Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Australia—Assistant Minister for Health

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Senator the Hon Fiona Nash, Assistant Minister for Health and deputy leader of the Nationals in the Senate from the Parliament of Australia, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2014—Economic Growth and Tax Revenue

1. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Budget next month help to lock in the benefits of sustainable economic growth to support more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget will set out the next steps in the Government’s programme. It will build on the current good economic momentum, where we are seeing positive results such as employment rising across the board, wages on average increasing ahead of the cost of living, and consumer and business confidence at higher levels than for some time. The Budget will also show growing fiscal surpluses starting with a small surplus in 2014-15. Generally, it will reinforce the positive conditions that are encouraging households to pay off debt, businesses to invest, and New Zealanders to take up new jobs.

David Bennett: How is the higher growth outlook for the economy translating into higher wages for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The benefits of a sustainable and growing economy, of course, can be tangible to households. For instance, if you use the average full-time wage, which is the basis of the means of calculating our level of superannuation, over the past 2 years the average full-time wage has increased from $51,700 a year to $54,700 a year, which is an increase of $3,000 in the average wage over the last 2 years. If New Zealand can achieve the growth that Treasury is forecasting, then the average wage will rise to around $62,200 by 2018. That would mean another average wage increase of $7,500. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting for Andrew Little.

David Bennett: What other steps will the Government take in the Budget to help support sustainable economic growth, more jobs, and higher incomes over the next few years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: With the growing economy, some rise in interest rates is inevitable, but if we learn the lesson from the last economic cycle up to 2008, we know that Government going on a spend-up when interest rates are already rising can only make interest rates go even higher, affecting household budgets and reducing the incentives on business to invest in new jobs. So the Budget next month will not be about a big spend-up; it will be about thoughtful, targeted spending, which means that the Reserve Bank will not need to further tighten monetary policy, pushing up interest rates.

David Bennett: Why is it important that interest rates do not return to their elevated levels in 2008, when floating home mortgage rates reached almost 11 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am pleased the member realises it is important, because the Opposition parties clearly do not. Restricting interest rate increases makes a significant contribution to household budgets. Every 1 percentage point movement in mortgage interest rates is worth around $40 a week, or $2,000 a year, for a family with a $200,000 mortgage. This is why the Government is going to be careful with its spending, to help keep mortgage rates at reasonable levels, after a lengthy period at 50-year lows. Imagine the effect on interest rates if we had the same increase in Government spending as the previous Government, around $2.5 billion or $3 billion per Budget. That would push interest rates up sharply.

Hon David Parker: If, as he keeps claiming, things are going so well, where has the $1.1 billion worth of missing tax revenue in the 8 months to February 2014 gone?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first thing to remember is that tax revenue has increased around 5 percent compared with last year, which shows the benefits of a growing economy. We have growing tax revenue. It just has not increased quite as quickly as Treasury forecast that it would. Some of that tax revenue, it believes, is sitting in the tax pooling system and some of it is lower GST, which could be caused by the fact that in Christchurch there are large claims coming through for GST on insurance payouts, and long lags until that money is used to build houses, when the GST would come back.

Housing, Affordable—Government Policies

2. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon David Parker: Why does he have confidence in the Minister of Housing, who now says that New Zealanders will have to wait 20 years for affordable housing under his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think the Minister said that; what the Minister did say is that it is a very long-run process. I note that if one looks at homeownership rates, they have been declining since 1991, actually. What is, of course, a great concern to many New Zealanders is the way that house prices doubled under the previous Labour Government.

Hon David Parker: Why should a young couple in their early 30s, facing an average house price in Auckland nudging $700,000, have to wait 20 years until they are in their 50s and their children have already moved out before they can buy a house?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This may come as a shock to the member but there are many young couples in their 30s who are out there buying houses today. Those lucky couples will almost certainly have jobs under a National-led Government and will be paying interest rates that are a fraction of what this Government inherited when we came in to office. They will also be subject to all of the things that this Government is doing, including housing accords in Auckland, looking at development contributions, and dealing with reform of things like the Resource Management Act. There is no silver bullet to the housing issue, but what we do know is that house prices under this Government have gone up by 23 percent. They doubled under Labour. No amount of being a lion in Opposition will make up for the fact that they were a bunch of little lambs—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think that is going to help the order of the House.

Hon David Parker: Was his decision to abandon yesterday’s challenge to debate housing policy with David Cunliffe on national TV a result of overnight focus groups and polling showing—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the first part of the question; I am struggling to hear the second part and I need to, so I require a little less interjection. Would the member please start his question again.

Hon David Parker: Was the Prime Minister’s decision to abandon yesterday’s challenge to debate housing policy with David Cunliffe on national TV a result of his focus groups and polling overnight showing that New Zealanders know that his housing policy is such a shambles that he is best to leave it to Nick Smith to take the rap?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start-off, I would be happy to debate with David Cunliffe in Parliament if he would like to turn up. That is the first thing. The second thing was I made it quite clear, actually, that we were more than happy to have that debate, which we will be having in the first debate on Television One. And if we want to get into polling, I hate to tell the Labour members but, in our polls, Labour was at 26 percent last week.

Hon David Parker: Who is correct: Bill English, who said that we will not collect data on overseas buyers of New Zealand houses; last week’s Prime Minister, who said that we will not collect data on overseas buyers; or yesterday’s Prime Minister, who said that concerns around overseas buyers are credible and that he might now gather the data?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The point we have been making is the right point, which is that we do not think that foreign purchasers of houses are actually a significant impact on housing prices in Auckland or around New Zealand. What is also true is that there is not actually a lot of credible data out there, but the data we do have certainly indicates that. But, as I have said, it is always a possibility to look at that, but I think it is a very challenging thing to do, because people can buy properties through trusts or through companies or through many other structures. What I do know is that Labor in Australia has introduced what Labour in New Zealand is talking about, and what is interesting is that in Australia there are more foreign purchases taking place than in New Zealand. And, secondly, unaffordability is higher in Australia than it is in New Zealand. It is nine times the average wage to buy a house in Sydney and seven times in Auckland.

Hon David Parker: With the average Auckland house price having increased by $200,000 under his watch, and now nudging $700,000 each, loan-to-value ratios hurting first-home buyers and provincial New Zealanders, and his own admission that after 6 years of his Government Auckland is building only a third of the new houses it needed, is it not time that he admitted that his and Nick Smith’s housing policy is a complete shambles?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let us just run through a few facts. I hate to put them in sway of the member’s argument, but house prices doubled under 9 years of Labour. They have gone up 23 percent on average under this Government in 5½ years. When those homeowners go to buy a house under this Government, they are facing a base rate of 2.75 percent. Under the previous Government, that rate was 8.5 percent. It is this Government that has a special housing accord established with Auckland that will see 13,000 sections consented and homes built over a period of time for the next 3 years—39,000 sections. It is this Government that is looking at the cost of building materials, and it is this Government that is actually looking at development contributions. The member needs to go and ring up Helen Clark, because she spent months and months—in fact, years—working on housing issues, because they were such a big issue under her Government, and it ignored every recommendation that it got. That is why house prices doubled under Labour.

Hon David Parker: Can he confirm that the number of building consents issued nationally in the last 5 years, even with the Canterbury rebuild, is 100,000 down on the previous 5 years?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that data, but what I do have is that in February there were 21,854 consents, more than in any other period of time. Of course, during the global financial crisis there would have been a significant reduction in demand, and with Christchurch there was a reduction in demand. But it is pretty simple. This is the message: under 9 years of Labour, house prices doubled and interest rates went through the roof.

Regional Economies—Development, Investment, and Performance

3. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps is the Government taking to encourage more investment in New Zealand’s regional economies?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Last week I announced that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is establishing a new regional investment attraction programme to encourage more international firms to invest in New Zealand’s regional economies. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is working in partnership with regions around the country to create comprehensive investment profiles, which will allow regions to clearly lay out the advantages they offer investors in terms of their natural resources, their infrastructure, the availability of skilled workers, and innovation hubs that support investment. There are big opportunities for New Zealand from the massive growth in the number of consumers across Asia. The challenge for each of our regions is to showcase the real opportunities for competitive businesses in their regions, and this new programme from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will help them to do it in a more systematic way.

Jonathan Young: What steps has the Government already taken to encourage investment in our regions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government’s Business Growth Agenda contains around 350 initiatives to help encourage growth and investment right across New Zealand. To take just a few examples, there is, of course, our Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and Rural Broadband Initiative to connect people in businesses from areas like Kaitāia, Gisborne, Taupō, and Queenstown with the global market place. There is the $142 million a year in research and development co-funding from Callaghan Innovation for companies across New Zealand. There is big investment in skills—engineering, information and communications technology, and construction trades, for example—to help innovative New Zealand companies obtain their workforce. There are areas like encouraging oil and gas exploration, the expansion of irrigation and water schemes, reforms to improve the productivity of Māori land, and the roads of national significance and regional highways, plus policy and legislative changes to encourage the growth of international education across New Zealand.

Jonathan Young: What recent examples has he seen of strong international investment in the regions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen a number of recent examples. In fact, in the last week—last Thursday—I helped open BOC’s new air separation unit, which is a $70 million investment to supply the oxygen and gases needed for New Zealand Steel for at least another 20 years. This project is a vote of confidence by both New Zealand Steel and BOC in the New Zealand steel industry. On Friday I met with ABB in Napier at its new premises, a specialist research and development facility there. It employs 130 people, including 27 dedicated research and development staff. It is the largest supplier of industrial motors and drives and generators for the wind industry, and is also very big in power grids worldwide. Pan Pac Forest Products, which is a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise customer, last Friday celebrated a $70 million upgrade to its pulp mill in Napier. This investment will be very beneficial to the Hawke’s Bay economy and is another example of a company succeeding—in this case, in the forestry processing industry—without the need for politicians unfairly favouring one industry over others.

Andrew Little: Does the Minister accept that the regions showing a decline in GDP per capita in the most recent statistics are all rural or provincial areas, and that this is because this Government has no plans to help the regions develop their economic bases, generate jobs, and keep Kiwis here?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, and if you look across the regional GDP figures for the last 5 years, which this Government has recently had Statistics New Zealand update, they show that the regions have, in fact, been lifting New Zealand out of the global financial crisis. In the case of Taranaki, which the member likes to mention from time to time, it has the highest GDP per capita in the country.

New Zealand Qualifications Authority—Return of Examination Booklets

4. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: When did she first become aware that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority had posted hundreds of examination booklets to the wrong students?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I received the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s first advice on this issue as part of its routine reporting at the end of January this year. However, it was not until yesterday that I was advised of the specific scope of it. In the context of our 161,000 students having their 1.1 million scripts returned—something that only New Zealand does—there was a mailing error affecting the return of scripts for 455 students. Although it is a regrettable mistake, it is the first time there has been a sorting and mailing problem of this kind, and the chief executive of the authority has apologised and assured me that further quality checks have been put in place.

Chris Hipkins: Did she take any steps, when she first became aware of the problem, to ensure that the relevant schools and students were immediately notified of the error; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As soon as the authority understood there had been a mistake, it got on to it and was fixing it, and over half the mailing errors were fixed very quickly. The remaining 180, I believe, are ones it has been working through. It would not normally contact a school, because the process in New Zealand is that all 161,000 booklets are returned to all students. The minute it became aware of the mistake, it began fixing it.

Chris Hipkins: Why has it taken until today for the authority and her as the Minister responsible to be publicly up front about this error, given that she has known about it since January?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because the focus has been on fixing it.

Chris Hipkins: Is she satisfied that, since discovering that the error had been made, the authority has handled the matter totally appropriately; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, I do not think it has been as quickly handled as it could have been, and the authority has apologised for that. Since this is the first time this has actually happened, it is talking to the particular schools involved. But the way it sees this being resolved in the future is by doing what it did with scholarships last year, which was to make the physical copy available and also to make available on the website, through the student number for students, the digital copies of their results.

Chris Hipkins: Will students whose examination booklets have been lost still be eligible for reconsideration; if so, how will such reconsideration be undertaken?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have been advised by the authority that two recounts were sought by students involved in this group of 455, and that for any other student who might be affected, recounts are available to them by engaging with their school in the provision of other work the student might have completed.

Economy and Environment—Government Policies

5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Dr Russel Norman: Why will he not change his policies to embrace the call by the prestigious science body the Royal Society, which has called for strong Government leadership to create a smart, green economy—one that is low carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is going down the path of making sure that there are quite a number of aspects of the economy that would encourage people to have a more green economy. They include, obviously, the emissions trading scheme. They include the enormous amount that we are spending in terms of science—that is, renewable energy in the areas that we are involved in there. The Government does support that, but some of these initiatives will also have to stand on their own two feet.

Dr Russel Norman: How do the Government’s repeated efforts to erode the emissions trading scheme and remove a price from carbon assist the New Zealand economy to go down a smart, green direction?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The carbon price currently in place, in terms of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme, reflects the international price. But I think that what the member has made quite clear—and I think it is an important point, and, actually, I congratulate him on making it—is that any Labour-Green Government, as much as they are talking to each other, would have a much higher price on carbon and, of course, that would drive up the price for consumers. That is a statement of fact—that under a Labour-Greens Government, you would see higher electricity prices for New Zealanders.

Dr Russel Norman: Has the Prime Minister, then, not read the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found that successful action on climate change would shave just 0.06 percent off expected annual economic growth rates while, in the process, protecting our children from dangerous human-caused climate change?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I have read are a variety of reports that say it makes sense, actually, to do things that will support our ambitions to have an environment that has reducing carbon emissions. That includes energy efficiency, which is why the Government has been involved in the insulation of well over 300,000 homes. That is why the Government wants to have flexibility—for instance, in electricity. I note that the member was on his feet some time ago last year essentially talking about something he does not talk about any more, which is NZ Power. But the effect of NZ Power, of course, is to lock Genesis, and the Huntly power station in particular, into remaining a coal-fired power plant.

Hon David Parker: Rubbish! That’s not right.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Mr Parker, whom he used to talk to a while ago before they had a big bust up, says “Rubbish!”, but, actually, the effect would be to make sure that Huntly never converts from being a coal-fired power plant to being a combined-cycle gas plant. That is terrible for New Zealand’s emissions. That is what bad economic policy spells, and that is why Mr Norman’s policies are wrong for the country.

Dr Russel Norman: If the Government’s climate policies are so successful, why is it that New Zealand’s net emissions have increased 20 percent under the years of this Government so far and are projected to increase by a further 50 percent in the next decade, according to the Ministry for the Environment, based on the current policy settings?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We just simply do not accept the statements made by the member. I think there are a number of measures we can use that show that New Zealand’s emissions per unit of GDP output have dropped and have dropped significantly since 1990. But, in the end, New Zealand is a small part of global emissions. We are anywhere between 0.14 percent—or, certainly, less than 0.2 percent. We have a considerable suite of initiatives we are applying, and I think they are the right settings for New Zealand. That member wants to put more costs on New Zealand consumers. I just hope that in the election campaign he will be honest and upfront with New Zealanders and tell them exactly that, because that is the truth. But if he does not, I will tell them for him.

Dr Russel Norman: You’ll make up all sorts of things. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question, Dr Norman.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Government’s policy to turn its back on green economic opportunities, is he aware that 25 of the world’s—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the question because of the yelling. Can the member start his question again.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the Government’s policy to turn its back on green economic opportunities, is he aware that 25 of the world’s largest banks, including the Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and Morgan Stanley, recently released—in fact, today—the governance framework for a green bond market, which is seeing billions of dollars flow into green economic opportunities around the world; and why does this Government not want to be part of the green global economic revolution?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand is not stopping—and the Government is certainly not stopping—any New Zealanders being involved in bonds or other instruments if they wish to be, but what I can say is that the Government has got a record that shows that on many, many fronts it is tackling climate change. I will make the point, though, that we are a very, very small cog in a global ocean. Unless other countries are prepared to play their part, nothing New Zealand can do in isolation will actually resolve the issues of international greenhouse gas emissions rising.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask you to reflect on the way that question was started and the very, very long, speech-like introduction to it. It is not compliant with the Standing Orders. It is not appropriate for someone to suppose the policies of the Government, just as it has, of course, been pointed out to Government members that we should not be predicting the policies of the Labour Party or, for that matter, the Green Party, although I have got to say that they are very predictable.

Dr Russel Norman: Pretty much every one of the Prime Minister’s answers during this question set has supposed all sorts of things about the Green Party policies. It does not seem unreasonable that we should be allowed to characterise the Government’s anti-green policies. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need further assistance. The question was certainly very, very long. I continue to ask the member to try to curtail the length of his questions. I think, frankly, he will get a better answer if he did so. But the Prime Minister has been relatively political with his answers, and on that basis I allowed the question to go on. I could have ruled it out of order, but the Prime Minister, I felt, may well have given a political flick back, and I certainly would have intervened if he had done so.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with economist Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, who led the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change team, who said that the cheapest and least risky route to dealing with global warming is to abandon dirty fossil fuels in the coming decades?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that would depend on the country. I mean, if you take New Zealand, half of all of our emissions come from agriculture, so the fastest thing we can do in New Zealand in terms of tackling our greenhouse gas emissions profile—or probably the most successful thing, anyway—would be to deal with the issue around agriculture. That is obviously more challenging, which is why we have the greenhouse gas alliance. But I go back to the point I made earlier—it is remarkable that that member was on his feet a few seconds ago essentially asking me whether we should be getting rid of fossil fuels when the power policy that he announced, at the point when he used to get on with the Labour Party, would lock in exactly that position with Huntly.

Dr Russel Norman: What rubbish! [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question, Dr Russel Norman.

Dr Russel Norman: How does his $46 million annual subsidy to the fossil fuel industry help to create new green businesses and reduce greenhouse emissions?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, I reject the proposition. What I say is that New Zealand is looking at, and applying, a range of different initiatives to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gases. I think they are in line with what many other countries are doing. I welcome the fact that the Green Party is today once and for all making it clear to the New Zealand consumers that they will be paying a lot more for power—

Hon Steven Joyce: And energy.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —and energy in general if he ever makes it to Cabinet, which is going to be tricky, because Winston Peters does not want him there and Labour does not want to talk to him. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do we have a supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, it is a point of order—[Interruption] Order! I require silence so I can hear the point of order from the right honourable gentleman.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It will occur to you that the Prime Minister frequently gets outside his depth on a lot of subjects, but when he talks about our intentions he has got no idea, and he should not be wasting Parliament’s time with those answers.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and it would be helpful if both the Prime Minister and the right honourable gentleman did not waste Parliament’s time.

State and Social Housing—Ministry of Social Development’s Role

6. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent changes has the Government made to the social housing sector?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): This week we have had significant reforms that have come into effect that will help New Zealanders access reliable social housing when they need it. As of Monday Work and Income is now assessing a person’s need for social housing, taking over the function from Housing New Zealand. The Government has also allocated $26.6 million to extend the income-related rents to not just those who were in State houses but also to those with community housing providers. This will make a big difference to them.

Louise Upston: Why has Work and Income taken over the housing needs assessment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, it simply made sense to do that. In most cases you are talking about the same people who want income support also being in Housing New Zealand houses. We hold a lot of information about them. It does not make sense that they have to go to two different Government departments to do that. Also, with Work and Income we can look at someone’s employment needs. We can look at their wider social needs as well as their housing needs. So being able to have the person come in once, in a more simplified manner, and being able to look at all of their social needs, makes sense and is better for them.

Louise Upston: Why is the income-related rent subsidy being extended to community housing providers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This would be one of the most significant changes. To date, those income-related rents have never been able to be used for community housing providers. What you see is—a house that we looked at just on Sunday had been charging 80 percent of the market rent and the community housing provider themselves had been paying the other 20 percent. Now that they are able to access the income-related rent, you can see that they can be paying anywhere between 25 percent up to 100 percent. But getting that subsidy from the Government puts more money in the pockets of the individual and their families, more money in the pocket of the community housing provider, and it is better for everyone.

Sue Moroney: Why did she make the elderly and those with disabilities vulnerable to losing their homes by including them in State housing tenancy reviews?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because in some cases it will be, particularly for those who are older, that they may be better suited going into a one-bedroom home, or into a different home. So to simply say that that three-bedroom or four-bedroom home that they have always lived in is suitable to their needs is not right. For some of those with disabilities, there are all sorts of different levels of, and high needs from, disabilities. For some, there will be somewhere that is better suited. I repeat, as I have many times before, that reviewable tenancies are not about simply going in and evicting someone; they are about going in and talking to them about what their needs are, whether there is somewhere that better suits them, and whether or not we can help them into that.

Justice, Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: Does she maintain that it is not in the public interest to answer all questions regarding Oravida?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I have never made that statement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can she give that answer, when it is crystal clear that her pre-arranged meeting with a senior Chinese customs official at the height of the botulism scare was not just dinner with close personal friends but a serious conflict of interest that she and the Prime Minister are trying to cover up?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can make that statement because it is the truth.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if that is the case, why will she not give the name and position of the customs official, when she arranged to meet the customs official at the very time that her husband’s company was having huge issues getting its product through customs and had enlisted her willing intervention?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite wrong in his question. If he goes back and looks at previous questions he has asked of that nature, he will see that I have corrected him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not the case that, when she was told that joining her and her close personal friends at the dinner was a senior customs official, it did not raise alarm bells, because meeting this customs official was the whole reason for the dinner in the first place?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite wrong. I have never said that there was any senior customs official, and he knows it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister now claiming that there is no connection with the senior customs official, and does she not understand that her arranged meeting with that official was a serious conflict of interest and a corrupt abuse of her Cabinet position?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. The member is quite wrong again. He continues to state in his question matters that are incorrect. I would say to that member that if he is worrying about corruption, I think he should consider a member of Parliament who asks questions in this House and written questions to help his girlfriend in her position with a major global company.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister not understand that throwing out those sorts of allegations will not save her when she was moonlighting for her husband’s company, that her DNA is all over this issue, and that if she answers questions fully, she would no longer get the Prime Minister’s defence and would be sacked for corruption?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The only member of this House who should be sacked for corruption is that member who has asked the question.

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

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That Minister is not within the Standing Orders attempting to answer that question that way. She has been asked a serious question on a very serious matter—as serious as this House has ever seen—and she is seeking now to deflect it by attacking the questioner.

Mr SPEAKER: In my opinion, the Minister addressed the question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I hear any more, I just want to clarify that the member is not in any way questioning the decision I have just made.

Grant Robertson: No, it is a different point of order. I am under the impression that in this House a member cannot accuse another member directly of being corrupt, and that is what the Minister just did.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have already ruled that the answer was addressing the question and I think on this occasion, in light of the tone of the question, it adequately addressed it.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Again, before I hear the member, is he raising a fresh point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am raising a fresh point of order. The Minister made an allegation for which she has no evidence whatsoever, and I want an apology.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member is now saying that he took offence, well, on that basis, if the member, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, was offended by that answer, I ask the honourable Minister to stand and withdraw.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I withdraw—is it? I withdraw. But I am happy—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not helpful to do that. The withdrawal does help the order of the House.

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

Mr SPEAKER: If the member is attempting to trifle with the Chair, I will take a very dim view of that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am not trifling with the Chair, Mr Speaker. That Minister did not apologise as required under the Standing Orders—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I did not ask the Minister to apologise; I asked her to withdraw the remark, and she did so.

Broadband—Remote Schools Broadband Initiative

8. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What reports has she received on the progress on the Remote Schools Broadband Initiative?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): The Remote Schools Broadband Initiative was established in mid-2012 to improve broadband services to 57 remote schools that could not economically be included in the Rural Broadband Initiative by using point-to-point wireless technology to provide broadband speeds of at least 10 megabits per second to schools that may have been previously reliant on dial-up or satellite broadband. I am pleased to advise that the first region is now complete, with regional provider Gisborne Net informing us that its rural schools contract for the East Cape is now finished, bringing the total number of schools connected to improved remote broadband services to 39.

Ian McKelvie: What opportunities will having faster broadband provide for these schools?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Faster broadband will enable remote schools to access the best online resources from anywhere in the world and ensure that they can connect to the network for learning, breaking down the barriers imposed by distance and isolation. For example, students can now go on virtual field trips via the web or videoconferencing and share scarce resources such as Māori medium teachers. This is a game-changer for New Zealand schools and will fundamentally improve the way our children learn.

Climate Change Policy—Commentary

9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by his statement in this House on 8 August 2013 that: “We have every reason to be concerned about New Zealand’s reputation, but our action on climate change right now is not amongst those reasons.”?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes, I stand by that statement, which, of course, was made in the context of very legitimate concerns on 8 August 2013 around the whey protein concentrate issue, and where I and many New Zealanders were concerned about New Zealand’s reputation on those grounds until we found out it was a false positive. But I was multitasking. It expressed also my view then, which remains my view today, that New Zealand’s reputation in terms of our contribution to climate change is just fine.

Dr Kennedy Graham: How can he not be concerned about New Zealand’s reputation on climate change when, according to Otago University Associate Professor Bob Lloyd, New Zealand is widely viewed as a “selfish” climate negotiator on the world stage?

Hon TIM GROSER: Because I totally reject the assertion. The reason why I think we are doing our share is as follows. Assuming the Australian Senate does, indeed, repeal the Australian carbon tax, New Zealand will be the only country in the world outside the European Union to have a comprehensive price on carbon. The World Bank mapping report on pricing carbon schemes estimates that a very modest—unfortunately—7 percent of global emissions are covered by pricing schemes. Fortunately, New Zealand is among that and, therefore, we can hold our head high.

Dr Kennedy Graham: So what is his response to a comment this week from leading climate scientist Dr Jim Renwick of Victoria University that political will on climate change is “lacking” in New Zealand?

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, I think political will around the world is lacking on climate change in terms of global mitigation, for the very simple reason that, for example, in the Kyoto Protocol neither the United States nor China, which are responsible for 40 percent of emissions, took any commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Because 100 countries since then have still offered to do absolutely nothing, what we need is a global response, but I think New Zealand is absolutely in the right space on this issue.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Then what is his response to New Zealand’s lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mitigation report, Professor Ralph Sims of Massey University, who said that the Minister’s description of New Zealand’s mitigation opportunities as being limited is “far from correct”?

Hon TIM GROSER: I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman that he stick to his field of expertise, because when we look at the wild statements that that gentleman made, they are palpably wrong on multiple levels. Going around pretending that every country in the world is doing 10 percent, 20 percent, or 30 percent reductions is complete and utter nonsense, so I think that “Stick to the knitting.” would not be a bad piece of advice.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the Minister credibly saying that New Zealanders should believe his multitask position on climate change, rather than that of New Zealand’s leading independent climate scientists, who have this week called his Government “wrong”, “selfish”, and “lacking” in political will?

Hon TIM GROSER: I think that the New Zealand community should listen very carefully to the professor when he is talking about his particular field of scientific expertise, on which I would have nothing to comment, but when he steers across into broader questions of comparability, I suggest that, actually, it would be better to listen to the person who represents the Government and who has access to a wide range of official advice.

Accident Compensation Corporation—ACC167 Form and Operational Policy

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for ACC: On what date did ACC adopt the policy to stop paying compensation to people who refused to provide a signed, unaltered copy of the ACC167 form?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): The policy in respect of stopping paying weekly compensation to clients who refused to provide a signed, unaltered copy of the ACC167 form was first agreed to by the Hon Ruth Dyson in March 2006 in a briefing paper signed by her as Minister for ACC after discussions with officials. I seek leave to table the 2006 briefing paper to Minister Dyson on the ACC policy of declining ACC167 forms—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular briefing. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Iain Lees-Galloway: If that was the case, why were claimants able to provide informed consent on a case by case basis in lieu of signing the ACC167 form prior to 2009, but from 2009 onwards ACC began writing letters to those claimants threatening to cut off their compensation payments?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The question is in relation to the ACC167 form and the policy’s adoption. It was adopted by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I do not have details on any other details he has asked for.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider whether that addressed the supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It did because the Minister said that she did not have that amount of information with her in the House. That is quite acceptable.

Jami-Lee Ross: What did the court find in the recent decision in respect of ACC’s form ACC167?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The court found that the form ACC was asking clients to sign was not illegal but went beyond statutory requirements. Therefore, ACC could not decline entitlements simply because a client declined to sign the consent form. The court upheld ACC’s right to collect relevant medical and other records. I have advised ACC that I expect it to improve the form so that there is no impression given that a person has no options about what information is provided. The form does not explicitly state that only relevant information is required, but it does explicitly refer to the Privacy Act.

Iain Lees-Galloway: When did she become aware that the ACC167 form posed a privacy risk and that by cutting off payments to those who refused to fill it in, ACC may have been acting illegally?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Given that the courts have in the past upheld many disputes relating to the form, on Friday afternoon ACC’s Chief Executive, Scott Pickering, reported to me that two recent decisions of the District Court had overturned ACC’s decision to suspend entitlements as a result of the client’s refusal to sign an unmodified ACC167 form. At that time, I was not alerted to the potential significance of the issue. On Monday I had told the acting chief executive that I believed that ACC should look at the issue more broadly and that it appeared to me as a lawyer that the current form needed fundamental review. I am assured that ACC is revising these forms to address the matters raised by the court and that it is now also including my recommendation to look at the wider implications of the form. I am aware that ACC had three requests under the Official Information Act since 2011 that related to the ACC167 form.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How many claimants were threatened with having their compensation cut off if they did not fill in the ACC167 form?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, given that Ruth Dyson was the Minister in charge when it first started, I cannot give an answer to that.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does she think that it is acceptable for ACC to retain information it had no legal right to collect, and is she concerned that that information will be used in future to deny access to treatment and compensation?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, and no.

Hospitals—Redevelopment Projects

11. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on capital investments in health in Counties-Manukau?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): On Friday Counties Manukau District Health Board opened the new Harley Gray Building in Middlemore Hospital. The building includes 14 new operating theatres, a 38-cot neonatal care unit, and a 42-bed medical assessment unit. Construction was part of the $209 million project at Counties Manukau District Health Board and was supported by $100 million of central government funding as one of the first major building projects that the National-led Government signed off in 2009. Counties Manukau District Health Board now has a facility that matches the high standards of patient care provided by its many dedicated staff.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What other progress has been made on the Government’s capital investments in health?

Hon TONY RYALL: Despite tight financial times, the Government has continued to prioritise new and upgraded health services for New Zealanders. We have invested over $1 billion into capital projects for district health boards over the past 5 years. This includes the $53 million Lakeview extension at North Shore Hospital, the $27 million Greenlane elective surgery centre, and $41 million for Whangarei Hospital redevelopment.

Justice, Minister—Compliance with Cabinet Manual

12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement that “in hindsight” she should have noted her dinner with her husband’s fellow Oravida Ltd directors and a senior Chinese border control official in her report to Cabinet on her Ministerial visit to China in October 2013?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I was expressing an opinion at the time, not making a statement of fact. The answer is no.

Grant Robertson: What was the name and employing department of the Chinese border control official who attended that dinner?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner, and I will not provide that information.

Grant Robertson: What reason did the New Zealand Ambassador to China give her for not attending the dinner?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner.

Grant Robertson: Does she agree with the Cabinet Office that her actions in China with regard to Oravida Ltd, accumulated together, led to a perception of a conflict of interest?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My recollection is that there was a risk of a perception of interest.

Grant Robertson: Did she inform the Cabinet Office of the name and employing department of the Chinese border control official who attended the dinner?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My relationship is with the Prime Minister, not the Cabinet Office itself.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has previously referred to the Cabinet Office view, or her interpretation of it. My colleague asked her whether the Cabinet Office was told of the nature of the border official whom she met with. That is a question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member Grant Robertson just to repeat the question.

Grant Robertson: It was not written down, so I will do my best to recollect it. Did she inform the Cabinet Office of the name and employing department of the senior Chinese border control official who attended the dinner?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand that the Prime Minister, in his office, spoke to the Cabinet Office. I did not.

Grant Robertson: Does she realise that by withholding the name and employing department of the official who was at the dinner while she was on a taxpayer-funded visit to China, she is giving the impression that she went there to work for her husband’s company and behaving in a corrupt manner?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The only person drawing that sort of inference is a person with a mind like that member.

Urgent Debates Declined

Climate Change—Intergovernmental Panel’s Report

Accident Compensation Corporation—ACC167 Form and Operational Policy

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the final Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III Summary for Policymakers report and the implications of this report for New Zealand and the New Zealand Government. Although the release of the report is a recent occurrence, the Government is not responsible for it. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. For there to be a debate today there would need to be an announcement of significant new Government policy. The Minister for Climate Change Issues has indicated that New Zealand is on the right track. It is doing its fair share, making inroads that will gradually restrict emissions, but no new commitments have been signalled at this time by the Minister. On this basis, I cannot see that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today.

I have also received a letter from Iain Lees-Galloway seeking to debate ACC’s policy of cutting off accident claimants’ compensation if they refuse to complete a form that allows widespread information-gathering about them. The court’s decision that the practice is without basis and wrong in law is a case of recent occurrence and there is ministerial responsibility for the policy. ACC has taken on board the court’s ruling and is working to put in place a new consent form. The concerns of affected clients are being worked through. Although the public must have confidence that agencies such as ACC are working within the law, I am not convinced that the matter is one that would justify my setting aside the business of the House today. That application is therefore also declined.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2013/14 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the appropriations and information for the 2014/15 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. These organisations are important bodies that are funded through the public vote but are able to provide independent assurance to all of those who have an interest in the areas in which they are active.

The Office of the Ombudsmen is currently represented by two Ombudsmen: Dame Beverley Wakem and Professor Ron Paterson. They were appointed in 2005 and 2013 respectively, and they continue an office that since 1962 has acted as an independent authority to help the community in its dealings with Government agencies. The Ombudsmen’s department, or operation, handles a range of roles that go toward protecting the public’s rights in monitoring places of contention as well as other activities of a Government.

There will be those who say that there has been such a significant increase in the activities of those offices over the last few years that perhaps there is some pressure on their funding. What I would say is that much of that work comes from Opposition parties asking the Ombudsmen to look into activities of the Government, which of itself is probably a demonstration of failure on their part as an Opposition to use the formal means of Parliament to be able to dig into these things, and I think, perhaps, public support for those parties indicates the degree of futility that might be involved in some of those requests.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, was sworn in as a commissioner in March 2007. She was reappointed for a second term in 2012. That office looks at a range of matters that relate to the environment, quite independently, and reports its findings. I think that over the years the commissioner has shown herself to have a high degree of independence, not always putting herself in a position where public support is readily forthcoming. I would point to the courageous conclusions that she made in respect of 1080 and how it is effective in New Zealand. A lot of people would think that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment might have found a different result. Although there are, at times, decisions that come from the commissioner that challenge everybody, I think it is important that that independence is exercised in the way in which Dr Wright does.

The Auditor-General’s office, the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, is an extremely important body. Currently, the Auditor-General is Lyn Provost. She was appointed in very recent times to that role. The office plays a big role in the assessment—the audit, effectively—of all public accounts. It advises select committees in what they should be asking when it comes to either the estimates inquiries or the appropriations inquiries in front of Ministers, and it is also available for other inquiries where public money is involved. It has in recent years been involved in uncovering some very, very difficult circumstances that have existed, and I can think of the case of the Rodney District Council in particular.

Although the Auditor-General’s office has to come up with conclusions that are not necessarily easy for anyone to deal with, it is appropriate that you have an independent body that is so highly focused, so very tightly focused, on public probity in all of these issues. Each of these votes represents value for money, and I am sure that today, notwithstanding the debate that I now expect to ensue, Parliament will be supportive of this motion.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I can reassure the Leader of the House that we will, of course, be supporting this motion, given the incredibly important work undertaken by the three offices in question: the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. On this side of the House we want to recognise the excellent work of all three of those offices, which play a very important part in our democratic process. Despite what the Leader of the House might think, in actual fact, the use of the Office of the Ombudsmen and increasing use of the Office of the Ombudsmen is, in fact, a sign of a Government in trouble—a sign of a Government that does not want to release information, that wants to cover up information, and that wants to make sure that New Zealanders cannot get resolution to their problems, particularly if you live in Christchurch. My colleagues Clayton Cosgrove and Ruth Dyson will both speak about that in the course of this debate. That is the reason why the Office of the Ombudsmen is getting so much more use.

On this side of the House we will continue to make requests of the Office of the Ombudsmen, because it is this Government that is refusing to release information. It is this Government that is pushing out the release of information so that the public has to fight tooth and nail just to find out what this Government is up to. If this Government actually had even a small proactive strategy in terms of the release of information, it would decrease the number of complaints going to the Ombudsman. There is no doubt the increase in complaints to the Ombudsman is a direct result of this Government’s failure to release information and its desire for Ministers to systematically avoid answering questions, avoid releasing information, and avoid transparency. That is the record of this Government. It is arrogant, it does not want people to know what it is up to, and it is out of touch with the concerns of New Zealanders. The one thing that it can do in the face of the Official Information Act is withhold and avoid. We know the old story from the previous National Government, where Tony Ryall had a big drawer in his office full of Official Information Act requests—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Full of what?

GRANT ROBERTSON: —full of Official Information Act requests—which he would leave in there until someone complained the third, fourth, and the fifth time, and then finally they would get released. That is the approach of this Government. Under this term of the National-led Government we have had Government departments investigated because of their failure to perform their functions under the Official Information Act. There is no respect for that Act within the current Government. Having been a staff member in a previous Government, I know that sometimes Ministers are a bit reluctant about releasing information, but they obey the law, and they obey the spirit of the law. This Government has consistently failed to obey the spirit of the Official Information Act. So at the moment, the Office of the Ombudsmen, in the last year, received about 13,684 complaints. That is a 29 percent increase in the number of complaints.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How much money has she got?

GRANT ROBERTSON: There has been an increase in funding in this Budget, which is why we are voting for this motion. But that comes after years of underfunding from this Government. The Chief Ombudsman has had to go cap in hand, as she had to do to a previous committee, and say: “Please, I cannot meet the requests that are coming into my office. Staff are under extreme stress, and staff are resigning because of the stress.” Finally the Government gets around to increasing a little bit of money. It is welcome, and I am sure it will be welcomed very much in the Office of the Ombudsmen, but it does not make up for the underfunding that has happened over the last 5 years of this National-led Government.

We support the Office of the Ombudsmen in its work. We want it to be able to respond quickly to complaints. It has not been able to under this Government. Finally it gets a little relief out of this particular motion that we are passing in the House today.

I also want to talk about the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I want to put on the record of this House the appreciation of the Labour Party for the work of Dr Jan Wright. She is a true Officer of Parliament. She will make her view known on environmental issues without fear or favour. It does not matter whether it is a Labour Government or a National Government; she will ensure that her role as Parliament’s representative on the environment is upheld. Her office is one that fully deserves the increase in funding that it will receive out of this motion being passed—again, having suffered under a lack of increases in recent years.

What I call on the Government to do is actually listen to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It is all very well to say, as Gerry Brownlee did, that, yes, the Government respects Jan Wright and that there is a funding increase here today. But it is time for the Government to listen. I just want to cover a couple of areas where that is the case. The first of these comes from, in fact, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment yesterday. Although welcoming the intent of the Environmental Reporting Bill, which has been introduced by the Government, she has said that she is very concerned with it and wants significant changes to it. Here are a couple of the areas where she wants changes, which I think the House might want to reflect on. A clause in the Environmental Reporting Bill allows Government Ministers to decide what is and what is not reported upon. So that is the Government not listening to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and not asking whether she is the best person to give it this kind of advice but, instead, deciding itself what indicators it thinks might make it look a bit better. That is not something that we on this side of the House think should go without some kind of challenge.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says: “This undermines the independence that is vital for public trust.” That is the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. She is totally within her rights to say that. It is time for the Government to listen to her and to rethink the Environmental Reporting Bill so that it becomes something that is truly of use to New Zealanders in terms of the protection of the environment.

During the past year the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has made a number of representations around issues to do with water. It is quite clear that her view is that the Government’s response on issues of water allocation and resource allocation generally has not been adequate. She has criticised the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 and she has criticised the lack of action in terms of addressing the run-off of nitrate within the framework that has now been put forward by the Government for the management of water. It is time that this Government takes seriously the issue of allocation of water, and that it looks not just to its mates. For once, it is time that it governs not just in the interests of the few that it knows but in the interests of all New Zealanders when it comes to water. This National-led Government might have decided to give away for free the rights to water to the privatised energy companies, but the overall management of water is one of the biggest issues in the environment in New Zealand, and this Government is ignoring the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment when she says that the Government’s approach has not been adequate.

She has also raised concerns about conservation land, and I want to credit my colleague Ruth Dyson for this issue as well, which she has consistently raised. That concerns the status of so-called stewardship land within our conservation areas. Stewardship land sits, as if in some kind of abyss, in a place where it in fact often has higher conservation value than land that is within the conservation estate, but remains unprotected. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has called upon the Government to clarify the status of stewardship land and to stop leaving it alone. But once again, the Government ignores the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

The final area that I want to address in terms of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is around the Resource Management Act. There was a lot of talk at the weekend that we would see the Government’s reforms to the Resource Management Act back before the House this week. Well, they are not. They are not coming back this week, and that is because the Government cannot get the numbers to pass them. John Banks knows; he is nodding. It cannot get the numbers to pass them. That is why the reforms are not back. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that that is because they are some of the most radical changes ever proposed to the Resource Management Act. That is why John Banks supports them—because they are destroying the Resource Management Act, which is the ACT Party’s policy. So that is consistency from Mr Banks; I will give him that. It is not consistency from the National Party. It actually passed the Resource Management Act, and here it is, gutting it—gutting it, turning it into a developers’ charter, and forgetting about its purpose in terms of managing our natural environment in a sustainable way.

That proposal, the former Resource Management Reform Bill, if it ever makes it back here—if someone in this House turns on their previous position and the Government finds a way of getting it through—will gut and undermine the Resource Management Act and undermine our environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is very, very right to ensure that she continues to advocate on that issue. So, on this side of the House we strongly support the funding for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and her work.

We also strongly support the work of the Office of the Auditor-General. It continues to provide a good service to this Parliament and, indeed, to New Zealand as a whole. Once again, the Government has ignored reports it has made, particularly around the Skycity issue, where some serious allegations were made around the involvement of John Key and other Ministers in that decision—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it didn’t.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, it did, Mr Brownlee. Mr Brownlee is actually the only Minister who comes off all right in that report, so he should probably endorse it. Other Ministers did not come off all right. They interfered in the process. We need a strong Auditor-General to be able to raise those concerns, but what we truly need is a Government that will listen to the advice of these Offices of Parliament. This Government is out of touch and arrogant and has stopped listening. A Labour Government will listen to these Offices of Parliament and will strongly support them, as we will do by voting for this motion today.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call for the Green Party on the alterations to the 2013-14 appropriations and the draft budget for 2014-15 for the three Offices of Parliament: the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the Office of the Auditor-General.

I endorse some of the comments my colleague Grant Robertson made. In relation to the Ombudsman, Mr Robertson pointed out that there had been a 29 percent increase in complaints. But if you look at complaints around the Official Information Act and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, there has been a 92 percent increase in complaints in relation to those pieces of legislation, so the Ombudsman now has the highest ever number of complaints about the failure to release official information in a timely manner—some 2,374 complaints. And, as the Ombudsman noted in its annual report, there has been a significant increase in complaints about delay, because the Government’s strategy to make sure the public does not get timely access to information is just to delay and delay and delay and then, when information is released, to release the minimum. We have seen a very worrying trend too that requests for official information made directly to departments and ministries are routed through the relevant Minister’s office quite routinely, so you get political interference in those decisions about whether to grant access to information. So we need greater resources than this budget is providing for the Office of the Ombudsmen, given the major increase in requests for reviews of decisions not to release information.

We would also like to focus on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. That office was established in 1986 and its role is to investigate environmental issues, processes, and public agencies. It has got a critical role in providing independent advice to Parliament on matters that affect the quality of our environment. Its advice helps improve the quality of decisions about both law and policy. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, has noted, as environmental issues become ever more complex, the work of her office becomes even more complicated because there are no easy answers. We owe her and her office a significant debt of gratitude. She appears often in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee to make submissions on legislation and to brief us on her reports, such as the one on land use and water quality. I would like to repeat the call that we have heard from others and that I made in the appropriations debate earlier this year that the Government open its ears and listen to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and act on her advice.

One of the major recommendations was a submission released yesterday on the Government’s Environmental Reporting Bill. That submission identifies significant flaws in the bill, and one of the most serious flaws is the way in which the bill purports to restrict access to information on which the state of the environment reports are to be based. It overrides the Official Information Act and would fetter the special powers that the Offices of Parliament, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, have, under their legislation, to obtain information. The bill as drafted would fetter the ability of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to hold decision makers to account, so that clause really needs to be changed. It is deeply troubling because of the importance of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Ombudsman, and the Auditor-General in promoting transparency and accountability in our parliamentary democracy.

Another flaw in the legislation that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment identified is the way in which the bill undermines the independence of state of the environment reporting by having Ministers being able to choose the topics on which reporting should occur or not occur. We need the public to have faith in any system of state of the environment reporting. If we have Ministers choosing the topics, we risk the same sort of political interference we had with the last state of the environment report, in 2007, where the Government suppressed the final chapter and it was only the Green Party, through using the Official Information Act, that got that chapter released.

It is very pleasing that this budget provides for a $450,000 increase in the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s budget for the next financial year. That is to provide for its role in reviewing and providing an independent commentary on the state of the environment reports. It will allow it to boost the number of staff in its office by just over four, as well as provide some funding for expert consultants and overheads. That is really important because the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment operates on a really tiny budget of $2.4 million. Our understanding in the Green Party is that the budget will be reviewed in subsequent years to ensure that this increase is actually adequate to cope with the increased responsibilities in analysing the state of the environment reports and providing some commentary on them.

Another issue where the Government needs to listen to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recommendations, given the large amount of research and the independent advice that are in those reports, which are tabled in this House, is on the issue of stewardship land. Stewardship land makes up at least a third of the land that the Department of Conservation manages, and it has got the weakest form of statutory protection, despite it having high ecological, landscape, and, often, recreational values. A very comprehensive report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment highlighted that the original intention when the Department of Conservation was established in 1987 was that the protective status of this land be reviewed, yet successive Governments have failed to do that. That has meant that the land has never been reclassified and given the appropriate protective status that its values merit. The forests of South Westland are stewardship land when they deserve to be a national park. So the Government is losing the opportunity to create quite significant additions to our national parks and to give proper protection to stewardship land. It needs to act with urgency on that report and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

We have seen better progress in relation to her report on long-finned eels, with the panel set up to review the technical information on their threat status, but we need more action because of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s conclusion that the long-finned eel is on a pathway to extinction.

Finally, just commenting on the third of Parliament’s offices, the Office of the Auditor-General, I record our thanks for the major work that the office and Lyn Provost do. There was a very complex and comprehensive investigation and report late last year into the Kaipara District Council and the major failures in governance and decision making in relation to the wastewater scheme for Mangawhai. The report highlighted a lot of lessons for councils in the detail with which it examined that issue. There have been a lot of letters and emails to members from the Mangawhai community in relation to the way the council performed. Reading through that report is a good lesson for a lot of local authorities.

We need to increase the budgets. There has been a small increase in the budget for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We hope that it is adequate; we suspect that it may not be. We thank and endorse the thanks that other speakers have given for the work of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Office of the Auditor-General, and the Office of the Ombudsmen. They strengthen our democracy. It would be further strengthened if the Government listened to and took seriously their recommendations. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on this Government motion, which covers the 2013-14 alterations to appropriations for Offices of Parliament and the appropriations and information for the 2014-15 financial year. New Zealand First gives its support to this motion. We acknowledge the importance of these roles and agencies, the services they provide to Parliament, and how vital it is that they be resourced properly in order to fulfil their functions adequately. These roles play a crucial part in the institutional structure of our democracy. I will outline just a few instances of the valuable work these roles and agencies have performed.

In February 2013 the Office of the Auditor-General made an inquiry into the Government’s decision to negotiate with Skycity Entertainment Group Ltd for an international convention centre. The report considered the adequacy of the negotiation process and whether anything substantively wrong took place. The Auditor-General found a range of deficiencies in the advice that the Ministry of Economic Development provided and in the steps that officials and Ministers took leading up to that decision. This fell very far short of what should have been expected from the lead Government agency on commercial and procurement matters.

In November 2013 the Office of the Auditor-General made an inquiry into the management of the Mangawhai community wastewater scheme—a situation that my colleague Andrew Williams and New Zealand First have taken a particular interest in, going there on many occasions to support that community and to actually listen to their concerns, as opposed to ramrodding through legislation to approve past errors. And the Office of the Auditor-General found that the Kaipara District Council had failed to attend to its fundamental legal and accountability obligations through poor record-keeping, decision-making, governance, and management arrangements.

Recently, in March 2014 the Auditor-General carried out an inquiry into the property investments by Delta Utility Services Ltd, a council-controlled trading organisation of Dunedin City Council. The Mayor of Dunedin had asked for the inquiry after some Dunedin taxpayers alleged impropriety around the property investments at Luggate, near Wānaka, in mid-2008, and at Jacks Point, near Queenstown, in mid-2009. The Auditor-General found no evidence of impropriety or of poorly managed conflicts of interest in relation to either investment. However, the Auditor-General did find some breaches of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Companies Act 1993 and instances of Delta Utility Services using artificial business structures to avoid public accountability.

These are the types of reports that are essential to holding the Government and State sector agencies accountable to the New Zealand public. The Office of the Ombudsmen has also done excellent work. It is thanks to New Zealand First that the parents of children in charter schools still have the protection of the Office of the Ombudsmen should these schools choose to try to shuttle their children out the back door.

In December 2013 the Chief Ombudsman released her joint report with the Privacy Commissioner on the Earthquake Commission’s compliance with its obligations under the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act when responding to requests for information from its Canterbury customers. It was found that the Earthquake Commission failed to fulfil its obligations to provide information to requesters due to an overcomplicated and risk-averse approach to responding to information requests and a tendency to be reactive rather than proactive in the dissemination of claim-related information. Accordingly, the Ombudsman was able to make a number of recommendations to the Earthquake Commission on how to improve its systems and processes.

New Zealand First welcomes legislation for regular environmental reporting under the new Environmental Reporting Bill, but we share the concerns recently expressed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. There is a concern that this bill will compromise the ability of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and other Officers of Parliament to ensure the accountability of Government officials. Another clause in the bill allows Government Ministers to decide what is and what is not to be reported on. It is not necessary to be a rocket scientist to see that if you do not want an embarrassing answer about a Government policy, then you do not ask a question. It is our view that this undermines the independence that is vital for public trust. However, New Zealand First believes that it is of the utmost importance that we protect the integrity of all Officers of Parliament, and accordingly New Zealand First supports this motion. Kia ora.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Like other Opposition members, I support this report in respect of the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the Auditor-General. But can I start by echoing some of the concerns that other members have raised. If I start with the Auditor-General, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Auditor-General and her officials for the work they do, particularly in relation to something close to a number of our hearts—at least on this side of the House—and that is Solid Energy. There would not have been an inquiry, had it not been for the Auditor-General. After 12 months of waste, mismanagement, and lack of governance; after a number of years of lack of oversight by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and his shareholding Minister, the Minister of Finance; after the Government turned down the request for a ministerial inquiry or an independent inquiry; and after the Government’s toadies and lackeys on the Commerce Committee blocked at every attempt a request for an inquiry, it was the Auditor-General who agreed to an inquiry, after I wrote to her after the banking issues had been settled, after we had lost $400 million and 800 jobs to date. It was only the independent Office of the Auditor-General who agreed to hold a limited inquiry—and I accept that—into what happened in terms of Solid Energy. To date, that is all we have got.

She made inquiries into the governance and management and decisions that were made between the previous board, the previous chief executive, and the previous management group. She looked at communication flows. She did not believe it was appropriate—and I think, to be fair to her, she is legally precluded, or at least did not believe it was appropriate—to look at ministerial accountability. Although the Auditor-General did a superb job within the office and within the mandate she had, even after that inquiry we are still no further ahead in finding out which individuals are accountable for the biggest collapse of a State-owned enterprise in our history. Eight hundred jobs are gone, and $400 million has gone down the gurgler. There was mismanagement, bonuses, extravagant expenditure, and a chief executive who ended up going on gardening leave. We had to pry the truth out of Solid Energy through the instrument of a financial review, unsupported by the Government, unsupported by Ministers who today just simply do not want to know.

Minister Tony Ryall will go down in history as the worst, most negligent, and most incompetent Minister for State Owned Enterprises that we have had to date in New Zealand’s history—likewise, so will Bill English. There are piles, feet, and metres of paper and warnings from Treasury and from UBS, the consultants who were, ironically, sent in to scope Solid Energy for sale. There were warning signs, including the ability to just open the newspaper and work out that the coal price had blown apart and that international markets such as China were reducing their volumes purchased. Ministers knew that but they did not sack anyone. Mr Ryall, of course, was fond of trying to portray that board members resigning was a result of him. No one got sacked, except 800 workers, who paid with their jobs to try to keep the show on the road. No one in the executive team or the board got sacked. There was no intervention to change the statement of corporate intent by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. Absolutely nothing happened. It was total and utter incompetence—worse than incompetence. Every avenue of inquiry was blocked, every attempt to provide answers for taxpayers was blocked, and every attempt to find the person or the group of people who were accountable was blocked. Of course, the Minister would never say it was him. He washed his hands of it. Had it not been for the Auditor-General finally agreeing to hold a limited inquiry, we would not even have the answers we have today. So I thank the Auditor-General for her response and for again showing the value that she adds to our little democracy.

I also want to come to the Ombudsman. Dame Beverley Wakem, like the Auditor-General and her officers and officials, does an outstanding job. We have already heard from Grant Robertson how for years—I would argue deliberately—this Government has starved that office of resources. We have already heard that that office was funded for around 1,000 to 1,200 complaints per year under action and open at any given time, yet if you glance at the annual report, you see that it indicates that the office received 13,684 complaints, an increase of 29 percent for the 2011-12 year.

And then we get to the earthquake complaints. Of course, Mr Brownlee got up. He has presided over a Government agency that has broken the law in terms of the Official Information Act for months—for nigh on a year. Mr Brownlee presided over an agency that has simply thumbed its nose at the Official Information Act requests put in by earthquake victims. Mr Brownlee got up and said that the only reason these complaints have increased is the Opposition members of Parliament. Well, that is partly true, because our job—why we get the Queen’s shilling—is to try to prise information and the truth and some facts out of that mob over there. But that does not actually explain the hundreds and hundreds of Official Information Act requests that earthquake victims have made. You have got to ask yourself—and Mr Brownlee does not seem to sort of quite get it—why people, ordinary folk, in deep difficulty in terms of navigating their personal arrangements with the Earthquake Commission and trying to get their lives and houses back would go to the extent of using the Official Information Act.

Well, it is quite simple. If you look at the litany of incompetence in respect of the Earthquake Commission, you see that the Official Information Act is the only avenue those people have. It is the only avenue, and the Ombudsman, in her report to the Government Administration Committee, I believe it was, cited that fact absolutely. People have run out of gas. They write to the Minister; they get nowhere. They, for instance, ring the Earthquake Commission, as at least one case has, and five different phone calls to the commission in one day get five different answers. Commitments to give information and commitments to give scope of works materialise in nothing. So maybe they write to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission, and they get nowhere there. They come to members of Parliament like ourselves on this side, we write to the Minister, and we get nowhere. So the last opportunity they have, apart from going to court—and, sadly, most of them do not have a lot of dough to do that—is to use the Official Information Act.

We know that Gerry Brownlee knowingly as a Minister, even though he blames his department—I tell you, I say they will put a silver plaque up in this Chamber in tribute to Gerry Brownlee on the day he comes out and says: “I take responsibility for the stuff-ups in my agency, the Earthquake Commission.” I say to you that they will erect it—because, of course, Gerry Brownlee is the apologist for the insurance industry, the big end of town—on the day that Gerry Brownlee actually says “I take responsibility.”, not “I’m disappointed with my chief executive.”, or “I’m disappointed with the Earthquake Commission.”, or “They didn’t tell me.”, or “I didn’t read the briefing paper—woe is me.” No, one day he may get up and say: “I take responsibility for my department and I am going in to see Ian Simpson, and, by hell, I am going to sort it out.” That will be a red-letter, historic day in this Parliament for that Minister.

The Ombudsman said that in terms of processing Official Information Act requests where the commission has broken the law—broken the law time and again by breaching the deadline—one of the problems is the sort of hierarchy and mishmash of approvals that basic Official Information Act requests have to go through. It is really interesting when you look at the questions in respect of the Earthquake Commission, because it was basically asked how many Official Information Act requests from Opposition members and Opposition research units go through the Minister’s office for approval. It was 96 percent—that is, 96 percent go up to Mr Brownlee’s office where they are sat on for a period of time until he deems it appropriate that they be released.

The other interesting thing is that, for instance, it took 72 days for my office to actually get a copy of the Earthquake Commission’s internal structure, which should have been on its website anyway. It took 72 days using an Official Information Act request to get the basic Earthquake Commission structure. It took 200-plus days for me to get, on behalf of the group Wider Earthquake Communities Action Network, which is helping and advocating for earthquake victims, a basic Official Information Act response that you would think after 200 days would measure several metres high. But it was about two reams of paper. It took 200-plus days even after the commission had said to the Wider Earthquake Communities Action Network, which had put the original Official Information Act request in: “We’ll accept it, but we want $24,000 from a community group to process it.” So I took it over, and the commission dare not charge a member of Parliament because that becomes a big issue. It can pull the wool and try it. It accepted it and its first salvo to me was: “We’ll consider whether we accept it.”

There is a culture in that place right up to the office of the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission that thumbs it nose at the Ombudsman—thumbs its nose at the Ombudsman. That Minister is quite happy for his agency to continue to break the law and not provide people with the information they require. Mr Brownlee has made a rod for his own back.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the Hon Ruth Dyson.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am very pleased that you recognise me. I would be very disappointed if you did not, after all the time that we have been in this House together. I am very pleased to speak in support of the motion that is before the House at the moment. But, like others, I want to raise some concerns that certainly the Leader of the House, in his opening remarks, did not even acknowledge, let alone address. That, in itself, is a bit of a reflection on how this Government treats all matters of public interest, all matters of concern that are raised by Opposition members, and matters of concern that are, I guess, in a way, more important, raised directly with the Government by members of the public.

Government members personify arrogance. They are so out of touch with what ordinary New Zealanders are thinking and feeling, and they are adding to the frustration of many ordinary New Zealanders, particularly members of the public in Canterbury, by refusing to engage in grown-up conversation. They think they are above it. They think that it is belittling for them to listen to, and talk with, ordinary members of the public. I find that immensely frustrating, and I know that the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and the Office of the Auditor-General—although, of course, given their roles, they cannot directly say that—understand that people use their services and access their services more because people are driven away from ordinary conversation by the arrogance of John Key and his Ministers in this Government.

We have just heard from my friend and colleague and fellow Cantabrian MP Clayton Cosgrove about the way that the Earthquake Commission, as an organisation, is talking to people, is treating people, and about how the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission has made that significantly worse by his deliberate, considered politicisation of the commission, and how that then is reflected in the frustration and despair that our constituents in Canterbury feel. Not long ago my colleagues and I went with David Cunliffe, our leader, to the home of Dorothy Boyd—Dot Boyd—who was told months and months and months ago that she should pack up her home because any minute now the Earthquake Commission was going to send into her home some builders to repair her damaged home. She was very happy that she was going to be able to move out and have some repairs done. Then the commission said: “Oh, look, we’ve changed our mind. We might have to rebuild your home, so we’ll have to demolish your home and rebuild it.” She was accepting of that, although pretty distressed, given that she has lived there her entire married life. Months and months and months later this elderly woman was living in her home surrounded by packed-up contents. She had packed up all her belongings in boxes, because that what she was told to do by the Earthquake Commission people, and she had no idea what was happening. That is a small example of the frustration that people are feeling. When we raised that matter with the Minister, he did nothing. He did not care enough to get his officials into the room and say: “Get some action on this case.” So we went to the media and, oh, suddenly it became quite important. The only thing that seems to trigger Minister Gerry Brownlee’s engagement with the public is media exposure. Well, I do not think that that is good enough. That is so arrogant and out of touch.

But then, although directing his officials to do something about it, the Minister came into this House and attacked Labour members of Parliament for raising that issue in the media and falsely accused us of not representing our constituents. He was wrong again. It showed not only his arrogance but also his laziness—that he actually took the incorrect information from the Earthquake Commission and used it to politicise the issues of Canterbury, which we have been at lengths to avoid doing. Well, we got an apology from Gerry Brownlee, not for politicising it but for providing incorrect information to the House. But we then got two subsequent apologies from the chair of the Earthquake Commission and also from the chief executive of the commission—apologising not just for the incorrect information but for inappropriately providing that information to the Minister. The Minister was wrong to ask for it. The chief executive and the chair of the board both say that the commission was wrong to provide it. So the Minister owes us another apology. He was wrong to ask for that information.

Instead of getting in touch with the issues in our region and doing something about them, as has been recognised by the Ombudsman, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Auditor-General—the organisations whose votes we are considering in this motion—he should get in touch with what they have been reflecting in their annual reports and start addressing the issues, rather than blame those who raise them.

I am in admiration of those Officers of Parliament who have had the confidence and the understanding of the issues that they are dealing with day in, day out to raise them directly with the Officers of Parliament Committee and make Parliament as a whole aware of them. I remember last year when the Chief Ombudsman came to our select committee and talked about the fact that the office was funded for 1,000 to 1,500 cases to be dealt with each year, but it had received over 13,000 cases. How is it possible for an organisation to deal with that? She talked about the stress that that was causing for staff, because, unlike the National Government, her staff care about people and are in touch and understand the concerns that are being raised. She said that it was causing physical and emotional damage to her staff to have to deal with the huge workload they had, understanding the dramatic concerns that some people felt and their need to have those concerns addressed in a timely fashion. The Ombudsman said that it was just not possible for the staff in that office to be able to deal with those concerns appropriately, given the resources they had. I remember one of the National MPs saying: “Well, you’ve raised a serious issue, but your office isn’t in crisis, is it?”, to which the Ombudsman said: “Yes, actually, the office is in crisis.”

I am very pleased that that situation has been responded to, but let me say from another perspective that it is really frustrating that the Government is prepared to put additional money into funding the increased workload for the Ombudsman, and so it should, but is doing nothing about what is causing the additional workload to the Ombudsman, and that is the incompetence of the Minister and the Government’s inability to see that its lack of engagement and responsiveness, particularly in Canterbury earthquake matters, is driving people to use the Ombudsman’s office. They use Official Information Act requests, they go to the Ombudsman, and they go to anyone who they think will listen, because they know that the Ministers in this Government are not listening to them at all.

In relation to the motion that we are dealing with, the other Officer of Parliament that I would like to comment on is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We have had some very high-quality reports produced by the commissioner, and I just want to put on record that Labour values very much the independence and the robustness of the reports that are issued from that office. It gives us a very good, politically neutral, high-quality basis on which to have the debates that are really some of the most critical facing our nation: the vulnerability of species; contentious issues like the use of 1080; the issues of clean water, fresh water; and the vulnerability of our rivers. There are a large number of reports that the Parliamentary Commissioner’s office has raised, and I think they give all of us in Parliament a very good basis for well-informed and robust debate.

The Parliamentary Commissioner just yesterday released her submission on the Environmental Reporting Bill and raised significant concerns. Again, I say that all members of Parliament, all political parties, should be listening. Those concerns are in two specific areas, but one really drives at the heart of many concerns that Labour has raised in the past, and that is one of political interference. It is very clear from the Environmental Reporting Bill that the Minister for the Environment wants to direct what is in that bill. That goes against every recognised standard for best practice for environmental reporting. The basis of environmental reporting, the robustness of it, has to be political independence. It cannot be for the Minister to say: “Those numbers aren’t looking too good. I don’t want them in the report, so I’ll direct whoever is doing the environmental reporting to take them out that year.” That is the intention of the current legislation. It is something the Parliamentary Commissioner has raised as a concern. It is something that Labour shares as well. Thank you.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.

Bills

Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): I move, That the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Can I thank members for the work they have done on this bill. Their amendments have improved the bill. This is a very important bill, which completes this Government’s comprehensive reforms to improve industry training to achieve better performance for employers, for trainees, for apprentices, and also for taxpayers. There is a big opportunity over the next few years to train more New Zealanders in vocational careers that will set them up well for their working lives. To maximise this opportunity, it is essential New Zealand has a high-quality, responsive industry training system.

When we came into office, it was clear that that was not the case; in fact, industry training was a mess. Government expenditure on industry training had more than trebled from $64 million in 2000-01 to $204 million in the 2009-10 financial year. In 2011 there were approximately 154,000 trainees and apprentices enrolled in industry training. This included nearly 15,000 Modern Apprentices. However, performance, as measured by qualification completions and credit attainment, was very poor. Only about a third of trainees achieved the qualification 5 years after starting their industry training programme. Typically more than half of industry trainees and over 30 percent of Modern Apprentices achieved no credit between 2002 and 2010. The system was riddled with what has now become known as “phantom trainees”—thousands and thousands of trainees who had not completed any credits. Under the Labour Government of the day, it was all about signing people up and nothing about what happened afterwards.

That was an obviously unsustainable situation, and the Government took very quick and decisive action. Our operational changes have led to significant improvements in both qualification and credit attainment. That work continues and it has freed up funding to reinvest into the system. We also initiated a much more fundamental look at the industry training system. Overall, the review found that the industry training system was highly variable in terms of levels of service to employers and trainees in its connection to industry and its performance. The bill implements the changes arising from that review that required legislative change.

The first objective of the bill is to enable the establishment of a comprehensive New Zealand apprenticeship system that provides the same level of support to all apprentices, regardless of their age. It repeals the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act 2000 and amends the Industry Training Act 1992 so that legislation related to industry training and apprenticeships is located in one modern piece of legislation.

The bill defines apprenticeship training and removes the existing age restrictions on that activity. The bill combines Modern Apprenticeships and other apprenticeship-type training programmes into what is a premier vocational qualification. New Zealand Apprenticeships will provide the same level of support and the same level of subsidy for all apprentices, regardless of their age. We have boosted the prestige and the educational content of apprenticeships by requiring all such programmes to be at least 120 credits and to result in a level 4 qualification. This Government has increased the funding for apprenticeships, which will allow industry training organisations to invest in the quality of education for their apprentices to lower fees and to encourage uptake.

Our apprenticeship reboot has been under way since March of last year. New apprentices enrolled since then have been eligible for a grant of $1,000 towards their on-job and off-job costs, or $2,000 if they are in priority trades, with the same amount paid to their employer. Initially the reboot applied to the first 10,000 apprentices, but uptake has been so good that in December we extended it to the first 14,000 who applied. Since the reboot started, so far over 11,000 apprentices have been signed up.

The second objective of the bill is to focus industry training organisations on two core responsibilities: setting skills standards for their industries and arranging training. The bill removed the industry training organisation’s statutory skills leadership function, which required it to identify all current and future skill needs for their whole industry. Removing this role will encourage industry training organisations to focus on arranging training, which businesses have told us is the service that they most value. Removing the statutory skills leadership requirement does not prevent them in any way from undertaking that role. However, it will incentivise other organisations such as companies and industry associations to take a greater direct role in skills leadership with Government agencies like the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Ministry of Education. This will improve links between the Government and industry in determining present and future skills needs.

The bill also prevents industry training organisations from owning registered private training establishments. This removes the possibility of industry training organisations directing trainees towards institutions in which they have a financial interest.

The third objective of the bill is to strengthen the quality assurance framework for industry training organisations. Thanks to a comprehensive amalgamation programme with the Industry Training Federation, we have reduced the number of industry training organisations by two-thirds. We now have fewer industry training organisations, and they are larger, more capable, and well placed to provide a better service to their trainees and employers. However, an appropriate regulatory regime needs to be in place to address any unsatisfactory performance that may arise. This bill addresses this by strengthening the quality assurance framework for industry training organisations. The quality assurance framework for industry training organisations is currently weaker than for other tertiary education organisations. This has contributed to the issues of quality of industry training in the past. The bill gives the New Zealand Qualifications Authority power to prescribe quality assurance requirements for industry training organisations. The bill also gives the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the power to impose a graduated regime of sanctions in order to address poor performance by an industry training organisation.

Members opposite expressed concern about the provisions in the bill that make it clear that non - industry training organisations can receive funding for industry training and apprenticeship training. With the greatest respect, these concerns are misplaced. Allowing non - industry training organisations to be funded for arranging training and apprenticeship training activities will strengthen the incentive for industry training organisations to provide excellent service to their employers and their trainees. The review of industry training in 2011 found that a significant number of employers thought their industry training organisation did a poor job. Having this option available as an alternative for employers will encourage the industry training organisations to provide quality service to their employee clients at all times. It is called competition.

Secondly, I do not expect many employers to take up the option. Only $10 million worth of funding for non - industry training organisations is available in each of 2014 and 2015, which is about 5 percent of total funding for industry training and apprenticeships. It is worth remembering that participating employers must have at least 40 trainees each year.

Grant Robertson: Just an ideological little dalliance.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, it is not ideological, Mr Robertson. It is about getting the best result for trainees and the employers.

Grant Robertson: You just said they wouldn’t want to do it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: They do want to do it, and they want to do it across regions in New Zealand. The monitoring and assessing of non - industry training organisation arrangements for training will have to be acceptable to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Furthermore, the funding determination specifies that in order to receive funding, non - industry training organisations and industry training organisations must ensure that any programme in which a trainee is enrolled meets the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s quality assurance requirements. In practice, as a matter of policy, the Government funds only industry training that leads to transferable qualifications for the employee. That policy will apply to non - industry training organisations in the same way that it applies to industry training organisations. There will be a level playing field.

But, once again, I make no apology: if industry training organisations are not doing their job, this Government and this Minister will allow employers to make other arrangements. It is called competition, and the Opposition should not be afraid of it.

This bill is a vital part of the Government’s comprehensive reforms to industry training to achieve better performance for employers, better performance for trainees, better performance for apprentices, and also better performance for taxpayers—groups that the Opposition is completely estranged from. Most of all, the result of this bill and the Government reforms that accompany it mean that many more thousands of New Zealanders will achieve a real vocational qualification that will provide them with a career and that will allow them to provide for themselves and their families into the future. For that, this House can be very proud. I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): The provision of industry training and the availability of apprenticeships are a vital part of ensuring that we actually have economic growth and innovation in New Zealand. We need more people with skills in our workforce. If we have a more skilled workforce, it will drive productivity. If we drive productivity, there will be better economic outcomes, higher wages, more growth for the New Zealand economy, and more opportunities for New Zealanders. If we have people in apprenticeships, we will be growing the next generation of workers who will be providing the engine room of that economic growth and innovation. We will be giving people—young people, especially—the opportunity to have a career and to get under their belt a trade and a skill, and giving them guidance around that by those who have experience.

Industry training and apprenticeships are such an important part of our economic future and, indeed, of our society, which is why we on this side of the House are so disappointed that we are unable to support this legislation, the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill, because there are in this legislation a couple of pretty good elements. The first of those is the creation of the New Zealand Apprenticeships scheme, because that brings together the range of different kinds of apprenticeships and industry training programmes under one umbrella. It addresses an issue that on this side of the House we acknowledge, which is that when Labour brought in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, we had to do that off the back of apprenticeships having been destroyed by the National Government in the 1990s. We deliberately focused on opportunities for young New Zealanders because that is what had been taken away when the apprenticeships scheme was disestablished in the 1990s. What the New Zealand Apprenticeships scheme, which is brought in under this bill, does is to expand that out to people from older age groups, and we accept that that is an important thing to do. There is a need nowadays for retraining for a lot of people when they are older. It is not about just young people. We believe that this is a good element of the bill—to create a more coordinated apprenticeships scheme.

We also accept that there has been a need for some reorganisation of industry training. We are not ashamed of the fact that many more people got the opportunity to undertake industry training and to get new skills under the last Labour Government. Maybe there were one or two people who did not complete their qualification, and it would have been good if they had, but at least we had a Government that was prepared to invest in skills in our workplaces. So now, when the opportunity to reorganise the sector has come along, it is a good thing. Industry training organisations have responded to the need to reorganise themselves, and we welcome the fact that they are now leaner and more efficient entities.

They are two good things that are in this bill and that we could support. But on top of that we have a Government whose ideological agenda means that it wants to impose on the industry training sector a contestable model of funding—a privatisation of the sector. Let us be absolutely clear. The purpose of industry training, the reason the Government funds industry training, is, to quote the officials, the availability of a common, transferable set of qualifications that considers the needs of the industry as a whole. That is akin to a public good, which is unlikely to emerge without Government intervention. That is the purpose of industry training: creating a skilled workforce that can move between businesses, that ensures that people have skills that transfer across industries. So why bring in a system of funding that directly funds employers? Is it not the Government that should be telling us: “We’re not going to pick winners. We’re not going to privilege people.”? No. This Government says: “I tell you what we’re going to do. We’re going to ensure that we can directly fund those employers to deliver the training.” There are no guarantees, as the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment might claim, that that will be a transferable qualification or skill. In fact, it is highly likely to be a qualification that is relevant pretty much for only that business.

As my colleague Tracey Martin has raised before, what are the businesses that are going to want to do this? Are they the Minister’s mates? Are they run by the people who have got the Minister’s ear? Because they are being set up in a completely different way from the way that industry training organisations are. The Minister made a big thing in his speech of the fact that industry training organisations are prevented from setting up private training establishments to deliver training. Well, the new clause enables these private businesses to not only organise the training but deliver it as well. So the very thing that the Minister is denying to industry training organisations he is delivering to his mates. He is privatising it and allowing them to both organise the training and deliver the training. He is the one setting up two different standards within this system for these individually funded employers and for industry training organisations.

At the Education and Science Committee submitter after submitter said to the Government: “Don’t do this. Do not create this situation.” The only submitter that demurred from that was Business New Zealand, which said that it gave qualified support to the idea, but it thought that there needed to be a review to see whether it was necessary. That is Phil O’Reilly - speak for “For God’s sake, don’t do this. It’s a terrible idea and it will ruin everything.” Phil O’Reilly is the only person who came to the committee with even that level of lukewarm support. Everybody else, from the Contractors Federation to the Council of Trade Unions and other employers, said: “Please don’t do this, because you will undermine industry training organisations.” Far from this great competitive model that is going to lead to these high-performing industry training organisations, the only businesses that can take up this direct funding are the big businesses, and the small businesses, which rely on a strong industry training organisation to enable them to deliver training, are the ones that will suffer from an industry training organisation that no longer contains the large employers, which contribute more money to those industry training organisations. So not only does it undermine the purpose of industry training, it undermines the industry training organisations that the Minister purports to support.

This is a very retrograde step when it comes to industry training. There is already flexibility within the industry training organisation model. Employers are perfectly entitled to move between different industry training organisations, and in the reorganisation process a number of businesses have done that. They have aligned themselves with a different industry training organisation from the one they were in. The Minister is trying, as he often does, to address a problem that is not here, in order to implement his own ideological view about the privatisation of education. It makes no difference whether it is charter schools, public-private partnerships to build schools, or this privatisation of industry training; it has an agenda from Steven Joyce and the National Government to undermine the public provision of education and training and, in this case, the training that takes place through industry training organisations.

I want to make it absolutely clear that on this side of the House we see no need for these changes. We do not believe that they are good for industry training. They are not going to be good for the trainees involved if they end up with skills that are not transferable. I ask the question again: why is the Government paying for it? This comes from the party that is meant to believe that it is somehow or other a great steward of the economy. It decides that it can directly chuck money at its mates and say: “You deliver the training.”, instead of strengthening those industry training organisations.

The second reason why the Labour Party cannot support this bill is the abolition of the skills leadership function. Industry training organisations have had the legislated and mandated role of looking at the skills that are required within their industry and saying: “How will we provide these in the future, being the body that says: ‘This is where we need to go.’?”. We had a great submission from Careerforce, which said that it had sat down with Health Workforce New Zealand and looked at the future skills needs for those people who look after our elderly and who look after our disabled in the community. No one else was doing that, but the industry training organisation got in there and did it. It played its skills leadership role. That role disappears. It is gone, and we have to hope that a Government department will pick up that idea. It is not mandated to do that. We just have to hope that it will. Well, on this side of the House we actually believe that industry should be leading it. We actually believe that business knows more about it than the Government does. But, no, all of a sudden, National members have decided that they know better. They have arrogantly dismissed the role of industry in this.

We cannot support a bill that has no one responsible for working out what skills we need in industry in New Zealand in the future. That is irresponsible. It is the kind of short-term thinking we have come to expect from this Government. So we will be strongly opposing this bill. We have strongly opposed it. We will turn back these changes when we get back into Government, because we want strong, publicly funded industry training organisation arrangements and apprenticeships that give New Zealanders the skills that lend to the productivity gains we need and that ensure that all trainees are getting skills they can use across an industry.

This bill is deeply flawed. It is an ideological response to a problem that is not there, and it will undermine industry training and apprenticeships in New Zealand.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): We on this side of the House realise that for New Zealand to remain internationally competitive, our tertiary education providers need to ensure their relevance in the modern workplace. That is a given. I would like to acknowledge the help of the Opposition members on the Education and Science Committee when we were going through the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill. Even though they lodged their objections to the bill, they did work hard to make some improvements, and I hope to touch upon those later in my brief speech.

We have got a Better Public Services target of aiming to get to 55 percent—55 percent—of 25 to 35-year-olds gaining a level 4 or better qualification. In 2012 we managed to get up to 52.6 percent with level 4 or above, which was an improvement on the previous year’s 51.8 percent. Since coming into office, we have worked hard on many different strands of lifting educational achievement. The Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill is just one of those strands in the cable of lifting student achievement over a lifetime of learning.

We are clear, having reviewed the industry training that was on offer over 2011-12, that there were some changes necessary. Some changes were needed to ensure that the industry training system was well connected to industry with a high employer buy-in, that it was educationally sound, that it was coherent with the wider tertiary education system, and that it delivered value for money for employers and the Government.

We have heard in this House over the time that this bill has been debated how a remarkable number of trainees did not actually exist. They were phantom trainees. I wonder whether they signed in under the name of “Mr Walker”, the ghost who walked, because they certainly were not there at the end of the day, and they certainly were not there to receive their qualifications. In fact, some of them did not even exist. Some of them may have been dead. We do not know what the reason for the non-appearance of the others was, but we are determined to get on top of this.

This bill will establish a comprehensive apprenticeships system that provides the same level of support to all apprentices regardless of age. It was pleasing to hear the Opposition acknowledge the worth of this provision, the New Zealand Apprenticeships system, which will mean that people will no longer be discriminated against for their age. All apprentices will get the same level of support, the same level of subsidy, regardless of their age.

The bill will focus the industry training organisations on two key functions, as we have heard: setting skills standards for their industries and arranging training. It will clarify the functions and powers of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in relation to the industry training organisations. It will include criteria relating to quality assurance in the process by which the responsible Minister recognises an organisation as an industry training organisation.

This bill is, as I said, yet another strand in this Government’s steadfast resolve to make a stronger cable to lift students’ achievement across the board, right from early childhood education and right through primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I think that Labour actually agreed with the previous speaker, Dr Cam Calder, when he summed up at the end of his speech that this Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill is very much part of National’s education agenda. I will talk more on that as I go through this speech. Before I get on to that, I do want to acknowledge the work of the Education and Science Committee. I want to acknowledge the work of the chair of the select committee that went through this bill, Dr Cam Calder. But I also want to reiterate what my colleague Grant Robertson said—that it was a deeply disappointing process for us that for the submitters who came to the committee and who put forward very strong arguments around aspects of this bill, those words fell on deaf ears. These were not ideas that the Government members of the committee were willing to even countenance.

I think that it is right in this third reading of the bill for us to say that it is a disappointment for us that we cannot vote for this legislation. There are elements in this bill that we would like to support. Dr Calder, in his speech, talked about one of those elements, and that is the evolution of the resurrected apprenticeship training scheme in New Zealand that Labour put in place in the 1990s being extended out to beyond young people. So it is with a great deal of disappointment that we are voting against the bill. I think it should be noted that Labour has supported measures that this Government has brought in that we genuinely believe are going to improve industry training in this country. But it is fair to say that we simply cannot support the fundamental measures in this bill, because we know that they are going to be to the detriment of industry training in this country.

For Labour, industry training is absolutely central to its vision for New Zealand in the 21st century. We know that in order for people to have higher-paying jobs and for people to get out of poverty cycles, skills training and apprenticeships are vitally important. We know that if we are going to lift ourselves beyond being a commodity-producing nation, if we really are going to be the innovative country that people talk about, then we have to have a skilled workforce. The reason that Labour cannot support this bill is that it does not deliver that for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. It is with a heavy heart that we are doing that.

I think that if we have a look at the history of Labour with apprenticeships, there has been a lot of myth-making attempted by Government members on this bill about the great rescue job that they had to do around apprenticeship training in this country. But let us have a look at the facts of that history. When Labour came back into power in 1999, it had to deal with an absolutely decimated apprenticeship training scheme in this country. It had to put back in place some form or way of making sure that our young people were getting the skills training they needed. The scheme that was put in—and my colleague Grant Robertson talked about this—was limited to young people. So we would have liked to vote today for a scheme that extends that out, but we are not. It is a scheme that did need some fixes. We acknowledge that and we voted for them. But the myth-making of this Government—for these Government members to stand there and say that they are the saviours of apprenticeship training in this country—is actually just laughable. It absolutely belies the history of this country and what we lost out on as a nation.

National members are good at the big talk around apprenticeships and skills training. We saw it in 2011, post the Canterbury earthquakes. We had John Key talking the big game about the need for skills training in Christchurch and the fact that his Government was going to back it. Labour foreshadowed that, even before John Key started talking about it. We knew. It was not rocket science. Buildings and houses were falling down. People were going to have to rebuild them. We lacked the skilled workforce to build those buildings, and to rebuild the horizontal infrastructure, we needed to train our young people then and there. But did we take that opportunity? No, we did not.

Steven Joyce can stand in this House today and talk about the success of his apprenticeships reboot scheme and his need to expand it. Well, Mr Joyce should have got on to it 2 years earlier, because for 2 years the money allocated for the Skills for Canterbury training sat unspent. It sat unspent while Minister Joyce came to the select committee and sat there and said that he was not willing to frogmarch young New Zealanders into skills training. Perhaps some encouragement, perhaps some incentives, and perhaps some energy in terms of getting our young people into that skills training would have been preferable, because we saw none of that from the Minister. It is an opportunity of a generation that this Government has missed. It has let young people down by not acting. And to stand in this House and gloat about the Government’s record in skills training in relation to the needs of the Canterbury rebuild is shameful. It is an area that this Government has absolutely failed in.

We came up with creative solutions around it. We said: “Let’s look at innovative ways. Let’s not just pay young people the dole. Let’s actually make that a payment to help employers take on more young people into apprenticeship training while we wait for the work stream to come on board.” But did the Government take any of this on? No, it did not. We could now have people 3½ years into their training, instead of us having to look overseas rather than employing New Zealanders. That is sad. It is a policy that Labour knows would have worked and will still work. It is a policy that I have as a member’s bill in my name, one that I very much hope gets pulled out of the ballot before the general election, because it is very much needed.

The chair of the Education and Science Committee, in the speech he has just given, told us that changes were needed and that we needed to have an industry training scheme that was well connected to industry and with high employer buy-in. I thought that was a particularly interesting comment from the chair of that committee, given that what we had was employers coming to the select committee and telling us that they did not want the bill. I do not know how he thinks this is buy-in. I do not know how he thinks it is well connected to industry, when we had industry coming to the select committee and telling us that it would not work, that it was not the way for us to do skills and apprenticeship training in New Zealand, and that it just was not going to benefit the system. The words we are hearing in this House today are hollow. They absolutely belie what happened in that committee room and what Government members know they heard from the submitters who came to the committee. My colleague Grant Robertson talked about the very lukewarm support that the one supporter of this proposal, Phil O’Reilly, would give it—that it was damning with faint praise. As Mr Robertson said, it was code for “Please don’t do this. It’s wrong. It’s not going to work.”

But perhaps one of the biggest concerns for us in this legislation is the ability for non - industry training organisations to take on a role that has previously been something for industry good. One of the submitters came to us and told us that if this legislation goes through, we can no longer call it industry training. I think that was one of the most telling comments I heard in that select committee. This is not a piece of legislation that is about helping industry; this is a piece of legislation that is about helping big business. Steven Joyce talked about that in his speech, actually. He thought he was giving us reassurances when he wanted to highlight the fact that it was only employers with 40-plus employees who could be open to the provision of taking on the funding and taking over the function of industry training organisations. This is legislation for the big end of town. This is not about helping small and medium sized enterprises in terms of their skills and training needs.

For us on this side of the House, for us in Labour, we know that if we are going to transform our economy, we need to be doing everything we can to back our small and medium sized enterprises with the kind of skilled workforce that they are going to need for the 21st century. But, no, what is happening under this legislation is that already we are having mates of the Government tendering to get in on the funding. This is for business good now, not for industry good. It is a sad day for New Zealand industry when we have a Government that is willing to look after the big end of town and its corporate mates, rather than thinking about what the strategic needs of industry are and the kind of skilled workforce that we are going to need to drive it.

Labour is opposing this bill. We wish we did not have to, because industry training is so important to this country, but this bill simply will not deliver industry training.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Casting back to January 2013, the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment indicated the shape of what this legislation, the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill, would probably look like. He indicated some changes in industry training and apprenticeships. At the time, the Greens said publicly that we sort of liked the general direction and the shape of what the Minister was indicating. We also noted that it was rather late in the piece, and that point has been made by the previous speaker, Dr Megan Woods. The need for expansion in the industries to ensure a supply of skilled, trained labour was paramount. In fact, that was obvious at least 3 or 4 years prior to the Minister’s announcement. It is unfortunate that the Government chose to sit idle while an obvious need was growing more urgent.

Nevertheless, we finally saw the bill in September last year. We looked at it, analysed it, and took some advice, and, with some qualifications, we came to the House and voiced our qualified support for the bill. There were some good aspects to it, and I will reference those in a moment. We saw one or two things that puzzled us and that we were not clear on. One of those, in fact, was the issue of skills leadership. We thought that the Government seemed to be suggesting that the industry training organisations would not have sole responsibility for skills leadership, but it was not clear to us where that responsibility would land. We now know, of course, that the responsibility lands in a black hole somewhere. Nobody carries the burden of responsibility for skills leadership, and that is an untenable situation. Now, unfortunately, as with our Labour colleagues, we have to oppose a piece of legislation that we would have liked to support. It does some useful and good things. It might have been a very good piece of legislation. But, sadly, it misses the mark, it misses the targets, and it will require amendment to bring it up to being fit for purpose in the 21st century in order to meet our current needs.

One of the things we do like about the bill, to be relentlessly positive, is that it does remove age restrictions. Many apprenticeships, many disciplines, skills, whatever you like, no longer require the strength and enthusiasm of youth. There are many trades, many situations, in industry where people who are no longer young might usefully pick up skills, get qualifications, and effect a career change. This is the era of career change. Very few people, very few of our students currently at school, will have one career from the time they leave training, education, whatever, to when they get their gold watch. This is the era of career change. Retraining is valuable and critical, and it is useful that this removal of the age restriction will facilitate that.

We like the fact that this is a unified piece of legislation. It brings together a number of other pieces of legislation. It is always desirable to have a single document that covers a particular issue or industry, whatever it might be. We like the fact, and always have, that the bill prevents industry training organisations from owning private training establishments. It obviously removes the potential for a conflict of interest, and that is as it should be. We particularly like the fact that it names particular groups that are identified as in need of particular support—currently Māori and Pasifika—and that is, again, a very well-targeted intention.

We regret that the bill is silent on women. We know for a fact that there are way too few women taking apprenticeships and going into industry training, and we could put some effort into amending that and putting that right. If I recall correctly, the issue of who will get particular consideration at any time is tied to the tertiary education strategy. Tertiary education and industry training apprenticeships are two separate domains. They have some crossover, clearly, but I do not think it is particularly smart to link the particular support, the special cases, if you like, to whatever is written in the tertiary education strategy. It would be better to have a stand-alone consideration of which particular groups in society would benefit from some particular attention and how we might attract particular groups, demographics, into industry training or apprenticeships. I think that could have been a better move, but, as I say, I do certainly support the focus on Māori.

In the last few days I have visited a number of schools around Northland for another purpose. You see these young, predominantly Māori students and you want for them the very best future. They are at great schools. Their parents and teachers are committed to doing the right thing for them. But they are also coming from behind the eight ball in some respects, in terms of distance, in terms of social capital. Anything we can do to enable those young people, empower them, put them in a position where they can get a skill, get some training, get a qualification is only to the good.

What do we not like about the bill? First, I should comment on some of the changes made in the Education and Science Committee. There were some useful changes. The bill as drafted gave the Minister significant ability, capacity, to impose or amend conditions on the recognition of an industry training organisation. The language got tidied up about that just to put some reins on the Minister, just to make sure there was some justification for what he or she might do at a particular time. The bill, again as introduced, was seen to potentially give the New Zealand Qualifications Authority perhaps a little bit more sway in terms of governing industry training organisations than was appropriate. The select committee reined that in and made some language changes that will ensure that the appropriate level of authority is given to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority but no more than that.

What we do not like—yes, again, some of this has been outlined by our Labour colleagues, who are equally disappointed. The issues include that, yes, industry training organisations will have responsibility for developing and maintaining standards and for organising training, but the skills leadership function will simply fall into a black hole. Building and construction is one of those skill sets that is so critical at the moment. We have a badly broken city that needs to be rebuilt. I would hate to see us importing tradespeople when we have a large pool of unemployed and untrained youth. Skills leadership in building and construction is critical to ensure that we are doing the right thing. The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation came to us and pointed out that something like 90 percent of building companies, companies in that industry, are small to medium sized enterprises. They employ fewer than 20 people and many of them employ fewer than 10 people. They are not of a scale where they can purport or pretend to undertake skills leadership. It is not their role or their function.

I was very disappointed that the Government chose to vote down Supplementary Order Paper 426, which I put in at the Committee stage and which would have remedied these two major flaws in the legislation. Even had the bill gone so far as to suggest that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment or some other Government agency had ultimate responsibility for ensuring that there was skills leadership being displayed, being undertaken by somebody, we would have been reassured, but we have not even got that reassurance. We can predict with complete confidence that in many cases that will fall off the edge and we will see a lack of leadership in developing the necessary training to keep up with changes in particular industries and particular trades.

The second major concern for us, of course, was the fact that public funding will go to private companies under the provisions of this bill, and we heard from the Minister that this was in deference to the great god of competition. Yes, competition can often be a very good and useful thing, but there are limits to it. Interestingly, I was at a presentation last night from a person who felt—well, I am paraphrasing, but in my view he was suggesting—that competition was a solution to all things. In theory it often is, but in practice it fails badly, and that is what we will see here.

I was interested too that the Minister referenced the necessity for amending a situation based on a survey done in 2007. The industry training organisations have conceded that there were some shortcomings in their performance, and they have upped their game. They are performing better and differently from how they were 6 or 7 years ago, and it is unfortunate that this legislation is responding to a problem that was perceived 7 years ago but has since been remedied by other means. We think it unfortunate, and the point has been made about Business New Zealand. It has put two conditions around the proposition that public money should go to private companies for training. Neither of those conditions has been met by this bill. Business New Zealand will be as disappointed and as concerned as every other person, every other organisation, and every other stakeholder in this legislation.

So we will, regretfully, in some regards, oppose this legislation. Its redeeming feature perhaps is that it will be easily amended and can become what it ought to be: a piece of legislation fit for purpose to ensure that we have got the skills and the tradespeople that we need to build our future. Kia ora.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to be following the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill to its completion in the House during the third reading of the bill. It is very important that we put on record that every industry training organisation—all 14 of them that now exist—has an industry advisory group. That industry advisory group works very, very closely with the industry training organisation to ensure what this bill enshrines, which is that industry training and the qualifications that are registered with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority are up to date and appropriate for the time for that particular industry. It was my pleasure the other day to sit in on a meeting with the primary industry training organisation and see that advisory group at work.

When we hear the laments from the Opposition about a lack of leadership, it tends to tell us that it is poorly informed and does not understand how industry actually functions.

Carol Beaumont: That’s a very arrogant point of view.

COLIN KING: They on the other side call a shearer arrogant. What I would say back to them is to do their homework, understand how things work, and give some credit to industry for taking a leadership role. One thing I would like to say is that industry in this country needs to take more leadership in the industry training space because as an industry, when you look at it, there is the 80/20 rule: 20 percent of businesses are doing the training and 80 percent are waiting there to pick up the apprentices when they are trained. Really, we have got a very, very long way to go until we are at world’s best practice in valuing skills and trades.

From that point of view, when we look at the comments that the Opposition is making, it was interesting that there was a comprehensive review done in 2012, and what that identified was that there were gaps in the provision of industry training. It was not the big end of town that the Opposition likes to accentuate; it was actually one of our cooperatives, Foodstuffs, that talked about wanting to have the opportunity to customise the training to meet its particular needs. From that point of view, this bill actually enshrines the good practice that needs to be adhered to.

In conclusion, I would just make the point—and I have made it before and I would like to make it again—that Labour created an environment where industry training became a gold rush, apprenticeship training became a perverse incentive to grab money, and I cite one case where a Modern Apprenticeships coordinator took $250,000 and only ever had one completed Modern Apprenticeship. This is an outstanding bill. It will bring in disciplines that are overdue and it is only a National-led Government that had the courage to do so.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find it very interesting that Mr King has risen to his feet and again repeated the amazing statement that all that is wrong with the apprenticeship system can be blamed upon the Labour Party.

David Bennett: Well, it is.

TRACEY MARTIN: The reason why I am so fascinated by it—and Mr Bennett probably does need to actually listen, because he is not so young that he cannot remember the 1990s. He is not so young that he cannot remember. All the apprentices who are out there should listen up and go back to have a look at their history books and have a look at who decimated—decimated—the apprenticeship scheme in this country. Have a look at small-town New Zealand and rural New Zealand and at what happened to those companies, those small to medium sized enterprises, and their ability to actually build on the economic development of their towns and take in apprentices and young people from their towns. I will tell you what happened to it. What happened to it was the 1990s and a National Government. So go and have a quick look. Go and have a look in the history books. It will be there somewhere. The National Party has not got to that part of the curriculum of the school day and has taken that out of the history books.

Part of this bill, the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill, is a solution looking for a problem. There is no problem here. The industry did not come and submit in any way, shape, or form to say: “We need the ability to train apprentices and trainees.” It did not. It never came to the Education and Science Committee. It did not submit in any positive way.

The other thing Mr King has done—and it is interesting how members of the National Party every now and then do the Opposition a favour by accidentally uncovering in their speeches information that they did not want us to know. Foodstuffs has never ever been mentioned before with regard to this bill. And all the time, sitting on this bill at the select committee, nobody ever uncovered the fact that it was Foodstuffs that is supposedly the amalgamated company that wants the ability to train its staff. This is the first time that that has ever been disclosed. Is that not interesting? Is that not interesting? Why did Foodstuffs not come and put in a submission? Why, then, did Foodstuffs not come and explain to the select committee why it is so vital that it can access really rare education dollars so that it can train employees? Why did Foodstuffs not come and actually explain what is wrong with the current industry training organisations? Why did it not submit on the current system right now? It did not, but apparently it has the Government’s ear. How interesting. How interesting that it is only in this House, by accident, that we find out that Foodstuffs has spoken to the Government but did not bother to come and talk to the select committee. I think that is an incredibly interesting piece of information that Mr King has just handed out.

Let us focus on this industry subsidy for the training of employees. This is a Government subsidy for industries around the training of their employees. This is a continuation of the shift of cost from the employer to the employee, because apprentices do not get a free ride. Apprentices have to pay as they work, so do not let us think that this is a gift for them. Apprentices have to participate in the payment for their own training. What we have got now under this clause is industry basically being subsidised by the taxpayer to cover that part of the area that employers should cover—their skin in the game. But will this be available to all industry players? No, it will not. No, it will not. It will not help any of these small and medium sized businesses in Ōpōtiki or Ōtorohanga or Warkworth or Wellsford or Mataura or Westport. None of those small and medium sized businesses that are in those towns, that would work with the young people in those towns who are looking for apprenticeship opportunities, will meet this criterion. You have got to be a large business—we heard it from the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment himself—that can employ 40-something or more workers. Who is that? Obviously, it is Foodstuffs. Have a think out there, New Zealand. Have a think about who else fits that criterion. It is not the people in small rural towns. It is not those people.

Here is another contradiction and an example of how this cost keeps getting taken away from the employer and placed on the employee. A really simple example is barista training. There is a $200 course to learn how to make coffee, which only 20 years ago was part of a person going for a job interview. Young people will not know this. They are so used to paying for everything that they do not see how far this has gone and how far large employers are being subsidised by them for them to actually gain employment. Twenty years ago when you showed up at work with a clean record and your curriculum vitae, they trained you in the specific skills for the industry. That no longer exists, and this legislation is another move down that pathway. That no longer exists, so, right now, the new generation of employees is consistently subsidising large business.

I want to also talk about one of the other reasons why business has not been able to take on employees. There are a couple of reasons. The first is the barriers to small and medium sized enterprises. Big business will be able to get this education dollar. For small and medium sized enterprises in small towns there is a financial barrier and a financial cost to them for every year of an apprenticeship for them to participate. For a hairdresser, for example, it is $500 per apprentice every year they go through their apprenticeship. That is a cost on that employer—the small employer and the medium sized employer. But now we have actually got big employers being able to gain more money.

There is another reason why this Government has forced this, and it is around the idea that competition is always the answer. Let us have a look at this Government, and to some extent the Labour Government before it. When they opened up the borders and decided that competition was everything, that there was supposedly a level playing field across the planet, and that New Zealand was now going to do that too, one of the things that happened was that the margins of New Zealand companies got cut to the bone. I was on a plane recently with an employer who runs a company. He is running two teams down in Christchurch, replacing the infrastructure—the lines companies—under the ground. He said that he cannot take on apprentices. He wants to participate, just like everybody else, in building the next generation of apprentices, but he cannot take them on because his margins have been cut to the bone through competition with international companies. So he does not take on young people because, although the Government might say that people should have to pay the $500 a year to have skin in the game, small and medium sized businesses already have skin in the game. They have skin in the game. There is a cost for taking on a young person who has no skills, and it takes time to upskill them. The Government will argue that time is money and that there is skin that these companies, the small and medium sized enterprises, have to put into this game. This man cannot take on any apprentices in his industry down in Christchurch because he does not have any fat left in the contract when he has to compete in the international market. That was something that this Government did. That was something that a National Government did. It is not talked about because nobody wants to know about it. That Government does not want to know about it. But that is part of this idea that competition is the answer to every question.

The Minister also stood and lauded the $1,000 given this year to apprentices and the $1,000 given to business. That is great—11,000 new apprentices in the field. Brilliant. What about next year? What about next year?

Simon O’Connor: Doesn’t that just invalidate your last argument?

TRACEY MARTIN: Next year the business will actually have to fund that financial cost, Mr O’Connor. The apprentices will have to fund those costs. This Government cut all adult and community education throughout rural New Zealand, so there is nowhere for them to get support around their theory. There is nowhere for them to get support around doing the paperwork while they do the practical in their environments. This Government came up with a solution that nobody asked for.

So New Zealand First will oppose the bill because it goes nowhere—nowhere—in terms of truly creating the ability in rural New Zealand and small and medium sized businesses for our communities to participate in youth employment, which this Government says is a high-priority area for it. Yet it goes and puts another barrier in the way.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Everybody who has taken part in the debate on the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill to this point has acknowledged that we need high-quality industry training organisations in New Zealand and that we need a really effective apprenticeship scheme that not only gives good, long-term job prospects to the apprentices themselves but also meets the needs of our economy. We think, obviously, of the situation in Christchurch, but right around the country there are jobs and areas that are developing all the time that need good-quality apprenticeships. But the New Zealand First member Tracey Martin, who has just resumed her seat, made the extraordinary claim that there was not a problem. So let us just remember why the Government reviewed this sector back in 2011.

That review found that there were very significant problems. One of the most worrying things of all was that the previous Government, during the first decade of this century, had trebled the investment in the industry training organisation sector—which, in itself, sounds really great—but achieved virtually nothing for that investment. In fact, course completions were at a worryingly low level, the credits achieved were very, very disappointing, and we were seeing more and more money going into a system that was delivering no improvement whatsoever, so that is what had to change. Although, unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time available tonight to be able to talk about it, I want to say that the changes that this Government is making have already been shown to be working and are going to make a significant improvement.

One of the things that I am particularly proud of is that last year’s Budget increased the number of places for Māori and Pasifika in trades training from around 600 to 3,000 over the next 4 years. That has got to be a really good thing for those young people.

We are seeing significant improvements. As I say, unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time, but the whole point of this bill is about bringing the law relating to industry training and apprenticeships together within one piece of legislation to establish a comprehensive apprenticeship system that will provide the same level of support to all apprentices regardless of their age, that works with industry, and that meets the needs of our modern economy. It is already being shown to be significantly improving the course completion rate and the quality of the qualifications that those young people are getting. It is done in conjunction with good industry consultation right around the country. It is for those reasons that I warmly endorse this bill.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I just want to make the point, following on from Tim Macindoe, that I think it is important that we remember that qualification completion—or full course completion—and completion of learning are not necessarily the same thing. People can complete parts of qualifications but not complete the whole qualifications for a variety of reasons. Sometimes there are really good reasons why people do not complete an entire qualification. They may go into a qualification and upgrade to another qualification. They may start with a fairly low-level qualification, find that they actually quite enjoy it, and move up to a higher qualification. That is a successful outcome. They may begin a qualification in workplace training that then leads them to think about their career, which involves them then moving on to another job, a better job where they are doing a different qualification or they are doing some different form of training. That is a successful outcome.

The fact that they have not completed the specific qualification does not mean there has not been value from them engaging in that qualification in the first place. I think that that is actually a really important point to remember, because when we are looking at workplace training, getting people engaged is the first priority. Getting people doing learning in the workplace is important. Sometimes that will mean that they switch to some qualification or some form of training that is different from what they originally enrolled in. We should not discourage that. In fact, that is quite often a very welcome thing.

I do agree that there was huge room to improve qualification completion—there is no doubt about that—but if that is the only measure, we are potentially saying to some of those people who are moving out of one qualification pathway and into another without completing the first that that is the wrong thing to do when, actually, sometimes that is the right thing for them to do. Not completing their qualification if they are going on to something bigger and better is actually a good thing, and we should celebrate that and recognise and reward that.

The Labour Party is opposing the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill for two main reasons. The first is the decision to allow industry training funding to be given directly to companies, corporate entities, employers rather than to industry training organisations. The second is the removal of the skills leadership function from industry training organisations.

I worked in the industry training field for a period of time—nearly 2 years. It was a very rewarding and eye-opening experience for me. The first thing I did was work at the Industry Training Federation, where I was involved in researching and writing the history of industry training up to the beginning of the 2000s. I was looking at how we had gone from the previous apprenticeship system through to having industry training organisations in the first place. What was very clear there was there were some great strengths in the new industry training system, but there were some weaknesses in the way the new system was established by the then National Government. Let us not forget that it was put in place by a National Government—Bill Birch, Lockwood Smith, etc.

There were some great strengths in that system, but there were some weaknesses, and one of them was that there was a huge emphasis on the fact that anyone could set up an industry training organisation. Bill Birch admitted he went around the country and said everyone can set up an industry training organisation. So from the beginning, it was about numbers. It was about getting more people into industry training organisations, and more industry training organisations being set up everywhere, rather than looking at some of these more strategic questions, which, in future years, Governments would look at. The last Labour Government looked at them and this National Government is looking at them. That was not the case early on when the industry training system was established. So that was one of the first things that came out of my early work in industry training.

Then I went to work in the oil and gas industry, and I was primarily working for one of the largest companies in New Zealand in the oil and gas industry. By a process of deduction it is not that difficult to figure out who it was.

Simon O’Connor: Don’t tell the Greens.

CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right; I will not. My good friends the Greens have forgiven me. What is absolutely clear from that experience is that the large multinational company I was working for in the oil and gas industry was actually much more interested in qualification portability within its own company around the world, globally, than it was in qualification portability within New Zealand.

If you think about why we have an industry training system in New Zealand and why we have a qualifications framework in New Zealand, a lot of it is about ensuring qualification recognition, recognition of skills that are transportable, portable, across businesses in New Zealand and across different jobs. A company, if it is given the money directly to provide its own training onsite and so on, is going to be more interested in using that as much as it can for its own competitive advantage. That means there is potential for it to be aligning that training more with its internal—and when I say “internal”, I mean globally internal—systems of training and qualification requirements rather than ones that are going to make those employees readily transferable amongst different employers within New Zealand.

So the question I have to ask is why the taxpayer should pay for that. If the qualifications and training that are taking place within an individual company are specific to that company and are basically training requirements that that company would have to be doing with those employees anyway, why should the taxpayer be subsidising that? We subsidise industry training through industry training organisations because we recognise that there is value for this country as a whole in having a skilled workforce—skills that can be transferred, skills that can move from one employer to another.

When we start giving money directly to companies themselves rather than through a structured industry body, we start saying that those things are not as important, and I do not agree with that. What I think we could see here is companies using taxpayer subsidies for health and safety training and so on that they have a duty and an obligation to pay for and provide as good employers. Why should the taxpayer be subsidising those things when that is part of the cost of companies doing business? If those are the minimum requirements they have to have just to operate, then they should be paying for that. I think that is one of the issues that are very lacking from this debate. The Government has not made the case for why giving industry training funding directly to businesses rather than through industry training organisations is going to lead to better outcomes. I am not convinced, from my own experience working in industry training, that that is going to be the case.

There is a shortage of skilled tradespeople in New Zealand, and the National Government has certainly exacerbated that by its current approach to industry training funding. We have seen the loss of thousands of people in apprenticeship positions. The fact that the National Government woke up to that in January this year after being in Government for 5 years is a very welcome thing, but had it not implemented many of the policies that it has implemented over the last 5 years, then maybe we would not be in as much of a position with that as we are now.

Let us look at Modern Apprenticeships, for example. Between 2009 and 2013 there was a 20 percent drop in the number of Modern Apprenticeships and a 37 percent drop in the number of industry trainees. It is easy to improve completion statistics and so on when you push a whole lot of people out of their training, but, actually, we should have been looking at the reasons why they were not completing it, because, as I said right in my first comments, sometimes there are good reasons why they are not completing their training. I think simply damaging the credibility of the entire system because of that is not necessarily a good thing.

We should never forget that it was the National Government in the 1990s that did away with the old apprenticeship system in the first place. We should never forget that. I think sometimes—

Carol Beaumont: Vandalism.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, it was vandalism, but I think that sometimes when people talk about that, they forget about what was put in place, which was the industry training system. I am a big fan of industry training organisations, having worked in that sector. I do believe that industry training organisations provide a very useful contribution, but there is no doubt that in the hurried transition between the old apprenticeship system and the establishment of new industry training organisations an awful lot of expertise was lost and an awful lot of momentum from various industries was lost. It has taken quite some time for some of them to get back on track again, so we are still suffering from the legacy of the 1990s and the decisions made by the then National Government.

Finally, I have got a chance to touch very briefly on the removal of the responsibility of industry training organisations around skills leadership, setting leadership for their industries. If they are not going to do that, who is going to? Why is the Government going to invest a whole lot money in industry training if we do not know that that is actually what the industry needs? That has got to be a fundamental question. We are very, very bad at workforce planning in New Zealand in terms of making sure we have got the right people with the right skills at the right time. We have never done that very well, but taking responsibility away so that no one has actually got any responsibility for it is not the right thing to do. In fact, industry training organisations were probably only just coming to grips with the significance of that role. They had it only for a relatively short period of time and they were only just coming to grips with what providing that kind of leadership to their industries actually meant, and that has now been taken off them.

I think we should have strategic leadership around skills. I think the industry training organisations have the right people to be doing that. I think that this bill is very short-sighted and it is another one of those things where someone will look back in 10 years’ time and go “Oh gosh, wasn’t that a mistake! How have we ended up in the position we’re in now?”. Almost certainly, some of the problems we will be facing in 10 years will be traced back to this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry, the clock expired some time ago—sorry.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): We have heard from a number of people today—on both sides, actually—that this bill, the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill, and particularly the work within the industry training organisation sector, is something that is evolving and has been evolving over time. I think the National Government is very proud of the changes that it has made to date and the changes that it is proposing here. I think one of the great contrasts, though, is what we have heard from the Labour Party—that it is taking part that matters. It is taking part that matters. The fact that the Crown and the taxpayers have to fund it seems irrelevant to actually getting the outcomes that are required.

I think the last speaker rightly pointed out that there will be people who would have stepped away from their training for various legitimate reasons, but what we saw under a Labour Government—as other speakers on this side have noted—was a three-fold increase in funding but no actual increase in the outcomes required. Actually, I think “gilding the lily” was a phrase that was used, and it is quite right. “It is just taking part that matters; we will just continue to fund and throw more money at things.” is not appropriate. It is not appropriate for Government. This is a Government of responsibility, and this bill is a responsible bill.

I do have to note before finishing that I am a bit worried about the trucking industry today, if you wanted to train in that area, with the Labour Party truck ban. I am sure that will not come to pass, but—

David Bennett: They can’t pass anything now.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No, you are not allowed to pass anything at the moment, but, fortunately, it is not in Government. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Carol Beaumont, 5 minutes.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I have to say that some of the contributions from the other side do show a lack of seriousness about what is a very important piece of legislation. The Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill is a bill that should be taking this country forward. Industry training and apprenticeships are vitally important. It should also be something not only taking our economy forward but providing opportunities for New Zealanders to gain meaningful industry skills and get decent wages and conditions. Why? Because we have structural skills shortages in this country. As an example of that, we are having to import labour to work on the Canterbury rebuild. We have high unemployment—27,000 young Aucklanders are not in education, training, or employment, and 50 percent of them are Māori or Pacific Islanders. It is not good enough. Too many people are working in low-quality, low-wage jobs. This is an opportunity to get industry training and apprenticeships right.

It was potentially an opportunity to gain a consensus about this vital area. It is an area that New Zealand has a long and proud track record in. Many of us know people—including my own father—who have undertaken apprenticeships and then had very satisfying and important work roles as a consequence and contributed strongly to our economy. So we have a proud history. This is a wasted opportunity. It is due to a Government that is ideologically driven and not willing to work strategically on such an important issue.

We indicated a willingness to work constructively on this bill, and we acknowledged the need for changes. I think every member opposite has talked about what was wrong with industry training. As my colleague Chris Hipkins said, there was a lot that was right with it, but, yes, there was a need for change. We accepted that. We have absolutely said that that was true. Much hard work has actually been done to rationalise the industry training industry, and that is good. That is good. But this bill potentially serves to undermine all of that hard work. We supported this bill going to the Education and Science Committee because we did want to try to get it right. I too would acknowledge one of the positives in this bill, and that is the removal of age limits in relation to apprenticeships. Anybody should be able to undertake an apprenticeship at whatever age. As others have said, people’s careers change much more frequently nowadays, so it makes perfect sense to not limit apprenticeships to just young people.

But I guess we should not be surprised that the Government has taken the position it has taken on this legislation. As has already been said, National is the party that abolished apprenticeships. Although it did bring in industry training, it was not necessary to have got rid of what was a time-proven scheme. In fact, Labour reinstituted apprenticeships—and with wide support in the community. National is also the party that threw out an agreed skills strategy that had been developed between business, unions, and Government agencies—a strategy that actually had a clear path forward for skills and vocational training in this country. It also stopped the tripartite group that was meeting to progress that. One of its first acts was to do those two things. So this is not a surprise that it has come up with the legislation it has got. The Government has failed to train New Zealanders to meet the skills needs that we have. We said “Why don’t you look at fast-track operations for apprenticeships in Christchurch?”. But, no—completely ignored. As a consequence, most of that work has been undertaken by migrant labour.

So this bill is a missed opportunity. I have acknowledged the positive little element of it. The things that are problems and are strongly opposed by submitters, such as the funding of industry training for non-industry training organisations—including, it seems, Foodstuffs, which never even submitted—are business specific rather than for the public good of industry training. Large, not small, businesses will benefit. Removing the skills leadership element is just ridiculous. This Government seems to be pathologically opposed to planning and strategic approaches. Steven Joyce said “Well, we want to focus on what’s important: training. And it doesn’t stop them doing skills leadership.” Well, how can you do the training if you do not know what you need to train for?

HOLLY WALKER (Green): Well, like many of the speakers in this debate so far, I want to start by acknowledging the crucial importance of industry training and apprenticeships to our future workforce and to our future economy in New Zealand. The Green Party, like our colleagues in the Labour Party, was hopeful with the introduction of this legislation, the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill, that we might see some changes that would take us in a better direction, following—as has been referred to in the debate—the decimation of apprenticeships that occurred in the 1990s and that we have taken a long time to recover from in this country. So we supported the bill at its first reading, but we find ourselves unable to continue to support it, following the select committee process. That is for two major reasons, which we have also heard about during this debate.

The first reason is that this bill contains, as we have heard, the de facto privatisation of industry training. By allowing organisations other than recognised industry training organisation providers to be directly funded for the purposes of skills training, we are going to see what is, in effect, the privatisation of industry training for the benefit of specific businesses. They will be able to get Government subsidies for the training that they should be paying for anyway. It is telling that nobody from the unions to the industry peak bodies to the Employers and Manufacturers Association who submitted on this bill to the Education and Science Committee had anything good to say about this particular provision. As we have heard, the only organisation that gave it even mild support was Business New Zealand, and for that it was very lukewarm support indeed.

We have a bizarre situation where every submitter to the select committee on this point raised concerns and said that they did not think that this was necessary. These are the organisations that are working directly in industry training every day, that have the expertise and the knowledge of how the system works, and whose expertise the select committee should be taking seriously and Parliament should be listening to. None of those organisations wanted to see this change happen, yet it persists in the bill. The only explanation that we can think of for why that is the case is ideological stubbornness on the part of the Government.

As has been pointed out, the whole purpose of industry training is to equip workers with industry-wide skills that will be transferable and applicable as they move throughout different workplaces and throughout different experiences in their careers, and allowing individual businesses to access the subsidy for industry skills training essentially means that they will simply be able to train people for their specific workplace and their specific job. The skills will be less transferable, and the only beneficiaries will be the private businesses that take this funding and use it to pay for the training that they should otherwise be paying for themselves for their workers. We fear that the Government will end up funding training that would and should be done by the business itself. It is simply another example of this Government trying to throw subsidies to its mates in the business sector and using the publicly funded education system and industry training system to do it. It is very disappointing.

The other significant area of concern that we have is the proposal to remove skills leadership from the purposes of industry training organisations. We were told that having this for only one part of the industry meant that others would not be involved. Essentially, what it boils down to is that the Government is hoping that leadership will just emerge in the sector. It is not going to mandate anyone to take that skills leadership role. It is taking a very hands-off approach and just hoping that it will magically emerge. That is not good enough, because skills leadership is a very important component in ensuring that the future skills sets of the industry are identified and factored into the provision of training. Unless we nominate where that leadership is going to come from, we cannot just hope that it is going to come from somewhere.

By contrast, the Green Party would like to see a very different vision for industry training in New Zealand. We want to see a smart, green, innovative economy. We want to lead the world in greentech and sustainability. We want a highly skilled workforce. We want to focus on value-added industries where we have skilled workers and opportunities for apprenticeships and training for all young people. We want a vibrant manufacturing sector. We want a thriving small and medium enterprise sector that has the skills that it needs. We want gender to be taken into account too and considered so that women can enjoy skills training opportunities to the same extent as men. Sadly, none of these are provided in this bill.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I commend the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Vulnerable Children Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Vulnerable Children Bill be now read a second time. This bill is an integral part of a suite of measures I have introduced to prevent, and better respond to, child abuse and neglect in this country. This includes the Children’s Action Plan, which is now truly in the action phase. The bill will bring into effect several initiatives laid out in the Children’s Action Plan. These include making Government agencies jointly accountable for the well-being of vulnerable children, and better screening and vetting of Government workers and Government-contracted workers who work with children. The bill also includes amendments to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 and the KiwiSaver Act 2006, as well as minor amendments to a number of other Acts.

At its core, this bill enables a fundamental shift in how we as a nation protect our children from abuse and neglect. It will demand that these children and their needs, complex as they are, are rightly placed at the centre of measures and initiatives designed to protect them. We are a strong and enviable country with a proud record in many areas of social support, but our record in protecting some of our most vulnerable children from abuse and neglect is shameful. This bill turns decades of talk into action to turn round that record.

I thank the Social Services Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The committee has made a number of worthwhile recommendations that I believe will help give best effect to the intent of the bill. I also want to acknowledge the members of the public who took the time to submit on the bill. The committee received 115 written submissions, and 62 submitters made oral submissions. Each submission provided valuable input and a unique perspective, which has led to the improvements to the bill.

The committee recommended some minor changes to the child protection policies to help provide clarity and ensure the policy intent is maintained. Child protection policies will support better identification of child abuse and neglect. The bill requires organisations working with children to ensure that their staff have been thoroughly screened, through a safety check, and are safe to work with children. This approach will reduce the risk of children being harmed by those who are entrusted to look after them or work around them. Too many times we hear of people who have slipped through the net and been able to prey on vulnerable children despite people having concerns about them.

The committee recommended several technical changes to children’s worker safety checking to clarify the intended scope of the requirements. That part is now clearer about which sectors and professions require safety checking. People who have committed serious violent or sexual offences have no place working with children. The bill places a restriction on employing or engaging people who have committed certain serious offences to work alone with children or to have responsibility over them. I must say, it always surprises me that we even need this one, but it is a fact that some employers, even knowing the history of some people, still choose to employ them and put them in a position where they are working with vulnerable children.

The committee recommended adding a further 18 offences to the list of offences in schedule 2, relating to serious violent and sexual offending, sexual offending against animals, historical sexual offending against children, and objectionable publications. I support this recommendation as it is important that this list consistently covers the range of serious violent and sexual offences that make a person unsuitable to work with children.

Exemptions may be granted for those who have been genuinely rehabilitated, but that decision will be made based only on the strongest evidence possible. I am sure some of the committee members might like to comment on that, but that is where we may have people who have committed crimes in the past, have then gone through a thorough rehabilitation, and are working with youth, and are able, actually, to use some of that experience to turn young people’s lives round. So that is where that kind of exemption can be and where we thought it was necessary.

We want to get the correct balance between employees’ rights and those of employers, while also ensuring, of course, that children are protected. To improve this balance, the committee recommended some changes that strengthen the safeguards for employees and provide greater certainty to employers of what is required of them. I believe that once an allegation is made and someone is told that they may not be employed because of their past history, they have 5 days to actually go back and make sure that that fits.

The bill introduces changes that will make it harder for parents who have killed or severely abused or neglected a child to have another child in their care again. The changes to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act will put the legal onus on these parents to prove they are safe before they can have, or continue to have, the care or custody of any subsequent children. I feel strongly about this one. Unfortunately, past behaviour can be indicative of future behaviour. Someone can prove that they have turned their lives round with the right interventions, but the onus should be on them to prove that. We should well and truly make the safety of the child paramount in the decisions we make moving forward. The Social Services Committee also recommended some other changes to the part of the bill that amends the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act to provide clarification and to ensure that the policy intent is maintained.

Last month, in March, I announced that the Government had decided to put the proposal for child harm prevention orders on hold for the time being. This decision was not taken lightly. It was taken over a long period of time. The Government is already putting a range of measures in place to protect vulnerable adults and children from people who present a high risk of harming them. In recent years we introduced police safety orders and 24-hour GPS monitoring to track the movements of high-risk offenders. We also removed the eligibility for parole for repeat serious violent offenders and offenders who commit the worst murders. Initiatives that we are working on include new public protection orders covering offenders who pose a very high risk of imminent or serious sexual or violent offending.

Under the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) the new Education Council and its disciplinary bodies will have more options for addressing serious misconduct by teachers, including physical, sexual, or psychological abuse of a child or young person. As I said, we carefully considered submissions to the select committee on child harm prevention orders. Given the extent of the other measures to protect vulnerable children, I am satisfied that we can significantly strengthen the protection of our children without pursuing child harm prevention orders at this point.

In conclusion, this legislation marks a significant change in how we work with vulnerable children and how we respond to their needs. We acknowledge that the changes proposed are controversial for some and will take many people out of their comfort zones. I make absolutely no apology for that. To achieve an improvement in terms of the horrific problem of child abuse and neglect in this country, we need to face the problem head on. What we have been doing is not working and is nowhere near good enough for those children who need us most, so we need to take action. I believe that this bill is a significant step towards us having improved services for those children who need us most. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to rise and give Labour’s first contribution in this second reading on the Vulnerable Children Bill. We have already indicated our support for this bill, but we do so with some disappointment that the opportunity was not taken via this bill to put on the table a wider range of measures that we believe could have a positive impact on a wider range of children. The Minister for Social Development presented to the public some time ago via the green paper process the ability for the community, those working in the children’s workforce and beyond, to share their vision and their hopes for the future for the children of New Zealand, and they did so with great enthusiasm. The response to that process was enormous. In amongst that response—because I read many of the submissions, as many as I could, given that there were so many—many said: “Let’s use this opportunity to say that if we lift all New Zealand children and focus on general well-being, we will at the same time impact those who are particularly vulnerable.”

So I do have the sense that although this piece of legislation is heavily targeted towards those children who are at very high risk of abuse or neglect, our concern is that by being targeted we potentially allow children to fall through the gaps, and that it is very hard to always isolate just who those children might be. A wider approach would have lifted the boats of many and not just the few. That is, and continues to be, our position. We would have liked to see a wider Children’s Action Plan, which is what the Children’s Commissioner advocated in his submission on this bill. When we raised with him the fact that that was not here and asked whether he saw any sign of that coming, he was very careful in his response, but the clear submission seemed to be that given that he is doing all the work at the moment around things like the Child Poverty Monitor, he obviously remains sceptical that that piece of work will be picked up by the Government.

I do want to focus on some of the specifics of the bill. The Minister mentioned that the child harm prevention orders have been removed from the bill. We did express concerns about those orders, but did say that we wanted to hear at the Social Services Committee what the view of the public was. I have to say that we still do not feel like we have been given a very clear explanation from the Government as to why it removed those, because that announcement was made before the select committee had even reported back. That has meant that there is obviously a large chunk that has come out of the bill, and all of the reasons that the Minister gave around the current work, or past work, that the Government has done, which she believes will cover the area that child harm prevention orders were in, were actually already in motion, already either planned or in place, when the child harm prevention orders were first drafted. So I still feel there could be a little more clarity as to why those have been removed—placing on the table again, though, that we always thought that the threshold that needed to be met in terms of the evidence base for those child harm prevention orders was very, very high, because it basically said that we would be placing an order on an individual without a criminal conviction having been met, so we were very sceptical about those in the first place.

Checks on the workforce that works with children were part of this bill. There was quite a debate at the select committee as to whether or not that needed to extend beyond the State workforce, which is what this bill covers, and whether or not the areas of vulnerability are actually in our volunteer workforce. Some did come forward and say that they feel it was incumbent on them to carry out those checks, even if the law was not going to prescribe this for them, and that they needed to be part of this as well. But it struck us that there needed to be greater support for those volunteer agencies that feel really vulnerable. The State is now legislating up until a point, but they do not have the same kind of support and yet still feel obliged to carry out those checks. So there is still more work there to be done.

There is also the issue of establishing protocols for reporting to Child, Youth and Family—having child protection policies in place. It was our concern that a lot of the significant agencies—you know, health boards and so on—already have child protection policies. They have had them for some time. Actually, those organisations where that might be new could benefit from support in developing those policies and training. Groups like Child Matters do a fantastic job at training agencies or organisations on child protection policies, but now they have been told that they need to do that without any of the extra support behind training staff appropriately, and training is key if those child protection policies are going to work.

I want to come to Part 3 of the bill. This is when we get into some areas that I think have been a really contentious point for those who are working in this space on behalf of vulnerable children. They relate particularly to special guardianship orders. In the time that I have worked across Child, Youth and Family issues, I have had numerous contact from foster carers, who take on the incredibly important role of a foster carer because of their desire to support vulnerable children. They do not get much back for doing that job except the satisfaction that they are helping a very vulnerable child. They do, if they are for a time under the heading of a foster carer, get some support from Child, Youth and Family. They get some financial support as well. A lot of that, though, ebbs away if they move into a Home for Life situation. Yes, there is some financial support still there, but they get very little moral support. Their contact with a biological parent, which at one point as a foster carer might have been mediated by Child, Youth and Family, disappears. It is all on them from that point. That includes the court processes that they have to go through, because these parents, these non-biological parents who take on care and guardianship roles, are frequently challenged by parents who have proven themselves to be not fit to parent, yet they will find themselves being dragged through the courts to do things like move town for work, or around visitation rights, and that is extraordinarily frustrating for a foster carer, as you can imagine.

This bill is meant to fix that, but there have been some questions raised as to whether or not that is what it will do, and I want to read some extracts from a parent who would be affected by this bill: “We received no support from Child, Youth and Family at all, not even moral support. We are on our own. We fight the battles alone. We have all of the responsibilities and none of the rights. Really, all we want is the right to do the best we can by our little girl, but we legally cannot sign consent if she was to undergo a medical procedure that required anaesthetic. Legally we are obliged to contact and consult with two individuals who cannot parent if they want to travel, and are supposed to do so even when we travel domestically. They are supposed to get consent to the school she goes to and where we live and could even object to the fact that we go to church.”

It has been implied that this bill is going to give greater legal rights and allow less litigious situations for these parents, but the proof will be in the pudding, and there is definitely a need for that element of the bill—absolutely. We make a commitment to review how well that is working for those parents, and if this bill does not fix the problem, we must go in again and ensure that those parents are properly supported.

There is one final but really critical point that I want to end on. Currently in New Zealand, for a child in Child, Youth and Family care or the State’s care, the State’s obligation on their parents ends when the child turns 17. Show me a parent who raises a child up until the age of 17 and then on their 17th birthday shows them the door and says: “Do not contact me again. I care little where you live, what you do, but don’t come back.” You would not do that—simply, you would not—if you were a decent parent, and yet that is what we as the State do. This bill purports to put in place support to the age of 20 for children who are in Child, Youth and Family care, but there is no real legal obligation. They can advise on accommodation, yet a 17-year-old cannot fall under Housing New Zealand provisions. I know of cases where children—because that is what they are—are referred to women’s refuges because they have no housing for 17-year-olds. This bill does not go far enough in obliging Child, Youth and Family to continue having responsibility for those children. We were told of that in no uncertain terms by a young man, during his submission, who had been in a foster-care situation himself. Labour will oblige Child, Youth and Family to continue responsibility, legally, for these children beyond their 17th birthday. That is what a decent parent would do and that is what the State should do, and we will be making moves to ensure that that happens in the future.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to support the second reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill. To the majority of New Zealanders, the idea of abusing children is simply abhorrent. However, a small percentage of New Zealanders do hurt our defenceless children. Physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of our most precious little ones is a reality, and it happens right here in this country called God’s own. Whether the cause of the abuse is put down to alcohol, drugs, low self-esteem, mental illness, or whatever the reason—although I personally do not believe there is any excuse for abusing children—our children are hurting, and the need for the Vulnerable Children Bill is paramount.

Most of our Kiwi kids grow up in a loving and safe environment where they can be children and they can play without fear, but more than 50 children have died in the last 5 years in this country because of extreme abuse. Because of abuse, a child under 2 is hospitalised every 5 days. Every year Child, Youth and Family substantiates 22,000 cases of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect. They are shocking statistics that we should all be embarrassed about. New Zealanders have had enough.

The reforms we are making are major and represent the most significant legislative reforms to address child abuse and neglect since the passing of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. Reforms were proposed in the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and the Children’s Action Plan. The Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, and the police will put policies in place containing provisions on the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect. These Government departments’ funded and contracted services also have these policies in place. This includes Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, district health boards, and school boards of trustees.

This bill is about reinforcing the need for shared responsibility and coordinated action across the Government social services sector to better protect our vulnerable children and to help ensure that our children are safe with those who work with them. The standard safety checks for employees in the Government, and the Government-funded children’s workforce, are making sure that people with disqualifying convictions are prevented from working with our children. We are increasing the number of social workers in schools, to cover all decile 1 to 3 schools. We have put social workers in hospitals, we have increased funding and services for children in care, and we have introduced Children’s Teams to work with at-risk children. Now 142,000 children have access to social workers, meaning there is face-to-face contact with professionals trained in dealing with complex and difficult issues.

The Social Workers in Hospitals initiative introduced in 2009 is also making a positive impact with social workers now based in every district health board in the country. We will have a national children’s director in place and two Children’s Teams in place. Also a Vulnerable Children’s Board of chief executives has been operating for some months now. We are working on a care strategy for children in State care; the Child Protect line, a vulnerable kids’ information system; and increasing the pool of iwi caregivers. This is not just about a very narrow focus on vulnerable children; this is the Government’s response to our vulnerable children. It is a signal, it is a sign, and it is a message to the rest of New Zealand that we have had enough of the abuse of our children and the neglect of our children.

This bill will bring in better Government accountability, better vetting and screening of people working with children, and better guardianship and protection laws. Any person working for the Government, with children, will be screened and vetted. This will affect around 280,000 workers. People with serious convictions will permanently be restricted from working closely with children. The Social Services Committee recommend adding 80 more offences to the list of restrictive convictions, meaning that a person who has committed any of these offences cannot work alone with children or have responsibility for them, and I think that is a fantastic move that we actually ended up with in this bill.

The committee also recommended changes to protect employees’ rights, without compromising the safety of children, by providing a 5-day suspension period to address concerns between the employer and the employee before any termination can be actioned. Other committee recommendations include some minor changes to ensure clarity of the intent of the policy. When abusive parents go on to have further children, they will also have to prove that they are fit parents, or their children will be removed. At the moment the onus is on the State to prove that the new baby is in danger. This leaves an innocent life at risk, and we do not want to do that. We want to protect them from harm, and this move—putting the onus on parents to prove that they are, in fact, safe to have the children with them—is a good move. This is so that abusive parents who have had their children removed cannot disrupt the children’s new, safe, and stable home with Home for Life carers.

We introduced Home for Life in 2010—a home where a child can find stability and permanency, and where they can feel secure enough to learn and to grow. The bill will allow an appointed guardian such as the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development or an approved service to enrol a child in KiwiSaver and to manage the account without needing to obtain the consent of their guardians. This National-led Government is committed to improving the lives of vulnerable children. We have set targets in early childhood education, where we have increased spending by 74 percent in 2008. In the year ending June 2013, 95.7 percent of children starting school had previously participated in early childhood education. That is a great record.

We have a target to increase infant immunisation rates so that 95 percent of 8-month-olds are fully immunised by December this year. By 2017 we aim to halt the rise in children experiencing physical abuse and reduce the current numbers by 5 percent. Considering that we have had such a terrible record with abusing our children, that is an ambitious target. We are supporting vulnerable children by tackling poverty issues, our approach being to fix issues with vulnerable kids before it is too late. We are expanding the KickStart Breakfast programme. More than 1.5 million breakfasts have been served since the Government expanded the programme last year. We are boosting support for KidsCan to ensure that kids in need have access to raincoats, shoes, and our basic health care programmes.

There is always more, as other members have said, that the Government can do and the rest of New Zealand can do. This Government is fully committed to lifting the quality of all New Zealanders’ lives, and this bill deals to the very heart of our shame—the shameful record, the shameful history, of our abuse of the most vulnerable. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill. Whenever it comes to debating bills of this type in this House, I have had reason to reflect on the many years I have spent working with vulnerable families and vulnerable children, training social workers to work in this field, and, indeed, researching and writing about many aspects of vulnerable children and vulnerable families. When I do that reflection, I recall all of the actions we have taken. My experience goes back to 1971. Every time there is a proposal to improve the lives of vulnerable children, a few years later when we look at the effects of those proposals, we scratch our heads and ask why it did not achieve its effect. Why is it that now we end up in the 21st century with such a poor record when it comes to child abuse and neglect? How did that happen when, since 1971, I can recall, we have had the kinds of speeches we are having in the House now—the comments to the effect that we have found the answer, and that when we put these matters into legislation and when they are practised, things will be that much better? I just wish I had that confidence. Nothing I have heard so far gives me that confidence.

That is not a reason not to support this bill. We have every reason to support this, and, indeed, we do, but it is a matter for quiet reflection on what it is that we ought to be doing that we are not doing. The question haunts me. Why do we as a country have such an alarming rate of abuse and neglect? The refrain is: will these sets of provisions make the difference? We can go further in asking those questions. Why is it that a certain section of our communities live lives of quiet desperation, often producing the harm, if you like, that we are designing approaches to resolve? So why does that happen, and why do those communities and those individuals and those families live lives of quiet desperation? Why are the poor and, to some extent, certain ethnic groups overrepresented in this field, and why do we not have conversations about that? Why do we not begin to address those things a lot more comprehensively? And then the refrain is: will this set of provisions enable us to improve the lives of the vulnerable in a comprehensive kind of fashion? And the answer is maybe, maybe not. But still the sadness remains.

Why are there so many cases where subsequent generations produce the same effects? It is not as if we did not know about them. It is not as if these families and these children have not come to the consciousness of some official. It might be a teacher, it might be a Plunket nurse, it might be a recreation person, or it might be somebody else in the community, such as a doctor or a nurse, and, down the track, colleagues at work, etc. Why is it that despite our knowing of them—and many of these cases have been identified and referred to the agencies and others who work on improving the lives of the vulnerable—we fall short, and we fall short so seriously? So we then begin to ask questions about the quality of our interventions. We can create the best set of legislative provisions, but it will not make a damn bit of difference if we do not have the right type of people—highly trained people—to operationalise the intention of the legislation. We have known about abuse and neglect for so long. We have known for so long where it occurs, yet we have not been able to bring together a comprehensive set of provisions to protect the most vulnerable. Will this set of provisions do that? I am not so sure, but I hope that they will.

We can reflect on our adult justice system, and it is littered—it is littered—with those who were vulnerable much earlier on in life. It is littered. Why does that happen? In fact, we treat them in such a way that they become the abusers of tomorrow and, therefore, we have to look at ourselves as well. So what is the extent to which these provisions I first looked at—why do we fail? Why are the billions we have spent and the provisions we have made not working? These matters worry me. They worry me as a parent, they worry me as a grandparent seeing young children, they worry me as a previous practitioner in this field, and they now worry me as a member of this particular Parliament. Over the past almost 6 years I have sat in this House and watched the various provisions we have tried to come up with to address this issue, and we have always supported any good idea. This Opposition has supported the good idea to say: “Well, maybe these sets of provisions will make a difference.” But at times I worry that the other sub-context, or the other sub-conversation, if you like—the other conversation that goes on—is the way in which we also heap a lot of criticism on these families, as well. We have done it even recently. Whenever we talk about welfare abuse, whenever we talk about dependency, or whenever we talk about those going overseas for a holiday when they ought not to be—whenever we do that, we are pointing a finger at a whole bunch of people who are the vulnerable, from whom these families come.

So on this particular occasion there is no need not to support these provisions, because the provisions themselves will make some difference. Coming to the specific things in the bill, because we share the concern amongst New Zealanders, we do support the provisions here, but will these provisions be enough? I do not know. This bill addresses the vulnerability of about 30,000 children, but the vulnerable whom we know of are about 300,000 children, yet we are not actually focusing on that in any comprehensive kind of way. Those who are at risk, if you like, are a much larger pool, and these provisions address some of those. So in maybe another 20 years’ time somebody else will be standing here giving a very similar speech, asking why in 2014 our provisions were not more comprehensive, because those who are living in poverty are vulnerable, yet our provisions do not get to them.

What we require is a more comprehensive action plan for children that will produce a paradigm shift in the way in which our society thinks about the vulnerable, because there is something wrong with New Zealand society when it comes to violence. We are very, very tolerant of violence. No matter what we say in this House, this society is very tolerant of violence—whether it is violence against our children, whether it is violence against our women, whether it is violence of men against men, or whether, indeed, it is in the way in which we conduct ourselves in our language, etc. It is somehow ingrained in the psyche and the personality of New Zealand. We are not addressing it, and that wider conversation is not taking place. So this particular bill looks at some aspects of that, and those we do not argue with. I am glad that there will be a much more comprehensive look at those families who have had vulnerable children producing others. It will look at that.

So there are many, many aspects of this bill that are worth supporting, but unless we have highly trained people who are capable of identifying the cases and bringing together high-quality programmes to produce the change that is required, this bill will be suboptimal in its effects. But it is still a bill worth supporting. There are some good ideas here, and others will talk about those during the Committee stage. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party certainly agrees with some of the provisions of this legislation, the Vulnerable Children Bill, but not all of them. Where we have disagreements, they are serious, and so we are not intending to support this legislation any further. We did vote for it at its first reading, to make sure that we had a genuine discussion about the issues of how to best support families when they are in a state of vulnerability—and children, in particular—but we are not satisfied that this legislation meets the goals.

We do appreciate that the Government is attempting to improve the safety of children. That itself is a laudable goal, and there are some aspects of this bill that go some way towards that, but this bill and the resources that are required to implement it will not be effective if the Government continues to neglect the issues of child poverty and family violence, which increase the risk to children. Those are the drivers of risk to children and they must be addressed, too. So we consider that at the same time as the Government is doing this bill, which is really about identifying particular individuals and focusing on individual needs, it should be implementing specific child poverty reduction measures and other policy initiatives that directly target family violence as the core driver of increased risk to children.

I would say that we are very pleased that the Minister for Social Development has chosen to remove the child harm prevention orders from the bill. They were particularly onerous, there was no evidence to back them up, there was no research that indicated that they would be successful, or any indication from the research we saw in the Social Services Committee that significant numbers of children would be protected by them, so we are very pleased that they have gone.

The collaboration in the bill is good—the collaboration between the chief executives of all the various ministries. That is all very good, too, but, actually, it should not require legislation to make it happen. Actually, these should have been put in place and it should be the normal practice of any Government intervention. There should be cross-ministry engagement and cross-ministry plans backed up by evidence and research that those plans are working, with clear targets being set for the reduction of violence, for the reduction of child poverty, and for the reduction in the number of children who are presenting to Child, Youth and Family and to other agencies—and in the number of families who are presenting to other agencies—for assistance. With plans like that in place and clear responsibility for meeting those objectives, we will have real change. Whether this particular level of collaboration in this bill does that or leads to that, we have yet to see, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

We are very pleased about providing more financial support to young people who are leaving State care. I will talk briefly about that shortly. We are, however, still very concerned that there is no intention by the Government to help the community sector with the cost of the increased police checks. The community sector came to the select committee and was very clear that this was not necessarily a bad idea—in fact, many welcomed it—but the financial burden was placed on those agencies that are at the front line of dealing with the most vulnerable families. The money that they use to go out to family homes, to go to meet and talk with families and kids, and to make the assessments about whether a child is at risk and then to take action for that child if that is the case is now going to have to be used for police checks. There is a significant cost to community organisations at the front line, and, repeatedly, the officials and the Minister have said that they will not make any kind of compensation or reimbursement for those costs. It is a significant cost in some cases, and that cost will come out of the services that are provided to the children and the families whom this bill is arguing to assist. It is unfair to place that obligation on these services that do such a fantastic job on behalf of us all and for them to have no reimbursement whatsoever.

I am particularly concerned about the provisions that increase the powers of the State to remove children from their mothers at birth. There are already significant powers that the State has to remove a child at birth if it considers that there is a risk. Part of what this bill does is it changes the onus of proof. It is already very difficult for mothers, particularly, to demonstrate to Child, Youth and Family that they have had enough intervention that they are able to keep their baby and care for them properly. But now the burden of proof has changed quite significantly and the hurdles for these women are now significantly greater, and we can see no justification for that.

The single most critical factor in how children survive exposure to domestic violence is the presence of at least one loving and supportive adult in their life. For many children the loving and supportive adult is their mother, who will repeatedly do her best to provide her child, her children, with a normal life, even when she herself is being abused. So she is the subject of domestic violence; her children are the subject of domestic violence. She is fighting for her and their lives as best she can, but the child abuse system does not acknowledge the role of this protective parent. We too often hear of these women, these protective parents, doing the best they can and losing their children because they have been unable to keep their children safe from the abuser. This is even in cases of post-separation where she has left the abuser, she has taken the children with her, she has not been able to stop the abuser from continuing the violence, and the children are removed from her. The children are removed from her. She is punished. She might have tried the court system and it failed her. She might have tried getting other support from women’s refuge—none of which has been able to keep the abuser away. Nothing about the State system has been able to keep the abuser away from her and her kids, and she is the one who is punished. Her children are punished.

I have been visiting child services agencies for the last wee while, talking to them about the nature of the families they work with, the very high-risk vulnerable families. One service told me that 50 percent of the parents of the families at risk come from State care—50 percent. State care has failed to provide those parents when they were children with the resources they needed to have a good and fulfilling life. State care has not helped them grow into the parents and adults who are able to have the resources to care for their children as they would like. Yet this legislation will take more children from parents and put them into State care. State care is not safe. Everybody knows that. The State system is trying to address that, and good on it for doing it as best it can, but it is still failing those kids. Those kids grow up to be parents, and those parents have their own kids removed, to be taken back into State care where the cycle starts again because at no point in this cycle has any Government truly addressed the drivers that have led to those kids being there in the first place, which are child poverty and family violence.

These are the issues that have to be tackled, and there is not one single thing in this bill that deals with that. The State will take children away. It will do police checks on individuals. It will take an individualistic approach. I asked the Minister about this and said: “Do you understand that we need structural change and we need an individual approach at the same time?”. Yes, she said; she understood that. No, she was not going to address the structural drivers that cause family violence. No, she was not. That was not her priority. So the Greens are very disappointed. We are disappointed in the time and the resources that it has taken to write up this bill and to eventually enact and do all this work, knowing that, at the end of the day, not a single thing is going to make the major difference that we need made in this country, which is tackling child poverty and family violence. We will not support this bill. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): The greatest disappointment was when the last speaker, Metiria Turei, continued to go on about child poverty. The greatest disappointment was when that member basically said to the whole of New Zealand that if you are impoverished, then you are more likely to abuse your kids and to neglect your kids. I tell you that most of New Zealand needs to know that that was a speech that put the blame on that. Here are the reasons why.

The last member who spoke would not like this, but when the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills, came to give a submission at the Social Services Committee, this is what he said. He is part of the Child Poverty Action Group, which goes around and talks about this issue. Dr Russell Wills said this: “Poverty is the secondary issue. The issue around vulnerable children is absolutely important. The direction of the Vulnerable Children Bill is important. Its focus is important. Its intention to address the core issues is absolutely important.” So we now have the Children’s Commissioner stating that really clearly. I will say it again. He said that poverty is the secondary issue; vulnerability, neglect, and abuse are the critical issues. Here are the reasons he gave: the reality is that abuse and neglect have no ethnicity tag and they have no socio-economic tag. We cannot go out and say that because you are impoverished, you are more likely to abuse and neglect your kids. I can tell you this: if you go into any community, you will see that community rise up and condemn any person who says that. That is what is happening.

Hon Member: Rubbish.

ALFRED NGARO: It is not rubbish; it is the truth. Back when the Hon Steve Maharey was the Minister for Social Development, I was part of the NGO sector, which turned round and, after the Mick Brown report, put together what we called the blueprint. The blueprint had the intention of bringing all of the sectors together. The report talked about siloed operations. There was a lack of champions. There was a lack of commitment to responsibility for the issues in the sector around abuse, neglect, and the vulnerability of our children.

What this bill has done is at the heart of that. I have got to tell you—and Dr Prasad knows this—that those recommendations were never upheld and they were never taken on board. But what this Minister has done is, firstly, to take on one of the core principles—leadership—that came out of those recommendations. She has taken on that core principle, leadership, to ensure we have accountability and responsibility. The Vulnerable Children Bill is about responsibility. It is about being accountable to New Zealanders, about the importance of vulnerable children, and about the neglect that happens in our community. These are the things that are important. At the highest level there are five chief executives of five key Government departments who are held accountable. Why is that important? Because that accountability is about their responsibility, about Government responsibility.

Can I also say this: the responsibility of addressing the issues of abuse and neglect in our communities is not just the Government’s. That last speaker from the Greens keeps talking about Government responsibility, but she is afraid to front up to our communities and talk about community responsibility. We know what we need to be responsible for. This bill has done that. We know that it has the support of the Labour Party, and we know that it is being responsible. The thing about what the Green Party members say and want to do is that they think the responsibility of care when dealing with abuse and neglect is entirely that of the Government and not of the community.

We think this is a very good bill. It is comprehensive. There were 115 submissions; 62 were oral submissions. We have worked constructively and collectively together. We also have the support of the Labour caucus to ensure that this bill absolutely fulfils its primary obligation around the abuse and neglect of our vulnerable children in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the minute and a half that is actually left before the dinner break. I rise on behalf of our wonderful New Zealand First Party to speak on this Vulnerable Children Bill. The second reading will need to be debated with caution. It is a shame that Parliament is no longer a place where legislation can be debated and scrutinised thoroughly with fair, democratic views. New Zealand First voted—

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

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

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: As I was saying before we broke up for tea, this bill needs to be debated with caution. New Zealand First actually voted against the report of the Social Services Committee because there are areas in the bill that need to be fixed. The loopholes create discrepancies for those whom this bill is meant to care for. The report presented an atmosphere of false hope, using specific words to sell this Government’s idea of a solution, but without true commitment. That has been a major concern. Sweet phrases are being used to win support for this bill in the hope that no one will take the time to look into its contents properly. Language is now becoming the art of window dressing, intentionally creating confusion and forcing false perspectives on ordinary people. This tactic is clearly perceived by many who do care about vulnerable children. They do care about our children. They have responded through submissions because they are concerned about their loved ones being victimised unfairly.

Our children are precious—there is no secret about that—and they ought to be given a fair opportunity in life. They need love. They need safety. They need access to an environment that cares for their future. They must be provided with the stability that comes with fairness and fosters a balanced approach to life. The truth is that greed is now replacing common sense and love. Love will come when greed and manipulation stop. Love will come when the personal agenda is put aside and there is a focus on positive outcomes for all. The evidence of child abuse in New Zealand is tragic—absolutely tragic. New Zealand’s record of child abuse is concerning. Children are being neglected and ignored. It is a real shame to think that child poverty is actually encouraged here in New Zealand. It is disheartening to have a Parliament that introduces legislation that would result in demolishing any good efforts to enhance a happy environment for our children.

We have heard of the saying that when we were children we used to think that when we grew up we would no longer be vulnerable. The unfortunate reality now is that to grow up is to accept vulnerability. The term “vulnerable children” is a relatively new term. The fact is that one of the virtues of being a child is vulnerability. But children are expected to gain more security and independence as they grow older. Sadly, the harmful, negative, and threatening influences of today such as drugs, alcohol, and domestic and sexual abuse mean that some children never get that chance—never. These negative influences perpetrate the vulnerability of children.

It is our responsibility to ensure that our children can grow up to become confident young adults. The Kāhui twins did not have to die if the loopholes in New Zealand legislation had been afforded common sense. The number of young children being subjected to unsafe environments has increased over the last 6 years—or the last few years, if I could say it that way. It is a demoralising outcome for a country like New Zealand, which often raises human rights concerns at international forums. Young baby Nia Glassie—I am sure that everyone will remember her—would not have died if our Government applied intelligence that would put the safety of our children as a top priority.

The words being used in the title of this bill sound great to our ears. The title flows perfectly, and it is very hard for anyone to oppose something that aims to provide a safe haven for our young children. One of the positive aspects of this bill is the area where information sharing amongst Government agencies will ensure early detection of vulnerable children. One would hope that it does not get to the wrong hands, who could then use it to blackmail those who are already vulnerable. Information sharing means raising any alarm on things that could potentially lead to risks, detecting the vulnerability of children, and accounting for appropriate actions that would be needed to address the issues. It is meant to put children at the centre of everything that may need to be done. But the bill fails to recognise other elements that can create difficulties for our children. This is the area where the attempt to protect our vulnerable children could be seen as pure manipulation and those with power behaving dastardly, ignoring the need for children to be at the centre of any efforts.

Nothing brings me more happiness than trying to help the most vulnerable people in our New Zealand society. However, introducing legislation for political point-scoring is dangerous and will have a huge negative impact on our community. I asked a question at the select committee about security checks on volunteers who are engaged on a regular basis with children. To my surprise, the response I was given was that some religious groups are not comfortable with this because it could put people off volunteering in schools, early childhood education centres, or whatever organisation it may be. I immediately thought of my mother, Feao Leono, who often said we are never so vulnerable as when we trust someone, but, paradoxically, if we cannot trust, neither can we find love or joy.

If those who offer themselves to volunteer are actually genuine about the service that they provide for young children, they cannot possibly be concerned about security checks. In fact, they would probably support them all the way. It means that it will be getting rid of the risks and harms that are associated with those who do work with our young children. A number of child abuse incidents occur as a result of these types of situations where volunteers’ backgrounds have not been checked and children have been found to have been abused.

I introduced a bill to the House called the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill. This bill has been reported back to the House. Again, it was a bill that would have deterred criminals from committing crimes in the presence of young children. Some of those at the Law and Order Committee thought that was already covered under the current legislation, when it is clearly not. It is down to the judge to use that option. So let me say this: if this were the case and it was already covered, then why are we deliberating on this bill here today? To think that the current law allows the judge to consider options that incorporate additional punishment—it is clearly not black and white. It is possible that this current Government is working against the common-sense approach because that bill was under the name of the New Zealand First Party, without any regard for the children. If current legislation is sufficient to cover the basic requirements for vulnerable children, then why have there been so many cases where vulnerable children continue to be affected?

We have a responsibility as a State to protect our most vulnerable citizens. That means children, of course, and includes seniors and those with disabilities. The question is whether this bill will be enough. Will this bill deliver that outcome? We all accept the general expectation that vulnerable children need safeguards from those who would cause harm to them. Well, that is our moral obligation. It is our obligation to ensure that we support changes that will bring about better outcomes. In fact, it is our obligation as parliamentarians to introduce legislation that delivers justifiable results, including peace and happiness for our tamariki. There is a wider cost to society when children are deprived of basic needs crucial to their development. If we cannot protect the future generations, there will be an economic cost to the country as well. New Zealand First will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage for members to consider, and we urge the Minister for Social Development and the Government to seriously give it some consideration. Thank you very much.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Every so often, as members of Parliament, we have the opportunity and, in fact, the privilege to do something really significant, and this is one of those moments. In the nearly 6 years that I have had as a member of Parliament, there are few things that I can think of that have been more important to us, and I am very, very proud to be supporting this bill, the Vulnerable Children Bill.

I want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development and the Social Services Committee for the huge job that they have done. I am deeply disappointed and indeed amazed to hear that the bill is no longer unanimously supported by all the parties in this House—because it is that important. This is a measure where New Zealanders are crying out to us for action and for leadership, and through a very thorough, rigorous process starting with a white paper and coming through to this bill, the Minister and her wonderful team have delivered.

I pay tribute to everybody working around the country, and there are many thousands of wonderful people who are doing terrific work in this area trying to protect our most vulnerable children. I cannot commend this measure more strongly to the House.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to the second reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill. I wish I could share the enthusiasm of the member who has just resumed his seat, Tim Macindoe, for how significant this bill is. Yes, this is an issue that does need addressing. It is the Labour Party’s view that the Government has not grasped this opportunity to deal with the very serious issues that confront the nation’s children, that the bill is not as significant as it should have been, and that it falls short on a number of counts. So, sadly, if this is the most significant moment in the member’s career, I wish it was an awful lot more significant that what it has been.

We did have the opportunity, and we still have the opportunity in this Parliament, to actually address the issues that do make 285,000 children in this country vulnerable, but instead the Government has chosen to do some things to assist 30,000 who are deemed to be at risk. Those I am referring to are the 285,000 children who by this Government’s own estimation—by this Government’s own estimation—are living in poverty and, sadly, this bill does nothing to address their plight.

Even for the children whose plight it does aim to address, sadly, it does fall short. It does aim to address the plight of children who find themselves in situations where they are at risk of being physically or sexually abused, so they are very, very vulnerable. I want to just restate—and I am sure other members when they have taken calls in this debate have been clear about this—that no one could be more vulnerable in our society than a child placed at risk in that way. But the bill focuses on people in paid employment and the risk they pose to vulnerable children, when what we know as a country is that people in paid employment, in front-line services with children, are not where the vast majority of this harm takes place. What we know is that the paid professionals are much less likely to be in a situation of abusing children and that, in fact, it is in the unpaid workforce and the volunteer workforce where most of this harm happens.

I was severely disappointed as a member of the Social Services Committee to discover part-way through the submissions on this bill that this bill did nothing, and still does nothing, to address that very serious and large-scale risk, because we do know that that is where children are most at risk. Yet this bill does nothing to regulate or address the issue of having a safety regime for children around people who either work in volunteer organisations or volunteer for organisations where children are placed in care. I think that is a great gaping hole in this legislation.

Again, as it so often is with this Government, sadly, it is a grand title that the Government has afforded this bill, but the detail does not actually match up with the rhetoric. If this really was a bill that addressed vulnerable children, then as well as the issue of children being placed at risk of abuse, it would deal with the vulnerability of those 285,000 children who are living in poverty.

The good news is that the Labour Party has got plans to do exactly this, and I want to recommend to people listening to this debate Labour’s Best Start policy. If the Government was really serious about addressing the issues for vulnerable children, then it would be agreeing with the approach being proposed by Labour. The Best Start policy ensures that every child who lives in a family where the family income is less than $155,000 per annum would receive, on the birth of that child, $60 extra a week, and for low-income families that payment would stay in place up until the age of 3. That is a very real and practical way of addressing poverty and vulnerable children living in poverty. If the Government was serious about addressing the concerns about vulnerable children, that is exactly where it would be heading. It would be heading down that track of ensuring that all children get the very best start in life.

Again, a Government that is really serious about dealing with children and making sure that they have got the best start in life would be supporting my bill to extend paid parental leave to 6 months. Instead, the Government is deploying all sorts of delaying tactics—everything it can think of to stop that bill from going through this House, including the extreme threat of a financial veto. That is what the Government thinks of vulnerable children. It is actually prepared to use the most extreme tool available to it as a Government to stop children from getting supported in those very early and vulnerable first 6 months of their lives. That, I think, says it all about this Government’s priority for supporting children in those very early vulnerable months.

That is also part of Labour’s Best Start programme—the policy that actually will deal with the needs of vulnerable children rather than this bill, which addresses a narrow sliver of the issue. However, however narrow the sliver is, it is an important sliver, I must add, because of course we want to ensure that children who are at risk of being harmed by adults—and it bothers me to stand in this Parliament and say it, because we as adults should be the people on whom vulnerable children can depend—should be able to depend on the fact that when they are in the company of adults they are safe, but, sadly, that is not the case.

This bill does a little to address that issue, but it does not do a lot to address it. I was, however, pleased to see that the Government did back down in the end on the idea of using child harm prevention orders. It was the view of the Labour Party and other parties represented on the Social Services Committee, right from the outset, that these were not going to work, and that the child harm prevention orders were going to be significantly overreaching. The Minister for Social Development came to that decision at the end of the day, but it took many, many submissions from a wide range of submitters to convince her that taking measures against people who had not had a conviction and for whom there was no evidence or proof that they had offended against children was not workable and was going a step too far. The Government came to its senses in the end.

There is one other issue that came to light during the submissions on this bill that I would like to briefly give some oxygen to during this debate, and that is the issue raised by a number of organisations who talked to us about the plight of children who are extremely vulnerable because they have severe disabilities, their family has been unable to cope with those disabilities, and they have ended up being institutionalised for life as a result of that. The plea from a number of those organisations was to say to the select committee that, for goodness’ sake, if these parents are not willing or able to give a home to these children, there are other foster families who would like to do that, and that child should have the right to not be institutionalised for life but to have a home for life. I think that is something that I would like to see this Parliament give some consideration to in the future.

The Labour Party is supporting this bill. We do not think it goes far enough.

Debate interrupted.

Obituaries

Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I have consulted with the other whips from parties that are represented in the House, and I want to seek the leave of the House for it to have a moment’s silence to note the passing today of the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse ONZ, KBE, DSC, former President of the Court of Appeal, judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court, President of the Law Commission, and Privy Councillor, but, more important, the lead author of the Woodhouse report, which recommended the no-fault compensation scheme that New Zealand has, with agreement of all parties in the House, adopted since that report.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Bills

Vulnerable Children Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand in support of the second reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill, a bill that would be one of the most important ones that we have considered in this House of Parliament in this term of Parliament. I want to congratulate the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Paula Bennett, on the extensive work that she has done up and down this country to hear the concerns and the cries of people in our communities regarding the needs of children. As a nation, we cannot think of anything more heartbreaking than to see a child who suffers abuse and who has their future marred, and so this legislation is incredibly important. Before I entered Parliament I worked in communities up and down this country, but particularly in west Auckland, where the Minister comes from. I know that in that community there are very many caring people but also people there who ought to know better and who must act better. This bill, which is very extensive, is going to bring a change to the face of New Zealand communities and I commend it to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of this bill, the Vulnerable Children Bill. This is a bill that had its origins within the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children all those years ago, which is a piece of work that I am very familiar with. At the same time as the green paper, which became the White Paper on Vulnerable Children, there were other pieces of work in play—the inquiry into the determinants of well-being for Māori Children, the Family Court review, and, of course, the review by Professor Boston on child poverty with the expert advisory group. So this bill has its genesis in a significant body of work delivered by significant experts in the field. I have to say that although the bill does go some way to addressing the issues that were raised by all those experts over all those years of work, sadly, it does not go far enough.

I also want to comment on a discussion that one of the Government members had prior to the dinner break today, when he commented on one of the other members of the House’s comments on those people who are impacted by the safety aspects of the bill. The Government member was misinformed, and misinformed the House, when he said that what the Green member had said was that those who perpetrated acts of violence were people of ethnic origin, when that was in fact not the case. What the Green Party member was trying to say to the Government member was that those most impacted by violence and abuse unfortunately tend to be Māori and Pasifika children and Māori and Pasifika women. I found it extraordinary that someone who sat on the Social Services Committee and who heard the submissions from the sexual violence sector could get it so very wrong. It does speak to the heart of what happens within a Government bill if people who are on the select committee do not actually understand the very basics of the bill and whom the bill is trying to protect.

The bill talks about vulnerability, and we offer this label to about 30,000 children whom we call at risk, when we freely admit in this House that there are over 285,000 children living in poverty. I would suggest that 285,000 children living in poverty are potentially at risk; however, they are not, by that definition, covered under this bill. So it does not go significantly far enough to protect those children.

One of my learned colleagues said earlier in the second reading of this bill that what we should be looking at is setting some standards for our children for their care and protection, and that we should be setting some outcomes for those children. When children are not meeting those outcomes we could look at targeted services for those children. I think that is a much fairer approach. It is actually an approach that speaks to our desire for all of our children to have an element of care and protection in their lives. When we look at those potential outcomes that would protect our children, the first one, of course, has to be tackling the issue of child poverty. Child poverty is freely accepted by both sides of this House—conservatively—to be impacting 285,000 children. Yet we defy the experts by refusing to measure child poverty. We are therefore not dealing with the specific issues that hold these children in this state.

One of the other outcomes we should be looking at is housing: the affordability of housing, appropriate warm and dry housing, housing that families can occupy, and housing that permits them to put down roots within a community. One of the symptoms of vulnerability is the transience of our families, whereby children move to different schools and communities, and the support services and agencies are no longer able to track them to continue to provide care for them. So when we are talking about care and protection, we should be looking at housing.

Finally, I want to talk about one of the other aspects of this bill, when it talks about safety checks in the workforce. It has already been covered by a couple of members in this House, but I also want to reiterate some of the comments of my colleague Sue Moroney, who said that harm to children does not necessarily come within the paid workforce. There are many examples where children are harmed in sports arenas or by other activities that occur in the community and where we do not pay that much attention to children’s care and protection. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with real sadness that the Green Party is opposing the Vulnerable Children Bill. The Green Party and our MPs are absolutely passionate about making New Zealand a great place for our children to grow up in. We want to address the causes of vulnerability and address the well-being of our children. That is why we put child poverty on the political agenda last term. Because we know that poverty is created and can be eliminated by Government policy, we continue to call for action at every chance we get.

We are very sad that all of the Government’s policy work, from the green paper, to the White Paper for Vulnerable Children, to this bill, fails to acknowledge the fact that some families, right now, are being forced to neglect their children’s needs because they do not have the income to provide for them. This Government’s policies have resulted in parents of children with, say, skin infections buying medication and not food because they are too scared that the Government-funded agencies that are supposedly there supporting them would report them to Child, Youth and Family if they did not make that choice. To allow that situation to continue while bringing to the House this bill, which supposedly puts vulnerable children first, is not right. We want a Government response that will make a difference and do what is needed.

I think, though, that I, at least, could still have voted for this bill if it was a matter of just not doing enough, but for me, at least, the clincher against supporting it is my concern that it will actually do harm to some of our children. I have mentioned before in this House New Zealand’s high rates of domestic violence. The police are called out to an incident of domestic violence in this country at least once every 7 minutes, and they estimate that that is only about 20 percent of the cases experienced in this country. This is a massive problem, and one that we do not have a handle on. We may have done a big social marketing campaign, but still the police response, the court systems, the capacity of our support agencies, and Child, Youth and Family policies are a very long way from being sorted. Yet this bill does nothing to address those problems—the most significant cause of risk to our children.

Domestic violence always harms children, and in 40 percent to 60 percent of homes where a parent is being abused, the children will be maltreated. The reverse is also true: in 40 percent to 60 percent of child maltreatment cases, domestic violence will be present. Remember how many families this applies to in New Zealand, remember the fact that our systems are failing to adequately respond to this violence, and then remember that this bill does nothing to address that. It does not even acknowledge domestic violence. The white paper basically censored domestic violence out of the picture. It is a ridiculous response, when you consider that.

According to leading US child psychologist Dr Robert Geffner, a practitioner and expert on child well-being in cases of domestic violence, the first thing we need to do when there is an accusation or concern about child abuse or domestic violence is to properly—according to best practice—assess risk. This does not happen in New Zealand. Then, if there is evidence of risk, the abuser, who is most often the father, needs to be separated from the children until he has successfully changed his behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs. This does not happen in New Zealand, and these courses are hard to access. The children should be put into the protective care of the mother or the protective parent, who should be given support and counselling. This does not happen in New Zealand. Children should be getting the support and counselling they need, automatically. This does not happen in New Zealand.

This bill does not address these problems. It does not address the vulnerability and needs of our children, and this House can do better.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Honestly, I do not know where the member Jan Logie was during the Social Services Committee process and during the hearings, and whether or not that member has actually taken time to look at what the Vulnerable Children Bill does. Although the Green Party members tend to stand on the moral high ground, preach on, wax lyrical, and wring their hands year upon year, the reality is that while they are doing that, New Zealand children are being beaten and abused. And I will not hold back on our friends over there in the Labour Party either, because they stand there wringing their hands also, talking about the fact that having jobs makes all the difference for children who are living in a vulnerable situation and “poverty”. Well, why is it that they will vote against every initiative and every bill that this Government puts forward to grow the economy?

The reality, and the answer to that question, is that that is a party that wants to see the Government programme fail. Its members do not want to see the economy grow, and by default that means they are quite happy to throw those children under the bus. If they were genuinely concerned about vulnerable children, they would be concerned about the incomes we are trying to grow. They would be concerned about the economy and how we are trying to support those families. So it is entirely disingenuous for them to stand here and say “Oh, look, we support this bill but, in actual fact, we will comment on everything we have against it. But we’ll vote for it, because that’s probably something that the public would expect of us.” At least, I guess, they are voting for it.

The reality is that one of the things this bill will do is provide a far greater intervention model, with a cross-sector approach where accountabilities and leadership have been missing for so long. Much has been traversed in terms of this bill, but I say to the members across the House that if they are genuine about supporting vulnerable children in New Zealand, they will be genuine about supporting the incomes we are trying to help grow.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be agreed to.

Ayes 105

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 13

Green Party 12; Mana 1.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Votes for the Noes ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House of Representatives as follows: Green Party 12; Mana 1.

Bills

Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: I move, That the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill is a crucial piece of legislation. As members will remember, this legislation came from the ministerial inquiry led by the Hon Paul Swain. That inquiry was set up following serious allegations of mistreatment of crew on foreign charter vessels. It made a number of legislative and non-legislative recommendations to improve agency coordination, monitoring, and compliance of foreign charter vessels.

This bill is necessary to ensure that health and safety requirements on all fishing vessels in New Zealand waters are of the highest standard. It will ensure that the human rights of crew working on all fishing vessels are protected, crew are paid appropriately, and, as a consequence, New Zealand maintains its reputation as a responsible and sustainable fishing nation. The mandatory reflagging of all foreign charter vessels to New Zealand will ensure that New Zealand is able to enforce its vessel safety, employment, and fisheries laws on foreign charter vessels fishing in our exclusive economic zone.

This is a robust, unequivocal, and long-term solution that sends a clear message that New Zealand is serious about addressing allegations of mistreatment and underpayment of crew on these vessels. The Primary Production Committee recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments, including exemptions to reflagging. I agree with some of the proposed amendments and consider that they will improve the workability of the new law. I thank the members of the committee and its chair, Shane Ardern, for their work. I also thank the many people and organisations who took the time to make submissions and contributed to the bill’s development through earlier consultation processes.

The select committee proposed four exemptions to reflagging: exemptions for migratory tuna species, exemptions for certain vessel operators holding annual catch entitlement derived from the settlement quota, exemptions for vessels used for fisheries-related research approved by the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries, and exemptions for exceptional circumstances.

I have carefully considered these proposed exemptions. In particular, I have weighed up their impacts on the robustness of the fisheries management regime and on the long-term certainty for the Government, industry, and our international trading partners. I believe that exemptions to reflagging risk undermining the Government’s ability to enforce its labour and vessel safety standards on foreign charter vessels. Under international law, New Zealand has only limited jurisdiction over these matters in our exclusive economic zone. Exemptions have the potential to undermine New Zealand’s international reputation by being seen as weakening the reflagging regime. I recognise that foreign vessels fishing migratory tuna species—in particular, southern bluefin tuna—generate economic benefit to New Zealand. However, if these vessels were to be exempt from reflagging, the Government could continue to have limited jurisdiction over these vessels and would continue to be exposed to this risk. I consider that there will be medium to long term benefits for the domestic fleet in this fishery as domestic vessels take up any capacity lost if vessels choose to not reflag.

The specific exemption for iwi would simply undermine the Government’s objectives in this bill. Our aim is to send a clear message that all vessels operating in New Zealand waters must fully meet New Zealand employment, vessel safety, and fisheries laws. This iwi-specific exemption would risk continued lobbying to overturn the overarching policy. The only exemption that I consider should be retained is the exemption to enable foreign charter vessels to be used for vessels conducting fisheries-related research approved by the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries. There are minimal risks to this exemption, and it will enable the industry to innovate and move to commercially harvest new species in the event that New Zealand vessels are unavailable or unsuitable. The vessels used for research are clearly distinct from commercial fishing vessels, and this is unlikely to be seen as a weakening of New Zealand’s management regime for foreign charter vessels.

Other changes made to the bill include vessel registration consent and new vessel registration suspension powers now applying only to foreign charter vessels and not to New Zealand - owned vessels. I consider that the benefits of these powers being applied to New Zealand - owned vessels do not outweigh the costs and risks outlined by industry members in their submissions. I am confident that the risks posed by New Zealand - owned vessels can be managed without extending the new powers to these vessels.

The bill is also being amended to allow independent review of the chief executive’s powers to suspend vessel registration, which addresses concerns about impacts on natural justice. I am confident that the new opportunity to appeal to the District Court and the High Court on questions of law will be well received. In addition, the proposed powers to cancel vessel registration have been removed from the bill. Existing powers to manage vessels under the Fisheries Act 1996, along with new suspension powers, will enable the Government to effectively manage the risk from all vessels. New cancellation powers will be applied only to vessels not flagged as New Zealand ships or not exempted once reflagging becomes mandatory in May 2016.

Consideration of marine pollution and discharge of waste material by foreign charter vessels has been added as matters that observers can record and the Ministry for Primary Industries chief executive may have regard to when consenting to register foreign charter vessels. I consider that these are appropriate matters to consider when managing the risks from foreign charter vessels while operating in New Zealand waters.

This bill is designed to ensure that acceptable and equitable New Zealand labour standards are applied on all fishing vessels operating in New Zealanders’ fisheries waters. It will protect New Zealand’s international reputation and trade access, and maximise the economic return to New Zealand from our fisheries resources. I believe that this bill goes a long way to ensuring these objectives. I am concerned that exemptions to this bill will weaken it, and that is why I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage that will remove all exemptions apart from the one allowing Ministry for Primary Industries - sanctioned research.

This bill will show the world that New Zealand takes its obligations to safety and employment in our fisheries seriously. I look forward to it receiving the support of the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Vulnerable Children Bill—Green Party and Mana Party Votes

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I seek leave to have the record show that the Green Party had 12 votes in opposition to the Vulnerable Children Bill and the Mana party had one vote in opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. The record will show that.

Bills

Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Good things take time, they say, and this issue has taken some time to be resolved. In fact, there are a few members over there—and the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, who I acknowledge handled this situation very, very well. He was around in 1996, I believe—

Shane Ardern: 1998.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Oh, he came in 1998. Well, indeed, I was here in 1996 when the Fisheries Act was passed. To lay some groundwork for this, I want to acknowledge the sterling effort of my previous colleague, the honourable Graham Kelly, who was the champion for New Zealand fishermen. He, in the passage of the bill under the previous National Government, fought—and it was a hard fight—to ensure that people working on boats in New Zealand waters were at least entitled to the same terms and conditions of any ordinary hard-working Kiwi, regardless of what nationality they were and regardless of what boat they were on.

He won that argument at the time. It was implemented in the Act in 1996, but it became apparent that, in fact, the implementation of that law was not occurring. In fact, when we came into Government in 1999 it was thereabouts—and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would probably recall this yourself—that we then did a review of the situation. It asked the question: is this law and are these terms and conditions being imposed? The fact was that they were not. The Department of Labour—it has been doing it in a few areas, I have to say, since then, as well as back then that day—was not, in fact, checking on the conditions of people working on these boats.

Then there was, again, an extended period before we had some action. I can applaud the Government that finally, following the sinking of the Oyang 70 boat in the Southern Ocean, it saw the need to investigate this further. There was an inquiry. Again, a previous colleague, the Hon Paul Swain, conducted that inquiry and came up with some recommendations that were effectively put into legislation.

The select committee has looked at this. The proposal was to effectively flag all the vessels as New Zealand vessels and to ensure that anyone working catching fish in New Zealand’s economic zone—and it is a very big area—are on New Zealand boats or boats flagged under the New Zealand flag and that they are entitled to the terms and conditions that any good Kiwi would expect.

It is not an easy life out there. I can acknowledge the great work done in my home town of Westport where a fishing school trained young Kiwis, who were a bit lost, into the fishing industry to earn really good money on New Zealand boats, out catching New Zealand fish. We want to see that continue.

What we had, of course, with the allocation of quota to smaller iwi groups—and we have got, of course, iwi owning the biggest chunk of quota in this country, effectively caught through Sealord. But there were smaller iwi groups, of course, and other bigger companies that were relying on the foreign charter vessels to catch either highly migratory species or fish that came in over short seasons and, as I say, smaller groups that could not afford to go out and catch fish or buy a boat.

If I can go back one step to “New Zealandisation”, which was a term used through the 1990s to encourage New Zealand quota owners in the fishing industry to buy boats owned, controlled, and crewed by New Zealanders. It was a very patriotic and a very visionary approach that ran well for a number of years but then ran foul, I guess, of short-term management thinking, cost pressures, or whatever. And so though we had built up a reasonable fleet of New Zealand boats, in fact we have seen that shrink back and the increasing use of foreign charter vessels.

On these boats, arguably we have people who are working in slave-like conditions. There is no other way to say that. We have heard numerous reports from crew who have come into New Zealand ports, walked off their boats, and demanded to have payment from the owners of the boats. They have described to colleagues, both on this side of the House and that side of the House, atrocious conditions that no person can tolerate, let alone a Government that is mandated to ensure fairness and some kind of equity and some human rights in this country. Indeed, we had people catching fish in the New Zealand economic zone who were treated like slaves, who had no guarantee of receiving payment and salaries and remuneration for their efforts when they got back home. They were effectively held to ransom on a boat in the middle of the Southern Ocean or the middle of the Pacific Ocean. That is not a great place to be.

This bill, when it proceeds, will ensure that all those boats catching fish will be New Zealand - flagged, with the exception of some research vessels. That was not the proposal in the bill. In fact, it is not the proposal in the copy of the bill that I hold in my hand. But the Associate Minister for Primary Industries has said that she will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. That has come about as a result of last-minute interventions that no one on the select committee had any idea how they had occurred. I have my suspicions that the Government succumbed to some lobbying from the Māori Party and some iwi groups; that they sought an exception—

Andrew Little: Too busy hosting them for dinner.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, that is probably one of the discussions that came out of one of those dinners, no doubt. Paying $5,000 to go to a dinner and get this exemption put in a bill like this is certainly a good investment. That is probably how it happened. But I am not going to dwell on that issue. I think it is all very clear and apparent to anyone who has got half a brain, actually, what happened here. None the less, the Government, through maybe another dinner, held by another group of people from the fishing industry, no doubt, was convinced that the exemptions put up for iwi and for other groups were, in fact, unsustainable. That is, it was going to be difficult if not impossible to ensure that the spirit and objective of the bill—that is, to ensure proper wages and conditions for people working on these boats—was upheld if we had exemptions for foreign charter vessels for pretty much any reason.

So the Minister, in his or her wisdom, and Cabinet in its wisdom, or not—or because of a dinner or something—have done an about-turn on this. We should not criticise the Government members because for once in their lives they have finally made the right decision. I think the members of the select committee from all parties could see that this bill needed to be passed. No fair-minded Kiwi could continue to accept the conditions on these foreign charter vessels. They are nothing but floating dungeons. As we saw with the Oyang 70, that is indeed what happened for too many of these poor fishing workers.

The Government has done an about-turn. We welcome that. We are not going to question why. But this will now enable the fishing industry to catch its own fish. We hope and we expect to process that fish in New Zealand or on New Zealand boats, and to add value here in this economy and get out and sell this high-value protein to the rest of the world. At this point, the fishing industry is not doing a great job in that area. It has to be encouraged and assisted, maybe through things like accelerated depreciation or whatever, to get new, modern boats to catch fish, freeze them down quickly, process them, and have the highest quality fish protein for the world’s most discerning markets.

That is the objective we must have from what is one of the biggest exclusive economic zones in the world, and one of the biggest areas of fisheries available to any country. We have got this jewel. It is run by a reasonably good quota management system—but it is not perfect. This bill enables everyone working on those boats to have at least a decent wage, to live on a boat that is not a dungeon, and to actually adhere to and uphold the conditions that were laid down in the Fisheries Act 1996 fought for by my colleague. Indeed, New Zealand wages and conditions are owed to anyone working in this country.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Following on from my colleague on the Primary Production Committee, Damien O’Connor, some of the points that were made are absolutely correct. The history of this bill or gestation period of this bill, if you like, is a long one. As I remember it, Graham Kelly introduced a member’s bill, so it actually was not a Labour Government bill. It was a member’s bill that Graham introduced as a member who was concerned about these issues. It has basically morphed from there. I am not exactly sure of the passage of that bill, where it went, or what happened, but ultimately we are here today as a result of the concerns raised way back then. Successive Governments, including the previous Government over its whole 9 years, were not convinced that there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on these foreign charter vessels to introduce such legislation as we have now. But just recently, a ministerial panel was set up based on the amount of anecdotal evidence that had come forward that clearly there was something that we needed to look at.

If you think about the opportunity for New Zealand fisheries with our exports of high-quality protein from New Zealand, I think, probably as much as anything, a reputation issue was starting to develop about what actually was being used or what sort of terms and conditions these people were working under in regard to the harvesting of what is a potentially strong and growing industry for New Zealand. It already is in the billions of dollars’ worth of exports. So the select committee was charged with a number of issues to look at. One of the biggest concerns we had, I guess, was if we were to force all foreign charter vessels to have a New Zealand flag, what potential effects that could have on some of the smaller and developing fisheries in this regard. Many submitters had a concern that if we were to go where we have gone now, it would potentially close down some of these smaller industries. Obviously, that was not in the best interest of New Zealand Inc. or what the committee was trying to achieve. So an enormous amount of consideration was actually put into that.

Ultimately, we arrived at a position where it has been concluded that reflagging all of these foreign charter vessels is the only way to ensure that the people who work on these vessels will come under New Zealand terms and conditions in terms of employment. Reflagging will ensure that New Zealand observers will be able to be on these boats in sufficient numbers and on regular enough occasions to be sure that what is being put forward in various log books etc. is reasonably accurate and that they will be able to look at other things as well, such as environmental pollution through oil spillage, etc. It will also ensure the treatment of staff or the crew on these boats. As the previous member who has resumed his seat said, these conditions are tough. This is a tough environment and a hard place in which to work. These observers would be able to have a look at and observe the conditions in which they work.

There was a reasonable amount of evidence that recruitment agencies from overseas were recruiting people who were in unfortunate circumstances, clicking the ticket, if you like, or taking from them substantial percentages of their pay—in fact, some of them were not being paid at all for long periods—and leaving a lot of families and a lot of people destitute. By reflagging and bringing these foreign charter vessels under New Zealand jurisdiction, all of that behaviour now can be stamped out to the best that it is possible for that to happen.

Some submitted that other countries had various other mechanisms that did not require the full reflagging. In fact, some submitted that in the case of a vessel that broke down, or had some mechanical problems, engineering problems, or other such problems and would need to be replaced by another boat quickly to capture the migratory species that they were trying to capture under quota management, reflagging would be too much of an imposition on them and they would not be able to do it in time, and therefore that fishery opportunity would be lost. The committee was not, on balance, convinced of that. We certainly spent a lot of time thinking about it and, ultimately, we have ended up where we have ended up.

The Primary Production Committee agrees that the bill is necessary to ensure the health and safety requirements of all fishing vessels in New Zealand and, importantly, we also agree that the bill will ensure that the human rights of crew working on these vessels will be protected to a standard that is acceptable to maintain what we see as human decency and what we see as being in the best interests of New Zealand’s reputation. I look forward to the passage of the bill.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call in this second reading and to register Labour’s support for this bill, the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, as we, hopefully, begin to draw to a close a very shameful period of worker exploitation in New Zealand waters. It is to the Government’s credit that a ministerial inquiry was established to investigate and find solutions to this stain on our nation’s economy and reputation. It is also to its credit that it adopted the recommendations of the inquiry and went further, with the requirement in this bill to make it compulsory that every fishing vessel operating in our waters, including in our exclusive economic zone, is flagged as a New Zealand ship from 1 May 2016 and, as such, will come under the full jurisdiction of New Zealand law. This brings New Zealand’s treatment of foreign fishing vessels into line with the rest of the developed world. The only other countries that do not require reflagging are Namibia and Brazil.

It is also to the credit of the Minister for Primary Industries that, as he has outlined tonight, he will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to firm the bill up again by removing the majority of exemptions proposed by the Primary Production Committee that would risk undermining the intent and effectiveness of this legislation. I was not part of the select committee process, but I have taken a great deal of interest in this issue in my former role as labour spokesperson and immigration spokesperson. Indeed, I have met with some of these workers over time and also the people who are caring for them. I know that the members on the select committee will have heard from many of the people who helped expose what has been described as modern-day slavery in our waters.

I just want to pay my respects and acknowledge them, if I may. I acknowledge Darren Coulston, who has relentlessly advocated for crews’ wages to this day, including the unpaid minimum wages still owed to families of the drowned seamen from the Oyang 70; Glenn Simmons and Dr Christina Stringer, who produced that now infamous report called Not in New Zealand’s waters, surely? Labour and human rights abuses aboard foreign fishing vessels; the Maritime Union and the faith-based organisations that have taken abused foreign crew under their wing when there was no Government support or agency willing to listen or to help; and the Service and Food Workers Union, which has campaigned for years on this issue on the basis that New Zealand jobs are affected and undermined by this scandal, and has campaigned for a value-added approach to our fishing industry, as opposed to this low-cost model of foreign charter vessels.

I also want to pay my respects to Peter Talley. It is not often that I do that, but Peter and Michael Talley have been adamantly supporting the reflagging proposals for some time. They have been very outspoken against foreign charter vessels and their abuse, saying that they have no place in New Zealand waters. They have been great advocates for change and I really acknowledge them for that. There are many others, and we should be grateful to them, because it is not acceptable to Labour or, I am sure, to the rest of the House that we have an industry that has been surviving on the exploitation of vulnerable migrants working in conditions that no one in New Zealand would accept.

I also want to pay tribute to the many Indonesian and Korean fishing crews and fishing crews from other nations who have been brave enough to walk off their ships to tell their stories of abuse, sexual and physical assault, inhumane punishment, critical underpayment of wages, and, in some cases, debt-bondage. We have not treated them that well. Some who came off the ships were deported immediately—mercilessly, I would have to say. Those who were able to remain had to rely on the charity of the community. For many of these crew, little has changed since the ministerial inquiry. Most of them still wait to be paid what they were legally entitled to under New Zealand law at the time, which was the minimum wage plus $2 an hour, and that includes, as I mentioned, the families of the six seamen who were drowned in the Oyang 70 sinking in 2010. The coroner’s inquest into that sinking found that systemic failure of ship management and safety practices, together with routine violations of maritime rules and seafaring practice, were responsible for what led up to the sinking. The coroner also criticised aspects of New Zealand’s ship safety management process, and that is something that Maritime New Zealand needs to front up to.

There is no doubt that there was a systemic failure to ensure standards and processes put in place by the 2006 code of practice, which has been discussed tonight, which required minimum wage plus a premium to be paid and New Zealand conditions to be observed. Rotten practices have been permitted to take hold in this industry, and I put a lot of that down not to the good intentions of politicians who have tried to address this through codes and now legislation but to a lack of enforcement by under-resourced agencies—immigration, labour, and fishing.

Darren Coulston told the select committee that he estimated the amount of underpayment of wages to the tens of thousands of crew on foreign chartered vessels as being in excess of $200 million. Those workers still have not been paid and they still hope for justice today. You do have to ask what has happened to those missing millions. Although the Government kept a very small number of crew in New Zealand to make submissions to the inquiry, it quickly sent them home once that was completed. We have heard the stories of what has happened when they have gone home. Their families have been threatened. They have been unable to find other work, yet there is money owed to them that we have not been able to recover.

I do not believe that any Government agency is working to deal with this redress, and, in my opinion, passing this bill will not put an end to those injustices until every cent owed to these fishers is recovered and paid. So although we support the bill, and it is critical to addressing the appalling human rights abuses, safety concerns, and issues around the illegal dumping of fish from these foreign chartered vessels, we do have one or two things that we would have liked to see. The bill stops short of securing opportunities for Kiwi workers and Kiwi jobs. Foreign chartered vessels will still be able to use entirely foreign crew, which will continue to see New Zealand workers shut out. Labour’s policy on this has always been clear. We would encourage maximum participation by New Zealanders in our fisheries and seafood processing, moving towards a minimum of 50 percent New Zealand crew on any vessel fishing within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.

We are also questioning the Government’s decision to delay the introduction of reflagging for 4 years to allow foreign chartered vessels and their partners to come to terms with the changes. A 4-year transition is a very long time and it gives a lot of room for an awful lot of abuse. One of the things I remain concerned about is the lack of resources and commitment made to enforcing these changes. We all know that labour, immigration, and fisheries inspectors have been under repeated restructuring, and they will struggle. The Government has given no assurances that we can expect to see a stepping up of enforcement, and particularly in the area of observers on foreign chartered vessels. That is not an easy job. That is a tough job. Some people have proposed that they should not have to go to sea on their own, and I tend to agree with that. The intimidations and threats against the families of crew, together with language barriers and difficulties of access to New Zealand support institutions, continue today, despite the updating of the code that the Government brought in a couple of years ago. This means that abuses of fishing crew are likely to remain under-reported.

So although we want to see this issue resolved, I have doubts, unfortunately, that we will see it resolved unless the Government commits to proper inspection and enforcement of this new law. I have no doubt that this House is serious about eliminating this most evil of exploitation. When that is matched by intensive resourcing, inspection, and prosecution, we may begin to hope that acceptable and equitable New Zealand labour standards will finally be applied in all fishing vehicles operating in New Zealand waters.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It seems ironic that as I rise to speak to this bill tonight, in Nelson the annual Roger Award is being announced. Many of the people here will know what the Roger Award is about. It is about the worst transnational corporation operating in Aotearoa New Zealand in any particular year. It is always looking at the year back. The reason why it is so ironic is that last year the winner of the 2012 Roger Award was Taejin Fisheries Co. Ltd, the foreign chartered vessels operated through United Fisheries. That was incredibly well scrutinised. It was up against all sorts of multinationals that have done all sorts of atrocious things—wages, conditions, pressure on the Government, and a range of things. We had Rio Tinto Alcan and we had King Salmon from the Marlborough Sounds, but the winner in this was Taejin Fisheries.

The analysis went right down through the history, and we have seen a lot of the history come through the submissions to the Primary Production Committee as well. As successive Governments over a very long time had been turning their eyes and turning their backs on these people and on the abuses, at the same time we were devaluing New Zealand’s worth. We were devaluing our brand, for sure, and that is what has been the turning point, I think, in this whole debacle. We were devaluing the actual value of our resource—the fisheries stock. Every time we sell that cheap and every time we cut corners to get it at a cheap price, we are lowering the price. We are going down to the worst commodity price possible. We started in the 1990s with this, and it carried on for some time.

We have had deteriorating fish stocks ever since we got foreign chartered vessels in to help plunder the total allowable catch. We have had problems with the estimate of biomass, but we are still going out there and using dirt cheap labour, putting New Zealanders out of work and New Zealand fishing companies out of work. All the time successive Governments were looking the other way. So we are very pleased that the Government has done a backtrack and recanted on its giving exemptions to either its friends or to anyone to allow this sort of practice to carry on.

We fought against it. I think of the Green Party minority report on the bill, which talked specifically about the tuna exemption, because we were not able to do much about the other main exemption because it was dropped on the select committee at the very last moment. We are very pleased that the Minister for Primary Industries has seen his way through to remove these exemptions. I am disappointed that we do not actually have the Supplementary Order Paper in front of us so that we can actually see that in print. We are talking about something we are waiting to see, but we can do that with a lot of confidence, I think. The Green Party will do another Supplementary Order Paper, and that will be to reduce the time so that it is not 1 May 2016 when finally we put this dirty piece of fisheries history behind us. We will be looking for that to happen next year, in 2015.

David Cunliffe was, I think, Minister of Labour at the time and worked with industry to get a code of practice. He quoted it as mandatory and worked deeply with them, acknowledging that there was an issue at the time, but then it seems everybody ignored that and kept looking the other way until there were deaths and until overseas in our markets we got the turn-round, which is when we actually started to squirm and change. That is so typical of things that go through this place, that go through the ministries. Only when forced, only when it is a trade issue when we may actually lose some sales, do we start to honour human rights and the respect that we should be giving to everybody, whether they come from Indonesia or New Zealand. We are disappointed that this has taken so long, but we are still grateful.

Where is the vision? I have got to ask where the vision is for New Zealand. Where is the vision for fisheries in New Zealand? The vision, we think, should be that all parts of all caught fish are used and all ships and boats are crewed by New Zealanders. We still have significant unemployment and it is disappointing that some people who sought exemptions have great unemployment within their own ranks. So it will be good that these exemptions are removed and the tension moves back towards some improvement in New Zealand staffing.

It was very interesting to see the level of submissions that came in. It was good to see academics from the University of Auckland. They were mentioned before. Christina Stringer, Glenn Simmons, and others have put forward their papers about the forced labour in the New Zealand fishing industry. They reported on the sinking of the Oyang 70 on 18 August 2010, with the loss of six lives. They went and delved, dug, and looked into, and talked to and interviewed Indonesian, Burmese, Chinese, Korean, and other key informants around the world. They put that effort in. They put in more effort than the fishing companies represented still, unfortunately, in this House, which chose not to. They chose to leave it over to different people who would employ these people and force them and cajole them into contracts they did not even understand, and then get out in the seas and get abused in all sorts of ways, and then even have their money so restricted that they could not pay back the fees that they had paid just to get the job that they were promised would be so good.

The University of Auckland and the various agencies that are concerned with the welfare of people in New Zealand that joined in and helped bring this to this position we need to acknowledge and be very grateful for. We will be speaking more on this. Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to take a call during the second reading of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and it is clear from those speeches that have gone before mine that no one takes credit or pride out of what has been allowed to occur over a considerable period of years. We found this quite a complex bill, because there were quite a lot of variable approaches as to how quota management and allocation is administered within our economic zone. So from that point of view, the mandatory reflagging of all foreign charter vessels in New Zealand is long overdue. That having been said, it is alarming that nothing was done under a Labour Government apart from an inquiry and good intentions.

Also, from the point of view of my colleague the learned Green member Steffan Browning, who has worked very hard in this area, it is quite concerning that although, in actual fact, the Talley family were on the side of the angels, the Green Party, but not necessarily the Green member Steffan Browning, actually tried to paint them as the villains in the situation around the tuna catch. Having talked to Steffan, I think that the media got the wrong end of the stick—that is correct, is it not? In actual fact, the Talley family were on the side of the angels, and they were strong advocates for the flagging. They probably would have wanted to go further and see New Zealand crews have the capability to fish that quota.

I started off by saying that nobody can take credit about the way that this has played out. However, in saying that, there are many other sides of the debate that need to be thought through. Some of the business models that were being adopted were going to take time to adjust to the requirement of reflagging. But I will make the point, in conclusion, that it is a National-led Government that has taken the initiative to make sure that we do get this right and that we can hold our heads up high when addressing labour conditions on foreign charter vessels. I look forward to unanimous support from all our members, especially the next speaker from New Zealand First. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the second reading of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this bill’s referral to the select committee in the first instance only because, although we were generally in agreement with the stated aims and intentions of the bill, we did have some concerns regarding certain aspects of it. In addition, we were eager, as I indicated during the first reading of the bill, to hear the views of both the public and the fishing industry, and of other interested parties, on the particular concerns that we did have and on other aspects of the bill. Now that the bill has returned from the Primary Production Committee and having seen the nature of the changes contained in the Minister for Primary Industries’ proposed Supplementary Order Paper, I am happy to report to the House that New Zealand First will continue to support the bill in the form in which it will proceed, with the Minister’s amendments in place.

The Primary Production Committee examined the bill in considerable detail and listened to many submissions from both industry and other interested parties. The committee—on which I am privileged to sit as an observer—under the very able chairmanship of Mr Ardern, performed sterling work. Mr Ardern has been a fine shepherd of this bill, and I am sure that Minister Guy and his predecessor in the role, Mr David Carter, are both most appreciative of that fact. He is a very fine member, indeed. Mr Ardern is well regarded across the House, and I am sure that members will agree that his retirement at the upcoming election will be accompanied by the reflection that Parliament will be the poorer for his passing from it. Parliament’s loss will be the Taranaki dairy industry’s gain, as Mr Ardern moves his focus back to his farming roots, and we wish him well.

I have digressed just a little—justifiably, I believe—but in returning to the bill itself, I am drawn back to the objectives of the bill with regard to foreign charter vessels and the reflagging of those vessels to the New Zealand flag, thereby bringing the vessels and their operations fully under the jurisdiction of New Zealand law.

The objectives of the bill in this regard are to protect New Zealand’s international reputation and trade access, to maximise the economic return to New Zealand from our fisheries resource, and to ensure that acceptable and equitable New Zealand labour standards, including safe working environments, are applied on all fishing vessels operating in New Zealand’s fisheries waters. These are principles that are entirely in line with New Zealand First’s objectives for the fishing industry, although it is fair to say that we have further objectives pertaining to fisheries in general that this bill does not address. That is not a crucial matter at this point, and I am sure that all members are also well aware that after the election in September, New Zealand First will be very much in a position to be able to promote several more of our priorities as far as the fishing industry is concerned, along with many other areas of policy initiative.

One of the concerns that New Zealand First held when this bill was introduced centred on shark finning. We wondered whether this bill might provide an avenue through which the practice of shark finning might be addressed, and so we are most satisfied that the Government has chosen to address it by flagging the implementation of a ban on shark finning in New Zealand waters separately from the passing of this particular bill. I say “flagging” because it is, of course, flagging with which this bill mostly concerns itself.

New Zealand First has been supportive of the drive to see all vessels fishing in our waters operating under the New Zealand flag since long before the inception of this bill. Indeed, it is no secret that the “New Zealandisation” of the fishing industry is of prime importance to us, and we welcome this bill as a valuable and tangible milestone on the road to that very achievable goal. Acceptable and equitable New Zealand labour standards and safe working environments are but two of the enormously important benefits that reflagging will bring to the mostly foreign crews aboard the foreign charter vessels fishing for quota in our waters. Until now—and it remains ongoing—we have had the distasteful and unacceptable reality that too many of the crews on too many of the foreign boats working our fishery have had to endure massively substandard living and working conditions on boats that, in many cases, should probably not even have been on the water. Floating rat-holes is how they have been described by more than one observer—rat-like living conditions and slave-labour wages, accompanied by physical abuse and, worse, it is at the hands of owners and officers.

This state of affairs simply could not be allowed to continue, and with the passing of this legislation, it will not continue. Foreign charter vessel owners will be required to reflag their vessels to the New Zealand flag, bringing wages and living and working conditions into line with the requirements of New Zealand law. One of the concerns we held regarding this bill, prior to the select committee process, was the time it was proposed to take for the reflagging exercise to be undertaken within, and by that I mean the time frame that was to be allowed for boat owners and quota holders to complete the reflagging process. Four years was the suggestion, and our response was that we could not understand why it should take so long and why it should be allowed to take so long. We called for the process to be completed within 1 year.

Having listened to the submissions of the industry during the select committee process, I now understand the reasons behind this. We now know that the process of reflagging a vessel from one nation’s flag to that of another nation is by no means a swift or easy undertaking. It involves a not insignificant administrative exercise and no small monetary cost. It is also a time-consuming operation and, in some circumstances—notably in respect of the United States—once done it cannot ever be undone. It is for these reasons that the process known as deeming operated by some countries, including Australia, has presented as being an impractical option for New Zealand.

Deeming is a mechanism whereby foreign vessels are deemed to be flagged as if they were operating under the flag of the nation exercising jurisdiction in the fishery in question, if they are able to prove they are able to meet the minimum requirements of that nation. Invariably, however, it will be only boats from nations whose standards exceed our own that will be acceptable as deemed vessels.

Ian McKelvie: Oh, are you thirsty, Richard? You’re talking too fast.

RICHARD PROSSER: A wee bit, then—it is thirsty work, this. We are heartened that the Minister’s proposed amendments will remove all but one of the exemptions suggested from the reflagging provisions of the bill. The bill as proposed would have offered exemptions for iwi and for foreign boats chasing highly migratory species, such as tuna, from the 4-year time frame within which all foreign charter vessels must be reflagged.

The use of foreign charter vessels in the New Zealand fishery was only ever meant to be an interim measure. It was a step on the road to the fishery becoming completely “New Zealandised”. It has now been in place for around 20 years and, frankly, we believe that that is plenty long enough. Arguments by iwi that the inability to access low-cost labour in the form of foreign charter crews for the purposes of harvesting their settlement quota will diminish the value of those settlements are not arguments with which we agree. The reluctance on the part of some iwi members to take an active role in crewing boats harvesting iwi quota because of personal reasons or because of a disinclination to go to sea for the required period is not, in our view, a suitable reason for wanting others to have to live in floating rat-holes and subsist on slave wages. New Zealand - owned boats do offer good living conditions and good wages, and they do so profitably.

We see no reason why iwi cannot operate a similar model to the one already proven by other New Zealand companies. In the case of highly migratory species, and tuna in particular, we are persuaded by arguments that there are enough New Zealand vessels available or that if the fish are there, there will be enough boats to harvest such tuna as move through our waters during the period of the season as it presents.

New Zealand First does support the exemption for vessels carrying out research sanctioned by the Ministry for Primary Industries because that strikes us as being eminently sensible. We trust that they will not be Japanese boats undertaking research on whales.

In conclusion, New Zealand First is fully supportive of the Act that this bill will become when it is passed with all the proposed amendments, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): You can tell that the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, Shane Ardern, had a great deal of entertainment trying to manage the speed of Richard Prosser’s speech and the steadiness of speech of our friend from the Greens, Steffan Browning. None the less, we got there in the end. This Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was really quite fascinating in the select committee process for someone who has only ever really caught a couple of cups of whitebait in the Rangitīkei River in the past. To go into this process and learn the history, I guess, of foreign vessels chartering and the treatment of the people who ran them was really quite an interesting process for me.

I kind of liken the outcome of the bill to a couple of neighbours: one who has got a 30-year-old lawnmower that he spends all the time fixing and most of the time not mowing the lawns, and the neighbour who has got a brand new lawnmower and gets the lawns mown in 5 minutes and is very efficient. I think that is the result we will see for the fishery industry as a result of this bill. Although there will be some short-term pain from the changes that will be implemented by this bill, I think that long term it will be extremely positive for the industry. I wished at times that we might be able to put a bill like this in place for the meat industry. I look forward to the progress of this bill through the House. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, kia ora anō tātou. Ngā mihi ki ā tātou i tēnei pō i a tātou e whiriwhiri i tēnei take e pā ana ki ngā ika kei te kōpua, me pēhea rānei e haohaongia ai. Me kaua tātou nōki e tuku i ngā tāngata o rāwāhi kia tutuangia. Ā, me pēhea rānei te wāriu ō tātou ika kei te kōpua o te moana, e hopukina tikangia, ā, ka whakamahia e tātou hei taonga hokohoko ki ngā wāhi. Me pēnā taku whakamārama.

[And greetings once again to us collectively. Salutations to us this evening as we consider this matter about deep-sea fishing and how it should be fished. We should never allow people from overseas to desecrate them. And how should our deep-sea fish be valued, harvested correctly, and turned into treasured, marketable items by us for other countries? That is how I should explain it.]

I stand to acknowledge the work that has been done in this area. I want also to acknowledge Paul Swain, a colleague of ours who in the past was Minister of Immigration, who almost had his parliamentary career truncated because he had an illness. He survived that and went on to hold a number of the commerce portfolios within the Helen Clark Government. He was appointed along with a diplomat, whose name, fortunately, I have forgotten. I think he was the former ambassador to Tokelau or some sort of auspicious position like that, and a lawyer. They considered the issues pertaining to the usage of foreign-owned vessels and whether or not the New Zealand deep-sea fishing industry would suffer some extreme injury if access to those vessels was essentially declined. That made its way, if I am not mistaken, to the table of Phil Heatley, before he discovered that his ability to shed tears was greater than that of the athlete currently on trial in South Africa and who is enjoying the attention of the courts.

Hon Judith Collins: Oh! That’s a bit nasty.

Hon SHANE JONES: I can say that because he was one of the few people who unwisely made fun of me in my little dramas. As my colleagues on the other side of the House would know, there is nothing like karma. I think it was the Book of Ecclesiastes that said that which you do to others will be done to you. Rest assured I know about that because I have suffered it myself. But, anyhow—

Hon Hekia Parata: Cheek-turning.

Hon SHANE JONES: Looking in a mirror. Anyway, it then got to the table of the current Minister for Primary Industries and made its way through the system in the form of a bill, and came to the Primary Production Committee. Our committee functioned well. I do want to acknowledge the quality of chairmanship. I join in that with my colleague from New Zealand First Richard Prosser. Most of us on that committee have some connection with provincial New Zealand. We have grown up enjoying hunting, shooting, fishing, or whatever rhymes with that, and we need to be very careful that we do not lose that connection with the provinces and the regional economies of the country, because, whether we like it or not, more and more of our MPs are being progressively drawn from metropolitan New Zealand.

However, we have worked on the bill. We did consider whether or not the bill could be improved by providing an opportunity for those groups that complained about being penalised. That was an element of the Māori deep-sea fishing community, those people catching pelagic species. At the end of the day, it has proved to be the case that such exemptions will not stand the test of either time or the current political climate. I say that because there is now a new standard. I would be the first to admit the standard was not there in the 1990s. In those days I was in the fishing industry and there were no great questions raised as to whether or not deep-sea fishing vessels owned by foreign interests should be used, and we relied exclusively on foreign-provided labour. But there is a change, and on this side of the House, no doubt, all of my colleagues realise that new labour standards will be introduced. It is up to the fishing industry, whether they be Pākehā, Māori or anything in between, to work out a capital response as to how vessels can be upgraded or how quota can be brought together in the deep-sea fishing community and put on vessels that will hopefully employ more New Zealanders.

I would say this: the fishing industry has been easily stigmatised. In the unlikely event that I am ever the Minister of Immigration again, I will never agree on us relying on foreign labour to man the freezing works of New Zealand. There are enough men and women in New Zealand who should not be unemployed who can go and work in the freezing works. It is good enough for the fishing industry to have that access terminated, it is good enough for the dairy farmers to be made to employ Kiwis, and it is good enough for the horticulturalists to be made to employ Kiwis before they rely on foreign labour, with the exception of the people of New Hebrides, now known as Vanuatu, which I am quite partial to, given that I went to school at Saint Stephen’s College with many of them. My point is that if we are going to pick on the fishing industry and say that foreign labour is not welcome in the fishing industry, then I am very keen to apply that to the dairy industry, to the horticultural industry, to the freezing works industry, and to various other sectors that are quick to complain to politicians that they cannot find Kiwis to do the mahi.

So we on this side of the House are going to support this bill. Although I have not seen the Supplementary Order Paper, I have been briefed about the Supplementary Order Paper. As I have indicated to the chair of our select committee and to the current Minister, they will get no grief from me. I say that as someone who chaired Sealord and who chaired the Māori Fisheries Commission. I will not hide from the fact that over the years Māoridom have had their quota placed on vessels that had been crewed by workers not only from Indonesia but from other sources of labour throughout South-east Asia.

The challenge for the fishing industry is whether or not it can catch it in a form that makes money. That is really at the heart of the challenge: how do you manufacture raw material food in New Zealand and still make a profit? Milk is slightly different. Although, you could say that fish is not too different from milk—unless it is processed very quickly, it smells like the proverbial. So I think that milk is in a slightly different situation—i.e., it has to be processed very quickly. Fish can be headed and gutted at sea, frozen, taken up to—in my time—Dalian in northern China, to Shenzhen in southern China, and processed and sold to Long John Silver’s or sold to McDonald’s as protein before it is destroyed by the Americans who douse it in sauce so that it no longer tastes like fish. That is why they enjoy orange roughy.

I know I have got a few more minutes, so let me entertain the House. Actually, orange roughy became known to the Americans when that great television icon J R Ewing ordered New Zealand orange roughy in the context of a show called Dallas. Not long after that—and I kid you not—quite a few queries came to New Zealand: “Tell us about this orange roughy fish.” As a consequence, a lot of effort went into developing the orange roughy fishery as a source of protein for the American market, and in particular the lent season. Over the years we have made millions of dollars for the New Zealand economy by selling enormous amounts of orange roughy into what the Americans call the lent season. Orange roughy is a particularly sought-after fish in the States because when they eat it, to them it does not taste like fish. That is after they have covered it in condiments, which is essentially what the National Government is going to have to do with its policies—cover them in condiments, if its members have got any dim prospect of winning the next election, which is diminishing by the day.

Hon Hekia Parata: It’s comedy week.

Hon SHANE JONES: I could say it is confectionery week, when I look at Hekia. But I do not want to be ordered out of the House, etc., and yelled at by the Ngati Porou. They should spend their time yelling at Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. They should spend their time assisting Hekia to tidy up Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. But that is another matter. A change of Government will be needed for that particular miracle to take place. Orange roughy is a type of fish that is very dense, so it should actually appeal to the National Party colleagues—not all of them. In particular, those who are on the committee that I share—there is nothing dense about them at all. They are far-sighted. It is just that they are not valued by their own party, unlike myself, I think. Yes, I realise I am being called to give an account. I stand to assure the House that we will support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): My profound and sincere thanks to the member, Shane Jones, who has just resumed his seat, for the classical references that spanned from Dallas through to a number of other miraculous occurrences, like the dim prospect that there might be a change of Government come 20 September. When I look at legislation like the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, it is one that I recall very well, although I am not on the Primary Production Committee. Certainly there are a lot of people in my North Shore electorate who are very interested in this. I recall when the allegations of mistreatment of foreign fishers were really brought to a head. About 4 or 5 years ago, we started to hear about the underpayment of foreign crews working on foreign charter vessels and the recommendations of that ministerial inquiry. That is the background to this legislation. I listened to the sponsoring Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy, put that through in some detail a little earlier, so I will not recap on it.

But I would have to say it is a very serious issue and it is one that does seem to have united at least the members of the select committee. Certainly it would seem to me that, as a country, New Zealand really needs to be very serious about the treatment of fishing crews, the safety of vessels, which is paramount, and also our international reputation for ethical and sustainable fishing practices.

I am pleased to see that this bill enjoys widespread support. I think also that reflagging will further strengthen compliance with New Zealand laws and provide more transparency. I therefore recommend it and commend it to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Andrew Little—5 minutes.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Lo and behold, there you go. Shane Jones talks at length about orange roughy in the debate, and then someone from the National Party caucus stands up to address it as well. It is a night of great coincidences.

I do not want to go much further without adding to the observance we have already made of the passing of the late Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse, who will go down, I think, as one of the very small number of truly great New Zealanders for the contribution he has made in so many respects. But here we are, exactly 40 years and 2 weeks on from the introduction of the accident compensation scheme, and we hear the news this evening about his passing. I think that is a matter that no doubt this House will take greater note of in the next day or two.

Turning to this bill without wanting to take up too much more of my time, the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a good bill because it addresses what has been a very shameful aspect of our primary industry. That part of our primary industry has involved overseas operators as well. Even more disappointing is that some of those overseas operators have been here at the behest of domestic companies and indeed even of iwi and Māori organisations. It is good that following the inquiry conducted by the Hon Paul Swain, after he had left this House, of course—they check out but they never really leave, these MPs—

Hon Phil Goff: Just like “Hotel California”.

ANDREW LITTLE: Just like “Hotel California”. The conclusions of that inquiry were quite damning of what was happening in this industry. We actually knew it was happening. The stories were legend. We knew the harm caused to working people, migrant workers, was absolutely shocking. This bill is a step towards addressing that. I acknowledge the work not only of Paul Swain but also of the previous fisheries Minister, David Carter, who had the courage to announce that this was the direction that was going to be taken and took the initial steps of getting this bill drafted.

But I do, however, share with my colleague Darien Fenton just one point of caution. We know that at the heart of this bill, in clause 4, are the amendments to section 103 of the Fisheries Act 1996. Section 103 sets out a number of conditions that have to be met. The chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries has to be satisfied they are met before allowing a foreign vessel to operate here. It includes, amongst other things, labour standards. But section 103(5)(d) and (e) of the existing Act also refer to labour inspectors under the Employment Relations Act being able to do inspections and enforce those rights. But the reality is that our labour inspectorate has been so badly run down under this Government—our labour inspectorate is an 0800 number; that is all it is. It is not going to be good enough for migrant crews, when they come here under this new regime, to be issued with a cellphone and asked to ring an 0800 number when they are on the high seas. That will not help.

We need to know, and in the remaining debates on this bill we will be seeking assurances, that the department will be properly resourced so that inspectors can be placed on these vessels so that these labour rights are properly observed and respected. These workers coming here to work in New Zealand do so knowing that they are coming to a country that proudly upholds its reputation as a country of good labour standards, but that reputation is under threat for reasons other than just migrant labour on our fishing vessels.

But let us be clear about it. When we have migrant workers coming here to work, whether on land or offshore, they have to know that if they are mistreated or if their conditions, statutory or contractual, are breached, there is a means and a mechanism for them to have those conditions enforced. The Maritime Union does some of it, under the auspices of the International Shipping Federation, but that is not enough. We need to be sure that our own domestic inspectorate is capable of enforcing these rights and upholding their dignity.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I am delighted to take a second short call for the Greens. We will be supporting the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill’s progression through the House. We will be supporting it because this bill seeks to address the human rights and working conditions of workers on foreign-owned vessels in our waters, it seeks to improve the management of vessel safety, and also seeks to set in place improvements to manage our fisheries more sustainably.

Although we support this bill, we are also of the mind that we should be introducing the provisions of this legislation in the earliest time frame possible. The first Ministerial Inquiry into Foreign Charter Vessels was completed 2 years ago, and the recommendations were very clear. We urgently need to address the fact that the foreign charter vessels fishing in our waters are committing human rights abuses in many cases, and employment rights abuses, and taking enormous risks with the health and safety of their crew and with the fishing vessels themselves. They are often using dodgy fishing practices that threaten the very sustainability of our fisheries and our international reputation.

Although I acknowledge that we are taking steps now to address the problems associated with foreign charter vessels, the proliferation of these ships must be tracked back to the deregulation of the coastal shipping industry stemming from the late 1980s, which first allowed foreign-owned rust buckets flying flags of convenience to undercut and undermine our locally crewed and frequently locally owned shipping companies. This neo-liberalism spread through to the fishing industry as well. So, instead of investing in the development of local fishing crews and boats to take up the quotas, the desire to reap a profit resulted in local quotas being fished by Korean, Russian, Indonesian—you name it; whoever was cheapest, they picked up the work. I am told that there are roughly 2,000 foreign workers working on foreign charter vessels in New Zealand waters and their work could have gone to New Zealanders. The profits of these New Zealand companies have been reaped from pitiful wages for the workers through breaches of human rights and—it is scary, too—from badly maintained ships. In relation to the workers on the worst of the foreign charter vessels I am reminded of that quote from The Grey River Argus in 1920, which says: “If blood be the price of your accursed wealth, good God! We have bought it fair.”

The Greens support the steps taken in this legislation to clean up the industry, and we need to do so because we are copping heavy international criticism. At the end of last year the European Union Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries warned that the EU was about to designate South Korea as an illegal fishing nation, which jeopardises not just the catch from Korean boats chartered by New Zealand fishing companies that end up in Europe but also the catch from those boats that are processed in China or Korea or wherever. Clearly our international reputation is at stake. We have also been criticised by the United States State Department. In the middle of last year the Secretary of State released a report into human trafficking, and New Zealand features in that report as a destination for human traffickers. The report points to the plight of foreign men, mainly from Indonesia, on foreign-flagged vessels in our waters and outlines incidences where workers have been subjected to physical violence, mental abuse, sexual abuse, and have had their passports confiscated and been trapped by debt bondage. We have heard more and more about how workers have been underpaid, trapped, and threatened.

We must act promptly because the abuses and reckless disregard for safety is still continuing. In January this year one of our Government observers was seriously injured when his lifejacket was snagged on a conveyor belt on a Korean-owned fishing vessel in Bluff. Our Green MP Steffan Browning, through the Committee of the whole House process, will bring a Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee to debate to bring forward the starting time for this legislation. Thank you.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am proud to speak in support of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill

Third Reading

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill be now read a third time. The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill proposes four major changes to New Zealand’s safeguard regime. These changes relate to the body responsible for the undertaking of safeguard investigations, the time frame for completing such investigations, the imposition of a provisional and final safeguard duty, and the introduction of guidelines for determining whether safeguard action is in the public interest. These changes will be implemented by repealing the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 and replacing it with a new Act that provides for a new safeguards regime that is consistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and that promotes efficient, transparent, and objective investigative and decision-making processes.

Industry in New Zealand is subject to increasing competition from imports through unilateral tariff reductions, the last of which were made in July 2009, and through continuing tariff reductions under free-trade agreements. If the WTO Doha round of negotiations is finally successfully completed, then further tariff reductions may be required. This bill will ensure that New Zealand is well placed to respond to any surges of imported goods by providing any necessary temporary protection to a domestic industry to allow time for it to adjust, to increase competition from imported goods in order to promote longer-term efficiency and competitiveness.

Four safeguard inquiries have been carried out since 1987 and in only one case was a safeguard measure imposed. However, as a small, open economy, safeguard measures are highly relevant to all New Zealand industries in the tradable goods sector. The bill proposes that safeguard investigations will be carried out by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, rather than by persons appointed as temporary safeguard authorities. This will align the conduct of safeguard investigations with other trade remedy investigations that are carried out by the ministry and will allow the expertise of the ministry to be fully utilised in undertaking safeguard investigations, and ensure a more efficient use of resources.

The bill also proposes that the time frame to complete an investigation will be extended from the present 30 working days to 75 working days, or 85 working days if provisional duties are requested. The extension of the time frame will allow sufficient time to undertake a high-quality investigation and reduce the risk of any safeguard measure taken by New Zealand being overturned through the WTO dispute settlement process. To allow swift action to be taken to provide protection to a domestic industry while an investigation is being completed and to ensure an industry is not disadvantaged by the extension of the investigation time frame, the bill proposes that the Minister of Commerce be authorised to impose a provisional safeguard duty in order to provide protection to a domestic industry while an investigation is being completed. The bill also proposes that the Minister of Commerce be authorised to impose a final safeguard duty to allow a quick and efficient means for taking safeguard action.

Lastly, the bill proposes the introduction of guidelines for determining whether the imposition of a safeguard measure is in the public interest to increase the certainty and transparency around the processes of considering public interest issues. Providing protection to the New Zealand manufacturers from offshore competition does not always find favour with economic purists who insist that open competition is always the best option. I believe, however, that New Zealand should have available to it a tool that is permitted under the WTO rules to allow what is only a temporary protection to an industry that is facing a sudden increase in import competition for the express purpose of providing time to adjust to that competition where the facts show that it would be sensible to take this course of action.

To conclude, the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill aims to provide for a more efficient process for taking safeguard action where that is necessary to allow time for structural adjustment by New Zealand manufacturers to sudden increases in competition from imported goods while ensuring that public interest considerations are properly taken into account before this type of action is taken. This is an important safety mechanism in an environment where the remaining tariffs are low and are being reduced further through free-trade agreements—a process that is likely to accelerate over the next few years as further free-trade agreements are concluded. I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its valuable contribution to the development of this bill. In addition, I would like to thank officials for all of their work that has gone into the drafting of this legislation to bring it to this point. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Labour supports the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill, but I have got to say that the Minister of Commerce’s ministerial explanation and read speech was pretty unconvincing as a justification for what we are doing in the House tonight. What disappointed me about the Minister’s speech as well is that he persisted in his refusal to give an explanation as to why this bill—the title clause of which says “The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Act 2008”—is coming back to the House in 2014, as he did during the Committee of the whole House. That is over 5 years—

Dr Paul Hutchison: Labour didn’t put it through. Too slow.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Just to pick up Paul Hutchison’s interjection there, Labour introduced this bill at the end of 2008. So Labour got the bill into the House and this National Government, by itself—by its incompetence and by its mismanagement—has spent over 5 years on a bill that is not controversial and is now finally and tardily going through its third reading in the House tonight. So I want to know from Mr Hutchison or Mr Hayes, or from whoever will be the next speaker from the National Party, what the explanation is for that huge delay in the passage of this legislation. Is it indeed incompetence? Is it indeed poor management? Is it because John Banks was in charge of the bill for a while, and the last thing that the National Government wanted was John Banks exposed in the chair as the Minister in charge of the bill? Or is it—and perhaps this is a likely explanation—simply because National, in its heart, does not believe that this bill is actually necessary?

Whichever one of those explanations is the most compelling, I think that the National Government owes it to the House to give that explanation because the Minister failed to do so in the Committee of the whole House. We are reporting back in the third reading on the Committee of the whole House. That is what the third reading is about. But I have got to report to you that the only reason we knew that that the Minister in the chair was actually alive was that occasionally he blinked. Occasionally he blinked, but he did not get up and answer questions. What is the point of paying a Minister a salary and putting him in the chair if he is not going to actually do what he is paid to do and give an explanation to the House to genuine, rational questions that are raised in the Committee of the whole House?

I want to come back to the point about whether the Government actually believes that this bill is necessary. We are, of course, a free-trade country and we are proud of that. Way back in the 1980s we removed the high levels of protectionism that actually damaged the economic future of this country. By the way, it also made it more difficult for trade Ministers because it took away our negotiating coin when we were trying to negotiate agreements for free trade with other countries. But the question is whether we need these particular safeguard mechanisms. Free trade does not mean to say that you do not have to have measures to ensure that trade is fair. There are clearly some safeguard mechanisms that are patently necessary for any country. Most of those in our country are contained in the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act 1988. That Act provides genuine safeguard measures that stop another country from dumping goods in this country at a price lower than it costs to produce them. That is not a level playing field. That is not fair competition, and of course you need anti-dumping measures to stop other countries doing it. You also need countervailing duties. Countervailing duties are what we put on when the Government in the country where the exports are coming from is subsidising those exports, which again makes the trade unfair and not on a level playing field.

But this bill does something different. It sets out safeguard measures and provisional safeguard duties that apply—

Hon Tau Henare: Are you reading it?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not read my speeches, Mr Henare. You probably cannot read your speeches, but, anyway, it is nice that you are in the House tonight and it is nice that you are still with us, albeit for another couple of months. You will be going with quite a number of your colleagues, some of whom are going voluntarily, and many of whom will be going because the country has had enough of them. But I do not want to be distracted by Mr Henare. That has probably been the major achievement of Mr Henare over his years in this House—to provide a distraction. Sometimes it is humorous, and we welcome that.

But the fact of the matter is that these safeguard measures are designed to provide protection when there is a surge of imports coming in. They are designed to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industries affected. What we heard, at last, from the Minister in his third reading speech was how many times these measures have been used since 1987. They have actually been put up four times and countervailing duties have been applied once—in how many years? We are talking about 25 or 30 years. So the question is: how important are these measures? What are the industries that might be protected by the employment of these measures? I am going to ask Mr Hayes that, because he should take the next call, as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. What are the industries that are likely to be protected by this bill, given that our average tariff rates are probably around 2 percent? I have got to say that I do have some doubts as to whether these measures are actually going to be employed, and that is probably the reason that the Government has dawdled over this bill for the 6 years that it has taken with it.

I have also got to express my concern because I know that, too often, special safeguard mechanisms can be abused. Mr Hayes and Mr Hutchison know from our recent trip to China that, actually, the special agricultural safeguard mechanisms that are being employed against our exports are not actually justified by the rationale that we are causing damage to the Chinese dairy industry. I did not want the special safeguard mechanisms in the free-trade agreement. I actually opposed those, but the fact of the matter was that the Ministry of Agriculture in China wanted to maintain dairy tariffs. It was absolutely miffed when I negotiated with the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to remove the tariffs completely over a period of time. The consolation to the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture was a special safeguard mechanism that we thought would never be used, because we set them well above the level of prevailing trade.

Actually, because of the massive increase in trade following the free-trade agreement, those special safeguard mechanisms now come into effect quite early in the trading year, and they cost us tens of millions of dollars. We are not happy about that. We do not complain too much about it because of the very good return we are getting on the sale of our dairy products. I raise this as an example of how a safeguard mechanism can be misused, not for the legitimate purpose of protecting an industry against damage, but—as in the case of China where our exports have increased, which is not causing damage to the Chinese industry—because the demand has risen hugely.

So the question is: why this bill? Well, if the Minister will not answer—and I suspect the National Government will not answer—I suppose we have to answer our own questions. The fact is that this bill does do some useful things. It streamlines the process of responding to allegations of dumped and subsidised goods. It removes the requirement for temporary safeguard authorities, and I think that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment can quite readily do that work in a more cost-effective way. We do not need special safeguard authorities. And the bill does set a more realistic time frame for the completion of a safeguard investigation. Thirty days is not enough time to do it properly; 75 days is certainly more realistic.

I think that the bill, as drafted by Lianne Dalziel, does set out very clearly the actions that the Minister can take and the process that the Minister must follow. That is important because it helps ensure that the safeguard mechanism is not misused. It sets out that you have to prove injury, that the injury was unforeseen, and that this measure is necessary to prevent or to remedy the injury. The safeguard has to be of an appropriate extent and duration. It must be in the public interest—and that is probably the most important safeguard against the misuse of safeguards that there is in the bill. And it must be compatible with New Zealand’s international trade negotiations. We made some useful amendments in the select committee to that process. We will be supporting the bill, but I have got to again express my regret that the Minister utterly failed to justify the bill that is in his name.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I have got to say that the first part of that speech from Mr Goff was absolutely outrageous, from a member in the twilight of his career whose future is always back there in the past. I always remember my father, who was overseas in World War II, reading the biography of Field Marshal Montgomery, and I think there were about 55 “I’s” on every page. I look forward to reading that sort of biography from the last speaker because we can see it coming if we study his Hansard in this House. But I am pleased that Mr Goff eventually came round and conceded that it is a very good bill that we have got passing through the House this evening, the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. Yes, I acknowledge that it has taken some time to get here.

Hon Phil Goff: Why? Why? What’s the reason?

JOHN HAYES: The reason is this, Mr Goff. If you could just be a little bit patient, a little bit less pushy, and a little bit less arrogant, I could say to you that there have been four cases, as you also pointed out and as the Minister of Commerce pointed out, that have been brought up as safeguard measures. The first was in 1989, when the product was footwear. No measures were taken. Then in 1992 was the second, and that related to men’s and boys’ underwear, Mr Goff. Measures were imposed there for about a year. In 1993 measures were sought on used car tyres, and nothing happened, and, again, in 1995, on abrasive discs, and no measures were imposed.

The point is that when you are thinking about the framework of the Government’s legislative programme, these things need to be done. This bill is absolutely essential, but you do what makes sense in a time frame that makes sense, and I think that this bill is being progressed in a very sensible time frame.

It is going to have an impact on companies in my electorate, like Harvest Electronics in Masterton, or, if I go a bit further north, on Metalcraft Industries. People manufacturing products in New Zealand could find themselves with a business set up, with trade under way, with a whole manufacturing setup, and with people employed, and suddenly a deluge of very low-priced, competitive products completely disrupts their business. In those circumstances this bill would enable them to very sensibly buy time for a period to deal with whatever the threat coming from overseas was.

This is an excellent piece of legislation. I make no apologies for the speed at which it has gone through our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It is going through the House. It will be in legislation in the term of this Parliament. That is an excellent outcome. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to speak at the third reading of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. It is my first contribution on this bill, so I have quickly come up to speed. Talking about time frames, I noticed just in flicking through the bill that today marks the 20th anniversary, to the day, of the signing of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement that was adopted at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994. I guess that forms the basis of this bill because we are, as a member of the WTO, adhering to the measures that have been recommended in the agreement—that we do provide some trade safeguard remedies. But it has taken a long time, obviously—20 years to the day since the adoption of that agreement. I can just imagine that 20 years ago in Marrakesh, under the Atlas Mountains, with those beautiful Arabian nights, red souk markets, the Berbers and the belly dancers, and a few cups of mint tea, our officials must have been working hard to see the completion of that agreement 20 years ago to ensure that we are all taken care of.

So that agreement was passed, and now, 20 years since the WTO agreement, we have got to this bill. It was introduced under the previous Labour Government. The policy decisions were made back, I think, in 2007. Lianne Dalziel—a very, very able Minister in her time—shepherded this bill through to the House. So it has taken a while, and here we are in 2014 at its third reading.

The measures in this bill are, as we say, non-controversial. I guess we know that we do need to protect certain industries when there is dumping of underpriced product that makes our industries uncompetitive. I know that we have got restrictions in this country on the importation of things where we need to protect our industries, like canned peaches from far-flung places like China, South Africa, or South America, and galvanised No. 8 wire. So there are those measures in place for those particular industries, but this goes a step further. In the—who knows—rare occurrence that we are faced with an influx of products from a country that causes harm to our New Zealand - based industry, which is the test in the legislation, there are defensive measures that can be adopted to ensure that there is a more level playing field.

So we commend those measures in the bill. They are not new, as we know. This bill replaces an Act that is, I think, from about 1987, which is 27-odd years old. It is in need of updating. The measures are very sensible, such as referring the investigations, or these queries, to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to look into so it can ensure a swift and expeditious type of investigation or inquiry. Likewise, extending the time frame in which it can deal with and, perhaps, put in place provisional duties from 35 days to a longer investigation period of between some 75 or 85 working days is, again, more sensible. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, it aligns our obligations so that we are, probably, less open to appeal through WTO procedures. Likewise, the guidelines and all the measures that are in the bill to do with the public interest are sensible.

These are rarely used tools. As we have heard, there have been, I guess, only four types of actions taken under the Act, and countervailing duties have been imposed on one occasion. But I guess the manufacturers of the shoes and the car tyres and other manufacturers of those times benefited from those measures. But in this global environment that we are part of, we are a small, open economy. We have forged free-trade deals, and I do acknowledge my colleague the Hon Phil Goff for the momentous work that he did with the China free-trade agreement and many others during his time as a Minister. We do live in a world where we are actually seeing an opening up of the trade and a reduction of the tariff barriers right across the world. So these sorts of measures seem sort of counter-intuitive to that, but, nevertheless, they are an important tool. They are an important tool that we need at our disposal to protect our New Zealand industries should the need ever arise.

I am just trying to think: what could be an industry that could, perhaps, look to protection? It could be any New Zealand industry. I am thinking just off the top of my head, but I am thinking of the New Zealand pork industry, an industry that my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor knows well. The New Zealand pork industry fought this Government all the way to the Supreme Court—all the way to the Supreme Court—to protect its industry from the importation of raw pork meat from far-flung places like Canada and other places. In fact, most of the pork that Kiwis do eat is not Kiwi-raised pork. It is actually pork from Canada. So the New Zealand pork industry fought tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court and fought the Ministry for Primary Industries to impose tougher standards so that there would be a more level playing field. But, alas, the pork industry lost that case, and now we have an influx of container after container of pork from Canada and many other places, which really does place our own New Zealand pork industry at a disadvantage. So, rather than actually getting the protection, the industry is actually disadvantaged by the actions of the Government. Maybe if there is a great influx—I do not know, a bumper season of pig rearing and we get an avalanche of pork containers coming into the country—the New Zealand pork industry may need to resort to some protection under this piece of legislation.

So that is really all I have to say. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the House enjoyed my very learned participation in this debate. It is a very commendable piece of legislation. As I gaze up to the clock there, I see that we are 10 minutes to the top of the hour. This is a very commendable piece of legislation. It is non-controversial. It is important that we have these measures in place. In the rare occurrence that it may be required, it is always good to have the legislation on the books. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. The Greens are supporting this bill, but we have some serious concerns about it. We are very clear that we like the point of this bill, in terms of it being an anti-dumping bill. However, this is about free trade, not fair trade, which is what we want. We want fair trade. We do not want the free trade that is happening at the moment that is destroying industries in this country more and more. Every week we see more jobs going overseas, more businesses going overseas, because they are having to compete against cheap products being allowed into New Zealand far too easily. As well, we are losing expertise as these businesses go overseas.

The really disturbing part of this bill, in fact, is that it is just about a temporary fix all the time. Clause 3 is very, very clear about that. It provides that the purpose is to: “(a) provide temporary protection to a domestic industry from serious injury caused by increased imports;”—note the word “temporary”—“and (b) facilitate adjustment by a domestic industry to increased competition from increased imports.”

Yes, we have to support the bill because we have got to do anything that will help domestic industry, but this is a stopgap bill. It is clear that the Government in particular is not worried that that is all it is. In a previous speech I think I used the term that this is the “Hey Fellas (Organise Redundancy for Your Staff) Bill”. This is a bill that says: “Yes, we will give you a little bit of a break, a little bit of an adjustment, but too bad. This stuff is coming in. Get ready, and adjust to it.”

Think about it. What about the local communities, when we know that something is coming down? We are losing something. We are losing jobs, we are losing expertise, and we are going to have products that we have nothing to feel proud about, coming from another place on the planet. There is no need for it.

I was thinking about it as I was just sitting here. What have we got? What have we lost? We have lost the clothing industry in a big way. We have lost a lot of our footwear industry. We have lost a lot more. I just thought I would check what I was wearing, to see whether I was sort of putting my money where my mouth is. I notice my tie is made under licence, but it was made in New Zealand. I know my suit was. I know my shirt was. I know my shoes were built in Dunedin, at McKinlays. They do not quite suit my suit, but that is where they came from. Everybody in this House could be wearing McKinlays shoes or clothing made by some other company in New Zealand. But by hang, they have got this dump of shoes, footwear, and clothing coming into the country from other places, putting New Zealanders out of jobs.

Pork was mentioned before. When I first spoke on this bill in 2012 we were talking of 40 percent of the pork consumed in New Zealand coming from overseas. Now, in excess of 45 percent of the pork consumed in New Zealand is from overseas. It is shocking. There is absolutely no need for any pork to be imported from overseas into this primary-producing country. We can produce the food for it, we have got the space, and we have got the expertise to do it. The reason we do not need pork from overseas is that, for one, the standards nowhere near match what we aspire to in New Zealand. The rubbish that the animals are fed overseas is way worse than what we are feeding the pigs in New Zealand.

The level of use of antibiotics overseas is way worse than anything that we do here. Other pesticide residues in that pork—we have no idea. And then, this Government will not even enforce something like country-of-origin labelling, which our trans-Tasman partner Australia does and makes better year on year. So New Zealanders get junk food, and then they cannot even get it labelled. This bill does not quite address that, but it is just a temporary fix, as I say, for some unfortunate industries as they head towards the wall because of free trade, not fair trade. We have lost that expertise. We have lost self-reliance in this country, and as we head into the increased impacts of oil shocks, natural disasters, and social and civil disasters internationally, we need to have a higher level of self-reliance. We have no self-reliance from something like this—just the phase out. It is absolutely temporary.

The problem with the World Trade Organization—which we are very connected with, and we work on to try to get it to work for us; we look to it, to try to smooth trade internationally—is that it is very, very strong on trade and very, very weak on environmental and social concerns. [Interruption] Hey, the bill before this was a bill concerning foreign charter vessels. The same bunch of people over here did not mind decade after decade of slave-like conditions on those boats—and some from that side of the House too. Free traders do not mind what the labour costs are and do not mind what the costs of those people are to the human rights—[Interruption] Yes, you find it very surprising. You find this very surprising because you are light years away from human rights and fair trade.

When we get that sort of integrity back into this House, we will be able to stand proud in this country about what we are doing for the environment, what we are doing for social rights, and social justice—

Sue Moroney: We’re all right with that.

STEFFAN BROWNING: You are all good with it. It is good that Labour is all good with it, too.

Hon Tau Henare: Thanks for coming.

STEFFAN BROWNING: Thank you. We would love to know what is going on with the Trans-Pacific Partnership in terms of this, as well. Will this bill give any protection for the stuff that you are dealing with around the Trans-Pacific Partnership? We need transparency. We need to be looking after our communities and our regulations in New Zealand. We do not need them traded off in some deal to sell a little bit of milk powder—or what is it? What is the deal with the US that we will lose out on in a Trans-Pacific Partnership? Pushing and pushing, coming from the Government saying: “We need this Trans-Pacific Partnership. It’s going to do all sorts of wonderful things for New Zealand.” It is not even a normal way of looking at tariffs. This is about trading off regulations and community control and say and democracy. So although we will support this bill because there is an element of temporary protection, we do have a lot of concern about the direction of free trade. Thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): There it is: the stark choice on 20 September this year. It is him, Steffan Browning, or us—him or us. I have got to tell you that, after that speech, people will be lining up in the blue tent on 20 September. Even the red tent will be coming over to the blue tent, because I tell you what: there is no way in hell there is going to be a Green-Labour Government with that performance. You know, I thought Phil Goff’s performance was pathetic. I thought Rino Tirikatene was great. His whole speech was about pigs—pigs from Canada and pigs from this part of the world. That was a great insight into the world of pigs, but the previous speech took the cake.

Free trade—the bill is about free trade. Do you know what I am holding in my hand? It is the notes on an insurance policy for our country. That is all it is. That is all it ever was. It was to make sure that our country had safeguards in place just in case somebody tried to dump their produce on our shores. That is all it is. That is all it ever has been, and to—

Andrew Williams: Why so long? Why 6 years?

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, look—for goodness’ sake!

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.