Thursday, 13 February 2014
Volume 696
Sitting date: 13 February 2014
Thursday, 13 February 2014
Thursday, 13 February 2014
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 18 February the Government will look to progress the Taxation (Annual Rates, Foreign Superannuation, and Remedial Matters) Bill, the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3), and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Grant Robertson: Hallelujah!
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, it is scheduled to be. On Thursday morning, and with the agreement of the Business Committee, the House will sit under extended hours to progress Treaty settlement legislation.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Economic Growth—Labour Market and Export Sector Performance
1. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic programme supporting stronger regional job growth?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: As the Minister said yesterday, one of the Government’s priorities is building a more productive and competitive economy, and that is starting to deliver results. Last week’s household labour force survey and quarterly employment survey showed that 66,000 more people were employed in 2013. Of the 12 regions used in the household labour force survey, employment increased in nine of them: Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne-Hawke’s Bay, Manawatū-Wanganui, Wellington, Canterbury, Tasman - West Coast, and Otago, which incidentally was up by nearly 11,000, which will please everybody except the Opposition. Across New Zealand, actual employment growth in the 4 years to December 2013 was 139,000 jobs. That is pretty close to the Treasury forecast made in Budget 2010 and is a fairly consistent picture of recovery reaching across the country.
David Bennett: How is the improving economy impacting on job growth in different sectors?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Of the 16 different industries measured by the household labour force survey, employment rose in 11, including manufacturing, which does debunk another myth often heard around this building. There is no doubting that the high New Zealand dollar is a challenge for exporters, but the January Performance of Manufacturing Index, which was released today, shows manufacturing has now been in expansion for 16 consecutive months, which is, weirdly, precisely the exact same time since the Opposition announced the start of its inquiry into a manufacturing crisis. I quote from the Performance of Manufacturing Index today, which says that manufacturing punched above its weight regarding job growth in 2013. It accounted for 13.5 percent of jobs added in the New Zealand economy overall last year, which is more jobs than were added in Australia in the same period.
David Bennett: How do New Zealand’s latest labour-market statistics compare with Australia’s for the same period?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Our overall employment numbers stack up well compared with Australia’s. We have had very close numbers of unemployment with Australia, and I have been advised within the last hour that Australia’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in January was 6 percent, which matches the New Zealand rate for December, which was also 6 percent. At the same time many more people, as a percentage of the labour market, participate in the work market in New Zealand than in Australia. Australia’s participation rate is 64.5 percent, compared with the New Zealand rate of nearly 69 percent. That is the second-highest on record. So New Zealand’s increasing participation rate is consistent with the higher levels of confidence that we are seeing, which are encouraging people to have more opportunities in the job market. We are seeing significantly higher employment in New Zealand than in Australia.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is giving a $134 million - plus contract to a foreign Kansas company over a Hamilton aircraft company—to use the words of the question—part of the Government’s economic programme supporting stronger regional job growth, and what did National MPs Bennett and Macindoe do about this atrocity? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Steven Joyce—either of those two supplementary questions.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think it is important for the member to note that economic policy does not stand alone in any particular area, but, actually, we have to boost confidence and competitiveness across the New Zealand economy. That means actually ensuring that New Zealand Government expenditure is the best it can possibly be and that it meets the requirements of a particular contract. If the member is suggesting that we ignore those things, then very quickly our economy would go backwards, and the sorts of positive results that we are now seeing would disappear out of the New Zealand economy. But I am familiar with that approach from Mr Peters.
David Bennett: What proposals has he seen that are likely to impact on future employment growth?
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce, in so far as he has ministerial responsibility.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Employment growth comes when someone has the work available to justify hiring another person and they have the confidence in order to do so. The recent growth in confidence and employment in the New Zealand economy is closely linked. The Government has more than 350 initiatives under way—
Andrew Little: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think you are in the dangerous territory there, Mr Little. The Government has more than 350 initiatives under the Business Growth Agenda that are helping businesses grow, because that is how employment grows. I contrast this with policies that would put a chill on industries, that would cause their hiring intentions to freeze, and companies themselves might not even survive—for example, if you nationalise the electricity industry or double the cost of the emissions trading scheme on households and businesses, or if you impose new taxes on every single business in the country.
Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that manufactured exports outside the primary sector are down again in the latest period and are still down below where they were when he took office?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. I appreciate that the member likes to pare away at the different types of manufacturing. The difficulty we have is that he is always removing primary sector manufacturing, which, of course, is things like food processing, forestry products, and so on. He always like to remove bits to desperately try to find a way of talking down the New Zealand economy.
Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the latest Statistics New Zealand figures—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those statistics are freely available to all.
Supermarkets—Relationship with Suppliers
2. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: Is he aware of demands being made by the Countdown supermarket group for retrospective payments from New Zealand suppliers, with threats Countdown will not stock their products?
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I am aware of serious allegations that were raised on this matter yesterday in the House. I understand that a complaint has been made to the Commerce Commission about these allegations. The Commerce Commission will now go through its formal processes to consider this complaint. Because of the seriousness of these allegations I have also written to the Commerce Commission asking it to keep me informed as appropriate as it examines this matter.
Hon Shane Jones: Had he received any information prior to yesterday from any source that tactics like these have been used in New Zealand supermarkets?
Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am not aware of any information that I have received regarding the specific matters that the member mentioned under the privilege of the House yesterday.
Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not the question that was asked.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I listened very carefully to the question, and on this occasion I think the Minister has adequately addressed the question. The member has further supplementary questions. I invite him to use them.
Hon Shane Jones: I ask again: what has he done to protect New Zealand suppliers, workers, from unprincipled, predatory behaviour from the Countdown supermarket group?
Hon CRAIG FOSS: The Commerce Act is an Act that administers all competition law in New Zealand. It has been updated over the years and there is recourse in that Act to deal with very serious and new allegations that were made yesterday in the House about the particular supermarket sector.
Hon Shane Jones: Does he believe that it is ethical and acceptable for Countdown to abuse its position to threaten suppliers; if not, will he act to deal with this or do nothing?
Hon CRAIG FOSS: The allegations made yesterday are of deep concern to me. They are serious allegations that could have serious implications. That is why I have written to the Commerce Commission bringing these matters to their attention and asking to be kept briefed of their activities as they pursue this complaint.
Hon Shane Jones: Why has this Minister sold out New Zealand businesses and suppliers to the Australian supermarket Countdown?
Hon CRAIG FOSS: This Government has done more than previous Governments to ensure a robust, fair, transparent, and competitive environment for all New Zealand businesses, big and small. I could list those matters but it might take too long.
Hon Shane Jones: Given that almost a year ago today the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced an investigation into Australian supermarkets’ use of these shakedown tactics, did he ever initiate any investigations or even ask any questions of Countdown or the supermarket sector as a whole, given that Countdown’s parent company, Woolworths, also operates in a duopoly over there?
Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have no responsibility for what the Australians are doing, but, yes, we do keep a watching brief on what is going on over there. I do note that there are ongoing inquiries in this sector in Australia, which we are keeping an eye on, but they are much wider than the specific issues that the member mentioned.
Hon Shane Jones: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter written by myself to Dr Berry, the chair of the Commerce Commission.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for permission to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be so tabled. [Interruption] Order! I understood there was no objection. Was there objection? I am going to ask the member to put the leave again so I can be clear.
Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was clearly evident to all concerned; no one dissented.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No—[Interruption] Order! There appears to be some doubt about that. I think it is easily tidied up. If the member simply seeks leave again, I will put the leave and I will listen very carefully and if—[Interruption] No, there was a suggestion made that there was an objection. I doubt whether there will be. I want to be clear.
Hon Shane Jones: I seek leave to table a letter written by myself to Dr Berry of the Commerce Commission.
Mr SPEAKER: Right; leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. The letter can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Public Transport, Auckland—City Rail Link
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): My question—the microphone does not seem to be working.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us try again and I will confirm that it is working.
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): My question is to the Minister for—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I do not need assistance. It is not working. Can we try once more, otherwise I will ask the member to swap seats with Kevin Hague. [Interruption]
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Silencing the Greens! [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is given the courtesy of silence in the House, I am sure her voice will be heard. I will be very upset if anybody interjects during the reading of this question.
3. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister for Economic Development: Why is the Government holding up economic development in Auckland’s CBD, according to Auckland City officials, by delaying the opening of the City Rail Link until 2025?
Hon Tau Henare: We had to be quiet for that?
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, yes, that particular member certainly has to be quiet for that.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): The Government is not holding up economic development in the Auckland central business district, and we are certainly not delaying the opening of the City Rail Link. In fact, if anything, we have accelerated it.
Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister disagreeing, then, with Prime Minister John Key when he said that Auckland Mayor Len Brown had a “fair point” that private investment is being held up by the delay to the City Rail Link?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Prime Minister, as I understand it, said that it was fair to have a look at the matters that the mayor had raised, but he also said that nothing had changed at this time.
Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister denying that there is at least $1 billion of private investment planned along the route of the City Rail Link, that those investments will be held up until the final design of the City Rail Link is set, and that investors know when it is going to be open?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: They do now know when it is going to be open. The second point is I have some doubt as to which projects the member is referring to. It would be helpful if she mentioned them. I have had it raised with me, for example, that the New Zealand International Convention Centre might be one of those projects—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Really?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, and I appreciate the member’s concern that it may not be built on time, although I think that that demonstrates certain flexible principles on behalf of the Green Party if it is now asking to accelerate the convention centre, rather than stop it.
Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table, for the benefit of the Minister, a list of six major developments, not including the convention centre—
Mr SPEAKER: That is well enough described, thank you. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular list of developments that are proposed. Is there any objection to that being tabled?
Hon Steven Joyce: Where did it come from?
Mr SPEAKER: I have neglected to ask the source of the document.
Julie Anne Genter: The Auckland Council. They are developments that have—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is an Auckland Council document. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Julie Anne Genter: Has the Minister sought any advice on the impact on Auckland’s economic development of the later construction date of the City Rail Link; if so, did that advice confirm Auckland Council’s finding that delaying the City Rail Link will inflate construction costs by half a billion dollars?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member should address issues in relation to the actual construction of the City Rail Link to my colleague the eminent Mr Brownlee. In relation to private sector developments, I think we do have to test that. One of the developments, I understand—and I have not yet had the opportunity to read the member’s list—relates to a project where I met the representatives of the developer. At no time have they raised concerns about any timetabling of the City Rail Link. In fact, they were quite comfortable that the constraints were, in fact, planning constraints, not City Rail Link constraints.
Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the question “Has he sought any advice on the impact on economic development”—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member did ask that, and also added a second question about a potential cost increase of half a billion dollars. The Minister clearly answered that by saying it is not within his portfolio and it needs to be addressed to Mr Brownlee. The question has been addressed.
Julie Anne Genter: Has the Government not set up a catch-22 situation where it has said that it will not fund the City Rail Link until arbitrary job and rail patronage targets have been met, even though it is clear that the City Rail Link is the best way to increase jobs and rail use in Auckland?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member makes a very interesting point in which she says that the construction of certain transport projects might hasten development and economic growth in the country. Weirdly, though, that seems to be the only project that will do that. The Basin Reserve flyover, Transmission Gully, the Pūhoi to Warkworth road, the Tauranga bypass, and so on are all very bad ideas, but, weirdly, the central rail loop will accelerate development. I think the member is showing certain rose-tinted spectacles for just one project.
Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister really believe that there will be greater economic development benefits from saving a few minutes for tens of thousands of vehicles; or does he believe there will be greater economic benefit in allowing hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders to use rail to access the city centre and save money on petrol and vehicles, and, by allowing those Aucklanders to use the rail network, he will actually free up the roads for those who need to use them? Is it not obvious that that is a better use of investment?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I might be weird, but I actually think saving time for, as the member puts it, tens of thousands of people in vehicles may, in fact, be a good idea to do on an everyday basis. Look, I think we have a very interesting and straightforward process for determining the relative merits of particular projects, and they are called benefit-cost ratios. The member speaks a lot about benefit-cost ratios in terms of how they are relative to each other, but I note that no matter which project you use, unfortunately, at this time, the City Rail Link comes out at a lower benefit-cost ratio than all the road projects that the member criticises; therefore, it needs to be considered for the right time that it is for. I am absolutely confident, on the evidence that I have seen to date, that the City Rail Link timetable, which was brought forward by this Government, is not holding up economic development in our biggest city.
Julie Anne Genter: Does the Government actually have a commitment to build the City Rail Link; if so, why has it not allocated a single cent to the project in any of its three long-term transport spending plans? Why did the transport Minister tell me in answer to written questions that the Government will not be updating these documents to reflect its supposed commitment to the City Rail Link?
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce—any of those questions.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member might note that to my left the transport Minister, Mr Brownlee, is available to answer any questions at any time in relation to timing—in fact, I think he is slightly miffed that you did not ask him the question today! I think the reality of it is that this Government has committed to the project. The member is trying to seek to bring the project forward, which she can do if she likes, but to suggest that we are delaying it is simply incorrect.
Julie Anne Genter: For the benefit of the Minister, I would like to table the City Centre Future Access Study, which shows that by 2021—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The document has been quite satisfactorily described. Now I just need the source of the document.
Julie Anne Genter: It was a report written by Sinclair Knight Merz for Auckland Council and for—
Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that that may not be readily available for members, I will put the leave. It is then for members to decide. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Social Development—Salvation Army Report
4. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the state of the nation in relation to social outcomes?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I have seen a report that says that in the social sector a great deal is going right. It says that educational disparities are narrowing, gaps between passing rates from rich to poor schools and from Māori and non-Māori are not as wide as they used to be. What is particularly pleasing to me is the report also says that it is the young people who offer the most hope. There are fewer teen pregnancies, fewer on benefits, less drinking, and more in education, employment, or training. I know the Opposition does not think that is good news, but certainly we on this side do celebrate that.
Alfred Ngaro: What else does the report say about progress in the social sector?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Salvation Army report itself is really very complimentary about this Government’s progress in the social sector. It says “as a national community, we have made credible and worthwhile social progress. It is important to acknowledge and celebrate this because, for the most part, it is intentional and hard won. The Government should be applauded for its contribution to this progress.”
Alfred Ngaro: Has she seen any other reports about the state of the nation in relation to social outcomes?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the interests of balance, I have seen other comments in the state of the nation report. It says that “The social outcomes which we as New Zealanders have achieved over the past five years are somewhat mixed and in some areas quite disappointing.” It goes on to say that “What is perhaps most disappointing about these results is that as a country we have invested hugely in the core areas of social spending over the past … years … While this social spending is essential it seems to have contributed very little to our social progress.” But of course this report was from the Salvation Army in 2008.
Sue Moroney: Did she read the part where the Salvation Army said that they distributed a record 55,718 food parcels to 23,400 families during 2013, which the report notes is two-thirds higher than when Labour was in Government; and does she think that the Government should be applauded for that as a social outcome?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I want to commend the Salvation Army for what they do for those vulnerable New Zealanders, and there is absolutely no question about it that the Government actually contributes tens of millions of dollars to the Salvation Army, and I think they distribute it to those who are most in need. But what I did see in the 2008 report was that we had climbing teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, continuing education inequality—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I apologise to the Minister. Point of order, Grant Robertson.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has been some distance into her answer now. She was asked two questions—I acknowledge that—one of which was whether she had read that particular part of that report. The other was whether she thought the Government should be applauded for it. She has just gone on to talking about 2008—
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point and I was wondering whether the Minister was going to, at some stage, conclude as to whether she has read that part of the report, or answer the second part of the question. Hon Paula Bennett, do you wish to add to your answer?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly. I have read the whole report.
Canterbury, Recovery—Disposal of Asbestos
5. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he aware of any proposals to transport asbestos-contaminated material from the Christchurch rebuild to sub-standard landfills?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): No. The Government has been very clear that from a Government perspective our expectation is that all asbestos-contaminated material recovered in the rebuild of Christchurch will be properly dealt with at properly accredited sites.
Denis O’Rourke: Is the Minister aware of the very troubling rumours circulating in Canterbury and Southland about plans by some parties to transport asbestos-contaminated waste—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the supplementary question. I ask the member to start that question again.
Denis O’Rourke: Is the Minister aware of the very troubling rumours circulating in Canterbury and Southland about plans by some parties to transport asbestos-contaminated waste as far as Southland?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. What I am aware of is that throughout New Zealand there are numerous sites that are accredited for the receipt of asbestos-contaminated waste. There are 19 contaminated waste sites in Southland, and all of them are accredited. Some of them may well be accredited for receiving asbestos waste, but I am not aware that there is any contract let for such a proposal. What I would suggest to the member is that he should not be troubled by rumours, particularly those relating—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think that part is going to help the order of the House.
Denis O’Rourke: Is the Minister aware of the serious potential danger posed to the public by not transporting asbestos waste properly, especially over long distances or in unsuitable rail wagons, and by not disposing of asbestos in fit for purpose landfills?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, and that is why I gave the answer I did at the start. I would refer the member to both the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s WorkSafe website and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s website, where the protocols for dealing with asbestos-contaminated waste are clearly spelt out. All asbestos waste that has come out of Christchurch to date, apart from one shipment, has gone to the Kate Valley landfill—a landfill that the member will be very familiar with—which is quite some distance from the city. So there will always be some transport required. It is important that it is transported in secure vessels.
Denis O’Rourke: As the Minister is aware that Christchurch has a class A landfill at Kate Valley capable of the safe disposal of hazardous materials, including asbestos, and serviced by a properly designed transport system, will he now give an unqualified assurance that all asbestos-contaminated material from Christchurch will be permanently disposed of in that facility?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am familiar with that facility. It was a great addition to Canterbury, and I take my hat off to the member for his involvement in getting it there. But what I would say is that there is a gate fee for any disposal that is located inside Kate Valley. If it is found to be too expensive for some of this waste to be disposed of there, then we would require it to go to an accredited waste site, and that would need to be transported in a way that is safe.
Denis O’Rourke: Is the Minister saying that considerations of cost or expense are more important than the safe disposal of asbestos at Kate Valley?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, and it would be an extraordinary effort on his part to extrapolate that from any of the answers I have given.
Health Services—Affordability and Access to Elective Surgery
6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied New Zealanders are receiving timely and affordable healthcare?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I am satisfied with the average $500-million-a-year increase in Vote Health despite tight financial times, while recognising that health can always make use of more resources. I am particularly satisfied that affordability for families with under-6-year-olds has improved under this Government, with almost all under-sixes able to access 24/7 free general practitioner care. I am also satisfied with the progress in reducing waiting times at emergency departments and faster access to elective surgery. However, there is always room for improvement, and we are focused on delivering even better services for New Zealanders.
Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, is he satisfied that district health boards and general practitioners are now advising patients who do not qualify for an operation to “seek alternative provision”—in other words, pay for it themselves—as Agnes of the Southern District Health Board found recently when her general practitioner advised her to pay for her first hip replacement so she could have a better quality of life while waiting for a second hip replacement in the public health system some time in the future?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I would have to ask the member to forward to the Minister those particular circumstances so they could be looked into. However, I do need to impress upon the member that, under her Government, when it went out of office there were 118,000 “Agneses” getting elective surgery; there are now 158,000 “Agneses” getting elective surgery.
Hon Annette King: Does the fact that the Auckland District Health Board reduced the number of cataract operations carried out in 2013 account for Mrs Wilson of Helensville being told that she would have to pay for her two cataract operations at the cost of $10,000, which she said would have to “come out of the savings put aside for our retirement”?
Hon JO GOODHEW: What I am aware of is that the Auckland District Health Board has had a funding increase of $180 million. I am also aware that there have always been people waiting for surgery in New Zealand. Under the previous Labour Government there were people waiting longer and people not getting certainty of surgery. I am, in fact, aware that under this Government we have certainly increased the number of people getting elective surgery.
Hon Annette King: In light of the fact that this Government has been governing for over 5 years, is he satisfied that South Canterbury District Health Board did only 18 more orthopaedic operations in 2013 than it did in 2010, and does that account for Grey Power Timaru calling a meeting next Wednesday to discuss access to orthopaedic waiting lists, which—according to the president of Grey Power Timaru—“is leaving so many of those requiring total hip and knee replacements in limbo” and in pain?
Hon JO GOODHEW: What I am aware of is that, compared with the previous Labour Government’s provision, this Government has managed 175 more orthopaedic operations than were happening under the previous Government, so actually the people of South Canterbury are most definitely better off under this Government. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just assist the member here.
Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of the fact that this Government has been in office for over 5 years, is he satisfied—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is the second or third question that the member has begun with those words. They are not in line with the Standing Orders, and I suggest that someone of her experience is abusing the House by trying to put in a comment that has nothing to do with the question.
Hon Annette King: I feel that it is acceptable for me to add those words in light of the fact that the Minister, in every answer, has gone back to when I was Minister 8 years ago, to add to her answer.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need no more assistance. The member Mr Brownlee is strictly correct that supplementary questions should be kept far briefer than we are seeing from the member at this stage. However, I accept that it is a particularly important year to all members, and I am not ruling the question out of order in any way at all. But I do warn all members who ask supplementary questions that are quite verbose and leave attack lines within them, that they can expect a relatively political answer back, and I will not take kindly to members then questioning whether the question has been adequately addressed.
Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I have not done that, you would note. Is he satisfied that a 62-year-old registered nurse who has worked for 45 years in public hospitals and who has been diagnosed with osteoarthritis cannot even get a specialist appointment because the district health board has told her that “Currently we receive more requests for specialist appointments than we are able to provide. Therefore, we have to limit referrals to those most urgent.”, and has been sent back to her general practitioner for increased pain medication?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I would invite the member to forward that case to the Minister. However, because I have this page open in front of me, I will say that if we use South Canterbury as an example that the member has previously raised, there have been 2,331 more first specialist assessments under this Government. So things have improved under this Government.
Kevin Hague: What specific actions has he taken to address the disturbing findings in the Auditor-General’s 2011 report Progress in Delivering Publicly Funded Scheduled Services to Patients, which found a poor relationship between how sick a person is and how quickly they get their surgery, and does this problem still exist?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I am going to have a go at this, although I can tell you that I do not have a briefing in front of me on that particular report. So what this Government is doing is we are looking at the standardised results across district health boards for rankings per 10,000, about how people are actually getting access to it. But there are standardised ways of assessing, in each district health board in this country, how a person will actually qualify for access to services, so that those who need it most will get it first. That is not an arbitrary system; that is a carefully clinically assessed way of dealing with patients who need the surgery, who need the appointment, most.
Kevin Hague: I do appreciate the difficulty the Associate Minister has. Is he concerned that, according to his own answers to written questions, the average case weight or complexity of elective surgery being carried out has been declining under his watch; if not, why not?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I cannot respond based on the written answers that the Minister has actually provided, but I can tell you that under this Government 40,000 more people a year are actually getting access to elective surgery.
Kevin Hague: How will he ensure that the sickest patients with the greatest needs stop missing out on surgery, given that it is his simplistic targets that are causing them to be left off surgical lists in the first place?
Hon JO GOODHEW: I would have to say that every single case in this book that tells me someone has had orthopaedic surgery does not sound like simplistic surgery to me. Therefore, I would doubt that the member is correct in his assertion.
Housing—Supply, Affordability, and First-home Buyers
7. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on positive progress being advanced on the Government’s housing agenda?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The fourth quarter report for 2013 on new house builds shows the strongest growth in more than a decade. In Auckland it saw 1,959 new homes consented—up 74 percent on the same time in 2012. To put this house build rate in the context of the Auckland accord targets, we were building 4,000 houses a year. We are aiming for 9,000 houses per year, and the latest quarter data annualises out at 7,800 per year. In Christchurch it saw 894 new homes consented. That is a trebling on the same quarter of a year earlier. These encouraging numbers are an all-time high and show the huge pace of the momentum in the Christchurch rebuild. Nationally, new home builds were 9,200 for the quarter and up 32 percent on the same period in 2012. These encouraging numbers indicate that New Zealand will build over 25,000 new houses this year—the highest in a decade.
Mark Mitchell: What reports has the Minister received on housing affordability and how it compares historically?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are three independent measures of housing affordability, and all of them show that it has improved under this Government. The Demographia survey, which measures the ratio of average house price to income, shows that it is currently 5.5—significantly less than 6.3 in 2008. The Roost survey compares the proportion of an average person’s income that would go on a mortgage in an average-priced house. It shows that affordability was at its worst in 2008 at 83.4 percent, and it is currently 60.7 percent. The Massey University housing affordability index shows that it too was at its worst 6 years ago, at 33.9 percent, and is now 21.8 percent. The average of these surveys shows that housing affordability has actually improved by 30 percent since 2008.
Mark Mitchell: What reports has the Minister received on the claim that Auckland house prices are now higher than Melbourne’s?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have received an email from the Real Estate Institute that says that this claim is false. The median house price in Melbourne is A$643,000, or, in Kiwi terms, $696,000. The median house price, it advises me, in Auckland is 16 percent less, at $600,000. The claim was based on comparing central Auckland City house prices with Melbourne-wide figures. This is plainly misleading but is what we have come to expect from the tricky crew opposite.
Phil Twyford: What does he say to the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, who says that the housing shortage in Canterbury is the country’s most pressing human rights challenge, and to what extent have his slowness to act on the housing crisis and his refusal to admit that his housing policy is a shambles added to the stress and pain of Cantabrians over the last 3 years?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What the Human Rights Commission report shows is that the Canterbury earthquakes were the biggest natural disaster that this country has faced—something that members opposite ignore. I draw to that member’s attention that in the last quarter a record—an all-time record—number of new houses were built. I would further draw the member’s attention to the claim by Labour just after the Christchurch earthquakes that the biggest concern for Christchurch was that its house prices were going to collapse—something that I noticed has not actually occurred.
Phil Twyford: Does he believe that recent Quotable Value data showing that the number of first-home buyers is now at the lowest level in 3 years is a sign that his housing policies are working; if not, how many photo opportunities will it take to change the minds of first-home buyers and convince them that he knows what he is doing?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would simply refer to the facts, and they are that housing affordability in New Zealand was at its worst in history after 9 years of a Labour Government. Those are the facts on all the independent surveys. I would also draw the member’s attention to today’s report from Standard and Poor’s. Standard and Poor’s has said that the loan-to-value ratios introduced by our Reserve Bank are having the effect of containing house price inflation—a measure that has been opposed by members opposite.
Minimum Wage—Increases and Adequacy
8. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on the minimum wage that “I think we’ve been pretty fair in what we’ve done in the past and we probably will be in the future”?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): As tempting as it is to think there is something a bit tricky in this question from the current member Darien Fenton, I wholeheartedly agree with the Prime Minister. The reason for that is that we have raised the minimum wage every single year we have been in office. We have a very high minimum wage compared with other countries. We have the highest ratio in the OECD of minimum wage to the average wage. Only four other countries have higher minimum wages than us, in terms of absolute wage levels, and only two other countries have a higher annual income for a minimum wage worker than New Zealand. I am confident that we will continue to strike that careful balance between protecting low-paid workers, while ensuring that jobs are not lost.
Darien Fenton: Is it pretty fair that the minimum wage grew by 36.2 percent in real terms when Labour was in Government, but it has actually decreased by 5c an hour in real terms since his party became the Government?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not think that last so-called statistic is correct.
Darien Fenton: Does he think it is pretty fair that some Government-owned companies’ chief executive officers are paid 53 times the minimum wage and some private sector chief executive officers are paid 146 times the minimum wage, or is that just a bit rich?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I appreciate that the party opposite is the party of the politics of envy, but this party has raised the minimum wage every single year. We have one of the highest minimum wages, in both real terms and relative terms, in the world. As I say, we have the aim of raising it absolutely where we can, without affecting the employment levels of workers.
Darien Fenton: Given his Government’s rejection of the labour cost index as a measure of wage growth and its reliance on the quarterly employment survey, does this mean he will commit to a minimum wage increase at least as large as the increase in wages in the quarterly employment survey?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I do not unwrap my Christmas presents before Christmas. The member will have to wait and see.
Darien Fenton: Given both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said they could not live on the minimum wage, how is it fair to maintain the minimum wage at a level that families, real families, cannot afford to live on?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course, there is a range of other entitlements, including, not least of which, Working for Families, which this Government wraps around families, in addition to the minimum wage. As I said, I think in answer to the primary question, we have raised the minimum wage every year we have been in office. We have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. I think in tough times that is worth remembering.
Science and Research Funding—National Science Challenges Initiative
9. CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How are the National Science Challenges bringing together the best scientific talent across New Zealand?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Last week I released a request for proposals for a search for the second tranche of New Zealand’s National Science Challenges. The challenges align and focus New Zealand’s research on large and complex issues by encouraging scientists from different institutions and across disciplines to achieve a common goal through collaboration. The second tranche comprises seven challenges, with total funding of up to $439 million over 10 years. The requests for proposals lay out agreed themes and research topics developed with the science sector. The National Science Challenges will deliver a more strategic approach to the Government’s science investment by targeting a series of goals that will have major and enduring benefits for New Zealand.
Claudette Hauiti: What topics will the second tranche of the challenges be addressing?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are seven challenges in the second tranche. Let me pick just a couple that I think the House will be particularly interested in. There is $63.7 million available for New Zealand’s biological heritage challenge, which is all about protecting and improving our biosecurity and enhancing our resilience to harmful organisms. There is also $106 million for the science for technological innovation challenge, which will enhance the capacity of New Zealand to use physical and engineering sciences for economic growth.
Dr Megan Woods: Do any of the indicative themes and outcomes for the 12 National Science Challenges specifically provide funding for research into renewable energies; if so, which ones?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are a number of challenges that can cover those areas, including the science for technological innovation challenge, and, I think, the land and water one as well. It is also important to note for the member that the National Science Challenges do not take over all of New Zealand’s science funding. There remain significant funds, outside the science challenges, including from the Ministry for the Environment, in renewable energies.
Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table a National Science Challenges funding Cabinet paper that makes no mention of renewable energy.
Mr SPEAKER: I just want to check how available that pamphlet is to all members.
Dr Megan Woods: A Cabinet paper.
Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Child Poverty—Expenditure Priorities
10. HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) to the Minister for Economic Development: Will he commit to spending the $41m on reducing child poverty, after signalling that he might not now give that money to Team New Zealand to compete in the next America’s Cup?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): The Government has not yet appropriated money for a further America’s Cup challenge, but I am pleased to be able to report to the member in the mean time that the Government spends billions of dollars every year on supporting families, particularly low-income families. The 2013 Budget included more than $900 million in initiatives to help vulnerable families, through a significant investment in things like $189 million to assist people from welfare into work; $377 million to build 3,000 new State house bedrooms and 500 new 2-bedroom homes; $100 million over 3 years for the new Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme; $9.5 million for an expansion of the KickStart Breakfast programme; $21 million for rheumatic fever prevention; $15.7 million for the Children’s Action Plan; and $172 million in new investment in early childhood education. Of course, getting people into work is the best way out of poverty. I look forward to the member’s support for our comprehensive welfare reform programme, as well as things that create jobs, as demonstrated through our Business Growth Agenda.
Hone Harawira: Does the Minister agree with the Salvation Army’s Striking a Better Balance: A State of the Nation Report released yesterday, which called child poverty a time-bomb issue for the nation, and can he explain how bailing out wealthy investors and spending money on a yacht race for millionaires helps to reduce the crippling poverty faced by 270,000 children in Aotearoa?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I understand it, the Salvation Army report says that child poverty rates may be easing, based on data rates from Bryan Perry’s report. So the report does not support the idea that child poverty is getting worse. But the member raises a very fair point. The point I would make in response is that a very important part of what this Government does is to encourage economic growth and investment so we have more jobs for people, because having a job actually gives people a quicker path out of poverty. I will acknowledge my colleague, Minister Sharples, who spends a huge amount of effort marketing New Zealand overseas, for example, and actually the America’s Cup and the involvement of the New Zealand Government is about doing exactly the same thing.
Hone Harawira: Does the Minister think that gambling on the outcome of another millionaire’s yacht race, after already losing $80 million on the first two, is a reasonable and responsible way for a Government to be developing the country’s economic base, or is it because gambling and the promotion of casinos are the basis of his Government’s economic strategy?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I reject completely the assertion made in that member’s question, including that the Government’s plan is that we have to win the America’s Cup. Actually, the Government’s involvement is the marketing of New Zealand through the America’s Cup. But if the member is concerned about economic development, I invite him to join the Government in a whole bunch of other things he did not mention in that question—for example, in his home patch, oil and gas exploration, the commitment to increase Māori land productivity, and the commitment to work with Ngāpuhi to get Treaty settlements, and the equipment to build decent transport in Northland. The day that that member gets up and endorses some of those job-creating initiatives is the day that I will listen to him on economic development and the relief of poverty.
Question No. 11 to Minister
Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Dr Rajen Prasad. [Interruption] Order!
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. That sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable and will lead to disorder in this House. If it is to happen again I will be asking the members responsible for that sort of behaviour to be leaving.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.
GRANT ROBERTSON: I am not contesting your ruling. I have not been here that long, but I do not think I have seen anything as disrespectful to a member than that behaviour, and I believe that one of those members should be thrown out right now. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member makes a reasonable point. The difficulty I would have is in developing the wisdom of Solomon to decide which of them to throw out. On this occasion—[Interruption] Order! I have given a very strong warning to those members. I would certainly hope that that behaviour is never repeated.
Immigration—Fraud and Exploitation of Workers
11. Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: When he said in response to an oral question on 29 January 2014 that it was “a pretty simple process … to alert immigration authorities”, what was his understanding of the process a complainant would go through?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): The member has omitted the very important middle part of my 29 January response. My full comment was as follows: “It is a pretty simple process to pick up the phone and dial an 0800 number to alert immigration authorities to the potential for this behaviour going on,”. This was in reference to Mr Prasad’s 28 January statement where he admitted that despite being made aware of numerous immigration scams by friends and constituents, he has never once alerted the authorities or convinced his constituents to alert authorities so that action could be taken. The immigration contact centre can be reached on 0508 558 885. The fact that it received 750,000 phone and email inquiries last year illustrates the fact that this is a pretty simple process. People can also visit their nearest immigration office, contact Immigration New Zealand via email, or report issues anonymously through the Crimestoppers line on 0800 555 111.
Dr Rajen Prasad: Given what the Minister has just said, why then were the three overseas students who were defrauded by an elaborate scheme involving fake job offers for a fee of $6,000 each, which was reported to Immigration New Zealand by their solicitor, denied visas under section 61 of the Immigration Act and threatened with deportation before their cases had been investigated?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Firstly, I challenge the member to verify the last part of that statement, where they have been “threatened with deportation”. What I would say is that my instructions to officials is that people who speak up do so without fear of being disadvantaged in the way that the member describes. The member will also be aware that those three people were already unlawful before they were the victims of those scams. Making an allegation does not get you a free pass. Individual circumstances are always considered by Immigration New Zealand on a case by case basis.
Dr Rajen Prasad: Given the challenge that the Minister has just made, I seek leave to present the emails that actually contain that very language—that very information—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just a little confused now. The member is seeking leave to table a series of emails. Does the House need a further description of the content of those emails before I put the leave? The House needs to know a little more detail about the emails the member is seeking to table.
Dr Rajen Prasad: Well, these are emails from Immigration New Zealand that actually do, in conveying the decision—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Who are the emails to? We have established that they are from—
Dr Rajen Prasad: To the complainants.
Mr SPEAKER: To the complainants. On the basis that the member has—[Interruption] Order! On the basis that the member has got the permission of the claimants to release this information, I am going to put the leave and the House can decide. Leave is sought to table those emails. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Dr Rajen Prasad: Why has the number of investigations of immigration fraud over the last 2 years been significantly lower than in the previous 2 years and the number of prosecutions for fraud been the lowest it has been for the previous 5 years, given that there are many more people experiencing immigration fraud?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I challenge the claim about successful prosecutions. The information I have, and which was communicated to the member on, I think, Monday, is that successful prosecutions have gone up between by 400 and 500 percent since 2008-09.
Dr Rajen Prasad: If the fraud branch of Immigration New Zealand is adequately resourced to undertake timely investigations of allegations of fraud from reputable immigration specialists, why was the investigation of three cases reported to Immigration New Zealand before 10 December 2013 not progressed by 31 January, but the decision to make those people liable for deportation was made on 23 January?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not in a position to verify whether or not the dates the member mentions are absolutely accurate, but I would say about this specific case that there is much more to the communication between the victims’ advocates and Immigration New Zealand than meets the eye, and it would not be appropriate for me to verify or refute the member’s claims.
Dr Rajen Prasad: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is Thursday.
Dr Rajen Prasad: Well, I am glad the member knows what day it is.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member just asks his supplementary question.
Dr Rajen Prasad: Given the mounting evidence of immigration fraud in the past few weeks and the inability of the fraud branch to carry out timely investigations of complaints, why will the Minister not reconsider his decision to deny an inquiry into the illegal practices that are damaging the reputation of the New Zealand immigration system?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I repeat my response from 2 weeks ago that the inquiry would not reveal anything we do not already know, but I note that Mr Prasad seeks an inquiry, according his press release, into the abuse of our immigration system. This is not the abuse of our immigration system; this is the abuse of victims of migrant exploitation. Creating an unnecessary climate of fear amongst victims of this crime is inappropriate and unhelpful. Mr Prasad would be better off dedicating his energies to assist me in encouraging those migrant communities to speak up about it.
Road Safety—Progress
12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What progress is being made in improving road safety?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport): The Safer Journeys road safety strategy is now 4 years old, and the Government has introduced a number of road safety measures during that time, including increasing the driving age, lowering the blood-alcohol levels for drivers under 20 and repeat offenders to zero, fixing the give way rule, and continuing to support high-profile campaigns. I can report to the House that the road toll for 2013 was 254, which was the lowest in more than 60 years. Although this number is still too high, the 2013 road toll was 34 percent lower than 4 years ago, and it is particularly pleasing that 15 to 24-year-olds have seen a significant drop, with a 37 percent lower road toll than 4 years ago.
Chris Auchinvole: What is the Government doing to continue the downward road toll and further improve road safety?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, although the downward trend is promising, we need to set new expectations of what is acceptable on our roads in terms of crashes and injuries so the road toll can be even lower. Our actions for 2014 will focus on developing a speed management programme, which will encourage people to travel at safer speeds, addressing drink-driving by reducing the alcohol limit, and progressing plans to improve vehicle safety by mandating electronic stability control for new and used vehicles imported into New Zealand. I am confident that these actions will contribute to ensuring we continue to see a downward trend in the road toll.
Bills
Electoral Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The Electoral Amendment Bill responds to the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into the 2011 general election. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its diligent consideration of the bill, and those members of the public who made submissions. The committee received 14 written submissions and heard from three submitters. I was pleased to—[Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Courtesy is contagious. Give the member a fair go.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was pleased to see there was consensus amongst committee members on its report back on the bill. This follows on from a high degree of consensus during the committee’s inquiry. I particularly thank the committee for reporting back by the end of last year. It is important that the bill proceed in a timely fashion in order for the Electoral Commission to implement the changes for this year’s general election.
The Electoral Amendment Bill implements those recommendations of the inquiry into the 2011 election that require changes to the Electoral Act and that can be put in place in time for the 2014 general election. The changes introduced by the bill aim to improve services to voters and candidates, improve efficiency by allowing greater use of technology, and improve the integrity of elections through simplifying and clarifying existing provisions of the Electoral Act.
Another important change introduced by the bill is allowing for full online enrolment. The bill will allow new and existing electors to enrol or update their details using the RealMe service. This responds to New Zealanders’ expectations that they will be able to complete most of their transactions with the Government electronically. Paper-based methods of enrolment will continue to be available for those who prefer to enrol in this way. The bill also introduces a number of changes to improve the integrity of the electoral system. For example, clause 50 of the bill provides for new party loan disclosure rules that broadly reflect current rules for disclosing party donations. This will increase transparency around such loans.
I would now like to briefly touch on some of the changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended to the bill. The committee has recommended the removal of clauses 35 and 36, which relate to items that people can display on election day. Although the committee recognised the benefit of allowing people to vote without influence on polling day, it had some concerns about the workability and enforceability of the proposed changes. The committee suggested these changes would be more appropriately addressed in a specific review of election day rules.
The committee has also recommended removing clauses that would expand the use and purpose of EasyVote cards, in favour of retaining the existing law. I note that there is consensus amongst members on these two changes. I have said on a number of occasions that electoral reform should, if possible, be based on consensus, and in this spirit I am very happy to accept the committee’s recommendations.
The committee has also recommended a number of other relatively minor amendments to the bill. These largely clarify current provisions and correct inconsistencies in the current legislation. For example, the committee recommended amending clause 22 so that a voter who gives late notice of a change in his or her address would not be liable to be prosecuted for an earlier failure to do so. This change would give electors incentives to update their details.
I am happy to support the committee’s changes to the bill, which are all very well considered and practical. New Zealand’s electoral system has a high level of integrity. This is partly due to improvements arising from select committee reviews and bills such as this. The changes made by the Electoral Amendment Bill will have a positive impact on the administration of this year’s general election and future elections. I commend this bill to the House.
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I want to note, and, I think, largely agree with, what the Minister of Justice said by way of principle when considering legislation covering our electoral laws. That is to note that not only, of course, are they vital to the operation of our democracy but as current MPs we are merely the custodians of those rules and of the law. Therefore, it is vital that when we are considering the electoral laws and the laws governing people’s right to vote and participate in our democracy, we proceed in a suitably sober and measured way, so that we do not see big lurches in our electoral law and so that significant changes are subject to widespread public debate, to referenda, and to other measures as necessary. We do that because this is a vital constitutional area. Any changes, as I said, should avoid unnecessary controversy—and it is true that there have been controversial changes made to our electoral laws in the past—but, above all, they should ensure that measures enhance and promote voting and participation in the democratic process.
So we come at these proposed changes with that in mind, as, indeed, the Justice and Electoral Committee did. As the Minister noted, by and large that is the consensus approach that the committee takes. So we welcome the bill and we will support it, with the exception of one very vital aspect, which I will come to. As the Minister said, these are mostly sensible changes. They follow the scheduled and usual review by the select committee of the most recent general election. The select committee did that and came up with its recommendations.
It is especially good to see the abandonment of the provision in the original bill that would have meant that the use of ribbons and rosettes everywhere but in voting booths would be banned. It means that those who are undertaking their party activities and interacting with voters will be able to wear the colour of their party so that voters know they are on official election business on that day, even though they are volunteers. That is a very important part of identifying that there are people who have duties to perform on election day to support their party. It is not overt—at least, it is not an over-the-top display of colours. It is a subtle reminder that there are people who are out there doing what comes naturally on election day, and that is aiding parties seeking to maximise their vote. The original attempt to ban that in the original bill was, of course, a very petty action, but it has not survived the select committee process, and that is a good thing.
It is also a good thing that the rules about the disclosure of contributions, particularly those contributions made by way of loans to political parties, have been clarified. That is an important measure and an uncontroversial measure. It makes no sense to allow political parties to take advantage of a loan, whether they are in an election year or at any other time, and for that to not be disclosed when, in fact, a significant benefit is obtained from that assistance, at least with cash flow at the time. Of course, it does raise a question about when we are going to pass a law that would mean there would be greater transparency for devices such as the Waitematā Trust, for example, which has a very significant role to play, albeit on the part of the National Party and no other political party. But maybe that will come in another day.
The aspect of this bill that is more disturbing, even though it has been through the select committee process and even though consensus has largely been achieved, is the removal from the original bill of those provisions that would have enhanced and expanded the use of the EasyVote card. I think that that change is a little more sinister. As I said before, one of the objectives of changes that we make to our electoral law every time we make them should be to enhance democracy. It should be to assist voters and to assist citizens to participate in their democracy, and never more so than in a general election, when the issue of who will be the Government is very much at stake. The EasyVote card did this. The EasyVote card has played a very good role in the last few elections. It has enabled people to get confirmation that they are enrolled, and to provide the details in an easy form that they can take into their voting booth and take to the returning officer there or the clerk, who can then very easily find their name on the roll, and the page and the line number, and their name can be struck out. They can be given their ballot papers. It was a very quick and efficient way of doing that.
The truth is that there are some voters for whom turning up to the voting booth—particularly if they have a difficult name, particularly if they have English as a second language, or particularly if they have a thick accent. Not every citizen is like Chris Auchinvole, who has managed to expunge his deep-seated Glaswegian accent so that he is more or less understandable most times that he speaks in the House. Many voters—people who are entitled to vote—are not able to change the accent with which they speak, and, often, turning up to a returning officer and having to say their name can cause confusion and can cause difficulty for both. For those who have speech impediments, the EasyVote card was a very easy way for them to cast their vote. The removal of it is a retrograde step.
But, of course, it is not just about the removal of the EasyVote card. If we compare the bill with the language of the existing Electoral Act, section 167(2) simply says: “The elector must give any particulars that are necessary for finding the elector’s name on the rolls.” That is a very broad provision, and it provided and allowed for the EasyVote card. The question then has to be asked why clause 24 of the bill, which amends section 167(2) of the Electoral Act, now says this: “An elector who applies to vote must (a) verbally give or verbally confirm his or her name; and (b) give or confirm any other particulars that may be necessary to find the elector’s name on the rolls.” That is against other provisions that have been deleted from the original bill that allowed the use of the EasyVote card. The fact is that the bill now expressly says that a voter must provide verbal confirmation of who they are, and that is a retrograde step.
We do this against a background of knowing that this is the 50th anniversary of the passage of the citizens’ rights legislation in the United States, where states are required to avoid measures that are an obstacle to casting a vote in their election processes. They are meant to avoid provisions that demand identification and various particular hoops that voters have to go through. This takes us very close to, or certainly down, that path that requires voters to go through various hoops—unnecessary hoops, I might add, in the light of the success of the EasyVote card in previous elections—when it comes to casting their votes.
I am foreshadowing that we will be proposing some amendments by way of Supplementary Order Papers to deal with that provision, because that seems to be an unnecessary part of this bill. It is a bill that provides many sensible changes and that otherwise has the support of this House and otherwise has achieved consensus. That is a retrograde measure and we look at it askance. We look at it very seriously, and I would hope that perhaps through some sober debate and mature debate, even at this stage in the House, we can achieve agreement on that so that we have—and we can demonstrate and we can boast to the rest of the world that we have—a model way of developing our electoral laws and citizens’ electoral rights so that they are not disadvantaged when it comes to participating in this great democracy.
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure, as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to rise in support of the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins. Other speakers have already indicated that the Justice and Electoral Committee has worked diligently, carefully, and thoroughly through the select committee process and hearings on the bill, and that a very high level of consensus was achieved. In fact, unanimity was achieved in terms of the recommendations of the committee for this bill.
I am surprised to hear the Labour Party justice spokesperson, Andrew Little, indicate that Labour members are going to move some amendments, because even though he is the justice spokesman, he does not sit permanently on the committee and, as best as I can recall, he was not privy or party to most of the discussions, if any, that took place in the select committee. So it comes as a surprise to me to now find that the Labour Party is moving down a different pathway, after the very good work held in the committee in consideration of the bill.
There were 49 submissions. We heard 16 oral submissions, and there was a very good level of considered, intelligent, and articulate debate around the table. I particularly want to thank those who came to submit to us orally, because they made some very good points. A number of the changes that we made as a select committee were as a direct result of submissions made. I think that this is an example of how the select committee process works effectively to provide improvements to legislation and create good legislation on the way through.
There are just a couple of points that I particularly want to focus on. One was the decision of the committee to recommend the removal of clauses 35 and 36. Those were the clauses that related to streamers, ribbons, and rosettes, and the wearing thereof on election days. I think all around the committee we were of the opinion that the fine and long-held tradition in New Zealand has been that you do not campaign on election day. I suspect that what the committee was seeking to achieve, in recommending that a further review of election day activities be looked at in the future, was to preserve that sense of tradition about not campaigning on election day, but we want to also make sure that there is a practical ability to implement any changes that would protect that tradition and history of not campaigning on election day. The wearing of streamers and showing of ribbons and rosettes and what have you is actually quite a long-held convention in our election process, and we decided to recommend that the status quo exist for the meantime but pending a review of election day activities.
The previous speaker, Andrew Little, mentioned our decision to push back on the commission’s enthusiasm for extending the role of those EasyVote cards. We were very much of the view and heard submissions that, in fact, although administratively easy for the commission, there was actually a very real risk of lowering the threshold to voter fraud, or potential voter fraud, from extending the roll-out for the use of those cards—that it was possible for someone to just turn up, front up, hand over one of those cards, not identify themselves, and then be issued with a voting paper. We felt, as a committee, that that was one step too far, and we felt that very strongly. And I have to thank the member from New Zealand First Denis O’Rourke, who instigated a suggestion that, in fact, there be a requirement for verbal identification of voters. It probably comes as a surprise to most New Zealanders that that is not already the case. So we have recommended that there should be a verbal positive identification of voters before a voting paper is issued, and I think that is a very good step.
I want to counsel the Labour spokesman on justice against seeing shadows where there are none, because I suspect, listening to the tone and tenor of his speech, that that is, in fact, exactly what he is doing. This committee worked very hard, very long, and very diligently on coming to an agreed position on the recommendations for this bill, and it now strikes me as a shame that, as I say, shadows are being seen when there are none and when a good level of consensus has been achieved in the select committee process. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House in its second reading form as amended with suggestions from the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee.
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the Electoral Amendment Bill. I wish to reflect on the contributions of the two previous speakers, Andrew Little and Scott Simpson. I am more than happy to pay another tribute to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Scott Simpson, who does operate as a very fair and effective chairman of the select committee. The account he gave in his speech just before he resumed his seat was absolutely accurate. There was a high degree of consensus around the proposals in this bill. In fact, the way was cleared for the progress of the bill by the agreement of the National Party to remove the provisions relating to streamers and rosettes on election day. That was a stumbling block and it did not need to be there. There was no persuasive factor ever in that permissive provision of the original legislation. In fact, if anything, identification of those who are approaching people on election day is a good thing. So the National Party wisely decided that discretion was the better part of valour in that instance. With the removal of those clauses, which the previous speaker, Mr Scott Simpson, has alluded to, we saw our way clear to agreeing to the provisions in this bill.
However, can I say to the chair of the select committee that it is also part of the process that in the course of parties considering and reconsidering final reports, some of the shadows to which he referred to emerge may not have been apparent in the first instance. So, for example, I participated as a Labour Party representative in the select committee debate around the application of the EasyVote card. We talked about whether or not there was the potential for fraudulent use of the EasyVote card. There is no doubt that we saw it as part of our duty as the select committee to ensure that the processes around voting remain absolutely clean and clear and retain the integrity for which our electoral system is famous internationally. That consideration is the one that really dominated the debate, if I remember the debate in the select committee accurately. That is the one that dominated the debate.
So the suggestion that people come and verbally identify themselves was seen to be a higher threshold of integrity, because it would be harder—as the argument went from the members of the committee—for a voter to come up into the polling booth, approach an electoral officer, and say that they were somebody whom they were not. That presumption underpinned this provision—that it is actually harder for human beings to get up and lie about who they are and then go down the road to another polling booth and lie again about who they are than it is to take an EasyVote card, present it, take it back again, and give it to somebody else in your family or somebody down the road to use, and the fraud would not be discovered until some time later.
So I accept that the intention and the application of the select committee were to preserve the integrity of the voting system. However, I must say this to members of the select committee opposite: sometimes things shift in further discussion and debate amongst colleagues. That is what has happened for us in the Labour Party. Closer scrutiny—even closer scrutiny—of this gave rise to concerns that I think are legitimate and could be addressed by a Supplementary Order Paper if we were able to work this through in a bipartisan or multipartisan way towards an improvement. The provision that is now being inserted into the bill—that is, to go up and verbally identify oneself—does actually present or potentially could present an additional barrier to a voter, by ethnicity, by not understanding an instruction in English, or by disability. That barrier could prevent people from exercising their citizenship and their right to vote. So it is a legitimate concern.
I acknowledge to the chair of the select committee that this is different from the result of the discussion as we arrived at it in the select committee. I acknowledge that. But that is part of the richness of being able to go back and have colleagues say “Hold on a minute—have you missed something here?”. If I have missed something here, then it is my fault and the fault of Labour members on that select committee. But I would urge Parliament to consider the strength of the argument that if we can agree to a Supplementary Order Paper that ensures that the EasyVote card and the treatment of it in this amended legislation is not abandoned and that the replacement of it is not used as a barrier to people voting, then perhaps we can still arrive at a consensus position on what the best form of protection is for the system of voting.
So the primary concern of the select committee was to preserve the integrity of the voting process and protect it from any fraud. Whether or not there has been any fraud is a moot point, and I am not sure that we as a select committee were ever presented with evidence that there was fraud. In that event, let us then look again as a Parliament to see whether the provisions that exist in the bill now make it harder for people to participate in a vote, rather than easier, or make it harder for citizens to exercise their right to vote, rather than easier. We should make it as easy as possible for all New Zealand citizens and those entitled to vote to do that—to vote. But we should also make sure that we preserve the integrity of the system and maintain that it is as impervious to fraud as possible. Although there might appear to be a contradiction here, I do not believe there is.
I think there have been some legitimate concerns raised by colleagues—in my caucus, in particular—that ought to be aired in this Parliament, and it is not beyond our collective wit to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion that delivers ease in the casting of a vote and the protection of the integrity of the process. I would ask members opposite, when we get to the Committee stage, to consider the Supplementary Order Paper that will come forward from Labour, and to apply themselves in the same spirit in which the select committee conducted itself to achieve the best resolution and the best improvements of our electoral system that are available to us.
I hope I have clarified some of that issue around the EasyVote card. We do not want to see it done away with. We do not want to see it replaced by something that makes it harder for people to vote. We absolutely support recommendations and provisions in legislation that prevent fraud, but we have to find that balance, and it is not beyond our competence to do so. Thank you.
DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Electoral Amendment Bill. In a sense, this bill is a fine-tuning bill. It does not make any dramatic changes to our electoral systems, but it is still important that we continue to address the whole matter of how we conduct our elections. We are very privileged, I would have to say, to live in a country where we have regular, free, fair, and open elections. That is something we ought never to take for granted. We should continually strive to make that process as accessible, as reliable, and as secure as it can possibly be, and I think this bill is in the spirit of that. It does seek to make some improvements. We do not think it is the best it could have been. There are some things we would have liked to see in it that are not there, but for the most part—and the point has been made—we did achieve a reasonably high level of consensus at the Justice and Electoral Committee.
I will respond to just some of the points that have made by our Labour colleagues. I do recall the conversation that was had about the matter of the verbal confirmation—“Yes, this is I who is handing you this piece of paper with my name on it.” I supported it in the sense that I thought it was a good idea. Labour is clearly determined to reopen that particular conversation. So be it—that is the nature of the game. This bill is not yet signed off in its final place, so we would be very interested in perhaps seeing some documentation or an argument put forward to reopen that part of the select committee process. We are certainly persuadable—although having said that, we do wholeheartedly support the initiative from the New Zealand First member. It was a good select committee. I sat on it. Normally, my colleague Holly Walker would have done that, but she was rather busy seeing to the important business of delivering a young baby safely into the world. It was enjoyable, thoughtful, and occasionally humorous, and I think we got to a pretty good place with the bill.
I said that the bill is not all it could have been. I think it is unfortunate that there is still nothing in legislation anywhere that I am aware of that obliges us to deliver civics education in our schools. I think it is still the case that it is possible to get to the age where one can cast a vote with very little notion of exactly how the system works and what it all means. Reflecting on my experience as a lecturer in political studies, I know of first-year politics students, clearly with an interest in these things, who were not confident and could not articulate the difference between the head of Government and the head of State and their relative status and powers. I think that is very dangerous. I suspect that would still be the case today, so I would argue very strongly that we need to get serious about civics education.
I think there is another missing part of this bill. It is unfortunate that we did not implement the whole raft of recommendations from the MMP Review Committee. I say that knowing full well that the Greens did not actually love all of them. There were some that were not in line with what we would have preferred. I think the Minister of Justice in introducing the bill talked about the importance of consensus around electoral practice and so on. I think we had an independent review committee that came back with some very good recommendations—a good, broad range of recommendations—out of which all of us would have felt we had lost one and won a few, perhaps. I do think it is unfortunate we did not just accept those recommendations wholesale. I think this selective notion was a bit unfortunate. It certainly made this Government vulnerable to accusations of self-interest, and that is unfortunate.
I think some of the key provisions of the bill, which will make voting easier and more accessible, are important, not least of all because we have seen a significant decline in participation in voting over the last decade or more. That is most unfortunate, and we do not want to see that continue. We need to make voting accessible. We need people to be excited and engaged in the political process. I think that full online enrolment—making it possible for people to get on to the roll from scratch online—is a good step in that direction. Younger generations are accustomed to doing most things online. For a very long time it has been possible to amend one’s personal details, change one’s address—whatever it might be—online. There have been no apparent security breaches there, so I think that was a good move and a good provision of the bill to advance.
We certainly support the requirement in this new legislation that some light be shone on the business of loans becoming donations. I think people would be surprised to learn that a political party could accept a loan before an election and it would not need to be declared as a donation, but afterwards the lender could simply excuse the party from ever having to pay it back. That invites corruption in a way that we certainly do not want in this country. I think the provision to close that loophole and to ensure that is a good one and it does not constrain anybody from giving substantial donations to parties. But it is important that those are transparent and visible and that everybody knows who is paying what to whom. It is important that we all understand where the source of funding for election campaigns is coming from.
I think that the humour I mentioned in the select committee debate was very much focused on this rather unfortunate proposition about banning streamers and colours and so on. How far would you go? Would it make it an offence to walk your small child with a red ribbon in her hair, or for somebody to wear a green T-shirt or, dare I say it, blue stockings? Where would you actually draw the line? I think what we came to was that we just let things go on as they are for the moment. Obviously, scrutineers are identified and party workers can be identified. For a lot of it there was a lot of humour in it and I do think the outcome was the right one.
I think, as other speakers have mentioned, that it may be timely to have a little bit more of a hard think about the extent to which electioneering on election day is tolerated or not. The general rule is that we knock off at midnight the night before, and I think that is a good rule. There is no doubt that others have had the experience of pulling down billboards in the rain at 20 to 12 the night before, because somebody had rung up and said “Hey, do you remember that one on Boundary Road?”—that was my personal one.
More serious, I have done a very quick oversight of what other countries do in this regard. It is interesting to note that a lot of countries not dissimilar to ours—those with reasonably robust electoral systems—will often have a 24-hour election silence, as it is often called. So 24 hours before the booths open there will be no campaigning of any sort. I think that is something we could usefully consider. Other countries will have 2 or 3 days where there is no broadcasting allowed, so television and radio and newspaper advertising stops but on the ground the campaigning can advance apace. In the UK I believe there are some voluntary restrictions where parties collectively agree on certain practices that will or will not be allowed.
So I think we ought not simply rest easily and think “OK, we have a sort of a workable option in what we do.” I think we could interrogate that a bit more. I think we need to look very hard at the matter of polling, because we know that people’s votes are significantly influenced by polling results, which may be substantive and defensible or may be entirely bogus. Personally, I think we need to put some limits around polling and the announcing of the polling results, because they are not necessarily robust or reliable, and I do think they have an unreasonable and sometimes unfortunate influence on voter behaviour. That is one of the things that I think we need to have a good conversation about.
The final thing I will say is that this bill does deal around the margins with the Māori electoral option. It does make some minor changes to it. I think it is long overdue that we made it possible for people with whakapapa to be able to move on to, or off, the Māori roll—to switch between the general and the Māori rolls—more often than on a 5-yearly cycle. Effectively, that covers two election cycles. I believe that there is no reason that we could not do that once every 3 years. I look forward to making a further contribution at future readings of the bill. Thank you.
ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Electoral Amendment Bill in its second reading. What I would like to do is acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee in this regard, and also our previous chair. My discussion will be brief because there has been a real consensus around this.
There were 49 submissions, and 16 oral submissions were heard in 2012. What we heard was the importance of ensuring that there was participation and that there was access to this, because we do realise and agree that our participation rates were low. In our deliberations we also heard about youth participation, which is obviously important to us.
What we are particularly privileged to do as a whole committee with consensus is ensure that this bill, as it returns to the House, does three important key things. It does improve efficiency by allowing greater use of technology. It improves services to voters, candidates, and parties. And, thirdly, and most important, it improves the integrity of elections through simplifying and clarifying the law.
I do want to commend this bill to the House. We hope that as this bill goes into our election process this year it will ensure that there is greater participation and greater releasing of information, which is important in order to make conscious and clear decisions, as voters head to the ballot boxes. I commend this bill to the House.
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First initially supported this bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, to the Justice and Electoral Committee, but we can do so no longer. It is not because of what the bill says but because of what the bill leaves out. It does do some good things. The Justice and Electoral Committee in its inquiry recommended several amendments to the Electoral Act, and this bill will implement some of them—but only some of them. There are three very good areas of change that are promoted by the bill. Firstly, it provides as an option full online enrolment using electronic identity verification. Secondly, it provides for the greater use of EasyVote cards, which will simplify and speed up the issuing of ballot papers and reduce special votes. Thirdly, the integrity of elections will be enhanced through amendments to rationalise and make transparent the provisions that regulate the disclosure of election donations and loans and the filing of election expenses.
But I do especially want to mention clauses 44, 46, and 47, which clarify the position to ensure the aggregation of contributions to donations for the $1,500 threshold, and the $15,000 threshold for contributions to donations in clause 48. That is good law and will be supported by New Zealand First. It is unfortunate that we will not be able to vote for the bill, for that reason. Concerning loans to political parties, we are especially glad also to see the provisions in new sections 213, 214A, and 214C inserted by clause 50. Those sections provide that a party may enter into a loan only with the authorisation of the party secretary, and that only the party secretary may enter into a loan on behalf of the party for election purposes. A person who enters into an agreement or an arrangement of some kind for the purpose of circumventing those sections will be guilty of an illegal practice. Section 214C imposes an obligation on a party secretary to file with the Electoral Commission each year a return of a loan entered into during the year for an amount exceeding $15,000, those entered into in any previous year with an unpaid balance exceeding $15,000, and those entered into for the year for an amount that when it is aggregated with other loans yields an amount in excess of $15,000. Those are very important provisions, and New Zealand First agrees with them. Again, it is a shame that we cannot vote for the bill for other reasons.
There are two areas of serious omissions with the bill. The first one, as the commission itself is aware, concerns election broadcasting rules, which did cause problems during the 2011 election. The Electoral Commission noted that the statutory tests of what constitutes an election programme in the Broadcasting Act and an election advertisement in the Electoral Act have significant differences, which causes difficulties when the commission is called upon to consider complaints about broadcasting. Both tests require an assessment of whether the programme or advertisement appears to encourage voters to vote or not to vote for a party or candidate, but they differ in the exemptions made. In the Broadcasting Act it is stated that nothing in the prohibition on paid election programmes “restricts the broadcasting, in relation to an election, of news or of comments or of current affairs programmes.”, although the exemption, similarly in the Electoral Act, is not restricted to news or current affairs but applies to “editorial content of—(i) a periodical: (ii) a radio or television programme: (iii) a publication on a news media Internet site:”. So there are two different exemptions altogether.
Submissions suggested removing the separate electoral broadcasting provisions from the Broadcasting Act and confining the provision to the one in the Electoral Act, and New Zealand First agrees with those submissions. The Justice and Electoral Committee actually recommended aligning the statutory tests of what is an election programme in the Broadcasting Act and what is an election advertisement in the Electoral Act, but nothing appears in this bill. It is an urgent matter and it should have been dealt with in the bill. In addition, the Broadcasting Act’s prohibitions regarding election programmes should not be limited to the election period and should apply consistently both to political parties and to broadcasters. The commission acknowledged that it would be more consistent to apply the same rules within and outside of an election period, and that is really just common sense.
The other glaring omission regarding this bill is concerning our MMP system. There needs to be an end to the coat-tailing provision in the Electoral Act, and that should have been attended to as well at this time. We have seen many reasons for that over recent times. It is something that recent polling shows that the vast majority of people in this country want to see an end of. It is time that simply winning an electorate seat should not result in coat-tailing for whatever low percentage of the party vote is currently enabling a party without 5 percent of the list vote to bring more members into Parliament. That is just silly. That is unacceptable. There should be only one threshold for list seats and that is 5 percent or more of the list vote, irrespective of whether a party gets an electorate seat. That is what people want. That should have been addressed. But we know, of course, why it is not being addressed, and that is because the National Party needs the likes of Banks and Dunne—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!
DENIS O’ROURKE: Mr Banks and Mr Dunne.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.
DENIS O’ROURKE: Thank you. —and any additional seats they may be able to bring in. National wants to try to get as many additional MPs through that particular gerrymander as it can. This Government is prepared to gerrymander the system and to do whatever else is necessary to get enough seats in this way. It is not good enough. It is a cynical manipulation of the system, and National obviously has no genuine respect for democracy in New Zealand by failing to make the changes in these ways, changes that the people of New Zealand now so clearly want and need.
I want to finish by making a reference to Supplementary Order Paper 412 in the name of Mojo Mathers. New Zealand First has some concerns about it. The Supplementary Order Paper seeks regulations for disabled votes to be able to vote by means of devices that enable them to vote without assistance. We are not sure why that is currently a problem and whether this provision would fix it. We expect that people will still want and need assistance. We think that, essentially, it is a management issue and not one that needs to be addressed in legislation. The commission, of course, should ensure privacy so that disabled people, with assistance if they require it, can vote privately and have adequate provisions in that way. But we do not really know what “vote by means of devices” means and we have concern about costs. If it means facilities are needed at all booths and for all forms of disability, then we are concerned that it will cost a very large amount of money and is not really required. We would like to hear the Green Party discuss that and tell us why it is required, but, as it is, we would find it difficult to support that Supplementary Order Paper.
It is a shame, as I have said, that New Zealand First is unable to support this bill any longer—not because of what it does do, because it does do some good things, but because of those two glaring problems. One is the failure to address the difficulty with the Broadcasting Act, as I have described, and the second is the disgraceful failure to ensure that the coat-tailing provision in the Electoral Act, under our MMP system, is not abolished, as it should be.
Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I am delighted to take a brief call to support the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I may be old-fashioned but I believe that electoral law needs to be enduring, and, if possible, it is preferable that it is enacted on a multipartisan approach, with some sort of consensus. Therefore, I find it somewhat disappointing—in fact, very disappointing—that New Zealand First has indicated that it will vote against this piece of legislation, especially coming just at the time that it seems to be embroiled in a Kim Dotcom quagmire.
Our electoral system has a very high level of integrity. It is important that that integrity is a reality, not just a perception, and it is the behaviour of some members of Parliament that runs the risk of impugning that integrity. Having just observed the international presidential elections in the Maldives, I think we can be really proud of our electoral system and the integrity that it has. It needs to be enduring. It should be a multipartisan approach. It needs to be updated.
I do not think that any party in this House probably got everything they wanted out of the reforms in this Electoral Amendment Bill, but most of us want an enduring piece of legislation that will give the public confidence that we are a country full of integrity and that our electoral system has corresponding integrity. I have pleasure in supporting this bill to the House.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Labour supports the Electoral Amendment Bill 2013, or 2014 as it will be now, even though we share some of the misgivings expressed by Denis O’Rourke, the member from New Zealand First. I will come back to that shortly. To just briefly touch on our views on what is in this bill, the bill primarily focuses on implementing the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2011 general election, which will help future elections run smoothly and adapt to changes in technology, such as online enrolment, which is something we think is a positive step.
We are very supportive of the adoption of rules around giving loans to fund political parties and of bringing those rules in line with the rules that cover donations. That means that parties will have to disclose the details of every loan exceeding $15,000 a year. It is a little odd, though, that that rule does not extend to loans that political parties may raise from a bank. It may seem like that is quite an innocuous thing to do, for a political party to take a loan from a bank. There is no suggestion at all that there is anything improper about a political party raising a loan from a bank. But what really is the difference between raising a loan from a corporate, as opposed to raising a loan from an individual, is that it seems strange to have rules requiring political parties to declare loans from individuals, but not to declare loans from corporates. I would compare this with what members have to do with our pecuniary interests. We are required to declare mortgages that we have with the bank. My mortgage with Westpac is on the public record. There is no suggestion at all that Westpac expects any kickbacks from me, as a member of Parliament, because it gave me—
Hon Maryan Street: They raise a lot of interest.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It does raise a lot of interest off me, as it does with other members of the House, as well. There is no suggestion of improper practice. But for the sake of completion, for the sake of ensuring that everybody is treated fairly and with the same set of rules, members have to declare loans that they have with banks—money that they owe to banks. Equally, I think political parties should have to declare money that they owe to banks, as well. It just seems like the sensible thing to do.
We have talked about our concerns with the EasyVote card. I think what we have seen here today, in its own quiet way, is the parliamentary process in practice. The whole point of having a first reading, a select committee hearing, a second reading, a Committee stage, and a third reading is that we go through the issues over and over again, and sometimes we bring fresh eyes to an issue and become alert to concerns that may not have previously been raised. That is what has happened in this instance, where the Labour Party has taken another look at the issue of not widening the use of the EasyVote card, and the issue of requiring people to make a verbal statement when they present their EasyVote card. We see this as potentially being something that will present a barrier to people participating in elections.
In no way do we suggest that there is any great conspiracy here to stop people participating, but we think that could be an unintended consequence of that move. We so often hear of genuine conspiracies in the United States—in particular, from the political right changing the rules to put barriers up to people participating in the electoral process. It is often done in the name of reducing electoral fraud. There is no evidence of electoral fraud, widespread or narrowly focused, in New Zealand. I think it is a spurious argument to suggest that these measures will create a situation where electoral fraud can be entered into. So we do ask that Parliament look at this. We ask that we all work together to build a consensus, given the new information and the new perspective that the Labour Party is offering.
A number of members who have spoken before me have noted that there are aspects of electoral law that need changing that are not included in this legislation. The aspect that we would like to see included in this is a proper consideration of the recommendations of the Electoral Commission’s review of MMP. What we need to do is build a consensus. I agree with Judith Collins when she says that the best way to progress electoral law is by consensus. After the MMP review recommendations were published, Judith Collins wrote to all political party leaders seeking their views on those recommendations. The political party leaders wrote back expecting that she would use that information as a starting point to build a consensus around how we should take those recommendations forward. However, Judith Collins stopped at that point. She blocked any progress on introducing reforms that New Zealanders want to see—in particular, the abolishment of the one-seat threshold, the coat-tailing provision that allows political parties to do stitch-ups and to do dodgy deals in order to enhance the number of votes that their coalition can gain in Parliament. New Zealanders are sick of it and they want to see it end.
Labour responded to Judith Collins’ refusal to seek consensus by introducing our own legislation. Our legislation proposes to implement three of the recommendations of the MMP review. Today I wish to extend this offer to all political parties: should you vote in favour of Labour’s Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill at its first reading, we will seek that the select committee consider all recommendations of the MMP review—all 10 recommendations, seven of which require legislative change. That is our offer to all political parties in order to seek consensus around these issues.
There is very clear consensus out in the public. Seventy-one percent of New Zealanders want to see the end of the coat-tailing provisions. Just 13 percent support their retention. New Zealanders have spoken. The consensus is clear. Parliament risks appearing both arrogant and out of touch if its members do not listen to what New Zealanders want, so we must work together to reach a consensus. If we take our bill to the select committee and open it up so that all 10 recommendations of the Electoral Commission’s review can be considered, then all political parties can get around that select committee table, listen again to what the public has to say, and work together to reach a consensus that is in the interests of a robust electoral process that has integrity. The situation we have at the moment is not good enough. We have political parties blocking the will of the people in order to pursue their own self-interests. That is not the way to make electoral law. There is no consensus around the status quo. There is a consensus amongst the public that the one-seat threshold has to go.
Today Labour is offering a way forward. There are recommendations that have come out of that review that we do not agree with, but we want to put them on the table and we want to work with the other parties. That was the opportunity that Judith Collins did not give us and did not give New Zealanders. It is an opportunity that broke a promise, frankly. New Zealanders voted in the MMP referendum believing that if they voted to retain MMP, then the changes at the margins that they sought would be pursued. That is what the National Government told them was going to happen when it established the referendum, and that is what it told New Zealanders was going to happen when it held the review. It broke that promise when it blocked any progress on implementing those recommendations. There is a way forward. Labour wants to work with all political parties in the best interests of New Zealanders and in the interests of an electoral system that has integrity.
PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): To bring this debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill back to what is in the bill rather than what is not in the bill, I would just like to say that the provisions contain within them an excellent move ahead. They are also—
Dr Megan Woods: Why don’t you take the time to apologise for your disgraceful behaviour?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I say to the member Megan Woods that I will get to that in a moment. I would like to say that the provisions in this bill that allow greater efficiency through the use of technology through full online enrolment are positive. The use of EasyVote cards as an administrative measure has always been useful, but having them as the definitive way of identifying a voter does risk the integrity of our precious voting system in New Zealand. I have lived in a country where people have died bleeding on the street after being shot during elections. I have lived in a country where fraud, corruption, and misidentification are absolutely rife. So I think it is important that we protect this precious aspect of our system.
I think it is a bit rich to be lectured by parties opposite when we have a party over there that brought in the Electoral Finance Act, which was a measure that was highly undemocratic and that took away the rights and freedom of expression that are so precious for New Zealanders. So it is a little bit rich to take a lecture from them on that. It is also a bit rich to be lectured by a political party that in 1999—I am talking about the New Zealand First Party—relied on the coat-tailing provision to bring in its members after getting less than 5 percent of the vote and winning an electorate seat. So I do not think that we on this side of the House should take any lectures from parties opposite on those measures. I commend this bill unreservedly to the House.
I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation—an apology.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): What is the personal explanation about?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I behaved in a way that was not acceptable earlier and I wish to apologise for it.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. You can make a personal statement.
PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I know that the matter was dealt with during question time by the Speaker, but I stood up and applauded another member. It was meant in humour but I can see now that offence was taken, so I wish to unreservedly apologise.
RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Well done, I say to Paul Foster-Bell. Before I start I would like to acknowledge those MPs, Government Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister who attended so many Chinese New Year celebrations over the last 4 weeks. The celebrations will culminate tomorrow when the Chinese Lantern Festival, hosted by the Asia New Zealand Foundation, will be opened officially at Albert Park in Auckland.
Now, back to the Electoral Amendment Bill. We can actually borrow some wisdom from these ethnic celebrations. For instance, there is a so-called gold trumpet rule, which is relevant to this bill, I believe. The ancient Chinese saying has it that the ruling party, ruler, or emperor, etc.—you name it—while exercising some sympathy, or democracy in modern language, asked those who wished to present opposing or dissenting views to blow their gold trumpet. But the problem was that the ruling party had made the gold trumpet available only to its supporters, so whenever the ruling party asked the opposition to give their dissenting views or opposing views by blowing their gold trumpet, there was total silence.
Applying that rule to this bill, the ruling party is obviously National, and those who do get hold of the gold trumpet are probably John Banks and Peter Dunne. The Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, has refused to abolish the coat-tail clauses and refused to stop deals being stitched up over cups of tea. I guess the only opinions or views she would have sought would be those from John Banks and Peter Dunne. For all others—the Opposition parties, the general public, the independent Electoral Commission—their views are simply ignored. ACT as a party gained only 3.65 percent of the vote in 2008 but won five seats on the back of the victory in Epsom, and Mr John Banks won the seat again but only with the help of a cup of tea. That was the single-biggest concern people have about the MMP system.
This bill seeks to introduce some small yet mostly sensible changes to the Electoral Act, but the bigger issue is what is not in this bill, and that is the much-needed changes to our MMP electoral system. Before the last election John Key did say that if people voted to keep MMP, the system would be reviewed by the independent Electoral Commission. New Zealanders did vote to keep the MMP system, it was reviewed by the independent Electoral Commission, recommendations have been presented to us and to the general public, and those recommendations include abolishing the coat-tails clause and reducing the party vote threshold to 4 percent. But the justice Minister, Judith Collins, has refused to introduce these amendments to MMP in time for this year’s general election. As my colleague Mr Lees-Galloway explained in his earlier contributions, Judith Collins did say that such kinds of changes would require cross-party consensus, and she did try to seek cross-party consensus but stopped. So, applying the gold trumpet rule, there was silence.
New Zealanders need to have confidence in the integrity of the electoral system, and Labour believes that these changes need to be made in time for this year’s general election. People are sick of deals being stitched up over cups of tea. That moment between John Key and John Banks in Epsom hurt Kiwis’ confidence in MMP, and it is time to restore that trust. Labour has already had a bill drawn to amend MMP, abolishing the coat-tails clause and reducing the party vote threshold to 4 percent, as explained by my colleague Mr Lees-Galloway in his earlier contributions. It is very important for the Government to keep faith with the people and to follow through on the democratic choices that they have made, because the people made the choice, they voted to keep the MMP system, the system was reviewed by the independent Electoral Commission, and recommendations have been presented to us, to the general public, but this Government has refused to restore that confidence.
JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora. I arise and feel privileged as a new member of Parliament to be speaking on this Electoral Amendment Bill. New Zealand is fortunate that its electoral system has a very high level of integrity. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins, for this piece of legislation. To the chair and the members of the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee I thank them for the common-sense, professional approach they have taken to this piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second time
Ayes 113
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.
Noes 7
New Zealand First 7.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3)
Second Reading
Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move, That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. This bill continues the Government’s focus on providing proper governance and oversight of the student loan scheme. Part of that means ensuring that borrowers are aware of their obligations to repay their tax-funded loans, and that they honour those obligations. I am pleased to say that most borrowers do accept their responsibilities and that they should have no concerns about the principal measure proposed in this bill.
This measure is targeted exclusively at a relatively small number of overseas-based borrowers who, in spite of the Inland Revenue Department’s best efforts to encourage their compliance, persistently ignore their responsibilities when it is clear they have the ability to repay their loan. This bill proposes to give the Inland Revenue Department greater powers to deal with these individuals, including allowing the department to request an arrest warrant when the borrower attempts to leave the country after visiting New Zealand. This action would be taken only when dealing with the most serious cases of non-compliance, when all other efforts by the Inland Revenue Department to persuade the borrower to make repayments have failed, and only when borrowers can clearly afford to make those repayments. This is the principal proposal in the bill.
The second major proposal will bring overseas-based borrowers’ repayment obligations more into line with their New Zealand - based counterparts. Under the current rules, an overseas-based borrower’s repayment obligation is based on their loan balance. For New Zealand - based borrowers however, their repayment levels are based on their level of income. This means the repayment obligation for an overseas-based borrower decreases as the person’s loan balance falls, while a New Zealand - based borrower’s repayment increases as their personal income rises.
In the interests of greater fairness, the bill proposes a fixed repayment obligation for overseas-based borrowers based on their loan balance. Overseas borrowers with loan balances over $45,000 will also have their repayment rates increased. This will speed up loan repayments for these borrowers and reduce the amount of interest they will ultimately have to pay on their loans.
In bringing the bill to its second reading, I want to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its consideration of the bill, and, in particular, the chair, Paul Goldsmith. I also welcome the committee’s recommendations to further improve the transparency of the offence and arrest provisions, so it is absolutely clear what types of orders a District Court could impose upon a borrower. These might include, for example, ordering the borrower to pay the amount in default or to enter into an arrangement to do so, as well as providing information about their contact details, assets, income, and employment status.
The committee has also recommended the alignment of the definition of “income” for student loan repayment purposes with that used for Working for Families tax credits. This is a very sensible efficiency measure that will align the definition with other legislation. The result will be fairer. It will result in a fairer, more cohesive, and efficient student loan scheme for all those involved. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to oppose this bill, the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3). I do so with some regret. It is the Labour Party’s firm conviction that those who borrow money from the taxpayer for the purposes of bettering themselves, their families, and their communities ought to repay those loans. That is something that we have supported. We have certainly supported bills in this House that are designed to achieve that end.
However, this particular bill introduces some particularly punitive measures, and we see that it is likely to cause some very unfortunate outcomes. The police have given a clear indication that they do not have the resources necessary to implement them. This “arrest at the border” provision, which sits at the heart of the bill, is a populist gimmick, and the National Party knows that. This is posturing. This is election-year posturing in its authoritarian form, and as Labour Party members we are unable to support it.
The bill stands in stark contrast to the relaxed position taken opposite, in response to multinational tax avoidance. We know very well that the likes of Facebook and Google are paying minimal tax in New Zealand. They are paying, in many cases, less tax than individual members in this House, and yet the Government has no problem with that. It is not going after them. Instead, it is sitting on its hands and chasing young students, who do not actually have, in many cases, the resources to fight back.
This is a Government that is obsessed with chasing the little guy. This is a Government that is obsessed with beating up small business; with tilting the playing field so that big business, which does not pay tax, can get ahead; and with destroying small business—destroying small business. I do not know why the National Party hates small business so much. Maybe it has lost touch with its roots. Maybe it has lost touch with the fact that small business makes up the bulk of businesses in this country that contribute to our GDP, to the growth in our economy, and to the provision of jobs. Maybe the Government is so out of touch and arrogant that it does not think it needs the votes of ordinary small-business folk.
The Government is now so much in the pocket of big business that it is running its lines. It is interested only in protecting the interests of big business. And, actually, I am keen to communicate to those members opposite that even the big-business folk whom I have heard from do not like that. They want others to have the opportunity they have had to grow in New Zealand and to export their products. They do not want a country where there are fewer and fewer and fewer successful businesses. That is the environment that this Government is creating, and here we have another example.
I want to take a moment to pause and think about the interest-free student loan scheme that we are here discussing amendments to. This is a scheme that was one of the great achievements of the Clark Labour Government. Removing punitive and unsustainable interest charges from student loans defanged what had become an increasingly impractical and generationally unfair system for funding tertiary students. This was one of the great achievements of the Clark Labour Government.
I am very proud to represent an electorate that has more students than any other in New Zealand. I am proud to represent Dunedin North, where students benefit from this interest-free student loan scheme that makes possible learning that otherwise would not be possible for many of those students. It is a great scheme, and I do have to note for the record how much National opposed it. It was not happy with the interest-free student loan scheme. It did not want it introduced, but now it is forced to, through, I do not know, maybe the change of principle that sat alongside decisions never to go with New Zealand First. That now means that circumstances have changed. Those kinds of flexible principles that John Key espouses—
Tracey Martin: You might need us. Be careful.
Dr DAVID CLARK: The member there is making clear that she has a view on these things. But it is very clear that the Government opposite is very flexible in terms of the statements it makes. It will say one thing stridently one year and change its position on that, and the student loan bill is no different. It was howling at the moon when the scheme was introduced, and now National members support the student loan scheme, albeit through gritted teeth. They consistently look for ways to get around that ruling. We have seen the $40 charge they introduced to all borrowers to make sure that administration costs are covered. They do not like interest-free loans. They hate them.
Mike Sabin: What do businesses think of your Facebook ban?
Dr DAVID CLARK: I hear the member Mike Sabin, opposite, yelling out. He hates student loans. He hates interest-free student loans as much as the rest of them.
Tracey Martin: He hates them.
Dr DAVID CLARK: They hate students, I am hearing—they hate students. Well, perhaps that is true. Certainly those who would be at university only under the student loan scheme—
Mike Sabin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member just made an allegation that I said I hated student loans—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. The member will sit. That is not a point of order.
Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. They are upset at having the fact pointed out that they objected to student loans when they were introduced. They did not like interest-free student loans. They still do not like them, and they certainly do not like having that pointed out. I hope that the students at home watching this exchange in Parliament remember how much National members do not like the student loan interest-free provision; how much the National Government would dearly like to reintroduce more charges on student loans, including the charges it has already introduced—the $40 annual charge that was introduced by the National Government!
We know that this is one of the best schemes around. We know that it supports the young people in my electorate, and it makes tertiary education more accessible. We also know that access to allowances has been cut by this Government. It has been responsible for—
Andrew Little: Oh, no!
Dr DAVID CLARK: That is right, Mr Little; it has been responsible for restricting access to student allowances. The Government is constantly against the wider population getting educated. It thinks that only those who have deep, deep pockets should access education, and we on this side of the House do not think that is fair. We think that everybody should have the opportunity to get ahead. We think that we really need this interest-free student loan scheme to continue, but we also think it needs to be fair. We think it needs to be well supported by the Government, but fair. Those who owe the debt ought to pay it back but it should not be ridiculed by having punitive measures, like this Government is introducing in the legislation, that are likely to seize a few unfortunate students who are arrested at the border. They probably cannot meet their obligations currently but have come home, say, for a family funeral, and find themselves arrested at the border because they cannot meet their commitments.
We have certainly had an indication from the Inland Revenue Department that it will not be able to pursue all of the people who might fall into this category. It is likely to try to make an example out of a few. The measure will not generate money. We have asked for figures. The Government does not know how much money this policy might generate. It really is posturing. It is a distasteful gimmick, and it is this National Government doing some dog-whistle politics because it cannot get rid of the interest-free student loan scheme. It is too popular. It is too good a policy. It allows too many people access to education, and people would notice. So this arrogant, out-of-touch National Government is looking at all the petty changes it can make to try to send that dog whistle to its core vote.
Well, the times they are a-changing—the times they are a-changing. We certainly heard plenty of submissions in that select committee, which I will concede was well chaired by Mr Goldsmith, whom I have always supported in the Finance and Expenditure Committee chair role. I am looking forward to his contribution in due course, though he does sometimes adopt some punitive attitudes himself in terms of these pieces of legislation. He will, I am sure, talk about what a privilege it is to access these things, and make very clear that the support for the student loan scheme has many conditions attached and is begrudgingly given. But we will look forward to hearing from his own mouth what he has to say, when he has the opportunity.
What I want to say is that Labour supports practical, real solutions to improve the collection of student loans, not focus group, gimmick-based policies that do not address the real issue.
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is my pleasure to speak on this bill, the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3). It grieves me a little bit to say—following such kind comments from the previous speaker, David Clark, about the work of collaboration that the Finance and Expenditure Committee did on this bill and the way that we generally work together well in a collegial fashion—that Labour is clearly on the side of the defaulters and on the side of the shirkers when it comes to student loans. Labour is on the side of the people who want to take the money and run. Surely, if you look at the figures, we have over 100,000 overseas-based borrowers in the scheme; a significant number—61,000 of them—are not meeting their repayment obligations, and the Labour Party seems to think that is no problem. There are 61,000 people overseas who have not bothered to start paying any payments back on the student loans. They have left the country, taken the money, and run, and Labour thinks that is no problem. So that is not a serious policy and it is not a serious policy from a party that is not serious about this issue.
National is making the student loan scheme sustainable into the future, it is reducing the need for more Government borrowing, and it is providing students for the jobs of the future. Our interest-free student loan scheme is one of the most generous in the world. We have only to look at the papers that were delivered for the select committee, which show that OECD countries, on average, spend about 20 percent of their public budgets for tertiary education on financial aid for students. New Zealand spends more than double this proportion—43 percent—and is second only to the UK in the support that it gives to students. The quid pro quo for that is that we expect students to actually pay it back, once they have received their student loans. It represents a major financial commitment by the Government and taxpayers to support people in tertiary education.
We want to do that because we know that it is important that New Zealand increases its level of skills. We do live in a highly competitive global environment. It is not written in stone that New Zealand will continue to be wealthy in the future. You have only to look at the Programme for International Student Assessment results and the great challenge that has been put forward, particularly in our neighbourhood, by China and other countries. That offers great opportunities for New Zealand to trade and to do well, but it also reminds us that we have to actually keep on working hard and lifting our game here in New Zealand. A good quality tertiary education is part and parcel of that, and the student loan scheme supports that. So all of New Zealand has a stake in good tertiary education, but loan borrowers need to keep their end of the deal and repay any money promptly that they borrowed, particularly when they go overseas. This legislation is part of an ongoing effort over a number of years by the National Government to make sure that people actually start repaying their loans.
So, as has been indicated, the key thing that we are talking about is introducing the ability to retain people at the border—request an arrest warrant for overseas-based borrowers who persistently default. It is a small group of people, but it will send a clear and powerful message that those who consistently fail to meet their obligations will be held to account.
Grant Robertson: No.
PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Opposition members say no. Well, what do they suggest? Do you just keep on saying “Well, please pay.” and do nothing about it? At some point we have to actually put a line in the sand and say “If you don’t pay, you can’t just keep on continuing to have the privileges of a New Zealander going freely in and out of this country, if you don’t make even the slightest attempt.” We are not suggesting that you have to pay the whole loan right on the dot at that moment, but all you need to do is enter into a conversation with the Inland Revenue Department to start repaying that loan and start making some progress. That is very important.
The one change from the Finance and Expenditure Committee that I just wanted to alert Parliament to was that originally the bill set out that the courts could make any other order the courts saw fit in relation to the arrested student loan borrower. The committee thought that that was too wide in scope and that there was a lack of clarity around that. As a result, the bill is slightly tighter there and refers to the court, within such a period that it specifies, being able to ask for further information. So the committee tightened up that little area and I thought that made the bill more powerful. On that basis I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): As we speak in this debate on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3), there is a person in a country in Europe who is following the debate, and that is a New Zealander who had been enrolled for a postgraduate course of study at a New Zealand university, who was offered a job overseas and took up that job but continued to study for their postgraduate qualification in a New Zealand university while overseas. They had some disagreement with the Inland Revenue Department about whether or not their loan would attract interest when they were overseas, and they have been in some dispute with the Inland Revenue Department for several years now, as they try to resolve that matter. That person wants to come back to New Zealand at the end of March to attend the wedding of a family member. Right now—
Dr Cam Calder: Then start paying the loan back.
GRANT ROBERTSON: —they will not be able to do that. And Dr Calder says “Pay the loan.” Well, that is the point, Dr Calder. The negotiations between this person and the Inland Revenue Department have broken down. The Inland Revenue Department, although it is empowered under law to be able to negotiate, does not always do so, and that actually came out in the select committee process.
So what are we saying in this House today? Are we saying that we want people to pay their loans back, that we will sit down and have a constructive conversation with somebody about what they are able to pay back?
Dr Cam Calder: We are—we are.
GRANT ROBERTSON: No we are not, Dr Calder. What the Government is proposing today is a gimmicky, punitive measure that actually will not see those loans repaid. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee we could have had a discussion about a range of options for ensuring that money is actually paid back.
What about a greater role for third parties? There are a lot of parents who would be prepared to step in, with a negotiated settlement, and make a payment. What about basing payments more fairly? At the moment, under the provisions of this bill, it is a blanket approach to payments when you are overseas. It does not bear any relationship to what you actually earn when you are overseas. It is simply a blanket arrangement. There were submitters who came to the committee and asked to relook at that. They asked whether there was the capacity in this system to make arrangements based on someone’s earnings. People will be much more likely, in my view, to make those payments if they feel that they are fair and if they can meet them from what they are earning overseas. But the Government was not prepared to look at that option.
Paul Goldsmith challenged us to say what the other options were. Well, the other options are: greater use of third-party—parents—repayment, greater use of negotiation by the Inland Revenue Department for sensible sums of money, and a repayment scheme that is based on actual earnings. It is within the wherewithal of the Government to investigate those options. But, instead, what the Government has done is come to this House with what is effectively a gimmick—a distasteful gimmick. It has the effect of scaring off people like the student whom I talked about at the start, who now does not know whether they can come back for their family wedding because they are still in dispute and still in discussion with the Inland Revenue Department and have a large outstanding loan balance. This aspect of the bill is nothing more than a gimmick.
The New Zealand Police has said that it does not have the resources to enforce this. It is not actually going to be able to do what is required here. We know that the Inland Revenue Department wants to make an example of some people. What kind of policy making is that? Is this about getting the money back? Is this about making sure that there is some return to the taxpayer? Is it about a political gimmick and a political sideshow? I venture to suggest that it is the latter, because we have not seen a proposal from the Government to start moving in on this around tax evasion, have we? You know, we have billions of dollars of tax evasion every year from the mates of the National Party but we do not see a bill coming in about that. No—we see a bill that is a political gimmick. It again says to this Parliament that this National Government has absolutely no commitment to expanding the range of people who are in tertiary education. That is the really sad thing.
When Paul Goldsmith spoke he talked about some of the great things that the National Government had done in the areas of tertiary education and student loans. Well, I am sorry to say that the reality is the opposite of that. Throughout the term of the last two National Governments we have seen a tax on the student loan scheme. We have seen reductions in the number of people who can access it. If you are over 55 years of age, you can no longer access the living cost component of the student loan scheme because of what this National Government has done. You can get only 3 years’ worth of student allowance at any time of your life. If you are over 40 years of age and you would like to come and retrain—you might have been laid off—but you have had 3 years of student allowance when you were 21 years old, then that is it, from National’s point of view. You are on the scrap heap if you are in that position, from National’s point of view. If you are 65, you cannot get access to the loan scheme.
Tracey Martin: If you’re a woman coming back after children.
GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. As Tracey Martin says, if you are a woman coming back, re-entering her career after raising children, that is a no go if you are over 40, under the National Government. This comes from a National Government that hated the interest-free student loan scheme. John Key told this House that he was going to oppose the interest-free student loan scheme with every bone in his body. But Steven Joyce and John Key worked out that they could not do that. They could not turn over interest-free student loans. They hate the fact that they are stuck with this scheme, so little by little they unpick eligibility for student loans.
On this side of the House we want to see more people in tertiary education. We think tertiary education is a public good. We think that the more people who go to university, to polytechs, to wānanga, who involve themselves in apprenticeships and industry training, the better it is for New Zealand. Instead, we have a Government that is committed to restricting the range of people who can get into tertiary education, to limiting them.
Simon O’Connor: Rubbish!
GRANT ROBERTSON: Simon O’Connor says: “Rubbish!”. Postgraduate students—do we want more postgraduates? Do we want more people, Mr O’Connor, who are going to contribute to our economy, who are going to actually create the jobs for other New Zealanders? We want them to come from all backgrounds. But this Government says: “No, we are cutting the allowances for postgraduate students.” It wants only the elite to be able to get into postgraduate study. I want as many New Zealanders who have the ability to do postgraduate study to carry on doing it.
This Government has got no commitment to access to tertiary education. This Government has got no commitment to quality tertiary education. All it has got is a gimmicky policy, designed to make the Government look good so that Paul Goldsmith can come down here and talk about defaulters. Most of these so-called defaulters are actually young New Zealanders who have gone overseas and who are trying to make something of themselves over there. I would love them to come back. This bill is not going to help with that. I would love them to pay their loans back. This bill is not going to help with that either. If there was a meaningful attempt from the National Government to actually get more repayments, then it would have looked at a wide range of options. Instead it proposed only a gimmick. The arrest at the border provision is a ridiculous provision. It is punitive. It will not achieve what National claims it will achieve.
I also want to speak about one other aspect of the bill, and that is the question of overseas-based borrower repayment rules. What we heard at the select committee was that it would be too difficult for New Zealand to be able to base repayments on an estimate of income. Well, I fail to see that that is actually true. To begin with, borrowers themselves are capable of making an estimate of their own income. We have a lot of high-trust situations within the repayment model. Why not develop that further? Why not start developing it with countries where we do have taxation agreements, where we could actually begin a basis for doing this? There is a lack of imagination on behalf of the National Government because, frankly, it is not actually trying to solve the problem.
On this side of the House we understand that where there is a student loan scheme and people do borrow from it, there is an obligation to repay. We accept that. We also accept that when someone goes overseas, they will pay interest. That was part of the interest-free student loan scheme. What we do not accept is that the way to make that scheme work is to put in place a silly, punitive gimmick that National thinks might make it look good. We cannot, on the Labour Party side of this House, support this bill.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I think what the hundreds of thousands of students in New Zealand and overseas are hearing is that this side of the House is going to take them seriously. This side of the House is going to be providing solutions for the $13 billion student loan debt. This side of the House is going to support students because educated Kiwis are our future. But what those hundreds of thousands of students are also hearing is that this Government on that side is more focused on those punitive gimmicks that we know are not going to work and that are all going to be counter-productive. That is where National’s focus is.
What we have seen in 5 years of National is universities consistently sliding down the international rankings. What have seen is this Government making tertiary education less accessible, less affordable, and, in some cases, downright impossible as it shuts the doors to new students. It is not just the over-55s; it is the capped enrolments. It is the IT sector, for example, which is crying out for new graduates, but this Government says no—
David Bennett: You would know about that now, wouldn’t you?
GARETH HUGHES: —it is going to cap your places in computer science. What this Government does is go “We’re increasing all science places.” Tell that to the IT sector, Mr Bennett, when people can study astronomy or wine science but they cannot get a place in computer science despite the industry calling out for them. Students and the tertiary sector know that National is no good—sliding down the rankings and making study less affordable, less accessible, and, in some cases, downright impossible.
A lot of bills we see, particularly in the tax space or the tertiary education space, are kind of curate’s eggs. There are some good parts and some bad stuff, and you weigh up the pros and the cons of the legislation. This bill, the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3), is an egregious, punitive bill. It is a bad bill. Plainly and simply, it is a gimmick, it is all about political spin, it is a waste of time, it is going to be counter-productive, and it ignores the solutions. I am not trying to exaggerate, but this is a bad bill that is not going to have the desired consequences.
Remember back to Budget 2013. It was a forgettable Budget, I will give it that, but remember all the way back to Budget 2013, when one of the headlines was that this Government was going to get tough on student loan defaulters. This bill is simply serving a political purpose for Steven Joyce to try to look tough on students. It is easy to beat up on students with student loans, particularly overseas students. It is easy for this Government to pick a victim and do a bit of bullying and beating for its own political objectives, but now we are seeing the consequences, because those political bullying tactics have to be ushered through this Chamber through legislation, as we are seeing today.
What we heard in the Finance and Expenditure Committee was a chorus of opposition to this bill because it is just not going to work. People know it is just going to be a gimmick. Let us look: we are talking about 3.2 percent of the $13 billion student loan budget currently being held overseas. What we are seeing is a complete waste of police time. This is what I and many of the submitters are particularly opposed to. We do not want to see the New Zealand police force act as, quite simply, debt collectors. We heard that not just from the New Zealand University Students’ Association but also from Treasury. It was Treasury that noted: “This proposal may have the appearance of the Police acting as debt collection agencies for Inland Revenue.” That is the heart of this bill. Quite simply, all the Inland Revenue Department has to do is request an arrest warrant from the police to get defaulters arrested at the airport. It is a bad look for the police, who do not want to be looked at as debt collection agents; they want to be protecting us—the security of our borders and the security of our people. They do not want to be running around our airports trying to find student loan defaulters. It is not going to work. It is going to be a waste of time. This is what we heard in the select committee.
What we heard in the regulatory impact assessment was that the impact of this policy on the compliance of overseas-based borrowers is uncertain, and the faster recovery of loans from compliant borrowers under this proposal was not expected to generate any savings in the short term. There is no evidence it is going to work. In fact, there is countering evidence that it will not work. What we know is that New Zealanders are going to feel uncertain about returning home to New Zealand. They are going to try to avoid it. What we are entirely going to see is a perverse incentive. New Zealanders are just not going to feel comfortable coming home. In fact, I had my best mate, who lives in Manly in Sydney, emailing me on Facebook saying: “Has that law come through? Because I am really worried about what is going to happen.” I am sure thousands of New Zealanders are having this experience where they are feeling uncertain and—
Hon Members: Pay it back.
GARETH HUGHES: No, no, he is a New Zealander with a loan who is repaying his debt, as I understand it, but what your punitive approach has said is that all New Zealanders, no matter what their situation or what they are doing with their loan, do not feel comfortable, because your objective is simply to scare those overseas borrowers for your own political gain. So Kiwis overseas with loans are concerned. They are worried about what is going to happen when they return. What we may just see is more people avoid repaying their loans, avoid going to the Inland Revenue Department to try to renegotiate, or simply stop paying off their loans.
What we also know is that the way the loans and repayments are being calculated is inequitable, and that is exactly what the officials have advised us. They say that this bill “creates an inequity whereby two loan borrowers with the same loan balances may have different repayment obligations …”. I believe it is a serious issue, given the scale of the total amount of overseas loans, but what we need to do is approach smartly. This—where you simply just pick a number and that is the repayment—is the exact opposite of taking a smart approach. It should be based on the person’s earnable income overseas. I asked the officials why our Government has not been in discussions with, in particular, the Australian and UK Governments, given we know that is where the bulk of these loan holders are based. Why have we not had discussions with those Governments with whom we have very friendly relations and tax agreements in effect right now? Why are we not talking to them, where those people could either calculate their earnings in those countries so we could have a fair and progressive loan repayment rate back to the Inland Revenue Department—or, in fact, why are we not even starting discussions so that those loan holders could pay off their loans through other jurisdictions’ pay away or other tax systems that they have? What I heard was that they said: “We don’t think it is ever going to happen. It’s too hard, so we’ve not bothered.” What we need is some political leadership on smart solutions, which are not these sort of broad-brush—I hate to say the word “dumb”, but it seems incredibly dumb to just pick a figure and say that that is what everyone has to pay. It creates this inequitable solution.
I want to also touch on the increase of the loan repayment threshold to $45,000. Again, what the officials have pointed out in the regulatory impact statement is that there is a risk that some previously compliant borrowers with balances greater than the $45,000 will simply stop repaying their loans. So you have this chorus of opposition, not just from the public and the student bodies but also in terms of logic and common sense from the officials. When they look at this, they know it is just simply a political gimmick. It is not going to work.
What we need to do is be focusing on solutions to reduce that $13 billion millstone around students in New Zealand and on the world map. What we need to focus on is tax agreements with those other Governments, as I talked about. We need to have a more open and flexible approach for overseas loan holders to renegotiate their loan and repayment obligation to the Inland Revenue Department. I understand that it is easier for companies in tax avoidance and arrears to be able to renegotiate a loan than it is for a student loan holder. We need to provide these graduates with more flexibility. We even need to do simple things like make it easier for those overseas loan holders to be able to communicate with the Inland Revenue Department, either online or over the phone. For example, many Government departments run 0800 numbers so that people who maybe cannot afford the phone call are able to communicate with their Government. Likewise, we could also investigate ways that maybe accessing an Inland Revenue Department website from overseas could actually be charged back to the Inland Revenue Department, similar to a 0800 number.
What we need to do is focus on incentives, on carrots, not just this punitive, stick-based, political headline - grabbing approach. So what we need is those carrots, not those sticks, and this is what we are going to see as those student loans of $13 billion reduce. We need a new approach to tertiary education that puts students front and centre, and that listens to them, addresses their problems, and reduces their challenges. Ultimately, a New Zealand that is prosperous, a richer New Zealand, depends on educated Kiwis thriving. What we are seeing is the student loan scheme, across its history, have an incredibly perverse outcome on New Zealanders—on New Zealand families and particularly New Zealand women. It is high time, years and years after this loan scheme was started, that we actually start addressing it smartly and we actually focus on solutions—on carrots, not just sticks. That is what you will see on this side of the House this election—a real choice for students and a real choice for those 500,000 people with student loans in New Zealand.
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) at its second reading. Let me just say from the outset that this is about making sure that student loans, which are amongst the most generous in the world, are going to be sustainable into the future. This Government is absolutely focused on that. They need to be sustainable, and that means that people need to see their obligations through and pay off their debts. It is absolutely not a gift; it is a loan.
The Opposition members rabbit on. You know, there is much more flannel than fact. They talk about people who want to come back for weddings. They talk about offering carrots not sticks. What we are talking about is people taking personal responsibility for their obligations. What this loan scheme is all about is actually trying to make sure that the overseas borrowers, who are in fact the people who are at fault here, really step up to the plate. It is time and there are mechanisms within this bill. It was a robust process through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We have debated it already in this House, and it now comes up as something that needs to be examined more closely.
Let us look at what needs to happen. People from 2010 onwards have been encouraged by this Government to repay their loans—$90 million has been repaid. We have tried a variety of measures. We have tried to encourage. We have tried to give them every form of encouragement, actually, and now we are stepping it up. Let me say, actually, from pretty much the outset of my call, that I would really like to congratulate the majority of borrowers—like Simon O’Connor, like many other students, like many of us on this side of the House and probably on the Opposition benches, as well—who have actually repaid their student loans, because that is exactly what we need to do. I commend them for that. For those of you who have paid your loans back, it is an issue of fairness. Why should others who default, go overseas, and do not bother to meet their obligations get away with it? They need to step up to the plate, and that is something that we really need to encourage.
Nobody wants to arrest people at borders, but let us look at the facts. Basically, this bill is consistent with the Child Support Act 1991. There is a precedent there. A warrant can be issued if the court is satisfied that a liable parent will leave New Zealand with intent to avoid their child support obligations. That is the same wording that we use in relation to student loans. It is about obligations. When we look at that precedent, we are saying, reluctantly, that if there are persistent defaulters who live overseas and who are not paying, then we must look very carefully at that. It would be a last resort, but we need to use these kinds of measures because when we look at the numbers, when we look at the facts, there are over 100,000 overseas-based borrowers. A very significant number of those—61,000—are just not meeting their repayment obligations.
This is simply not acceptable, so this measure needs to be put into place. We need to ring their parents. You know, we need to put some pressure on from the whānau and the families. In fact, some of the people who came to the select committee hearing talked about this, and people we have talked to on a number of occasions around this have all said the same thing—that, in fact, when the mother or father or the relations ring up, funnily enough, the children do get a sense of shame, and they get on with it and repay the loan.
Hon Members: Shame!
MAGGIE BARRY: Well, shame they are not meeting their obligations. Not meeting their obligations and having a sense of entitlement are things that the brayers and naysayers on the other side of the House are very, very expert in, particularly those who are trying to heckle at the moment. Labour members do not really care if the loans do not get repaid. There is a lot of political mileage being made out of this and it is all stuff and nonsense.
We are taking measures that may not be popular with your friend who wants to come back for a wedding, Mr Robertson, but that is just too bad. That individual should actually step up to the plate and make a point of trying to pay back their loan. If people are getting into difficulty with paying it back, then they should get in touch with the Inland Revenue Department, they should say that their circumstances have changed, and they should try to make an arrangement, because it is not fair on all those people who have paid off their student loans over the years that these people continue to get away with it.
I support the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) unreservedly and commend it to the House. Thank you.
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to oppose this bill, the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3), on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First is of the view that such measures as arresting your own citizens at the border are Dickensian and entirely disproportionate to the nature of the offence. It is somewhat poetic that we use that word “Dickensian”, as it is a documented fact that Charles Dickens was forced at 12 years old to leave school and to take up factory work after his father was thrown in a debtors’ prison in 1824. It seems fantastical that we are reinforcing the concept of debtors being arrested and brought before the courts 190 years later, and it somehow seems worse that this is the considered punishment for a debt that was incurred to gain education.
We also believe that measures in this bill must be viewed in a wider context. Finance company directors virtually stole billions of dollars in recent years and ruined the lives of many people, yet in many cases they avoided prosecution or serious penalty. The student loan scheme has already had many unintended adverse consequences, and this bill will create more. We urge the Government to reconsider the excessive measures proposed in this bill. New Zealand First believes that other measures must be explored to create real incentives for repayment.
The real solution to student debt issues is ensuring that there are decent-paying jobs for students to go to after they graduate, so that they can repay their loans without having to go to Australia or anywhere else. In New Zealand First’s view, making a group of young New Zealanders outcasts from their country is not a solution to the problem of outstanding student debt. We believe that new section 162B, inserted by clause 8, which allows the District Court to issue an arrest warrant if it is satisfied that a person who had committed this offence was about to leave New Zealand, is placing an ambulance—or, actually, in reality, a police car—at the bottom of the cliff. It would make far more sense to New Zealand First that as that passport holder, that citizen, comes back into New Zealand, an Inland Revenue Department officer is placed inside the international airport and therefore makes contact with that person on their way into this country and collects the information that is required.
Why would one stop a person on their way out of the country when there is then no opportunity for them to either produce a third party or spend time with the paperwork, etc., etc., and expect them to have $30,000 or $40,000 shoved in their back pocket? If you want to make contact with these people and you have the process of crossmatching information, find these citizens on their way into the country and have the conversation there. Do not wait for them to be on their way out of the country. It seems ridiculous to us.
The report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee says: “Under these sections as amended, a court could order the borrower to pay the amount in default, to enter an arrangement to do so, or to provide information to the court. We would envisage the court requesting such information as the borrower’s contact details, or information about their assets, income, or employment status.” Again, we say that it seems much more sensible to us to actually seek that information as the citizen is entering the country, rather than to wait until they are on their way out.
We also note that it says in the report: “We also recommend inserting new section 162B(7) to make it clear that a court would be required to direct the return of any travel documents or tickets once it discharged an order not to leave New Zealand.” It seems nonsensical to us—just completely impractical. If you have somebody at the airport about to board a plane and you stop them, there is no point giving them their tickets back after the plane has left. Is there any compensation to the individual if they are stopped at the border, their plane has left, they have $2,000 worth of tickets, and they have now come to an arrangement? What plane do they get on? Is the Government going to compensate? Again, if you talk to the citizen on their way into the country, then arrangements can be made and that situation is avoided.
I want to take up the point of the somewhat rosy view of the Inland Revenue Department. My husband had a student loan. My husband cleared his student loan when he went to work. However, the recording of that payment was not processed appropriately. So some time later, after years of receiving a zero balance statement, we received a statement for so many thousand dollars and had to go through the process of proving through our bank records that we had paid that amount. What would happen if, say, my husband was arrested at the border but had already paid that account? How long would it take for him to prove it? Does he have to go to court to prove it? Does he have to have all his bank account records on him if there has been an error made?
If there has been an error made by the Inland Revenue Department, what is the compensation available if it is mistaken? How is that citizen, who has now been pulled out of a line-up and arrested at the border, recompensed by their Government if it is an error from the Inland Revenue Department? Let us just put some practicality around this.
I think the other thing that we want to point out too is a little point that nobody has mentioned yet. It is on page 4 of the report, and it says: “We also recommend altering the definition of ‘adjusted net income’ for student loan repayment purposes to reflect provisions in the Taxation (Livestock Valuation, Assets Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Act 2013 requiring employees who receive certain non-cash benefits from their employer, such as a motor vehicle, to include them in their income calculations.”
I have just had a quick look. I think this has been included in the bill because, once again, we have this biased view that everybody who has a student loan is somehow a doctor or a lawyer or some highfalutin individual who has a mega-income and gets all these add-ons on the side. I had a look at, for example, a biosecurity officer. There is a need to get a student loan in order to actually be qualified enough to become a biosecurity officer. A biosecurity officer in the first 3 years of employment can get between $35,000 and $45,000 in salary a year, and often they get a vehicle that goes with that because they have to travel around to look for Argentine ants on Kawau Island or whatever.
What we are saying now, with that amendment, is that the car is going to be included inside the concept of their salary, which means that the amount they are supposed to repay can take them into a higher threshold. It has not been mentioned before and I think it is something that needs to be looked at. I am not quite sure whether the true practicalities of that measure have been thought all the way through to when it actually hits the ground.
I want to refer now to Treasury’s notes. I am trying to find where the Government actually got this from and where it thinks it has got support from. I can imagine that it has support from only a very few of its own constituents who somehow believe what the Government tells us, that this will work, and that these people are bludgers. The Treasury notes say: “this proposal may have the appearance of the Police acting as debt collection agents for Inland Revenue”, which would be completely inappropriate. The police have another role. We already have difficulty with the way they are viewed by many in our society. We do not want to chip away any more at the way they are viewed.
The commentary on the bill states: “It has been additionally noted by officials that they do not expect the threat of an arrest warrant to be a particularly effective incentive. Inland Revenue’s new allowance to identify those for whom they believe an arrest warrant needs to be applied has been defined as punitive and unprincipled by the Legislation Advisory Committee.” So you have got Treasury, you have got the police, and you have got the Legislation Advisory Committee. You also have the regulatory impact statement saying: “This creates an inequity whereby two loan borrowers with the same loan balances may have different repayment obligations.”, and “The impact of this policy on the compliance of overseas-based borrowers is uncertain.”, and “Officials have also stated that they do not expect the faster recovery of loans.”
There is not a single official, in these documents¸ who truly stands behind this decision. There is another reason for this. It is not about collecting debt, it is not about the practicalities of how this will work, and it is not about helping New Zealand citizens. But it is possibly about putting in place the ability to arrest your citizen at the border, with debt, so that later on that statute sits there and can be used for another purpose.
Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I rise to take a short call on the second reading of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill is simply about making the student loan scheme sustainable into the future. It is simply about students taking personal responsibility for repaying their loans and their obligations. Doing nothing in relation to the outstanding debts, which are significant, is not fair to the good students who pay back their obligations; nor is it fair to the taxpayers who have advanced the money in the first place. We would not need this bill if all students met their obligations to the taxpayer. Regrettably, they do not. Regrettably, we need the bill. This bill is a fair bill, and I support its passage through the House.
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am very pleased to take a call on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3). Hot on the heels of Budget 2012 and the fantastic plan from the National Government to tax paper boys, Budget 2013 delivered us the “arrest the students at the borders” measure. This is simply a gimmick that is not going to achieve what the bill purports to set out as its purpose. We have heard the tired old rhetoric of the National members opposite, who tell us that this is about making the student loan scheme sustainable into the future, it is about people taking personal responsibility, and it is about fairness. This is simply not true. This is a piece of legislation that is not going to do anything to achieve the aims that it sets out to do. It is a gimmick for the National Government to try to look tough to their constituents.
The interest-free student loan scheme was one of the great achievements of the Clark-led Labour Government. It removed the punitive and unsustainable interest charges from student loans, which became increasingly impractical and generationally unfair in terms of how we funded tertiary education. The braying from the members opposite underlines exactly what this piece of legislation is about. This is about a Government that knows electorally that it cannot unpick a piece of legislation wholesale that it does not like. In fact, in this debate we have heard the member for Tāmaki, Mr Simon O’Connor, calling across the House—
Grant Robertson: Who?
Dr MEGAN WOODS: —the member for Tāmaki, Mr O’Connor—that the interest-free student loan scheme that Labour instituted when last in Government was nothing but a gimmick. This cuts to the heart of what this legislation is about. This is about a Government so desperate to cling to power that it will not do what it really wants to do, and that is to do away with the interest-free student loan scheme. The Government does not like the fact that actually it is the opposite to the elitist view of education in the tertiary sector that it holds, which allows greater access for people to go to university and to enter into tertiary education.
The Government does not like this, so what we have seen over National’s last 5 years in Government instead is that it has chipped away at the scheme. We have the ridiculous measures in the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) that we are currently debating. We have had the restriction of the student loan scheme in relation to the number of New Zealanders who can access this scheme. This exposes one of the fundamental differences between the Labour Party side of the House and the Government opposite. On this side of the House we in the Labour Party believe that tertiary education is an investment in our country’s future. Tertiary education is the way in which we will transform our economy. Having an educated workforce is something that we want to open up and something we encourage. We do not see tertiary education as a cost to be cut. That is how members opposite view tertiary education. The legislation that we have before us is yet another example of how the Government views tertiary education.
We have had other speakers in this debate stand up and tell us about how they think this gimmick, these punitive measures, is going to bring in the additional revenue. It is going to make the scheme fair and it is going to make it sustainable, because we will get—to use those words—“those shirking students overseas to pay what they owe”. We in the Labour Party do not disagree with the principle that those people who have borrowed money under the student loan scheme should pay it back. We disagree with the Government, however, in that when we are going to introduce measures to increase payments under the student loan scheme, we say they should actually work. As we have heard from the member who spoke before me, Tracey Martin, official after official has told this Government that the measures contained in this legislation will not work. Treasury has told the Government that it is not going to work. The police have told the Government that it is nigh on impossible for them to arrest students at the borders. It is simply not going to work. Then the Government has had advice from the Legislation Advisory Committee that this legislation is not going to work. The Government is not interested in looking at measures and at real, practical solutions that will increase, and have been shown to increase, the collection of student loans, and are not focused on gimmick policies.
If we have a look at 2008 and at what the Labour-led Government did then, we see that an amnesty was introduced for student loan borrowers who had fallen behind on their payments. In the short period of time that that amnesty was open, 13,000 borrowers signed up with the Inland Revenue Department and entered into a payment agreement with the Government. This is the kind of measure that we on this side of the House want to see. We want to see solutions that work and solutions that actually do allow the shirkers, as the Government calls them, to start repaying their loans and not be kept out of their own country. We do not see these people as shirkers. We see them as young New Zealanders whom we want to actually encourage to make a contribution to this country. We do not want to exclude them from New Zealand and set in stone the fact that they are never going to come back here. They are not going to share the fruits of their education. They are not going to share the fruits of the valuable experiences that they have experienced overseas.
We have heard the nasty, arrogant, and out of touch reaction to the very personal stories that members of this House have told about people who have contacted them, and who have tried to enter into negotiations with the Inland Revenue Department, where those talks have broken down and now those people cannot re-enter New Zealand despite trying to enter into repayment agreements. The reactions from the other side of the House show that this is a Government that is more interested in demonising young New Zealanders than in finding real solutions for how we can address this issue. How is it that we can get more people paying back the student loan money that they owe?
If we have a look at some of the other measures that this bill has in it—in terms of those who are young New Zealanders living overseas—it increases repayment rates for overseas borrowers. It makes absolutely no allowance for the amount of income earned. So if you are earning £150,000, you will be paying back the same amount as someone who earns £25,000, if your loan balance is over NZ$50,000. This is not the kind of progressive way that we in New Zealand are used to addressing debt. This is not the progressive way in which the student loan scheme has been set up.
This legislation is so very National. There is no evidence that it will increase compliance. We have not heard one speaker from the Government get up and tell us how it is going to increase compliance. Instead we have heard tired old rhetoric about a sustainable student loan scheme. We know that the Government does not like the interest-free student loan scheme, so for Government members to stand up and tell us that this legislation is in the interests of protecting a scheme—about which they cannot control themselves and heckle about how bad it is—is just absolute bunkum. It makes absolutely no sense. We know that that is not what those members are trying to do. It is not going to work. It is not going to achieve its aim, and it is yet more evidence of a Government that is not interested in connecting the dots of what we can achieve as a nation if we truly do invest in our education system, if we see education as something more than a cost to be cut, and if we see the kind of country we can be, with more people in tertiary education, and where we do not have policies in place that explicitly seek to exclude New Zealanders from undertaking tertiary education. It is with pleasure that I have finished this speech by setting out why it is that Labour will not be supporting this legislation.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): This afternoon we have heard the socialist Labour elite and their true beliefs. They believe that education is only for a small group of people who can then go overseas and do not have to pay it back. What about the hard-working New Zealanders who pay for people to go through that education? Should they not see that money repaid? How about the young men and women who are out there in apprenticeships and working on the farms and in the factories? They pay their taxes for somebody else to get the benefit, go overseas, and swan around. That is the Labour socialist elite that has always been part of that party. It is part of this current Labour party as well. It is communism coming home to roost. They do not even want democracy in this country. They will do everything to get rid of democracy in this country.
New Zealand First members are in the middle. They do not know what is happening. They have not got the brown bag from Kim Dotcom to tell them how to vote today but they will get it tomorrow—
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is extremely out of order in this House to suggest that any member of this House is any way the subject of bribery or corruption in the way in which the member has just done about the New Zealand First Party. It is extremely out of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I am going to uphold that. I did not hear the exact context in which the member did it, but the member who raises the point of order is correct. All members are honourable members, and members should desist from any inferences that would suggest that that is not the case.
Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this the same point of order?
Tracey Martin: I am offended. I am deeply offended by what Mr Bennett just suggested.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.
DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw and apologise. But the elite of socialism are shown here today. How many more students are there in New Zealand universities now than when Labour was in power? There are more. The Labour Party comes in here today and says that we have cut down the number of students and that we do not want people to get an education. That is wrong. That is not true. It is not true. I ask the Labour Party to come up with the figures. Table the figures today showing that more people got education under the Labour Government than under this Government. That is not true and Labour cannot do it. It believes in letting somebody go overseas, take advantage of the New Zealand education system, and not have to repay their loan. That is patently wrong. Something that all New Zealanders want to see is fairness and equity in our system. We want New Zealanders to get an education, but we want New Zealanders to repay their debts to this country and repay them fairly. This is a good bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call—5 minutes; Chris Hipkins.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): It is a bit rich to be lectured by the National Government on elitism when it comes to tertiary education. This is a Government that seems to think that the only people who should have access to tertiary education are the people who have parents who can afford to pay for it. The Government continues to put more and more financial hurdles in the way of people participating in tertiary education, while it continues to erode the financial support that has previously been available.
This is a Government that seems to think that tertiary education should be the preserve of the wealthy and the wealthy alone, and I think that is disgraceful. We know that because we had Simon O’Connor over there before, talking about the interest-free student loan scheme and calling it irresponsible. Does that not remind everybody in the House of when John Key came down to the House not that long ago—it does not seem like that long ago—and railed against interest-free student loans, and said that he was going to fight them with every bone in his body? Well, perhaps he is some kind of reptilian overlord after all, because interest-free student loans are technically still here. But, of course, what the Government is doing is slowly, progressively dismantling them—little bit by little bit. First the Government has introduced an administration charge, which is effectively a form of interest every year, which students have to pay, and it is on the basis that it costs that much money to administer the student loan scheme. And yet the Inland Revenue Department does not apply that under any other policy—only for students; only under student loans do we have this administration charge. Then we have a whole lot of other punitive measures, introduced by the National Government, to increase the cost to students of their tertiary education and to gradually, slowly erode the value of interest-free student loans, because we know that Government members are opposed to them.
The Government will not front up to New Zealanders before the election and admit it but the reality is that if National gets a third term, interest-free student loans will be history. The National Party never wanted there to be interest-free student loans. Simon O’Connor still believes that it is irresponsible to have interest-free student loans. It is very clear that if New Zealanders have the misfortune of having a third-term National Government, interest-free student loans will be gone.
The other thing that this bill does is that it hangs a very big sign over New Zealand, for expat New Zealanders, saying: “Don’t come home. Don’t come back. If you’ve got a tertiary education, you’ve borrowed for that, and you’ve gone overseas, don’t come back.” That is the message that this National Government is sending to those New Zealanders who have gone overseas. Actually, we should be making it as easy as possible for New Zealanders overseas to come back, and the prospect that they are going to be handcuffed at the border certainly will not do anything to bring them back.
I do believe that people should repay their student loans, but I believe that the responsibility of the Government is to make it as easy as possible for them to do that. What we have seen is this Government keep making it harder and harder. It keeps making it harder for graduates to keep on top of their student loan debt, particularly those graduates who are living overseas. Actually, one of the progressive things that this Government should be looking at is how we make it easier for people who are overseas to work out how much they should be paying back, making it easier for them to actually keep on top of their repayments, so that this problem does not arise in the first place. But no, no, the National Government is not interested in that at all. It is more interested in a punitive measure—
Grant Robertson: A gimmick.
CHRIS HIPKINS: A gimmick that basically says to people living overseas: “Don’t bother coming back to New Zealand. We don’t want you back.”
Well, actually, here in the Labour Party we are not that arrogant. We do want people who live overseas and who are New Zealand graduates to come back to this country and to contribute to the New Zealand economy. We want to make it as easy as possible for people who are overseas to come back, because of course we know that they have been leaving in droves under this National Government. Remember how John Key stood in the stadium and talked about the Westpac Stadium - load of New Zealanders who were leaving to go to Australia every year? Well, they would not fit in the Westpac Stadium—
Grant Robertson: He’d have to do it at Eden Park now.
CHRIS HIPKINS: He would have to do the ad at Eden Park these days, because under this National Government the exodus to Australia and to other countries around the world has gotten even bigger. There are more and more New Zealanders leaving every year and we should be saying to them that we want them to come home. We value the contribution that expat New Zealanders could make to New Zealand if they came home.
That is not what members of this National Government are focused on. They are interested in election-year stunts. They are interested in appearing to be tough on people who are not paying back their loans. Actually, what they should be doing is making it easier for students to pay their loans back in the first place. They should be making it easier for people to participate in tertiary education in the first place. They should not be focused, as they are, on making sure that tertiary education is the preserve of the wealthy elite. That is very much what this Government is doing, and I do not think that is right.
DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to have the opportunity to take a brief call on this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3), because, essentially, this bill seeks to make better a scheme that is fundamentally flawed. It seeks to meddle, in a failed attempt, to improve a scheme that at its heart is a failure. This scheme is the wrong model. The loan scheme is not the way to assure that we have a well-educated community and that people have access to tertiary education. We need to fundamentally rethink how we fund tertiary education. Meddling around the margins, trying to criminalise people for failing to meet their debt obligations, is not a great leap forward. It lacks vision, it lacks humanity, and the Greens clearly will oppose it.
We heard from the member for North Shore, Maggie Barry—and the people of North Shore, I am sure, do not deserve such a member—that the scheme needs to be sustainable. This fundamentally is not sustainable. Any definition of sustainability will involve social benefit, economic well-being, and good environmental outcomes, and this scheme and this amendment to it would fail on all three of those measures. This scheme has created a massive debt burden. It has very high transaction costs: $13 billion of debt sits on the Government books as an asset. If you think that through, this asset owned by the Government reflects the burden placed predominantly on our young people, compromising their ability to begin their careers, to start their families, to build households, and to purchase homes. Older people also are severely punished, in a sense, financially by entering into tertiary education under this model.
The Greens understand, as New Zealanders did for a very long time, that there is a reciprocal relationship between free tertiary education—or close-to-free education—and social obligations. At one time we did have very close-to-free access to tertiary education, and there are many people still in this House who benefited from that. Out of that came a sense of social obligation. People who enjoyed the privilege of an education predominantly funded by the taxpayer understood that that brought with it a level of obligation back to the community. I think that was respected for a very long time, and we need to move back to something that recognises the more appropriate balance between private good and public good wrapped up in tertiary education.
This Government has proven that it is no friend of the tertiary sector. There have been constant cuts demanding that the sector do more with less. Most recently there has been an attack on the governance model of our tertiary education institutions, which will do no good and potentially a great deal of harm. This Government sees education simply as a commercial arrangement: a commodity is produced called education and consumers purchase it. That is obviously the wrong understanding of what education is about, and it underpins this Government’s flawed policies around tertiary education and much else besides.
The contribution from the New Zealand First member, Tracey Martin, actually rang some bells with me when she quite rightly pointed out that bureaucratic errors will certainly result in people being arrested at the border, imposing who knows what cost on them. I did have a student loan—a relatively small loan. I studied as a mature student. I came out of that, and at the completion of my degree I was fortunate to go into quite well-paid employment. What I remember vividly are the statements that one got regularly about the state of one’s student loan. They were works of fiction. They were incomprehensible. I have a reasonably strong background in and can read financial documents. I gave up trying to understand them. On one memorable occasion, I received on one day two envelopes, each with a statement purporting to be the state of my student loan. Those two figure sets had no relationship to each other. There will be people who fall foul of this and who suffer serious costs because of bureaucratic mistakes alone. That is unacceptable, and who will bear the cost of that? I do wonder at that.
Do we really want our police force, which is working hard to change the culture of policing, to genuinely go out and prevent crime, and to make our community safe—do we want those officers reduced to the status of debt collectors for the Inland Revenue Department? Is that what New Zealanders want their police force to be doing? I suspect that is not the case at all. These are civil issues. These are civil matters. We are going to criminalise people who otherwise would not be criminalised. It is time we put this to rest. It is time for an intelligent and informed debate about funding tertiary education. This is doomed to fail. Thank you.
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am proud to be a member of the National Party and the National caucus, which are putting so much investment and commitment into education. Whether it is trade training, whether it is Youth Guarantee, or whether it is apprenticeships for Māori and Pacific students, there is a whole suite of work that this Government is doing to lift education achievement across the board. Part of that is making sure that our spending is responsible and that those who have the opportunities of education actually play their part and fulfil their responsibility, which is, as you would expect, to pay that debt back.
When I am in the streets of Tokoroa or Taupō and I am speaking with a teacher, a bricklayer, or a doctor, I want to be able to say to them very confidently that this Government is minding their money and their tax, and is making sure it is spent effectively and efficiently. Those who are responsible for debts to the Government should be responsible for paying them back. So anyone who takes out a student loan should do so knowingly, with an expectation that it is repaid and is repaid in the most efficient way that it can be, whether they are studying here in New Zealand, working in New Zealand, or working overseas. It is what hard-working New Zealanders expect when they pay tax every week out of their pay packets. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 58
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 12 February.
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise in support of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. This bill is sponsored by the Hon Maurice Williamson, the Minister for Building and Construction, whom we heard from recently. He made it very clear that the purpose of the bill is to introduce a nationally consistent system for managing earthquake-prone buildings that strikes a balance between what he said was protecting people from harm in an earthquake and managing the cost of strengthening or removing buildings.
We all understand that it would be great to have perfect buildings—gold-plating and everything structurally sound so that it is 100 times more than what is required—but of course costs do come into play. So what National is ensuring is that earthquake-prone buildings are dealt with in a timely manner by way of a nationally consistent system, and not before time. This needs to strike a balance between protecting people from harm and managing the costs, as I said.
We are also ensuring that information about earthquake-prone buildings is made available to the public. That is particularly important as the public have become increasingly conscious of this due to the Christchurch earthquakes and much of the earth movement that we have seen in Wellington and other parts of the country in recent years. They do now ask the question about the earthquake resistance of buildings, and they want the information.
The amendments proposed in this bill require territorial authorities to undertake a seismic capacity assessment of existing non-residential buildings and multi-storey and multi-unit residential buildings in their district within 5 years of commencement. In some parts of the country, of course, this has happened. In many parts of the country, in fact, it is an ongoing process, because they are particularly earthquake-prone. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Wellington City Council, for example, which is well on top of its understanding of what it means to be earthquake-prone in this city and what is required to meet that challenge.
The amendments also provide for a register of information on the seismic capacity of buildings to be held by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and they clarify the current threshold for defining an earthquake-prone building, including stating that it applies to parts of buildings as well as the whole building.
On that note, I would like to state clearly, as the Minister has, what an earthquake-prone building is. In this bill, as is said in new subpart 6A, “A building is earthquake-prone … if, having regard to its condition and to the ground on which it is built, and because of its construction, (a) the building will have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in regulations); and (b) if the building were to collapse in a moderate earthquake, the collapse would be likely to cause (i) injury or death to persons in the building or to persons on any other property; or (ii) damage to any other property.” So if those two benchmarks, if you like, are breached, then that is what is considered to be an earthquake-prone building. Once that is identified, of course, the bill goes on to lead councils on how they should deal with it.
So I support this bill, because it does clarify the current threshold for defining an earthquake-prone building. It clarifies the level of work required for earthquake-prone buildings so the building, or that part of the building that is earthquake-prone, is no longer earthquake-prone. Essentially, that is what is required to be done. In some buildings it might take considerable work to reach that standard; in others it might just be minor alterations. In any case I am sure engineers will have their say and be held to account for the decisions that they make.
The bill requires work on existing earthquake-prone buildings to be undertaken within a single national time frame, which is within 20 years of the legislation taking effect, i.e., there is to be an assessment by territorial authorities within 5 years and work completed within 15 years of assessment. So once the bill takes effect, within 5 years councils will have to notify owners, make sure they are clear, and clarify what is required from owners of earthquake-prone buildings, and that the work is to be completed within 15 years.
It is going to provide for work on priority buildings, to be defined in the regulations, and for exemption from requirements to undertake work for certain buildings. So the bill is wide ranging. It deals with issues that have not been dealt with in the past. I am pleased this is happening along with the other changes in the Building Act that the Minister has brought forward in recent years. I congratulate him on it and I look forward to the debate in the House and improvements in the select committee.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I just acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Phil Heatley, and say that I agreed with probably everything he said, which is a rare occurrence. Thank goodness it is the end of the parliamentary week; we cannot have too much of that sort of stuff going on! I also want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Phil Heatley did in this space in his previous role as Minister of Housing. I have worked with the Hon Phil Heatley on a number of issues, one of which I just want to alert him to, and that is that the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill needs improvement at the Local Government and Environment Committee. Because of issues I have worked with him on in the past, I think he will agree with me that if there is any potential for this bill to move access issues backwards—i.e. making sure that every one of our citizens can get in and out of a building and around it—we should not support it. There is a risk that it might do that, so I will come back to that in a few minutes.
I just want to say that as a Canterbury member of Parliament, I understand absolutely the need for us to have more rigour around the safety of our buildings and have more understanding of the potential for risk to other property or, even worse still, of course, to people’s health and well-being, and, indeed, to their lives. I understand the need to make sure that where we have damage, as we do substantially in Canterbury, we are able to proceed, and that our rules do not hold us back and they enable us to proceed in a timely way so that we can do repairs or we can do rebuilding. That is a big driver behind this legislation.
Of course, we all want to make sure that our standards are robust. I have been watching with interest the progress that Christchurch City Council has made on its understanding of safety in earthquake issues. When we had the new provisions that a building had to be X percent of the building code, the way that it was interpreted by the engineers working for Christchurch City Council at that time was really on a tick-box basis rather than on a sensible application to say that if part of a building is below the code, but other parts of it are up to or above the percentage of code required, what the structural nature is of the part of the building that is below the code. If it is not a structural consideration, then there are no safety issues at all.
That is the point that the Christchurch City Council has got to now, under what I think is outstanding leadership from their mayor, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, a former colleague of ours here. She has been through the regulatory process because she has been a member of Parliament for so long. I think she is using her understanding of making sure that safety is, of course, of prime consideration and also making sure that rules are not applied in a tick-box way—that they are applied in a way that ensures that safety but also allows for a pragmatic move forward. So I was delighted to hear the announcements that came out of the Christchurch City Council in the last couple of days.
I want to move on to the point that I raised at the beginning of my contribution. There is considerable concern amongst people who are experts in access issues that there is a danger in this legislation that with the balancing that is often required between public safety, costs, heritage issues, and the wider interests of our community, the requirement for buildings to be accessible will be lost. I know that the original discussion document that was put out by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment actually pretty well said that. It just said that some requirements to ensure access under the current legislation are quite expensive, so we should scrap it. For me, the cost of excluding some people from having access to a building is far too high for a civilised society to bear. We should say that every one of our citizens should be entitled to get in and out of public buildings. Of course, when you are repairing a building or replacing it, then I think that access should just be a given. It should not be a cost-cutting opportunity.
Vivian Naylor, who is one of the leaders in access issues in New Zealand, works for CCS Disability Action as an adviser. She has raised concerns in the Manukau Courier recently about the legislation. She says that the buildings are going to be with us a long time, and that it does not make sense to make them anything other than accessible. She also points out that ensuring accessibility is not necessarily a cost. If you get smart people on the job, it actually can be affordable, and, of course, that is what we would want, as well. She also says in the same article that this legislation is “frustrating in the extreme. We start to think we’re making progress and then we’re slipping back again.” I do not think for one minute that that is the intention of the legislation. I think more highly of the Minister and I certainly do not think there is anyone in Cabinet or, indeed, on the Government backbenches who would be interested in denying people access. But we have to have rigour throughout the process to ensure that the unintended consequence, which is clearly a possibility, does not come to fruition.
The president of Auckland Grey Power, Anne-Marie Coury, said that accessibility is also a major consideration for people in older generations. Again, she was raising these concerns about the potential for this bill to deny people access to buildings. The chief executive of Be. Accessible, who is Minnie Baragwanath, said: “New Zealand has the chance to be a country that actually thrives with an ageing population because we’ve designed a world that works for everyone, not an inaccessible one.” I want her words and the words of Vivian Naylor and Auckland Grey Power president Anne-Marie Coury to be carried through to the select committee. I urge every member of the select committee who receives this bill to reflect on those words—and I am sure they will be put formally in submissions—and ensure that whatever change is needed to this legislation is made after good robust debate at the select committee and that this bill comes back to the House after the select committee process with the potential of that inaccessibility totally removed. It cannot be left to chance, because it would be an indictment on this Parliament if we made that mistake.
As I said earlier, I am from Canterbury and we have been waiting a long time for repairs and rebuilds to take place in our city. It is really just starting only now. It is another tragedy, really, that the opportunity has been lost for the Government to provide some leadership to make sure that the Earthquake Commission was operating properly, that the insurance companies were operating properly, and that everyone used whatever skills, passion, and talent they had to work together for the recovery of our city and our region. Waimakariri and Selwyn were hit much harder earlier, but they got on with the job and you can see significant gains for their populations, even with the huge disruptions that they have had.
I think that a major barrier has occurred with the invention of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. I think that the authority has ridden roughshod over a number of other Government departments and agencies. It has certainly ridden roughshod over our Christchurch City Council. Instead of being the enabler and the coordinator, the authority has actually driven away a lot of people with its attitude. The recent red zoning in Christchurch has been an utter disgrace. People who have been living safely in their homes since the 22 February quake, or who have had their homes repaired or rebuilt, got a phone call just a little while before Christmas. Out of the blue, they were told that their home was red zoned. Many of them had no idea that that news was coming to them. How would any member of this House feel in that circumstance if you were just living safely in your home and you had no idea that there was a potential for your house to be rezoned? There is no risk to those houses. The people have been living safely in them since 22 February in many instances. People have spent a lot of money having them repaired or rebuilt. For them to suddenly be told that their house is red zoned and that they are going to get an offer from the Government to buy them out at the 2007 rateable value—this is 7 years on from that value being struck on their house—is just a disgrace.
I am not surprised that people in our city are turning away from supporting National in droves. They have been treated with disdain by an arrogant Government that has shown that it is out of touch with the real needs of people in our community. I look forward to the debate—
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am very pleased to support the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. Coming from Christchurch just like the previous member, Ruth Dyson, I really understand the importance of this bill. There is no doubt at all that the earthquakes of 22 February 2011 and the death and destruction that accompanied them, followed by 11,000 other earthquakes, have really raised awareness and highlighted the number of earthquake-prone buildings right across the country. We believe that there could be somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000 earthquake-prone buildings right across the country.
We have discussed how you define an earthquake-prone building. Basically, under the Building Act 2004, an earthquake-prone building is one that “will have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake”. In other words, if there is a moderate earthquake, it is likely to collapse causing “injury or death to persons in the building” or around that building. But in practical reality that means that it would be about 34 percent—or we have been using the number of 34 percent—of the current building code. It should be noted that when we talk about the building code and the percentage of the building code that a building has to reach, that does vary depending on the location of that building. It depends on the geography, and it depends on the seismic activity of that geography. This bill ensures that the earthquake-prone buildings can be dealt with in a timely manner and in a nationally consistent way.
The public are now very aware of, and concerned about, dangerous buildings, and they are keen to have readily available information. This bill will establish a register of the seismic capacity of our building stock so that you will be able to know how the buildings you use day after day would react in an earthquake, and the quality of those buildings.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.