the Prime Minister blows it off: “Oh, it’s nothing more than breaking an embargo.” Talk about trying to make 3-day old fish taste like roast chicken.

That is what this Government is trying to do. It wants to try to make everything smell nice or taste good. Well, unfortunately for it, the public of New Zealand can see right through that. It can try all it wants, but New Zealand has got a sense that its kitchen is not ruling any more. That Government is out of control, and the public know it.

Andrew Little: Same old mutton dressed up as lamb.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely—same old mutton dressed up as lamb, and I will get on to the primary sector as well, because we have got very strong credentials in the primary sector. But I want to carry on, because those three wealthy, privileged men—Key, Banks, Dunne—do not care about the poor and disadvantaged of our country. They could not care less about poor standards of education, housing, and social welfare, especially among our Māori and Pacific whānau. Banksie—Mr Banks—is trying to sell charter schools as the resurrection of Māori underachievement. This is what John Banks would say: “Go on, you Māoris. Send your kids to a school that has unqualified teachers and principals.”, and he has got the Māori Party tautoko-ing that. It is absolutely heinous. But you can guarantee that he would never send his kids there, because Mr Banks and Mr Key, and probably Mr Dunne, do not care—we know that they do not care—about Māori.

I really want to take the Māori Party to task, because we are in the season of Matariki—the season of renewal and of growth. It was great to see te waka Te Matau-ā-Māui come into the harbour over the weekend. It is a great season, but Māori Party members have definitely sold us out. They like to appease us with Māori words like “waka”, “kura hourua”, or “whānau ora”—all those nice words, as if that will appease Māori. But when we know that the underachievement rates for Māori are going on and on under this Government, we know that they do not care—they do not care.

But we know that this Government is absolutely on shaky ground. It knows it, we know it, and the whole of New Zealand knows it. The rest will come out when the Privileges Committee hauls Mr Dunne before it.

But I want to talk about a good news story. I want to talk about the Ahuwhenua Trophy for excellence in Māori farming and the great celebration there was up in Taradale last week. It was great to see Te Awahōhonu Forest Trust, the Tarawera Station, take out that award for Māori farming, and also to see the other finalists as well. It was a spectacular celebration of Māori excellence in farming, great achievements, and so I acknowledge the team, especially Bob Cottrell, who is an excellent farm consultant who has been steering that waka there. Kia ora tātou.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member while he was speaking, but I do want to take a point of order that all members of this House should be addressed correctly. On a number of occasions during the previous member’s speech he referred to Dunne, Key, and Banks. They are actually the Rt Hon John Key, the Hon John Banks, and the Hon Peter Dunne. And the three members of the Māori Party caucus are the Hon Pita Sharples, the Hon Tariana Turia, and Te Ururoa Flavell, and they are entitled to be addressed by their full names too.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I do not need any help. She is absolutely correct. I should not have let it go, but I did because I did not think there was any malice in it. But I take the point that the Minister has made.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you also know that to take that point of order, it ought to be taken at the time and not after the speech. Therefore, the point of order, at the time it was taken, was out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Mallard.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): What a joy it has been to sit in this House this afternoon and listen to some people with a knowledge of agriculture.

Andrew Williams: Thank you very much.

IAN McKELVIE: I will get to you in a minute, Andrew Williams. Agriculture, of course, produces 70 percent of the cash income of this country, and to listen to the Hon Kate Wilkinson, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, Chris Auchinvole, and John Hayes, in particular, speaking about agriculture—

Dr David Clark: What does Michael Woodhouse know about agriculture?

IAN McKELVIE: —despite the fact that Michael Woodhouse comes from Dunedin, and, in fact, the worst MP from Dunedin for 50 years is interjecting right now. This is the big week for agriculture in New Zealand, and we had to wait until Rino Tirikatene before we got a mention of agriculture from the Opposition. That pretty much sums up the attitude of the Opposition to agriculture.

As I said in the beginning of my few words tonight, this is one of the big weeks for agriculture in this country as we showcase ourselves to the rest of the world through the National Agricultural Fieldays at Mystery Creek. Jon Calder, the National Fieldays Society Chief Executive Officer, said: “Fieldays’ focus has always been on the advancement of New Zealand Agriculture on the domestic and now global stage.”

In the last week we have had some pretty significant events in agriculture. Last night the Meat Industry Association held a function in Wellington, where we heard from Bill Falconer about the impact that the Primary Growth Partnership is having on agriculture and, particularly, the meat industry. Some $658 million, as we have heard this afternoon, has been invested in the Primary Growth Partnership already by the Government and its partners. I think it is fantastic. It is doing a great job for us. We have also had Fonterra in the last couple of weeks bringing out its $7 payout for next season, which is hugely encouraging for our dairy industry and will make a massive difference to the income going around in rural New Zealand.

Some 3 weeks ago the Government, through our Minister of Finance, Bill English, presented a Budget to ensure New Zealand’s future—a Budget that builds on the last four financial statements by the Minister and gives New Zealanders the confidence to invest in growth and subsequent jobs. This is what keeps agriculture going in New Zealand. We have been through an extremely challenging few years, where almost all comparable economies have suffered from zero growth or shrinkage. Through the actions of this Government, we have continued to grow and trade with great success in a world challenged by recession. Our country’s statistics speak for themselves.

Before getting on to the real business today, I want to comment on what I see as an increasing use of what I can only term as the industrial sabotage of New Zealanders’ futures. We saw it with the power scheme called NZ Power, which was advanced by the Greens and reds. It is a policy that does nothing to address the challenges facing rural New Zealand and the distribution challenges our lines companies face reticulating the vast rural networks. There is no doubt this was a cynical and high-risk attempt by the Opposition to undermine Government policy, at some cost to the public purse. We have heard Kennedy Graham going on this afternoon at length about the climate change proposals of the Greens and the cost this will impose on our consumers in New Zealand. Any savings that they might have got through their power scheme will be well eaten up by those charges.

We are now seeing the Greens scaremongering over rehabilitated land farms in Taranaki and drilling in Tararua, etc. Again, it is highly unethical and typical of a party that will do anything for a headline. If there was scientific evidence of a problem, we would be the first to support its accusations, but there is not. The co-leader of that party has long been anti - dairy farming and anti-Fonterra. The New Zealand farmer, for the most part, is more green by far than the Greens. It is time the party stopped sticking the knife in at every opportunity and worked with the people who really do understand the environment and will make the single-biggest positive difference to New Zealand in the future.

I want to move very briefly on to the roads of national significance. We have heard Andrew Williams harping on over there for some time about rural roads.

Andrew Williams: What about rural roads?

IAN McKELVIE: Thank you. I find the opposition to this, again from the other side of the House, absolutely baffling. Anyone who understands transport—and he clearly does not—would realise that it is no good fixing the hose if the tap is not working. You must first ensure the trucks can get there before sending them off on the journey. This policy will provide the biggest boost to our export-led economy, when completed, of all of our proposals. Once the roads of national significance are completed, it will enable the councils and the Government to get on with the roads that join up the puzzle, allowing our logs, milk, and meat to get to the market quicker and better.

Andrew Little: Not State Highway 3 in Taranaki.

IAN McKELVIE: As someone who uses State Highway 3 quite often—in fact, it runs through my electorate—it is doing very well. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee

Question of Privilege Concerning the Defamation Action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on a question of privilege concerning the defamation action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. This is a very important piece of work that has been undertaken by the Privileges Committee since September 2012. We finally reported to the House just a few days ago. It raises some very important questions arising out of a decision of the Supreme Court in September 2011.

Throughout this debate we are going to hear comments about parliamentary privilege, but it is important to emphasise what this word “privilege” means and what it does not mean. Parliamentary privilege is not there as a special benefit for a particular person. Parliamentary privilege is there to enable this Parliament to conduct its functions. It is vitally important for New Zealand’s constitutional health. I sometimes think it is unfortunate that the term “privilege” is used, because it does have a connotation of it being for the benefit of the individual. Far from it. It is just as legal professional privilege is there to enable clients to be upfront with their lawyers so that lawyers can properly represent them. But the idea of a privilege contains the connotation of some kind of favour. The Privileges Committee and this Parliament are not concerned with parliamentary privilege in that kind of characterisation; they are concerned with privilege to enable this place to run properly in the interests of the New Zealand democracy.

Another term that is going to come up in the course of this report is what exactly is a proceeding in Parliament. I think for too long there has been vagueness about the metes and bounds about what a parliamentary proceeding is. We say in this report that the time has come for a parliamentary privilege piece of legislation that addresses that particular question. They are the high-level issues that were confronted by the Privileges Committee as it undertook its task, as I said, between September 2012 and June of this year.

The background to the proceeding, which ultimately went to the Court of Appeal, is set out in the report of the Privileges Committee, pages 8 and 9. I do not need to go through it at any length. Most members know the background. Ms Leigh was contracted by the Ministry for the Environment as a communications adviser on climate change issues, and in 2006 she was told that another communications expert, a certain Clare Curran, was going to be appointed to oversee the strategy on which Erin Leigh was working. There were a number of questions in the House concerning these appointments. A Mr Gow from the Ministry for the Environment would have gone across to the Beehive office of the then Minister for the Environment, given that particular Minister a written briefing, and orally taken him through the particular issues, and the Minister gave answers in the House. In due course he apologised for some of the statements he made, but in any event the critical issue here is that proceedings were commenced by Erin Leigh against the Attorney-General, in respect of the Ministry for the Environment, and against Mr Gow, the public servant, alleging that the statements that were made in the House constituted a republication of the statements that he had given to the particular Minister.

Then there was what could be called interlocutory warfare for a number of years. There was an application to strike out parts of the statement of claim. Eventually it found its way to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal of the Attorney-General, and concluded that statements made by an official to a Minister for the purposes of replying to questions for oral answer were not themselves parliamentary proceedings. So that very critical issue of what is a parliamentary proceeding arose.

The court rejected the submissions of counsel for the Speaker, John Pike, that the proper test was whether the occasion in question was reasonably incidental to the discharge of the business of the House. They also disagreed with some statements made by David McGee, then Clerk of the House, in his book about the nature of the particular privilege. They preferred to rely on the basis of necessity as being an essential underpinning for parliamentary privilege in New Zealand. With the greatest respect, what I think they did was they referred to some of the cases on barristers’ immunity, public interest immunity, and so on, which have been pared back over the years, and they have simply applied a test of necessity to parliamentary privilege.

As a result of this very important, albeit interlocutory, decision, the Speaker indicated that he wanted the Privileges Committee of Parliament to look at the issue and provide some advice to the House. That is exactly what we did.

I think the process undertaken by the committee was exemplary. I particularly want to recognise the Deputy Clerk of the House and Catherine Parkin, the clerk of the committee, for the excellent work that they did in assisting the committee. We not only wrote to a number of legal experts in New Zealand, like the President of the Law Commission, Sir Grant Hammond, we spoke to Professor Philip Joseph, and we also spoke to the State Services Commission. I think as a result of that we got a pretty good idea of where we needed to go. Importantly, we also undertook some inquiries overseas. We were very grateful to receive advice from the Standing Committee of Privileges from the Australian Senate, the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests in the Australian House of Representatives, and the United Kingdom House of Commons, and I think we had some answers from Canada. All in all, the comments and the advice that we received were very helpful indeed.

And so, as I say, the committee met, and it has decided that the time has come—and the conclusions are set out in the report itself—for Parliament to bite the bullet and pass parliamentary privilege legislation that addresses some of these questions that have hung around for too long, frankly. What exactly is parliamentary privilege? What exactly is a proceeding in Parliament? If we can address these questions, then I think we will be doing this institution a big favour.

It is not as though the issue has not been on the agenda for many years. I know that David Caygill, when he was in Opposition, went to the time and trouble of preparing a draft bill on the subject, but it went no further. The Privileges Committee has looked at this issue from time to time, but I believe that the time has come for Parliament to deal with this matter once and for all. We say that the Australian legislation of 1987 provides a good model.

In conclusion, let me say this: I saw today that the New Zealand Herald has said that we are striking back at the Supreme Court. No, we are not. We are recognising that as between the various branches of Government there has to be comity, we have to show respect for the court system, which is why there are very stringent rules on the sub judice rule and matters such as that. But, likewise, we say that it is a two-way street, and the committee respectfully says that on this occasion we think that the courts have got it wrong. They have misinterpreted what exactly parliamentary privilege is all about. It is a hugely important question—not for individual members of Parliament but for the institution and, ultimately, for the parliamentary democracy in which we work and live. So may I conclude by once again thanking the officials and my colleagues on the committee for what I think is a very important report.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I begin by thanking the Attorney-General for his chairing of the Privileges Committee. I thought it was a very considered approach that was taken by the select committee, as he has outlined. We garnered information from the Law Commission and from constitutional experts from Commonwealth jurisdictions and other parts of the world, including Professor Joseph. We came to the view that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong on this occasion. We do so with respect. We are careful in the choice of language that we use, but we are firm in our view that the Supreme Court has got it wrong on this occasion.

The privileges of Parliament go through a rather convoluted route, but in the end are founded on the same principles of privilege that are afforded the United Kingdom Parliament, pursuant to article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. It took a while for New Zealand to get to the position that those were also the privileges of the New Zealand Parliament, and the history of how the New Zealand Parliament came to have those same privileges is set out in detail in the report. I do not have time to go through that.

Suffice it to say, the privileges of the New Zealand Parliament in respect of parliamentary privilege are the same as those of the House of Representatives in the United Kingdom, where article 9 of the Bill of Rights provides “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” It is a very, very important principle, and it is one of the ways in which we avoid conflict between Parliament and the courts.

There will always be a grey line as to what the end of parliamentary jurisdiction is and what the limit to the jurisdiction of the courts is. I am a person who thinks that that grey line between these two spheres of democracy should never be specifically defined, because it is impossible to do so with a particularity that would cover all eventualities. At one level, I like the greyness of that line, which enables both of those venerable institutions to push against the other where one goes too far. I think that I like the fact that the courts can push against abuses by Parliament where Parliament goes too far. I think back to the time of the courts responding to some of the excesses of the executive at the time of the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon, when the courts pushed against the executive in a way that they had not previously because the exigencies of the time made it appropriate to do so.

However, on this occasion I think that the courts have got it wrong, because they have imported this new test of necessity in assessing whether parliamentary privilege is as broad as it was until the Supreme Court decision was laid down. I, for one, have never accepted the principle that the Supreme Court was within jurisdiction to make that ruling, because its jurisdiction does not go so far as to limit the privileges of Parliament. It can appropriately say that there are occasions that fall outside the privileges of Parliament. We have had instances of that in the United Kingdom, where some of the behaviour of parliamentarians over there in respect of their personal expenses were justiciable, and they were appropriately found not to be covered by parliamentary privilege, because they were not part of a parliamentary proceeding. But this case is different. Here we have the Supreme Court trying to introduce a new legal principle that limits the privileges of Parliament—in particular, the extent of what is a parliamentary proceeding in respect of, in the facts of this case, question time.

The effect of the Supreme Court decision was to say that it was not necessary for Mr Gow to have absolute privilege in respect of his statements, because they were a parliamentary proceeding, and to find that on the basis of this newly introduced doctrine of necessity, all that was necessary was for him to have the benefit of qualified privilege. We at the Privileges Committee heard evidence from Professor Joseph and from the Hon Sir Grant Hammond, amongst others, to say that that writing down of the privileges of this Parliament was inappropriate and that it will have a chilling effect on the frankness of advice from officials to Ministers as they prepare for question time.

We have very, very low levels of corruption in New Zealand. One of the ways that we keep that freedom from corruption is having the ability of this Parliament to get information for question time when the Government’s conduct is being questioned, which could include accusations of corruption or incompetence. With Government officials advising Ministers for question time, there is a very strong public interest that they can be completely without risk of suit if they say things that are defamatory of people, because these things are defamatory if you allege outside parties to be corrupt. Those statements ought to be able to be made to a Minister of the Crown as that Minister prepares for question time.

We have seen very litigious behaviour in New Zealand recently in respect of some of the finance company fallout. We have seen Mr Hotchin and others—and I can say this in this Parliament, protected by absolute privilege—sue people in defamation, including Brian Gaynor, who wrote an article in the newspaper alleging that there was poor practice on the part of Mr Hotchin and others in Hanover Finance and that they have profited handsomely privately. You can see that those sorts of accusations once made by Brian Gaynor have got him caught up in very complex litigation, and you can see that that would have a chilling effect on the media.

Well, if those sorts of questions were being asked of Ministers, I want officials within the ministries to actually make those sorts of statements to Ministers if they believe them to be true. I do not want them to have the risk of facing defamation proceedings by the likes of Mr Hotchin or others who have got very deep pockets and who are very keen to use their rights at law in order to try, on occasions, to gag criticisms. That was the effect, in my opinion, of the Supreme Court decision.

As I have said previously, I think the Supreme Court went beyond its jurisdiction when it did this, and so I actually do not accept that the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh, from a principle point of view, is binding on Parliament or was effective at law. But there is no way to fix that other than through legislation. We do not have contempt proceedings where we drag people whom we disagree with before us in Parliament and then lock them in chains in the dungeons; we actually have a civil way of resolving these issues. The most practical way through this, as the Attorney-General has said, is through legislation that defines parliamentary proceedings in a way that includes the advice of officials like Mr Gow to Ministers as they prepare for question time.

There is not time in this contribution to make reference to the Buchanan v Jennings case, which was also raised again with us, other than to say that the view of the committee was that prior committees were right when they said that effective repetition ought not to give rise to a suit in defamation, as opposed to defamatory statements themselves being repeated outside the House, which, of course, are defamatory. That rule exists for the protection not just of members of Parliament but also of the media, in case people think that we are being self-interested in that regard.

This Parliament has shown considerable comity for the courts in recent years. It has changed its Standing Orders to make it more difficult for members of Parliament to breach suppression orders. Although we have the right to do so with our absolute privilege, we take care to respect the decisions of the court. And on this occasion, we think that the court has gone too far the other way, and that the appropriate way to remedy this is through legislation.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party concurs with the Privileges Committee’s report on the question of privileges concerning the defamation action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. The House is invited to note our disagreement with the Supreme Court decision in that case. Our disagreement concerns particularly the court’s use of the test of necessity as the means for ascertaining the scope of Parliament’s privilege of freedom of speech. In remediation, the committee invites the Government to introduce a parliamentary privilege bill into the House. Such a bill would clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, the nature of parliamentary privilege in New Zealand. This is an unprecedented move, I think, in New Zealand’s constitutional history, and I am pleased that we have come to the place we are at.

Allow me to make a few ancillary comments by way of support. This exercise, I suggest, has both a legal and a political dimension to it. On the legal merits, it might be queried—not least by members of our judiciary—by what authority members of our legislature would presume to judge the validity of a Supreme Court decision. It is a fair question. The answer, I think, lies not in any self-assumed level of knowledge and insight on the part of legislators. Few among us are qualified lawyers. I am not one. Among the few, there is, I think, not one complete authority in constitutional law. So it is not any competitive notion of superiority in the trade that prompts the legislature and its Privileges Committee in the first instance to consider this constitutional move. It is, in fact, the obverse: the notion of cooperation between the two branches of Government in finding the constitutional balance between them. It rests on an underlying notion that the political branch—that is, the legislature—and the legal branch—that is, the judiciary—must maintain a seamless, if differentiated, unity in the public interest.

It is, perhaps with a touch of irony, the principle of comity that drives our response to the Supreme Court decision. The notion of mutual respect and restraint requires that in the occasional event that one branch, always with the best of intent, encroaches, in the opinion of the other, marginally too far across that threshold of mutuality, then it is the right and responsibility of the other to restore the balance. That mutuality works both ways. In this case, it is the legislature responding to the judiciary. In another case, the judiciary is responding to the legislature when it makes its views known that a member’s bill currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee requiring a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges is unnecessary, albeit well intended, and could venture too far into the judicial realm, even though such a thing exists in certain other jurisdictions.

Both responses from one branch to the other require mutual respect. That is the underlying basis of constitutional stability, the glue that holds society together on a civil basis. And so it is that the Privileges Committee has been careful to lay out its reasoning underpinning its view of the wrongful application of the doctrine of necessity in the case of Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. It is careful to note that such a critique rests on the advice of expert legal opinion, some of the nation’s top constitutional lawyers, members of the Law Commission, and Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, which is perhaps the ultimate authority on the subject in this country. Although the reasoning and the conclusions and recommendations in our report are, of course, our own responsibility, we are careful to ensure that they directly rest on, and derive from, such advice that we received. The issue is too important to do otherwise. And so we cite the general principles of parliamentary privilege—namely, freedom of speech and exclusive cognisance. We recall the basis for parliamentary privilege in New Zealand. We acknowledge the relationship between Parliament and the courts, and the need to balance parliamentary privilege with common law rights. We considered the appropriateness of applying the doctrine of necessity to parliamentary privilege, and whether, as a consequence, the same test would apply to other privileges.

We convey our concern that the approach of the Supreme Court in this respect appears to narrow the protections of the Bill of Rights, article 9. It confuses, we think, parliamentary privilege, which is an absolute privilege protected by article 9, with qualified privilege. Much depends, in this respect, on the meaning of the phrase “proceedings in Parliament”. The court’s decision, we feared, moves the interpretation of this phrase in New Zealand away from the interpretation followed in other comparable jurisdictions, and could have a chilling effect on the ability of the House to receive information from advisers. Indeed, we go further, as the Hon David Parker has said, and question whether it is even within the jurisdiction of the courts in this country to challenge the extent of parliamentary privilege in the manner done in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. This, dare I say it, plumbs the depths of constitutional reflection as far as I think it is possible to go. In advancing the observation, members of the committee intend no disrespect, and we trust that members of the judiciary accept that assurance.

So much for the legal dimension; there is also the political dimension of such a far-reaching foray into constitutional law, for, in the final analysis, it is the people, the true source of all sovereignty, who must decide on the relationship between their various branches of Government. To adapt an observation of the Law Commission in commenting on the pecuniary interest issue, neither the judiciary nor the legislature exists in isolation. They are institutions in a particular society. Their persons must have the respect and faith of the communities they serve, in order to be effective. The court of public opinion supersedes all others.

On that matter I have only one observation to make. It is of paramount importance that the public understand the true meaning of the phrase “parliamentary privilege”, as the Hon Chris Finlayson has noted. This does not mean undue or unearned material benefit for members of Parliament; it is almost the reverse. It means the protection of their freedom of speech and, in this case, that of officials advising them for the sake of liberty and democracy, which is the inherent right of the people they represent. If this is clearly understood, there should be no problem expecting the people to understand why this Parliament has been so moved, why the Speaker felt compelled to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee on the first parliamentary day after the Supreme Court’s decision, why the committee has laboured so long and so carefully, and why its recommendations are so far-reaching. But if there is any doubt on the part of the public about this, we would do well to consider a change of phrase. We could use the phrase “parliamentary protections”, rather than “parliamentary privileges”, if it were to make the critical difference in the political context. I am aware of the weight of tradition that supports the current phrase, but there are two meanings to the word “privileges”, and one seems to get lost in the static.

The Green Party concurs with the report of the Privileges Committee on Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh, and commends its recommendations to the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): First of all, I want to recognise the Attorney-General and my fellow members of the Privileges Committee, who considered what was, and is, a very serious issue. The committee’s consideration of this issue is an example of how Parliament should work when people put the best interests of the institution they belong to, and a great tradition that they have been part of establishing, to the forefront and forget about party politics. It may be pure serendipity that there was no politics involved in this at all, which is probably why Parliament acted as it did—not in a surprising manner but in a far too infrequently seen manner.

First of all, article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688 is an ageless beacon for our democracy, and it is often misunderstood in terms of how important that is. The right for an MP—in short, we interpret it—to speak in Parliament openly and honestly without fear of later legal action is fundamental to sound debate and the expansion of knowledge and argument on which parliamentarians collectively can make a decision. There has been, over the years, a slow erosion of parliamentary privilege in this country in two respects. First of all, as to the public’s understanding of it, an MP is frequently portrayed as hiding behind parliamentary protection, when everyone knows, particularly in the press gallery, that without that parliamentary protection not one media outlet would publish what that MP is saying, not in terms of any consideration of the merit of what that MP is saying but simply a blanket embargo, because they themselves, the media, fear the cost of publication being a later lawsuit. That is the first misunderstanding. Often a member of Parliament will say something in Parliament because that is the only way that the communication or media industry can actually broadcast without fear of a lawsuit what has been said.

I want to emphasise that. Far too many journalists will say to you: “Why are you saying it with parliamentary privilege?”. My response always has been, personally, to say: “That is because you’re too gutless to report it without fear of being sued. You have all the resources, you are backed by millions, and you are putting that up as some sort of act of temerity or even cowardice when in fact it is a protection of you as well.” If you trace back the recent history of this country, you see how often that allegation has been made, when, in fact, at the end of the day, the MP has been proven to be reserved in the extreme about the allegations he or she made.

The second thing is that the courts have taken the view that their arena—and it has been a slow erosion—is the appropriate place where an MP can fairly defend him or herself for something said in Parliament. For example, it may be in respect of the connectedness of a statement, whereby a parliamentary speech is made first and the MP is asked about what happened in Parliament and he has merely said words to this effect: “Well, you have heard him and you have heard me. Make up your own mind.” That has been as thin a connection or link needed for a court to seek to hear an action that it should not be hearing in the first place, and it is an affront to parliamentary privilege in my view.

It also invites the use of a gagging writ to shut down further disclosure, and there have been some serious examples of that in recent time. Every one of them has failed, except for one—or, rather, two. But that one went on appeal to the High Court and got half turned over. I am frequently met by law students all around this country who say: “Well, why didn’t you go the whole way?”, which is a marvellous question to ask someone when that person is financing the whole action from his own resources—after paying tax—and all himself. It is quite shocking to hear that, because, of course, one would have loved to go the whole way to clarify the law, and that is what I would like to say to the judiciary. It is as clear as daylight and the message is this: “Yes, you sit there with all the resources of the taxpayer, at no expense on this matter whatsoever, and you’re hearing before you an MP who is funding an action all by himself or with the support of like-minded people in the community.”

There are good examples of that. Nick Smith had a legal fund in respect of a defamation case he was facing that emanated out of the top of the South Island. John Banks, similarly, had a legal fund that emanated from, I think, a case relating to Truth magazine, in which he was involved. The extraordinary thing about that, of course, is that I had one as well. That became a fund that in law, I was told by this Parliament, I could not have, and that was the kangaroo court of the Privileges Committee, the august committee that got it right this time but got it wrong back then.

We all know how hypocrisy works, but all I am saying to the court and to the members of the judiciary who think we are wrong is this: who is funding the MP to defend something he or she has properly put to the Parliament of the country? The answer is no one. So they—that is, the judiciary—are not in the shoes of someone who sits here with a protection that is 100 years old and emanating from the UK, and thank heavens for that.

I also say this to my colleagues who have heard this argument before, and they heard it before the Privileges Committee inquiry back in 2008. Do you understand the risk you take when you go down that path of denying an MP to obtain not for political reasons—there are no votes in it—the right to start a fund to defend him or herself, and when frequently up against the very wealthy, the extraordinarily wealthy? If you as an MP have ever faced millions and millions of dollars of defamation writs from some of the wealthiest people in the country, then you might know what I mean. But I am sad to say that back then, the committee decided to restrain and curb their rights to fight such defences, and I believe they acted in a most inappropriate way.

The great thing about this committee and this report is that I think there is a view across the committee that we need to correct this erosion and restore the situation to what it should be legally. We commend this to the rebalance of Parliament, not on the basis of some venal self-interest but on something far more important by way of principle, and that is the right of an MP, whether wrong or right, to honestly state his or her view in the hope that that adds to the public debate and the quality of decision making in Parliament. That is an important right. I want to thank the Attorney-General for chairing the committee in an extraordinarily competent way. Thank you.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I want to take a call on this very important Privileges Committee report, and I would like to acknowledge the work of both the Attorney-General and the Privileges Committee itself for producing, I think, a very good discussion of the background to it, and bringing perhaps to a head years of concern about a lack of clarity and understanding about the nature of both parliamentary privilege and parliamentary proceedings. This, as the Rt Hon Winston Peters said, is not just a constitutional issue; it is one of the most important constitutional issues, and I might say that, in the context of what is meant to be apparently a time of national debate about our constitution and whether we should have a written one or not, this at least is a matter of real constitutionality. It is about how power is distributed and how it is represented, and it is about the relationship between the different branches of government. These are questions that go to the core of what makes up a constitution, and it is good that we are having an open discussion, at least in this House this afternoon, on this important issue.

As has been clear from previous speakers, the heart of this debate is about what constitutes the proceedings of Parliament. The case that went to the Supreme Court and has led to the Privileges Committee considering the matter and writing this report was a defamation case. The Defamation Act itself—a piece of legislation with which I have recently become familiar, along with a colleague of mine—uses the term “privilege”.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That will put both these cases in common.

ANDREW LITTLE: There is not a great deal in common with the Leigh case, because in that case, of course, there was a Minister being advised, and it was the Minister’s adviser who was really in the gun because of what he said, or is alleged to have said, in advising the Minister. In the more recent case involving Mallard and Little, it was a Minister who took umbrage at comments made, the veracity of which have never been tested, and, indeed, the case has been pulled and we will never know what the result would have been.

But the Defamation Act itself uses the term “privilege” in terms of absolute privilege, qualified privilege, and parliamentary privilege, notwithstanding that those terms have different meanings in each case, or, at least, qualified privilege and absolutely privilege on one hand, and parliamentary privilege on the other. As the Attorney-General said, parliamentary privilege is about protection—protecting members of this House, who, having been elected to come here, must be allowed to do so, to fulfil their obligations and duties without fear of being harassed and harangued by the powerful, the mighty, and the wealthy as they do so. So it is accepted that MPs must be able to prosecute their role. We must be able to fulfil our duties and obligations without fear from others in the community who would seek to prevent us from doing so.

It is also important that there are safeguards for citizens, because, as the Attorney-General correctly pointed out, parliamentary privilege is about protecting members, but it is not about elevating members to an unnatural status within the community, so that they are beyond reach or cannot be touched if they transcend or transgress either the law or other accepted rules and principles. So there must be safeguards for citizens as well. Although I am new to this House and I have not been here during the development of the existing Standing Orders, there are Standing Orders that do go to the extent of protecting citizens, so that if a citizen who would not have otherwise had a voice here is referred to, particularly if they are referred to in disparaging terms, there is a process by which they can have their reputation protected, or at least have a version represented. Likewise, when it comes to the relationship between this House and the other branches of government, principally the judiciary, there are Standing Orders that seek to preserve and protect the relationship between them.

Sitting behind this report and the recommendation of it, which is to provide a statutory clarification of parliamentary privilege, we have the case of Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh, which focused on the necessity principle—what is needed to make the absolute privilege of Parliament functional and workable. That was the focus of the Supreme Court, as opposed to what I think, with great respect, was really at the heart of that case, which was more about what inquiry was needed to ensure that the Minister could fulfil, in that case, his obligation to answer fully and properly to the House, and what was needed to protect the citizen. So a Minister must be free, in taking advice, to pose questions and to obtain advice, both orally and written, from officials on whom they are dependent and reliant to get advice. That must be able to be conducted in a “free and frank way”, as the expression is given, and, indeed, reflected in the Official Information Act. The free and frank expression of officials must be preserved and protected to enable the role or the function of the Government to be carried out.

It appears, in my humble view and respectful opinion, that the Supreme Court conflated the test needed to protect the right of the citizen, who in this case is Ms Leigh, with the manner in which Parliament must conduct it business. So I think that the Privileges Committee has correctly struck the balance and concluded that it is right for this House, to enable it to conduct itself properly and its members to conduct themselves without fear of harassment from others in the community, to legislate for a definition of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary proceedings. That need not cut across citizens’ rights and the ability of citizens to stand up to preserve and protect their reputation. That can be accommodated in the Standing Orders of the House, as, in my view, it already is. But we do need to be aware, at least in the public debate that will happen about legislation, that there will be a tension between citizens and their representatives in this House as we seek to protect our ability to do our job.

It is interesting that the origin of the Bill of Rights 1688 was more about the relationship between the Crown or the monarch and Parliament, and that was a Bill of Rights that was about preserving and protecting the role of Parliament, as against the monarch of the day, and ensuring that the Crown could not unduly interfere in the conduct of Parliament as it went about raising taxes and passing laws, and that it could not be gainsaid by the monarch of the day making their own dictates and passing their own laws unilaterally, without the proper involvement and consent of Parliament, and likewise levying taxes. That is what the Bill of Rights 1688 was about, and that is what it was referring to when it talked about the proceedings of Parliament in article 9, where it sought to preserve and protect those. It is clear from a reading of that 1688 document that the reference to the proceedings of Parliament was intended to be broad and was intended to give effect to Parliament, in all its dimensions, conducting itself and fulfilling its business.

So I want to once again acknowledge what is, I think, a very good piece of work in the document that has been reproduced and that we are discussing now, and I look forward to the legislation as it is drafted and as it comes before this House for more considered and detailed debate.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee

Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing, Execution of Search Warrants, and Collection and Retention of Information by the NZSIS

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move, That the House take note of the interim report of the Privileges Committee on a question of privilege concerning the agreements for policing, execution of search warrants, and collection and retention of information by the NZSIS. I emphasise that it is an interim report.

As is well known, the Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, exercises control over the parliamentary precincts, and the reason for that is to ensure that the House can properly function as a legislature on behalf of the people. Over the years, various Speakers have signed up to three agreements. I will briefly refer to them but then focus, in particular, on one of them.

The first was when former Speaker Jonathan Hunt signed an agreement with the Commissioner of Police on policing functions within the parliamentary precinct. That followed an examination of a draft agreement by the Privileges Committee, and that agreement was revised and signed in 2007.

The second one I wish to refer to is that in 2006 the then Speaker, Margaret Wilson, presented an agreement to the House. It was one that she had entered into with the Commissioner of Police, setting out some interim procedures for the execution of search warrants on premises that were occupied by members of Parliament. That was very much an interim agreement. It could not be finally resolved until the prosecution of and all the appeals relating to Mr Field had been dealt with. A final order in relation to that former member was made on 3 September 2012, and it was that order that concluded those proceedings.

The third agreement was that in 2010 the former Speaker Sir Lockwood Smith entered into a memorandum of understanding with the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Minister in charge of the service on the collection and retention of information on members of Parliament.

Last year, in September 2012, the Speaker referred those three agreements to the Privileges Committee and asked that it take a good look at them as they involved questions of privilege. This is an interim report, because in the last couple of weeks some amendments to security legislation have been introduced and those matters are currently being considered by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

The critical issue that has arisen is in relation to the proposed amendments dealing with oversight capability of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The committee took a good look at those proposed amendments and thought there was an issue that arose about whether or not they provided clearly for oversight of the intelligence agencies in circumstances where a person such as the Speaker may wish to complain to the Inspector-General on behalf of members of Parliament—that is, the House of Representatives; not a particular person within the House but on behalf of the House of Representatives—that it had been or may be affected adversely by the actions or procedures of the intelligence services.

So it is a very limited inquiry, unlike the previous report that we have been discussing this afternoon. It focuses on those amendments, and suggests that the issue of oversight in relation to a person such as the Speaker in the circumstances I have outlined could, in fact, be looked at by the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine whether some tweaking of some of the clauses of that legislation is required. That is all this report deals with. The other substantive matters in relation to the three agreements that I have referred to will be the subject of a separate report to Parliament in due course.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to make some remarks on this interim report of the Privileges Committee on a question of privilege concerning the agreements for policing, execution of search warrants, and collection and retention of information by the New Zealand SIS.

The first point I want to pick up is the Attorney-General’s comment that it is an interim report. I understand that the reasoning for that is the desire of the Privileges Committee to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee had the advantage of having this information in front of it. When it comes time to deal with the full report and assess that, I believe that there are a number of quite serious questions to answer here. I absolutely acknowledge the point that the Attorney-General has made that there have been agreements entered into over a period of time by Speakers with agencies that may have the ability to come in and demand things of members of Parliament. It is important to put on the record of Parliament the fact that we must jealously guard the rights and privileges that are afforded to us. We have already, in the earlier debate on the report of the Privileges Committee on a question of privilege concerning a defamation action, had this discussion that perhaps the phrase “parliamentary privilege” does not encompass exactly what it is that we are talking about here.

An awful lot is invested in the early days when you become a member of Parliament—and we are about to hear from two new members who are about to enter into the fray here—and it is made very clear to us when we go through the pomp and ceremony at the start of each Parliament how the privileges afforded to MPs are gained. The Speaker takes a trip to Government House, and there is a communication about that. It is a very important right of parliamentarians to be able to represent their constituents and to be able to undertake those conversations on behalf of their constituents, knowing that they have protection in doing that. Any notion of coercion or anything like that around these matters is something that we must be very, very concerned about. So I respect the agreements that Speakers have made that govern their arrangements for the police and for the SIS in the execution of their warrants.

The first and main point I want to make on that is that what I see through those agreements and, indeed, in what is discussed in this interim report, is a very large weight upon the Speaker to be the person who acts on behalf of members of Parliament as to whether or not they are sufficiently protected and whether or not the interest of the SIS or any other agency in them is justified. I do believe that we are investing in the Speaker a significant power, but also the pressure that may be on that individual is, I think, extremely difficult. We are talking about highly politicised situations here, and I do not believe we should enter into this area without considerable thought. That is actually a matter for the final report on this particular issue, but I do think we as a Parliament need to give some thought to whether or not the Speaker needs wider support around that kind of decision. Should, for instance, there be some form of code or some general principles to which the Speaker looks when making decisions about whether or not warrants are justified—whether or not members of Parliament can be included within that? I have significant concerns about what threshold would need to be passed for it to be right and proper for the SIS to be monitoring or looking into the activities of a member of Parliament. That must be an extremely high threshold if it is to be justifiable. I think this Parliament needs to look very closely indeed when it comes to the final report at whether or not we believe we as parliamentarians have sufficient protection from undue attention from those investigating agencies. Various Speakers have made their decisions on that. I accept that. I understand that that is the process that we are under at the moment, but I do think we need to tread very warily indeed in those areas.

The second matter that I want to talk about is the matter for which this interim report has been created. That is because currently the Intelligence and Security Committee is considering the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. At the outset I want to say that the Labour Party opposes that legislation. We believe that that legislation is a band-aid attempt to cover over what has been going wrong in the Government Communications Security Bureau in recent times, the lax oversight of the Prime Minister as the Minister responsible for the bureau, and the fact that we have never gotten to the bottom of the Kim Dotcom case or, indeed, of many other activities that have now been revealed that the bureau is involved in.

We have a report from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security that tells us that there are a number of cases in which it is arguable that the spying undertaken on New Zealanders was legal—arguable that it was legal. Presumably, that means that it is also arguable that it was illegal. That is the situation we are now left with. The Government is determinedly rushing through legislation—I think submissions on that legislation close tomorrow—and there has not been sufficient time, in the view of the Labour Party, for submissions to be properly heard on this legislation. We are strongly of the view that there needs to be an independent inquiry into the activities of our intelligence agencies. I have to say that seeing this matter being referred by the Privileges Committee to the Intelligence and Security Committee only adds to that concern, because we do believe that the issues that have been raised on this in the committee are important.

A matter that appears specifically in the interim report is around the question of whether or not extending the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau—which is what the legislation in front of the Intelligence and Security Committee does—means that effectively the bureau could end up in the position of monitoring the activities of MPs. That has not been foreseen until now. It represents a very significant example of the extension of the powers. This report deals with the matter of the oversight of the execution of those powers, so it deals with whether or not as MPs we have the ability to complain to the Inspector-General about what oversight the Inspector-General might have over any complaint that an MP might make. But I think it is very important to go back to the root cause of that, and the root cause of that is the extension of the powers of the bureau, and we have not, in my view, had sufficient time, or time for the depth of study required, to actually look at whether or not that is justifiable.

Certainly, one of the concerns that this side of the House has had—and it has been a very topical issue in recent days—is that the bureau is part of a wider international network. Information collected by the bureau, as it is by the other partners in the Five Eyes network, then becomes part of a pool of information that other countries can access. It would be a concern, I would think, if that information about MPs, as an example, was able to be accessed by foreign intelligence agencies, and that is the kind of issue that we need to investigate within a wider review. At the moment we have a piece of legislation about the Government Communications Security Bureau going through. Here we have a Privileges Committee report that is actually about the SIS and the police, yet the bureau, through that legislation that is front of the Intelligence and Security Committee, may well end up helping the SIS or the police in the execution of their work. So it is an extremely tricky area.

I am glad that the Privileges Committee has referred this to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it has referred only one element of the issue: the element of oversight. I believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee needs to think about the privileges of MPs within the context of the whole legislation and the extension of the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau. The Government should not be rushing that legislation through. We should have an independent inquiry into all our intelligence agencies, at which point we would be able to see where MPs fit in. I am, however, glad that this interim report will find its way to the committee.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): In the interests of the procedure of the House, I will be very brief indeed. I just say that the Green Party is prepared to support this recommendation of the Privileges Committee, of which I am a member, on the interim report on the question of privilege concerning the three agreements. We support the recommendation made to the House, but on the understanding that it in no way prejudices the Green Party position in respect of the issues at stake that will, no doubt, come out in the final report. It will not be lost on members that at least part of the genesis for this inquiry and the final report is occasioned by a complaint laid by a member of the Green caucus in the 49th Parliament, and the Green Party has its views on this matter.

There is a huge difference between the nature of the issue that we have discussed in the previous item, Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh, where the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature have two large searchlights mutually shining on each other and there is a fair bit of transparency in that relationship, and this case, where the relationship between the two identities, you might say—the legislature and the SIS—is one that is absolutely shrouded in a veil of mystery, a lot of which is artificially induced. So we have our views. We will support this particular interim report for the sake of the relevant committee, and we will have more to say on the substance of the matter later.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Kennedy Graham and I have been constrained in the length of our reply in this debate because shortly there are to be two maiden statements from two new members who are desperately needed in terms of the talent that the National Party presently suffers from at this point in time. We are all waiting with bated breath to hear what they have got to say, because the reservoir has run dry. As a consequence, we will constrain our speeches way short of the 10 minutes that we are qualified to have, and because we want to accommodate the National Party’s desperation to infuse in its organisation some talent for the first time for a long time.

That said, if you go straight to the recommendation on page 6 of this report, it is the nub of it that I want to address, and the nub of it is the recommendations made to the Intelligence and Security Committee and the role of the Minister in charge of that committee. It is just two paragraphs. What is apposite is that there are parties concerned as to what is happening with the Government Communications Security Bureau, or, more particularly, the Minister in charge of it. If members refer to our speech at the time of the introduction of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, they will see in those opening paragraphs what our concerns are, but our concerns have magnified since we gave that speech. Our concerns have magnified to the extent that a Prime Minister rises in this House and says that he happily received a sanitised report. It was not the one seen by those down at the Government Communications Security Bureau at the time they looked at the preliminary report draft. No, it was one that the former head of the Government Communications Security Bureau is reported in the New Zealand Herald this morning as saying, on page 10, is a report that has been sanitised and that there are whole “lots” of parts, to use his words, that are missing.

More important, what happened was that the original report had some information that was moved to the appendices of the final report, and then when the final report went out, sanitised as it was, the appendices were never released. In short, people who appeared before the Kitteridge review know far more than every member of Parliament and, according to the Prime Minister, they know far more than him, even though he is the Minister in charge. That is an abysmal situation. It is an appalling lack of prime ministerial and ministerial responsibility that we are addressing, and I hope that one of the new members coming in here today, who are about to give their maiden statements, realise just how far the party that they have joined and campaigned for and have now come into Parliament for has sunk.

Hon John Banks: Don’t be silly.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And it has been sunk by people like Mr Banks. Mr Banks, I might tell you, had 42 cheques sent to him, and understandably you could forget a few, but he forgot all 42.

Hon Member: What happened to your $100,000?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What happened to the $157,000? What happened to the $157,000?

Hon John Banks: Say “No”.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, the answer comes up here, so that no more deceit and misrepresentation continues from that Parliament. What happened to the $157,000 was that we wrote to the Auditor-General—[Interruption] No, no, listen. We said to him that every cent was approved by the Parliamentary Service. Then, second, we said that because the law has been changed, any paying back of that to the Inland Revenue Department attracted gift duty and, as a consequence, we, to not enhance ourselves by one cent, gave it to 10 different charities. That is what happened to our obligation.

On the Owen Glenn matter—on the Owen Glenn matter, as I said before—Nick Smith had a legal fund, John Banks had a legal fund, and neither of those people were ever run before Parliament on the basis that they had broken any rule. However, they sat there, those people, in a kangaroo court. They drafted a report that said: “The law doesn’t apply. We’re writing a new one and—here we go—retrospectively we are going to apply it to Winston Peters because we want him out of Parliament.” Well, we are back. We are back, and every day—I must tell these new members—the people are joining in legion numbers all around New Zealand. The halls are being packed—the halls are being packed—and out there the people are saying: “We’ve hung on, because we know help is on its way.”

I have got only 2 more minutes, but I want to say this to these two new members. Before you have travelled too far along the pathway of being mere cannon fodder, ask yourselves these questions. Is this the party of Holyoake? Is this the party of Hamilton? Is this the party of fine men like Duncan MacIntyre? Was it the party of Winston Peters once? Yes, when it was a great party. It was a great party—when the party had 200,000 members. Today it has got just 200 big donors. No membership—no membership. Mr Banks, we are never going to eat our hearts out to support a party that has sold out every principle it once stood for. Nevertheless, I want to wish the two new members who have come here a successful career here, difficult as it is going to be, short as it is going to be. I hope that your maiden statements tonight evince the principles and dreams of the party that was around when you were born, but not the one that is here now. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karanga maha e huihui nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the powers, the voices, and the many callings assembled here, salutations, greetings, and acknowledgments to you all.]

Mr Speaker, members, family, friends, and supporters, it is with a mixture of exhilaration, aspiration, and trepidation that I rise to make a maiden statement in this 50th Parliament of New Zealand. I am delighted to be joining the parliamentary team of the National Party, led by the Rt Hon John Key. National is, I believe, the only party capable of leading the sound, stable, and sensible Government that this country needs. This Government is delivering the increased economic growth rates, thriving and safer communities, efficient public services, and personal freedoms that all Kiwis want and deserve. I congratulate the Prime Minister and his excellent Ministers on their unstinting work on untangling the mess created by 9 years of socialist misrule, and on leading this nation to a brighter future in years to come.

It is a real honour to serve as an elected representative of the people of our beautiful country. At the same time, it is almost impossible not to be awestruck by the weighty responsibilities of a new MP. Enacting the laws of the land, scrutinising Government expenditure, assisting constituents with their issues, and having input into the policy of the governing party must all be taken very seriously. I intend to keep my head down and learn from older and wiser members. I am grateful to the Hon Chris Finlayson QC, the Hon Judith Collins, the Hon Tony Ryall, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the Hon Bill English, and all the National MPs of the 2011 intake, in particular, as well as the entire National Party team, for their advice and the warm welcome to this House they have given me.

I particularly look forward to being a member of this House when the National War Memorial Park is opened in Wellington, where I am based. The centenary of Gallipoli marks a momentous event in our evolution towards independent nationhood a century ago. The plaques in this Chamber commemorating that campaign and others in which New Zealanders have fought serve as a constant reminder to members of the Kiwi lives lost to secure our democracy and to safeguard our way of life. As John Key said, the National War Memorial Park will be a significant legacy to commemorate the centenary of Anzac Day. It is a special gift to the capital and will become a wonderful civic amenity as well as a focal point for the national commemorations. Earlier plans for a national war memorial park fell by the wayside, through neglect by a previous Government, and the current precinct remained divided by State Highway 1 until Chris Finlayson and Gerry Brownlee set out to deliver on a vision for an upgraded Buckle Street area. I look forward to supporting other initiatives that will contribute to Wellington remaining a thriving and wonderful place to live.

Giving a maiden speech is one of the very few occasions when a member in this Chamber may make references to guests in the public galleries. I ask that you indulge me in mentioning a few special people who are here today. I would like to acknowledge the president of the National Party, Peter Goodfellow, the board of the National Party—in particular, the lower North Island chairman, Malcolm Plimmer, and the lovely Linda—and all the office holders, activists, and members of the party who have supported me. I am very grateful for the help of our wonderful people locally in Wellington. I was most fortunate to have as my campaign chair Brett Hudson, who put in an enormous effort in 2011. I would also like to thank stalwart campaign and executive committee members Dr Pat McCarthy, Murray Radford, Richard and Elaine Westlake, Sir Christopher and Lady Anna Harris, Graeme and Judith Sugden, Peter Milne, Alistair Scott, Aaron Hape, Chloe Oldfield, Brian Anderton, Carolyn O’Fallon, Carsten Schousboe, Carina Aiken, Haimona Gray, Jim Guo, Joe Rousseau, Bridget-Anne Fowler, Rainer McAlister, Victor Cauty, Lliam Munro, Dr Rosie Fenwicke, Julian Light, and Henry Williams, as well as Cameron Pickering, who has come down from Christchurch—or up from Christchurch, I should say. Many thanks to the “super blues”, especially Nancy McDonald, Joan Farrance, Pam Finlayson, Bernie Poole, and Patricia Morrison, for their kind assistance. Thank you to David Farrar and Neil Miller for their guidance. We were also very well supported by an exceptional group at party headquarters: Jo, Greg, Cam, Liam, Donna, Beth, and Sean. And to the hundreds of volunteers who gave so much of their time, thank you all so much.

I want to make special mention of the Young Nats. This was the group that gave me my start in politics, and I am thrilled that it has never been in such good heart and strength on the campuses of New Zealand as it is today. I would like to acknowledge Dan Fielding, who led the Young Nats for over 3 years; Sean Topham, who is capably chairing it today; Christian Hermansen, who chairs the regional Young Nats; and Joel Rowan from our local VicNats branch. The Young Nats won some real victories on longstanding youth issues in recent years, such as lobbying to successfully remove compulsion from student unions, keeping the age for the purchase of alcohol at 18, addressing teen depression and suicide, and supporting equal access to marriage for all Kiwis. I hope the Young Nats keep rattling cages, and keep me on my toes as a new MP.

To friends who could not make it today—Malcolm and Marian Cone in Temuka, Peter and Sarah Walker and Robyn Broughton in Dunedin, Ele Ludemann in Ōāmaru, Professor John and Jenny Leader in Blenheim, Emma Mellow-Sandford in Sydney, Tiffany Cone in Canberra, Kezia Bibby in England, Geoff and Chris Pope in Seattle, the Cammock family in Jakarta, and Johnny and Chantal Rayner-Burt, along with my godson Hugo, in Italy—I am most grateful for the loyal support I have consistently received from you over the years. And, most important, I would like to pay tribute to my family. To my parents, Bob and Alyse, a child could not have had a better start in life than I got, thanks to you. The example set by you, Dad, of putting your family above all other concerns, and working every hour of the day to provide for them, was an outstanding one. And, Mum, the lesson you taught us, that learning is something to be treasured, and that with a sound education the world can be one’s oyster, is something that I hope, one day, every Kiwi kid will be inculcated with. I could not be prouder that after more than 30 years you are on the cusp of completing your own PhD. I would also like to send special greetings to my brother and sister, Shaan and Greg; my niece, Caitlin; and grandad, Ayers Robert Foster Snr, who will be watching this on the TV in Whangarei, along with Dulcie. And warm regards to my Aunty Eleanor Ashcroft, who will be tuned in, along with Vic Reid, in Rotorua.

I have been privileged to serve our country, both onshore and offshore, in the Foreign Service over the past 9 years. It was a real pleasure to work with some of the most capable and dedicated senior officials in this country’s public sector—ambassadors Hamish MacMaster, Rod Harris, Jonathan Austin, and Wendy Hinton, to name a few—as well as some of the absolutely first-rate colleagues and workmates, both Kiwis and locally engaged staff. I have also enjoyed a range of experiences overseas that few visitors to other countries get, including seeing, from a behind-the-scenes perspective, how a number of countries really operate. Of all the countries I worked in, none is as free as New Zealand. Some, such as Iran, would actually fall at the opposite end of any objective scale measuring corruption, transparency, and the rule of law. Thankfully, it is the people of New Zealand, not the State, who have a larger degree than almost anywhere else in the world of power over their own lives and the ability to decide their prospects for the future. This reminds me of a quote from the late, great Baroness Thatcher of our right “… to have the State as servant and not as master … on that freedom all our other freedoms depend.” This is just as true today as when the Iron Lady first said it. We should be rightly proud of the advances towards freedom that we have made, but there are areas where further work is needed, in my view, if we are to retain our place as a country where liberty and freedom of speech, of thought, of belief, and of action are cherished. The abolition of blasphemy as a criminal offence for which one can be imprisoned for up to a year is one example of such an area crying out for reform.

Of all the countries I spent time in, none is as clean, as green, and as endowed with such a pristine natural environment and spectacular scenic splendour as New Zealand. In demonstrating that economic growth and environmental values can go hand in hand, and showing that good science is essential to high-quality environmental decision-making, New Zealand is leading the way. I am glad that New Zealanders are able to enjoy our unique birthright and to access our special places—the beaches, rivers, lakes, and mountains for which our land is rightly renowned.

Of the other jurisdictions I have worked in, none is as well served by its public servants as ours. Across a range of departments, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Treasury, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment through to the Ministry of Defence, the security services, the police, and the Prime Minister’s department, I have worked in and for a State sector that has seen increasing levels of resource shifted to the front line from bureaucracy and administration, that is operating more efficiently than ever before, and that is carrying out this Government’s policies to achieve unprecedented positive results—results like the lowest crime rate in a generation or record numbers of elective surgeries for those who need them.

Of the developed economies I have visited, few are as well positioned as New Zealand to ride out the world’s current period of economic instability, and a lot of that is thanks to our excellent Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English. We are well positioned to take advantage of the opportunities offered by exporting to a rapidly growing Asian middle class, or by servicing the food security needs of the arid but prosperous Gulf States, or by hosting increasingly high-value tourists and students from abroad in our safe, tolerant, and welcoming nation. None of this is to say that we have all the answers here in our island home—quite the opposite, in fact. There is a lot we can learn from other successful smaller States, such as Singapore or the United Arab Emirates. And, of course, as a small trading nation we are utterly dependent on a stable, rules-based world order to ensure our own future prosperity. Our first woman Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley, tidily summed up this concept when she said that New Zealand needs the rest of the world a heck of a lot more than the rest of the world needs New Zealand. This sentiment certainly echoes my own experiences in the field.

The National Party was founded 77 years ago as a coalition between sectors that were diverse in origins but that had aligning interests and shared objectives. National’s founders were those in the productive sector, whether farmers or urban manufacturers. They were those in business, both employers and employees, professionals practising on their own account, and tradespeople. They were those hard-working mothers and fathers who aspired to a better life for their children and equal treatment for everyone, irrespective of colour, creed, or class. They were those who valued property rights for themselves and others, and who wanted a limited government that encouraged free enterprise and rewards for effort. National is still the bastion of equal opportunity and the rule of law. These timeless values are why the public has elected National to the Treasury benches for 40 of the past 60 years. Our party continues to govern in the interests of all New Zealanders, and that is why I am proud to call myself a National Party member.

I have come to this esteemed place to do more than simply occupy a seat. I have come to this House to support sound economic management, growth, and sensible public spending. I stand firmly against ruinously high borrowing, inefficient public services, and incentivising irresponsibility through unfettered welfare. I have come to this House to back the Prime Minister and this Government. I stand resolutely opposed to socialism and its overweening conceit that redistribution and governmental meddling in private enterprise can deliver positive outcomes for our people, for they cannot. In the words of Sir Winston Churchill, “for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

I have come to this House as a champion for trade, tourism, and closer linkages with other countries, and for the transformative effects that these can have through higher incomes and more employment. I repudiate xenophobia and protectionism, which damage our overseas relationships, our reputation, and our earnings. I have come to this House to advocate strongly for our capital city and for all the residents of Wellington Central and Hutt South. I have come to this House as a bluegreen. I want to see pragmatic protections for our stunning natural environment, balanced against the need to derive economic benefits, where appropriate, from our national resources. I have come to this House as a blue liberal and a defender of diversity, liberty, and equal treatment by the State for all of its citizens. I will be a trenchant enemy of any laws that seek to implement here in New Zealand the hideous apparatus of the police State. In the words of our national anthem, “May our mountains ever be freedom’s ramparts on the sea.”

I have come to this House as a proponent of the constitutional monarchy, which has served us so well for over 170 years. I will fiercely resist any measures that seek to weaken this essential pillar of our robust democracy. To paraphrase Alfred Lord Tennyson, I have come to this House “Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.” I look forward to working with you, Mr Speaker, and all likeminded members to achieve these objectives. Thank you.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Ko Whetūmataurau me Rākaumangamanga ngā maunga. Ko Karakatūwhero te awa me Tangaroa te moana. Ko Tutua me Rāwhiti ngā marae. Ko Ngāti Ruataupare me Ngāti Kuta ngā hapū. Ko Ngati Porou me Ngāpuhi ngā iwi. Ko Claudette Hauiti ahau. Ehara taku toa he takitahi, he toa takitini.

[The mountains are Whetūmataurau and Rākaumangamanga. The river is Karakatūwhero and the ocean is Tangaroa. The courtyards are Tutua and Rāwhiti. The subtribes are Ngāti Ruataupare and Ngāti Kuta. The tribes are Ngati Porou and Ngāpuhi, and I am Claudette Hauiti. My strength is not that of a single warrior but rather of many.]

I come not alone but accompanied by the many—those who have passed, those who have yet to breathe life on this earth, and those who are here with me today by thought and by presence. I acknowledge my whānau and friends who have travelled to Pōneke to be with me today. Ki āku whānau me ngā hoa, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To my family and friends, I salute you all.]

This afternoon I rise before the House full of gratitude to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, the National Party board, president Peter Goodfellow, and past presidents Michelle Boag and John Slater, without whose support I would not be here today.

I come to the House with all that I have: my whānau, my iwi, my people, my life’s experiences. I am Ngati Porou and Ngāpuhi by birth and by blood. I am explicitly Māori and unequivocally a New Zealander. I would like to acknowledge my whanaunga and colleagues the Hon Tau Henare and the Hon Hekia Parata. I would also like to mihi the Hon Tariana Turia, the Hon Pita Sharples, and co-leader of the Green Party Metiria Turei. To my Māori colleagues across the parties, tēnā koutou katoa.

I come to this House in all humility as a descendant of Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti, and although one of our most revered rangatira has passed from this world, it is with the greatest honour and humbleness that I can continue to carry the tribe’s name and to honour the Hon Parekura Horomia. E te rangatira, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

My views have been shaped by the many people who have touched my life. My mother, Josephine Lucus, and father, Jerry Teretiu Hauiti, left their rural roots of Moerewa and Te Araroa for better lives. In the late 1950s they migrated to Auckland along with 25,000 other Māori, chasing their dreams of getting a job, buying a house, and seeing their children get the best education possible. My parents lived in Māori boarding houses in Parnell, in Ponsonby, and then in Harding Street in Auckland City. Friday and Saturday nights they ballroom-danced at the Orange Hall and the Māori Community Centre and on Sundays they got politicised at Tātai Hono Anglican Church on Khyber Pass Road. On weekdays my parents worked at lolly factories, as machinists, on the wharf, at the freezing works, on the roads, and on the railways.

The more Māori migrated, the more they experienced socio-cultural upheaval—a loss of language, dislocation from papakāinga, disconnection from whānau. What we saw instead was a gravitation to alcohol and drugs, while some substituted traditional whānau for life with patched gangs. Sadly, we are still experiencing the fallout of that era, where manual mahi went from boom to bust, and lay-offs spread through our people like wild weeds, and we are now trying to unbundle the stranglehold of dispiritedness that comes with intergenerational unemployment and social welfare dependency. Today too many of our precious babies are dying, too many of our wāhine are being bashed, and our tāne are in jail.

It is education, employment, and building strong economic foundations that will help lift the spirits, the hearts, and the minds to break the shackles of dependency. With God-given strength my father turned his sights to education, where—he reinforced in us, his children—lay the answers to many of life’s challenges. A solid education would give you options. Good results would get you opportunities. An education would allow you independence, freedom to choose, and the ability to make wiser choices.

Options, opportunities, independence underpinned by perseverance, determination, personal responsibility—these are the attitudes I have inherited. There is a whakataukī: “Whāia te iti kahurangi ki te tuohu koe me he maunga teitei”—strive for the highest peak, and, if you must bow, let it be to the loftiest mountain. To me, this means having a dream and following it, backing yourself as a winner.

As a business owner working in the commercially aggressive television broadcast industry, it demanded innovation, strategic acuity, and ingenuity. I am proud to say that my company was part of the $10 billion Māori contribution to New Zealand’s GDP. In fact, small to medium sized enterprises are the backbone of the New Zealand economy. Small companies like the very successful start-up operation Kapu Tī Productions, run by Brent Job-Iremonger and Michelle Lee, are an example of great product—simple, smart, durable. Brent, Michelle, and Kapu Tī Productions are Kiwi know-how, Māori can-do, New Zealand at work.

I come to Parliament rich in knowledge and wealthy in experiences, working for, living with, learning from, and loving a diverse range of people. With gratitude I acknowledge my colleague Louisa Wall, Labour MP for Manurewa, for introducing the marriage equality bill to the House. Ki a koe e te tuahine. Tēnā koe. And to all of those who voted in favour, I thank you. The fundamental principle of equality is one law for all.

To the takatāpui community, my friends, my queer family Rangitūnoa Black and Mihirāwhiti Schranke, who taught me that the strength in being takatāpui is in knowing you are Māori, and Michael Gullery, whose gentle nurturing of minds reinforces our valued place in Aotearoa New Zealand and is worthy of great celebration—you are my mentors.

I would like to take this moment to remember some of our whānau who have departed this world: Rangi Chadwick, Bossie Mana, Jason Rāmeka—loyal, trusted friends, all talented young men steeped in Te Reo me ngā tikanga—and Kuini Mihaere, a gifted and generous artist. Haere, haere, haere atu rā.

Thanks to the takatāpui community, I bring to this House and my Government the strength of courage to overcome adversity, tolerance in the face of rejection, acceptance where there is love, and an ability to recognise diversity as being the fabric that makes up this young, beautiful nation. If we go forward as a nation, united in our diversity, then we do so with purpose and with passion. We may not agree with one another’s policies, processes, or procedures. We are not a homogenous people, but I respect the right of anyone to voice their opinion, and I welcome the opportunity to debate robustly.

The ability to challenge with vigour, with passion, and with authenticity, all the while preserving the integrity of your opposition, is what I learnt from my dear friend and colleague Willie Jackson—shrewd, witty, astute. I count myself fortunate to have worked with one of the sharpest political commentators in New Zealand.

My broadcasting career was launched through the generosity of Dame June Jackson, Willie’s mum. If not for her funding of my very first television programme for TV3, my career may very well have floundered. In fact, Dame June Jackson assisted in the rehabilitation of some of the country’s most notorious criminals. She did it because she felt compelled, she did it because no one else would, she did it because they were whānau.

Strong whānau breeds strong communities, and, for me, my Ngāpuhi cousins have given to me unconditional love. My Nathan, Haunui, and Kōmene cousins showed me the beauty of eeling, the joy in creek swimming, and the thrill of rat shooting at the Moerewa tip. To my Ngati Porou girl cousins Jodi Īhaka, Ērana Reedy, Nērina Howe, and Kath Ākuhata-Brown, for your grown-up advice on business and on how to craft great stories, I thank you.

When asked “Why are you here?”, I think of my sisters, Rosina and Loraine, and my brother, Michael, whose honesty, hard work, and integrity inspire me to contribute positively to this growing nation. When asked “Why are you here?”, I think of my mum, my father, my stepfather, Pita Mōrunga—a generation of Māori who came to town for a better life so that we, the children, could prosper. I do not want their sacrifices to count for nothing.

When asked “What do you have to offer?”, I say I can offer a strong sense of loyalty to my Prime Minister, my colleagues, and my Government. When asked “What do you wish to achieve?”, I say that I wish to continue the legacy left by my father to work hard, to build a strong economic future, where business innovation thrives and ingenuity is celebrated and encouraged. When asked “What do you wish to achieve?”, I say that I wish to continue building tolerance and compassion, and to celebrate diversity as an integral part of this nation.

To my beautiful wife, Nadine, for 25 years you have given me unreserved love and three beautiful tamariki. To Kiamana, your perseverance is an inspiration to me. Te Ua, your individuality is something to be cherished. And to our darling, beautiful little Manawa, you are the centre of our universe. Nō reira, nāku te rourou, nāu te rourou ka ora ai te iwi.

[With your basket and my basket the people will live.]

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill

First Reading

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I move, That the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. No one is a fan of retrospective legislation, least of all, I suspect, the local MP who is placed in an invidious position when asked to sponsor such a bill. However, in some situations, validating legislation is, unfortunately, required, as we have seen recently with the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. This legislation is understandably unpalatable, but I am of the view that in the case of the Kaipara District Council it is also required. Legislation of this nature is a last resort and reflective of failures by those entrusted by ratepayers to serve their district.

In May 2012 major concerns over financial governance and community pressures on the council culminated in a ministerial review of the council. The review team was appointed to inquire into the financial and governance challenges facing the council. A damning report resulted in a request from elected members of the council asking the Minister of Local Government to appoint commissioners, which did occur in September 2012.

In addressing a range of irregularities the commissioners have asked for Parliament’s help. As the local MP I have agreed to assist, as I think in these particular circumstances this bill is the only viable and practical way to deal with a history of errors made by the council. I hope that ratepayers all across the Kaipara accept that addressing these matters is necessary to bring clarity and certainty—something that is in the best interests of all, moving through and beyond a very sad and sorry error of governance in the history of this fine district. I do, however, want to make something quite clear. This bill does not absolve those responsible for these errors, and nor would I support it if it did. Although this bill is important to remedy the irregularities, I want to assure the House and all ratepayers of this district that accountability is just as important, in rebuilding the Kaipara, as any part of this process.

Alongside this bill the Office of the Auditor-General is conducting an inquiry into the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme, the genesis of most of the debt blowout in this council. There is also an independent inquiry into the council’s auditors. The commissioners are carrying out their own inquiry into council decisions and activities, including the actions of former chief executive officer Jack McKerchar.

But turning to the specifics of the bill, it seeks to correct a number of irregularities and errors, mostly to do with rating by the Kaipara District Council. These procedural and substantive irregularities go back many years. There has been a substantial review undertaken, including engagement with the community, over the scope and extent of rating irregularities. Most of the rates that this bill attends to have been paid. Ratepayers have received services for which they were set, but none the less these need to be validated once and for all, so that the Kaipara can move on. The bill proposes to validate the rates set and assessed by the council from 2006 to 2013, and any penalties added to those rates, to treat all rate payments received by the council as having been lawfully paid, and to authorise the council to recover any part of rates and penalties for those years that remain unpaid. The specific rates dealt with within the bill include a forest owners’ road impact rate, the Mangawhai uniform targeted rate, the Mangawhai uniform annual charge, the waste-water disposal rate, and the water supply rates for Maungatūroto and Station Village.

The bill also addresses actions or omissions related to the continuation of the council’s 2006 development contributions policy, the late adoption of its 2011-12 annual report and its 2012-22 long-term plan, and finally the conduct of the council’s special consultative procedure for the 2012-22 long-term plan.

This bill seeks to validate the rates that were actually set and then assessed against each property. It does this so that any ratepayers who are up to date with their rates payments are not required to make additional payments as a result of the local bill being passed into law. Some of the rates to be validated were set on the basis that was not provided for in the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. There were also a number of discrepancies that reflect poor practice, with no attention to detail to ensure that rates resolutions were consistent with the funding impact statement. Importantly, these rates could have been lawfully struck if the council had simply ensured that the two documents were consistent. Similarly, shortcomings exist and the same principle applies to all of the irregular rates that the council is seeking to validate through the bill.

In short, all of them could have been struck in a way that was consistent with, and provided for, in the Local Government (Rating) Act. That would have resulted in the same amounts being invoiced as occurred when it got this process wrong. That said, these sorts of errors are totally unacceptable and are avoidable. But, sadly, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, as it stood at the time of this mismanagement, incompetence, carelessness, and dysfunctional governance, falls short of triggering the ability for the Government to intervene, and bad practice does and has occurred. Ratepayers should be able to have confidence in their elected councillors to carry out their core functions, but in this case the ratepayers in the Kaipara have been woefully let down and are rightfully upset, angry, and frustrated. The council accepts that it made mistakes. It is now asking for this Parliament’s help to correct the situation.

I have received criticism from some people who are opposed to my decision to bring this bill to Parliament, mostly from members of the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association. I have received angry letters, emails, and phone calls. I have attended meetings of irate ratepayers. I have received political threats. I have even received death threats. I accept and understand why people are angry at what their council has done, but the problems must be addressed. None of these threats will deter me from exercising my judgment, as best as I can, in the interests of all constituents in this district. Constituents should expect this of their MP, not expect their MP to steer away from dealing with the tough issues and to bow to threats, however justified some people may feel in voicing them. Although the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association members acknowledge that this bill is required to fix up these irregularities, they want it done their way. I encourage them to explain to the select committee what their way is.

Like so many in the Kaipara, people are angry at the council’s handling of the Mangawhai waste-water scheme that has burdened this district with enormous debt. It is important to note from the outset that the $30 million decision to expand the sewerage scheme is not subject to this bill. In 1999 the council estimated the cost of the Mangawhai waste-water scheme at $11 million. In 2003 it was estimated at $17 million. By March 2006 it was $35.6 million. In October 2006 the council approved a new contract for $58 million. The final actual cost was $62 million.

Although there have been some changes in the scope of the scheme from what was envisaged in 1999, the question is how the council got this so wrong. The Office of the Auditor-General is investigating this and whether any individual or organisation is culpable. It would be wrong of me to comment further while this inquiry is under way, but I await with great interest the outcomes of this inquiry, including, it must be said, the role of the Auditor-General’s own office and that of Audit New Zealand as the council auditor. The public and the residents of Kaipara depend on Audit New Zealand, as the council’s auditor, ensuring compliance of their local authority with the law, their standards of accounting, and the necessary probity and financial prudence. Annual audits of public bodies are required for very good reasons.

There are some serious questions that must be answered here. How could the cost of the scheme go from $11 million to $62 million with such limited consultation with its ratepayers, yet the council still got clean audits? How could Audit New Zealand sign off on the long term council community plan when there were major inconsistencies between the financial projections in the plan and the funding arrangements being put in place to finance the project? How could Audit New Zealand also sign off on the long-term council community plan that relied heavily on the collection of development contributions, when there were no development contribution policies in the plan? Similarly, the long-term council community plan was signed off, when the rates needed to fund the Mangawhai waste-water scheme were not even included in the funding impact statement that is critical to the council being able to set the rate.

How can it be that the council can have such deep-seated and longstanding non-compliance and other fundamental financial mismanagement issues and still get clean audits year after year, when people in that district were saying that there were problems? Why were none of the growing financial performance issues of the Kaipara District Council noted in successive audit reports? Have the auditors failed the ratepayers of Kaipara? If so, that failure must be addressed. It must never happen again, and accountability for failure must be sheeted home.

The Kaipara has been caught in a situation where it needs Parliament’s help, and the expeditious processing of this bill is important for the Kaipara to move on. I ask that the Local Government and Environment Committee award this bill priority. I commend it to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I rise to present a view on this bill, the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill, and to say that the view of the Labour Party is that this ought to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, as recommended by the sponsor of the bill, Mike Sabin. Although we will support it going to that select committee, there are concerns and reservations that have been raised on this side of the House and that we will continue to discuss.

Prior to the bill being introduced tonight, I have had the opportunity, along with my colleagues who will speak tonight, to meet with the commissioners—in particular, the chair, John Robertson, who is with us tonight—and we have met with Bruce Rogan, the chair of the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association, and its legal representative.

Although we accept on the surface that the recommendation for this bill is that there is no other way, and that this has been the last resort that we present to this House for consideration, it nevertheless raises serious questions about why this has been allowed to get to where it is. I think members of the House on the other side recognise that last year the Hon Annette King, who was the Labour spokesperson on local government, raised at that point the need for the Government to act quickly. We criticised the Government for not acting quickly. I was not aware of the details of the situation, but certainly now I see why the Hon Annette King was very critical of the lack of action by the Minister of Local Government at that particular time.

I think, as outlined by the sponsor of the bill, these issues are very serious. It is mind-boggling why a debt that started out so small was able to balloon into a situation where it is in the vicinity of $80 million. There are questions that we would want the select committee to, hopefully, have the ability to consider. Although on the surface of it, yes, you have got more than 10,000 ratepayers who continue to pay their rates and who continue to put faith in the decisions that have been made, there is certainly another group who rightly, I believe, have raised their concerns and want to hold somebody other than themselves responsible. The sad fact of the matter is that in the meantime they continue to receive the services for the facilities that the Kaipara District Council has produced.

It concerns me also that this council, and those involved in the decision making of the council, made decisions about its rates and made decisions about the Mangawhai waste-water system without consultation. It boggles the mind to believe that the debt almost doubled and there was no consultation with the community, which inevitably ends up paying for it.

So I am quite pleased to see that in the latter part of the bill, Subpart 3, “Other matters”, is clause 14, “Council’s right to bring proceedings unaffected”, because I think there are issues where the resident ratepayers have taken this to court asking for judicial review. I note that that is within their rights. So I think the select committee ought to be looking at that. There is the auditor’s report, which has yet to be made public. The select committee also needs to consider that.

But you have got to ask whether Kaipara District Council was asleep at the wheel when these decisions were made. Why did the councillors place so much faith in the chief executive officer and in the officials at that particular time? Why did they place so much faith in consultants—consultants who, I have to say, provided specification for the project and then ended up contracting themselves for the delivery of it. I am keen to know who those contractors are and who the right-wingers were who clapped from the sidelines, lauding how wonderful the council was and the fact that the rates were low, at 1 percent, I am told, with no thought for long-term projections in terms of how it was going to fund some of these long term. And how was it that the size of the Mangawhai scheme doubled in debt without the consultation of the very people who, sure, benefit from it, but also have to pay for it?

So there is a range of questions that I am not sure whether the select committee will be able to deal with, but certainly they are questions worth asking, and worth asking officials. I understand that the Government is supporting this bill, and so I think that the committee ought to take every opportunity to be asking that the officials do take an investigation into this matter.

The fact that with this bill the rights of the council will remain to proceed in the prosecution of anyone related to this, “to bring any proceedings against any person arising out of, or in connection with, any actions or omissions validated by this Act.”—I think it is important that people can feel confident. But, more important, I would hope that the opportunity is taken up by every resident and ratepayer of the Kaipara District Council to raise their concerns, to raise these matters, because we here in Wellington may not have the full details, and certainly officials may not have the full details, in terms of what has occurred. I would like to hear from every resident ratepayer what the issues are that they now face.

Irrespective of that, I think the big question has to be asked—and we have dealt with this and tried to discuss this—of who pays. Who ultimately pays? I think there are concerns around the banks that provided the loan to the Kaipara District Council, and questions now have to be asked. Should the legal entities have that ability to lend money to district councils without proper due process of the ability of the councils to repay it, and without proper due process to ensure that the process as outlined by the Local Government Act and the relevant legislation is being followed? These questions have arisen because of this.

You know, I do not want to raise the names that people have given me of people who might be at fault, but the reality is that this is such an ugly mess that we have got to clean this up. But I would hope that in cleaning this up we do look for the lessons to be learnt and that we do look for ways of pursuing those who may have been responsible for this decision. OK, if it is incompetence, then let us say that it is incompetence, but those people who are incompetent need to own up. They need to face the Kaipara District Council resident ratepayers.

So although we would like to see this bill go through to the select committee, thereby permitting the resident ratepayers of the Kaipara District Council district to have a say on this, we have got some serious concerns. We are raising them for consideration, and I hope that the committee takes every opportunity to seek them out.

One of the appalling things, I think, is that there were no red flags by Audit New Zealand as to why—it never made any sounds. And if it did, who did it make them to? Why did the council not pick up on that? This is quite sad because I know that, on the whole, councils do a wonderful job. They are elected by their constituency to do work, and, by and large, constituencies hold councils and their mayors to account. But, in this situation, I fear that that did not take place. I am quite sad about that because this is now the reason why we sit here around this table trying to decide how we ensure that the work goes on, and how we ensure that that council continues to implement and deliver the necessary outcomes for its local communities.

I look forward to this bill being debated in the Local Government and Environment Committee and to that select committee giving it sincere and serious consideration, and I look forward to hearing more from the residents and ratepayers. I want to thank the commissioners. I know they have sort of been the meat in the sandwich here; they have been tasked with the job. But I have to again say that this is the reason why the Hon Annette King pointed the finger at this Government and said: “Why aren’t you guys acting? You did the same with ECan in Canterbury.” Thank you very much for the opportunity.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I rise to speak to the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill as well. I would like to thank MP Mike Sabin for bringing this to the House. As we have heard from the member who has just sat down, Su’a William Sio, this is a mess. It is a really difficult situation. I think Mike has worked through this bill intelligently and professionally, and I do appreciate the work that he has done.

This is not the sort of bill that MPs like to work on, but validation bills do, on some occasions, have a purpose. They do come to this House, because sometimes they are the best way forward for councils and communities when irregularities of process have happened. I would just like to draw attention to the previous member’s speech, which covered a lot of issues around this bill, but a lot of those issues are out of scope. This bill deals only with the irregularities around ratepaying.

The Kaipara District Council is in a difficult situation, but it does need to continue to fulfil its local government roles. It needs to be able to deliver the services for the 12,000 constituents who have continued to pay their rates, and it needs to allow the commissioners to get on with the job of getting the council operating efficiently and effectively and getting it ready for democracy and voting in 2015. We have been told that this is about irregularities in rates that the council is seeking to validate and that could have been struck correctly. They could have been struck correctly under the Local Government (Rating) Act and at the same amount of money as invoiced. We have been told that these irregularities are more about poor attention to detail and poor process than about something that is illegal or unfair.

Currently, 9 percent of the ratepayers have not paid any rates in the current year, and, because of the past irregularities, the commissioners are not able to enforce their payments. So that current level of arrears is having an adverse effect on the other 91 percent of people, who have paid their rates. To minimise the financial impact of that high level of rate arrears, the commissioners have instructed staff to operate within the current level of debt, and, to achieve that end, services and capital works funds that normally would have been spent have been cut by $3 million, which in the long term is detrimental to the community. These issues need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved quickly, because the longer the rates are not paid, the more difficult it is to provide the services for those ratepayers who have paid. Further, non-payment of rates will also result in higher interest costs, directly adding unnecessary and unaffordable costs to all of the district ratepayers.

In summary, this bill will support the 12,000 law-abiding citizens in Kaipara and bring certainty and closure to a number of irregularities over the past 7 years. The Kaipara District Council acknowledges that number of irregularities and that they occurred in the way that the council set rates, and this bill is about fixing that. The bill will mean that ratepayers will be liable for the rates that they were invoiced for, but no one will pay more rates than they were historically invoiced for.

As well as the rating irregularities, the council presided over the controversial Mangawhai sewerage scheme at an increased amount of debt, and that is what the previous speaker has just been talking about. This bill does not stop proper scrutiny of these decisions, nor does it absolve anybody of responsibility or culpability.

The bill does not impinge on any of the several inquiries that are under way. There is one by the Office of the Auditor-General into the EcoCare sewerage scheme. It does not impinge on the independent inquiry into the auditor, and it does not impinge on the commissioner’s inquiry into matters aside from the above, including actions of the former chief executive officer. This bill is about the fixing of irregularities, and does not affect the scope of other issues that can be dealt with. I commend this bill to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): So what is this bill, the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill, about? The bill seeks to address illegalities in the setting of rates by the Kaipara District Council. The context for this is that the Kaipara District Council entered into loans to pay for a waste-water treatment plant at Mangawhai, which was worth substantially less than what was paid for it. In doing that, the Kaipara District Council incurred an $80 million debt for its ratepayers, and the consequence of that is that the ratepayers of Kaipara District Council, and particularly the ratepayers of Mangawhai, have been saddled with an unsupportable debt. The upshot for everyone here, who am I sure pays their rates bill every month or every quarter, is that ratepayers in Mangawhai, who were paying, say, $2,000 a year for their rates, are now paying up to $6,000 a year for their rates. That is the impact on the ratepayers of Mangawhai. Is it any wonder that they are ropeable about this situation?

What this bill does, this validation bill, is set out to regularise, to validate, decisions that were made by the Kaipara District Council that, I would submit, based on the speech of the member sponsoring this bill, Mike Sabin, were variously illegal, mismanaged, incompetent, and negligent, if not corrupt. It should not surprise this House that the people of Mangawhai are ropeable about this situation. So what is to be done? The previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, talked about how difficult it is for the commissioners and how difficult it is for the current Kaipara District Council.

I think that the underlying sense in much of this debate is that someone has to pay this debt. If it is not going to be the people of Mangawhai and the people of Kaipara District Council, is it to be the rest of the taxpayers in New Zealand? Is that what should happen? I think most people would say: “Well, I’m not sure that the rest of the taxpayers in New Zealand should be bailing out the people of Kaipara because the elected councillors and officials of Kaipara District Council made a series of appalling decisions on their behalf.”

The Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association has carried out a rates strike. That is what has brought this bill to the House. That is why the commissioners are unable to go about their business and achieve their task of sorting the finances out and getting the council back on track. The reason that the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association opposes this bill, the reason it does not want to see a validation, is that that will completely undermine any leverage it has in trying to engineer another kind of solution. What would it like to see? It would like to see a deal brokered that involved extracting payment from the auditors, Audit New Zealand, as Mike Sabin was saying, which, inexplicably, repeatedly signed off the most bizarre decisions and financial commitments, and claims made against the former councillors and against the chief executive and staff of the council.

It is the view of the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association that its leverage to get some kind of burden-sharing solution will be undermined by this validation bill, and I think that is a reasonable position to take. I think it is incumbent on this House and on the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider from a public policy sense what a fair and reasonable solution to this problem is, regardless of whether, as Nicky Wagner just told the House, those matters are outside the scope of this bill. This bill has been brought to the House by the commissioners so that they can do the job they were tasked to do by the Government, but I think there is a moral obligation on the House to consider what a fair, ethical, and enduring solution is for the people of Kaipara district, and particularly the people of Mangawhai.

I question whether or not it is fair that this solution should proceed before the Auditor-General has reported and before the High Court action has been allowed to run its course. I think those are reasonable questions to ask. So there are many questions surrounding this bill. Labour supports the bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but we do so with reservations.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Eighteen pages of this 26-page local bill, the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill, recite the numerous things that the Kaipara District Council did wrong in setting and assessing rates in 6 years from 2006-07 to 2011-12. The bill describes the errors as irregularities. Kaipara residents, and in particular those in Mangawhai, would describe the succession of decisions that the district council made since 2006—decisions that breached the Local Government Act 2002 and breached the rating legislation—in far stronger terms, as illegalities rather than irregularities.

It is the Mangawhai waste-water scheme that is the source of much of the problems that this bill seeks to fix, and that scheme has a very bad smell indeed. It cost more than $62 million, far more than the council had originally proposed to spend, and far more than ratepayers were consulted on in terms of the size of the loans that the council raised to help pay for the scheme. So it is certainly an understatement to say that there are very many serious questions around how the whole waste-water scheme was managed. As other speakers have noted, the Office of the Auditor-General has been inquiring into the council’s management—or should it be mismanagement—of that scheme since March 2012 and has yet to report. That report will be read with a great deal of interest, and, as the bill’s promoter, Mike Sabin, has noted, there are also a number of questions around the role of the Office of the Auditor-General and its oversight of the Kaipara District Council.

I have been very pleased to receive a lot of correspondence and emails from Kaipara residents, including members of the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association explaining why they have filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court to seek a declaration that the Kaipara District Council entered into the loans illegally and without adequate consultation and therefore that the rates demands that it made were invalid because of this. My understanding is that the association and Mangawhai ratepayers are not opposed to validating legislation per se, but they want it to be part of a much wider package, where the lender banks and not just ratepayers are asked to help repay the council’s debts.

Nicky Wagner: It’s not part of the bill.

EUGENIE SAGE: It may not be part of the bill, as Nicky Wagner has noted, but it is also about what Phil Twyford was talking about—a fair and reasonable solution.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that there were many Kaipara residents who sought to raise a red flag and challenge what the council was doing, more than 6 years ago. They thought to alert the appropriate authorities to engage and to act on what residents believed was poor and potentially illegal decision-making and mismanagement by the council. So it is hugely frustrating for them that we now have this validating bill acting retrospectively and that they also have the cost of that flawed decision-making in terms of the very large increase in rates that they are now faced with.

The Green Party has very carefully considered its position on this bill, particularly because it is retrospective legislation, and we have looked at it partly in terms of where the balance of fairness is. On the one hand we have got the Kaipara ratepayers, especially those in Mangawhai, who are being asked to repay the loans, which were improperly entered into and were much larger than were consulted on, and are being asked to pay substantially increased rates because of that. Then on the other hand we have the many ratepayers in Kaipara who continue to pay their rates to the council, and we have the fact that the council continues to deliver the services that one would normally expect of a council.

So the Green Party will support this bill being referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, so that Parliament can hear directly from Kaipara residents. We think that this is particularly important because the Minister of Local Government, Chris Tremain, has declined an invitation to meet with residents to discuss this whole issue. As the Northern Advocate noted in March this year, the Minister has sidestepped the ratepayers’ stoush. It is really disappointing that the Minister is doing this sidestep when in so many other instances the Government has sought to intervene and override councils’ decision-making authority.

We think that the legislation is needed to put the council’s finances on a viable footing, but we have a number of questions, and we look forward to hearing at the select committee from residents as to whether this bill should be supported further. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is normally a call to another party, but I will give it to Mark Mitchell. He is the only one seeking the call.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I wish I could say it is a pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill, but I am very pleased to stand in support of my colleague Mike Sabin. It is obvious that there have been fundamental failures and mistakes made in the management of both the finances and the projects of the Kaipara District Council. This has been exacerbated by what appears to be an utter failure by the auditors to do their job properly. It is now the job of the Government to try to reach the best solution for what is a very bad situation.

It would be much easier for Mike Sabin to walk away from the sponsorship of this bill, but he is doing the right thing for the right reasons, and that is to allow forward momentum to begin through a thorough public consultation process, and the vehicle to do that will be the Local Government and Environment Committee. If he does not do this, then the clear and present danger is that there is no forward movement towards a resolution. Without forward movement of some sort, all that will be created is more frustration and uncertainty for those whom it directly affects.

There are many different interest groups, external commentators, and local government experts who have expressed views and opinions, and they will all have a contribution to make. However, the people who really need to be listened to are the Kaipara ratepayers, and up until this time many have felt that there has been no real opportunity to be heard or consulted with properly. So I feel strongly that the select committee will provide a very good platform for ratepayers to make their submissions and to be heard. The select committee chair, Nicky Wagner, has agreed that the committee will sit in Kaipara to ensure that people have easy access for submissions.

Let me make it clear that the coming consultation will provide clarity for both the committee and the community as to whether this is the right path to take or whether there is another option or options available. The Kaipara community must be given the opportunity to present their own proposals and their own solutions to this situation.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Minister Tremain and the work that is currently being undertaken to strengthen local government governance and accountability so that something like this does not happen again. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this somewhat unfortunate situation with the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. It is with a somewhat heavy heart that I have to stand and talk on this particular matter. Having had 9 years in local government, it is most concerning when you are faced with a situation like this, where a relatively small council—of the 78 councils in New Zealand—has really, really mucked it up badly. It is most unfortunate because, at the end of the day, we all suffer. New Zealanders, as a result of this, suffer, whether we be ratepayers, whether we be taxpayers, or whether we be simply residents or bystanders. At the end of the day, we all, as a people of New Zealand, suffer from an incident like this. It is unfortunate.

I am sitting here looking at a whole range of papers that I have received, and these are just a few of them, from all sorts of sources in the Kaipara district—from residents, from the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association people, from advisers to the residents, from the commissioners of the Kaipara district themselves, who have come to see me to discuss the matter, and from other informed parties, and everyone agrees that this is a real mess.

It was a mess that evolved over a period of 4 or 5 years, when the Mangawhai community required an upgrade to its sewerage system. It was necessary, and when we talk about this particular scheme, we could equally talk about schemes that could occur anywhere else in the country, because many, many communities around New Zealand are requiring an upgrade of their sewerage systems, many of which are well behind requirements of a First World country. This particular community found itself in that situation. Its council, working through the executive of the council, selected the consultants whom it chose to go ahead with the scheme. Obviously, there has been a level of professional advice, professional input, determinations by the council, and determinations by expert professional consultants and contractors, and it is most unfortunate that much of it, at the end of the day, has been very, very poor information that the council has received. As a result, the scheme has blown out to something like $70 million or $80 million for a relatively small community. You feel very sorry for all the ratepayers of that community of Mangawhai, who have ended up, in a sense, having to carry the can for some very bad decisions that have been made over a number of years.

Mr Sabin, the local MP, has brought this local bill to the House to try to validate those wrongful decisions that were made and those errors that were made. I can understand his need to do that, and we, as New Zealand First, can understand his need to do that, because, at the end of the day, somehow this has got to be sorted. But on the other hand we certainly also have a great deal of sympathy with the residents, who want to have their day in court, and who want to have their opportunity to take this before the court to have it properly vetted in terms of all the information, have it analysed, and have it properly scrutinised under the true light of day.

So we will be allowing this and supporting this to go through to the Local Government and Environment Committee for hearings. We will encourage many people to make submissions on this. We will encourage them to come forward and give their views on it. But, at the end of the day, we still do thoroughly support the residents also having their day in court and being able to have the opportunity, through the court system, to actually go after some of the people who were responsible for this. In particular, I would say, in my experience of local government, that there will be some professionals involved in this who should certainly be accountable for their actions, because they have very, very badly informed the council there. They have provided information that has blown out by tens of millions of dollars, and, at the end of the day, somebody should be accountable for this. So it is with a heavy heart that we will support this through to the select committee, but we certainly will be scrutinising this very, very closely.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It is, as others have said, not exactly a pleasure to get up and speak to this Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill, but I do so. I want to acknowledge John Robertson, who is in the House tonight, as a former member of Parliament who is the chair of the commissioners in Kaipara at the moment, and I acknowledge his work.

First of all, though, I want to begin with a tribute to Mike Sabin. I think I agreed with every single word in his speech. It was a very strong speech. If there are members of the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association watching this parliamentary session tonight and they are people who have been annoyed with Mike Sabin for bringing this legislation to the House, can I just say to them that he has done exactly the right thing. He has taken the right course of action. He has brought it here and spoken very strongly about what he sees to be the injustices and the inadequacies that are the precursor to this bill arriving in the House. So I want to commend him for that speech and for bringing this to the House, because it is a difficult thing to do.

Most of us, I think—but I will just speak for myself—have a pathological aversion to validating legislation—a pathological aversion to it. For this Parliament to be used to make an illegality legal is an abuse of this House. For this House to be asked to turn the incompetence, the illegal practice, the mismanagement, and, perhaps, malevolence on the part of any local council—not just this one—into fact or legal fact, when it in fact becomes a legal fiction, is an abuse of this House.

In February of this year we heard from Damien O’Connor, when he was in a similar position to Mike Sabin. The Tasman District Council had asked him, as the local member for most of the area of the council’s catchment, to bring a validation bill to the House. Again, I spoke strongly about how undesirable this is, and in that situation, in particular, I railed against the former chief executive officer, who really bullied the ratepayers in that situation—the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay ratepayers—who did not want to pay for something that they were not seeing any benefits from, by saying: “Well, you haven’t got enough money to contest this. We’ll take it to Parliament, and Parliament will fix it for us.”

Well, can I just warn every single local authority in the country that two of these in 6 months is two too many, and that that will provoke a reaction, either in this Government or a future one, that will take away the ability of local governments where they are incompetent. Mergers and amalgamations might be made forcibly if the local bodies, their officers, their officials, and their honorary officials or elected officials are incompetent to perform the task.

I think it is not good enough that ratepayers in New Zealand, who should be allowed to have a say about how their rates are used, are forced into this kind of situation by what I think is incompetence, rather than malevolence, in this situation. However, such local authorities need to be brought to account, and we need to know that those who guard the guards—in other words, Audit New Zealand, which guards the guardians of taxpayers’ money—are also brought to account, because that is something this Parliament can do.

So the Labour Party is supporting this legislation in its first reading, but I have to say—and I cannot address Mr Robertson personally while he is sitting in the House—to the commissioners, who have asked us to support this bill, that our support is only in its first reading, because if there is another way through this mess that addresses the wrongs that illegal actions have brought upon the residents and ratepayers of Mangawhai, then let us find it, and let us find it without having to make an illegal action legal. Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise with pleasure to speak to the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. Let me start with an understatement: the Kaipara District Council has had a very troubled few years. It is an area that comes through into my area. It is from Mangawhai in the north, and many of my people—I think around 3,000 of them—who live on the North Shore actually own properties in that area, in the Mangawhai area. There are about 14,000 ratepayers in the district, and many of them are very, very unhappy at the way things have turned out so far. Accountability, as many speakers who have talked on this bill before me have said, is vitally important. This bill does not let anybody off the hook. Audit New Zealand standards need scrutiny. As others have said, it passed year after year after year with a clean audit a piece of work that really did not deserve to be passed. What was it thinking? There are questions on this that need answering. The sewerage scheme was originally costed at $11 million in 1999, by October 2006 it was up to $58 million, and $62 million, with limited consultation, was the ultimate outcome. It is the reason why we have Resource Management Act reforms. Kaipara District Council remains the absolute bottom standard of what councils that run amok, without proper consultation with their ratepayers, can achieve and can drag their ratepayers into.

This is a piece of legislation that is absolutely necessary, in the same way as the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill is as well. Our colleagues on the other side of the House have referred to that already. Damien O’Connor—as Mike Sabin has done—has taken the responsible view of a local member, and has been forced to take that further. The Local Government and Environment Committee is where people who have done wrong by their ratepayers will be held to account. Let us look at what would happen if this particular piece of legislation were not passed. What are the options? Without validating legislation, the council would need to refund all of the rates that were set incorrectly and set new rates to recover the money—what would that cost, and who would have to pay—work its way through a complex process of resetting rates for each year since 2006, which, again, would be a ridiculous exercise and enormously expensive, or leave the status of the rates uncertain and open to legal challenge. Those are the three options, without this bill. Sensible people would acknowledge that this piece of legislation needs to go through.

This bill will be heard by the Local Government and Environment Committee, as our chair, Nicky Wagner, indicated earlier—the same select committee that has had to hear the Tasman District Council issues. As a person who just sat down on the other side of the House indicated, two in as many months is a ridiculous situation and it should not happen. It should not be allowed to happen. Once again, the broader picture that this Government takes is that the Resource Management Act reforms are absolutely essential because of these kinds of problems that emerge. This bill will be heard in the select committee that I sit on. We will go to the Kaipara, to make it as easy as possible for people to make their views known. I can assure you that submitters will be heard and questions will be asked, and people will be very thoroughly questioned as to what the options are.

The Kaipara District Council has created an ugly mess. There are many words that have been used around this: we have got “mismanagement”, we have got “incompetence”, we have got “dysfunctional”, and even from members on the other side we heard “corrupt”, which is rich coming from them. When we look at what is happening with this piece of legislation, which needs to be examined, we need to hold people accountable for this mismanagement and incompetence. We need to find a way through this dysfunctional mess, for the sake of the ratepayers. There are some 12,000 law-abiding citizens in Kaipara, and they need to know with some certainty that this is going to be resolved. We need to help them through that process, and the select committee, the engine room, will make sure that that happens. I commend my colleague Mike Sabin, who has had to put in a lot of hard work to find a solution that just might be workable through this absolute muddle. It is complex. This is a problem not of his making. I commend the local member, Mike Sabin, and I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): In general, in line with the theme of the evening, I think, I reiterate that the Greens are supporting this Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill, but we do so reluctantly, and, at this stage, we are committing only to support it to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is primarily because we believe that it is important that the people of Mangawhai, and of the Kaipara more generally, have an opportunity and a forum to come to, to say their piece and to get some answers, which have been, sadly, lacking to date. I have been slightly concerned to hear some comments about the scope of the bill. I would hope that the attitude of the committee is to be very open, inviting, and inclusive of submitters, and is not to be overly restrictive or to endeavour to limit the very reasonable conversation that needs to take place around this bill.

In line with one or two others, I would also have to comment on the member who is presenting this bill, Mike Sabin. It is a local bill; not a member’s bill. Although there is a long list of reasons one might choose from to be critical of Mr Sabin, I think this bill is not one of them. I think he is fulfilling his duty as the local member to bring this bill to the House. Like other members, I have seen a letter from the chair of the commissioners. It is a useful document. There is a line in it that I particularly like, because I like understatement. It says: “Since 2006 the Kaipara District Council made a succession of decisions that failed to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Local Government Act.” That is a wonderful piece of understatement there. What, in fact, has happened, of course, is that the council has acted illegally—and, I would argue, immorally—and has left a significant mess and considerable financial and other burdens on the ratepayers and residents in that place.

The point has also been made tonight—and, indeed, it is in this letter from the chair of the commissioners—that all the irregular rating decisions made by the council could have been made in a perfectly legal and legitimate way that would have resulted in the same impact on ratepayers. Technically, that is quite true. There is no disputing that. In practice, however, I seriously doubt—I do not believe—that had light been shone on what was actually going on, had ratepayers known what financial and other commitments were being made in their name, things would have gone as far or as terribly wrong as, in fact, they did. So I think it is slightly disingenuous to suggest that these things could have occurred in any case. This is why we have a robust local democracy in this country, at least in most of this country, and I think it is important not to overlook that.

I do take issue, too, with the suggestion that the opposition in Kaipara and around Mangawhai is from—the classic phrase—a small but vocal minority. I went to a meeting in Mangawhai some 6 or so weeks ago, on a sort of bleakish Sunday afternoon. There were over 200 people at that meeting, and this was after many meetings and many engagements. I think that reflects the level of concern and the level of engagement. I think to say it is a minority—well, yes, it always is—is not right, but I do think they represent the majority of people who have been treated very badly, whose interests have not been well served. I think we ought to realise that if you can get a hall full of people—in excess of 200 people—on a given Sunday, that represents very deep-seated and widespread opposition to what has been going on in that area.

There is some commentary, again in the letter, particularly about the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association. I think it is somewhat easy to belittle that group. I think its approach is somewhat more sophisticated than it has perhaps been given credit for. It is not simply an opposing group; it has outlined a proposed solution or set of solutions. Yes, it might be difficult reading for some, but I think it has to be acknowledged that the group has come forward in a constructive way, offering a pathway through. It is not a simple path, but nor is it a simple problem.

The group makes the point that there is an interesting legal distinction potentially to be made between the ratepayers and the council, and who actually carries liability. I will not comment on the rights and wrongs of that, first, because I am not a lawyer, and, second, because I understand that that is the point of law that the group will be taking to the High Court, and I think good on them. The group makes the point that it feels very badly let down in this process by the auditor, and again with good reason.

Finally, I would make the point that good projects, projects that come in under budget and on time, are carefully managed projects, rigorously managed projects, where somebody is in charge. In this case, clearly, that was absent. The ratepayers are bearing the brunt of financial and other mismanagement. We need to look very hard at this bill. Thank you.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): No one is a fan of retrospective legislation. It is a last resort and is reflective of council failure. Unfortunately, it is required, and it is the only workable way to remedy irregularities and errors that were avoidable but, none the less, occurred. This is not an unprecedented situation. In recent weeks we have seen another example of it with the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill.

In summary, the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill looks to correct a number of irregularities and errors, mostly to do with rating, made by the Kaipara District Council. These procedural and substantive irregularities in setting rates and associated documentation go back many years. Most of the rates that the bill attends to have been paid. Ratepayers have received services for which they were set, but none the less these need to be validated once and for all so that Kaipara can move on with certainty.

The bill proposes to validate the rates set and assessed by the council from 2006 to 2013 and associated penalties, to treat all rate payments received by the council as having been done so lawfully, and to authorise the council to recover any part of the rates and penalties for those years that remain unpaid. It seeks to address the actions and omissions relating to the continuation of the council’s 2006 development contributions policy, the late adoption of its 2011-12 annual report and its 2012-22 long-term plan, and the conduct of the council’s special consultative procedure for the 2012-22 long-term plan.

It has been said that the $30 million decision to expand the sewerage scheme is not subject to this bill. All of the matters for which validation is sought could have been struck in a way that was consistent with the Act, which was provided for, which would have resulted in the same amounts being invoiced as would have occurred if it had not got this process wrong.

The council accepts that it made mistakes and that it needs Parliament’s support to correct the situation, but this will not absolve anyone of responsibility for the decisions that have led to these errors, and I would not support this legislation if that was the case. I also made it very clear to the commissioners—and I want to put it on the record of this House—that accountability is just as important in giving ratepayers certainty when they have been so woefully let down by those they elected to govern their district and by a system that should have provided the necessary checks and balances to avoid this situation.

The Office of the Auditor-General is conducting an inquiry into the Mangawhai waste-water scheme, and the time being taken is, understandably, frustrating for ratepayers. Questions must be answered as to what role the Auditor-General’s office and that of Audit New Zealand has played in the failures of this council. The independent inquiry into Audit New Zealand must answer very serious questions as to the apparent failure of that authority to respond to a council with such longstanding and deep-seated non-compliance and other fundamental financial mismanagement issues. How was it that this council could still get clean audits year after year? If the council gets it wrong, then ratepayers must be able to rely on the systems that sit above it to stop the rot. If they are shown not to have done this where they should have, then they must accept responsibility and they must be held to account.

Huge questions also need answering as to the operating relationship between the former chief executive officer Jack McKerchar and the elected members of this council, the due diligence processes, and the relationship between Mr McKerchar and consultants and contractors. I want to assure ratepayers that, as a former detective, I share your concerns and no stone will be left unturned by me in seeking justice and accountability for those ratepayers. I have trusted in the commissioners and I will support the commissioners in the pursuit of this.

Many have levelled significant criticism at me for being willing to sponsor this bill and say that I am kowtowing to the powers that be by doing so. I want to say to those people that I am doing this because it is what I feel I need to do for my constituents, not for anyone else, and I will accept responsibility for that decision. It is not an easy decision to have made. It would be much easier to just turn and walk away, but constituents should, rightly, expect that their local MP does not do that—that he does not shy away from the hard stuff. They should, rightly, expect that I will stand my ground and I will fight for them, and I am saying on the record of this House today that I have been doing that and I will continue to do that for them.

This matter deserves and needs the full scrutiny of this Parliament and I encourage my colleagues to give it just that. If elements in this bill do not pass the test, then so be it. At least this process will have come to finality. This bill is part of a number of activities that are under way to help restore the Kaipara district. It is not the only part, but it is a very important part, and I hope that my colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee give it that level of attention. With regret, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill be now read a first time.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been a number of Speakers’ rulings, which I have not looked up because it has been quite a long time since they have been used because they were used mainly in the time when there was physical voting, and there is an old rule in this House that vote follows voice. We appear to have had some sort of error. It may be that with this new party vote system that we have had for the last 20 years or so that no longer applies, but it used to be the case that it was an obligation on members to vote physically in the way that they had voted with their voices.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my understanding that that does not apply under the party vote, and people charged with a proxy have the right to call that vote. I must confess that I did not hear the member when I initially declared the vote, which might have led to the confusion. But members who are charged with a proxy to vote alternatively have the right to call for a party vote.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sort of hate to push this too hard, but my understanding is that people can call for a party vote only if they disagree with the way that you have ruled, and, in fact, you ruled that the Ayes had it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and I have already confessed to the fact that I did not hear the member calling, and so that was in part my error, and probably in part the error of the person for not being loud and robust. Let us learn from the experience.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 116

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 4

Māori Party 3; Mana 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill

In Committee

Part 1 General provisions

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the author of this bill, the Hon Todd McClay. Obviously, congratulations to him on becoming our new Minister of Revenue and Associate Minister of Health. I am lucky enough to now sponsor this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill and shepherd it through the House. It is a very good bill. I sit on the Law and Order Committee, and we were very pleased to receive it. I see that I have some of my select committee colleagues here tonight—Mr Goff and Mr Faafoi. I am sure I look forward to your contributions tonight, and I will be taking calls on the bill.

I would just like to run through the provisions of this bill very quickly and then give my colleagues an opportunity to speak. The main provisions of the bill are to prohibit the display of gang insignia in premises or departments of the Public Service, Crown entities, the police, local authorities, and schools in New Zealand. The list of named specific gangs to be covered by the legislation is to be futureproofed by allowing the Minister of Police to add gangs to the prohibited list through regulation-setting powers. The bill covers all signs, symbols, or representations commonly displayed to denote membership of, an affiliation with, or support for a gang, not including tattoos, and it includes any items of clothing to which a sign, symbol, or representation is affixed. It includes all offices, buildings, and facilities, both permanent and temporary, under the authority of the departments of the Public Service, as defined in schedule 1 of the State Sector Act 1988, and of Crown entities, as defined in schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act 2004.

This is a very good bill. As Kiwis, as New Zealanders, we should actually be prepared to say that there is no room in this beautiful country of ours for gangs. Although this bill is not the panacea, although it is not the silver bullet, it does go a long way towards giving the police some additional tools to send a clear message to gangs, and that is that we do not tolerate them. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Malo ni, Mr Chair. Can I begin just by acknowledging the new member in the chair, Mark Mitchell, who will shepherd this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, through the House. He has taken over from, I believe, the Hon Todd McClay. I do want to say genuinely that he has approached us, even in the short time he has been in charge of this bill, in a genuine way to try to talk through some of the particulars that he has spoken about, in order to try to garner more support for the bill in the House. Unfortunately for Mr Mitchell, we are unable to do that.

I would like to take a couple of words he used. As he said, this is a lovely country, and National says there is no room for gangs. We would go a little bit further. I would like to use the words penned by the Hon Phil Goff, that Labour has no truck with gangs—Labour has no truck with gangs, at all—and especially with their culture, which promotes and encourages criminal activity. So we are absolutely opposed to the criminal activity of gangs, and, as we say, this side of the Chamber has no truck with gangs. That is certainly one thing that we do agree with Mr Mitchell on. However, we do believe, as Mr Mitchell said, that this bill is not a panacea, that it is not a silver bullet, and that it will not actually be effective in achieving clause 3 of the bill, which is the purpose clause. I am just going to flick to that clause very quickly. Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia on premises of departments of the Public Service, the Police, Crown entities, local authorities, and schools.” We do not believe that it will be able to achieve that, for a number of reasons. But we also believe that the power already exists within current law to achieve what this bill sets out to do.

If any member of this Parliament would like to take a trip to Porirua, even if you want to do it tonight, the front door of the Porirua Police Station has a sign on it that says that gang patches are not to be worn in that station.

Hon Phil Goff: Is that the one they’ve closed?

KRIS FAAFOI: No, it has not been closed yet, Mr Goff. I just want to reiterate that these powers already exist, and in some way they are being expressed. They are definitely being expressed at my local police station in Porirua, where, I say again, there are to be no gang patches worn.

This bill, as it was first drafted, also had a number of anomalies. I will not blame Mr Mitchell for that, because it was not authored by him—it was actually authored by Todd McClay—but it did contain a number of anomalies, and they were that if there was a bus shelter on council land and you were wearing a gang patch, then that would be prohibited. But if you just happened to be standing on council land, on the sidewalk, then that behaviour would not be covered. I do want to acknowledge the New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser, who I understand has put in Supplementary Order Paper 253, which is an amendment to clause 4 relating to the definition of Government premises. In subclause (a) after “any structure”, Mr Prosser wants to insert “(including any associated grounds)”. I think that would—and I am looking at Mr Prosser—alleviate any anomaly that I have spoken about here, where we do not have a physical structure. The anomaly is that if you are in a bus shelter, you would be breaking this law, but if you just happened to be on the sidewalk or at a sportsground, you would not be breaking the law. I would like to congratulate Mr Prosser and the New Zealand First Party on putting forward that Supplementary Order Paper, which would certainly address the anomaly in the bill. I understand that New Zealand First is supporting the bill, but I guess from our perspective the anomaly in the bill as it stands now was one of the points that we made in our strong opposition, and I guess you must give credit to Mr Prosser for taking some action there and for making sure that that is covered.

Speaking again to the purpose clause of this bill, clause 3, we do not believe that this bill will make any significant difference to the real problems that the gangs create in our communities. We do believe that the bill exists for political purposes, and I guess you could say that because Todd McClay is now a Minister he has benefited from this bill being put forward. I also want to point out that under Part 1 we have some definitions, or at least a list, of gangs that will be included in this bill. Because of that list of gangs that is contained in this bill, there is going to be an onus on the police, I guess, to police those gangs. Given the pressure that our police are under at the moment, you are going to have to ask the question about how effectively they can do that. Mr Mitchell was in a very, I guess, calm Law and Order Committee hearing earlier today, but in the submission from the New Zealand Police, in terms of the police budget, we saw, in effect, from the police answers that over the next 4 years $113 million in real terms is going to be taken out of the police budget. So that is going to put our police and the resources that they have under huge pressure. I guess they are feeling the effects of that pressure already. To put this added responsibility on them to police this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill will be another onus on them, when they are already finding things very, very tough.

Can I just reiterate the words of the Hon Phil Goff that Labour has no truck with gangs.

Hon Phil Goff: Truck with a “t”.

KRIS FAAFOI: Truck with a “t”; that is right. It is also our view that it would be far better to enforce the laws that already exist under current legislation to be able to take some effective action.

We did have a number of very good submissions at the select committee. I did want to point to one submission that was in support of the bill, from Murupara Area School, which I thought gave a very good submission. The school made two main points. It did not want its children and students to see gang insignia plastered about their school, and it thought that those kids needed to be protected from that. The school also made the point that the introduction of gang insignia into the school would create tension and unnecessary negative behaviour, and it wanted to discourage that type of behaviour in the school. I completely and utterly understand that, but what we on this side of the Chamber would say is that the law already exists for the school to prevent people with gang patches from going on to their premises. Just as it is with our police stations, schools that have problems right now have the ability to ban people with gang patches from coming on to their premises. So I would say to Murupara Area School that although it gave a very good submission on this bill and although it has serious concerns, the school actually already has the power to do what is contained within this bill. That was just one of the very good submissions that came to the select committee.

I wanted to say that I am glad the anomalies in this bill have been addressed. I want to say also that this bill will not address the drivers of the gangs, which are youth unemployment, an issue that this Government has not addressed, and also, I guess, when you look at the major gangs—they would be the likes of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power—you see young Māori and Pasifika. Unfortunately, they are a group of people whom this Government has forgotten about. You will see that in the high youth unemployment in both of those areas. I think it was Black Power that said that this Government was doing good things for its recruitment, because it is creating a lot of disenchanted youth. I think that is a very sad indictment on this Government.

I am going to wrap it up there, but, as I say, Labour has no truck with gangs. This is a well-intentioned bill, Mr Mitchell. We do not think that it is going to be effective. We think that the current laws that exist can actually do the job of what this bill sets out to achieve.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I first congratulate the member Mark Mitchell on assuming the chair for the first time.

Hon Steven Joyce: It’s like non-stop Skycity tonight, isn’t it?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The difference with Skycity, Mr Joyce, is that when John Key went to eat with Skycity representatives he gave them a golden handshake and a licence to print money by giving them hundreds of new gaming machines. When we went there, we told them we would be repealing that legislation and they would get no special treatment, and I stand by that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!

Hon PHIL GOFF: I know it is not in the bill, Mr Chairman, but the gang of one over there, the “Minister of Everything”, is one of the guys this legislation, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, should be directed against. As I was saying, it is a real honour for a new member, and one so young, to assume the chair. Because it is his first time, we promised we would be gentle with him.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, we did not.

Hon PHIL GOFF: We did—we did, Ruth Dyson. I have a little advice for Mark Mitchell. You might not have seen many people in the chair, but there is a really important rule that in the Committee stage the Minister—or member—in the chair is to answer questions. So after each speaker, you should get up and address each individual point that they make, so that we can be sure that you are on top of the bill and you understand it. There is one other piece of advice that I would give him. This is not Mark Mitchell’s bill, so he is not responsible for it. The member in the chair should not feel obliged to defend the stupidity of the provisions in this bill, and that is at just about every stage of the legislation.

So with that piece of friendly advice to Mark Mitchell, I want to talk about the bill. You know, for Jami-Lee Ross to suggest that anyone in this House is in favour of gangs is patently dishonest, because no member of this House supports gangs, which exist for the purpose of promoting criminal activity. But I say to Jami-Lee Ross that what this country needs, if we are to be the fine country that Mark Mitchell talked about, is not phoney legislation that does absolutely nothing. We want some real legislation and some real resources for the police.

Jami-Lee Ross was one of the gang of four on the Law and Order Committee today who wanted to cover up the fact that this Government has cut police numbers in the last year by 446. There are 446 fewer police, sworn and non-sworn members, than this time last year. I say to Jami-Lee Ross and the gang of four National members who tried to protect their Minister—a real protection racket, intimidation at its worst—that if you want to do something about gangs, do not gut the police force. There are 446 fewer police personnel than this time last year. Not only are there 446 fewer police personnel—this is relevant, Mr Chair, this is very relevant, because what I am saying is that this legislation is unnecessary and phoney, and it does nothing, and I am enjoining the Government to do something real about dealing with gangs. So the first thing you do not do is cut police numbers by 446. The second thing you do not do is cut their funding.

We got information today that for each of the next 4 years the police budget is going to be cut. It is $20 million down in real terms this year—$20 million down in real terms. If you want to do something about gangs, why would you cut specific crime prevention services by $6.6 million? That is what the Budget does. It cuts specific crime prevention services by $6.6 million. And if you want to deal with the gangs, you do not cut the funding to specific crime prevention services. Then there is police primary response management. That is cut this year by $3.5 million. If you want the police to be able to deal with the gangs you do not diminish their primary response management. Then there are general crime prevention services. That is cut by $1.4 million.

The point I am making is this. We are spending time and millions of the taxpayers’ dollars in putting through legislation that adds not one single power to stop people wearing gang patches on public premises—not one single power. I asked the officials at the meeting, and Mr McClay and Mr Ross were there: “What extra power does this give to stop gangs wearing their patches in schools or public buildings?”. The answer to that was nothing—nothing!

Members opposite come to this House dishonestly to try to demonstrate they are tough on gangs, but this legislation adds no extra powers to the Government—no extra powers. Look, we have powers against intimidation. Gangs are intimidating by nature. We have powers under the Summary Offences Act. Section 3 says that it is imprisonable to use threatening behaviour. Section 4 says that offensive behaviour is a criminal activity. Section 21 says that intimidation is imprisonable. I tell the Government to stop pussyfooting around with legislation that does nothing, and actually enforce the laws that are there at the moment. I do not want to see gang intimidation in this country, and I do not want to see this gang in Government cutting police resources so they can do less about the way that gangs are behaving.

Then it comes to how workable this legislation is. You know, Mr Chairperson, you could be wearing a greasy jacket with a swastika on it—you could, yes—and you could go in to Work and Income and you would not be breaking the law. You could go in, you could salute, you could have a small Hitler moustache, and wear your swastika, and it is not against the law. But if you wear a gang patch, you can be arrested. I ask where the consistency is. If you are worried about intimidation, if you are worried about offensive behaviour—

John Hayes: It’s “Mr Integrity”!

Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Hayes is just back from his liquid dinner, so he is going to be very, very loud in the Chamber, I can tell that. He has got that silly grin on his face. But I say to Mr Hayes that he should take a call and explain to this House why it is that he could wear a swastika into a Work and Income office and not be breaking the law. Apparently, the member for Wairarapa, Mr Hayes, could go in to a Work and Income office wearing a swastika, but if he is wearing a gang patch, he is treated differently. I want Mr Hayes to explain this: why is it that if I am a gang member wearing a patch, and I am standing under the bus shelter, it can be an offence, but if I take two steps to the left and I am just on the side of the road, it is not an offence? So how is a constable going to know when to arrest that person if the person is standing with one foot under the bus shelter and one foot on the pavement? That is how stupid this legislation is.

It is an offence to wear a gang patch if you are in a swimming pool that is owned by the Government or the municipality, but it is not an offence if you go along and stand on the side of the league ground and watch a game of rugby league wearing your gang patch. This is a nonsense piece of legislation. I say to this Government that it should do the sort of stuff that I did, which was real—the Proceeds of Crime Act ripped out $7.4 million in the first 2 months from the gangs.

Hon Steven Joyce: Oh, listen to you. It’s all about you, Phil. Give it up, Phil.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Joyce, you claim credit for that legislation; I introduced it. You only put it into effect after you came into office. It had all been done. Do things that are real. Do not come into this House with phoney legislation, pretending to be the tough guys, knowing full well that you are deceiving the public and doing absolutely nothing.

This bill is an empty piece of legislation that will make no difference. This is an empty, dishonest piece of legislation from a Government that is cutting the funding to the police and cutting the number of police officers. Mr Joyce, you are a Minister in the Chamber. Why has this Government cut the number of police officers by 446 in the last 12 months? No answer. He will not even look. He will not even address the question, because he knows that his Government has done that. It is cutting the police.

Government members broke their word to the select committee last year, and they are closing police stations—10 local police stations: eight in Auckland and two in Christchurch. They are cutting the police stations, and they are reducing the number of police officers on the beat—the front-line people. They are cutting the money to the police year after year after year—we saw those figures—and then they come into this Chamber and say they are going to be tough on the gangs. They are going to be tough on the gangs by introducing a piece of legislation that does precisely nothing.

So I have to say congratulations to Mr Mitchell on being in the chair. It is a tough bill to support, because it has no substance. We know he is just there doing his job, so we are not blaming him. I have honoured my promise—we have been kind to the member in the chair. But I have to say to the Hon Todd McClay that this bill is something that a member with nothing better to do with their time brings into the House, to try to pretend they are about substance when there is no substance.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I will take a call now because the last speeches from Mr Faafoi and Mr Goff are probably about as good as it will get—and that is actually a pretty sad statement to make. I was expecting a lot more than that in terms of input.

I just want to address some of the issues that Mr Faafoi raised, and those are in relation to whether this bill, the Prohibition on Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, is going to make a significant difference to how the police police and whether or not this is going to give them additional capability. Well, the answer to that, very simply, is yes it will. I have spoken to the House before and I would like to use an example from my electorate of Rodney—Sergeant Kellie Bissett and her team up in Wellsford, who at the moment are using a cross-governmental approach and also working with the local council in trying to put as much pressure on the Headhunters gang that has set up a pad in Wellsford. I have spoken to her about this bill, and she and her team are very pleased and very happy that it is progressing through the House and say that it is a tool that they will definitely use. If there is a gang member who goes into a Work and Income office or into a Government building or tries to go into a school, whether a public or an integrated school, it gives the police the power to go in there and effect an arrest—to arrest that gang member.

Carol Beaumont: Can they do it under existing legislation?

MARK MITCHELL: The Opposition says they can do it now. Well, actually, they cannot do it now. I spoke with Mr Faafoi and Mr Goff about this today, because one of the arguments that they have put up against this bill, and it is not a good argument, is the fact that a chief executive officer—let us use Work and Income as an example—can issue a trespass notice against a gang member who goes into that premises. Well, actually that is true, but they cannot issue a blanket trespass notice to a gang. It has to be to an individual. The other thing that happens, once that trespass notice is issued, is that that gang member—and Mr Goff and Mr Faafoi keep making a big point about civil liberties—for the next 2 years cannot go back on to that premises.

Hon Phil Goff: Did I mention civil liberties?

MARK MITCHELL: Well, today in our conversation we were talking about this. They cannot go back on to that premises. What this bill says is that you can go in there, you can access the services like anyone else, but you cannot wear a gang patch. We have spoken in this House about what a gang patch means. A gang patch means that the person wearing it has had to offend against the community. That is the only reason someone is wearing a gang patch—no other reason. You cannot go into a retail store and say: “Hey, I want to get myself a Mongrel Mob gang patch or a Black Power gang patch.” The only way to achieve that is by committing crimes, often violent crimes, against the community. So I hope that addresses the point in relation to whether or not the police are actually going to see some value and whether or not this is another very good tool for them to have access to. The answer to that is clearly yes.

For some reason Mr Goff has gone on another tirade, and we witnessed that today in our Law and Order Committee. It was very disappointing, I have to say, to see Mr Mallard come into the committee and make a tacky attack on a deputy commissioner who is highly respected and has had a distinguished career. He had to sit in front of the select committee and have a tacky, low-grade attack made on him by Mr Mallard. In relation to our police, currently, our police force is enjoying the highest public support it has had in years.

The other point that I just want to make very quickly too is that we keep talking about this bill and whether the police are actually going to be able to use it. What I would say to that is that it is actually very, very clear in the bill where this Act will be enforced. But if there is any doubt, that is what we have case law for. The police are able to actually test this is in court of law, and that is where the decision will be made and clarity will be taken from.

The last thing I want to do is that I would just like to acknowledge Richard Prosser—I assume that he will take a call tonight—for the support for this bill and also for the very good Supplementary Order Paper 253, which has been submitted, around clarifying exactly where this legislation will take effect.

Richard Prosser: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I was almost going to call the Hon Bill Jeffries, but I see that it is actually Richard Prosser. I call the honourable member.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will take that as a compliment. I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in this Committee stage of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. This is a fine bill. This is a very fine member’s bill, initiated as it has been by one very fine member, Todd McClay, which has now been passed into the care of yet another very fine member indeed, Mark Mitchell. New Zealand First supports this bill. We are proud and pleased to be able to support it. We agree with the aims and intentions of the bill and we are very happy that it is going to become law. As they might say in the House of Lords in England, in that delightful turn of phrase that the British Upper House is wont to employ, we are most content that the outcome of this process will be the passing of this bill into law here in New Zealand.

I wish to congratulate Mr McClay again and for a number of reasons. I have congratulated him already in the earlier stages of this debate both on having the good fortune to have his bill drawn from the ballot and also on gaining the support of the House in terms of having the numbers to have it passed into law. But, of course, now that Mr McClay has taken up his new role as a Minister, convention dictates that he is unable to continue as the sponsor of this bill. He has therefore passed the baton to Mr Mitchell, and we are delighted to be able to work with the member for Rodney as he picks up the torch and carries it over the line.

This bill is a fine bill, but it is not perfect—not quite. There are, there were, and there remain one or two inconsistencies within it—just one or two anachronisms. One of these—perhaps one of the most obvious—is the reality that within the definition of “Government premises”, as the bill encompasses it, we are faced with the situation whereby buildings and structures are specifically covered but land and grounds associated with those buildings are not. During the second reading and before, Mr Goff and others rightly identified this discrepancy. A sportsground, for example, a sports facility owned or controlled by a local authority, would be in the position of having the bill applied to its buildings—its clubhouse, for want of a better name, or the pavilion or recreation centre or whatever structure is the centrepiece—but not to the playing fields outside. Similarly, a Government office or an office utilised by a Government agency would be in a situation where gang members are prohibited from wearing their patches inside the office, but no such prohibition would apply to the car park, for example.

For this reason I have introduced to the bill an amendment to clause 4 on Supplementary Order Paper 253, which seeks to include grounds associated with buildings and structures as well as the buildings themselves. In this it is my intention to enhance and improve the member’s bill as much as possible and as closely as possible within what I perceive and understand to be the intent of the bill. I do not seek to greatly alter the bill. We are acutely aware that this is, after all, a member’s bill, and it is important that the will and intent of the member be preserved. We do not seek to include lands and areas outside what we perceive the member’s intent to be. We are not talking about all public places or all public lands under the control of the Government. We do not believe it is Mr McClay’s intention to ban gang patches, for example, from public roads or beaches or national parks. That might be a good thing if that were to come about, but that, we believe, is another matter for another day. We do not seek to greatly or materially alter the direction or the intent of the member’s bill. Rather, we seek to enhance and clarify one small part of it. We hope and trust that the member and his party will see our intention as being in line with that. We hope, therefore, that the Government will choose to support my Supplementary Order Paper 253.

This, we believe, is part of the essence of what is required as far as constructive Opposition is concerned. The Government has the numbers to pass this bill with or without our support and with or without modification. This we know, and we respect that fact. So we are not seeking to alter it dramatically. Rather, we seek to enhance the bill, which we would support anyway, by addressing this one small area where we believe it can be improved.

In closing I would like to reiterate that New Zealand First hopes this bill will be the beginning of a process by which the gangs themselves are removed from New Zealand society. We congratulate the member, the Hon Todd McClay, on bringing it to the House. We welcome the stewardship that Mr Mitchell will now give it. We ask the Government members and the members of the Opposition to support Supplementary Order Paper 253 in my name and to support the bill. This will be a fine piece of legislation. We commend it to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora. I am clearly going to express a somewhat different view from the gentleman who has just sat down, Richard Prosser. The Greens do not support this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. We see it having some good intentions behind it. We will not support it, because it will not work. It will not be effective in achieving the intended outcomes. It is another in a long series of one-off legislative attempts to deal with a problem that is not easily amenable to legislative solutions. The National Party actually knew that once upon a time, and I will return to that point a little later.

To work through the clauses of the bill—which is what the Committee is about, after all—clause 3, the purpose clause, starts off telling us: “The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia on premises…”, as has already been referred to. One thing I will give this bill is that it generated a lot of interesting and, at times, quite entertaining conversations at the Law and Order Committee. When we started endeavouring to define “Government premises”, there was an interesting diversion about what the situation of an MP’s electoral office was, for example. Would that come under the banner?

But, more seriously, or shall I say less seriously, you get these slightly ridiculous situations, as have been referred to, where one can stand on a footpath outside a Work and Income building, or a public office of some sort, and that is OK. But if there is an awning above your head, then that is not OK, because that is part of the structure, you are therefore within it, and you are breaking the law. Labour members mentioned the example of a bus shelter. A gang member wearing a patch and sitting in a bus shelter is breaking the law. It is an invidious situation to put the police in, in fact. Somebody wearing a patch but otherwise minding their own business for the moment, not up to mischief, sitting in a bus shelter—any police officer witnessing that is obliged to arrest that person. That is just a ridiculous situation. So the whole debate about defining premises actually highlighted that this is not an appropriate or a practical solution.

Sadly, we will not be supporting the New Zealand First Supplementary Order Paper 253, on the same basis. By adding a car park to the definition of a premise, for example, it means a person wearing a patch while driving and parking their car, before they even get out of the vehicle, has broken the law. I do not believe that is actually the intention or the nature of the problem that this sets out to solve.

Similarly—and I think it is interesting—I do not believe that any other piece of legislation has ever before tried to define what a gang is. In this case, that is what this bill sets out to do. It lists 30-odd named gangs whose patches, insignia, etc., are banned from public premises. But it also sets up an opportunity for other organisations and other gangs to be nominated, added to that list, and added to the schedule. Again, we suddenly start tying ourselves in knots in terms of trying to determine what a gang is. We have had gangs in New Zealand for something close to 50 years. I do think it is interesting that nobody has ever tried to define a gang in legislation before. I think the difficulties the select committee has had in that sense just highlight, perhaps, why it has not been attempted before.

In order to add another group or another gang to this list, the Minister of Police must essentially be satisfied that the organisation or group proposed to be identified has two key characteristics. One is a common name or common identifying signs, symbols, or representations. The second is that its members, associates, or supporters, individually or collectively, promote, encourage, or engage in criminal activity. I have used the example before of NORML, the marijuana campaign organisation. It has very distinct symbolism around its organisation. It also actively encourages individually its supporters or even members—it does. It has one particular concern with the law, and that is the members do publicly smoke dope—J Day—once a year. On that basis, NORML could be deemed to be a gang and added to this list, which would be quite ridiculous, I am sure you would agree—with exceptions.

Let us stretch another only slightly longer bow. Greenpeace has very clear and obvious branding. We know if we see a Greenpeace symbol what organisation that is representing. If members or supporters, individually, of that organisation commit a crime—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to let David Clendon have another go.

DAVID CLENDON: Thank you, Mr Chair—good decision. If an individual supporter of Greenpeace, somebody who had occasionally flicked it $5, was found to be engaging in criminal activity, that would, again, enable that organisation to be defined as a gang, which, again, would be quite ridiculous. But we do have to recall that this is a Government that recently made it illegal to protest at sea in defence of its beloved mining, drilling, and so on agenda. So already you see that this bill does carry with it a considerable burden of anomalies, and that is a good word for the night, I think.

It actually is not as straightforward as one might think to define gangs. It certainly is not a simple thing to define the boundaries of premises. Equally, the various regalia and the insignia would be a serious challenge for people working in public offices to identify. A person walks in wearing a T-shirt or a jacket with a particular symbol on it—is it a gang or is it not? We looked at a number of photographs. You can go to many stores or look online and you will see clothing that looks very much as though it belongs to a gang, when in fact it does not. Inevitably—and Mr Kim Workman, in his submission on the bill, made this point—people who are falsely accused of belonging to gangs because they happen to have a certain item of clothing could have reason to get a little bit hostile about that. This could stimulate incidents of upset or incidents that otherwise would not occur, and we do not think that is particularly helpful.

At a more general level I made the point that once upon a time the National Government actually understood that one-off legislative solutions are seldom actually lasting solutions. You go back to 1997 and what was then the Harassment and Criminal Associations Bill. The Ministry of Justice made a very interesting commentary around that bill, which was a one-off legislative attempt to quell gang activity. The Ministry of Justice at the time said: “It became clear during the development of the [Harrassment and Criminal Associations] Bill that no single legislative initiative would achieve the desired result of reducing gang activity. A longer-term broader strategy to deal with gangs and their offending needs to be developed.” This is likely to involve action on a number of fronts, and to include measures that do not require legislation.

Gangs are a problem in this country. Public violence is a problem in this country, as is family and domestic violence. The solutions are not one-off little bits of legislation like this that seek to identify one particular circumstance. In the 1970s and the 1980s the National Party under Muldoon—and Todd McClay knows this—recognised gangs as a social problem. It came up with work schemes, politically exposed person schemes, and labour contracts for gangs, because the key to it, as the point has already been made, is that a great deal of the reason that people end up in gangs is that they are alienated. We saw emergent gangs in the 1950s and 1960s that did not mature, because the members of those gangs basically grew out of it. They played up for a few years, perhaps behaved violently, but then they got a job, they settled down, got a life, and the gang suddenly did not look quite so attractive any more. That cycle broke in the 1980s. Now we have long-term, embedded, multigenerational unemployment, and that is the single most powerful driver of gang membership. Solve the unemployment problem and the gang problem will drastically diminish—much better than any one-off piece of legislation. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I am pleased to have an opportunity to correct the stupidity that we heard from the Hon Phil Goff just before. I call it stupidity because he was a failed Minister of Justice. He was a failed Minister of Justice. He likes to go on about crime and the police, but he was a failed Minister of Justice because, under his watch, violent crime went up by 47 percent. That is right, Mr Goff—violent crime went up by 47 percent. Then we heard from his friend Mr Kris Faafoi, who is also part of the Skycity caucus—actually, I think we can call them the Skycity gang within the Labour Party—who seems to be a defender of gangs as well. We have two defenders of gangs who stood up and argued against this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. They argued against this bill because they are happy for gang members to wear their gang patches around the place, around Government premises, intimidating people and causing problems.

Hon Phil Goff: Tell your Ministers to get on and do something about it. They’ve got all the power to do it now.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: That is right, Mr Goff. Mr Goff likes to talk about what he thought we were not doing about crime. Well, actually, Mr Goff, you have got your numbers wrong, because 600 extra police officers are on the streets of New Zealand. There are 600 extra police officers out there dealing with gang members, and those 600 extra police officers will be able to help enforce good-quality law and order policies once this bill is passed.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table a document from the Law and Order Committee today, from the Minister of Police, showing that the number of police officers is down 446 in the last year.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. The member is perfectly entitled to do that, and I will put it to the House. Courtesy would have dictated otherwise. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? Yes.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I seek leave to table a press release from the Minister of Police announcing 600 extra police officers in New Zealand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? Yes, there is. The member can finish his contribution now—or try to.

Kris Faafoi: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh, hang on, another point of order. The honourable member Kris Faafoi.

Kris Faafoi: I seek leave to table the police estimates from this year, showing that there is going to be an effective cut of $113 million to the police budget over the next 4 years.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I understand that they are already available to the House, so we cannot do that. I would just remind members on both sides—because it is 2-1 at the moment—that courtesy is contagious.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I want to tell the truth about the Opposition. I am going to tell the truth about the Opposition, because it is a supporter of gangs. Those members do not like to hear it but they are supporters of gangs, because they will not support this bill.

I am going to read out some comments: “… gangs [have] a culture that promotes, encourages, facilitates, or tolerates criminal activity collectively or individually among its members.” Those were words from Phil Goff. I just wish that he would actually believe in them. I just wish he would actually believe in them, because if he did, he would be supporting this bill.

This bill is a good piece of legislation—first drafted by Todd McClay and now being taken through by Mark Mitchell—that will help New Zealanders. It will help New Zealanders rid their communities of gangs. Mr Faafoi wants to sit up the back, smiling and laughing, but, actually, Porirua—where there are a number of gangs operating—would benefit hugely from this piece of legislation. Rather than listening to Phil Goff, he should listen to Mark Mitchell. He should listen to Mark Mitchell and listen to Mike Sabin, because they know what they are talking about.

New Zealanders in this country do not want to be intimidated by gangs. New Zealanders in this country do not want to see—

Andrew Little: That’s why they want a proper law to deal with it, not the monkey business in this bill.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I think Andrew Little must have been at Skycity too. He must have been at Skycity too. He is supporting his mates over there. New Zealanders do not want to be intimidated by gangs. They do not want people running around in the community with gang patches on. Gangs do not stand for anything good. Gangs do not stand for anything constructive. Gangs do not stand for anything law abiding. Gangs stand for a collection of criminals getting together and intimidating society and intimidating communities

Hon Todd McClay: No, that’s a union.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Mr McClay says that that is a union, and that is probably not too far off. But this bill does not deal with unions; this bill deals with gang patches. It deals with the people out there who have nothing good to offer society. It deals with the people out there who want to intimidate society. I think Mr Faafoi and Mr Goff should tell us why people at a local primary school should have to put up with gang members walking around the primary school, showing young children what it is like to be a gang member. Why does Phil Goff think that it is OK for gang members to do that? Why does Mr Faafoi think that it is OK for gang members to do that?

Mr Richard Prosser does not think that—Mr Richard Prosser does not. He has actually got a good Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 253. Mr Prosser is doing something constructive. Mr Prosser has got a Supplementary Order Paper that we are prepared to support. We are prepared to support his Supplementary Order Paper because it is a good one that makes some constructive changes to the bill.

But the Labour Party members just want to stand up and rant and rave, get their facts wrong about crime in this country, and get their facts wrong about the National-led Government’s contribution to law and order in this nation, which New Zealanders are supporting and which New Zealanders are seeing the results from. New Zealanders are seeing huge drops in crime—a 16 percent drop in crime so far since we have been in office; the lowest crime rate in 30 years. Kris Faafoi and Phil Goff do not care about that. Under Labour’s watch, violent crime went up. Under our watch, crime is going down. Under Labour’s watch, the police were not supported. Under our watch, we have seen more police officers.

Kris Faafoi: Ha, ha!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: There are more police out there, Mr Faafoi, who are going to be supporting the community and helping to get rid of gangs.

I want to speak briefly and just finish off what I was saying about the problem with gangs in the community, and the reason why we need this bill. We heard some of the comments in the select committee about people who fear gangs and about people who see gang patches on a regular basis. Mark Mitchell and Mike Sabin have real-world experience out there on the street. Todd McClay has real-world experience in Rotorua of seeing the effects, the poor effects, of gangs. New Zealanders do not want gang patches. New Zealanders want to be safe. New Zealanders want to be secure. New Zealanders do not want to see gangs playing a large role in local communities. If it takes a bill like this, which is heavy-handed and which removes gang patches from our community, to try to tackle gangs and get on top of them, then that is what we need.

Hon Phil Goff: It’s a powder puff bill.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Ah, Phil Goff says that it is a powder puff bill. Phil Goff did not do enough in his time in Government to deal with gangs. He has left it to us. We are seeing some good changes here. We are seeing a bill that will seriously deal to gangs, that will dent their ability to intimidate people, and that will dent their ability to go to schools and show schoolkids what it is like to be a criminal.

We support New Zealanders. We do not support gangs. Our friends in the Opposition might like to do that, but they are absolutely wrong. New Zealanders are backing this bill.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak again on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. Let me begin by congratulating the member in the chair, Mark Mitchell, on picking up the onerous responsibility of shepherding this shabby piece of legislation through this good House. I have great respect for the member in the chair, as he well knows. He has been given a difficult task. I would say that he has been given the short straw, but, nevertheless, he is there and I will have some questions for him shortly.

I want to make some comments about Jami-Lee Ross. I want to say a couple of things about Jami-Lee Ross. First of all, in the short time I have been in this House, I have seen him speak many times, and I have developed a considerable appreciation for the contributions that he has made. So often he has made worthy, sensible contributions, which is why it gets very difficult to explain why his contribution tonight was just plain dumb—just plain dumb. All he could resort to, on a bill that, frankly, is indefensible, was to allege that we in the Opposition—Labour and whoever else—somehow support gangs. We have been very clear and we have been on the record. We do not support gangs. We understand what gangs are about. They are about a criminal enterprise—

Hon Todd McClay: Actions speak louder than words.

ANDREW LITTLE: —and dumb members like Jami-Lee Ross and Todd McClay, who is now a Minister, of all things—his achievement for introducing a dumb piece of legislation is that he gets promoted to Cabinet—are patronising New Zealand and they are offering false hope. That is what this bill does.

When you have a look at Part 1, clause 3, “Purpose”, it starts with the purpose clause, which is that “The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia …”. You can already do that just by putting a notice up on your premises. It does not have to be premises with a structure; it could be an area such as a park or a public river, a public area where people go. You could put a notice up that says: “Gang insignia not allowed here—prohibited”, and, if anybody turns up, you have got means of recourse. Here is my response to Mark Mitchell’s explanation that this is better than a trespass notice: actually, it is no different, because this bill will still require individual enforcement.

Hon Todd McClay: The member hasn’t read the bill.

ANDREW LITTLE: If the managers of the—

Hon Todd McClay: Have you read the bill?

ANDREW LITTLE: The member has read the bill only too well, has spent long hours studying it, and has spent half his time wondering how it is that a member like Todd McClay could be so stupid as to bring, and to waste the House’s time with, this piece of legislation. That has been the real point of curiosity, but I long gave up once I realised that he was not only a member of Parliament representing the National Party but, apparently, a financial member of that party. You just write it all off at that point and say no wonder—no wonder. But the point about this is that even with this legislation, it still requires individual enforcement. The manager of the structure, even with land associated with it—whatever Supplementary Order Paper 253 says—will still require notification to the authorities and notification to the individual bearing the gang patch in order to enforce it. It actually is no different. Qualitatively, it makes no difference.

In relation to Government premises, I want to specifically address Mr Prosser’s Supplementary Order Paper 253, which inserts the words “(including any associated grounds)”. Here is where I have some questions. What exactly does that mean? How close to, or far away from, the structure do the grounds have to be? Is it a question of proximity, or is it a question of contiguity? They are two quite different concepts. This is a meaningless Supplementary Order Paper to a meaningless bill. Listen, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig, and this is a pig of a bill, and this is the lipstick that Mr Prosser has added to it. It is the New Zealand First lipstick added to the powder puff of a bill. This is legislation from the make-up room—this is legislation from the make-up room; this is the problem with it.

I have another point too, Mr Chairman. I see your finger on the buzzer there. I have another point too, and that is about the definition—that is about the definition. There is an extensive definition of Government premises, but it excludes a number of critical things. It excludes children’s playgrounds, for heaven’s sake! So you are going to have gang members sauntering and wandering around the children’s playground, and the authorities can do nothing about it—the authorities can do nothing about it. Here are the Government and the Government members, puffing their chests out—and Mike Sabin has got a big one—and saying: “We are tough on gangs, and we will stop the gangs marauding. We will stop the gangs going to the public premises but not the children’s playgrounds. We’ll let the gang members, with their insignia, play in the children’s playgrounds.” Those members are not interested in actually looking after members of the public; they want to come to this House and give the pretence that they are doing something meaningful. They are doing nothing of the sort. That gives the lie to just how hopelessly inadequate this bill and its supporters in National and New Zealand First actually are. It is all about cosmetics—it is all about cosmetics. We have had the powder puff. We have had the lipstick. This is a cosmetic piece of legislation. It will do nothing.

It is not enough that they do not want to protect the young kiddies playing in the playground; this definition also excludes the beach. So you go down to the beach for your family picnic, and who turns up there with the Ford Fairlanes and the V8s and the gang patches? And you cannot do a blind thing about it—you cannot do a blind thing about it. On a sunny day, you take the family to the beach, and what happens? You can get marauded over by the gangs, and this bill will do nothing about it. [Interruption] Oh, the coppers! Oh, the sphincters are snapping now. What are the coppers going to tell their mates? What are the coppers going to tell their mates now? What is Richard Prosser going to say to his police mates? “Oh, sorry, brother—we mucked it up. We wrote a law, but it wasn’t good enough, and the gangs can still maraud around the children’s playgrounds, still maraud around the beaches.” And, what is worse, they can maraud around the mid-city parks. In the mid-city parks with no structures, the gangs can maraud around, and the police will be powerless under this bill. That is how silly it is. That is how dumb it is.

That is why Jami-Lee Ross’s contribution was so dumb, and that is why we are deeply opposed to the bill—it will do nothing. It will do nothing, and that is why, on this side of the House, we stand for meaningful law change—meaningful law that will deal with the gangs, that will stop the criminal enterprises, that will nip them in the bud, that will not allow marauding gang members, with their gang patches, to terrorise the kids, terrorise the beachgoers, and inflict their harm on people who go to the mid-city parks. This is a silly bill. We remain opposed to it. Nothing the members on the other side have said tonight, nothing the member in the chair has said tonight, has persuaded us that this will provide any meaningful impact at all on the gang problem. You know, the funny thing about it is this: the by-law that the Wanganui City Council passed was more effective than this legislation and more effective than it will ever be. It had the effect of shifting the problem out of the central business district into other areas, but at least the Wanganui City Council by-law talked about areas, not about structures and associated land. That is the difference. This bill will not make a difference. It is a dumb bill, a dumb piece of legislation backed by dud members, and we will vote against it.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): How could that member—Andrew Little—seriously raise that issue in this debate on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, which provides police with powers to arrest gang members with gang patches? He talked about putting lipstick on pigs? Honestly, what is the member thinking? I am sure police out there will be horrified to hear the member making lipstick on pigs references in a bill that gives police powers to deal with gangs. [Interruption] Well, there you go—I am sure that is where the member was going with it. It is a fairly good indication of how the Labour Party is right off tangent. The lips are flapping—not something else that Andrew Little was mentioning—but the brain is not working.

Gangs exist for very, very few reasons. They exist predominantly for the perpetuation of drug supply, because there is a population out there that is hungry for what they are supplying, and the gangs get very rich from that. Prostitution, drug-laundering, and intimidation—that is the package. That is why gangs exist. They exist for no other purpose whatsoever. That is the intent of gangs. As a former police detective, I worked in surveillance jobs and all that sort of ninja turtle stuff—electronic operations, undercover operations—and I got to see how those mongrels unveiled themselves and unfurled themselves on the unsuspecting youth of New Zealand. They did it through methamphetamine, predominantly, because that was a drug that took the nation by storm and the gangs became multibillionaires out of it.

If we think about what gangs are and what it means to be a gang member, the single most important thing to a gang member is the patch they earn. They will earn that patch through robbery. They will earn that patch through causing grievous bodily harm—through beating the daylights out of someone until they are an inch from their death. They will earn that patch by raping people, and in fact they will pack rape. They will get an immediate patch if they murder. That is what the patch means to them. That is what they will do to earn it. They will stop at nothing to prevent having that patch being taken off them.

I have heard members on that side of the Chamber mention: “Oh, we can do this already. Someone at a Work and Income office can tell them to take the patch off. A school principal could tell them not to come on to the grounds with a patch on.” Well, I challenge any member in this Chamber to tell me how they would take a patch off a gang member who would rather die than give it up. I have tried, and I can tell members I have come out on the wrong side of that equation. I have been in situations where members of the public have indeed endeavoured to say: “Mr Gang Member, you cannot wear that in here.”, and they have been beaten to within an inch of their life. So that is just simply not workable. It is ludicrous to suggest it. I want any member who stands up and says: “Oh no, they can already do this. This legislation is a waste of time.”, to tell me how they would confront a gang member wearing a patch and tell them to take it off. The Mongrel Mob will kill members before it will let them be de-patched. That is how much it means to them.

This bill is not a panacea, and Mr McClay and other members right across this House have said that this is not the only answer, but it is one of them. The real answer is to deny these mongrels the opportunity to exist, and that is by having a population of New Zealanders who do not want to buy the drugs that they manufacture and supply. If we can start making some traction there—and I am sure this member here, the Hon Todd McClay, will be making some good inroads into that—then we will start seeing a difference.

This bill is not a panacea but what it does do is go a long way towards what needs to happen, because what it says is that the police have more tools. I can tell members here that there is nothing that enthuses a police officer working in organised crime more than the ability to get in a gang member’s face and make their life very uncomfortable. This bill provides that opportunity. It sends a message. It sends a message that gangs are not tolerated by communities. It sends a message that gangs are not tolerated by the Government. It sends a message that we will not put up with their intimidation, and it reduces their ability to intimidate. If the member Andrew Little wants to see it happening on beaches, bring it on. Throw a Supplementary Order Paper out there; I would certainly support it.

The gangs are a disgusting, parasitic blight on New Zealand—on all society—and anything we can do to push back on them, to deny them the intimidation they can wreak, all the better. I commend this bill.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I just wanted to take this short opportunity to get a right of reply to Jami-Lee Ross, and also to include in that some of the comments that were made by Mike Sabin. Jami-Lee Ross accused this side of the Chamber of supporting gangs. Then Mr Sabin—who I think had some very good points in his last speech—rattled off a whole lot of offences that gangs commit. I find it offensive that that side of the Chamber can claim that this side supports gangs and those kinds of crimes. I find that extremely offensive. I know this debate has been full of a bit of bluster, but to have Jami-Lee Ross accuse this side of the Chamber of supporting gangs and their actions, and then to have that list of offences read out by Mr Sabin—it is an unfortunate list of crimes, and we know it is true—is offensive. I find it offensive that Jami-Lee Ross can throw that accusation over at this side.

The Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill is a bill, as Mr Little said, that is cosmetic. If we wanted—and we have made this point many, many times—to take some action against the gangs, there are laws now that can be enforced, with proper policing, and can have the same effect. This bill is cosmetic. This is a Government that said it wanted to crack down on crime and crack down on gangs. In 2007 the Prime Minister said: “My Government will search out all legal and practicable means available for making it much, much tougher to be a member of a criminal gang in this country.” The way this Government does that is to change the dress code of the gangs. That is effectively what it is doing. It is saying: “You can’t wear your patch in Government departments.” We have already said on this side of the Chamber that a lot of Government departments already have the authority to do that. I have already mentioned the instance of the local police station in my area, Porirua. If you walk in there, they can ask you to remove your gang patch.

I also find it offensive that Mr Jami-Lee Ross can come here and talk about my community, where gangs are a problem, and say that by not supporting this bill we are not cracking down on gangs. I want to draw on a speech that Mr Sabin made on the previous bill before the House, and his comment about his ability to serve his local community and do what is best for it. I would not be doing the best for my community if I supported what we think is a cosmetic piece of legislation before us now. If we had changes that seriously attacked the drivers of people joining gangs, then this side of the Chamber would quite happily support them. But we are not going to support through this House cosmetic legislation that we do not think is effective.

I am not going to take up much more time of the Committee, but I find it offensive that Jami-Lee Ross throws that accusation over to this side of the Chamber and says that we are supportive of gangs. I want to reiterate the words of Phil Goff in our minority report on this bill: “Labour has no truck with gangs”. Patched gangs in our country are unfortunately the source of much crime and much pain to our community. If we want to be real about stamping down on them, let us get in this House some legislation that is actually going to be effective.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Australia are 9 for 1.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Relevancy.

IAN McKELVIE: My apologies; I will get back on the topic. I wanted to briefly acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay for bringing this piece of legislation, the Prohibition on Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, to the House, and Mark Mitchell for picking up the reins and continuing to steer it through the House. I also wanted to acknowledge my new colleagues, Claudette Hauiti and Paul Foster-Bell, who both spoke very strongly on the law and order issue today.

We have heard tonight that Labour has no truck with gangs. We have heard that a number of times today—in fact, Kris Faafoi has picked up the phrase and used it quite effectively—but I do not accept that. I think that this bill is not a panacea—and David Clendon made the point that it is not perfect. Well, of course it is not perfect. If we relied on perfection in everything we did in this country, we would never do anything. I think that this bill goes a long way to giving the police some tools, as my colleagues have said, to take action when it is required. They will not take action on every occasion; they will take action when it is necessary. I think that is the really important thing about legislation: it gives people options and it gives the law the opportunity to act when it needs to.

I also want to take to task a number of the statistics that Mr Goff has used tonight. He has talked about the change in numbers of police officers. I want to point out that to deal with gangs, we clearly need much better equipment than we have had in the past. This Government, through some technology gains and some additional opportunities it has given the police, has picked up some 520,000 hours per year in police time. That is 30 minutes per officer per shift. That is pretty significant. It puts any figures that Mr Goff might try to use into perspective. Clearly, the police are well equipped to deal with these types of issues. There is an inconvenient truth about the sense that this law will not alter the ability of police to make a difference; it certainly will. I think that if we do not give them tools to take action when they need to, to make a difference, then we certainly are not serving our police officers well.

I want to talk about the reason I think that this is a really important opportunity for us to change the way gangs behave in our communities, and I will refer to the intimidation factor, which I think is really important for people. I think gangs certainly intimidate. They certainly intimidate Government and council staff, and they intimidate people in public areas. I think that when they get in close proximity to buildings and staff, people who serve their communities and their country, we need to consider that as we move on with this bill. I do not want to spend a lot more time on this bill. I think that it has done a great job, and I think that the people who promoted this bill thoroughly deserve for it to go through Parliament and pass with flying colours.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I just wanted to quickly respond to a couple of other issues that have been brought up in relation to the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I would like to address some of the comments made by Andrew Little in his impassioned speech. I appreciate the fact that Mr Little would like to see this bill extended. He would like to see it cover beaches and playgrounds, but, unfortunately, we are restricted. We have to be focused on the fact that this is going to cover Government buildings. Eventually, I would love to see a bill passed in this House that would ban gang patches anywhere in the country, but that is not going to happen with this one, unfortunately. But those are very good points from Mr Little, and they are taken on board.

I would just like to comment in relation to the comments that Mr Faafoi made about Jami-Lee Ross. I think that the message that, sadly, the Labour Party is sending tonight is that, actually, you are not supportive of the police and you are being soft on gangs, because this piece of legislation very clearly—and through the select committee process, Kris, you have to acknowledge that we had—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! You must use the member’s full name.

MARK MITCHELL: —yes, sorry, Mr Chair, you are right—the Police Association come in and give evidence, or make a submission, in front of the Law and Order Committee. The Police Association spends a great deal of time digging into these things to see whether or not there is going to be genuine, real benefit to its members. It came in front of the select committee and it very clearly stated that this is a good piece of legislation and there is going to be a positive benefit for its members, for our serving police officers on the front line, so why you are not supporting this bill is beyond me. If you support the police, then you would support this bill. You would give them another tool that they can use in the fight against organised crime, serious crime, and gangs. I just want to support the comments that Jami-Lee Ross was making, because that is the point that he was actually trying to get across.

Those are the two issues that I really felt compelled to address, and I will now allow Mr Goff to speak.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am going to pick up some of the issues that have been raised by National members. I will begin with Mark Mitchell because he said: “Well, yeah, we don’t cover children’s playgrounds, we don’t cover beaches, we don’t cover recreational areas, but we had to start somewhere.” Well, I would have to ask Mark Mitchell why you would start with the area where you already have the power to prevent the entry of anyone wearing a gang patch. One of the National members asked why schools have to put up with patch-wearing members coming into our schools. The answer is they do not—the answer is they do not. The school, the education system, the Minister of Education, and any Minister in charge of any department has the power right now to prevent gang members from coming on to their premises. So I reiterate the advice given to the Law and Order Committee by the officials. It was that this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill adds no new power to any power that already exists to exclude gang members wearing patches. [Interruption]

Where you do not have the power, Mr McClay, is where my colleague Andrew Little talked about. If you take your wife and kids to the beach and there is a guy there with a gang patch on, you cannot do anything about that. If you walk down the street in Rotorua, as I am sure you do from time to time, you will find gang members walking down the street. There is no power to deal with them. But you are going to give the power to remove patch-wearing gang members from areas where they are already excluded. That is dumb, that is nonsense, and that is why this is a powder puff piece of legislation that has no meaning. Richard Prosser moved his Supplementary Order Paper 253, I think, in good faith. He listened to the arguments I put up at the select committee and said: “Here are all these anomalies.” I am sure that Mr Sabin knew, when my colleague Andrew Little talked about putting lipstick on a pig, that that is a well-known saying—no matter how much cosmetic change you make, the animal underneath it is still the animal that it always was. This bill makes no difference. I have got to say to Richard Prosser that, despite his best efforts, there are always going to be anomalies all the way down the patch. So we keep them off the grounds, but now we cannot keep them from the gate of the grounds. We cannot keep them from the beach. We cannot keep them from the playground. You are going the wrong way about it.

Actually, I want to give some praise to one of the suggestions that Mike Sabin made. That was about addressing the reasons why people become members of gangs. It is notable that Black Power said earlier this year that John Key was the gang’s best friend. Everybody knows Rob Muldoon was, and he was open about that. He was the former National Prime Minister who gave the gangs the house up in Hill Street—you know, Ministry of Works and Development houses for the gangs is the tradition. But this guy was saying that John Key is the gang’s best friend because, he said, recruitment was skyrocketing under the National Government because disaffected youth were drifting towards the gangs quicker than ever before because they had no jobs. If I were to do anything to try to stop a kid from getting into a gang, putting that kid into an apprenticeship and giving him a job would be a bloody good start. That is the sort of positive action that would really make a difference. So I agree with Mike Sabin. We need to deal with the factors that push people—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.