Wednesday, 4 September 2013

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Sweden—Dr Anders W Jonsson, Riksdag

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentarian from the Riksdag of Sweden, Dr Anders W Jonsson MP, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Skycity, Convention Centre—Advice to Cabinet

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Economic Development: When he said, in relation to the Skycity convention centre deal, “the negotiated significant additional harm-minimisation measures that apply to all gambling machines in that casino will together act to reduce harm” was he basing his claim on the Health Ministry’s gambling harm minimisation team’s advice; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): My comment was based on information contained in the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment following consultation with, and summarising advice received from, the following agencies: the Ministry of Justice, the Gambling Commission, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, Te Puni Kōkiri, Treasury, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, the Office of Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Internal Affairs, the New Zealand Police, and the Ministry of Health.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Minister exclude from the regulatory impact statement the advice from the Ministry of Health that it was “doubtful” voluntary pre-commit cards would reduce harm, and that Skycity was already using the technology so it was not, in fact, either new or additional?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member misunderstands the role of the regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement is prepared by officials, and it is a summary of all the different official advice that comes from different agencies.

Metiria Turei: Why, then, did the Minister sign off on the regulatory impact statement, which excluded the advice from the Ministry of Health that doubling of host responsibility staff at the Skycity Casino was likely to have at best a minimal effect?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again I think the member is misunderstanding the role of the regulatory impact statement, which is to collect together the information supplied by different departments. It may come as a surprise to the member that I have not read the advice from every single one of those agencies. The regulatory impact statement—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why not? You’re in charge.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Do not be a clown, Trevor. The regulatory impact statement is put together as a summary of the different agencies.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it not his practice to read the advice from all officials on bills?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is not my practice to read advice to individual Ministers from every single agency for a paper that I am taking to Cabinet. I very much doubt that it is any Minister’s practice, and it was certainly not the practice of previous Ministers in the previous Government.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister told this House that Cabinet had considered “all of the risks and benefits of the social and economic impacts” of this deal, was he mistaken, or was he deliberately misleading the House?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, neither. Cabinet, as always in these situations, receives a Cabinet paper, and in appropriate cases, including this one, a regulatory impact assessment, which different agencies contribute to and which is summarised by the lead agency, is then taken to Cabinet. That is what occurred in this case, as occurs in a whole range of other cases. It has to be said that the regulatory impact statements have been a heck of a lot better prepared under this Government than under previous Governments.

Metiria Turei: What other advice did the Minister choose to leave out of the regulatory impact statement, and did part of it include the advice on the intended reduction in the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) dividend as a result of the sale of land to Skycity under the convention centre deal?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, for the member’s benefit, if she had listened to a previous answer, she would notice that the supposition contained in the first part of that supplementary question is incorrect. In relation to the second part of the supplementary question, she is also incorrect because, in actual fact, in terms of the forgiveness of dividends, which was flagged, potentially, some time ago, that is for the opportunity for TVNZ to renovate its building next door, which I think is a fantastic outcome. It has sold some land to Skycity as part of the convention centre arrangements and it is getting an opportunity to make a much-needed renovation to its facilities.

Metiria Turei: Were Cabinet and his caucus colleagues made aware of the likely significant extra cost of this need to induce TVNZ by way of a reduced dividend expectation to move out of part of its central Auckland premises to make way for the convention centre deal before they voted for the bill?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I completely reject the assertion that the member makes. The reality, as I have made quite clear, is that the convention centre could proceed with this extra piece of land or without, and it is quite obvious that it could do so. TVNZ was given the opportunity to sell the land. It went to its shareholding Ministers and said: “Well, look, we would like to renovate our building. Would you support us in doing so?”. As has been said publicly for some time now, it was indicated that shareholding Ministers would support that, and so out of this we will get a fantastic convention centre for New Zealand based in the middle of Auckland City, generating jobs, generating tourism opportunities, and also TVNZ, next door, will get an upgrade of its building, including earthquake strengthening and future-proofing. So it is all working out as a pretty big win-win.

Metiria Turei: Did the Minister advise the Minister of Broadcasting, Craig Foss, last year about the possibility of a reduced dividend from TVNZ due to the Skycity deal, given that Mr Foss demanded at least 9 percent in dividends from TVNZ in December?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the matter was raised by TVNZ with its shareholding Ministers a reasonably short time ago. There was a letter that went back, which I referred to publicly, I think, from memory, a couple of months ago, and it was probably shortly before that. So I think that relating it to last year is probably reasonably irrelevant.

Metiria Turei: Why did the regulatory impact statement cite the 2011 New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report and table 1 as showing that the convention centre would employ 500 full-time equivalents, when, in fact, no such figures are in either the tables or the report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research 2011 report?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would have to go back and check the comments the member makes in relation to the regulatory impact statement, but it is important for her to realise that the figures referred to in the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report are a different set of figures and do not bear any direct relationship to the figures around construction and operation of the convention centre. They are only an input into the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report looks at wider economic analysis and does not refer to the number of jobs either in the construction or, in fact, in the operation of the centre.

Metiria Turei: What discussion has he or his officials had with Skycity about its participation or non-participation in the select committee process on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I had one conversation with the chair of Skycity on a number of matters, including some not related to Skycity. He asked whether it was something that Skycity should do, and I said to him that it was open to the company to decide what to do. I did not think it was particularly necessary, but it was very much Skycity’s call to make and I think it made its own call.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that when his colleagues, such as Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, voted in support of the Skycity deal, they did so on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate financial analysis, inaccurate advice on the actual cost to the taxpayer from this deal, incorrect projections of job numbers, and a patently untrue account of the impact of harm minimisation measures?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, the member is wrong on all three of those counts. This particular convention centre, which all of the National Party caucus campaigned on at the last election—and I appreciate that this is the second time in 2 days that the Green Party has advised us not to follow the policies on which we were elected—will create 1,000 jobs in construction, will create 500 jobs in ongoing operation, and will enhance the New Zealand convention industry. It is a good deal for New Zealand, and this Government believes strongly in it.

Businesses—Competitiveness and Financial Support from Government

2. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “our companies are becoming more competitive”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. I am pleased the member asked that question, because this morning the Global Competitiveness Index for 2013-2014 was released. This shows that New Zealand has risen five places in the last year to a ranking of 18. This is the first time New Zealand has placed ahead of Australia, which has slipped back to 21st place. New Zealand was ranked first in the world in the following measures: procedures to start a business, days to start a business, investor protection, and inflation. We are ranked second in the world for soundness of its banks and for trade barriers. We also ranked highly for health, education, quality of institutions, goods, and labour market efficiency. Of course, there were other areas where New Zealand was ranked lower, and we will, of course, move to improve those rankings.

Hon David Parker: How does intervening to override the determination of the independent Commerce Commission for the benefit of one company, Chorus, demonstrate his Government’s commitment to competitive and fair markets, given that it will increase both fibre and copper broadband prices and reduce competition?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with most of what the member said. As the member will know, the issues around Chorus and fibre pricing are to do with the Government’s project to roll out ultra-fast broadband, a project that was fully supported, as I understand it, by the Opposition. Of course it represents a Government intervention in the market. That is the point of it, because we believe that the market would not have delivered ultra-fast broadband to most New Zealand households probably for another decade.

Hon David Parker: Does he support the effort of the Minister for Communications and Information Technology to set the price for copper-based broadband at higher levels than recommended by the Commerce Commission?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do support the measures that the Minister for Communications and Information Technology is taking. As the member will know, at some stage the country will have to pay the price of a new ultra-fast broadband infrastructure. This Government decided that that time is now, not in 10 years’ time.

Maggie Barry: What alternative policies has he seen that would affect the competitiveness of New Zealand businesses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fact that New Zealand is rising in the ratings of competitiveness but still has some way to go to get from No. 18 to No. 1 means we should look out very carefully for policies that are going to hold that progress back, because a more competitive economy delivers more jobs and, in particular, higher incomes. I have seen proposals for a capital gains tax on every business and farm, increasing emissions trading scheme taxes, minimum wage increases up to $18 an hour, the cancellation of the 90-day trial period, winding back of ACC changes, extra transport charges, and proposals to borrow a lot more money. These are all coming from the Labour leadership campaign.

Hon David Parker: Does he believe Chorus and its competitors are being treated in an even-handed manner by this Government, given that Chorus already has a 14 year, $1 billion interest-free loan subsidised by the taxpayer, and that other companies that tendered for the ultra-fast broadband contract could not get a base price for copper that it is now giving to Chorus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s programme to roll out ultra-fast broadband roughly 10 years ahead of when it would have occurred has been completely transparent. We spent a good couple of years discussing with market participants the process that we would follow. We went through a fully transparent, completely commercial process, the result of which was that Chorus and others won the contract to roll out ultra-fast broadband. The Government makes no apology for intervening in that market to bring forward the roll-out of that network. Until today, I thought the Labour Opposition supported that. It is now clear that along with its policy of wanting to close the smelter, it wants to stop the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell us how many subcontractors are about to go belly up because Transfield Services, which is associated with the much-vaunted ultra-fast broadband programme about which he speaks, is not paying out and is months behind in its payments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Hon David Parker: Why can the Minister not understand that with the Rio Tinto subsidy, the revisions to the Chorus subsidy, and the casino convention centre deal, the Government is saying to business and investors that it is easier to get ahead in this economy by grifting corporate welfare from the Government via private phone calls and dinner with the Prime Minister than it is to succeed as a smaller business using innovation and creativity to compete in the market place?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is talking nonsense. If there was no ultra-fast broadband roll-out, if the smelter had closed, and if there was no convention centre, those members would be saying: “Why aren’t you a smart, interventionist Government like we would be?”. No one believes Labour with that kind of contradiction. He is talking rubbish.

Economic Growth—Progress

3. PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in building a stronger economy that will support more jobs and higher incomes, following the domestic recession which started in early 2008 well before the global financial crisis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is making good progress in rebuilding the economy after the recession began in 2008, before the global financial crisis. Back then unemployment started to rise and the Government faced a decade of deficits as a result of the stewardship of the last Government. This week Treasury published its monthly Economic Indicators for August, which confirmed a number of positive trends in the economy. Households and businesses are becoming increasingly optimistic and consumers, in particular, are beginning to spend more as their confidence lifts. Of course, today we had the ratings from the World Competitiveness Index that indicate that New Zealand is beginning the long crawl back from the damage done by the previous Government, which reduced our competitiveness.

Paul Goldsmith: What did Treasury’s latest monthly Economic Indicators say about the outlook for the labour market?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury has noted that there is a modest strengthening of the labour market in the June quarter, and noted that the household labour force survey confirmed that the number of people employed rose by 8,000. This was a particularly positive outcome, following a large increase in the number of people employed in the March quarter. That means that over the past 6 months an extra 46,000 New Zealanders have been employed. Treasury notes that the quarterly employment survey showed a similar strengthening in the number of filled jobs. Of course, it has not grown as fast as we would like, but 46,000 jobs in 6 months is a pretty solid effort and we hope that the economy will build on that in the next 6 months.

Paul Goldsmith: In the light of the improving labour market, what do the latest indicators say about wage growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Total weekly gross earnings grew by 1.2 percent in the June quarter, according to the quarterly employment survey. This took annual growth and weekly gross earnings to 3.8 percent. This is relatively subdued nominal wage growth. However, with annual inflation at only 0.7 percent, real annual wage growth is similar to the rate in the mid-2000s—that is, real incomes are about 3.1 percent higher over the year. That is above the level of inflation. This wage growth and low inflation will continue to boost Kiwi family incomes. Of course, we would like to see more of it, and the competitiveness index results today indicate there is the possibility—the probability—of better increases in incomes in the future because we are becoming more competitive.

Paul Goldsmith: What progress is being made in rebuilding Christchurch, after the devastating earthquakes, and what contribution is this making to economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Today marks the third anniversary of the first large earthquake. We want to acknowledge the courage and resilience shown by the people of Christchurch and communities across Canterbury. They are making very good progress in what are still difficult circumstances in the challenging task of rebuilding their lives and their communities. The Government continues to back the rebuild and boosted its commitment in the May Budget, from $13 billion to $15 billion. We are also working hard to progress anchor projects in the Christchurch central business district, with the first section of the Avon River precinct opened recently. Of course, there are still issues that are frustrating both homeowners and commercial building owners, related to the complexity of insurance arrangements in Christchurch. The extra activity is reflecting in economic statistics: the Canterbury economy grew 6.6 percent in the last 12 months—well ahead of other regions.

Housing, Affordable—First-home Buyers, Mortgages, and Reserve Bank Intervention

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Housing: Does he agree with the New Zealand Herald that “the Government’s latest response to the problem of housing affordability is as ill-directed as it is insipid”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): No—although that editorial on our KiwiSaver and Welcome Home Loan changes was entitled “no silver bullet” on housing—but I do agree that the changes to these schemes are a small part of what is required to address housing supply and affordability. That is why the Government has taken action, including three major bills before this Parliament. In respect of the KiwiSaver changes, more help was going to Southland and helping people there to get a home deposit than to Auckland, despite the fact that Auckland has got 15 times the population and three times the average house price. Our change in the price caps and also in the income caps will reverse that. In respect of the Welcome Home Loan changes, they will increase threefold the number of families that are able to get a first home.

Phil Twyford: Does he think Kiwis will find it easier or harder to get a first home since the Government failed to secure an exemption for first-home buyers from loan-to-value ratio lending limits, and since the ANZ, the ASB, the BNZ, and Westpac have all put up their interest rates and their charges as a result of loan-to-value ratio lending limits?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do agree with the member that the level of interest rates is one of the most important factors that affect housing affordability. That is why I am so proud to be part of a Government that has the lowest interest rates in 50 years. I note that in the entire time I have been in Parliament interest rates have gone up under Labour Governments and come down under National Governments. In respect of the very specific question—whether the Reserve Bank charges have resulted in an exemption—indeed they have. The Reserve Bank has said that Welcome Home Loans will be exempted from the loan-to-value ratio limits, and that is one of the reasons that the Government has trebled the number of Welcome Home Loans.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance, who told the House that the lack of an exemption for first-home buyers was not the fault of the Government but was, in fact, the responsibility of the Reserve Bank; if so, is he calling the Reserve Bank Governor a liar, given that the governor said that the use of these tools by the Reserve Bank was recently agreed in a memorandum of understanding with the Minister of Finance? And if so, does he think that the Minister of Finance is calling himself a liar when he said that the memorandum signed by the Government provides four new measures for the Reserve Bank, including loan-to-value ratios?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member shows an ignorance of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—an Act that was passed by the previous Government—that is, the decisions of the Reserve Bank are independent of the Government, and we respect that independence. In respect of what the Reserve Bank has said, I would draw his attention to the fact that the single greatest factor that the Reserve Bank said we needed to move on, in respect of housing, was supply, and particularly land supply. That is what the Government is doing. What the member and the members opposite are doing is actually trying to stop the Government from freeing up land supply and making houses more affordable.

Phil Twyford: Is he concerned that low to middle income first-home buyers are going to be disadvantaged by loan-to-value lending limits, given the reported comments of mortgage broker Sonya Reid, who says that banks will cherry-pick clients, with those on high incomes and professional occupations likely to be preferred?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As occurs on so many issues, we get contradictions between different Labour members. The first time—

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —I heard it proposed that there should be loan-to-value ratio limits was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yesterday we traversed on some pretty regular occasions what responsibility that Minister has for Labour Party policy, and we agreed there was none. Describing it is not his responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the point of order that has been raised. I am going to ask Phil Twyford to ask the question again, and then ask the Minister to answer it.

Phil Twyford: Thank you. Is he concerned that low to middle income first-home buyers are going to be disadvantaged by loan-to-value lending limits, given the reported comments of mortgage broker Sonya Reid, who says that banks will cherry-pick clients, with those on high incomes and professional occupations likely to be preferred?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The most important thing for low and middle income buyers wanting to get into their first home is actually the level of interest rates. The level of interest rates was such that when Labour left office, the average Kiwi household was paying $250 a week more in their interest payments. The steps that have been taken by the Reserve Bank and the steps that have been taken by this Government are to keep interest rates low for longer. That is the best way in which we can help both first home and other homeowners.

Phil Twyford: What action will the Government take to help first-home buyers who have already paid a 10 percent deposit, but will not be able to complete their purchase before the 6-month grace period for loan-to-value ratios ends, meaning that they will have to stump up an extra $50,000 or more within the next 6 months?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is incorrect in two respects. The first is that the Reserve Bank has actually put a limit on, and not prohibited, the number of low-value deposits. The banks have said that they are going to give priority to first-home buyers. The second point, in asking what the Government has done: the Government has trebled—trebled—the number of Welcome Home Loans that are exempted from those Reserve Bank limits. That means thousands more—thousands more—first-home buyers will have an opportunity to get into their first home.

Foundation Courses—Initiatives Targeting Young People and Beneficiaries

5. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about foundation education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): This morning I announced a number of changes to foundation education—firstly, that the very successful Youth Guarantee scheme will be expanded to 18 and 19-year-olds next year. It is currently available only to 16 and 17-year-olds, with limited exceptions. The Youth Guarantee has been very successful in encouraging 16 and 17-year-olds to stay engaged in education and to complete level 1 and 2 qualifications instead of dropping out and going on to a benefit. However, there are older teenagers aged 18 and 19 who have already dropped out of school or who otherwise need a chance to get that vital first level 2 qualification. With Youth Guarantee, trades academies, and the new vocational pathways, the Government is confident that every single teenage New Zealander has a fees-free path to a level 2 qualification, giving them access to training and skills for employment.

Colin King: What announcements has he made regarding training for beneficiaries?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This morning, alongside the Minister for Social Development, we announced that from next year the Government will be winding down the Foundation-Focused Training Opportunities programme and replacing it with an expanded range of effective education and training programmes to help beneficiaries and young people get into work. From next year there will be considerably more places at English for speakers of other languages courses, more places at intensive literacy and numeracy courses, and more money spent on short courses that assist in getting beneficiaries into work, and all New Zealanders below the age of 25 will be able to access fees-free level 1 and 2 courses.

Colin King: What announcements has he made about foundation education for 20 to 24-year-olds?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This one is also very significant. Starting from next year, all level 1 and 2 foundation education courses will be fees-free for 20 to 24-year-olds. Level 1 and 2 courses deliver core foundational skills required for success in life. They provide students with the skills required for higher-level study, training, and employment. Most students gain these skills and qualifications in a school setting, but too many New Zealanders do not have these skills at age 20 and older. The changes I have announced today mean that anybody under the age of 25 will be able to obtain a level 2 qualification fees-free, whether that is at a secondary school, through a Youth Guarantee programme, or at a tertiary provider such as a private training establishment. This is a very significant commitment to New Zealand’s future.

Dr David Clark: What does the Minister say to the most high-risk unemployed people in Dunedin about today’s announcement of the closure of the Foundation-Focused Training Opportunities programme and the withdrawal of around $1 million from trusted Dunedin second-chance education providers such as the Kōkiri training centre, the Dunedin Training Centre, the Salvation Army, Approach Community Learning, and Tokomairiro Training; and will the Minister guarantee that all of the funding withdrawn by the Tertiary Education Commission from Otago and Southland will be reallocated through the Otago and Southland Work and Income offices?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The allocations will be based on demand for positions, and as I said to the member at the outset through the earlier questions—if he had listened—actually, they will be replaced by a range of other places. For example—

Dr David Clark: It’s a very straight question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —that is right, and I am giving you a very straight answer, parrot—2,000 to 4,000 additional short-duration training skills courses for beneficiaries, 1,420 additional English for speakers of other languages places, 1,350 additional intensive literacy and numeracy courses, additional fees-free foundation education level 1 and 2 courses for 20 to 24-year-olds, and the extension of Youth Guarantee for 18 and 19-year-olds. The Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Social Development will be allocating those in individual regions according to need and demand.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question as to whether he would guarantee that all of the funding—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. It was—[Interruption] I might make a comment on the point of order that he has raised. I think that on this occasion it was not a straightforward question, because there were at least two questions in the question that was asked. The Minister addressed that question satisfactorily, and the Minister has the prerogative of answering either of the supplementary questions if a member asks two in one question. Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Dr David Clark: Given that Otago unemployment is at its highest level in 20 years, can he guarantee that some of the extra allocation of Youth Guarantee places will be funded in the Otago region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A couple of things there—firstly, it is important to note that although, yes, Otago’s unemployment is high, it is lower than the national average. It is lower than Auckland’s, it is lower than Wellington’s, and it is lower than Waikato’s, and therefore the number of places made available will depend on demand in different regions. It is important that we do that so that we do not artificially create a certain number of places in each region and have young people in one region missing out while there are empty places in another region.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will agree, Mr Speaker, that that was a very straight question as to whether some of the extra allocation of Youth Guarantee places will be funded in the Otago region.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister responded by saying that the money will be allocated by demand, not by region.

State-owned Assets, Sales—Public Support and Economic Programme

6. HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) to the Prime Minister: Does he accept that his reported comments about the asset sales referendum being a $9 million waste of money are likely to be considered rude, disrespectful and insulting by the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who have signed the petition for just such a referendum; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) on behalf of the Prime Minister: No; because the Government’s share offer programme was extensively debated and discussed throughout 2011 and during the election campaign. The Opposition at the time described the election as a referendum on asset sales. In fact, one party put out a press release just before the general election titled “A vote for National is a Vote for Asset Sales”, and that party was the Mana party.

Hone Harawira: Does the fact that he does not want to spend $9 million to ask New Zealanders whether they support asset sales, even though hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have requested it, but he is happy to spend $36 million on the America’s Cup, $30 million on Rio Tinto, and $1.6 billion to bail out a failed finance company, and do backdoor deals with casinos to let them steal even more money from the poor, paint an accurate picture of this Government’s priority of corporate interests over people’s needs; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL: I reject most of what that member said because this Government’s priorities are jobs, growth, and opportunities for New Zealand families. The mixed-ownership model programme is part of our wider economic plan to control debt and provide funding and money to invest in important social infrastructure like schools, roads, and hospitals.

Hone Harawira: Does the fact that he does not want to spend $9 million to ask New Zealanders whether they support asset sales, and does not want to consider any of the proven measures to raise family incomes and well-being, such as a financial transaction tax, a capital gains tax, raising the minimum wage, introducing a living wage, having a Government job creation programme, or investing in feeding our kids in schools, confirm the fact that his Government has no interest in raising the living standards of ordinary New Zealanders; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL: Of course, we would reject most of the claims that that member has made in that question. The reason is that in January 2011 the Government indicated that it would embark on a mixed-ownership model programme if it were re-elected. We then detailed that in the Budget in May 2011. Then we had a general election in 2011 at the end of the year, where the Government received a resounding vote of support from the New Zealand public. A party that was promoting the plan that that member just enunciated got close to 1 percent of votes, and that party was his own.

Oil, Gas, and Minerals Exploration—Public Notification of Deep-sea Drilling

7. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Has she had any advice that exploratory drilling at deep sea levels may pose significant environmental or health and safety risks, and if so, why is she proposing that exploratory deep sea drilling, like the Deepwater Horizon Well, is non-notified under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 and therefore protected from public submissions?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): I have received advice that if a large-scale oil spill were to occur, it may well have significant environmental risks, but I have also had advice saying that the likelihood of such a spill from an exploratory drill was very low. I also have seen advice from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) that says there were no activities associated with oil and gas extraction that were considered to represent an extreme environmental risk. To the contrary, exploratory drilling involves the drilling of a very small hole in the seabed, and when operating as intended it has a low environmental impact. At this exploratory stage of the process it is the environmental impact and safeguards that the regulator needs to be satisfied with, and I am confident that the Environmental Protection Authority, retaining full discretion to accept or to decline the application, and impose conditions as needed on a case by case basis, achieves this.

Hon Maryan Street: Why does she think that environmental experts and local groups should not be permitted to submit on the potential environmental and economic impacts for the surrounding area, given the significant risks attaching to exploratory drilling?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I have every confidence that the Environmental Protection Authority has access to all of the expertise and advice that it wishes to access. It will have all of the information available to it, and it will be able to make the decision based on the facts and the information in front of it, which is appropriate and is the way the vast majority of regulatory decisions in this country are made.

Hon Phil Heatley: What reports has the Minister seen on the Government’s offshore oil and gas exploration proposals?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I have seen reports noting that offshore oil and gas drilling is an essential feature of domestic and export growth, and also that decisions on these matters should be made in a rational fashion not based on knee-jerk emotionalism. The member across the House who was asking questions previously, Maryan Street, may want to check which faction she is backing because these quotes came from the Hon Shane Jones.

Hon Maryan Street: Talking about deep-sea drilling, does she think that New Zealand is sufficiently prepared to deal with the risk of a deep-sea exploratory well blow-out, given that Maritime New Zealand considers itself prepared to deal with a spill of only up to 3,500 tonnes, when the Rena vessel alone was carrying 1,700 tonnes and the Gulf of Mexico exploratory well spilled 600,000 tonnes?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Yes I am satisfied that New Zealand is very well positioned, given particularly the fact that the Health and Safety in Employment (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations have only just recently been updated to international best practice, and that the level of insurance required to be carried by operators has been increased under this Government. I can certainly be confident that New Zealand is far better positioned now that we have a regime for environmental protection in the exclusive economic zone, which not only did the Labour-Green Government not bother with in 9 years but when the National Government introduced it, those parties tried to block it.

Hon Maryan Street: Why does she expect the public to have full confidence in her Environmental Protection Authority appointees exercising their full discretion in granting non-notified permits, given she attempted to appoint someone to the authority who was going to carry on consulting work for the oil and gas industry during his time on the board?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I reject that assertion. She is simply incorrect.

Brendan Horan: Given that nearly 2 years after the wreck of the Rena on a rock there is still oil and debris floating ashore, what confidence can the Government give to the people of New Zealand that an oil spill of, say, one-hundredth of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill can be contained when the Government’s current rapid oil response unit consists of three aluminium dinghies just 8 metres long, complete with depth sounder, radio, compass, GPS, and two outboard motors?

Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all, the member may not be aware that the Rena incident is not a matter that would have been covered under the exclusive economic zone legislation. He may not be aware of that, but that is certainly the case. Secondly, I would refer that member to the answer I have just given around New Zealand’s preparedness. Thirdly, I would point out to the member that, actually, the environmental monitoring reports around the recovery from the Rena suggest that the environment has recovered extremely well and exceeded expectations.

Courts—Restorative Justice Conferences and Review of Criminal Justice System

8. CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National) to the Minister of Justice: What changes are being made to pre-sentence restorative justice services?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): As a result of this Government’s further investment, I am delighted to have announced today that we are expanding our pre-sentence restorative justice conferences. In 2014-15 an additional 2,400 conferences will be provided, bringing the total number of pre-sentence restorative justice conferences to 3,600 across the country. These conferences will now be available in every court across New Zealand. To ensure providers are equipped, the Ministry of Justice has completed an open tender process and has confirmed new contracts with 17 providers and a specialist sexual offending provider. Investing in pre-sentence restorative justice helps to reduce reoffending and gives victims a stronger voice in the justice system.

Claudette Hauiti: How do restorative justice conferences contribute to positive outcomes?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Restorative justice gives victims the ability to confront their offenders and to tell them directly the impact their offending has had. It can be life changing for both the victim, who is able to express their feelings to the person who caused their grief, and the offender, who is directly confronted with the results of their actions. It is a voluntary process, and both parties have to agree to participate. It is very carefully supported by trained providers contracted by the Ministry of Justice. Research shows that 74 percent of victims who engaged in a conference felt safer and 80 percent would recommend the process to others. Research also shows a 20 percent reduction in reoffending rates when compared with offenders who have not participated in a restorative justice conference.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. What consideration, if any, has she given to initiate a review of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system, and is there any possibility of a review being considered in the near future?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That question is well wide of the primary question, but I can give an attempt at it. This is an issue that I take very seriously. Of course, we have not only our obligations to all New Zealanders but also our international obligations. This is something that I believe we are taking extremely seriously.

Māori Television—Appointment Process for Chief Executive

9. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the board of Māori Television?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Clare Curran: Does he believe the chair of the Māori Television board has properly managed any potential conflicts of interest in the process of hiring a new chief executive?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would expect, consistent with the behaviour of all Crown boards, that members of that board have followed appropriate processes for dealing with conflicts of interest.

Clare Curran: Is he aware that the chair and board were offered a briefing by the Chief Executive Officer of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), Kevin Kenrick, the former employer of Paora Maxwell, in regard to Mr Maxwell’s employment history at TVNZ, and does he find it strange that that offer was not accepted, given Mr Maxwell exited TVNZ under a confidential agreement?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would expect that that board, having been appointed to run the Māori Television Service, will conduct whatever process it is going through appropriately.

Clare Curran: Would it be satisfactory, as shareholding Minister, having a chief executive officer of Māori Television who left TVNZ under a cloud of financial and staff mismanagement?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is the responsibility of the board of Māori Television to decide on who its chief executive might be. That is what it is appointed to do, and it would not be my intention, consistent with the behaviour of all shareholding Ministers under any Government, to tell it who to recruit for chief executive.

Security Intelligence Service—Legality of Operations

10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by his statement yesterday when asked whether he was satisfied that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has always operated lawfully under his leadership; “as far as I am aware, yes”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How on earth can he say that the SIS has acted lawfully when it breached section 131 of the Search and Surveillance Act when it failed to produce evidence of its identity and refused to produce a copy of the search warrant when it illegally raided former Fijian Cabinet Minister Rajesh Singh’s home in Auckland?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member or anyone believes that there was anything unlawful about the conduct of the SIS, they have two avenues of complaint: to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or to the police. I would suggest that if the member believes there was unlawfulness, he takes the matters up with the people with the capacity to deal with them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Again, how on earth can the Acting Prime Minister say that, when the Minister of Internal Affairs dropped case reference CIV-2013—that is, this year—485-240 before the High Court at Wellington 1 week before the hearing date, if it was not, firstly, that illegal action by the SIS was about to be exposed, and, secondly, that former Cabinet Minister Rajesh Singh, a New Zealand permanent resident, and associate Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement people are some of the 80 New Zealanders spied on illegally by the Government Communications Security Bureau?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There seemed to be several questions there, but I can assure the member that I am advised that the SIS is not involved in a court case related to that matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether an arrangement was made between the Fijian military regime and the New Zealand Government to spy on former Fijian Cabinet Minister Rajesh Singh and other members of the Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement living legally in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It would be very surprising if the New Zealand Government made any arrangement of any nature with the Fijian Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if that is remotely true, why, then, did the commander of the Fijian land forces, Colonel Mosese Tikoitoga, text Mr Singh saying he was about to be raided by the SIS at the exact time the raid was happening?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no idea.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Minister has had 24 hours to answer questions on this subject. The point is that the same person in the Marshall Islands got up and said: “Put up or shut up.” Now I am asking questions, and I am not getting any answers at all, on what is probably demonstrably illegal activity, and the Prime Minister knows it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is welcome to go back and look at his question. His question was whether it is true that a particular gentleman in Fiji texted somebody in New Zealand, and the Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister said that he had no idea.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just understand clearly that this is a fresh point of order, not in any way—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, it is a fresh point of order, because it goes to the ambit of all the questions that were asked by way of supplementary questions today. The Prime Minister, or whoever is standing in for him, did not seem to know the answer to any of them when, in fact, the court case is on record. The internal affairs action, which is associated with the SIS, is on record. The texts are available because the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. He is now relitigating not only rulings that I have just given but rulings that I gave yesterday.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Stick around for the debate, then.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is welcome, at this stage, to stick around for the debate.

Wanganui Collegiate School—Integration

11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Will Wanganui Collegiate be required to supervise a child if the child’s parents are unable to pay the $5,200 “parent contribution” for meals, house activities and supervision?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes. The board of trustees must provide a safe environment for students, which includes supervision. If students are boarders, then the meals, house activities, and supervision are part of their boarding fees, and, as the member was advised in questions in the House last week, the only compulsory fee that parents must pay is the attendance due.

Chris Hipkins: How many parents elected not to pay the supposedly voluntary parental contributions in the last school year?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have that level of detail, but I am happy to get it for the member.

Chris Hipkins: When she signed off the decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate, did she read the section on attendance dues and donations, which stated that “While the remaining costs to day pupils are voluntary, there would be considerable pressure on families to pay these. This is clearly a limiting factor for families in the local Whanganui network to access education at Wanganui Collegiate, given the socio-economic profile of the area.”; if so, does she still believe that her decision to integrate the school means that a Wanganui Collegiate education will be available to a wider number of students?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, and yes.

Chris Hipkins: Is she aware that Wanganui Collegiate describes, under the information about its fees, that “The active involvement in house and on-campus activities for all students is unique and develops and maintains the collegial sense of community within our students.”; if so, is she seriously arguing that there is a place within Wanganui Collegiate for students whose parents will not pay the $5,200 parental contribution?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes; and yes.

Chris Hipkins: When she signed off the decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate, did she read the ministry’s advice that “The Whanganui-Rangitīkei local network of State schools has significant surplus capacity, as does the wider network of State integrated boarding schools.”, that “The network of State secondary schools currently has surplus capacity of 1,407 student places.”, and that “There are a further 3,107 surplus student places in primary schools in the area.”; if so, will she rule out making any further changes to the schooling network in Whanganui?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, I did read, understand, and completely consider all of those details, and I am comfortable with the decision. We will continue to monitor provision in the wider Whanganui-Rangitīkei region.

Chris Hipkins: So that’s a no to the second part?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We will continue to monitor it.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Ian McKelvie. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I have called Ian McKelvie.

Drinking-water Supplies—Assistance for Communities

12. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made regarding assistance for communities to improve their drinking water?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): Recently I announced that $7.9 million from the Drinking Water Subsidy Fund will be provided to small communities to help them establish or improve their drinking-water supplies. This funding will help council and community water suppliers provide safer drinking water to 21 communities, totalling approximately 22,000 people.

Ian McKelvie: What types of project have been approved?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Every project that was applied for in this year’s funding round and met the technical requirements has had a subsidy approved. Subsidies ranged from over $2 million for the Whakatāne District Council to upgrade the Rangitaiki Plains - Edgecumbe water supply, serving 1,730 people, to $51,000 being provided to the Pirihimā Whānau Trust to treat and filter the Te Kōhanga - Pirihimā water supply, so that around 55 people will receive safer drinking water. In addition, subsidies have been awarded to four West Coast of the South Island communities, and to Foxton, Featherston, Pahīatua, Whirinaki, Tuakau, Koriniti, Taumarunui, and other communities as well.

Iain Lees-Galloway: With regard to the technical requirements the Associate Minister referred to in her previous answer, what has been the impact of her Government’s decision to restrict access to the Drinking Water Subsidy Fund by changing the deprivation index limit from three to seven, and reducing the Government contribution from 95 percent to 85 percent of total costs on communities like Tokomaru and others where the presence of giardia and cryptosporidium means water must be boiled to be safe?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Back in 2005, the Budget allocated time-limited funding of $117.8 million over the years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 for the drinking-water subsidies. But back in December 2010, the Government changed the timing of the expenditure so that it will now occur over a longer period of time to align better with the timetables of local authorities. Ten million dollars per annum is planned until the end of the programme, and it was determined that we would target the funding much more at the communities that needed it the most. Therefore, although I do not have the particular details I believe the member is asking for, this was to target the poorer communities in New Zealand and make sure that we also allowed the funding rounds to continue for much longer, allowing councils to make the best use of this money.

Urgent Debates Declined

Syria, Internal Conflict—Government Response

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from Dr Kennedy Graham seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the question of New Zealand Government policy in response to a request by the United States to lend moral support for a US military strike against Syria. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence that involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The Government has not yet made a decision on the request by the United States Secretary of State, and there is no ministerial responsibility for the global perception that chemical weapons were used in Syria or for the response of the United States Secretary of State or the United Nations Secretary-General. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action that has occurred and for which it is responsible. There must be a distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought for debate. The application is therefore declined.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is increasingly clear that this Government is not governing in the interests of everyday New Zealanders, and nowhere is that clearer than in respect of asset sales. It is always about ideology and always about growing the gap between the rich and the poor, delivering to the sector that National so plainly governs for. Only 3 percent of New Zealanders have purchased shares in Mighty River Power. We know that it increases the Government deficit by $100 million a year. We know that there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who have been willing to sign a petition that is now requiring the Government to hold a referendum as to whether asset sales proceed, but still the Government proceeds remorselessly with its asset sales programme. It has been willing to run roughshod over the interests of New Zealanders.

It has been willing to push up the price of power. It has done that just recently in order to get Meridian Energy off the block. It has given a $30 million subsidy to Rio Tinto, the effect of which is to intervene in the pretend electricity market that we have in a way that is increasing electricity prices, which is a double blow to New Zealanders at the very time when they are suffering the loss of these assets, which they hold dear.

Selling what already exists does nothing to increase New Zealand’s economic output, and the Government knows it. It shows the paucity of its vision for New Zealand, and it is one of the reasons why a third of all New Zealanders have not had a pay increase for 2 years. It is one of the reasons why the median wage has gone down in real terms since 2009.

Then we have the excuses that are put out by the Government for the asset sales programme. It says that it had a Government debt problem. Well, despite this Government’s unaffordable tax cuts, because it inherited such low Government debt from the Labour Government—and despite the fact that this Government has run five deficits in a row—New Zealand’s Government debt remains low by international standards.

The money that National members said they needed from the assets programme has been spent a hundred times. They said that they were going to use it for debt reduction. That was Tony Ryall. Then Mr English said that it was going to be used for Kiwibank recapitalisation. Then Nathan Guy said that it was going to be funding irrigation schemes. Then we had John Key come in and say that it was going to be funding schools and hospitals, and Gerry Brownlee came in with something similar. He said that it was going to rebuild Christchurch. Then we had Minister Joyce. He thought: “Well, look, I’ve got to get in on this game.” He said that it was going to fund KiwiRail.

Hon Members: Six.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Six. Then we had Mr Key come along, and he said that it was going to fund the City Rail Link.

Then, of course, Mr Finlayson—you know, a bit player in the Government—thought that he would have his little bit of it, too. He said: “Oh, the Future Investment Fund. This is fundamentally important, because it is going to fund the National War Memorial.”—the National War Memorial. The Future Investment—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The “Future Fraud Fund”.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The “Future Fraud Fund”—well, that might be right. It is a slush fund. It is a political slogan that they trot out to try to justify this unpopular policy, which is so unpopular that more than 300,000 New Zealanders have independently signed a form saying: “Please don’t do this. Hold a referendum.”, and what is the Government doing? It is ignoring it. Having spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the asset sale process—hundreds of millions of dollars on the asset sale process—it says that it is irresponsible of the Opposition parties to cause a referendum, where New Zealanders are exercising their constitutional right to try and tell the Government that they do not want it.

This Government has tried to hide from the New Zealand public the true effects of this. At the time of the last election, it denied that its Budget went backwards by $100 million per annum. It had booked the proceeds of sale. It did not take any account of the loss of revenue it suffers as a cost of a loss of profit shares.

This Government’s economic programme is failing. We have got rampant house price inflation, we have had more than 200,000 people go to Australia, and we have got decline in the provinces because the economic promises of this Government are not being made good.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): If there is a moment of truth about asset sales, it will be the three Labour candidates out on the road campaigning for the leadership, because they make one simple, effective promise: that they will borrow $5 billion to $7 billion from foreign bankers and buy the Government shares back—that they can buy them back. That is the true test of leadership. I think that they will fail that test. I do not believe for a moment that David Parker believes what he said. What Labour is hoping is that National will complete the asset sales, so that Labour members do not have to go out and say “We will borrow $5 billion to $7 billion from foreign bankers to fulfil all the nutty promises our leaders are making out on the campaign trail.”

The fact that that is the issue today tells you that Labour has not had a new idea since 1994, when Mike Moore left the leadership. I have listened a little bit—as much as I can stand it—to the three leadership candidates out there. What it tells us is that the cream of Labour’s crop is stale, completely unimaginative, and utterly disconnected from economic reality.

The worst bit of it is the complacency. Labour Party members believe that National has done such a good job of getting the economy back on its feet that they can now go, like a P-crazed Santa Claus, throwing lollies to the natives. That is what their leadership candidates are doing. They clearly believe that all of the hard work has been done. They clearly believe that now that we are going up the competitiveness rankings, and now that we are ahead of Australia, we can put our feet up as a country and go on a lolly scramble. Well, they are wrong.

What it shows is they do not understand what has happened in this economy in the last 6 or 7 years. They do not understand how hard normal working New Zealanders have had to try to adapt to a changing world—to change the way their households work, the way their workplaces work, and the way their lives work—so that they can have more jobs and better incomes.

The list of promises from the Labour candidates looks like some kind of leftovers from their candidate selection in the seat of Sydenham in the mid-1960s, except they have got some new words. They are “smart, regional, innovative, strategic planning partnerships”—whatever they are—“with local government”. It just goes on and on. The main feature of it is that they now believe they can legislate wealth and incomes in New Zealand. Cheap houses by legislation, cheap electricity by legislation, and higher incomes by legislation.

The people in those audiences know, I think, that that is a hoax. They would like to think that that could be the way it is, and they like to see these fresh-faced, young, keen prospective Labour leaders, Cunliffe and Robertson. They like to think that those young men aspire to just pass a law to make us all wealthier. But in the back of their minds, they are thinking “That chap Jones—he’s better than I thought.” That Woman’s Weekly reader—he knows what happens in the real world, while the rest of them are reading Fabian Society monographs, repeating leftovers from the 1930s Communist Party in the UK. Shane Jones is the dark horse coming through, and I hope he does because he has got a few ideas.

The other striking thing about that contest is that nothing is being said about social policy. The reforming Labour Party, the socially aware carers in the Labour Party—and their leadership contestants have nothing to say about health, education, welfare, or justice. The reason is that this Government is doing such a good job of changing our social policy and the lives of disadvantaged New Zealanders for the better that Labour Party members cannot even bring themselves to criticise it. Even if they have no new ideas and even if they are still peddling 1960s policies, could their leadership contenders at least bother criticising National’s social policy?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That speech almost made Nick Smith look stable. Can I say this: that Minister of Finance is the Minister who proves he could not run a bath, let alone a State-owned enterprise. Under that Minister’s watch, Solid Energy, an export award - winning company, was driven into the ground because that Minister went to sleep at the wheel and it is costing New Zealanders in excess of $350 million. Then we get to the Tīwai deal. Mr English stood up yesterday, on Radio New Zealand with Kathryn Ryan, and keeps saying every day that the great deal he did with Tīwai—a multibillion-dollar company. He halves its notice period, it gets cheaper electricity, and then, just because he is Santa Claus—talk about us taxing and spending—he lobs in another 30 million bucks just to make it feel warm and cosy, of course, after the billion-dollar profits it makes. And then he says to us all: “The reason we had to do this was we had to protect the jobs in Invercargill and Tīwai.”

Then he got caught with his trousers around his political ankles by Kathryn Ryan, when she asked him: “Did you get a guarantee for Tīwai? Did you get a guarantee that they will keep every job, up until 1 January 2017?”. The answer, in that sort of laconic Southland lilt, was “No.” The second question: “Did you bother to ask for a guarantee?”. Again, in that swede-like Southland fashion, he said “No.” He did not even have the gumption, but he was honest enough at that point to tell New Zealanders, to even ask Rio Tinto: “Boys, would you hang on to the jobs at least until 1 January 2017?”. What he also knew was that before the ink was dry on the deal on the Tuesday, it was already sacking maintenance workers, and that is a fact in the media. It was already announcing restructuring.

I say to that Minister of Finance: “What a legacy.” Solid Energy—could not do anything, would not do anything; just let it all happen. There was $123 million of bonuses, not to the boys in the coal-pit. Oh no. It went to the white-collar fellers who actually ran the company into the ground. Then, of course, on asset sales, trumpeting the Future Investment Fund, we find out, after the Prime Minister makes it up, that, oh no, it is not going to hospitals and schools. The $100 million allocated, which the poor old Prime Minister did not even know he had signed off in his Budget—$100 million to Solid Energy to bail it out.

And then we find the other little gift that was thrown in. Where is the money coming from, we found out, for the Mighty River Power free shares? Oh, out of the Future Investment Fund. So there is $100 million, there is another $40 million, from the slush fund, and a couple of other little doozies—things like “strengthening capability on security and risk management”. God help us, if anybody needed to do that, that mob does, but it should not come out of the Future Investment Fund. Then there is another one: “Analysis of outcomes, Cabinet investment function”. I do not know what that means, but it sounds quite trendy. But what does it come out of? The Future Investment Fund. Not a hospital, not a school, not a bridge, not a roadway. I will tell you what, Mr English, you never have the guts to tell that to the people of New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: When that Minister said he was going to sell off—[Interruption] Oh no, he did not. He never said it was going to go for free shares. He never said it was going to go to bail out Solid Energy. We all remember the photo of that member, with the platinum-plated spade, at the briquette plant down in Southland, saying how wonderful it was, as he let the bonuses be paid out. This is the same plant, of course, that Mark Ford is having to close down and sack workers from. Oh, he was very proud there. He was a lion in his constituency—a lion—but he and old Liberace, his Minister for State Owned Enterprises, of course said: “Oh no, nothing we will do. We will not intervene.” But when it came to Meridian Energy, of course—

Hon Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Annette King: Stop chewing.

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

Hon Chester Borrows: In this speech from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove twice he used unparliamentary language: once in reference to the Hon Bill English, accusing him of being untruthful, and, secondly, when he referred to a member over here as Liberace.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. The member did not use the word I think the Hon Chester Borrows has raised: “lying”. He used the word “lion” in the electorate.

Hon Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?

Hon Chester Borrows: Yes, it is. It was not the word “lion”. It was further back in his speech when he related comments made by the Hon Bill English, and it was not the word “lion”. I was not confused by that word.

Mr SPEAKER: I am unsure what the word was, but the member to whom it was directed certainly did not take any offence. I think he was quite enjoying the debate. It was a robust debate, and this is the general debate. The member can carry on.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I do not know what the Minister for Courts was chewing. It might have been some sort of medication, or whatever, I do not know, but obviously it has got to him. The point here, despite all the silly points of order because they want to hide this away, is that the Minister of Finance went to the country on a spurious claim, saying that he would sell assets to buy other assets—sell revenue-generating assets, of course, to buy non - revenue-generating assets. He never told the people of New Zealand that the slush fund would be used for $140 million—$100 million to Solid Energy to bail out his mess-up, and $40 million for the free shares.

Now we have got Meridian Energy—you know, buy now, pay later, get a set of steak knives. That boy should be on “As Seen On TV”—the Shopping Channel. He would sell anything. He made it up. He was not honest with the people of New Zealand. He should pull the pin and allow the people to have their say through a referendum.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yesterday I had delight and pride in publishing these infographics on the New Zealand Education Profile. But what question do we get today from the Opposition? A pathetic question on the integration of Wanganui Collegiate School, which happened over 8 months ago, and that is all that Opposition members can talk about. What this infographic shows in one sheet is the distinction between this Government and the Opposition and the three contenders for the leadership out there. First of all, we are aspirational. We want five out of five kids to be successful, yet in the entire 9 years of that administration, those members were happy to wring their hands over one out of five kids being failed by our system, yet they were going out and telling their traditional roots how committed they were to them. In 9 years they made not a dint of effort or difference to those people. This Government, in the 5 years we have been in office, has tackled the hard questions. We are aspirational.

Another distinction is that we are accountable. We are prepared to say what we are going to do, which is to ensure that 85 percent of 18-year-olds should have the minimum qualification so that they can participate in the labour market, so that they can earn the incomes they want for their own homes, and so that they are independent of government. This is all completely opposite to what the Opposition wants. It wants unhappy, undereducated, aggrieved, dependent people, because that is whom it relies on in order for it to suck votes out of people who deserve better. We are giving them better.

We are transparent. We report on what we are trying to do. We identify the challenges still ahead of us, and they are significant. Although on average four out of five kids are being successful, and that is great and we want them to do better, that masks another picture, where there are too many young people who are still failing, and too many of those are Māori and Pasifika, have special education needs, or come from poorer homes. This Government is dedicated to delivering to all of them.

We are detailed. We know how many boys, how many girls, what ethnicity, and in what part of the country, because the more precise we can be, the more targeted and responsible we can be with taxpayers’ money. We are not a lolly scramble Government, unlike the members on the Opposition side, who are out and about across the country promising things that they have no costings for and, indeed, have no policy framework for, let alone a budget. We are committed to a world-class education system, and we know that one of the characteristics of that is a data-rich environment. We know that the ability to operate effectively—with what the evidence tells us—will be important for raising the educational status of every one of our New Zealand children.

Each of the three Labour members who are out there auditioning to become the next leader of the Labour Party got a great education—each and every one of them. Is there one promise they have made about education? Not at all. Have they mentioned it all? Not once. No, they talked about full employment—yes, full employment requires skilled, qualified young people. That is the big step that the Opposition has not fully understood. This side of the House has, and we are dedicated to it. It is committed to a Pasifika television channel, but not to Pasifika education. We, too, are committed to the culture, the language, and the identity of the wonderfully diverse Pasifika community that is contributing to this country. But guess what? Their contribution to themselves, their own aiga, and their communities is going to be stronger on the back of a good education. That is what we are committed to, long before we get a television channel.

What else have Labour members promised to do? Well, they have promised a 50 percent female quota for caucus, but they have not looked at how well girls are doing in our education system. They have promised not to block the man ban if the party wants it, but they have not focused on what we need to do for boys in education, and for brown boys in particular, which our system has not yet proved it is able to deliver to. So, yes, we have got Labour-lite leaders out there talking, and talking, and talking, based on having had an excellent education themselves, but there is not one word and not one commitment to education for New Zealanders.

This Government puts its money where its mouth is. We have put $9.7 billion into Vote Education this year. That is a 74 percent increase on early childhood education, and a 30 percent increase on schooling. This Opposition has talked about the closures of schools by this Government. Well, let me—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This country has a most serious situation on its hands. Once more a top security agency has acted illegally, and it is time for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to front. In July last year the Fijian military dictatorship contacted the New Zealand Government regarding the freedom and democracy movement. Some kind of deal was struck. The Security Intelligence Service and police raided a house in Auckland where former Fiji Cabinet Minister Rajesh Singh was living. The SIS officer refused to produce a search warrant. They took a computer and a cellphone, and, by some strange coincidence that only the Prime Minister cannot explain, a Fijian military officer sent a text to the former Cabinet Minister subject to the raid that showed that he knew the SIS was raiding that place—his place—at that very time. In short, the Fiji military knew the SIS was raiding an Auckland property.

There were other texts a couple of days later. They were chilling, and I want to repeat them exactly as they came. This is from the same person in Fiji: “Hmm … yeah all over Fiji news … Fiji One … your name and picture came up … we telling Fiji One”—this is actually as he wrote it—“did they get facts tight according to media decree … cause you can sue them …”.

Another text: “… don’t know why Fiji tarnish ur name. Don’t worry we defend you.” Third one: “Yes, media”—

Paul Goldsmith: This is more confusing than usual.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is not confusing, because it is evidence, for his sake. The third text: “Yes, media have branded u as terrorist. There is word you could be deported.” Text No. 4: “Fiji-NZ Talks—-Foreign Affairs Minister Rātū Kubuabola has met in suva with his New Zealand counterpart Murray McCully to discuss rebuilding diplomatic relations between the countries. NZ, Fiji holding positive talks—Fiji and New Zealand have held talks to rebuild diplomatic relations.”

The fifth one: “Bro you not worth a bullet cause u don’t deserve it.” It goes on to say—and the sixth, the seventh, and the eighth texts are all of the same tenor—“Don’t worry about us … u becoming a thorn in NZ govt … ”. No. 9: “Reality check bro … u the culprit now … NZ [Foreign Affairs Minister] met ours in suva last week … hmm.”

Then there is No. 10 and No. 11, but No. 12 is the one: “Bro, terrorist? We did raid you,”—do you hear this? It says: “We did raid you, it was NZ SS, so ask them …” Then, going on to No. 13, where the guy is alleging he is a terrorist in the text—and he goes on to say this here, in No. 14: “NZ SIS raid Rajesh Singh house for plotting to [assassinate] Fiji PM. Well you will be deported soon for being threat to the NZ govt.”

No. 15: “That’s a process of restoration of democracy … nz is funding … so any unnecessary comments from you in NZ will be treated as impeding this process … so NZ will [be] informed … hehehe … pliz don’t disturb my mtg with my NZ counterpart.” No. 16, the last text, says: “I don’t talk to terrorist … as branded by nz govt …”.

That is all evidence of the knowledge of the Fijian Government before the raid happened, as the raid happened, and after the raid happened. This is a military dictatorship that this Government is cuckolding our country with. The texts leave no doubt that the Fiji dictatorship knew what was happening and that the Fiji military had contacts in high places in New Zealand. I want to know how far the SIS was involved, and what on earth is the Prime Minister doing parked up there in Majuro in the Marshall Islands, shouting out to somebody in this Parliament—who has got the facts and evidence, which I will table to the media—to put up or shut up. It is time for him to put down the mai tais in Majuro and to stop acting as some potentate with his feet above the heads of other people, to start acting like a Prime Minister, and to get back to this country and tell us why he has got the Fijians involved in conspiracies to break the law in our country with the SIS and Government Communications Security Bureau as well.

Why did the Government drop its defence over this matter, and a court case, when one of the participants sued the Minister of Internal Affairs when he took action? It got to within a week of the court case and the Department of Internal Affairs dropped its defence because it knew that the illegal SIS involvement was about to come out. Why did the inspector-general throw out Mr Singh’s complaint? He talked to the police. What happened? Nothing. Only the Ombudsman showed any sympathy. Nothing has happened against the agencies or the Ministers involved. This raises even more questions. To close, it is time for answers, and we will get them.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): The Dominion Post the other day had the headline “Rivals’ policies out of touch, out of time”—out of touch and out of time. That really does sum it up. I want to talk about Shane Jones, who I actually think should be the leader of the Labour Party, because at least he has got a few ideas. He has got a few ideas. You know, he knows how to talk the language of the everyday New Zealander, the Joe and Mary Bloggs out there. But guess what? I am appalled by what is happening in the Labour Party, because we have got David Cunliffe, supported by Louisa Wall and Nanaia Mahuta; we have got Grant Robertson—I will talk about Grant Robertson’s little cameo on TV the other night very shortly—supported by Moana Mackey and by Meka Whaitiri; and then we have got poor old Shane, supported by only Rino.

You know, for the first time in the party’s history, tangata whenua has put his hand up and said: “I would like to be the leader of one of New Zealand’s major parties. I would like to be the leader.” You would have thought that this was the opportunity for Labour to grab the Māori vote back from the Māori Party and grab the Māori vote back from the Mana Party in the north and say that it is speaking the language of the Māori electorate and that that is why it has a Māori leader of the Labour Party, and actually one who has a few clues about where the battle will be won. As sure as hell it will not be won out on the extreme left, where Mr Cunliffe and Mr Robertson are pushing themselves because they want to be with their mates over here, the Green Party.

I saw something the other night. I was absolutely gobsmacked. People do not want to talk about it. Here was Grant Robertson on TV being asked by the interviewer: “Where is your partner?”. Grant Robertson said, as bold as Larry: “Oh, he’s not here. He’s got something else to do.” But roll back the videotape and you can see that Alf was behind him, wandering past, over to another table. Why would you do that? Why would you lie in front of national TV? He must be embarrassed. I do not know. I do not know. The fact of the matter is that what we have seen is one of the candidates telling a bold-faced lie on national TV. He wants to represent this country. That says to this country that it is OK to lie on national TV and not even apologise for it.

A day later, 2 days later, questions have been asked in the Twitter world about why he said that. I never thought that Grant was a liar, until I saw that video clip. It sends a message. It sends a—

Hon Annette King: You’re wrong.

Hon TAU HENARE: Am I wrong? Oh, I am wrong. Oh, I am wrong. It must have been computer-generated imagery. It must have been computer-generated imagery, the way they put Alf in the picture. Poor old Grant did not even know that his partner was behind him, even though 5 seconds before that he was having a beer with him. And even when he was asked about it, they both smiled at each other. Oh no, that smile was computer-generated imagery as well.

I have got news for the Labour Party, and I am afraid that it is all bad. Labour members have been running around saying what a great election campaign it has been. Two hundred people turned up—200 people—to a meeting to elect the leader of the Labour Party. For goodness’ sake! And I tell you what, I saw it on Te Karere and I recognised some of these people. Some of those people have been in more parties than I have, and that is saying something. For goodness’ sake!

It has been great, but I tell you what, I want to finish by saying that the last speech made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters is a sad indictment on how things have really, really got out of hand for that old chap. Thinking of and believing in conspiracies is just wrong.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you heard the reference to the right honourable member, who should be addressed in that way and not in the way that the member just did.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I accept the point. The member has now finished his speech, but it is certainly not helpful and it does lead to disorder.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is 4 September today, and for those of us from Canterbury it is time for us to recall that on this day 3 years ago we started our series of very significant earthquakes. For the rest of the country, I think most people think “I wish you’d get over it.”, but, actually, as I think Wellingtonians are starting to understand, it is not the quakes that have the huge impact on people; it is dealing with the bureaucracy. That has been the hardest part. I have a friend who has a T-shirt that says on the front: “I survived 10,000-plus quakes.”, and on the back it says “But dealing with EQC and IAG is killing me.” Actually, quite literally, that is the case for so many people. I want to acknowledge the citizens of Canterbury, the emergency services, the military, our social services, our health care workers, and our community leaders. They have been extraordinary throughout a very, very long and hard 3 years. I know also that for many this 3-year anniversary today triggers the hardest and saddest of memories for many people in Canterbury.

It was not just the people of Canterbury who responded so well in the initial period after both our September and February quakes—looking after each other, even letting cars in ahead of you in traffic, which, as you will know, Mr Speaker, is an extraordinary occurrence in Canterbury—the way that people in our towns and cities throughout New Zealand, and actually internationally, responded was overwhelming. The outpouring of support for us was huge, and it was greatly appreciated. It came from many people who could barely afford to support themselves, but they were so generous that they supported us in our hour of need.

The Prime Minister came to Christchurch and he said to people in one of the most broken suburbs that nobody would be worse off in Christchurch as a result of these quakes. Those words had huge significance for people. People clung on to that as a commitment from the Government that nobody would be worse off. On reflection, I think it was a poorly chosen phrase to use when, I guess, not many people envisaged the challenge ahead. But the Prime Minister did say that, and people clung to that throughout a lot of hard times.

One of the areas where people are worse off is with the offer that the Government has made to people who are in the red zone who have bare land or commercial property. The Government has offered those people in the red zone 50 percent of the rating valuation of their land—the 2007 rating valuation of their land. They took that offer to court because they did not think it was fair, and the judge just last week came back and said that that is true, that that is not a fair offer, and he told the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to go back to the drawing board and start again. He also said that the zoning, which has caused such trauma for so many people, was done outside the law. These are very big and significant issues for people.

The Prime Minister was then confronted by media about Justice Panckhurst’s decision overturning the 50 percent bare land offer and the zoning, and noting the zoning as being made outside the law. The Prime Minister said: “Oh, well, we could just walk away. We could say that it has been a bit of fun but now we are over it, and the Government could walk away.” That expression—the Prime Minister saying to Cantabrians that the Government might walk away and saying that “It’s been a bit of fun.”—was one of the most insensitive, hurtful, and, actually, cruel comments that he could have made, because it has not been fun for any of us. If anyone thinks that we are bleating, they are wrong. It certainly has not been fun.

In the paper this morning Kendra Street was quoted. She said: “I am cold. I am tired. I am frustrated. My government has forgotten me and my insurance company is slower than snails racing through peanut butter.” And she does not speak alone. She said: “This is not what I wanted for my child. But it is what he got. I cannot blame mother nature—we survived the earthquakes. It is our government and our insurance company’s lack of empathy, and stalling, stalling, stalling that keep us in this stress.” What she said is “What I want is a warm house to live in. What I want is my child to not be afraid of [our arguments or] the dark … I want to not fight with my husband about money, the insurance, and when to turn the heater on.” Kendra Street said: “I want my life back.” Her son was just 22 months old. He is now nearly ready to start school. The difference is that in the first quake her son was 22 months old, and now he is about to go to school—there is no progress. It is time for the Government to step up and help.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call in this general debate today. On 15 September the weird and wacky reality TV show has its finale, and a new leader of the Labour Party will emerge. Not only that but we have only 11 more episodes of this TV show to go.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has this member ever won an election?

KATRINA SHANKS: The question, Mr Mallard, is whether contender Grant, contender Shane, or contender David will be the winner of this contest. The question the Labour caucus members are asking themselves is when one of these contenders, Grant, Shane, or David, does become the leader of the Labour Party—and they have been going around creating these policies on the run, which they are going to have to stand by in the 2014 election and which the caucus has not bought into, which the party has not bought into, which they have not costed, and which they have not consulted on with the sector—in 2014, when the caucus has to stand united behind this leader with policies that the caucus has not bought into and has not discussed, what is going to happen? I can tell you right now. The caucus will not be united. There will be infighting, and Labour will not be the Government in 2014. There is no way it possibly can be, not when those contenders are making policy on the run like this, by one person in isolation.

It is really interesting when you look at these policies of contenders No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, because these policies do not reflect what New Zealanders are concerned about. They do not reflect education. They do not talk about health care. They do not talk about crime and law and order. They do not talk about job growth. They do not talk about housing affordability. All the big issues that face New Zealand, contestants No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 do not even address. That shows you how out of touch the Labour Party is and how out of touch the potential leaders of this Labour Party will be.

We listen to and we read and we hear all the commentary from the contenders about what these policies are going to look like, and the one really interesting policy they all have is creating wealth through legislation. How do you do that? How do you create wealth through legislation?

Hon Chester Borrows: You can’t.

KATRINA SHANKS: You cannot. How do you create wealth? You create it through companies. You create it through the companies and their investing in themselves, emerging companies going to markets, companies creating products that are high tech and high value, then employing more people in high-growth areas in high-growth jobs that pay a lot of money. That is how you create wealth for a country, not through legislation.

What are some of these policies? Well, why do I not start with Shane Jones? I like his. He has got a couple of really good ones. I like it when he says: “I will not write one single cheque the Labour Party cannot cash.” I believe in that. I believe that that is right. You should not promise something you cannot deliver. But then he goes on to say, unfortunately, that he will increase the minimum wage. I do not quite know how that is going to flow out. He says he is going to give tax incentives for businesses to invest in the regions. Yes, we all want to grow businesses. We agree with that. But tax incentives—has he costed that out? I think maybe not. He is going to extend the rail link to Northport.

The one thing I do really like about his policy is supporting mining. In his words, “I’d rather have the young people of the north with a shovel in their hand rather than wandering around picking locks.” He says that this should not be a shocking stance from someone in the Labour Party, as it was born from mining. He said: “I want to see little brown Kiwis staying at home and not going to Australia. If that means offending the Greens from time to time, such is life.” I will tell you what—that is about the most sensible thing any of these potential leaders have said yet.

When I look over at the Labour caucus sitting opposite me, the members who are in the House, none is engaged in this conversation. None is jumping up and saying: “I support this contender.” They are all silently sitting there, looking down, embarrassed, knowing that the potential leader has committed that caucus to policies it has not bought into. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): It may not realise it, but this Government has ruled out New Zealand’s support for any military action in Syria that is not authorised by the United Nations Security Council. Let me read out to the House the Government’s answer to my question on action over Syria of 15 February 2012: “7. Dr Kennedy Graham (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he give an assurance that New Zealand’s armed forces will not be used in any possible military intervention in Syria in violation of the United Nations Charter? Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes. Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he then, … in a position to confirm that the Government does not support external military involvement in Syria unless it responds to a United National Security Council resolution authorising it—that is to say, no coalition of the willing is legal without that mandate? Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: New Zealand always follows the United Nations Security Council resolutions, so we would not be doing anything in violation of that.”

I congratulate the Government. Let me point out why it was so insightful 18 months ago. Syria is a global human tragedy in a defining moment in the modern struggle for global peace and justice. There can be no lawful military action in Syria without proof to the United National Security Council of chemical weapon use and by whom. And even if proof is provided, there can be no military action without authorisation by the council. That is not a matter of political judgment; it is a non-negotiable legal requirement. The US is advancing the argument that there is a legal justification based on humanitarian intervention. That is incorrect. That doctrine, more appropriately known today as responsibility to protect, does not trump the United Nations Charter. That was made clear in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/1, paragraphs 138 and 139, in 2005. The US is being somewhat disingenuous here. Even if the UN were to authorise military action, thereby making it legal, it would require a separate decision on the part of each country as to the political merit of becoming directly involved. The doctrine lays down six criteria for such a judgment. The critical issue is whether the action proposed would relieve suffering rather than cause more. It is almost certain it would not.

If we ever needed a lesson in caution, it was the illegal military action against Iraq by the US, the UK, and Australia in 2003. The evidence adduced to the council as proof of a nuclear weapon programme proved to be false—indeed, part-fabrication. For its part, the much maligned United Nations Security Council declined to agree to such an invasion. That was not simply a French veto. A majority of the council opposed military action, yet those three countries proceeded without UN authorisation, and illegally. If, in the case of Syria, the council chooses not to act because of a veto, it does not mean the council is dysfunctional and not doing its job. It means the council has decided not to act. The council would actually be doing its job, just as it did with Iraq in 2003. Many in the West might resent that fact, retaining a 20th century sense of moral and political superiority. But they cannot disown the fact—indeed, they created it. They created the UN, and they refuse to this day to change the charter when the prospect of doing so is before them. They refuse to surrender or even circumscribe their veto, and then, when they confront a situation, when another permanent member casts a veto, they seek to circumvent that veto by acting around it. So, if the US and the UK are concerned about vetoes impeding Security Council action, they can rectify the situation by agreeing to surrender the veto, or, at least, by agreeing to its strict circumscription to only when their vital interests of survival are at stake. Let this Parliament have a chance to debate this matter when it next meets.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): What an unedifying spectacle we have before us, watching the three candidates from Labour—Cunliffe, Robertson, and Jones—crawling all over each other to offer more to their mates. The unions will be happy, but the rest of New Zealand will be wondering who is going to foot the bill. It is a lolly scramble, said John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald this morning, and I found myself agreeing with him.

So what are they going to do? They are going to immediately lift the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Well, that is up 9 percent on the current minimum wage. On top of that, the privileged Government workers—I have not quite worked out why Government workers need to be so much more privileged—are going to have their wages lifted up to $18.40 an hour. That is a 34 percent increase on the minimum wage, tomorrow. Is that not wonderful? That is up by a third. It is going up faster than the Auckland rates. Now all you have to do is vote for Cunliffe and vote for Robertson and your wage magically goes up by 34 percent. I wonder who amongst them is going to commit that they would reject any cascade of relativity agreements about this. The people who are currently earning $18.40 an hour will think “OK, well, it’s gone up so we should go up to $22.”, and the people earning $22 an hour will think “Well, that’s not fair. Mine should go up to $26.” And what about the Public Service Association members working for the Government who are earning $100,000 a year? They will be asking: “Well, theirs have gone up 34 percent. Why shouldn’t mine go up 34 percent?”—and so on and so on. Where will it end?

You have to go back to 1985 to see such a reckless inflationary piece of public policy put on this country. I think it was Stan Rodger and David Lange—the lady there in charge of the health policy in Labour these days, Annette King, was in Parliament back then, and Phil Goff, but nobody else was around since we have had such a reckless inflationary piece of public policy put on the parchment as what we are talking about here. We expect it from Mr Robertson. He is a public sector union man through and through. He is all about spending and redistributing money, not about earning it. But I am surprised that we see it from Cunliffe, a man with some business experience.

David Cunliffe, the Quade Cooper of New Zealand politics, should know better. He should know that you cannot pass off this kind of thing as costing $20 million, when we know that it could be $2.5 billion, which is our expectation of the increase in minimum wages if they are going to give everybody who happens to work for Parliament a minimum wage of $18.40. Why would they do that? It is not as if we do not have very, very generous redistribution arrangements with Working for Families so that anybody on the minimum wage with dependent children in New Zealand receives credits rather than tax and gets a significant boost from the rest of New Zealand.

It is very worrying watching this lolly scramble that we are seeing on the other side, because it reflects a world where, by magic, wages can be put up, and where, by magic, Mr Jones can walk into the supermarket and reduce the cost of food everywhere by dealing with the so-called duopolies. I do not want that man anywhere near my chickens. It is all about pandering to the entitlement culture that bedevils New Zealand. This is the truth. New Zealand as a nation is not entitled to anything. We are not entitled to any standard of living, other than what we go out and earn. We have to earn our way. The Government must manage its finances, it must operate its Public Service in a way that is focused on results, not just spend money for the sake of it, and it must focus on building a more productive and competitive economy. That is what National is doing, and that is why it continues to enjoy such success and why it is making great progress to get us back to surplus and to get this country growing effectively—so much more effectively than so many other countries in the OECD.

We are living in a golden age right now, notwithstanding the terrible events in Syria that the previous speaker, Dr Kennedy Graham, alluded to. When we look around our region we see India and we see China growing; hundreds of millions of people are being lifted out of poverty as we speak. They are looking for products. They are looking for the sorts of things that New Zealand produces. This is a wonderful time to be living in New Zealand and it is a very positive time for this country, but we have to grasp it. We need to reward enterprise, we need to celebrate entrepreneurship, and we certainly do not hear any of that from the Labour Party. Instead we have a parade of dinosaurs pandering to the insular, unrealistic, entitlement culture that is holding us back as a country, and it is time we heard the end of it. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): This Government is a two-trick pony. It has only two things to sell: they are assets and the hope that the Christchurch rebuild will stimulate our economy. This Government is a two-trick pony. I would line up our three thoroughbreds any day against that other side. They are doing a fantastic job.

I would like to talk about a few things: Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, and Tīwai Point. Those names will go down in history as the disaster that sunk this Government. We have had some contributions this afternoon that have been absolutely dreadful. Hekia Parata tried to say that this Government is detail conscious and that it is accountable. It does not even know how much it is going to raise from the asset sale programme. It is just a best guess—$5 million to $7 million. It does not even know what it is going to raise. It does not know when it is going to sell. It does not know how it is going to sell it. It tries to put out discounts and carrots to the investing public. The public of New Zealand know that they do not want these asset sales. We already own these assets. The public of New Zealand know that they do not have the funds. There is only a 3 percent uptake from retail investors from the float. Do you think that Meridian Energy is going to achieve a wonderful bounce in the market? Absolutely not. It is the wrong time to be selling, and New Zealanders are telling the Government that through their call for a referendum. Again, that is just one trick from the two-trick pony that is an absolute disaster for this Government.

I would like to move on to Mr Tau Henare, a whanaunga of mine from up in the mighty Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Hine. Mr Henare said some disgraceful things about lies being said on TV. John Key lies to New Zealand every single day. This Government lies to New Zealand every single day. Tau Henare was once a fine member of the Labour whānau. He is old-school Labour. He has played every position. He has played every position in the backline. He has played in New Zealand First. He has played in Mauri Pacific—what was that one? And now he is playing in the National Party. All I can say to my whanaunga is “Come back to mother ship Labour. Come back to mother ship Labour, e hoa.”

Chris Hipkins: No!

RINO TIRIKATENE: No, that is all right. I retract that. I definitely retract that. I do retract that.

Then we had dear Miss Katrina Shanks—a very, very nice lady—but she would have to go down as the main contender for New Zealand’s next worst politician. That was an absolutely dreadful contribution from her. We know that Miss Shanks is a star on YouTube. She is a star. She knows what being a contender is like. She actually topped Miss South Carolina with her absolutely intelligent debates and thoughtful and intellectually robust debates on information technology matters. That was a dreadful contribution. But she is a very nice lady. Again, we will leave that as it is—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I wouldn’t go that far.

RINO TIRIKATENE: OK, Mr Mallard, maybe not that far. But getting back to my debate, I go around my big electorate—it covers two-thirds of the land mass of Aotearoa—so I get to go around and I talk to a lot of people. The people whom I meet are scared because not a month goes by—especially when I have been down in Invercargill, where we have seen a $30 million handout to Rio Tinto and to the aluminium smelter at Tīwai Point down there. But what has that given the people of Southland? Sure, it has given them a slight relief, but there is uncertainty in the lives of those people because they do not know what is round the corner. Rio Tinto could come back in 2050 and it could play the Government in terms of this shocking deal that it has bought into. That is a shocking deal.

I am going to go on to another matter because I am short of time. I want to pay tribute to the people of Christchurch, the heart of Te Tai Tonga. This is a very significant day. It has been a real rough 3 years. I do think of all the resilient whānau who have been working through these difficult times—many Māori whānau—especially those with a lot of housing difficulties and troubles. We are standing by them. I know that my colleagues are also doing a lot of work. I mihi to them on this day. Kia ora tātou.

ALFRED NGARO (National): Malo e lelei. It is Tongan Language Week, so I want to acknowledge our Tongan community that are out there. In fact, I was honoured to be here in the House on Monday, when we celebrated the launch of Tongan Language Week. One of the things I talked about then with our Tongan community was how they ignited the Rugby World Cup. What they did was gridlock Auckland Airport. There were 4,000 or 5,000 Tongans—you talk to many of them and they say there were 20,000 Tongans—out there. There was a sea of red, a wave that was going on to celebrate and ignite the world cup. It was great. The point of difference was this: it was the use of cultural capital to make a difference.

Here is the interesting thing about that point: everybody wanted to own them. Labour said: “Isn’t that great?”. Those members looked at the colour and thought: “That represents us.” But here is what we are now hearing from our Tongan community, and also from our Māori community: “Has Labour taken us for granted?”. Has it taken them for granted? The answer is, yes, it has.

Where is the evidence for this? Well, there is what Willie Jackson said. He may not always be loved and liked by the Labour Party, but this is what he said. He said that in this contest of choosing a new leader, it was time that the Labour Party, which has for 80 years enjoyed the support of Māori, made a difference. It is time for Labour to put its money where its mouth is and say: “Let’s elect a Māori leader”. Will it do it? No, it will not.

What about Haare Williams, who is there in the Labour Party? He is the vice-president for the Māori elect. He said that it is time for Labour to stand up and take account. Māori have supported Labour for 80 long years, Mr Clark—80 long years. Will Labour stand up? Will it take account? No, it will not.

Why will it not? I will tell you the reasons why. Labour has taken Māori and Pasifika for granted. Well, I tell you what, here is the writing on the wall, and it is not from us; it is from your own. Josie Pagani on Q+A on Sunday, looking at the debate, said: “Labour has lost touch, like what Shane Jones said, with the common people. It is about time we went back to where we are from.”

Dr David Clark: They don’t like your casino deal. The Pasifika communities are betrayed.

Carol Beaumont: How do you feel about having lost touch? You’ve lost touch.

ALFRED NGARO: So here is the interesting thing, Mr Clark, that you need to listen to—and Mrs Beaumont. Here is the interesting thing that she said, and you have got to take note of this: “Out of the 800,000 votes that we potentially have lost”—because, remember, only 18 percent actually supported the Labour Party at the last election. This is what was said by Josie Pagani. She said the information that they have and the surveys said that “they’re brown, they’re young, and they’re living in the regions.” She asked who, when you look at the three contestants, would best reflect the leadership that the young, brown, and in the regions could support. Guess what? It is Shane Jones. But will Labour members support him? No, they will not. No, they will not. No, they will not.

Your time has come. The time has come when Māori and Pasifika—and let us take a look at this. In 2005 Mike Williams, a former president of the Labour Party, said that the only reason why Labour won that election was South Auckland Pasifika voters, who came up, who showed up, and who put their money where their mouth was. But guess what? You have taken them for granted. So guess what? Your days are over. And here is the reason why. I was over—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although you might have announced your retirement, I think it is inappropriate for the member on his feet—[Interruption] Which of us is standing, me or him? It is inappropriate for him to suggest that your days are over.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that that is a frivolous interjection. That is absolutely not necessary.

ALFRED NGARO: The only reason why that member stood up is that it is getting under his skin. It is getting under his skin. But guess what? Your skin is a white skin; this is a brown skin.

Here is what you have got to know. I was at Caritas. There we were. Grant Robertson was there. Guess what they said? Labour is happy to show the statistics for Māori and Pacific. It is happy to say that it wants to do everything for you. But guess what? The new generation of Māori and Pacific say that they have had enough of you saying that you’re doing it for them.

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

ALFRED NGARO: I apologise. We have had enough of the Labour Party saying that it is doing it for us. It is time that we want to do it for ourselves, and that is the reason why you will no longer have favour. That is the reason why you are going to lose Māori and Pasifika votes coming to your table. This is the—

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

ALFRED NGARO: I apologise. I am getting a little bit excited here, but here is my final point, which I want to put through. I just want to finally summarise with this.

The problem with the Labour Party is this: I was born to a mother who was a cleaner—who had been a cleaner all her life—and a father who was a labourer, and he was in unions. I am the reality of their aspiration and their dream. But guess what? Now that I have become the success of my family, you do not know how to talk to us. You do not know how to talk to us. You don’t know how to work with us.

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

ALFRED NGARO: The Labour Party does not know how to talk to us. The Labour Party does not know how to work with us, and that is the reason why you will no longer have the favour—

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

ALFRED NGARO: —of Māori and Pasifika who will support you. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that I know that he was robust and passionate about his speech, but every time the member mentions the word “you”, you actually bring the Speaker into the debate. You can refer to a member on the other side or to the member’s party, but you must not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very good of you to give that ruling. Why did you rule that my point of order, which made exactly that point, was frivolous earlier? The member, because you let him get away with it, did it 18 more times.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member is a very experienced member.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Malo e lelei. I move, That the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I stand today to speak to the third reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. This bill has some history that has got us to this point, so let me outline very quickly how we got here.

It is exactly 3 years ago that this bill was introduced. By the time of the general election in 2011, however, there was still no sign of the first reading in sight. It was for that reason that the Māori Party specifically negotiated in its relationship accord agreement with National that the bill would enjoy the support of the Government through at least to the select committee. Five months into the new term of Government, the first reading occurred.

I said at the time that the bill marks a step towards advancing our kaupapa of empowering communities to have a greater say about what happens in this area. Today that statement remains true for me. This bill was always motivated by our campaign against social hazards. I want to acknowledge two women in particular who have influenced my thinking in this regard. The first is the late Maureen Te Rere i Waho Waaka, of Tūwharetoa and Te Arawa descent, who passed away just 3 months ago. Maureen was a champion of the problem gambling kaupapa and was instrumental in speaking out about access to casinos, gaming machines, and liquor outlets. The second wahine toa is Dr Lorna Dyall, who has led our thinking in reframing gambling from being considered a normal recreational activity to one that is a social hazard. Just as noxious weeds or pests create havoc in our natural environment, gambling creates harm within families, whānau, and communities, and can cause significant health and social problems.

For the record, here is the state of the nation: between 10,000 and 60,000 adults, or 0.3 percent to 1.8 percent, have a gambling problem in Aotearoa. The New Zealand Health Survey showed that 3 percent of adults—that is about 130,000 people—have experienced problems in the previous 12 months due to someone gambling, and 10,000 New Zealanders have engaged in illegal activities because of their gambling. Every day $5.2 million is lost to gambling—$5.2 million every day. This is far more serious than a chance win in a lottery.

Interestingly, the whole way in which we talk about gambling activities is so often falsely painted as a story of prosperity. “Lady Luck is smiling on you.”, some would say, or “It is your lucky day.” If things are going well, we are tempted to buy a Lotto ticket to capitalise on our good fortune, but in doing so we willingly place emphasis on the whim of the wheel of fortune to determine our future, rather than taking control and shaping our future based on hard work and perseverance.

And yet the reality of problem gambling harm in our families is significant. The Child Poverty Action Group summed this up by saying: “Sadly, it is usually the most vulnerable children who pay the price of the recent proliferation of these hazards in low-income communities. If children are to be protected from their effects, the government must make greater efforts to support families and communities, and reduce access to legal and illegal social hazards, including gambling, tobacco, alcohol, and high-priced debt.”

So let me come back to the purpose of my bill, and what I think we have achieved. I want to be clear that the bill was never about being anti-gambling—its focus was on gambling harm. In that respect, I am conscious that pokie machines are six times more likely to be in poor areas than in wealthy areas, and within that about a third of moderate-risk gamblers are Māori. In effect, we are talking about a system in which there is a wealth transfer from poor communities to well-off communities. It was for that reason that I sought to phase out the corporate societies that distribute pokie earnings, and ensure that 80 percent of gambling proceeds return to the communities where the money was lost. My basic premise was that the system incentivises the exploitation of gambling addiction.

During the passage of this bill, submissions and public releases alike revealed that the system is rife with corruption and the misuse of public money. The Department of Internal Affairs confirmed that in its 2012 review of venue cost schedules, which revealed that approximately 750 venue submissions could not yet be approved because societies had not provided explanations or evidence in support of claims that costs appeared high.

How does this revised bill address these issues? I truly believe that the bill takes steps towards minimising the harm done to communities by gambling. The provisions around local distribution and harm minimisation technology are still in the bill, only the mechanism is a little bit different. I am absolutely determined to keep pushing for the use of the regulation-making power to introduce harm minimisation devices. A regulation-making power is easier to use, easier to update, and enables a consistent policy to be introduced nationwide.

The bill will also enable gambling venues to transfer out of low socio-economic areas and into areas where communities want them to move. Councils, as a result of my bill, will now have more tools to enable the transfer of gaming venues into other areas, and I am confident that this will enable councils to further reduce the number of gaming venues. More than anything else, however, my focus is on eliminating and ridding our communities of gambling-related harm, and so my approach in this bill was on the basis that other more wide-ranging reform would be announced. One of my ancestors Thomas A Edison once said: “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.” That has been the approach with this particular bill.

The bill has been an enormous journey. It has attracted a massive 29,438 form submissions and 4,944 unique submissions and supplementary information. The Commerce Committee heard 159 submissions. The bill, it is fair to say, has generated a fair bit of furious debate at hui, in the council chambers, in homes, and, indeed, in this House. Does it do what I set out to do from the very beginning? Well, we were utterly unsuccessful in our bid to remove the special status of the racing industry as a recipient for the purpose of racing stakes, but was the conversation an important one to initiate? I believe so. Did we achieve the magic 80 percent return? No. But the Government does support the idea of a minimum percentage of proceeds being returned to the area where they were raised, and that is an important philosophical discussion to have it inspire.

There is plenty more work to do. We are pleased that this member’s bill, the first Māori Party member’s bill to be passed into law, has generated a comprehensive package of law reform. This includes increasing the percentage of funding that goes back to the community, introducing harm minimisation devices through regulation, and giving councils more tools to shift venues out of low socio-economic areas. It has been a long struggle to achieve what we have, but we have never taken the focus off the best interests of the people. We have appreciated the cooperation of the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Chris Tremain, and the efforts of the members of the Commerce Committee, who all gave up so much time and commitment towards giving this bill their full consideration. I thank them all. Ka nui te mihi.

But most of all I want to thank those who wrote in, those who appeared before the select committee, those who went on talkback radio, those who initiated the “People Before Pokies” campaign, and those who cared. Can I also thank Graeme Ramsey of the Problem Gambling Foundation for his advice. We might not have got to the place where he wanted, but their work must be acknowledged. I also thank Māori Party staff—in particular, Haimona Gardiner—for the work that they all did to give support to me.

We will not give up on the vital mission that we have before us to continue to do all that we can to prevent problem gambling harm from infesting our families and our whānau and destroying our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the—hang on, I have just got to make sure we go according to this. Where are we? I call the honourable member Jonathan Young.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You’re going to have two in support of it straight off. That’s just outrageous.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! This is a conscience issue.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I want to just pay tribute to the previous speaker, the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell, and the hard work that he has done in this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. We know that this bill came through the Commerce Committee with a number of alterations and thank him for his willingness to work very pragmatically. You will no doubt hear from the other side of the House that their view is that the bill was gutted, but we believe that we have made some very positive and pragmatic alterations to it that actually give some real teeth to some of the issues—for example, the harm minimisation technologies.

The original bill said that harm minimisation devices only may be introduced through societies’ licence conditions. The Commerce Committee recommended a regulation-making power instead. Regulations enable us to introduce new technologies on a mandatory basis nationwide rather than through each individual licence. So we see that it was a very positive move to put the change into the bill.

We know that there was a tremendous amount of interest up and down this country. As the previous speaker said, there were over 33,000 submissions. Not all of those were for or against. There was quite a divided opinion out there regarding the measures. So it was important to actually look very constructively, I think, at what was proposed, look at what people out there in the community were saying, look at what harms there are that need to be reduced, and look at the benefit to the community groups that the proceeds of gambling contribute to.

So we came through all of this with a number of measures. One of the measures was, of course, in this area of harm minimisation technologies. There are a number of trials around the world that we looked at and received information about, particularly around pre-commitment schemes. Essentially, pre-commitment schemes are where players are typically issued with smart cards and smart-card readers are installed in gaming machines. Players can set limits on the amount of time or money that they can spend on gaming machines before they commence gambling. Typically, a player will be locked out of all machines that are part of the pre-commitment scheme for a designated period of time. It could be for the rest of the day.

We note that Skycity has committed to issue facial recognition technology to identify problem gamblers, and that is another technology that I think we look on with interest in regard to problem gambling. Professor Abbott from the Auckland University of Technology made the comment that this is the first introduction of this technology in the world, and so we do look with keenness at its effect. With these changes to the bill, we will now have regulations that enable a new technology to be rolled out on a mandatory basis if the Government sees fit to do that.

So we also know that in New Zealand gaming-machine expenditure in the country’s 1,367 pubs and clubs is dropping. In fact, in the first 3 months of 2013 compared with the last 3 months of 2012, it has dropped by 10 percent. That is a significant drop. The number of licence holders fell from 359 to 353, the number of venues declined from 1,403 to 1,367, and the number of gaming machines decreased from just over 18,000 to nearly 17,500. So what we see is that there is a downward trend of gambling venues and opportunities and machines in the country. I understand from reading the Ministry of Health figures that the harm, or the people who are affected by gambling, has also decreased. It is good to see that. None of us wants to see anybody harmed in these ways.

A number of pre-commitment trials have been run in Australia, and we look to its example. These trials have generally involved a small number of venues introducing a voluntary pre-commitment scheme. We know that though the Department of Internal Affairs has not undertaken work to assess the cost of introducing pre-commitment technology in New Zealand, it has keenly watched this. The cost of converting a machine to a pre-commitment scheme or a smart-card system is around about $1,600 to $1,700 per machine, so there is obviously a significant cost in this. There may be ways in which, if this technology proves to be effective, it could be adopted in New Zealand.

One of the areas that the previous speaker spoke on was that the original bill was seeking to have 80 percent of gaming proceeds distributed to the local area where they were raised. This was, again, another area where we have sought to bring in some regulation-making power instead. Essentially, that is because we believe that the same outcome can be achieved through regulation, and that creates more flexibility and enables us to consider issues such as national or regional groups that receive funding from gaming societies. These are groups such as St John Ambulance, or other groups such as the groups that man the beaches in summertime, perhaps at a beach where there is not a facility or there are not any gaming proceeds that have been earned.

I think that the previous speaker was right in mentioning that there are some areas that are low decile that have a larger presence of gaming machines. In fact, the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Health indicated back in 2012 that 55 percent of gaming proceeds come from those areas in the lowest two deciles. That is of concern, and that is why we believe that it was important to create a mechanism by which pokies can be moved out of these low-decile areas to, for example, central business districts and places like that where they would not be so effective as in those low-decile areas.

I believe that this is a substantial bill that the member has presented. We have worked through it as a select committee. Congratulations to him. I believe that he has got some real gains. I believe that there are some very pragmatic measures that will begin to roll out once this becomes law, and we do expect to see a further reduction in harm from gambling. Thank you.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to make a couple of preliminary points, and the first is to express my thanks to the member Te Ururoa Flavell, who introduced the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I think it is a bill that was introduced with good intentions. It has caused an enormous debate, as he has indicated, and an awareness of gambling issues around the country. I think that all of us in our electorate offices have had people come in and talk to us about the harm that gambling causes to individuals and to families. There are families who have lost their houses, lost their loved ones, and, in some cases, their loved ones have lost their lives. I want to thank the member for having good intentions. But there is the old expression that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this bill has been absolutely gutted in the select committee process by a Government majority to the point where, in the opinion of the experts, it is likely to cause more harm, rather than less harm. Therefore, the bill is badly named—very badly named—and it is a bill that should not be supported.

I found it hard to believe my ears as Jonathan Young was speaking about the reduction in the number of pokie machines around the country. He was claiming credit for it. He was saying that it was a good thing. That is the result of one piece of legislation, and that was the legislation that provided for local authorities to bring in sinking lids. John Key voted against it—John Key voted against that legislation. Jonathan Young’s leader and, for that matter, his deputy leader were adamantly opposed to having a sinking lid on the number of gaming machines. They are the people who have been amongst the most pro-gambling people in the country, and we see that with the other legislation that is currently before the Commerce Committee.

I do want to refer, as is proper at the third reading, to the Committee stage of this bill and, in particular, to some of the ideas that were put up and were rejected. The member Te Ururoa Flavell made it clear that licences can be transferred as a result of this legislation. What he did not say was that the only time a licence will be transferred will be when the holder of that licence thinks they can make more money by shifting it, and they can make more money only if the people who are addicted to these machines lose more. So I just do not understand why the member thinks it is a good thing to transfer machines from where a relatively small amount has been lost to where a relatively large amount will be lost. It is wrong, and to exempt those places from this sinking-lid arrangement is wrong.

There were amendments moved that would have subjected these transfers to the sinking-lid arrangement. They were rejected by National. There were amendments moved that would have limited to 75 percent the number of licences that could be transferred. They were rejected by National. There were amendments moved that said that you could move only from an area of high deprivation to an area of lower deprivation, which is what the member said he wanted, but it was rejected by the Māori Party and by the Committee. There were suggestions as to having a long-term vision to drop the number of pokie machines. That was rejected by National. There was a clause that would limit the remuneration that is paid to trustees. Some of these people are getting $200,000—not for their job but for just going to a few meetings and being trustees. We would have taken trustees and directors down to a maximum of $100,000 each, just for sitting on the board. That was rejected by National.

We also, which I think is most important and most telling, moved an amendment that would restrict the hours of gambling to those of on-licence drinking, so there would be a compulsory closure between the hours of 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. That is something that was very, very serious and very important: to break the cycle and to get the people out who sometimes spend 48 hours, even 72 hours, in these dens of iniquity—to break their cycles and to stop them gambling. National rejected that to a person on a conscience vote.

That is the next point that I would like to make. For the Labour Party, this bill, like similar bills, is a conscience vote, and we will be voting with our consciences. We do not, in the Labour Party, hand over to our whips our conscience at the point that we enter the House.

Hon Chester Borrows: Smacking bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh, Chester Borrows says he leaves his conscience at the door when he comes into the House—he leaves his conscience at the door when he comes into the House. That is something that is completely wrong.

I now want to refer to the other gambling matter that is currently before the House, and to say that sometimes as a member of Parliament I am ashamed. Monday was one of those days when I was ashamed. I found out that the National Government, through the Ministry of Health, has stopped those people who know the most about addiction to gambling, those people who work directly with the gamblers, from appearing at the select committee. The National Government said that if a contract is held between the Ministry of Health and an organisation, then the employees of that organisation are forbidden—are forbidden—from making comment on this legislation. I just ask when the Parliament of New Zealand has ever been in such an undemocratic phase as when the most informed are not allowed to give their views. The people who work with the problems, the people who see people losing a whole year’s wages, the people who see people losing their houses, the people who see people losing their loved ones, losing their families, and sometimes losing their lives—they are the experts. They are the experts, and the National Government did not let them go to the select committee.

The other point that we heard in the House today—and I do not want to refer too much to my friend and my constituent Chris Moller, who is, overall, a very nice guy. But it is clear that Skycity was advised by the Minister for Economic Development to not attend the select committee. The Skycity submission, frankly, is a pile of rubbish. It is a cut-and-paste. The types are even different within the submission. It is clearly cut-and-paste. Skycity is treating this Parliament with contempt, and it is encouraged to do so by John Key and Steven Joyce. Shame on them.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I rise to speak in support of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, so ably steered through this House by our coalition partner the Māori Party and Te Ururoa Flavell.

Today in this House Opposition parties will be voting against this bill. We have just heard Mr Trevor Mallard speak with much rhetoric about the problems and the issues that are faced by problem gamblers in this country, yet people need to understand clearly what the Opposition parties today, through their conscience votes—each and every one of them—are voting against. The first is that they will vote against the ability to allow for venues in low socio-economic communities to move. That is what they are going to vote against. That is the first thing. The second thing they will vote against is the ability to provide harm minimisation devices by regulation. That is the second thing. I want to say that again because they have stood on their high horse throughout this bill and they have accused Te Ururoa Flavell of having his bill gutted, but today Opposition parties will vote against the ability for harm minimisation devices to be brought in by regulation. The people of New Zealand need to understand that, because that side of the House is voting against it.

The third thing that they will be voting against is the ability for a Government Minister or for the Government to bring in by regulation distribution of funds to regional communities with a specific percentage. They will vote against that as well. So let us be clear. Although they stand on their high horses and talk with much vim and vigour about harm minimisation, about regional distribution, and, most important, about moving venues from low socio-economic communities, that side of the House will vote against these measures today in this House.

I want to talk not only about this bill but also about the wider package of initiatives that we have announced as part of building a raft of initiatives to move the discussion and the debate forward in this to give more protection, to minimise harm, to allow regional distribution, to improve the compliance around this industry, and to bring in a raft of changes, which I think are important. My five priorities and the five priorities of the Government here were to increase the proportion of gaming proceeds going back to the community. We want to simplify compliance and red tape. We want to generally distribute funding in the area where it was raised, in support of Te Ururoa Flavell. We want to protect problem gamblers, and we definitely want to increase transparency, because we are concerned about the rorts that have existed in this industry.

As I have said, the bill forms part of a wider package of reforms. Also, it is important that New Zealanders understand that earlier this year, just a few months ago, we announced a $55 million package—a problem gambling strategy of $55 million—and we have renewed that for another 3 years. It is not as though we are sitting back here and doing nothing about that. It is really important. Some of the more controversial elements of this bill were actually removed at the select committee consideration, and I believe it is a stronger piece of legislation as a result. The other side of the House wanted to vote for two things in that original bill, which the public also needs to understand. The first is that those members supported the distribution of funds by territorial authorities. If you listened and actually were on the Commerce Committee, you would have heard hundreds of submitters who came in and said: “We don’t want that politicised at a local level.” The Opposition was in support of that. That is really important.

The other thing that the Opposition was in support of was actually an attack on the racing industry. On that side of the House we are hearing, as part of this leadership debate around the country, that it believes in regional jobs. That is what it is saying: “We believe in regional jobs.” Yet it was going to vote through this piece of legislation to actually have a huge impact on regional racing. If Labour does not think that the members of its party are involved in the racing industry, well, think again. It was going to vote against that. It would have had a huge impact on the racing industry. On this side of the House, we genuinely care about regional jobs, so we support it and we changed the bill to ensure that the racing industry was able to look after those jobs.

I want to touch on a couple of key points. The first is returning the proceeds to the communities that generated them. The first thing that this bill does is it ensures that proceeds will be returned to the communities that generated them. As a general rule, gamblers should not lose money in Kaikōura in order to fund community projects in Taranaki. This goes against the purpose of the Gambling Act, which is to balance the harm caused in communities with the benefits of grants and funding. The Government did support this element of the bill from the outset. However, the original bill sets this out as a blunt mechanism that could be introduced through individual gaming society licences.

The select committee has wisely, in my belief, changed the bill to enable the Government to issue nationwide regulations requiring a minimum percentage to be returned to the local communities. I, in conjunction with Te Ururoa Flavell, will be issuing a discussion document very shortly to make use of this new regulation-making power. The discussion document is a necessary part of the regulation-making process. So when Opposition members vote against this regulation-making power, they will be directly voting against a measure that will ensure that proceeds go back to the communities affected by gambling. When Opposition members are thinking about their conscience vote, they may want to think about that.

I look forward to the support of Iain Lees-Galloway, Ruth Dyson, and Rajen Prasad for these regulations when they are promulgated, and here is why. Each of those members put in Supplementary Order Papers—Nos 293, 294, and 295—where they also acknowledged the importance of distributing proceeds within a local or a regional area. This is exactly what the Government is doing—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did you vote against them?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —so I cannot understand why they are voting against this part of the bill now, and I look forward to their support, Ms Dyson. That would be fantastic—thank you.

The second thing, hand in hand with these new regulations, is I intend to increase the minimum overall amount that gaming societies are required to give back to the community. The minimum percentage at the moment is 37.12 percent. The current average is around 42 percent, but some societies are lagging. I believe that we can lift the bar here and increase the total amount going back into communities, as well as the proportion that is returned to the same local areas. This will also be part of the discussion document that I have just talked about. Once again, I look forward to the support of the Labour Party for this measure when it comes through the House.

Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 296 proposed to increase the minimum rate of return to 40 percent from 2014-15. It is great to see him supporting this initiative that the Government will be rolling out, but we believe it requires some consultation through a proper regulatory process, not a last-minute change by a Supplementary Order Paper, which is what was proposed by Mr Mallard. However, I will be pleased that the Government is progressing the idea—in fact, we had announced these plans long before Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper came into the House.

Another thing this bill will do is enable councils to encourage venues to transfer out of low socio-demographic areas. I have discussed that in some detail, and I look forward to the support from the Opposition on this key part of the bill. Most important, this bill will enable us to introduce harm minimisation devices on a mandatory nationwide basis. It is quite different from the bill, but it empowers us to do this. This is a huge improvement on the original bill, which said only that harm minimisation devices may—harm minimisation devices may—be introduced through societies’ licence conditions. The select committee recommended a regulation-making power instead, and I think this is a very good suggestion and one that the Government supports. Regulations will enable us to introduce new devices into venues and are flexible enough to update as new technology emerges. I fully intend to use this provision in the bill to investigate opportunities to use harm minimisation devices. Clearly, we need to understand the costs of these devices and the actual benefits they deliver to problem gamblers in that process before we finally decide whether a technology should be implemented by regulation.

Just lastly, as I close, the wider initiatives that we are proposing in this reform process are greater transparency around grants so that people understand where those grants are being made. We propose to amend the venue payment system to reduce the complexity in the system and encourage more compliance. So I am proud of having been able to work with Te Ururoa Flavell through this process. I think he has been able to deliver an excellent result through this bill, and, combined with a wider package of announcements that I made to take this problem gambling issue forward, I think it will make great progress. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou ki te Whare. Gamble-free Day was on Sunday just past. It is an opportunity to raise awareness about problem gambling and the harm that gambling can do to families and communities. Under ordinary, other circumstances, it would have fitted well with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. But those circumstances have changed because this bill has changed. It is no longer focused on gambling harm reduction.

Let us review what this bill set out to achieve. It was to give councils and communities the power to cut the number of pokies in their area or eliminate them altogether. It was to ensure that at least 80 percent of the 37.12 percent of the funds that are currently distributed as grants from gambling machine losses be returned to the communities where the gambling took place. It was to phase out the pokie trusts, which distribute the gambling money from pokies, and replace them with more accountable committees that have been through a territorial authority or another mechanism. It was to remove horse racing from the list of charitable purposes that can use the gambling funds, and it was to introduce player tracking and pre-commitment cards, enabling gamblers to put controls on the amount of time they spend and money they lose while playing pokies.

Has this bill before the House done any of those things? I have to say the answer is no. It has not given communities and councils more power to reduce the number of pokies in their communities. In fact, this bill has made it harder for them to do so by introducing an amendment to the original legislation that will allow the transfer of pokies to other venues without losing any of their machines. This cuts across councils’ ability to use transferral as a way to implement sinking-lid policies and reduce the number of pokies in their communities overall. It makes a mockery of the sinking-lid policies that so many councils have introduced so far, and I note that according to the Department of Internal Affairs, in the last year councils have been doing a really good job. The number of venues and pokies has declined. The number of gaming machines, for example, decreased from 17,943 to 17,534.

The second aim of the bill was to ensure that 80 percent of the distributable funds went back to the communities where they came from. But even a casual look at the spread of pokies across this country will show that of the current 17,534 pokie machines in pubs and clubs, most of them are concentrated in poor areas. The latest gambling figures also show that at the end of June this year, $826.3 million was lost on those pokies. The distributable funds from this—37 percent—is around $275 million or so, and 80 percent of that money could have gone back to Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, and Kawerau. But this bill will not allow that to happen. The reason given was that national organisations would be disadvantaged, because they would not be able to apply for funds. But, heavens, there would still be 20 percent of that $275 million or so, which is around $55 million. That is a hell of a big pool that national organisations could still apply to. We have to remember that not only does this money come from poor communities but 40 percent of this money comes from gamblers who have no control over their gambling behaviour.

We should look more closely at who is getting that money. The numerous rorts every year associated with dodgy grants being allocated carry on. The latest one this year was the prosecution of a couple of people involved with the Manurewa High School Rugby Academy and Counties Manukau Youth Development Trust. They basically gave themselves grants that were supposed to be going to local rugby. Actually, it is interesting to count up how much pokie money has gone to rugby. For a non-professional sport, rugby soaks up an enormous amount of cash. In March last year the Otago Daily Times revealed that between 2006 and 2011 the Otago Rugby Football Union received $5.8 million. That did not come from Otago. I have done some calculations of how much sport overall benefits from pokie money, and this is what I have discovered.

Over the last 7 years there have been 143,000 netball players, and netball in New Zealand has received nearly $44 million during that period. That works out to $307.60 per player. Let us compare that with rugby for the same time period, which had 141,000 players—2,000 fewer than netball. Over that period their grants came to $178,602,000. That works out to $1,260 per rugby player. I cannot figure out what that money was spent on, and I can only assume that the New Zealand Rugby Union likes to allocate each player a pair of gold-plated rugby boots. For all that money that was allocated to rugby, my local rugby club still holds sausage sizzles and goes for local sponsorship because it is not seeing 1,260 bucks per player or gold-plated rugby boots, and we have got 18 pokies in our neighbourhood. It is interesting to see that gender gap, too, still playing out with pokies.

I guess the concentration of funds also highlights one of the other failed aspects of this bill, and that was the aim of replacing the existing pokie trusts that distribute the money with something that would be more accountable to communities, and it is not going to happen, basically because we experienced an all-out campaign from the pokie trusts to ensure their survival. As soon as the bill passed its first reading, we had the two big pokie trusts—the Lion Foundation and Pub Charity—use the community money, which supports their existence, to encourage their grant recipients to oppose the bill. It was implied to community organisations that with the demise of the existing pokie trusts, they were probably not going to get any money.

Pokie trusts have only one purpose, and that is to distribute the pokie money for community good. That they should take it upon themselves to meddle with the democratic processes of the country by attempting to skew the results of the bill, when that is completely outside their purpose, is reprehensible. Pub Charity especially has had a good go at using its financial power to stifle dissent.

This bill has failed to address the dodgy distribution of grants, and I have to say that, after 30,000 submissions, the pokie trusts have won. This bill also fails to remove horse racing from the list of purposes that can use the money generated from pokie gambling. That means that racehorse owners can still receive stake money from pokie gambling, like some of the other worthy charities that receive money from pokie gambling. It is an anomaly, but it remains.

Finally, this bill has failed in harm minimisation. This bill will not introduce pre-commitment cards or real-time player tracking. These are the only measures that can identify and control gambling behaviour before the gamblers lose everything they have got. The Minister of Internal Affairs has talked about regulation, and putting some of these measures into the regulations as an alternative to having them in the bill. Regulation means that it is at the whim of the Minister. I guess he is suggesting we can trust him. But it is also through consultation with the industry. We have already lost that battle. We have lost that battle, Mr Flavell. The industry won. This industry is insatiable.

The last thing I want to say about this bill—and I agree with the Problem Gambling Foundation and the Salvation Army, which say that this bill will make matters worse—is that it does not do what Mr Flavell really, really wanted it to do when he spoke in the House at its introduction last year, and that is address the terrible statistics that show that Māori are most harmed by these machines or, as he said, that they were colonised by these machines and this industry. I maintain that the member should have pulled this bill. It is a sad end to a hopeful start.

Te Ururoa Flavell: OK, you do something next time.

DENISE ROCHE: I will.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin by acknowledging the member Te Ururoa Flavell, who introduced this bill, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. It was my assessment, when he spoke at its introduction, that he understood the issues, and that he had passion and real commitment to make a difference in the gambling space—and actually that is not something that has happened very frequently in this Parliament. I regret that it is my view that this bill has been gutted to such an extent that it cannot be supported any more. There would be very few things I would have preferred to do in this House than support a bill that was very courageous, to start with, and although some of it was not the best, it was done with the best of intentions. Nothing would have given me more pleasure than for this Parliament to be able to back that bill and make a real difference to what has been an absolute scourge in many people’s lives. We have too many people who lose their earnings, who lose their house, and often who lose their family as a result of their problem gambling. This was an opportunity to make a real difference to that. As it is with so many things that go wrong in people’s lives, it is particularly the case in those parts of our country where the majority of residents are low-income earners. So for those people, perhaps, it is the drive of the attraction for a better life that gambling offers—that you will be a winner and be able to get out of the situation you are in. That could be a primary driver. I am not an expert in this area at all. For whatever reason, I think that Parliament has lost that opportunity, but I do want to acknowledge the member because I think it was his best intention, actually, at the start of this process.

When the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee it was subject to gross misrepresentation by the pokie trusts and I resent, more than anything, a debate that is had on the basis of misinformation. That is certainly what the good people in our communities were fed by the pokie trusts. It was an organised campaign. Good community groups were told a lie. They were told that if Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill went ahead and was passed, they would get no money. I know that is what they were told. I saw the emails. I heard those people at the select committee, because I was privileged to be on the select committee for much of this hearing. I saw those good community people come along and heard them say they were from the Raglan Surf Life Saving Club or the Taranaki rugby league clubs or whatever. All these good community people, running amazing sports activities, other activities—not just for children but a lot of them are for children—came along and said: “If we don’t get the pokie money, we can’t survive, so please vote against the bill.” That was never the intention of the bill. It would never have been the outcome of the bill. I know that those submissions went to local MPs as well. I had people in my office in Christchurch saying: “Don’t back the bill. We’ll lose our money and then we’ll have to close our sports facilities.” That was a lie. Neither was it the intention nor would it have been the outcome had this bill passed with the trust alteration, in the way that it was introduced. As I say, I resent people being lied to in order to gain their opposition.

The proposal in the original bill, as Minister of Internal Affairs, Chris Tremain, mentioned in his contribution, was to have the distribution of funds through local authorities. But Te Ururoa Flavell, from day one, and I heard him, made it very clear that he was not wedded to that as the only option. His principle was to have the distribution of funds done in a transparent and accountable manner. Why would National members want anything other than that? The member, on introducing the bill, came to the select committee and said: “This is an option. But if there is a better one that delivers transparency and accountability, let’s have it. I’m not wedded to this as an option.” All the National Party members on the Commerce Committee should have heard that because it was a very clear statement that he made, as, in fact, he did on other specifics in the legislation. He outlined the principle: this is what I am trying to achieve. Sorry, I am not quoting the member literally, but his point was that it was the principles that he was trying to achieve, and the mechanisms could be debated. He was accepting of the option that the select committee could come up with better ways for doing things. So I cannot understand how members would say that they do not want their pokie funds distributed in an accountable and transparent way. Why would a member of Parliament vote against that principle? I do not understand it. I listened carefully to Chris Tremain and I could not gather anything from him either.

When the bill came back from the select committee, it was my view that the bill had been gutted to such a point that it could not be supported. As I say, I regret that. Labour members then tried very hard to have changes made to the bill as reported back that would reinstate some of the fundamental points that had been taken out—at the direction of the Minister, I guess—through the select committee process. I think those Supplementary Order Papers deserve support. There were variations in some of them. Some of them had different percentages. So if people thought that one percentage was too high, they were certainly given options. I think it was a sensible way to look at things that had been taken out that clearly removed the harm reduction part of this bill—which was really the primary point—and those Supplementary Order Papers were a good opportunity to put them back in.

We had Supplementary Order Papers on the transfer of licences, and we had Supplementary Order Papers providing for different percentages on the net proceeds. More specifically, we had Supplementary Order Paper 292, which was the Hon Trevor Mallard’s proposal that if a licence was transferred, it could be only from a low-income area to a high-income area. I think that is smart. That was voted down and I do not understand it. We know that the concern about these pokie machines is where there is a proliferation of them in low-income areas. Frankly, if they wanted to move a bunch of pokie machines from Manurewa or Māngere into Epsom, then I do not think there would be much objection to that. But the National Party members and the Māori Party, actually, voted against that Supplementary Order Paper as well.

There was a further Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 297, to have a maximum number of gaming machines, and, again, I think that was consistent with the original intention of the bill to ensure that we had proper mechanisms for gambling controls. What the Minister has outlined does not, unfortunately, involve such a strong measure. It does go a little bit of the way, but actually it is nothing like the strength of gambling controls that were in the original legislation and that were proposed by the Hon Trevor Mallard in his Supplementary Order Paper. Again, I do not understand the logic of voting against measures that reduce harm in our communities—and I mean serious harm. Other Supplementary Order Papers covered remuneration to authorities, and really looking at having an integrated problem gambling strategy. That is the opportunity that has been missed by this bill.

I want to make just one other comment. We have got people in our communities whom we are very fortunate to have. We have got people in our communities who devote huge parts of their lives to caring for other people. We have them in the health sector—public health practitioners—we have them in the social services agencies, and we have them generally in a voluntary capacity in the community as well. Many of those people work specifically with people who are problem gamblers. Those people, including organisations like the Salvation Army, have been denied the right to speak to the Commerce Committee, which is looking at the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Why would those organisations, which not only have the expertise but actually have the passion and the commitment, and give so much to our communities, and could teach us so much, be denied the right to come to a select committee?

Jonathan Young: You were there.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I know it is a contentious issue. I understand that, Mr Young. But, actually, the integrity of our democratic process should ensure that when people have expertise and are concerned about an issue—an issue as big as selling our laws to Skycity—they should be heard. I want to put on record that I think that was a mistake of the select committee. We have also had the extraordinary circumstance where Skycity itself, having put in a rather pathetic—as I understand it; I have not had the opportunity to read it—submission, had been advised by the Minister for Economic Development and the Prime Minister not to go to the select committee and speak. That shows—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—laumalie, in acknowledgment of Tongan Language Week. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third and final reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill.

First of all, in his opening statement Mr Flavell said that the bill has been an enormous journey. Well, of course it has been through an enormous journey—it has been defeated of its original good intentions. The proposed changes to the Gambling Act that were originally contained in this bill had good intentions. Sadly, those good intentions quickly changed due to pressure from the Government in order to accommodate its selfish Skycity Casino deal. It is a deal that ignores all ordinary New Zealanders while favouring the Government’s election campaign sponsors.

The bill lacks a sense of direction in terms of implementation. The author of the bill, Te Ururoa Flavell, is selling an idea. Originally, it was a good idea, but it is now an idea that has failed to recognise the current situation and the current environment. The sponsor of this bill is out of touch with the implications that his bill will be confronted with.

New Zealand did not become one of the greatest countries in the world by just rewarding greed and recklessness. We did not come this far by letting special interests run wild. We did not do it by just gambling and chasing paper profits on Skycity deals or with China Southern Airlines. This country of ours was built by making things. This country of ours was built by producing goods that we could sell.

New Zealand First takes seriously problems with gambling, and it does not want to downplay the serious harm it could cause. Of course, New Zealand First is pleased to see the removal of clause 5, which would have unfairly penalised the racing industry—a $1.8 billion industry to the economy. Can I say to Denise Roche that she needs to know that it brings in $160 million of exports, and members of Parliament would do well to improve their understanding of this economy and how it works. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was right in saying that only 6 percent of pokie money was racing takings, while the rest goes into the “Underpants-wearing Society of Remuera” that does not support the racing industry.

Gambling, including pokies, is a social hazard that disrupts people’s lives. It is also a contributing factor to some fraud cases, poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, serious crime—and the list goes on, because I get to see it a lot in South Auckland. The prisons are also filling up with many of those with gambling addictions, and this bill does nothing to address those issues. Gambling addiction is the sure way of getting nothing for something. Get the picture? After all, it used to be about doing something, but nowadays, on that side of the House, it is about being somebody.

New Zealand First is not insinuating that gambling should not be addressed or that it is not a serious issue—no. Its concerns lie in the potentially problematic way in which this bill will be implemented. There are unrealistic expectations put on local bodies and communities and an impractical attempt to be able to manage the distribution of wealth generated from pokies. There is also a question about the operation of pokies, as we all know. The bill’s primary function is to reduce harm caused by gambling, but it underestimates the hurdles that it will be presented with along the way. There have been a couple of significant changes to the bill to ensure that if it does pass, it will be easier to implement. Such changes include the regulation-making power to monitor and regulate licence conditions and the distribution of gaming proceeds.

Why is it that Mr Flavell cannot see through it? The general public are being brainwashed with mixed messages from this Government and its alliance. On the one hand the Government wants to reduce the harm of pokies and enforce measures that will minimise the potential harm associated with gambling, and on the other hand the Government is attempting to increase the number of pokies through the Skycity agreement. So the Government is, essentially, sitting on the fence about the issues concerning gambling. It is not possible to agree that gambling is a social hazard and then increase the number of pokies popping up in Auckland through the guise of the Skycity deal.

It was revealed this week that the Ministry of Health has given a directive to organisations holding health contracts to not give evidence to the Commerce Committee regarding the Skycity convention centre deal. This lack of transparency is harmful and highlights the unfair nature in which this Government operates. Mr Flavell should make that clear to all Māori and Pasifika people out there. That should be made clear to the people of South Auckland.

This is turning into dirty politics, where persuasive sources are being silenced to ensure that this Government is not confronted with any hurdles or delays to its Skycity deal. Indeed, that is the case with gambling right now under the National Government. The only way it can ensure that China Southern Airlines can make the connection sooner is by using the Skycity deal as a despicable excuse.

Problems with gambling are an issue, and New Zealand First has raised severe concerns over this. There is no doubt that gambling disproportionately affects Māori, Pasifika, and low socio-economic areas. There is no doubt that gambling ruins relationships and fosters criminal activity. There is doubt this bill will have any serious or significant impacts on problems associated with gambling in New Zealand. The Government wants more pokies through the Skycity deal. The proposed changes to the principal Act will create only more bureaucracy and more conflicting interests.

If the member—and I will say this once again—wants to reduce the harm caused by problem gambling, then he should listen to what the Salvation Army and community groups are saying, instead of misguided directions from the National Government. We know that some would say that there is no gambling like politics—there is no gambling like politics. But I believe that William Cobbett put it perfectly when he said: “Another great evil arising from this desire to be thought rich; or rather, from the desire not to be thought poor, is the destructive thing which has been honoured by the name of ‘speculation’; but which ought to be called Gambling.” This bill achieves nothing better, and that is why we are unable to support it in its final, third reading. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the member Te Ururoa Flavell for the hard work he has done to bring this bill to the House. I would like to touch, first of all, on the Indian history aspects of the harm of gambling. Many members might have heard of the War of Kurukshetra, which is mentioned in the Epic of Mahabharata. About 100,000 people lost their lives at that time, about 5,000 years ago, and the cause of that war, the starting point, was gambling. We see that, historically, gambling has been causing harm to our society. National is committed seriously to addressing the issue of problem gambling. This bill enables that commitment to harm minimisation in society.

In addition, the Government has committed about $55 million to problem gambling strategies that focus on giving people the assistance they need. Gambling machine venues tend to be over-represented in lower-income communities and town centre areas with a high population of Māori and Pacific Islanders. They are effectively being targeted and often severely harmed by that. The communities in South Auckland especially have been very vocal in their representation against the number of pokie machines in that area. The class 4 gambling pokie machine venue policy is being developed by Auckland Council to replace the policies of seven former territorial local authorities. The Government is concerned by the harm caused by gambling, and therefore imposes various levies on the proceeds of gambling, in order to deal with this.

The bill seeks to overcome these vulnerable locations, and it reviews or transfers the majority of pokie machines, or even eliminates pokies, from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm. In fact, many communities at risk have voiced their feelings concerning the pokies in their area, and have been successful in having them removed. The bill especially requires all pokie machine trusts, corporate societies, and other distributors of the proceeds of gambling machines to return at least 80 percent of these funds generated by the gamblers’ losses on local pokie machines back into the charitable organisations, which are meeting a variety of needs in the same local area. The original bill would have required 80 percent of the gambling proceeds to be distributed in the local area where they were raised. The Commerce Committee recommended the introduction of regulation-making powers instead. We can achieve the same outcome through regulation, which is more flexible and will enable us to consider issues such as national or regional groups that receive funding from the gambling societies.

Gamblers who experience problems with their behaviour when using pokie machines will benefit from the $55 million 3-year strategy for problem gambling. The provisions will include front-line assistance and support in terms of safe gambling practice and raising awareness of the dangers of gambling; $25.3 million for a front-line intervention service to assist people with their gambling problems; $20.5 million allocated for public health services, particularly prevention activities, to encourage safe gambling practice and awareness of the dangers represented by gambling; and $6.6 million is allocated for research and evaluation.

The original bill would have allowed councils to shut down venues and ban gambling. This method would have been too extreme. Many councils have a sinking-lid policy that requires that no new licences can be granted for pokie venues and machines, and that the licences cannot be transferred if the venue closes. This also means that over time the number of venues and pokie machines will be reduced. However, the select committee supports the transfer of venues from low socio-economic neighbourhoods into other areas like central business districts.

The original bill also recommended that councils, rather than gaming societies, should distribute funding. We support the continued role of gaming societies. The select committee is addressing these issues through a wider package of reforms that will be introduced later this year, as the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Chris Tremain, mentioned in his speech. Many community groups, like charitable organisations and sports clubs, rely on funding from gaming societies to provide important services to their communities. These reforms will also look at the amount gaming societies are required to return to the communities. Every additional 1 percent means $8.5 million more for the communities and sports groups. We are also looking at simplifying the way societies pay bars and pubs to host gaming machines. One way is perhaps to extend licensing and renew their licences as an incentive for the venues to meet these criteria.

Regarding racing, the original bill recommended that racing be removed as an authorised purpose for gaming funding. We do not support this, due to the impact it would have on the racing industry. The select committee’s changes make parts of the bill easier to implement, while removing some parts that were not supported by the submitters. The select committee’s improvements enable a smoother way to introduce harm minimisation devices and a more flexible model for ensuring that the gaming proceeds go back to the communities where they are raised.

We know that the Green Party has been against everything that we have been proposing, like economic growth, more jobs, and other things, but today the Green member Denise Roche has proven that it is also anti-rugby. With this, I recommend that we support this bill in the third reading.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Malo e lelei. I want to acknowledge, as others have, Tongan Language Week. The community in which I am based has a very strong Tongan community, and I wish well all of those who are working so hard to keep our Pacific languages alive in this country. Unfortunately, based on the select committee I was at this morning, there does not seem to be a lot of commitment by the Government to that issue. But that is not why I am standing up here to speak. I am here to outline why I will be voting against the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. As others have, I too want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell. I think the original bill was actually a very brave bill, because there are massive vested interests in this area. There is no question that the gambling industry has huge vested interests, and, unfortunately, it appears to be the winner under this National Government.

The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is a bill that actually does not live up to its initial promise and does not reduce gambling harm. I think that those people who have been following this whole debate and maybe listened to the honourable Minister Chris Tremain will by now have heard a number of very compelling speeches that outline the real story behind this, unlike the Minister’s speech, which seemed to indicate, in fact, that the bill had been strengthened through the select committee process. Well, I do not think that even the member whose bill it is would argue that that was the case. When this bill was introduced, organisations like the Salvation Army and the Problem Gambling Foundation—organisations that I respect enormously and that work day in, day out on issues related to problem gambling—were very positive about this bill. They could see that it would make a difference. Well, they are no longer positive, and I will come back to that.

What is the purpose of the bill? The purpose of this bill has been set out as “to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling, including problem gambling … to ensure that money from gambling benefits the community … to facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling …”. Is that the bill that we now have before us at the third reading? I do not think so. This bill, through the select committee process, as others have said, has been gutted. It barely does anything to reduce problem gambling, and the changes put forward by Government MPs—particularly in light of the other bit of legislation that we all know is coming, the Skycity bill—clearly will only, in fact, increase gambling harm.

The Salvation Army, which I mentioned before, has come out criticising the changes that were made by the Government, saying that they do nothing for problem gamblers, those at risk, or communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling and that “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this Bill on balance will make matters worse”. That was Campbell Roberts. That does not sound like what the Minister Chris Tremain was describing. And what did the Problem Gambling Foundation Chief Executive, Graeme Ramsey, say? He said that the amendments to the bill meant that it was effectively now misnamed, because it would have little, if any, effect on problem gambling. He said: “I think what we are seeing is a proposed radical rewrite of the bill, and I don’t think it will do a great deal for harm minimisation at all.”

So, in fact, from being strong supporters of the bill as introduced, two very important organisations that deal with problem gambling are quite clear that this bill is not going to do what it set out to do, which was harm reduction. They have said why the first of the three purposes of the bill, harm minimisation, has not—I mean, I believe what they are saying. I think that Green MP Denise Roche has outlined very clearly why the other two purposes, the purpose around ensuring that money from gambling benefits the community—she had very clear examples about netball and rugby—and the third purpose, around facilitating community involvement in decisions, have actually been undermined as well. The bill will leave gaming trusts in control of the distribution of funds and will not require them to return 80 percent of the funds to the district where the gambling occurs. And, actually, as others have noted, the Government members of the Commerce Committee replaced the provision for councils to reduce and eliminate pokies in some areas by allowing those operators to simply move elsewhere while retaining the same number of pokie machines. I will come back to sinking-lid policies later in the speech.

In the Committee stage of this bill, a number of us, particularly my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard, tried very hard to improve through the use of Supplementary Order Papers a number of provisions in order to try to reinstate some of the issues that had been in the original bill and to try to deal with the concerns. I had Supplementary Order Paper 290 during the Committee stage. It was around the transfer of licences and, basically, providing that a territorial authority’s class 4 venue policy would have to include a relocation policy, which “must specify the maximum percentage of gaming machines permitted to operate at the new venue and that this percentage must be no more than 100% of the gaming machines that were permitted to operate at the old venue …”, and also that if the class 4 venue licence is to be transferred, the maximum number of gaming machines permitted at the new venue shall be no more than the percentage specified. Certainly, there were other colleagues who looked at a lower percentage, but what we were trying to ensure was that we were actually in a situation where it was possible to continue to see the reduction of pokie machines. So we did try during that stage, but, of course, no Government members were willing to do the right thing and to support any of those very sensible amendments.

Darien Fenton: Not Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga?

CAROL BEAUMONT: No, no, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga certainly did not, and he is seeming to be quite a great advocate of gambling. But I might talk a little more about him shortly. We did try.

I just want to ask the question, and it might seem obvious, but for those listening who maybe have not heard the debates on this before, why are we so concerned about this? Why does it matter? Well, gambling harm is a significant problem in our communities. In the part of Auckland that I live and work in, it is a significant problem. As MPs we are responsible for trying to deal with harm in our communities when we can. We are certainly not here to encourage harm. This Government, unfortunately, does not seem to understand that, because the Skycity bill will, in fact, be increasing the number of pokie machines. But, look, what is that harm? Well, at any given time in this country, between 0.3 and 1.8 percent of adults living in the community are likely to score as problem gamblers. That is between 10,000 and 60,000 people. They obviously influence a great deal more people—the people directly in their families, for starters—and the harm from their gambling can include poor parenting, family violence, other crime, and suicide. This is a huge, huge problem, and it is a problem particularly among Māori and Pacific peoples and low-income peoples. So it is something we should be doing something about.

It will get worse. This Government is now promoting legislation in the Skycity bill that will increase the number of pokies. I just find it unbelievable that that would be what the Government is trying to do when, in fact, we should be trying to manage harm. Supposedly, that is going to be a conscience vote. Well, we are certainly looking for the MPs who will do the right thing, who will be the wild card, if you like, and do the right thing. My colleague Darien Fenton mentioned Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. What does he say? He certainly talked about gambling being a scourge in the community. He has particularly noted how he sees so many people in his electorate office who are suffering from harm from gambling. Yet that member, at the moment, despite having heard so many stories directly as a member of Parliament, is still intending to support legislation that will bring in more pokie machines. Well, I ask those listening, and I will be asking the community, as will my colleagues, what should he do? What should that member of Parliament do? Well, he certainly should do the right thing.

I happened to sit in the other day on the Commerce Committee, which was listening to submissions on the Skycity legislation, and certainly the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel from the Auckland Council was quite clear that the legislation was going to exponentially increase harm on the Pacific community. In conclusion, I say to members opposite: do the right thing, and particularly Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell for putting forward this bill, and I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Tremain, Minister of Internal Affairs, and also Jonathan Young, chair of the Commerce Committee, for doing an excellent job in overseeing the public submissions process and changes to the original bill. Annual expenditure on pokie machines has fallen from $912 million in 2008 to $840 million last year. The number of machines has also fallen from 25,000 in 2003 to around 17,500 now. But, still, much needs to be done. This is particularly important to the Asian communities, because they are more vulnerable to gambling harm.

The bill’s purpose is to provide additional measures to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling, to ensure that money from gambling benefits the community, and to enable community involvement in decisions about the provisions of gambling. National takes problem gambling seriously and we fully recognise that it can bring harm to some people and communities. Changes made to the bill by the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, will help combat this. The original bill, for example, said that harm-minimisation devices may be introduced through a society’s licence conditions. The select committee recommended a regulation-making power instead. Regulations enable us to introduce new technologies on a nationwide mandatory basis rather than through each individual licence. Regulations are also more flexible as new technology develops. Many community groups, organisations, and sports clubs rely on gaming funding to provide important services to their community. This bill will ensure that a minimum percentage of gambling proceeds will go to community groups in the area where they were raised, while maintaining some flexibility.

Some communities are disproportionately affected by problem gambling—for example, lower-income communities and Māori and Pasifika populations. This bill will give more flexibility to councils to allow venues to move out of lower socio-economic neighbourhoods and into areas like central business districts, where it is supported by the local council. The original bill would have required 80 percent of gaming proceeds to be distributed in the local area where the proceeds were raised. The select committee recommended the introduction of a regulation-making power instead. We can achieve the same outcomes through regulation, which is more flexible and will enable us to consider issues such as national or regional groups that receive funding from gaming societies. The original bill recommended that councils, rather than gaming societies, should distribute funding. There was no support for this at the select committee, and we support a continued role of gaming societies.

The original bill expressed a concern about the roles and conflicts of interest in gaming societies. We are addressing these issues through a wider package of reforms that will be introduced later this year. I will elaborate on that later on. These improvements to the bill will enable a smoother way to introduce harm-minimisation devices and a more flexible model for ensuring that gaming proceeds go back to the communities where they were raised. Earlier this year the Government announced a $55.3 million 3-year strategy for problem gambling, which focuses on giving people the assistance they need. This includes $25.3 million for front-line intervention services to help people with gambling problems and others affected by these problems. It also includes $20.5 million for public health services, particularly prevention activities encouraging safe gambling practices and raising awareness of the potential dangers of gambling, and it also includes $6.6 million for research and evaluation.

Our full package of changes is much broader in scope than this bill and improves a number of other measures such as increasing the level of funding that goes back to the community. Along with the $55.3 million 3-year strategy for problem gambling, which I talked about, we will be introducing reforms this year that include more funding for the community, lower compliance costs, and increased transparency and compliance. More specifically, these reforms will increase the minimum amount that gaming societies are required to return to the community. Every additional 1 percent means $8.5 million more for community and sporting groups. Also, the reforms will simplify the way societies pay bars and pubs to host gaming machines, issue longer licences as an incentive for compliant societies and venues, and enable grant information to be published online rather than in a newsletter. Also, the reforms will enable the auditing of management companies, strengthen the ability to address conflicts of interest, improve transparency of grant decisions, and clarify the law to enable the Department of Internal Affairs to suspend or cancel a licence in response to non-compliance. The National-led Government takes problem gambling seriously, and we believe that we are moving in the right direction. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I do not know whether I heard correctly, but the member Jian Yang seemed to have said earlier that by gambling, poor people living in poor communities will be able to improve themselves and move into the wealthier parts of Auckland City. If that is what he believes, what an appalling state of Government we have. To then say also that the Government takes seriously the problems that gambling causes in our community is appalling, when you consider that in Manukau alone, after taking into consideration the money that goes into gambling and pokie machines and then out to the sports clubs, the community is left with a $90 million deficit on an annual basis. We know from the problem-gambling organisations that gamblers gamble away $5.5 million a week—it is in the billions of dollars a year. So I do not know where that Government and that particular member get their information from, but they are plainly wrong. I do not want to use the other word, but I will say simply that they are wrong. This is why we continue to have this debate. This is why up and down this country there are organisations that believe strongly that the direction this Government is taking this country in is the wrong direction and is taking this country backwards. It does not favour the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is looking after only its mates—in this case, Skycity Casino.

I want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell and the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill he has brought forward. I know that when I first saw the bill I acknowledged the fact that he picked up on issues that this country needs to deal with. I know that his intentions were right. I know that he personally also knows the harm that gambling does to Māori and Pasifika and a range of other sectors of our community. It is not his fault that the bill is the way it is now. That clearly falls on the shoulders of this particular Government, because it is not its intention to solve the problem gambling that harms our community. It is its intention to ensure that its friends and its mates make millions—if not billions—of dollars by causing harm to others. It is not its intention to support communities in poor areas so that the people of Māngere end up living in Remuera. That is not its intention whatsoever. Its intention is to milk as much as possible off those who are in low-income situations. In fact, it has been noted that we now have a society, created largely—but not solely—by this Government, where it seems for poor communities that they have got to gamble just in the belief that that is going to make ends meet. That is the kind of society that we now live in.

For 5 years this Government has contributed strongly to ensuring that the poor continue to be poor. If you look at the evidence that has been found today, since this Government has been in power the gap of inequality has certainly widened. But the community are not blind to that. About 2 weeks ago I held a meeting in my electorate of Māngere where people were very much concerned, as reflected by their submissions on this bill and on subsequent legislation that this Government has put forward. People are opposed to the increase in pokies. They are opposed to it because of the harm. Until that Government recognises that there is significant harm caused by the way that it has manipulated this legislation and the way that it has dealt to Skycity in the secret—well, not so secret now—deal, I do not think that this is the kind of country that in the end is going to benefit the significant populations that are wanting support, that are wanting jobs, that are wanting incomes, and that are wanting genuine jobs that they can get ahead in. This Government, when it manipulates bills such as this and interferes with the clear intentions that were at the beginning so that there is no longer protection for problem gamblers, is, again, the kind of Government that ought to be kicked out come 2014.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Malo e lelei, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is an interesting thing, is it not, that in this House we tend not to recognise the backgrounds that each of us has had before we came to the House and the expertise that sits in this Chamber day after day. Some of my expertise is in the fields of public health and harm minimisation—fields in which I worked for a number of decades before coming to this House. In that context and because of that expertise I was engaged in the late 1990s—a time when services for the treatment of problem gamblers were being shifted into the health sector and becoming a health responsibility—to do qualitative research to determine what health services would be required to treat the problem-gambling phenomenon that we would expect to observe. In that project I spoke with service providers, people like the Salvation Army, I spoke with many problem gamblers themselves, and I spoke to their families, and in each case the story that I got from that whole set of people was a story of misery and of loss of hope—of people who had lost their jobs, lost their houses, lost their families, lost their happiness and hope, and, in some cases, lost their lives.

In that project I also spoke to the companies that made their livings from gambling. I spoke with casinos. I spoke with the TAB. The pokies sector at that time actually hardly existed in New Zealand. Strangely enough, those organisations did not see the problem as being as big as did those who actually lived with it. That was a problem, because at that time the services for problem gambling were being funded by levies from the industry itself—in other words, being paid for by the problem gamblers on a voluntary basis by the industry. My recommendations about the services that were required to effectively deal with that problem actually fell on stony ground, because the industry was unhappy about paying for the extent of the services that would prove to be necessary. It is a failure once again of voluntary regulation.

The public health approach is one that recognises the limited point of working with individuals and focuses instead on creating public policy and social and economic environments around communities that support change. It focuses also on empowering communities. What we know from community views about problem gambling is that they want this industry out of their communities. The gambling industry has the reverse motivation. It achieves a vastly disproportionate share of its profits from the misery caused by problem gambling. Its commercial interest is served by encouraging problem gambling. For that reason, I give this prediction in the House today: the player tracking and pre-commit cards that could result from regulation will not be seen for regulation under this Government because they are not in the interests of the gambling industry.

Like other speakers in the House today, I acknowledge the bill as introduced by Te Ururoa Flavell, and I sympathise with the terrible dilemma that he faced in relation to this bill. But the bill that we vote on here today is a victory for the gambling industry, a loss for communities, and a loss for all of those who seek to limit the harm from this terrible, terrible industry. It is a sad day for New Zealand.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell as well, like everyone else in the House has done, because if he had not brought this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill to the House, then the conversation would never have got started. There is obviously a clear need for reform and he has highlighted that. I congratulate him on that and acknowledge him. The other thing that has happened, of course, is that he has started working with the Hon Chris Tremain. So this is just the beginning of more reforms that we will see rolled out in the next year. Congratulations to Te Ururoa—well done.

It is only a short call but I would also like to mention the fact that Denise Roche raised the issue around funding and sports funding, which is actually a really important upside of the revenue generated through class 4 pokies. I do not think that funding is gender based. I mean, I look around the House and I see one of our top Black Ferns sitting in the House tonight. She played rugby. We have a lot of men who play netball. So to attribute that funding to being gender based I do not think is very true. You have also solved a bit of a mystery for me, and that is the reason why Gareth Hughes has not turned out for the parliamentary rugby team this year. I see that Denise had his rugby boots. So it is good to see that that has been solved.

It is a very good bill. Again I want to acknowledge and congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, this debate has concluded. Just to explain the procedure, I understand that there are members who wish to have a personal vote on this matter. I will be putting the question in the normal manner. Once I have determined the result, any member can challenge the result that I have given and request a personal vote. That is the procedure that we are going to follow.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

Noes 55

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill

Second Reading

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) on behalf of Jacqui Dean (Waitaki): I move, That the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill be now read a second time. It is my pleasure to represent Jacqui Dean, who is overseas at an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, and deliver her speech in the second reading of her bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. She starts by saying that she extends her thanks to her colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee, who willingly applied their minds and provided useful insights to enhance this bill. This bill has had wide-ranging support across the parties, and the member said it has been a pleasure to work so constructively on issues that we all seem to agree on. We all care about our special places, plants, and animals, and we all want to ensure that they are protected.

From the Alps to the ocean, Jacqui Dean’s electorate—that is, the Waitaki electorate—has a diverse range of precious ecosystems, valuable productive land, the vast Mackenzie Country, our awe-inspiring Southern Alps, and our special coast. The member’s electorate is a special place filled with special people, who value hard work and the environment. It is home to a range of special critters, plants, and places.

Rare and precious geckos have been smuggled from the member’s electorate to supply an international black market trade in rare and endangered species. Television New Zealand’s Sunday programme broadcast the story of the damage being done to the species and the shady methods used by these smugglers. The member’s constituents are concerned, and so is she. They are not willing to stand by and let our natural heritage disappear simply for the gratification of a small number of international collectors.

Jacqui Dean will outline more of her reasons for sponsoring this bill in her speech on the third reading, but tonight I will concentrate on explaining the key changes recommended by the select committee. She is asking members across the House to support this bill. It is in our national interest to do so. The bill provides solutions to a problem that transcends party politics, which is the need for protection of one of the cornerstones of New Zealand and of us as Kiwis: our natural heritage.

The select committee recommendations were made unanimously. I would like to inform the House of the key changes it has recommended. The bill will result in a comprehensive, consistent, and effective penalty regime across conservation legislation. The current provisions are inconsistent and are purely accidents of history. A person felling a magnificent, original-growth tōtara tree today would face maximum penalties of a $500 fine if the tōtara happened to be growing in a reserve, a $2,500 fine or 3 months’ imprisonment if it was taken from a national park, and a $10,000 fine or 12 months’ imprisonment if it was felled on land held under the Conservation Act. This bill amends those inconsistencies.

The bill as introduced applied to the Conservation Act, the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Wild Animal Control Act. These are the key pieces of legislation that govern land-based conservation. During the select committee process the committee considered whether it should also apply to other conservation legislation, and it determined that marine mammals—that is, dolphins, whales, and seals—should also have the benefit of higher levels of protection. The committee recommended that the bill incorporate the Marine Mammals Protection Act, and Jacqui Dean would like to thank the Labour member the Hon Maryan Street for her promotion of that amendment. Having consistent penalty levels across the legislation will ensure that like values are accorded the same degree of protection.

The bill does not incorporate the Marine Reserves Act or the Trade in Endangered Species Act. Although both pieces of legislation are key pieces of conservation legislation, the committee was advised that changes are being made to the Marine Reserves Act through a separate legislative process. It was also advised that the existing penalty levels in the Trade in Endangered Species Act are higher than the standard conservation penalties and that changes to that Act should be considered carefully to ensure consistency with our international obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

The recommended penalty levels will deter potential offenders from carrying out illegal activity, result in similar offending facing similar consequences, be consistent with other relevant legislation, be consistent with international best practice, and provide serious consequences for serious offending against our natural heritage. In order to achieve these objectives, the new penalty level is a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment or a $300,000 fine, or both, for offending that is commercially motivated. For serious offending that is not commercially motivated, there is a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment or a fine of $100,00, or both, for individuals, and a maximum fine of $200,000 for corporations. For less serious offending that is not commercially motivated, there is a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment or a fine of $100,000, or both, for individuals, and a maximum fine of $200,000 for corporations. For breaches of regulations or by-laws, there is a maximum fine of $5,000 generally, or $10,000 in some specific cases.

These penalty levels are broadly consistent with the Resource Management Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Animal Welfare Act. The member wants to stress that these penalties are the maximum penalties. These levels of penalties could be applied in only the most serious offending situations, and only where there are absolutely no mitigating factors or circumstances that would warrant a lighter penalty being given.

Our job in Parliament is to set the highest level of penalty that those committing a particular type of offending could face. We do not set minimum penalties or average penalties. We set the upper boundary and provide the courts with the flexibility to design an appropriate sentence within that boundary. The courts are bound by the Sentencing Act and case law to develop an effective sentence by taking into consideration the seriousness of the particular offence that has been committed; the circumstances of that offending, including aggravating or mitigating factors; and the circumstances of the offender.

The member acknowledges that a lot of conservation offending may be in the lower range of seriousness. However, we are determined to provide the courts with a suitable upper level to ensure that serious offending is treated seriously by the court. We have seen too many examples in recent times where penalty levels may have been insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offending that happened.

The new higher penalty levels will provide courts with broader parameters for sentencing, which will have most effect on serious offending. The bill also increases flexibility and provides broader sentencing options by providing for community work as an alternative sentence. New penalties with an option for imprisonment also allow for sentences of imprisonment or a fine, or both. This provides the courts with maximum flexibility to determine what is fair and appropriate in any particular circumstances.

Although the bill changes penalties, what it does not do is change powers. Enforcement officers will not be able to act in any different ways as a result of this bill. The bill does not change offence provisions other than to make some minor, purely technical amendments to existing offence provisions. There may be value in improving powers and offences across the conservation legislation, as well. However, that is beyond the scope of this exercise. The member is confident that the changes made to penalties through this bill will have a significant effect on increasing the protection of our protected places and species. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am very pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I want to begin by expressing my disappointment that Jacqui Dean is representing our Parliament overseas and was unable to deliver that speech herself as a result. I think the time and effort that she put into it to enable Nicky Wagner to present it on her behalf was well worth it, but I want to put on the record that I think the work that Jacqui Dean has done in getting this bill to the select committee and the way she has listened to the contributions of other parties at the select committee and also to the submitters has been a credit to the parliamentary process, and she should be acknowledged and thanked for that.

I also want to acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is not a big bill, it is not a complex bill, but it is a good bill, and the committee did take it seriously and worked really constructively together. So I acknowledge Nicky Wagner as the chair of that committee, and the other members on it. I also want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Maryan Street, who I hope will have an opportunity to speak later in this debate and who moved an important amendment, one that made an already good bill even better. That was in regard to the extension of the penalty regime to the Marine Mammals Protection Act. That amendment was well worthwhile putting into the bill, and I am pleased that it got the support of the committee and hopefully of the House. It may well be that this is a bill that gets the total endorsement of Parliament. Phil Heatley is very envious of that. I might recommend to the member, should he want the entire Parliament to support a piece of legislation in his name, either as a member’s bill or in the future should he return to a ministerial portfolio, that he brings in something that is good, that does some good. Actually, that would be the starting point.

Hon Phil Heatley: First time for everything.

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is right. There is a first time for everything. And also if he could improve the standard of the morning teas that he contributes to the Local Government and Environment Committee, I am sure that that would get the unanimous agreement of the House. Back to this bill—as I said, it is not a big bill, it is not a complex bill, but it does increase the penalties for breaches of the Conservation Act, and it also ensures that there is a more consistent approach in the application of penalties. For that reason alone, I think it is good. It has been a while since this has been updated.

The disappointment, however, that I feel in relation to the fact that we are talking about the Department of Conservation and the work that it is able to administer is that we are having this discussion with barely any recognition of the fact that the department has been put through such traumatic and stressful times over the last 5 years. Conservation has taken a sideways and then a backwards step under this Government, and I think that is a real shame. As we have done with this bill, we have shown that conservation could be a whole-of-Parliament issue that we all recognise as being our moral responsibility. But, instead, what we have seen is significant slashing of the budget of the Department of Conservation. We have seen, as a result, massive losses of staff. The staff who have been lost are often the people who do the front-line engagement with the communities in provincial areas. That is actually where understanding and support of conservation, which we have seen as part of our DNA in New Zealand for so long, have been nurtured. It has been started by the local Department of Conservation person who goes out into the schools, out into the communities, and out to the service organisations and gets the community involved in local projects—things that people feel great pride in when they have been involved in them. It strengthens the link of the community and therefore extends the ability of the department to do its work. The more people who understand conservation work and values, the easier it is for the department to do its work. Instead of having those people working in our communities, doing a fantastic job—and I am sure many members in this Parliament have spent time with Department of Conservation workers on various projects—they are losing their jobs. There have been huge staff cuts, which, of course, are not going to have any direct ramifications for this legislation until we get down to the actual enforcement officers. If they end up losing their jobs, then the whole purpose of this bill will be for nought.

I am disappointed that the Government has chosen to move the Department of Conservation sideways and then backwards in terms of its funding. We have had some significant pieces of work presented to Parliament—for example, from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who highlighted the lack of ability of the Department of Conservation to do quite basic work, which is pest control. She talked about our forests being silent in the future if we do not up our game on pest control. That should be a massive wake-up call for all New Zealanders. Every one of us in this House, I am sure, knows and values the native birdlife in our forests. If we do not start responding better to the threat of possums, stoats, and rats, we will end up with very little, if any at all, native birdlife. That would be a loss not just to our generation but to future generations. It would be a loss to our tourism attraction. People come here because of our nature and because of our environment. They come here to hear our birds and enjoy our forests. When the department that is charged with the responsibility of pest control is not able to do its job, then you know that you are not funding that department adequately.

The Department of Conservation, in the most recent restructuring, set up a business unit. I think it called it a partnership programme, or some such public relations spin to what it really is. It is the begging bowl department. It is the group of people in the Department of Conservation who take around a begging bowl so that they can do their jobs. I am worried about this not only in terms of how we fund core services that we want performed by departments but also because I know what would happen to those programmes should any of the sponsors or the donors pull out. We had that not long ago with the New Zealand Aluminium Smelters, which said that it did not know whether it would continue to fund support for the kākāpō. There is no other money available for that kākāpō work. In the same way as the energy company that I remember the former Minister of Conservation talking about supporting the blue duck, we have got another company funding support for takahē. These programmes are totally dependent on those companies continuing their sponsorship. So it is a begging bowl approach. It is not a Government department that is strong, proud, and able to perform its core functions within its own budget.

There are very few of our threatened species that the department is now able to actively manage. Only 250 out of 2,700—so, fewer than 10 percent—of our threatened species are able to be under active management by the Department of Conservation. This will be a generation that will see the demise of threatened species because of underfunding. That is something that this Parliament should take more seriously than it does. There is money to be found for lots of things. There is always more call on it, but, actually, the protection of our environment, our public estate, is something that should not take a back seat.

I am pleased to see the progress of this legislation. I just want to repeat and acknowledge the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee did with it. I think the amendments that it has made are sensible. I hope that every party in Parliament is able to support the legislation. I hope that it gives the Department of Conservation staff, particularly those who have over the last few weeks and months lost their jobs, some flicker of hope for the future that the conservation values that have for so long been supported by this Parliament, regardless of who is leading the Government, are again restored. We have seen the advocacy role, we have seen the decision-making role of the Minister, and we have seen the core competency of the department all whittled away. It is really time for a rethink of that because it will do damage that will not just cost us in the short term but also do long-term damage as a nation.

This bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, is a good bill. I again commend Jacqui Dean for her work on it and look forward to its further progress.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I also commend Jacqui Dean and the Local Government and Environment Committee for the Conservation (National Heritage Protection) Bill. A lot of forethought has gone into it, and, of course, work, since it came to the committee. Members were very enthusiastic once they heard the basic facts around what penalties were being administered and the punishments in respect of jail terms that were being applied when it came to those who thwarted the law and damaged our flora and fauna in New Zealand or, indeed, stole it both for sale domestically and to export illegally.

The law is administered by the Department of Conservation. What is going to happen is there is going to be an increase in penalties with the passage of this bill. It will also implement a consistent approach to penalties across the amended laws. So, essentially, two things are happening: the Department of Conservation, which essentially uses and administers these laws and the Conservation Act—what we are going to do here is raise the penalties on one hand and then, on the other hand, apply them more consistently across various Acts.

So, as introduced, amendments are proposed to, yes, the Conservation Act 1987 but also to the National Parks Act of 1980, the Reserves Act of 1977, the Wildlife Act of 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act of 1977. The penalties will be increased for a number of offences where wildlife has been endangered or protected natural habitats have been damaged. That will then extend across various Acts. One of the questions the committee put to officials on this was how it actually works in with other Acts that are more modern in terms of the penalties and offences that they list, such as the Fisheries Act and those Acts that essentially affect marine reserves—how those penalties align with the ones that we were looking at making changes to or that Jacqui Dean was proposing to make changes to. So there is much more alignment. We have done some investigation on the Fisheries Act and some of those other pieces of legislation that are regularly modernised in regard to penalties, and we have come up with some significant numbers now that we believe are about right.

We received eight submissions and had a good round with advisers on several occasions, getting things right. So we have divided it into two types of penalties, one targeted to those people or entities who are substantially not motivated by commercial gain or reward. So they are doing damage, they are causing death, or they are stealing wildlife or fauna, but not for commercial gain or reward. So for the lesser offences we are recommending that an individual’s term of imprisonment would not exceed 1 year or a fine not exceeding $100,000; for bodies corporate that are not motivated by commercial gain or reward, the fine is not exceeding $200,000; and for continuing offences there is a further fine not exceeding $10,000 per day. So those are significant funds—$100,000 for an individual, $200,000 for bodies corporate, and then $10,000 per day if the offence is continuing.

For more serious offences—not for people pursuing personal gain but for more serious offences such as discharging a firearm, injuring or attacking or somehow abusing official personnel, such as obstructing an officer, taking plants, and those sort of offences—we have decided that there would not be an increase in the dollar amount, but we are looking at increasing the term of imprisonment by a further year, but to no more than 2 years. The penalty would go from 1 year to 2 years if there is much more serious offending.

Then we have got the second tier of those offences, and that is where offences are committed for commercial gain or reward. For individuals, it goes from $100,000 to $300,000 and from a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment to a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment; for bodies corporate, the fine goes from $200,000 to $300,000; and for continuing offences, for those who are after commercial gain, it will be not $10,000 per day but $20,000 per day. So that is a significant lift to what is there currently. As indicated by Jacqui Dean and others in the debate tonight, and people will see it referenced in the Hansard right through the second reading, we have made sure that they are aligned across various Acts, not just the Conservation Act—so the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Wild Animal Control Act. Members of the public can be assured they also align with those Acts that control offences in marine reserves, marine parks, and, of course, under the Fisheries Act as well. So there is significant consistency right across government there.

This bill sends a very, very strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand’s wildlife and natural areas very, very seriously. The bill will complement further smuggling deterrence measures that are soon to be introduced by the Minister of Conservation, which will increase penalties for wildlife smuggling, as I say, to 5 years in jail and a $300,000 fine.

The bill also complements our efforts since being elected to boost the conservation estate, better protect our great outdoors, and make sure that more New Zealanders get use from it. Although members from the Labour Party do spin the line regarding the vote—or the amount of finance that goes into the Department of Conservation each year, to be distributed and used by it—the reality is that Vote Conservation is now $444 million. It is in the books. It is clear there for everyone to see. It has almost doubled from the $226 million that was there in 2001-02, just over 10 years ago. It has had a significant doubling there. We are investing in recovery programmes for 36 percent more threatened species, and we are focusing on what matters. I commend Jacqui Dean for bringing this bill to House. I commend her for all the support she has in this Parliament and outside Parliament. There are very sensible changes being made here, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to Jacqui Dean’s bill, the Conservation (National Heritage Protection) Bill. I add my congratulations to those of other colleagues to her on advancing this bill.

We have seen in the last few years numerous pictures on our televisions of the senseless clubbing of seals and the smuggling offshore of creatures that are precious to our country and that are unique to our country. I think there were a number of incidents that provoked Jacqui Dean into bringing this bill forward, and they cause as much anger amongst other members of the public, apart from those who seem to perpetrate these acts.

I am absolutely certain of what the vast majority of New Zealanders would consider about anybody who takes to doing that—even if they are a famous rugby player, a well-known hooker. Most New Zealanders would see the kind of senseless act of killing and maiming animals, defenceless animals, as something that needed serious, serious penalties to act as a deterrent for that kind of behaviour. If there are still some people in our country—and there would appear to be, given a court case that is on the moment, which I will not refer to any more—who do not seem to understand that harming animals, harming livestock, and harming birds says a lot about their own attitudes towards people, this bill might have at least some corrective effect, so that we do not see so many of those bloody scenes on our televisions, where animals have been senselessly butchered and maimed by people who really have trouble relating to human beings, and so vent their wrath and their anger on creatures that are more vulnerable than they are. I cannot think of any other reason why somebody would do these things. I understand hunting, so I am not criticising that in any way. What I am criticising is the senseless attacks, particularly on protected species, but on any animals.

This bill, as Phil Heatley has just catalogued, proposes a two-tier penalty arrangement for people who offend. It does take into account that there might have been unintentional offences. You did not mean the dog to get loose and savage that seal on the beach. You did not mean something to happen in quite the way it did. But even so, if a person did not intend to commit an offence, they are still liable to imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of up to $100,000, or both, depending on the severity of the incident. Bodies corporate that might inadvertently, or otherwise, commit offences against the animals protected under this legislation would be fined up to $200,000. If people are continuing to do it on a daily basis, then they are fined $10,000 per day. That is something of a deterrent.

I am pleased, however, that we have gone a little bit further with the intentional offences, where people senselessly go to the Kaikōura Coast, track down those little baby seals that have gone up to the waterfall—and have been a delight to many visitors who have gone past and to tourists who have stopped and been told about these seals up on land—and they bludgeon those animals to death. There is no excuse. Although the financial penalties remain the same, those people are liable for an imprisonment period of up to 2 years.

The other ones that really disturb us are those shots we have seen on TV recently, where people take tuatara, geckos, skinks, and other small creatures that are unique to New Zealand and are amongst our protected fauna, and they strap them to various parts of their anatomy and try to smuggle them out of the country. Sometimes they might put them in tubes in suitcases. But however they do it, their intention is to smuggle them out of the country, for commercial gain. The penalty for those people acting as individuals is up to 5 years in prison and up to $300,000 in fines, or both, and for bodies corporate it is a fine of up to $300,000. The fine for a continuing offence, happening more than once, is up to $20,000 per day. So here are some deterrents against this reprehensible behaviour.

One of the things I am really pleased about is the way the Local Government and Environment Committee, under the chairpersonship of Nicky Wagner, addressed some of the issues behind this legislation. I think collectively, across the committee, we made some improvements to the bill, but one of the things I am most pleased about is the possibility of expanding the coverage of the bill to cover the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1978 and also the Wildlife Act of 1953. The Wildlife Act is amended by removing from section 67 a fines provision that sits in that Act. The amendment takes that out and makes the fines provisions in that legislation consistent with this bill, which I hope we will advance further this evening. So there will be a consistency of approach across all of the penalties. It is entirely possible for the people who bludgeon seals for fun to get off with a lesser penalty, depending on the piece of legislation under which they have been brought to court, and that does not seem fair.

I was pleased to engage with the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith, and to ask him about the application of the Marine Mammals Protection Act and the Wildlife Act and how they might be put into this piece of legislation. He was very pleased to make that recommendation to Jacqui Dean, because it was her bill, but he was onside with that. Jacqui Dean was onside with it, the select committee was onside with it, and as a result we have got a consistent framework across all pieces of protective legislation in this area, and the select committee passed it unanimously. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill at its second reading. That is not just because the Green Party supports the bill but also because it has been a very pleasant change in terms of the way in which the select committee works and the way in which the Parliament works. We have had, on this bill, such cross-party agreement on how we improve the protection of our common natural and historic heritage, the indigenous species, and the wild places in New Zealand. It is a rare bill too because it received only eight submissions. They were virtually all in support, and because for a change the select committee listened to submitters it was able to make changes to the bill, which puts in place some of the suggestions that they made about improvements. I certainly commend Rod Burgoyne for his submission because it was him who pointed out that the penalties in the Marine Mammals Protection Act had not been updated since at least 1996 and that they had been significantly eroded by inflation. That is why we had the change that Maryan Street talked about, which she took up, to make those penalties consistent.

This bill is about productive tinkering with conservation legislation, rather than making any substantive changes, and that is one of the reasons why we support it. It does not create any new offences. It simply creates a more consistent and more up-to-date penalty regime across the Conservation Act, the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, the Wild Animal Control Act, and the Marine Mammals Protection Act. But as Charles Chauvel noted at the first reading, it is a bit strange that parliamentary time has to be used to do this, and there is not some mechanism to provide that financial penalties are increased in line with inflation. But it is a good bill because we had that cross-party agreement and because it should encourage compliance with conservation legislation. Like others, we would certainly like to acknowledge Jacqui Dean for the work she did on developing it, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, and also the officials from the Department of Conservation, the select committee, and parliamentary counsel.

It is a useful bill because the existing penalties in those six pieces of legislation are old and they are often very low. The penalties in the Reserves Act, for example, have not been updated since 1977, and when you get low penalties that often suggests to the courts that the offences are minor or trivial. Indeed, in some of the wildlife-smuggling cases, the courts had asked that the penalties be increased because they have been somewhat frustrated by the small penalties that they were able to have access to. When you have got laws that were passed by the Parliament at different times, they have got different levels of penalty and they are inconsistent. There is an example where if someone felled a single tree in a national park, which, of course, are our premier protected areas, they would be liable for a fine of $2,500, whereas if that tree was in a conservation area the fine would be $10,000. That does not make sense, so the bill makes sure that there is consistency. It also means that if you have got low penalties, there is no deterrent, because the fine is less than the benefits that are gained. That is particularly the case with the issue of wildlife smuggling, where with species like the gecko, smugglers have been able to get very lucrative returns internationally for smuggling, and they have been faced with only a small fine in New Zealand. One of the important things that the bill also does, as Nicky Wagner pointed out, is that it provides more flexibility in terms of sentencing, so that the court can impose either a sentence of imprisonment, or a fine, or a sentence of community work. It does make that differential between offences committed by companies, which have more than twice the penalty that individuals are subjected to—that is put in the bill as well.

We would just like to encourage the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Nick Smith, because he is proposing changes to the Conservation Act later this year. We encourage him to take a similar approach as Jacqui Dean has taken, and that is to do some useful tinkering with the legislation. Where this Government does more than tinker with our conservation and environmental legislation, it is a disaster. We would like to see the Minister copy Jacqui Dean, rather than his colleague Amy Adams with her sweeping changes to the Resource Management Act, because they tilt the playing field against nature and in favour of development. Where the Government has made major changes—as to the Resource Management Act, and as it is proposing to do in the third tranche of changes to the Resource Management Act; and to the Crown Minerals Act, where it has given the Minister of Energy and Resources a joint decision-making power on applications to access conservation land for mining—we have seen the balance go against nature. So, useful tinkering, yes; sweeping changes, no. That is because we also need the same sort of cross-party agreement that we have seen on this bill around any further changes to conservation legislation.

The Minister holds those lands on trust for all New Zealanders, both now and future generations. It is not just 20 or 30 years hence; it is 200 or 300 years hence. They are common resources that we all have a stake in. So it is much better where we can get agreement across the Parliament on what changes should be made to the legislation, which influences how these wild places, landscapes, and indigenous plants and wildlife are cared for, than if we have the more normal adversarial debate on legislation. The cross-party agreement that we have got in this bill acknowledges the collective interest that we have. It is also a basis for much better lawmaking, because this bill will endure past this Government because it has the support of all the parties in the House.

But, as Ruth Dyson noted, although this bill is about improving protection for certain species, it is very much at odds with what is happening with the Department of Conservation, and with the major restructuring we have seen in response to the $54 million cut in its funding over 4 years that this Government introduced. In just this year we have seen 110 jobs lost and we have seen a decline in morale. There is huge churn in the department as a result of the restructuring and there is some new wave management theory about how the department should be organised, which has managers in one location being responsible for staff hundreds of kilometres away in another location. So we have seen staff voting with their feet and the department haemorrhaging. The people with professional skills, expertise, dedication, and commitment to our threatened species are leaving in droves. There has been a huge overshoot in this restructuring. As of last Friday there are 250 vacancies that the department has yet to fill. That is a huge loss of expertise. So if this Government wants to do more than ensure that wildlife smugglers and those that harass marine mammals are effectively prosecuted and penalised—if it really wants to improve the prospects for our threatened species, like kiwi and kōkako and our native fish—then it has got to better fund the department so we can better look after the species, the habitats, and the ecosystems that they are part of.

If the Government genuinely wants to do something about conservation, then it has got to make more decisions like the one that the Minister made on the Routeburn tunnel to protect the national park, and it has got to make fewer decisions—or no decisions—like the Denniston one, where we see a coal plateau damaged and climate change contributed to by the emissions that will be associated with that mining. The Minister has a choice on things like the monorail in Southland to protect Snowdon Forest. It would be a gross injustice if this bill, which increases the penalties for cutting down a single tree on conservation land, goes ahead, and yet the Minister authorises the destruction of thousands of trees—old growth red beech, and silver beech forest in Snowdon Forest—for the very financial risky and very destructive Riverstone Holdings monorail application. It is not enough just to increase the penalties for smuggling wildlife. There has got to be a real commitment to the protection of our indigenous plants, wildlife, and habitats.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I echo the sentiments expressed by Nicky Wagner initially and others who have spoken on this bill tonight that this is indeed a bill that has real harmony around it. The changes have been made unanimously, as others have pointed out. I think that when we look at the substance of what the bill is trying to do, where Jacqui Dean, as the local member, has succeeded so well, is that she has kept it simple. It is a bill whose time has come, really, to sum it up that way. Some of the penalties that have been in place have been far too low, and there are other inconsistencies that need to be addressed. Her bill has done that very neatly.

The Local Government and Environment Committee received eight submissions in support and no opposing submissions. Submitters raised many of the points that other speakers have alluded to tonight on the value of higher-penalty levels and the need for consistency, not only in the way that the fines are administered across land but also against the environmentally related Acts. This piece of legislation neatly encompasses five of those Acts, and there is more to come. We will leave that for another time. I guess when I heard the submitters, and read through the submissions of those who did not want to appear before the select committee, one of them summed it up in one sentence, really. Stephanie Reynolds said: “I support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill and ask that it be passed, only with penalties strengthened enough to be an effective deterrent.” As other speakers have indicated—for example, with baby seals being clubbed to death—there is the shock of people watching on the television news, reading in their newspapers, and listening on the radio about the fact that poachers have come in and done inhumane and cruel acts for no apparent commercial gain.

Then there are the smugglers. Then there are those individuals who have come here from other parts of the world, and who see New Zealand as a soft touch because our legislation has been too soft. One example we were given at the select committee that resonated with me was the example of gecko poaching—jewelled geckos in particular. Jewelled geckos are fascinating and unique creatures, and they deserve to be protected. That is what our legislation sets out to do. But when the poachers come in—and we had a look at some of the websites in places like Germany, for example. These little creatures are getting ridiculous amounts of money overseas. A 6-month-old jewelled gecko, for example, can be sold for over $100,000, and smugglers can get $5,000 for an egg. I guess these are the kinds of inducements to people with a bad state of mind who will come out here. As we have seen in the news, they pack them on to all parts of their body and the poor creatures are not likely to even survive the journey.

These people are well-organised and they are greedy. It is a bad combination. The penalties we have put in place are going to make these sorts of people think twice. They might go to countries other than New Zealand if they want to poach in this way. But there is a very real market for it internationally, and I think Jacqui Dean has recognised that from the feedback she has had from her own community and from people whom she spoke to when she drafted this bill.

When I have spoken to others about this and talked about the work that goes on in Parliament, there has been a universality of approval around this. Everybody is sick of hearing about acts of cruelty, and one of the points that was made to me recently—in Timaru, actually—was that if people are going to club baby seals to death and commit acts of cruelty on animals, not only is that a very bad thing for the animals concerned, clearly, but also where does it stop if it is not checked? What kind of a society are we if we allow people to think that they can do this sort of thing and not have the full force of the law land upon them? This bill really does make sure that people will be absolutely aware of the penalties that will come their way. When we look at the recommendation for the penalties—for individuals, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $300,000, or both—I think these are substantial deterrents. The higher penalties have been put in place, again, as others have indicated, for the commercially motivated offences. So this is a bill that I think sends a strong message to international smugglers, and to people in New Zealand, who might, whether they are being unthinking, uncaring, or quite what, think twice. It is a very important piece of legislation to have across a number of different Acts.

I do note that although there has been an unusual amount of, I suppose, harmonious attitude among the parties in this House to this, there have been in the debate tonight a few cracks about what is happening to the Department of Conservation. I would point out that the budget for Vote Conservation is now $444 million, which is almost double the $226 million it was back in 2001-02. It is not quite as bad as the Opposition paints it to be—in fact, it is not correct at all, but that is not unusual.

Scott Simpson: It’s par for the course.

MAGGIE BARRY: It is par for the course. We are investing in recovery programmes, as well, across National’s conservation programmes, and we want 35 percent more threatened species. Those species are the ones that we need to protect, and we are moving to do that. We are also, as a Government, intending to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework, because we know and we understand only too well, as Jacqui Dean does with this excellent member’s bill, that our natural environment is a very valuable resource. We need to protect it and preserve it, and this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill does that very well.

So I join others in commending Nicky Wagner, our very good and fair and balanced chair—loves them to death. Nicky Wagner has done a very good job of shepherding this through. I commend Jacqui Dean for putting it together in a very sensible way, which really denotes the fact that she is a very experienced politician and knows how to make these things work. I would also like to mention the advisers, because I think that the individuals who did the work on this bill really took it to heart. I know that all advisers work very hard and they are very committed and passionate about what they do, but the advisers that we had on this bill were particularly involved, and I think they fired us all up with the passion that we all shared. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. It is a great pleasure to rise to discuss these issues of endangered species immediately after the North Shore MP, Maggie Barry. In that regard, this bill is very much about putting in place new penalties—increased penalties—to get round what has been somewhat of a problem over many years in terms of international trafficking of endangered and rare species.

Looking back to some of the news reports in the last decade, we will all recall instances where, for instance, a German tourist was caught with Northland green geckos smuggled in his underwear as he was attempting to leave Auckland Airport. There was another instance in 2010 where a German tourist tried to smuggle 44 live geckos and skinks out of the country. Obviously, the Germans have something about our geckos and they would like to get hold of them. There was another instance where two Czech botanists were convicted in 2004 for attempting to smuggle out 363 wild plants, including 93 endemic orchids.

The list goes on and on, and it is often the case that this is being done for commercial gain and for commercial interests. It is interesting that Interpol estimates the smuggling of wildlife around the world, for instance, to be in the order of $10 billion to $20 billion. The trade in wildlife-smuggling is estimated at $10 billion to $20 billion by Interpol.

We are only a small tip of the iceberg because we are at the end of the Earth. We are an island nation, and therefore it is far more difficult here compared with those countries that are perhaps closer to Europe or Asia, where there are cross-borders and that sort of thing. But in our situation we do have some very, very rare species that are unique to this country. Some of you may have had an opportunity last night to catch on Television One the Wild About New Zealand documentary that was about Fiordland. It showed that wonderful area of New Zealand, our largest national park, and it showed the likes of the New Zealand kea, a parrot unique to New Zealand, which, again, is sought after around the world and which is highly prized. It is those sorts of species and many others that we have in this country that have ended up uniquely New Zealand birds and animals and fauna and flora that we have to ensure that we protect.

I commend Jacqui Dean for bringing to the House this member’s bill in relation to increasing the penalties and making them much more substantial than they were in the past, increasing the likes of some penalties from 1 year’s imprisonment up to 5 years’ imprisonment. That is a significant increase to go from 1 year’s to 5 years’ imprisonment for those who have committed offences that are for commercial gain or reward. Similarly, putting those penalties figures up to $300,000 or $20,000 per day is sending a very strong message to those around the world, or, indeed, any New Zealanders, who might wish to participate in any illicit trade of any flora or fauna.

It is also pleasing to see that this legislation does take into account that sometimes it is not done for commercial gain. It may have been done, as other speakers have mentioned, for some reason such as that they were not fully aware or that they did it carelessly, but they should still be penalised for having not taken due care and regard of the native, natural reserve. In that instance, under this bill, people can be sentenced to community work, and, again, that is a good situation. It is sensible that some people who have offended who perhaps do not require a financial penalty but who should be made to learn from their mistake can be subject to community work to make amends for their wrongdoings.

In this respect, New Zealand First is supporting this bill. But New Zealand First members do echo the comments of some other speakers that although it is very good to be increasing the penalties and making the regime and the governance of our flora and fauna much stricter and sending a stronger message to those who do not abide by our laws, at the same time we are very mindful that the conservation estate is under threat.

We hear figures bandied around by the National Government, which says that there is as much money, if not more, in there today as there was a few years ago. But we have to remember that we have a growing population. We also have growing numbers of tourists coming to this country. The conservation estate is under increasing pressure. There are increasing numbers using our conservation reserve, and as a result we have to be upping the ante, not just trying to tread water with the conservation reserve. Therefore, in that respect, upping the ante in terms of the penalties is going part of the way to helping protect our conservation reserve.

But at the same time we cannot forget that the basis of this country and our supposed “100% Pure New Zealand” image and also the basis of our economy being clean, green, and agricultural based are also dependent on us having a very good, clean environment. The environment is absolutely, without doubt, the jewel in the crown of New Zealand’s economy, and if we let that suffer in any way, then the rest of this economy could well suffer.

So I do just say to the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, and we mentioned it before, that going hand in hand with this bill there is a responsibility on the part of the Minister to ensure that other aspects of the conservation estate and the environment are equally protected and safeguarded. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, is brought to the House by that very solid member from Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, in an effort to put a stop to the exploitation and theft of our living treasures in this country and also the environment they live in. It is designed to do this by imposing more severe penalties.

There is a very pertinent piece of, I guess, Māori folklore that goes as follows: toitū te whenua, whatungarongaro te tangata.

[Land remains while people disappear.]

It was not very well pronounced, but I will tell you what it means, seeing as I cannot pronounce it. What it means is that the land is always there, and people are merely passing by. I guess that is most pertinent when it comes to this piece of legislation because, in fact, the land will always be there, provided we look after it, and we are merely passing by.

The bill is designed to stop those passing by from damaging, plundering, and pillaging that which has always been there. We, like all other people around the world, have spent generations damaging the environment we live in. We knew not what we did, I guess. Now we have such good information, scientific evidence, visual evidence, and history to understand what we need to do to protect what we have left for future generations. This bill contributes to that effort.

I want to spend a little bit of time tonight, however, talking about some of the treasures that exist in the Rangitīkei, and I will start with the blue duck, or whio, which is endemic and native to New Zealand, with no other duck like it in the world. These ducks are one of only three species of bird in the world that inhabit fast-flowing, clean water. They are amazing to watch, very pretty, and clever. However, they have been decimated by predators—stoats, possums, cats, and, of course, human beings—throughout our history. There are only some 2,500 of them left today. They exist throughout the northern Rangitīkei and, of course, a number of other places in New Zealand. They are about evenly spread, I think, between the North Island and the South Island. They do, however, exist in some of our most beautiful parts of New Zealand and the least accessible parts of New Zealand. The reason they live there is, I guess, that they have been chased there.

There are many enthusiastic volunteers who spend hours and hours protecting these ducks and their environment. This bill will assist them, as smuggling the ducks out of the country will no longer be as easy or as attractive. I touched on the volunteers because I wanted to briefly talk about some of the comments that have come from the other side of the House, in particular, about the funding and staff cuts that those members perceive have happened to conservation. And not only to conservation, I might add; they go on about the same sorts of cuts that have occurred in the Ministry for Primary Industries and the police. Those members entirely fail to take into account efficiency and new technology—that is most pertinent in the police situation—and alternative sources of money. They even fail to account for an improved quality of staff that we now employ in a lot of Government departments. Not only that but also we have a significant lift in volunteer support for many of these initiatives, and I talked a minute ago about the volunteers and the work they do around the blue duck and a number of our other environmental features.

In the south of the Rangitīkei, the Manawatū River runs to the sea at Foxton, through that estuary area, which is actually in Nathan Guy’s electorate—but I will claim to be his neighbour—and which we have also plundered, historically, by diverting the river and all sorts of other acts. This area hosts birds from the Arctic, rare and migratory birds: the godwit, the red knot, the Pacific plover, the royal spoonbill, and the unique wrybill. Anyone who has seen a bunch of royal spoonbills will realise that they are quite a sight—massive, great, white birds with long, black beaks.

Hon Todd McClay: A flock.

IAN McKELVIE: A flock. Thank you.

Chris Hipkins: When’s he going to get to the interesting bit?

IAN McKELVIE: Other very relevant features of this area include flax. It would be very useful to have a bit of flax in here at the moment. I could use it productively. But none the less—Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see what I am talking about—it is one of the pieces of our history that is most important to us. The Rangitīkei, like many other parts of New Zealand, has those features and bits of our history that are most important to us. It is hugely important that we preserve them, and this bill goes a little way towards doing that.

I want to also just touch on Eugenie Sage’s comment that the Government is moving the balance away from nature and in favour of development. I want to just put a little case to you in respect of the proposed Ruataniwha Dam. We have spent 150 years in that area getting the environment to where we have got it to now. Whether that is good, bad, or indifferent is a matter of opinion, but what the dam has the potential to do, which I think is totally underestimated by its opponents, is to give us the ability to rectify a whole lot of things that we have damaged through the way we have farmed, used our land, and used our country over the last 150 years. If you think about it, putting a dam in that area gives that area the opportunity to significantly increase production, for a start, but also to significantly increase the amenity value, to make the rivers in that area much more reliable, to clean them up, and to make them more friendly for fish, as it will be able to take the peaks and lows out of play.

I think that because of the way we have moved over the last 150 years with our environment, we are not going to fix it by letting it go back from whence it came. We have to help it get back to where it came from. I am a great supporter of the changes to the Resource Management Act and changes to all sorts of processes that will allow us to get our environment going in a manner that I think will help New Zealand’s future, will put our environment back to where it came from, and will create the opportunity for our rarer species to continue to live and to breed significantly. Again, referring to the blue duck, that is one of our rare birds that has certainly increased in population in the last few years, and it is going to continue to increase in population if we continue to manage it in the manner we have.

One gets a great appreciation of one’s own importance in life when you consider that a minute gecko is worth $100,000, and a 60-year-old male is probably worth only food value. I think that really sums up the need for this bill and the importance that it has got in our future. This is a good piece of legislation, and I congratulate Jacqui Dean and Nicky Wagner and her Local Government and Environment Committee on getting the bill as far as they have in such good order. I commend this bill to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): About 3 weeks ago I finished a meeting in Auckland and walked along Queen Street, going to my second appointment. I was stopped and asked to sign a petition by a young, quiet, Cantonese-speaking Chinese woman. It was a “Stop shark finning” petition, or a “Ban shark fin soup” petition. I signed it. Walking along with me was a group of Asian business people, who all signed the petition. The young woman thanked me, and I thanked her and the group of Asian business people.

We should really thank those who are behind the petition. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has been campaigning hard to stop shark finning in New Zealand, and so have independent groups like Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature, Shark Fin Free Auckland, New Zealand Diving, and several others, which have formed the New Zealand Shark Alliance.

Sharks are in decline around the world, and New Zealand too is contributing to the problem. Shark fishing in our waters has increased dramatically over the past 15 years. According to the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, on average 24,000 tonnes of shark—the equivalent weight of 300,000 people—is caught every year in New Zealand waters. New Zealand is one of the top 20 exporters of shark fins to Hong Kong, along with Spain, Taiwan, and Singapore. We must do something about that, and the society, Greenpeace, and all the others have been working tirelessly and campaigning hard to protect those endangered species and their environments, and they deserve a big thank you. In a similar vein I would like to thank the member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, for sponsoring this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. We support this bill, and we support the initiative.

As I said at the very beginning, the petition will increase awareness and draw a fine line there. I simply cannot get my head round why on earth shark fin soup is so popular in Hong Kong and some other places. If we increase the awareness to such an extent that people would feel sick just by viewing or imagining the photos of those injured or maimed sharks, that would help to stop shark finning. The unsustainable killing of these creatures and the inhumane practice of shark finning are drawing these creatures closer to extinction.

The purpose of this bill is to see New Zealand wildlife and its natural and historic resources being better protected through enhanced penalties, effective implementation, and by standardising penalties across conservation legislation. The bill as introduced would amend five pieces of legislation, being the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wildlife Act 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. Those Acts are pretty much between 26 and 60 years old. The existing penalties under those five Acts are also old and extremely low, and that can send an unintended signal or message to the offenders and to the courts as well that the offence is minimal or trivial. For example, the maximum penalty in the Reserves Act is 1-month imprisonment or a $500 fine, plus $10 a day if the offence is ongoing, and that has not been amended since 1977.

These low maximum penalties provide little deterrence, if any. As the departmental report says, District Court judges have noted the low penalties under the Reserves Act and the National Parks Act in their oral comments during sentencing. Four District Court judges also encouraged Parliament to consider increasing the penalties for poaching and smuggling wildlife, noting that the commercial value created incentives for the offending, and the existing penalties did not appear to be providing an effective deterrence.

In addition, the existing penalties can be exceeded by potential financial benefit from commercially motivated offending, which creates an incentive to offend or reoffend. The penalties are not proportionate to the importance of the value of the protected area or species, and the costs of prosecuting often far exceed the resulting sentence. So collectively these problems make enforcement more difficult and inefficient.

For companies, or bodies corporate, should I say, because bodies corporate will include corporations and unincorporated legal entities as well, the existing maximum penalties provide little or no deterrence at all, as the gain can significantly outweigh the penalties. The Parliamentary Counsel Office has advised that legislative drafting no longer refers to corporations, as the term fails to capture unincorporated legal entities. It is recommended that the clauses that provide separate penalties for companies or corporations be deleted, and the penalties for commercially motivated offending, and for other penalties to be applied to both natural and legal persons. This would therefore simplify the bill and ensure that unincorporated legal entities become subject to this bill as well. It would increase the penalty level that a legal entity may face when acting with commercial intent, which is likely to be the majority of the offences committed by a corporation, and make legal entities, including corporations, subject to the same level of penalty for other types of offending, as natural persons are.

The New Zealand Law Society in its submission provided a detailed analysis of combined sentences, as proposed under this bill. Combined sentences of different types are the exception rather than the norm in New Zealand. Section 19(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that “No court may impose a combination of sentences of different types on an offender in respect of 1 or more offences except as provided in this section.” I am very glad to note that the Local Government and Environment Committee in its report recommended a two-tiered penalty approach, and I thank Nicky Wagner for being a wonderful chair of that committee.

Although we are supporting this bill, we are also concerned and disappointed that it will do little to address the fundamental issues facing the Department of Conservation. The first problem is that this National-ACT Government has a tendency to see the environment and the economy as separate entities that need to be balanced rather than as entities that are dependent on each other, namely two sides of the same coin. Secondly, the Department of Conservation has been consistently underfunded by this National-ACT Government. In the 2009 Budget the Department of Conservation had $54 million cut from its budget, over a period of 4 years, and there have been over 400 job losses so far—around one in six staff—and this has caused serious concern.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Hōmai te kārearea kia toro mahangatia. Ko te kāhu te whakaora, waiho kia rere ana.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The kārearea must be snared, and the kāhu saved—let it fly on.]

To the children of Tāne Māhuta, be vigilant to who is friend and who is foe. The Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill introduces increased penalties for offences under the Conservation Act 1987, the National Parks Act 1980, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wildlife Act 1953, and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, as well as associated by-laws and regulations. The bill is of interest to all New Zealanders and, more specifically, to councils, statutory bodies that administer any of these Acts, as well as people whose activities will be governed by the Acts—for example, recreational and commercial hunters, developers whose activities might unlawfully kill wildlife, and people who recreate or operate businesses in reserves and conservation management areas.

Globally, wildlife-smuggling was last year estimated to be worth about US$40 billion, ranking third behind narcotics and arms-smuggling. High-profile prosecutions in Aotearoa New Zealand have involved kākā parrot eggs and chameleons. This bill is a response for tougher penalties. This bill sends a clear message that the theft and pillaging of our native animals and native plants will no longer be tolerated. In 2007 customs made two prosecutions, and 3 years later, in 2010, six were laid. This year has so far seen two prosecutions. In 2011 mokomoko, or geckos, rescued from smugglers in Christchurch were thought to have been recaptured again and smuggled out of the country. In that instance, customs became aware of the smuggling only when researchers noticed that animal numbers were below natural prediction.

The New Zealand Customs Service has seen an increase in prosecutions made against people taking native flora and fauna offshore for the black market. This bill significantly increases penalties for offending. Whether the theft is motivated by commercial gain or reward, or even if it is not motivated by gain or reward but by some queer and bizarre desire to have the taonga as a curio piece or pet, the purpose of the bill is to create a strong deterrent and to penalise the most serious offending with some severity. Insects, orchids, and geckos are particularly fancied by collectors, but so too are insects, specifically our wētā. Our native species are for sale on websites all over the world. Insects like our beautiful wētā are hard to breed and may live for no more than 2 years. Worldwide, orchid trade is booming, with smuggling of New Zealand orchids on the rise. Anything different or unusual is collectable.

For individuals, there is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, a fine not exceeding $300,000, or both. For bodies corporate, there is a fine not exceeding $300,000. For a continuing offence, there is a further fine not exceeding $20,000 per day. New Zealand’s mokomoko, or geckos, can be worth in excess, we have heard, of six-figure sums. They have become very popular in Europe and the United States. A reptile fair in Germany attracted 11,000 visitors, and one in Florida turned over US$6 million in reptile sales in a single weekend.

Additionally, the Local Government and Environment Committee recommends extending the bill to include the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and to update the penalty regime in that Act to bring consistency to the penalties administered by the Department of Conservation. This recommendation will interest commercial fishers and people who operate within the limits of New Zealand fishery waters.

This bill sends a strong message that we take the protection of Aotearoa New Zealand’s wildlife and natural areas very seriously. Actions that damage or endanger our wildlife and natural areas put our protected species, good international reputation, and tourism industry at risk. This bill will complement further smuggling deterrence measures that are soon to be introduced by the Minister of Conservation and will increase fines for wildlife-smuggling to 5 years in jail and $300,000. Any overlap between the two bills dealing with smuggling will be addressed and sorted at the select committee phase. This bill also complements our efforts since being elected to boost the conservation estate, better protect our great outdoors, and strengthen conservation across our country. A consistent approach to penalties across the laws administered by the Department of Conservation will ensure appropriate and effective penalties, punishments, and enforcement.

New Zealanders pride themselves on our clean, green image. It is imperative that we look after our natural environment. It is our greatest asset. Vote Conservation is now $444 million, almost double the $226 million in 2001-02. We are investing in recovery programmes for 35 percent more threatened species under this Government. We also intend to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework. Our natural environment is a valuable resource that we need to protect and preserve. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand that this is a split call, so the member will get a bell at 4 minutes.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you. Well, it is good to follow Claudette Hauiti in this debate, but I just want to note that there does seem to be a condition that is afflicting the National Party benches. It was only last week that Maggie Barry declared how happy she was having heard all the submissions on a particular bill that was being debated. It subsequently turned out that it was a first reading of that particular bill. Unless I heard wrong from the member who spoke before, she said that a number of these things would be sorted out in the select committee. Well, I do not know whether the National Party research unit is not updating its speaking notes very often these days, but I am pretty sure that this is the second reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. In fact, a number of speakers have commented on the very fine submissions, all eight, that were heard—

Claudette Hauiti: Great that you’re listening to me. What a compliment—you’re listening to me.

PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it is a compliment. It is a compliment to Ms Hauiti. I think, actually, I was the only one in the House who was listening to that speech, because no one else even raised an eyebrow on this side of the House, that side, or that side. You know, I do have excellent listening skills.

The other thing that occurred to me was that every time we have a members’ day we seem to debate a bill by Jacqui Deans.

Chris Hipkins: Dean.

PHIL TWYFORD: Jacqui Dean. She brought this bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, to the House, but it seems like only yesterday we were debating the Waitaki Reserves—

Nicky Wagner: Four.

PHIL TWYFORD: The member Nicky Wagner is telling me that Jacqui Dean has had four members’ bills. Well, frankly, I feel like taking a point of order about that, because there are serious equity issues here. Someone is getting far too many members’ bills, and it is not me.

We are supporting this bill for obvious reasons. It is a good bill, and all kudos to Jacqui Dean, I think, for coming up with an idea for a member’s bill that is very practical, very beneficial, and makes a lot of sense. As members before me have commented, this bill makes consistent and beefs up the penalty regimes for a whole range of Acts that deal with protecting our flora and fauna. The first thing I thought of, actually, when I heard about Jacqui Dean’s bill was not the Czech botanists who stole native orchids and so on, and not the German gecko-smuggler whom a number of people have commented on. It made me think of a really sad incident that happened, actually, in my electorate of Te Atatū, where a couple of guys found a juvenile fur seal that got caught up in their fishing net in Henderson Creek, a place quite close to where I live and where I go kayaking quite often. Unfortunately, these guys clubbed to death this baby seal with the oar of their dinghy and beat this poor baby seal senseless. This was a couple of summers ago now. The 1-year-old fur seal was cared for at Auckland Zoo, but it had a fractured cranium and a number of injuries, and it died within a couple of weeks.

Those kinds of things happen from time to time in New Zealand. They are awful events. It is good that Jacqui Dean’s bill produces a set of penalties that will allow enforcement to be carried out much more easily by the authorities, and penalties that will act as a proper deterrent. Having said all of these positive things about Jacqui Dean’s bill, I do not want to be churlish and spoil the mood of the occasion, but I do find there is an irony in the fact that this bill cracks down on illegal whitebaiting and fishing in marine reserves while the Government continues to allow gross overfishing under the quota system of a number of our marine species. There is an irony in that felling protected trees will be subject to increased penalties in this bill, but this Government has just demolished tree protection rules that would allow councils to properly protect the urban forest.

The bill brings the Marine Mammals Protection Act under the new integrated penalty regime, but this Government refuses to take the most sensible and obvious measures to protect the endangered Māui’s dolphin. It allows encroachment into national parks, but this Government spent a couple of years trying to convince New Zealand that we should allow mining in national parks. So although Jacqui Dean’s bill is to be commended, these ironies should be pointed out and should be considered by the general populace. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Eugenie Sage. Tēnā koe.

Catherine Delahunty: No, no you don’t.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Catherine Delahunty—Catherine Delahunty, absolutely. I am sorry, Catherine.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): That is fine. We have had Eugenie; now it is Catherine Delahunty’s turn. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare e pōti i tēnei pō. We are also happy to be supporting Jacqui Dean’s bill, the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. We really believe that we need to deal with this issue by increasing penalties, which this bill does. I understand the passion of a member like Jacqui Dean for a member’s bill. It is very hard to get one selected from the ballot, and then when one does it is very hard to get it through the Parliament, so this is very satisfying for her. I also have had a bill before the Local Government and Environment Committee, or it was before it, with less success. But I understand exactly the passion that people feel about bills that they have tried to shepherd through this process.

This is an important bill because it sends a good message to the courts. I think we have heard a lot of detail. We do not need to hear any more about it, actually. There has been a lot of repetition tonight about some of the clauses. I think it is all very interesting. Clearly, the Local Government and Environment Committee has done a good job. The bill will be useful within its frame of reference and will send an important message.

The whole issue of collecting illegally, as well as the strange brutality that people sometimes demonstrate towards wildlife, are very old problems. In the 18th century European collectors started coming over to Aotearoa and taking species, alive or dead, and taking them back to Europe for their own purposes, for financial gain, and often for museums. And so we have collectors such as Andreas Reischek who in the 19th and early 20th century robbed graves, took taonga katoa, and took various species with him in the hope of making a name in Europe. In those days it was acceptable to a degree, and the sad thing is that there is still a market for such a noxious trade. As others have said, it is a big market, and it is still a major problem.

Our wildlife, although we are at the end of the world, is extraordinarily unique, and we need to defend it, and not just because of the description in the initial Department of Conservation report on this bill. Conservation is defined in one of the office’s reports as “a valued part of brand New Zealand”. That may be true but it is a very limited way of looking at the world. One of the reasons that we are defending the wildlife is not just that they are a brand but that they have intrinsic value in our community. They also have intrinsic value to kaitiaki katoa, whose whakapapa goes back more than a thousand years and has relationships with many of these taonga. So I think it is really important that we get beyond the shallow and recognise how deep the relationship is in this country with some of these species—how unique, how important, and how vital it is that not only do we not let people smuggle them but also we defend their right to exist.

The biggest threat to the species is not actually something this bill addresses, because the biggest threat to the species is pest control and loss of habitat. That is why it is so important that we commit to a coherent—not just a random but a coherent—approach to conservation in this country, and that we recognise the article 2 rights of tangata whenua in relation to taonga such as previously mentioned by my Labour colleague, species such as Māui’s dolphin.

If we look at these wildlife I think there are a lot of contradictions in discussing this tonight, because, as much as the bill does good work and we support it, it is very interesting when we come to perhaps one of the most endangered species in this country, the Archey’s frog, the pekahua, which is in my electorate—my area where I live, not my electorate, but where I live. The Archey’s frog is the rarest frog on the planet, yet this Government has given a permit and supported a permit for the mining industry to go into that area and mine inside the Archey’s frog’s habitat. On the one hand we are doing the right thing, and on the other hand we are actually allowing the greater threat.

If we are going to allow the greater threat, we need to be honest about that and say: “Yes, it is OK. We are going to stop smuggling, we are going to stop acts of random cruelty, but actually we are fine with destroying habitat.” I have a picture here tonight of a postcard that I have got of the great spotted kiwi, an iconic species, which is going to be damaged if we allow the mining of the Denniston Plateau. The green gecko, a species that is intrinsic to the Denniston Plateau, and other species such as the great spotted kiwi and the giant land snail are all vulnerable not only because of bad people and smugglers but also because we are actually committing other forms of vandalism towards the conservation estate.

It is important that we acknowledge those contradictions and those threats to biodiversity and remember that we are all guardians and have a responsibility for protecting these species for future generations. That is not a rhetorical statement. That is about consistency and acting properly in terms of the environment, because these species cannot flourish in isolation. They are not just iconic, charismatic species; they are our environment. We need to protect them. We commend the bill but we would like to see a consistent approach to conservation from this Government before it is too late. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Ni hao. I rise to support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, in the name of the honourable member Jacqui Dean. This bill sets out to better protect our special places and species by increasing penalties for non-compliance with the laws administered by the Department of Conservation. It also implements a consistent approach to penalties across the amended laws.

As a first-generation immigrant from China, I always feel proud when I am talking to visitors from China and, for that matter, to visitors from other parts of the world about the environment of New Zealand. I can say for sure that other Chinese immigrants share my feelings. You may be aware that there is currently a photo exhibition in Parliament. The exhibition is called The Land of the Long White Cloud—New Zealand Through Chinese Lenses. The exhibition consists of over 40 photographs, mainly of New Zealand’s beautiful scenery, taken by Chinese photographers in New Zealand. I am very proud that I initiated the exhibition. I was also very grateful that the Prime Minister, John Key, and over 40 Ministers and MPs from various parties came to the opening ceremony of the exhibition. These photographers speak loudly through their photos that they love New Zealand, the land of the long, white cloud. I am very pleased that Tourism New Zealand is interested in some of these photos and may use them to promote New Zealand tourism. On behalf of the photographers and the Chinese community, I would like to thank my colleague Jacqui Dean for introducing this bill.

It is imperative that we look after our natural environment. It is our greatest asset. This bill proposes bigger fines and longer jail sentences for people who endanger our wildlife or endanger our protected natural habitats. Some penalties currently in place are far too low, and there are other inconsistencies that need to be addressed. Our flora and fauna are an important part of New Zealand’s culture and heritage. We need to protect our native species for future generations.

The Local Government and Environment Committee considered the bill and recommended that it be passed with some amendments. The committee took into account a number of factors, including intentionality and the type of offence. Offences motivated by commercial gain or reward will incur higher penalties. For instance, bodies corporate could be fined up to $300,000 for commercially motivated offences. The purpose of this is to create a stronger deterrent and penalise the most serious offending sufficiently severely.

As previous speakers have stated, this bill sends a strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand’s wildlife and natural areas very seriously. Actions that damage or endanger our wildlife and natural areas put our protected species, good international reputation, and tourism industry at risk. This bill complements the National-led Government’s efforts to boost the conservation asset, better protect our great outdoors, and strengthen conservation across New Zealand. We need a consistent approach to penalties across the laws administered by the Department of Conservation. This will ensure appropriate and effective penalties, punishments, and enforcement. Vote Conservation is now $444 million, almost double the $226 million in 2001-02. We are investing in recovery programmes for 35 percent more threatened species under National. We also intend to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework. We are continuing to improve the environment and build a cleaner, greener, and brighter future for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 10 July.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thanks for the opportunity to participate in the first reading of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. The bill is in the name of Moana Mackey, and National will be opposing this bill. This bill is one that is taking us in the reverse direction. The bill is giving the wrong indication to the business community that if you have the intention to expand your business, then the Government is not prepared to guarantee you power supply. When I migrated to New Zealand I was very happy to see that there were no power cuts, but some years later after arriving I started hearing that it was possible we might have power cuts. I was very disappointed. Those days are not far away if we adopt this bill, which bans our thermal generation of electricity and will ensure that we will have power cuts in this country.

The bill creates a preference of renewable electricity generation, which we agree to, but we do not agree to the 10-year restriction on new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal generation. The ban would put the security of power supply at risk. The ban on thermal generation was initially enacted as part of the Labour Government’s emissions trading scheme in 2008 and subsequently repealed by the National Government in late 2008.

The National Government, as part of its growth agenda, has ensured the security of energy supply, encouraged competition, and boosted the level of renewable energy. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide infrastructure to the businesses so that they can grow their business and eventually help to grow the economy. Under National the proportion of energy generated from renewable resources has increased and is constantly above 70 percent—far higher than under Labour. We have remained on track to achieve the goal of 90 percent renewable generation by 2025. Labour had 9 years to make meaningful reforms to energy and to increase renewable energy. Instead, it made an arbitrary and hasty ban at the end of its term.

Gas and coal plants generate between 20 percent and 30 percent of our electricity. Without this, the lights would not stay on. Thermal generation has been even more important during the times of peak demand. During the several winters between 2000 and 2008, gas and coal plants were at times supplying 50 percent of New Zealand’s electricity needs because of low hydro lake levels. To suggest that New Zealand could do without thermal generation does not stand up to the facts. The ban on thermal energy was totally unnecessary and threatened the security of supply. It is vital that we keep the lights on, and I oppose this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Andrew Williams—nice haircut.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a bit like your own one. I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, and in this instance we have determined that we will support the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill through its first reading and hope that it does go to a select committee. We do so on the basis that we feel that on such an important subject New Zealanders should be given the opportunity to have input and to have a good, national debate about this particular subject.

Although we acknowledge the noble intent of this bill, we do still have serious reservations about its practicability. This bill would reinstate a 10-year ban on new coal or gas-fired baseload power generation. Such a ban existed briefly under the previous Labour Government. It has since been repealed by this House. New Zealand First reluctantly supported the original ban as part of an agreement we reached with the Labour Government in 2008 in respect of the emissions trading scheme. With the benefit of hindsight, New Zealand First acknowledges the problems that that ban created. First of all, it put in jeopardy the security of supply. On average, one-third of our nation’s electricity generation comes from thermal power. During the winter months thermal generation can be as high as 50 percent. If it were not for pre-existing baseload gas and coal-fired thermal power stations, such as those at Huntly and New Plymouth, we could be at crisis point.

Second of all, it had an adverse effect on oil and gas exploration. Unlike the Greens, New Zealand First is not anti-oil and is not anti-gas. We acknowledge the role that they have to play in a modern economy. Of course, there must be restrictions on where and how drilling can take place, and it must be done in a sustainable, environmentally friendly way. These regulations need to be strengthened, not weakened. The last thing we want is our own Gulf of Mexico situation. However, that being said, the oil and gas sector provides enormous opportunities for employment and regional development in all parts of New Zealand, potentially. In Taranaki alone the industry contributes $1.8 billion in GDP and 10,000 jobs. Possible new ventures in Northland and on the East Coast could provide similar rewards. The reinstitution of this ban could put in jeopardy any future discovery and development projects.

Finally, we do have some concerns that this bill, if it was to go through, could actually increase dependence on the use of back-up coal generation by banning new-generation gas capacity. Gas, although not 100 percent clean, is a lot cleaner than coal. Surely, it is better to use gas than to have no power at all, which is the dilemma we face when considering this bill. New Zealand First would rather choose the lesser of two evils than go back to the Stone Age, which is where this bill could take us if the overall situation is not addressed. In this respect, New Zealand First also has a policy whereby in a future Government we would be seeking to merge all the current State-owned enterprise power generators, such as Meridian Energy and Genesis, and move them into one single entity so that the security of supply and the security of future provision of energy sources would be under the one banner and controlled from one source, rather than it being fragmented as it is today.

We want to encourage, however, the greater use of cleaner, greener, more sustainable energy. New Zealand First certainly does support all endeavours to secure other alternative additional means of providing energy to New Zealand industry and homes. However, let us allow democracy to take its course. We feel that this is a good argument and that the bill is worthy of being considered by the public of New Zealand. We are in favour of it going to a select committee so that the people of New Zealand can have their say on this important subject. It is the right of every New Zealander to have access to reliable power, gas, and energy, and in that respect we support this going to a select committee for consideration.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): A little bonus time on my feet tonight, this time to speak against a very short-sighted—in my view—bill, the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill, which re-enacts the ban on thermal energy generation. I fully understand that it re-enacts the ban for 10 years. But I think there are a few other things that need to be pointed out in the course of this discussion, and I just want to pick up on one of the points that Andrew Williams, the previous speaker, made. I see no reason for this bill to be forwarded to a select committee. It just takes up a whole lot more of this House’s time to decide something where, frankly, we will end up with the status quo, because common sense tells you that it needs to.

This type of bill, this type of action, along with the promotion of an advanced emissions trading scheme system, puts a significant amount of pressure on the average New Zealand energy consumer. I am certainly not in favour of that. I am also not in favour of either the previous speaker’s single generator or the proposal for a single buyer for electricity.

I want to explain briefly why. In rural New Zealand our biggest power charges by far are our lines charges. They have nothing to do with the electricity supply. If you want to go and live in a place like Taumarunui, National Park, Ōhākune, or any of those little parts of New Zealand that are most important to our tourism industry and to the future of this country, you will find that your lines charges are significantly higher than your electricity proportion of your bill. In fact, they do not get the lines charges in the electricity portion of the bill; they get them separately. So I guess that part of New Zealand clearly understands where the cost of electricity is. It is in the distribution cost, for those of us in rural New Zealand. That is the challenge for the electricity industry, in my view.

To ban thermal industry at a time when there is potential for modern, efficient, environmentally friendly methods of thermal generation becoming available to us—and it is quite possible that they will—I think would be irresponsible. It is a resource that, in my view, we should use if we can use it safely and sustainably as a country. Again, the previous speaker referred to some of the reasons for that. Clearly, some of us have longer memories than others and can clearly remember the time when electricity was not something you took for granted at your gate, because some days it did not turn up. In fact, in rural New Zealand we still find that on the odd occasion, but not because of a shortage of power supply.

My region is covered in windmills, and although I do not object to them, I can only see them. I do not have to live beside them or put up with the noise and the vibration of them. I also think that in the future we are going to see windmills dotting New Zealand’s landscape like derelict dairy factories in Taranaki. There will be one on every corner and they will be rusting. That is another reason that I am not particularly in favour of fiddling with the electricity generating process.

Not so long ago, in fact about half an hour ago, we were talking about a bill that is preserving our native and natural environment. I do not think that it is efficient for us to use more of our—and I know they are called sustainable resources and things that will last for ever, but in fact a lot of them do not, and I referred to the windmills earlier. I think we have a responsibility to future generations to look at alternatives and to use those resources that we have in abundance in New Zealand, provided we use them responsibly and use them in a manner that provides for a sustainable future for this country. I do not think it is our business to run Parliament as a type of a game of monopoly. I think bills like this tend to do that, to some extent.

This bill achieves little, as there will be no new thermal generation or electricity plants built in New Zealand in the next few years—probably for 10 years—because we have sufficient electricity in this country to sustain our future. I would not like to be the person trying to obtain a consent to build one of those plants under the current environment anyway. I cannot support this bill and that is me.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill, sponsored by my colleague Moana Mackey. Much in all as I admire the member who has just resumed his seat, Ian McKelvie, I have not heard such an antiquated speech in a long time. We should be preparing for the future. [Interruption] We should be preparing for the future. We should be looking ahead.

The Government currently has two targets. The first is that 90 percent of electricity generation will be from renewable sources by 2025. That was a Labour Government target. It was set when Labour was in Government, and it is very pleased that the National Government has seen fit to retain that target. The second thing the Government has got as a target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050. But it has no plan to achieve either of these targets. What we have are two targets out there in the future with no stepped plan to achieve them. We agree with 90 percent generation from renewable sources. Goodness knows we have got wind, marine, geothermal, hydro, and, hopefully, more solar power coming on stream in the future.

The opposition to this bill is based on antiquated views of how this country might sustain its energy supply in the future. I would like to draw what the bill does to the attention particularly of the member Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, who seemed to have ignored the fact that the bill quite explicitly says that this does not include “an existing plant” or “an electricity generation plant that is operating in accordance with a contract for reserve energy entered into by, or on behalf of, the Commission”. So let us not hear any more of this nonsense about the lights going out. Let us not hear any more of this nonsense. It does not affect existing plants.

What the bill does do, in fact, is put back in place the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Act, which the Labour Government enacted over 5 years ago. That established a restriction on new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation. Can I be any clearer than that? It established a restriction for 10 years on the building of new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation plants. It was a start to try to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel dependence and begin to apply the kind of pressure that we need if we are ever going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and if we are ever going to transition to a society that is not dependent on fossil fuels.

I am just astonished that members opposite cannot bring themselves to support this bill. They will have to, at some stage, be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, or into the next decade, anyway, of the 21st century. The future is not in electricity generation using fossil fuels. The future is in renewable energy. Fortunately, New Zealand has an abundance of all those things that other countries cry out for in order to complement or overtake their use of fossil fuels for electricity generation and allow them to move their countries and their economies on beyond using fossil fuels for electricity generation.

This is a ban for 10 years. It is something that expires at the end of that 10 years, because at that point we will be able to assess the extent to which we have been able to move towards sustainable renewable electricity generation. Thank you.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to oppose the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. This member’s bill in the name of Labour MP Moana Mackey will create a preference for renewable electricity generation by a 10-year restriction on new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation. The ban on thermal generation was initially enacted as part of the Labour Government’s emissions trading scheme in 2008 and subsequently repealed by the National Government in late 2008. This bill re-enacts that ban.

A ban on thermal generation is unnecessary. A ban would also put security of supply at risk. New Zealanders need to be assured that during the harsh winters that can grip many regions we have a backup when hydro lakes and wind generation are low. During several winters between 2000 and 2008 gas and coal plants were at times supplying over 50 percent of New Zealand’s electricity needs because of low hydro lake levels.

The bill defines “fossil fuel” in new section 62C, inserted by clause 5, as natural gas, coal, petroleum, any refined petroleum products, or any other obligation fuel. Gas and coal plants in New Zealand generate between 20 percent and 30 percent of our electricity, and they play a crucial role in keeping New Zealanders warm in winter and our lights on for households and businesses to function.

The portion of energy generated from renewable sources has risen under a National Government. It is consistently above 70 percent, which is far higher than it was under Labour. Just last month the Environment Court gave the go-ahead to Genesis Energy’s Castle Hill Wind Farm project, which is north of Masterton and east of Eketāhuna, to build 286 turbines, which will power around 370,000 homes. National remains committed to renewable energy, and we remain on track to reach the aspirational goal of 90 percent renewable generation by 2025.

Our reforms have controlled runaway increases in power prices. In fact, price increases have halved, yet we have still maintained investment in generation and transmission. New Zealanders are savvy and are increasingly taking advantage of greater competition and switching companies for a better deal, as shown by the popularity of the What’s My Number website. The Government has already undertaken major electricity reforms to increase competition and improve security of supply. Labour and the Greens have already done their best to scaremonger and deter investors with their plans to nationalise the energy sector. Their power plan will kill competition and raise prices. This bill, which seeks to ban thermal generation, would cause further economic mayhem. I will not be supporting the bill. Thank you.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): On behalf of my colleague Moana Mackey, I now have the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes in reply to the other contributions that have been made in this debate on the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill.

What has become abundantly clear, listening to the members opposite speaking on the debate, is that none of them have actually read the bill. They have been clearly reliant on notes put together by someone in their research unit who also has not actually read the bill. As they talk about security of supply, and particularly talk about the importance of having access to thermal generation in the case of a dry year when supply might be at risk, they seem to have missed the fact that that is specifically allowed for in the bill. There is a provision in there that allows for non-renewable energy during a power crisis. So it is already covered. It allows for the running of plants that combine non-renewable and renewable sources. It allows for one thermal generating plant to replace another thermal generating plant where that is needed for upgrades and so on.

There are plenty of provisions in this bill that allow for security of supply. What the bill seeks to achieve is to ensure that future demand is met through renewable electricity. There is no good reason, in a country like New Zealand, why we should not be doing something like that. When we already get such a high percentage of our electricity from renewable energy anyway, we should be aspiring to do even better. We should be aspiring to have a fully renewable electricity sector over time. Of course no one is saying we are going to switch off the thermal generation plants, which is what some of the members over there have suggested—clearly, another example that they did not actually read the bill. There is no suggestion from anybody that that is what is going to happen. What we are saying is that as we try to meet future demand in the electricity system, we should do that from renewable sources, and that is something that I think is a perfectly legitimate thing to ask for.

This is the second time that we have debated this bill in this House, because the first time it was in my name and it was in the last term of Parliament. Gerry Brownlee came in and he spoke against it, and he said “We don’t need this bill because, although the Government does support the idea of meeting future demand through renewable electricity”—they do actually agree with that; you would not know that from listening to some of their speakers earlier tonight. But Gerry Brownlee, a couple of years ago, was saying that the Government did believe in meeting future demand through renewable electricity, and he said that the way it was going to achieve that was by putting a price on carbon. Well, how has that worked out? The price on carbon has collapsed. It is now providing no real incentive for renewable electricity.

Actually, now the Government has gone even further and said that it does not actually believe in renewable electricity at all. It is talking about how it supports this kind of 90 percent aspirational target, but it is just not going to do anything to ensure that we get there. But, actually, we need to get there. As a country, New Zealand should be leading by example when it comes to renewable electricity. We have no good reason not to, and we know that in the long-term interests of New Zealand, that is something that we should be doing. In the long term, renewable electricity is actually going to be significantly cheaper. In fact, much of our renewable electricity is already significantly cheaper than thermal generation, and that is one of the reasons why we have this very distorted market, which the Labour Party is committed to addressing through the NZ Power policy. At the moment, New Zealanders are paying a higher price for their electricity than they need to because the current market is failing. Yet the Government over there, once again, is not willing to do anything about that.

The Labour Party has made it very clear: we support renewable electricity. We are willing to do something about that. We support New Zealanders paying a fair price for their electricity. They are certainly paying well above a fair price at the moment, and we are willing to do something about that. In the meantime, the National Government’s response is “Just leave it to the market. The market will sort everything out.” So if future demand for electricity is met through further use of non-renewable resources, which costs more money to consumers in the long term, the National Government says that is perfectly OK. We on this side of the House say, no, that is not OK. We want renewable electricity. We want cheaper electricity. We want New Zealanders to be paying lower prices in their power bills each month. That is something that we are willing to do something about, while the current Government sits on its hands and simply says “It’s OK, the market will sort it all out.” The market is not sorting it all out. The market is failing in electricity, and the Government needs to intervene to do something about that.

The NZ Power policy will result in New Zealand consumers paying $200 to $300 per year less than what they are paying now. That is something we are very proud of. It also has the potential to create 5,000 more jobs. That is not something you hear the National Government talking about much these days. It does not seem to believe in creating new jobs any more. John Key is probably the only person in world history who hosted a job summit that resulted in higher unemployment, but that has certainly been the track record of this National Government.

We on this side of the House say we should get active. We should ensure that New Zealand’s electricity future is a renewable electricity future. We should ensure that we bring down the price of power for New Zealand consumers. We on this side of the House are willing to do something about that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 59

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind members that there are to be no interjections during the taking of a vote, because it can actually be perceived as intimidation and may lead to a breach of privilege.

Bills

Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call on members’ order of the day No. 4. Just before doing so, I want to advise the House that the honourable member Cam Calder will be using a visual aid, and to advise the member that it must be removed at the conclusion of his speaking, and also to tell him that it must not interfere with the view of the Speaker or other members.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I move, That the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill.

I am privileged to have my office in the vibrant and diverse electorate of Manurewa. The Manurewa electorate is overflown by upwards of 140,000 flights annually. Some years ago I became aware of the risks posed to pilots, on their final approach, from cockpit illumination with readily available handheld laser pointers. Laser pointers, though used by teachers, researchers, astronomers, and university lecturers in the course of their daily work safely and without incident, assume an altogether more sinister role when used to illuminate a plane’s cockpit. The sequelae, temporary vision loss in its various forms, can have potentially catastrophic consequences not only for those in the aircraft but also for those in the communities around airports or on the approach paths thereto. I was surprised to learn that each year in excess of 100 cases of handheld lasers being used in such a manner have been documented in New Zealand alone, and the incidence of their misuse shows no sign of decreasing.

I consulted with the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association, the Civil Aviation Authority, and the Police Association. All agreed that preventative measures need to be put in place to reduce the chance of laser misuse occurring. I discussed my concerns with Ministers. After a period of consultation, on 15 May 2013 the Government announced that handheld lasers strong enough to be a hazard to aircraft will be subject to new import, sale, and supply controls under health and customs legislation. Their use will be restricted to authorised users who have a legitimate purpose, such as astronomers, researchers, and the New Zealand Defence Force. An order under the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and regulations under the Health Act 1956 to control these devices are being drafted, and I expect that the new controls will be in effect by the end of the year. These new regulations mesh with and complement the proposed Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill.

The regulations will dramatically reduce the number of new lasers coming into the country and people who will have access to them. There are, however, an unknown number of handheld lasers already in New Zealand. The legislation will make it perfectly clear that it is unacceptable to be in possession of these handheld lasers in a public place without reasonable excuse. The bill is designed to have a preventative aspect, and will reduce the likelihood of misuse by individuals of any of the unknown thousands of laser devices already in our country. My research indicated that the problem with laser pointer misuse had been acknowledged all over New Zealand and, indeed, was a well-known problem internationally.

I was concerned to find there was currently no legislation to control the carriage of such a potentially offensive weapon, despite section 13A of the Summary Offences Act being in force for the carriage of a knife in a public place. Society has decreed, in its wisdom, that it is not in the interests of the safety and well-being of our citizenry if knives are routinely carried on one’s person. Obviously, knives can all too readily inflict grievous wounds or potentially be used to kill an individual; hence, carrying them routinely is discouraged by section 13A. Section 13A could be said to have a preventative role. The legislation is not designed to capture a family going on a picnic that needs a sharp knife to cut a tomato, and is applied with due cognisance of circumstances.

Obviously, a high-powered laser pointer has the potential to cause visual damage to an individual, but because the range of a laser pointer can be measured in miles, the potential collateral damage of such visual disturbance to the pilot of an aircraft or to the driver of a large vehicle is huge. A simple trawl on the internet shows that high-powered lasers of up to 800 milliwatts in power are readily available. They are advertised as 532-nanometre green lasers to impress even the serious professionals. The light can burst balloons, melt plastic, light matches, and have a range of up to 60 miles—yes, 60 miles. Handheld lasers range in size from a small pen to a torch, and are readily carried in a pocket. Yet because of their ability to interfere with a person’s vision at a huge distance, they are potentially far more dangerous than a simple knife. It is ridiculous that something so small can pack so much punch and yet its carriage remains completely uncontrolled.

Laser pointers are available in a wide range of strengths, from a power level of less than 0.39 milliwatts, as seen in compact disc players or laser printers—so-called class 1—right up to class 4, with a level of 500 milliwatts or above, which may cause eye and skin damage, even from reflected beams. Outdoor and industrial laser pointers belong to this category. But as we have mentioned, many lasers of this strength are easily carried in the hand and are virtually indistinguishable from the lower-powered variety.

Already this year we have seen further instances of where laser misuse has endangered the safety of the public in New Zealand. Members of the House may recall that in late April two aircraft were targeted at Wellington Airport, one on take-off, the other on landing. Airline company Jetstar labelled the laser strike as highly irresponsible. Commenting on the laser strike from the airport, Police Sergeant Brett Cousins stated that it could have caused multiple fatalities. Stu Julian from the Airline Pilots’ Association observed that it had not yet associated lasers with the same capability as a gun, but that they can cause loss of life.

In early March the New Zealand Herald outlined an instance from the “Surely Some Mistake” file. Two particularly challenged young men thought it fun to engage with the police’s Eagle helicopter. Not content with illuminating the cockpit once, they did it half a dozen times, for 5 to 10 seconds at a time, and continued, according to the Crown prosecutor, to inflict very intense flashes on the cockpit even as the chopper was hovering above them directing a ground patrol on to them. In his summing up and sentencing, Judge Nevin Dawson said: “The results could have been catastrophic. There was potential for very tragic consequences. People need to get the message that this offending is not just a foolish prank.” Speaking of the case, New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association President, Glen Kenny, said: “The handheld laser threat is an on-going public safety concern and today’s result should strengthen the safety message and make people think twice before they shine a laser at an aircraft”. Because these individuals were apprehended actually using a laser against a moving vehicle or aircraft, they were successfully prosecuted under section 270 of the Crimes Act.

It is pertinent to note that cheap, common, and readily available class 3 lasers with a power less than 5 milliwatts can have a range in excess of 11,000 feet, or 2 miles. This can seriously interfere with a pilot’s night vision. I have here in my hand one of these lasers of that nature. You can see how strong that light is if I just shine it directly above us, and that can go for some 11,000 feet.

What is the effect of a laser beam when illuminating an aircraft cockpit on a night approach to an airfield? Temporary vision loss is, of course, one of the most common and potentially dangerous effects of cockpit illumination. It can be associated with glare, flash blindness, blind spots, or after-images. Glare is considered to be a temporary disruption in vision, caused by the presence of a bright light within an individual’s field of vision and lasting as long as the light exposure. In flash blindness the temporary loss of vision persists after the source of illumination has been removed. Blind spots are similar to flash blindness, but only part of the visual field is affected. An after-image is an image that remains in the visual field after exposure to a bright light. The US Federal Aviation Administration simulator studies about the effects of laser illumination during final approach show that a legal laser of the size I just demonstrated can easily cause glare and distract pilots up to 3,700 feet and remain a distraction hazard up to 11,000 feet—in excess of 2 miles. Near flash blindness is a potential problem in the last stages of final approach at a range of 350 feet. Thus, we have a wide range of effects from laser misuse determined by the distance away an affected person is from the source of the laser beam.

As I have mentioned, serious consequences can also eventuate if laser beams are shone into the eyes of the driver of any moving vehicle. Imagine the consequences if a beam were shone into the eyes of the driver of a fuel tanker on a motorway at night. Imagine the consequences and the potential for tragedy of that event.

The purpose of this amendment bill is to have a preventative aspect and to reduce the likelihood of a person being in a position to carry out an offence with any one of the countless thousands of devices already in New Zealand. The bill will complement the effect of regulations restricting the importation, sale, and accessibility of laser pointers. The bill will send a clear message that these devices are not toys, that they have the potential to cause significant harm, and that, without reasonable excuse, their carriage in a public place will not be tolerated. I seek the support of the House for the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill to progress to the select committee.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill, in the name of Dr Cam Calder. I want to put on the record, to start with, that Labour will support this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There are several reservations that we have with this legislation that we think would need to be tidied up at the select committee, but we do congratulate the member on pursuing a worthy subject. There have been, as I think the member probably pointed out in his speech, over 100 incidents of laser strikes against aircraft in the last year. There have been a handful of convictions related to that, and I think it is important to acknowledge that this bill does not make it an offence to perform one of these laser strikes against an aircraft; that is already an offence. Recently, a young man was sentenced to 4½ months’ home detention, having been caught and convicted of carrying out a laser strike against a landing aircraft.

What this bill seeks to do—and, as I said, it is a worthy cause—is to reduce the likelihood that people will be able to have lasers and use them in an inappropriate way, such as a laser strike against an aircraft or, indeed, as the member raised, a strike against a land motor vehicle such as a truck. I think the member used the example of a fuel tanker. That would probably be the most disastrous possible outcome. But, indeed, I know that a number of airline pilots have said that really it is only a matter of time before somebody tries this against a moving vehicle, and the consequences of that could, indeed, be quite disastrous.

What this bill does is make it an offence liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 for anybody who, in a public place, without reasonable excuse—which is an interesting phrase that I am sure is open to interpretation—has any handheld laser in his or her possession. We think that this bill is probably a bit too broad. This is going a little bit too far into the realms of a nanny State for the National members to support a bill that would ban the possession of all lasers in a public place without some reasonable excuse.

In fact, it actually goes much further than the Government itself has indicated that it is comfortable with, with the regulations that it recently brought in, as announced by the Associate Minister of Health Jo Goodhew, that can be made under the health and customs legislation to regulate the importation and possession of lasers. What the Government did and what the Minister announced was exactly what the airline pilots have been calling for, which is tighter regulations on the most powerful lasers. In fact, the controls that the Government has introduced will be applied to handheld laser pointers with a power output greater than 1 milliwatt—I assume it is probably not a megawatt—in line with the approach taken in Australia and with recommendations from the World Health Organization. The new restrictions will not cover lower-powered laser pointers used as presentation aids, or those used with survey equipment or at rifle sites. That to me seems to be the sensible balance that needs to be achieved. Without a change that better reflects the Government’s approach to those regulations in this legislation, Labour would find it difficult to support this bill past the select committee process, but I believe that the member would be open to some debate and conversation around how we can better target this legislation at the lasers that actually cause harm and not inflict unnecessary regulation on people who have these lower-powered lasers for perfectly legitimate reasons.

There are very few occasions to have the higher-powered lasers in a public place. I know that some astronomers use them, and certainly astronomy teachers use them to actually point out constellations in the sky for young children who are learning about the night sky, and I am sure there would be other reasons related to survey equipment, etc., where it would be reasonable to have the higher-powered lasers. Many people would carry around a little pen laser pointer that is not capable of creating the havoc that the member in charge of this bill is concerned about. As is always the case with this kind of regulation, it is about getting the balance right. We want to reduce the harm, we want to reduce the likelihood that people will be able to carry out these laser strikes, but we do not want to unnecessarily burden people who have the lower-powered lasers for perfectly legitimate reasons.

It is a bit of a surprise that a National member would support such a Draconian approach, but we will get that sorted out at the select committee. I can see some of the National gentlemen who are on the committee and who are looking forward to fixing that bill up, I am quite sure.

It is a bit unfortunate, I think, that the Government has been so slow to respond to this issue. It was not until May this year that Jo Goodhew announced the regulations that will come into effect. They have not yet come into effect, and it is anticipated that those regulations will come into effect towards the end of this year. The Government has left it to a member’s bill and it has left it to a backbencher, with all due respect to Cam Calder, to promote this legislation. It has left it at the mercy of the ballot and left it at the mercy of the members’ orders, and we know that it takes an awfully long time for a member’s bill to rise to the top of the Order Paper and get its first reading debate.

I would have thought that this Government would take the safety of airline pilots, of passengers on aircraft, and, indeed, of road users much more seriously and would have promoted this type of legislation much sooner than it has. There has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of these laser strikes from only a handful in 2006 to over 100 in the last year. The evidence was clear that this was a growing problem. The airline pilots came and spoke to us in the Opposition, and I know that they spoke to Government members. They did not do a big kind of public rah-rah campaign. They came and spoke to us very reasonably and asked the Government to promote legislation that would increase their safety, and yet the Government sat on its hands. It sat on its hands until May this year before announcing regulations—regulations that have not yet come into force—and the supporting legislation that Cam Calder is promoting has come to the House only because a backbench MP decided to put this bill in the ballot. He was lucky enough to have it come out—very lucky to have it come out—and it has finally made it to the House tonight, in September. I think that that tells you a little something about this National Government’s approach to safety, particularly transport safety.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.