Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Delegation, United Kingdom

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch of the United Kingdom, led by the Rt Hon Lord McNally, is present in the gallery.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Housing, Affordable—Government Policies

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by his statement, “there’s no fundamental underlying reasons to believe there’s a problem in our housing market”; if so, has his Government done enough to assist people into their own home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do not believe there is a crisis in housing, particularly when you compare the current situation with that in the mid-2000s when house prices doubled and mortgage rates rose to as high as 10.9 percent. In answer to the second part of the question, this Government is implementing a wide range of policies that will help people who want to buy their own home.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister maintain that there is no housing crisis in Canterbury, when an entire ward of mental health patients who do not need to be there are living in a hospital, costing the district health board $13,000 a night, due to a lack of affordable accommodation?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the details that the member is talking about, but in relation to Christchurch, there is a significant amount of housing under way, taking into context the fact that we have had major earthquakes there.

Hon David Cunliffe: What is he doing to speed up the rebuild of Christchurch when Deloitte estimates that fewer than 1,000 of the 12,000 to 15,000 houses that Canterbury needs have actually been built?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I thank the member for asking that question because it gives me the opportunity to outline what we are doing, which is the housing accord with Christchurch—

Sue Moroney: Not enough.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, not enough is when house prices double and interest rates go to 11 percent. That is a shocker. But, anyway, we are progressing a housing accord with Christchurch to accelerate development in central government and local government. As the member would have seen in the Budget, we are suspending duties and tariffs on imported building materials. We are reforming legislation in this area. We have extended the KiwiSaver first-home deposit subsidy. One of the things we are doing is addressing the issue of land. Interestingly enough, I did see a report that said: “Increasing the supply of housing through identifying new land for residential development and lowering the cost of construction, which are both inputs into the cost of housing, are the most likely ways to achieve a reduction in house prices in the long run.” That was, of course, Labour’s house price unit, which was established in 2007 in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The then Government, led by Helen Clark, did absolutely zippo, and that is why house prices doubled under Labour.

Hon David Cunliffe: At least we are not trumpeting a housing accord with bare land—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please ask his supplementary question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Minds on maps. Does he agree with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research economist Shamubeel Eaqub that having the most expensive housing in the OECD relative to rents is driven by speculation; if so, why is he not tackling speculators with a capital gains tax?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, for a start off, speculators already pay a capital gains tax. Secondly, if the member actually wants to quote the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, its quarterly forecast yesterday predicted that house sales are likely to drop and house prices are likely to level off. In the next 6 months it expects house price inflation to be 1 percent nationwide and 5 percent in Auckland. That would be consistent with the fact that under this Government, house prices have gone up by 28 percent and mortgage rates are at lows that we have not really seen for a very long period of time, and that house prices doubled under Labour. When the member said: “Oh, well, that just says it all. The housing accord’s the way to resolve the issue.”, actually, the answer is yes. Releasing land, actually reforming the Resource Management Act, dealing with development contributions, and looking at the other bottlenecks in housing is exactly what the Productivity Commission and everybody has said about housing. This Government is doing it. That Opposition—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon David Cunliffe: When New Zealand Institute of Economic Research economist Shamubeel Eaqub talked about the “itsy bitsy” housing policies, was he referring to the Government’s trimming a few cents off duties from paint and varnish, or to selling off 13,500 State houses, including selling down broken P houses, to first-home buyers in the provinces?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is free to throw around criticism. Unfortunately, the record of the previous Government was so atrocious that it actually left this Government to do the work. The first thing we have done when it comes to Auckland is the Auckland Housing Accord, which will produce—

Phil Twyford: 6 long years.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, actually, it might be 9 years very soon, if you keep going the way you are, son. But, anyway, that includes 39,000 consents over the next 3 years. The housing accord that we have done with Christchurch—unlike what the member actually said, it is actually not varnish off wood. It is $3,500 off the construction of a new home, and it is a reform of wide-ranging legislation, including the Resource Management Act.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister take the same view as his Minister of Housing, which is that he does not care that people in the regions may actually lose the whole value of their home as a result of imposing loan-to-value ratios?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is quite wrong in the assertion he makes, but the member is often wrong. I noticed that a couple of days ago he was on TV with his dog-whistle politics, telling the world that he did not—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is always nice to hear the Prime Minister attempt to address a question, but, preferably, the one that is actually being asked.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did, because the question was whether he agrees with the statement allegedly made by the Minister of Housing, and he refuted the statement. He said that he did not agree.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister not realise that when the median house price has increased over 40 percent in Auckland since he took office and wages have been stagnant, it is harder to get into a home in Auckland after 6 long years of his tired National Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member may feel tired but I do not. The second point is that under this Government house prices have risen 28 percent. They might be a little higher than everyone wants, but it is not 96 percent. You see, if you had, to quote them, “9 long years” and you did something about it, maybe in Opposition you would actually be free to get up and make a few comments or criticise. But given that when Labour was in Government, it did absolutely nothing, it is no wonder that the public think it is a joke when Labour members talk about this issue. [Interruption] No, I am happy to keep going, actually, if you like.

Mr SPEAKER: But I am not.

Economy—Tax System and Income Support

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 2, the Hon Tau Henare.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called the Hon Tau Henare. [Interruption]

Hon TAU HENARE: Should I go now?

Mr SPEAKER: I would be grateful if the member would.

Hon Members: Go. Go.

Hon TAU HENARE: You can wait until the 21st. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have a bit more decorum in the House.

2. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Over the past six Budgets, has the Government made the tax system fairer for households and businesses; if so, how?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It is a very good question from a longstanding and insightful member. Yes, the Government has made changes to ensure the tax system is fairer. They include raising the effective tax rate on property investment, increasing funding for the Inland Revenue Department to target property speculators and others avoiding tax, preventing people using investment losses to make themselves eligible for Working for Families and other Government support, and bringing in stricter rules to ensure multinational companies contribute to their fair share of tax, as well as reducing the incentives for higher-income people to avoid paying the statutory rate of tax. At the same time, the Government has reduced income tax rates for all income groups, including low and middle income New Zealanders. Almost three-quarters of taxpayers now face a top personal rate of 17.5c in the dollar or less.

Hon Tau Henare: What changes has the Government made to income tax rates and other taxes to help families get ahead?

Denis O’Rourke: None.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may not have noticed that there was a tax reform package in 2010. The effect of that was that after-tax incomes at all levels of taxable income were immediately increased by more than the increase in GST in 2010. Someone on the average annual wage at the time of around $50,000 was about $15 a week better off, and a family with two children on the average household income of $76,000 was about $25 a week better off. Two-thirds of the cost of the income tax in 2010 went into reducing the bottom two tax rates, so someone earning $48,000 a year now has a top tax rate of 17.5c in the dollar.

Hon Tau Henare: How does the income tax system interact with income support provided to lower and middle income families, and how does this redistribute income to those most in need?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the Government maintains a significantly redistributive tax and income support system. At any particular time a large number of households effectively do not pay income tax, because the amount they pay in income tax is exceeded by the amount they receive from welfare benefits, Working for Families, paid parental leave, and accommodation subsidies. The Government believes that this is entirely appropriate for families who are in need, but it also recognises that we must help as many New Zealanders as possible off benefits and into work where they get the benefit of these income support measures.

Hon Tau Henare: How significantly do the income tax and income support systems redistribute incomes for New Zealand households?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The most recent estimates show that households earning over $150,000—that is, the top 15 percent of households—will pay 49 percent of income tax. But taking into account all income support, these 15 percent of households will actually pay 74 percent of net income tax. By contrast, households earning under $60,000 a year, which is just about half of all households, are expected to pay 9 percent of income tax. But taking into account all of the income support they receive, what they are expected to pay this year will be more than offset by the $7.3 billion they receive in income support, compared with $2.5 billion of income tax. That is, households earning under $60,000 are net recipients of about $5.8 billion.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Carbon Unit Trading

3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he aware of any ongoing fiscal risks to the Crown resulting from the operation of the emissions trading scheme?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The term “fiscal risk” has a very specific meaning in terms of the Public Finance Act, and all the fiscal risks, from whatever sources, are listed in the Budget documents, but I checked with Treasury an hour ago, and it assured me that there is no risk associated specifically with climate change.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he seen any reports that firms to which the Government has allocated free New Zealand carbon units are engaging in arbitrage, using cheap international carbon units, to meet their New Zealand obligations under the emissions trading scheme?

Hon TIM GROSER: I am aware of many reports on this issue, including reports relating to a rort that this Government has put a stop to, which involved the use of taxpayer funds to put money in people’s pockets from the reregistration arbitrage opportunities. I do not know whether he is referring to that or some other aspect of the emissions trading scheme.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about firms that have been allocated free New Zealand carbon units, which did not apply to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question asked whether the Minister had received any reports, and he responded that he had received many reports.

Dr Russel Norman: Is there anything to stop firms that receive New Zealand carbon units each year as free allocations from selling these units and then using cheaper international units to meet their greenhouse obligations in New Zealand?

Hon TIM GROSER: The scheme has been designed so that people can minimise their costs in meeting those obligations within the framework of the Climate Change Response Act. Even—and should I add this—foresters who remain in the scheme can still use cheaper international units, although we have stopped the inclusion of units of questionable environmental integrity.

Dr Russel Norman: Then is it correct that in respect of the 33 million carbon units that were gifted to firms in New Zealand last year at the taxpayer’s expense—these firms can sell these units at about $4 each currently, then buy cheap offshore units for about 20c each, and then use the offshore units to cover their emissions in New Zealand?

Hon TIM GROSER: The existing structure of the scheme remains as I described. If people wish to maximise their fiscal position in the way set out by the Act, they will do so, and this Government is quite happy with the situation as it stands.

Dr Russel Norman: Then does the Minister agree that firms that receive free allocations of New Zealand carbon units, and then sell those units for a profit while meeting their emissions trading scheme obligations using cheap offshore units are, effectively, being paid by the taxpayer to produce greenhouse pollution?

Hon TIM GROSER: No. We have set up a scheme that allows people to meet their obligations in ways that the scheme is designed to ensure do not put them out of business. But I am quite confident that in the event that the member has decisive influence on climate change policy, we will have to revise that opinion.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he believe that the purpose of the emissions trading scheme is actually being served when it results in polluters being subsidised by taxpayers to actually produce pollution, as is now the case, using these loopholes in the law?

Hon TIM GROSER: No, that is a complete mischaracterisation of the scheme. What we are trying to do is ensure that people move slowly in this direction of lower carbon emissions—it is, of course, complicated by the very low international price at the moment—and give them ways of adjusting to that. If we or the previous Government had put the full burden of the adjustment process on without giving them some offsetting units, we believe, as no doubt the previous Government also believed, that it would have driven the process too far, too fast in the wrong direction. But we know that the Green Party has no concern whatsoever for the productive side of our economy.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister tell us the names of the firms to which he gave free allocation of New Zealand carbon units in the last year and how much each company received, or is this information kept secret from New Zealanders even though they are paying for the units?

Hon TIM GROSER: I personally do not sit behind a desk doling out money and units to individual firms. It is done by a responsible Public Service.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister not think that it is only fair that New Zealand taxpayers, who are paying for these free allocations—which the Minister is responsible for giving away as free allocations—are entitled to know whom the allocations are going to?

Hon TIM GROSER: I think the details of this are done deliberately by the officials responsible for the registrar. I do not think you want companies’ confidential information sprayed around the New Zealand public without regard to their own financial positions.

Dr Russel Norman: Is this not yet another example of his Government’s dodgy backroom deals at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders who are never told the names of the companies who receive hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer carbon credits? Is this just another—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked; I will allow the Minister to answer it.

Hon TIM GROSER: The short answer is no, but there is a deeper issue of principle. Is the member suggesting, as is clearly implied by the question, that from the point of view of any Government he is going to belong to in the future he is going to put around highly confidential company information on their tax burdens, and other such matters, without any regard for the impact on their financial position? The member should reflect on that.

Rt Hon John Key: Has the Minister seen any reports of how the climate changed when the leader of the Green Party went up to the Dotcom mansion and was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not see any ministerial responsibility for that.

Immigration Policy—Impact

4. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that Scenario 2 in the Budget 2014 Economic and Fiscal Update, which is based on net migration being over 40,000 people, forecasts higher interest rates, increased housing demand, higher inflation, more household dis-savings, and that “… additional consumption is funded through increasing levels of household debt and this constrains consumption growth further as debt servicing costs increase”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No.

Hon David Parker: Given that immigration numbers are now tracking to over 40,000 net for the year, does he agree with his party’s paid pollster David Farrar that discussing the relationship between migration and housing is xenophobic?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, but we do not agree that there is a problem with the economy or that that problem is too many Chinese, too many Indians, too many Samoans, and too many vans clogging up the truck lane on the motorway. We do not believe that Labour’s answer of slashing immigration is the answer for the economy.

Hon David Parker: Is it xenophobic or racist of Treasury to say that “immigration policy should be more closely tailored to the economy’s ability to respond to population increase.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, but it is surprising that the leader of the Labour Party believes that he can slash inflows of migration without any impact on the supply of skills to the economy or without getting a few questions at the next ethnic celebration day that he goes to where he says that he loves having them in New Zealand.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a Treasury paper dated April 2014 entitled Migration and Macroeconomic Performance in New Zealand, which includes—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The paper has been well described. I just need to check whether it is something that is freely available to members.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s on the web.

Hon David Parker: Well, just about everything is on the web, but it has not been circulated. I had to find it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave. The House can determine. Leave is sought to table a Treasury document dated April 2014. Is there any objection? There is not.

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

Hon David Parker: Is it racist or xenophobic of the Government of China to control immigration levels and ban overseas purchase of Chinese houses and farms by New Zealanders?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, we do not have any responsibility for the policies of the Chinese Government, in the same way as the Labour front bench wishes it did not have responsibility for its leader.

Louise Upston: How does the forecast net migration peak of 41,500, under Treasury’s scenario two in the Budget, compare with recent trends in net migration?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The forecast peak is not unusual by recent standards. For example, in the year to May 2003 net migration peaked at more than 43,000—somewhat outside the range that the Leader of the Opposition said was the case—and net migration was above 30,000 to February 2004. That followed a period of net outward migration that had hit negative 13,000 in February 2001. So in the space of just over 2 years at that time, net migration went from minus 13,000 to plus 43,000 under a Government that has now been described as “managing a period of steady, predictable migration flows”.

Hon David Parker: Is it xenophobic or racist of the Reserve Bank to link immigration to house prices when it says that a 1 percent increase in population causes an 8 percent increase in house prices over 3 years, and is it not the truth that it is the Prime Minister who is dog whistling in an attempt to cover up his Government’s failure to control house prices at affordable levels for all New Zealanders, be they recent migrants or born here?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked—the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with the member’s assertions. The Labour Party has a dog whistle in its mouth and it cannot decide whether to blow it or not. And then when it talks to its front bench, it disagrees.

Louise Upston: What recent reports has he seen about possible ways of managing migration flows in and out of New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because this issue has been discussed extensively, there are a number of reports, but I have sorted out one or two. The first, from Saturday, 18 May, said that the easiest way to keep net migration within a zone of 5,000 to 15,000 was to better manage the points system; the second report, on Monday, 20 May, was from a spokesman, confirmed as leader of his party, who would look to get net migration stable between 5,000 and 15,000; and a third report just the next day said “That’s not our position. I think at the present time it is going to be difficult to do that.” That was from the leader of the Labour Party, who had originally proposed the policy.

Science and Research Funding—Draft National Statement

5. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has he made about the future direction of investment in science and innovation in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Today I released the draft National Statement of Science Investment, which sets out the current settings and proposed future priorities for Government science investment. This Government’s investment in science is very significant, with funding budgeted to reach $1.5 billion in the year 2015-16, which is an increase of more than 70 percent since 2007-08. The draft statement up for consultation and feedback is intended to encourage discussions with the sector in regard to the overall direction of science investment and the balance of that spend, for example, between investigator-led, mission-led, and business-led research and development.

Tim Macindoe: Why is it important for the science community to contribute to the proposed shape and direction of Government investment in science?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, New Zealand is now making a much bigger investment in science than it was just 6 years ago. It is vital that the science community and those who have an interest in the results of science have the opportunity to contribute to the Government’s priorities in responding to the unique economic, environmental, and cultural challenges that this country faces. The Government has undertaken a number of new initiatives in the science sector, including, for example, the establishment of Callaghan Innovation, the Primary Growth Partnerships, and the National Science Challenges. Now is a good time for a stocktake in the overall shape of the science system to consider where investments should be made in the next 5 to 10 years and to consider further opportunities to enhance the impact and effect of our overall investment.

Tim Macindoe: How is the Government supporting high-quality scientific research in New Zealand? [Interruption]

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: They love to hear about it on the Opposition benches. I mentioned in answer to the primary question that the Government will be investing around $1.5 billion in 1 year, in 2015-16, which is an increase of more than 70 percent since 2007-08. As part of that, in Budget 2014 the Government is committed to increasing its investment in contestable science, with $56.8 million over 3 years starting from 2015-16. Contestable science funding is an important component of the overall system and it is critical to increasing innovation and economic growth. This announcement continues a commitment to keep significantly growing the science investment budget in tough fiscal times, to position New Zealand well as an innovative small country on the global stage.

Dr Megan Woods: Why does he continue to refuse to reintroduce full-scale research and development tax credits, given that industry has identified them as the best incentive for encouraging private investment in research and development and the draft National Statement of Science Investment states that across a range of measures New Zealand’s connections between research and businesses are poor?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member should actually read the draft, because we put more into business research and development than a tax credit ever would—$140 million - odd a year. I appreciate that the only thing that Opposition members have to say on this subject is on research and development tax credits, but after announcing it for about the eighth time, you would think they would think of something new.

Child Poverty—Government Initiatives to Address and Impact on School Rolls

6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: What action will she take to tackle the problem of children coming and going at decile one schools at a rate equivalent to half those schools’ rolls, as the Child Poverty Action group found in their latest report?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. I am taking a number of actions to tackle this problem and to raise achievement for all. That is why this Government is investing more in schools than ever before. Those actions include, for example, a new attendance service; student management systems where schools text parents when kids are away; social workers for every decile 1, 2, and 3 primary school; around 300 nurses to work with most schools around the country; a breakfast in schools programme 5 mornings a week; child care, after-school care, and holiday care for about 47,000 kids; and a further $85 million in operational grants. Let us be clear: fewer than five kids in every 1,000 move schools twice in a year, and that has been stable since this Government came into office. The rate of kids moving has been decreasing across low-decile schools in the same period, and the Child Poverty Action Group acknowledges that.

Catherine Delahunty: Does she agree with the school principal quoted in the Child Poverty Action Group’s report that roll churn in low-decile areas is a major problem that is not given proper recognition by the Ministry of Education; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No; I accept that it is for that particular principal. I accept that for the 55 percent response rate to the survey conducted by the Child Poverty Action Group, they have particular challenges. We are working with each of those schools as well as across the system. That is why we know that movement of kids in and out of schools is lower than it was before 2009 and has remained stable since that time. The Child Poverty Action Group’s report acknowledges that.

Catherine Delahunty: Why is she spending $27 million for the current five small charter schools when she could tackle a widespread problem that is clearly holding kids back in terms of their educational achievement—i.e., churn of up to 52.8 percent?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I will just refer the member to the significant range of actions we are taking that I gave in my principal answer. In addition, we are not going to do all the same things we have always done or we will keep getting what we have always got. We are investing in five partnership schools, none of whose parents are compelled to send their children there but are doing so. They are having significant attendance and engagement at those schools.

Catherine Delahunty: When will she stop diverting resources into sideshows like charter schools for about 300 children and start dealing with widespread problems like school churn in low-decile areas?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Green Party might want to dismiss this as a sideshow, but parents have chosen these options for themselves, in the same way that parents who choose kura kaupapa, kura-ā-iwi, State-integrated, mainstream, single-sex, or co-ed schools do—because they consider that their children will do better there. That is a choice that we respect.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she agree with the Child Poverty Action Group’s findings that the problem of high transient rates goes beyond the capabilities of the education sector; if so, which other Ministers has she raised this issue with specifically?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I certainly agree that education has a significant contribution to make, together with the efforts that my colleagues are also making. That is why, for instance, I have already indicated that for every decile 1, 2, and 3 school, there is a social worker available. That is why we have increased the investment into rheumatic fever and supporting kids’ health so that they can be at school. That is why my colleague has been investing in social housing and support for families in turn. That is why our Government is investing in a strong economy—so that there can be the creation of the 84,000 jobs that have been delivered in the past year. It is not one thing or another; it is how all of those come together. That is why we have a higher achievement rate than ever before.

Inequality, Economic and Social—Unemployment and Income Gap

7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Is he satisfied that the Government’s policies have contributed to fair employment outcomes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Yes, in the context of a challenging world environment and the twin shocks of the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes. Against that backdrop, 84,000 more New Zealanders are in work this year compared with a year ago, which is the fastest job growth in a decade. Wages are increasing faster than inflation. Average weekly earnings rose 3.2 percent over the last year. The Budget forecasts show 172,000 more jobs in the economy by 2018, with average annual wages continuing to rise well ahead of inflation to almost $62,300, which is up from $48,700 in 2010.

Grant Robertson: How is it fair that unemployment among Pasifika New Zealanders is still double the rate of unemployment among the rest of the population and that according to the Salvation Army report released this week a staggering 26 percent of young Pacific women are not in employment, education, or training?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I acknowledge for the member that Māori and Pasifika unemployment rates are higher—as, I think, unfortunately, they have always been—than for those in other ethnic groups in our society, but rather than shut them out of the country, my preference is to get them into higher education and tertiary education. We are doing very well. We have had significant increases in the numbers of young Māori and Pasifika studying at degree level and higher in New Zealand over the last 5 years. It is something like about 4,000 for Māori and about 3,000 for Pasifika, and we are achieving far better course completion and qualification completion rates for young Māori and Pasifika than they have ever had before. It is not perfect but we are making good progress.

Grant Robertson: How is it fair that since 2007 earnings for Pasifika workers have increased by an average of $2 per week, when the cost of living has increased far in excess of that during that time?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure exactly about the numbers that the member raises, but there is no doubt that, actually, since 2007 this country has experienced two big fiscal shocks—firstly, the global financial crisis and, secondly, the Canterbury earthquakes—and those things have had an impact on everyone’s earning ability. The challenge here is to lift the skills of Pasifika people, particularly of young Pasifika people. This Government has a far better record on that than any previous Government, and, in particular, the previous Labour Government.

Grant Robertson: In light of the Minister not being aware of the statistics, I seek leave to table the section of the Salvation Army’s report that shows that average earnings—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. I will just ask the member, has—

Grant Robertson: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not put the leave yet.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just think it would be helpful if he actually tabled the whole report, which includes the big lift—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate the point. The more important thing is that I think that that document has already been tabled in this House. To move it forward, I think the easiest way forward, accepting the point, is to ask the member whether he is happy to move the tabling of the whole of the Salvation Army report.

Grant Robertson: Yes, sure.

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

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

Grant Robertson: Does he think it is fair that in the period his Government has been in office, pay rates for chief executives have risen to be 26.4 times the rate of pay for an average employee, or is he satisfied about the gap between the rich and the poor getting wider and wider?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Unfortunately the second part of that member’s question is wrong. Under any independent assessment of the New Zealand economy in the last few years, there has not been a widening of the gap between rich and poor, and in fact—

Andrew Little: Yes, there has been.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the members can say it if they like because they read the British Labour Party newspapers, but the reality in this country is that it has not occurred.

Budget 2014—Early Childhood Education

8. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements have been made on the Government’s investment in early childhood education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): A further $155.7 million over 4 years will be invested in early childhood education services in Budget 2014, to help give all children a great start in life. This will support an estimated 5,800 more of our youngest children to access quality early childhood education by June 2018. Over one-third of these children will be from areas where participation is low and extra support can help regular participation.

Colin King: Why has the Government prioritised participation in early childhood education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Government spending on early childhood education has almost doubled, from over $800 million in 2007-08 to $1.5 billion in 2013-14.

Hon Tony Ryall: How much?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is $1.5 billion. We know that regular participation in quality early childhood learning significantly increases a child’s chance of future educational success, particularly those from vulnerable families. That is why we have set a target of increasing participation to 98 percent of children starting school in 2016. The additional funding in Budget 2014 will help to achieve that target.

Wage Rates—Growth and Employment Relations Legislation

9. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What new measures, if any, is he considering that will lift pay rates so that all wage and salary earners share in a growing economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: The Government is committed to continuing to grow the economy through both the recent Budget and our Business Growth Agenda, and ensuring that everyone gets a fair and growing share of the pie. This includes our year-on-year increases to the minimum wage, which now sits at $14.25 an hour. The April increase of 50c was higher than the CPI, which helps lift the real incomes of the lowest paid while not damaging their job prospects. Job growth in our economy has been strong over the last year, and we are seeing in Budget 2014 that this trend is likely to continue, with forecasts of average wage growth of $7,600 by 2018 and around 170,000 new jobs in the next 4 years.

Andrew Little: What exactly is intended by the statements in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment statement of intent 2014-18 that “We will review employment standards to make sure they are encouraging fair and productive workplaces.”, and that “We will also look at the employment framework more generally to ensure it remains fit for purpose …”, and will we see more changes to the Employment Relations Act along the lines of those currently being made?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the matters in relation to employment standards are to strengthen the requirements to meet the employment standards in legislation, and I imagine the Minister will make announcements in due course about that. In relation to employment relations generally, my understanding is that there are no plans for further changes at this point, beyond what is already in front of the House.

Andrew Little: In view of his claim made previously in this House, and, indeed, the claim made by the Minister for Economic Development today, that wage rates have increased 3.2 percent on average last year, and in view of reports of, for example, Universal College of Learning staff settling on a pay rise of 1.25 percent, Christchurch port workers settling on a pay rise of 2.85 percent, print workers settling on 1.6 percent for 18 months, and many other workers struggling to get a 2 percent pay increase, who does he say is getting increases in pay rates of 3.2 percent and more?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is not the Government saying that. It is actually Statistics New Zealand saying that average weekly wages are—

Hon David Parker: Not correct.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is correct. Go and look at it, Mr Parker. You are going to go back down your little labour cost index hole again. The reality is that under the quarterly employment survey, average weekly wages have lifted by 3.2 percent over the last year.

Grant Robertson: It means nothing.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is actually significant, and it refers to actual wage increases. Members opposite can hate it if they like. They hate success and they hate progress in the New Zealand economy.

Andrew Little: Does he accept that when 46 percent of wage and salary earners in 1 year, namely last year, got no increase in their pay rate, achieving a 3.2 percent average increase across all wage and salary earners means that some are getting extraordinary pay rises, and could he please tell us who they are?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is important the member notes that his premise at the start is actually incorrect. Again, members opposite are working off the labour cost index, which is only one small element of the overall wage increases for New Zealanders. Wage increases are made up of increases as a result of productivity increases, increases as a result of promotion and so on, increases as a result of increases in hours worked, and increases as a result of inflation, which is the only bit that is measured by the labour cost index. Members can wander down here and pretend that that is the actual situation, for as many months as they like, but it is not.

Andrew Little: Why will he not accept that when nearly half the workforce cannot get a pay rise in a growing economy, there is something wrong with wage setting in this country, and that workers and employers need a better approach than this Government has so far offered?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, what we have seen in this economy over the last year is 84,000 new jobs, the fastest job growth rate in a decade. What we have also seen is an average weekly wage increase of 3.2 percent, which is well ahead of the cost of living increase of 1.5 percent. If the member thinks that that needs reform, well, he is entitled to his view, but most New Zealanders understand that the New Zealand economy is on the right track. It is going to deliver better job growth and better incomes for New Zealanders in the years ahead, provided that that lot does not get control.

Immigration Policy—Numbers and Impact

10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, especially the one when I said: “Gosh, things aren’t going well with Brendan Horan then.” [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That does not help the order of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he say that high immigration numbers are, to use his words, a “good news story”, when so many New Zealanders are being shut out of the New Zealand housing situation?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because high immigration numbers are, broadly speaking, a good-news story for New Zealand. If I look back over the last 6 years of the National Government, on average, the net increase has been 8,785 people per year. I would have thought that for a population of about 4.5 million people, the addition of 8,785 people on average per year is about right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree that immigration policy must first ensure that migrants do not displace New Zealanders already living here from first obtaining jobs or housing in their own country?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that is the very reason why, when you look at the requirements on employers, they need to go and look for New Zealand workers first. There are certain circumstances where they cannot find them, and, on that basis, they bring workers in. Or there are certain circumstances where it actually makes sense to convert workers—for instance, students who have studied in New Zealand and have got a degree. On the other side of the coin, 25,000 of those migrants who come to New Zealand each year on average come from Australia.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does his Government’s immigration policy not take into account the housing crisis in Auckland or the fact that almost 150,000 New Zealanders are unemployed in their own country?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is no housing crisis in Auckland, but there is a lot of work going on from the Government to ensure that more houses are built.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is good enough, after a Credit Suisse report, for the Australian Government to launch a federal inquiry into foreign purchasing of Australian housing and apartments, why is he so set on doing nothing when the same thing is happening in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Far from doing nothing, the Government is doing a wide range of things that are actually in line with what the Productivity Commission thought were the right things to do in relation to the housing market. Actually, Australia does have a ban on foreigners buying properties other than new properties, and it has a capital gains tax, which is broader and does not work. I can see why that member now wants to talk about xenophobic policies when it comes to immigration, because he has got so much—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister so dismissive of the concerns of so many New Zealanders when net inflow immigration predicted by Treasury in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update—[Interruption]—at page 55, for “Big Ears’ ” sake—is for it to reach as high as 41,500 this year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, you will always get flows in immigration. That is largely driven, actually, by the number of New Zealanders who leave. We have a period at the moment, because the economy is so strong and things are going well, when very few New Zealanders are actually leaving and, on that basis, net migration is a little bit higher. As I said, under our Government, on average, it has been 8,785 people. But in answer to that question I could just say “Next question?”, which is what the member said 11 times when he was asked about his comments—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Better Public Services Targets—Immunisation Rates and Initiatives

11. CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made to support increased immunisation?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. I am really pleased today to announce that I will launch the updated Immunisation Handbook. The handbook is a key reference guide for health professionals, and it includes the latest best-practice advice about diseases and the vaccines available to prevent them. The guide is now in its sixth edition, but this is the first time that it is available as an e-book.

Claudette Hauiti: What changes to the vaccines and immunisations are highlighted in the new handbook?

Hon JO GOODHEW: To help keep our children healthy and well, this year we have added new vaccines to the immunisation schedule. From 1 July 2014 rotavirus and an improved pneumoccocal vaccine will be funded. This Government has made immunisation a priority. We have seen immunisation rates rise considerably, to 93 percent for 2-year-olds and 91 percent, at the moment, for 8-month-olds. But under the previous Labour Government, immunisation rates sat at only 67 percent. The Immunisation Handbook supports this improvement. Having information at hand helps health professionals safely and confidently deliver immunisation services to the people whom they care for.

Inequality, Economic and Social—Income Gap

12. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What specific initiatives, if any, can he point to in Vote Labour in Budget 2014 that will help raise the wages of low income and insecure New Zealand workers?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: In Budget 2014 the focus was on the considered and positive changes to paid parental leave, which not only extend the paid leave period by 4 weeks by April 2016 but ensure that more parents will be eligible. This will include precisely those workers who miss out because they—if they are in the casual workforce, for example—will have more than one employer. There are also planned increases in the length and amount of the parental tax credit for those who do not qualify currently for paid parental leave. More generally, in Budget 2014, the best way to raise the wages of low-income workers is to grow the economy and add jobs. We have added 84,000 jobs in the last year, and I would point to the positive Budget 2014 forecasts of average wage growth of $7,600 by 2018 and around 170,000 new jobs in the next 4 years.

Darien Fenton: Why has he implemented miserly increases to the minimum wage each year that barely cover inflation when New Zealand faces a significant income disparity between rich and poor?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I have said in response to the previous question, the increase in the minimum wage this year to $14.25 was actually ahead of the cost of living and, actually, most workers are receiving wage increases and increases in earnings each year at the moment that are higher than cost of living increases, which is exactly the reverse situation from prior to 2008, when cost of living increases were rampant and people’s real wages were going down because their nominal wages were going up slower than inflation.

Darien Fenton: How does he intend to tackle the fact that the top 10 percent in New Zealand are earning eight times more than the bottom 10 percent when he refuses to address wages at the bottom end through bringing in a significant minimum wage increase or a living wage?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We do increase, and have been increasing, the minimum wage at a rate faster than that of inflation, but you do have to be careful because of the risk to job growth. For example, if you immediately raise the minimum wage to $15, which I understand is some people’s policy, then there would be at least 5,000 jobs gone overnight.

Grant Robertson: Rubbish! Absolute nonsense.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is according to independent analysis by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and if you actually supported the Living Wage campaign, then you would place around 26,000 jobs at risk. I know that the member thinks you can just arbitrarily increase everybody’s wages and nothing else happens, but that is the sort of attitude that led to the economy falling off a cliff in 2008, before the global financial crisis.

Darien Fenton: Which of his Government’s policies does he think contributed the most to the increase in the average chief executive officer’s pay compared with the average worker, from 22.5 times in 2011 to 26.4 times in the most recent survey?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, chief executive officer wages have been significantly higher than the average wages for as long as I can remember, and also for as long as the previous Government was in office. Actually, what you do have to focus on is lifting job opportunities for Kiwis so that it increases competition for their labour, and that is what is happening. We have seen the biggest job growth in the last decade—in the last 12 months, 84,000 more people are employed, and average weekly wages are going up by 3.2 percent, which is significantly faster than inflation of 1.5 percent. If we continue on the steady economic growth path that this Government has us on, then you will continue to see further improvements in the years ahead.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Emerging out of the fog is the shape of the Opposition monster that is going to put itself before the New Zealand public. Well, what we do know is that the public need to trust the Opposition, so let us just have a quick look at whom it might be. The Labour leader, David Cunliffe, knows about trust because he has got a secret one and he still will not reveal the donors to his secret trust. He is going to be in coalition with the “cash-for-clemency” Green Party, which went to the Dotcom mansion and promised that it would oppose the extradition of Kim Dotcom in return for something, and we are not sure what that is. So the leader with the secret trust is in coalition with the party with the cashed-up clemency, and that still does not get them there. We then have to add on—

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is making an allegation of corruption. I take offence—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There was no allegation of corruption that I heard. This is a robust general debate. The member will have his opportunity to respond.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that this is not in any way relitigating a ruling I have just made.

Dr Russel Norman: I am seeking a clarification as to whether you believe “cashed-up clemency” is an allegation of corruption.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: You have to add—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s outrageous!

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Ha! Coming from Trevor Mallard! What you then need to add to that mix is New Zealand’s first—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Would the Hon Trevor Mallard stop that barracking and get himself under control; otherwise, he will be asked to leave the Chamber.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is a bit rich hearing the “Member for Outrageous Lies” getting upset.

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

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

Grant Robertson: There are two points of order. The first of those is that the last comment by the Minister of Finance was completely outside of the Standing Orders. The second is that previously, just recently, you have ruled in this House about the kinds of comments that will lead to disorder. Mr English’s initial comment about so-called cashed-up clemency clearly is within the realms of one of those. It is disparaging towards members in the House, in the same way—[Interruption] They are very quiet during the point of order here, as usual. That is in the same way that you accused Opposition members of doing last week.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It would be inappropriate to rule out “cash for clemency” or “clemency cash payments”, for example, while the House has been so ready to listen to allegations from the Opposition of cash for access.

Mr SPEAKER: The House does need to settle down. The final comment that I heard from Bill English was not going to lead to disorder. I am not sure whom it was directed to or whether anybody took offence. That would be one way of moving it forward. But I ask the whole House to tone itself down and for Bill English to be allowed to continue his contribution.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. I require it to be heard in silence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You heard the Minister address a member of this House as the “Member for Outrageous Lies”. That is unparliamentary. No one—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just addressed that. It was a remark that will lead to disorder; I accept that. I do not know whom it was directed to—[Interruption] I am deciding this, not the Hon Trevor Mallard. If it was directed to someone who took offence, then that person can stand and acknowledge they have taken offence, and then I might be inclined to ask the member to withdraw it. I do not think it was directed at anybody, but I am unsure of that. At this stage the House needs to settle down. This is a general debate, which is always going to be a lively debate, and we are not going to get much further if we are going to have pointless points of order attempting to interrupt a member’s speech.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear Grant Robertson, but it will be heard in silence.

Grant Robertson: Bill English quite clearly said “That’s rich coming from Trevor Mallard, the ‘Member for Outrageous Lies’.” That is what he said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear that interjection. If Mr Mallard heard it and he has taken offence, he knows the way to progress this.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am getting to the stage where my patience is running very thin with this waste of time in the general debate. I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I take offence at that outrageous—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The Hon Trevor Mallard has taken offence at a comment made by the Hon Bill English. I ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. The member can continue his speech.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Then we add to the mix New Zealand’s first foreign-owned political party, the Mana party. It wants to ban foreign owners of houses; we want to ban foreign owners of political parties. It is a party that I understand has received $500,000 and is going to join an alliance.

That is before you get to New Zealand First. All we can say about New Zealand First is that when it is not making gratuitous and excessive allegations about members of Parliament, the like of which I have never heard in the House before, it is being investigated for the dodgy use of parliamentary cash.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can anticipate the point of order. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am asking that Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: And I agree. I will ask—[Interruption] Order! I will ask him to do so. The Hon Bill English will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark. It is an investigation that has nothing to do with this House. It is a matter for me to determine. The Hon Bill English will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I withdraw and apologise. If that collection of individuals—

Hon Steven Joyce: Thin-skinned individuals.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —clearly thin-skinned individuals. Imagine how they will get on with each other when it comes to—[Interruption] We will start with the Labour Party members and how they are getting on with each other. Let us listen to Labour’s immigration policy. On Saturday on The Nation, David Cunliffe said that the Labour Government tried to manage immigration of, say, between 5,000 and 15,000 net positive. On Monday, 25 May Phil Twyford said on Radio New Zealand National that David Cunliffe had said that weekend that Labour will get to a stable number between 5,000 and 15,000 net migration. This is starting to sound like a coherent policy with some numbers. We have not had one of those before. But on Tuesday—oh, wait! To bad weather and such disappointment, David Cunliffe said those were not his words and that was not Labour’s position. And there we were thinking that it had finally got it together. Further pressed on what Labour’s net migration target would be, he had a better idea: “We’d have to work that out.” So that is what you do. You announce the policy, make sure your spokesman endorses it, change it, say you did not have one, and then at the end of it say “No, we haven’t talked about a numerical target.”

OK, so now we have got a four-party mixed-ownership model coalition, partly foreign-owned—the mixed-ownership model. It could be 15 percent foreign ownership. Our target was always 85 percent New Zealand ownership, and I think—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of all the offences, the worst one that one can allege against another party is that it is foreign-owned. That is against the Standing Orders and has been for decades.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. This is a general debate.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Clearly, the economic caucus of that Opposition being Kim Dotcom, the secret leader of the Mana party—no, is it the Internet Mana—

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): Well, we might have a number of potential coalition partners, but none of them is in the dock and none is going to jail. None of them is a Minister who has got such a gaping conflict of interests that they cannot even show up at, and stay in, the House. “Emerging from the fog”, the Minister of Finance said. That sounds like a description of the Budget he brought down 2 weeks ago. Polluting our democracy we have Oravida, John Banks, Cabinet clubs, cash for access—business as usual from a squalid Government. Six long years is enough of this lot.

This year New Zealanders have a choice. They have got a choice between politics as usual with this National Government or a better way that puts people first. They have got a choice between the growing gap between two New Zealands from that side of the House, or a new Government that will put New Zealanders first, put people first, with secure jobs, good homes, and healthy families. In National’s New Zealand wage rises are barely keeping up with inflation—is that not right? In National’s New Zealand half of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise at all last year. Unemployment is still 6 percent, and Treasury says we will be lucky to ever get it down to the level it was before John Key became Prime Minister.

Labour is going to put people first. Labour pledges to get unemployment down to 4 percent, and we have got the policies that will deliver that. In National’s New Zealand the bulk of economic growth is going to the top few percent, and that is why National’s cronyism supports the few against the many. GDP has gone up 8.5 percent, but wages have gone up only 5 percent since National has taken office. National spent 5 long years doing nothing about the housing mess.

Hon David Parker: What does Bill English say about this?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Bill English’s “emerging from the fog” Budget seemed to miss the housing chapter.

Grant Robertson: It wasn’t printed.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is like it was not printed. It is like he is still looking for it now. He is asking the Minister next to him where the housing policy is in the Budget. Auckland house prices, while he has been looking, have risen 40 percent—40 percent—and Christchurch prices have risen over 30 percent. There is a housing crisis. Kiwis cannot get affordable homes.

Labour has got positive solutions: KiwiBuild’s 100,000 new homes over 10 years; monetary policy that will keep interest rates, mortgages, and rents affordable; a capital gains tax that does not give special favours to speculators; and new rules that mean that people who never want to live in New Zealand will not be able to trade the homes of those who do. We will take away the 20 percent deposit rule for first-home buyers. That is squeezing a generation of young Kiwis out of the market, meaning that they cannot pursue the Kiwi dream that their parents believe is their birthright.

Labour will bring in a healthy homes guarantee so that every child growing up in a rental property will have a warm, dry home. We will address the Canterbury housing crisis, building 10,000 new homes over 10 years, and we will support a strong social housing sector.

Under National’s New Zealand a quarter of a million kids are growing up in poverty. The best thing National could do in the Budget was bring in a family policy that left out the children of the poorest by forgetting to cover people on benefits. It is a growing gap. It is a widening gap. It is two New Zealands. Bill English might be emerging from a fog; New Zealanders are going to be emerging from 6 long years of a National Government.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Well, I think that was the doom and gloom face of David Cunliffe. He has got a few different faces. I think that was the doom and gloom face, while his caucus all sat around him really feeling the doom and gloom. His caucus kind of sat around, looking up and going: “Is this as good as it gets?”. They should seriously be asking themselves that.

Let us talk about some of the different faces of David Cunliffe. We have got the man, of course, who puts on a lei and a really bad Samoan accent at the Avondale markets, but, by the way, he does not like migration and does not want family reunifications or Samoan people actually getting their families here and getting ahead. But then he is the first one to go to an ethnic event. I have certainly seen him at the Waitakere Indian Association. He is the first one to say “Namaste”, but, by the way, he does not support Indians migrants actually being here—skilled migrants or, I do not know, the 120 Indian engineers I met in Christchurch who are actually helping its rebuild and are playing a critical role in its development. That is another face of David Cunliffe. I bet my colleague Melissa Lee must have seen the Chinese lantern face of David Cunliffe as he runs around finding any Asian person he possibly can to get a photo with so that he can show how diverse he is and how in touch he is with modern Auckland and that beautiful multicultural environment that we have there. But then, by the way, he does not support them actually being here. He does not want to see their families actually able to move here.

Now he is, in my opinion, going for the cheapest politics he possibly can to actually try to get himself anywhere near the line. But mark my words: the other face of David Cunliffe will come out very shortly when he again runs to an ethnic group or to someone he think he needs to get on board. There, again, he will be saying “Namaste”. There, again, he will be telling them how wonderful they are and how much he needs them. The truth of where he actually stands has come out in the last week with the cheapest politics that I think I have seen from the supposedly biggest Opposition party in a very long time. We kind of expected it from some of the others here, but, quite frankly, I think this is a new low.

What about the other face of David Cunliffe that you see, that he is in touch with the blue-collar worker? He does not like rich people—those rich people. He says: “Bill English, that’s all you care about—those awful, awful rich people.” But, by the way, he lives in Herne Bay and has a combined income of more than—

Hon Bill English: A doer-upper

Hon PAULA BENNETT: A doer-upper, sorry—a doer-upper in Herne Bay and a combined income that means, quite frankly, he is, in his own words, “doing OK”. I love it that he gets all uptight about a Cabinet club. We heard him a couple of weeks ago saying it was cash for access and it was the worst thing possible. But, of course, then he has got his own anonymous donors whom he will not disclose and his own anonymous trusts, but then that is another face. Oh, and he cares for the poor. We know that. He tells us quite often how much he cares for the poor. However, his baby bonus is going to families earning $150,000-plus. That is the kind of Opposition policy there is.

I just want to pick up on the Hon Bill English’s speech. I think that coalition of the unwilling has just got—I did not think it could get crazier. I thought we were kind of there. I mean, who are we throwing in the mix this week? Are we throwing in John Tamihere as the new leader of the Internet Party? Have we got Annette Sykes as the new leader of the Internet Party? I mean, who is about to step up there?

Hon Anne Tolley: Laila Harré.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Laila Harré—is she about to step up as the new leader? Is that whom we throw into the crazy coalition of the unwilling? Really, let us picture what that Cabinet might look like. We have supposedly got David Cunliffe, with many different kinds of faces; Russel Norman, sitting there churning out his money, because we have got to spend, spend, spend; Winston Peters, who does not seem to like anyone except himself, and he has got a good relationship with that mirror; then we throw in the Mana party and now its new leader who is coming in, so we have got that party’s whole foreign ownership; and then, of course, we have got the Greens. Who else have we got there? I mean it is kind of a crazy coalition, and these are the people who supposedly want to lead New Zealand. So while they are wondering about the two faces of David Cunliffe—and I think I am being generous there, by the way—we are getting on with an outstanding Budget and actually celebrating New Zealand and all it can be.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): That was a lot of rubbish from a member of Parliament, Paula Bennett, who was supported by society to get to the heights of privilege where she now sits. Unfortunately, once she got there she pulled up the ladder. It did not matter whatsoever. She did not think about the rest of society, which is, indeed, in need at this particular time. I would say to the residents of Upper Harbour that they will have a choice this coming election: more of the same from that Minister or a new member of Parliament for Upper Harbour in the name of Herman Retzlaff.

The other day when I asked the Prime Minister some very serious questions about the state of affairs in our country in terms of jobs, in terms of income, and in terms of homeownership, he acted like a clown. He did not treat that seriously. I presented to the Prime Minister some worrying figures that the census result had shown us in terms of the high unemployment of Pasifika, the low incomes that are earned by Pasifika families, and the low homeownership rates that are experienced by Pacific people in New Zealand. I did say that it is the hope of Pasifika people that when we succeed, the rest of New Zealand succeeds, and that many of our families are failing at the moment—failing not necessarily from a lack of hard effort but from a lack of support in policy from this particular Government. I am going to go through that just to outline why I think it is so. This Government now is creating a New Zealand of two societies—a society for those at the top end of town, who know which Minister to rub shoulders with, and a society for the rest of us, who are just struggling to make ends meet.

Incidentally, where those fine people are now sitting in the gallery, a group of students from Southern Cross Campus were sitting. I met them later on at the airport and I asked them what they thought. One of the young ladies said that she wanted to throw something at the Prime Minister because of the way he was fudging the answers, acting like a clown, and not treating seriously what we were asking him about. I said: “Don’t do that. The thing that you can do for our communities is to make sure you do not vote for him. That will hurt him the most come this election.”

Another young woman said to me that he is the same Prime Minister who promised their school back in 2008 that the Government would invest $6 million in a trade school. The Government used the likes of sports icons “Inga the Winger” and Michael Jones to promote that. That young woman said to me that today that school is still waiting for that $6 million trade school. It is an empty promise like the Building a Brighter Future empty promises that National made.

National said that New Zealanders would have a brighter future—all New Zealanders. What we did not understand and what the community is now recognising is that it was referring only to people with whom it is in cahoots. It was referring only to the top end of town—people who have the privilege of rubbing shoulders with the right Minister and who are able to provide cash for its upcoming election war chest. Look at what is happening. As my colleague Grant Robertson said earlier, chief executive officers have received increases in their salary 26 times greater than anyone else’s.

What about the rest of New Zealand? Well, 46 percent of working New Zealanders did not receive an increase last year. As for Pasifika, we had a median weekly income in 2008 of $455. That has declined in the figures that have been provided by the census, to $388. For Aucklanders it is worse.

Hon Phil Goff: It’s gone backwards.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: It has gone backwards under this Government. As for housing affordability, 18.5 percent of Pasifika own their own home, compared with what it was back in 2001—close to 40 percent. For the rest of New Zealand, homeownership has now fallen. Again, it has gone backwards. The latest Salvation Army report again highlighted unemployment—the fact that we need jobs but the jobs are not there, that we need higher incomes but incomes are not there, and that we need affordable housing. Unless those things are fixed, almost 50 percent of our current population will never ever be able to see that brighter future.

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I am speaking for the first time on the Budget in this general debate, so I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance, not just because he is a good bloke, which he undoubtedly is, but also on the sheer consistency of his leadership of our economy over successive Budgets. Now we can begin to see actual results and, if we stick to the course—if we stick to the course—the prospect of further steady gains for our people. We know what the main results are. We have seen a $3,000 increase in the average wage, with the prospect of slightly over $7,500 in the next 4 years if we stick to the course. We have seen 84,000 jobs created in the last year, with the prospect of over 170,000 in the next 4 years if we stick to the course. We have seen in the figures that came out 2 days ago a balance of payments surplus of $1.3 billion as export growth to the year to April 2014, increasing by 9.1 percent, and Crown debt projected to get down to 20 percent if we stick to this course.

With the words “stick to the course” I am thinking also of that phrase that we have debated a lot in the last few months, about the rock star economy. I just want to reflect on why I think that although with human nature being such as it is, it was nice to hear it, a lot of us on the Treasury benches are not entirely comfortable with it, precisely because of the obvious retort from its critics that it could be a one-hit wonder. If I take a one-hit wonder, “How Bizarre”, you have to ask yourself whether it would be bizarre if we get another vote from the New Zealand people in September that means that we do not stick to this course. It would not be bizarre at all, because this is hard-wired into the position of our Opposition. I know there has been a tendency to take this way back into ancient debates. I am now going to go really extreme. I know that you will stop me before I kill again, of course, Mr Speaker.

I want to go right back to 1973 before I get to the year 2000 because we had, again, exactly the same pattern. In 1973 I was a junior investigating officer in Treasury and we had had a period of long stability and then the election of a Labour Government. I went to Hansard from 1973 and looked through the debate on the Appropriation Bill to the statement of the then Labour Minister of Finance. He said: “New Zealand’s balance of payments position is one of strength unparalleled in our previous experience.” Warming to the theme, he then said: “Economic activity and business confidence have recovered strongly.” I do not think he added: “thanks to years of stable National Government rule.” And then he introduced a series of policies that are quite intriguing to look at now: a property speculators tax; further extension of price controls; he repealed the Remuneration Authority to give more strength to the “FOL”, the Federation of Labour; selective depreciation; export subsidies; and interest-free suspensory loans—the usual formula.

Then we have the 1974 Budget, which I call the “Oops I Got That Wrong Budget”, when the Labour Minister of Finance had to admit: “The sudden massive increase in oil prices has led to a highly unstable international trade and monetary situation.” That Government lasted one more Budget. So we have seen this before, where you get consolidated progress followed by the assumption that these are good times that are going to roll for ever, and then you set in place policies that are sometimes augmented by adverse economic external circumstances, which, of course, none of us can foresee but which, in the absence of proper conservative fiscal management, can lead to a situation being undone in very short order. You know and New Zealand knows that this is also describing exactly what happened in 2000, when after a long period of difficult adjustment we started to average growth in the late 1990s in the last 3 years of 4 percent, the terms of trade were looking very good, unemployment was starting to come down, everything was looking rosy, and we know what happened when Labour took over that.

I just add the following final thought. What this would be like with the addition of the Green Party is really quite a scary prospect. So I hope that New Zealanders focus on not just the achievements of this Budget but on the prospect that if we stay the course, we will get steady prospective gains, and there is every reason to believe that—provided we stay the course—and on the dangers of departing from that course, against the background of well-known history.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. There is a whakataukī in Māoridom that goes something like this: “Kai ana ngā kākā, noho ana ngā kererū.”

[When the native forest parrots settle down to feast, the pigeons settle down.]

In essence, it suggests that while the kākā are eating noisily so that everyone notices, the pigeon gets on with the mahi, gets on with the job, without any fuss, and that pretty much describes where the Māori Party has been at. We have been getting on with the mahi. Today we want to share with you some of the work that we have been involved with, acknowledging also that later today we will bring to the House the 21st bill that has been presented by the Māori Party under the Māori Party name over the first 10 years of our movement.

I am really proud of the work that we have undertaken to advance the aspirations of whānau, hapū, and iwi in the interests of a stronger, more diverse Aotearoa. There are three broad categories into which this wealth of legislation fits, and I want to go through them. The first category is around building resilience within whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. We have a suite of legislation associated with the drive for Aotearoa to be smoke-free by the year 2025. There is legislation to increase the duties on all tobacco products, to remove tobacco displays from shops, and to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products. In that social hazard area of legislation, we also had one of my bills, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Bill, which was passed in September last year.

The second grouping is around maintaining the ground that Māori have already gained. A key one that was passed into law late last year was the amendment to the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act put forward, of course, by the Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples. There are also various Acts now on the statute that Pita has sponsored around the Māori Trustee, Māori development, and Māori corporations. We have progressed a whole series of different bills, some on behalf of specific iwi, such as Ngāti Tapu, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, and Ngāi Tūkairangi, who are actually with us right now in the gallery to witness the third and final reading of their bill. That will be later on this afternoon.

Tariana Turia has put forward a series of bills to give effect to a deed of settlement for the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks in the Maniapoto area, and in 2012 I sponsored a bill that successfully repealed the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act. This was a really constructive relationship between the Tauranga City Council and mana whenua through the initiative of the council and Ngā Pōtiki. I have to say that there is nothing more satisfying as a member of Parliament than to be doing the business that your constituency wants to see happen.

There are a number of bills in this category that are about rectifying a wrong, an act of grave injustice by the Crown. Uppermost in my mind is the bill led by Pita Sharples, the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill. Another important milestone was the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and, of course, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, which followed on from our very first bill introduced in the House, the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill.

The third grouping of bills that we have advanced comes through the focus of developing and advancing new spaces for Māori development. We have not always been able to progress these ideas with the support of the wider House, but the important principle for us is that the discussion has been raised.

Into this area, of course, I would mention the following: the Te Rā o Matariki/Matariki Day Bill in 2009, which was to acknowledge the significance of Matariki and Puanga as our own unique cultural markers in Aotearoa; the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, which would establish Māori wards and constituencies and is particularly important in light of the way in which we are seeing our tūpuna seats, the Māori electorate seats, becoming pawns for other parties to come into Parliament under a mainstream agenda, which diminishes and reduces the whole potency of those seats to represent Māori interests; the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill in 2010 was another one; the introduction in August 2012 of the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill; and the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill in 2010.

We also had built in specific support in our relationship accord with the National Party around legislation related to Parihaka, which has been an important benchmark for our discussions with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. This is just a sampler of the range and complexity of issues we have been able to bring to the House to do the business that our people have sent us to do. I am sure I have forgotten a lot of things that we should have put in, but nevertheless we will pick those up and continue as we move into Parliament the next time around.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): In light of the rushed Budget legislation recently that targeted Kyoto foresters for arbitrage, we all need now to focus on the fraud that has become New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme—a case of fraud through “sticking to the course”, to quote Mr Groser from a moment ago. There are, as we all know—except this Government—structural flaws in the emissions trading scheme. One is the scope for arbitrage. This has not been remedied, simply distorted. It selectively halted the ability of foresters to leave the emissions trading scheme one day and rejoin the next, making a windfall profit. That has now been fixed. But emitting industries remain free to game the scheme through arbitrage involving New Zealand Units.

Through Government disregard and incompetence, the emissions trading scheme has become ineffective. The collapse in local carbon prices from $21 to $4 provides little disincentive for carbon emitting and no incentive for mitigation or storage. The collapse of our national carbon market is linked to the collapse of the international carbon price. Linkages between New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme and the global market are maintained by allowing into the scheme overseas units such as certified emission reduction units and emission reduction units.

Emission-intensive, trade-exposed entities, which include aluminium, iron, steel, cement, whey, wood, and paper, are free to bank profits from the emissions trading scheme—cash for pollution. They receive free allocations of New Zealand Units as compensation for any energy price rises brought about by the emissions trading scheme—not cash for clemency, cash plus clemency. These industries are also required to surrender units to clear liabilities. This is dependent on calculations based on their emissions profile. They can surrender New Zealand Units or Kyoto Units, such as emission reduction units and certified emission reduction units.

These overseas units are valued between 10c and 40c. They are engaging in the arbitrage by receiving free New Zealand Units from the Government, then selling them at market prices of $3 to $4, then buying cheaper overseas units such as the certified emission reduction units and emission reduction units for anything from 10c to 40c to surrender back to the Government. They bank the profit. In some cases, this is in addition to existing tax-paid subsidies running into the tens of millions of dollars. Let me acknowledge that these activities are entirely legal, but they are morally reprehensible and they reflect Government stupidity and cynicism of the highest order. They amount to the moral crime of ecocide.

The Government is aware of this activity while choosing to discriminate against forestry. This is ironic given that those who actually grow trees, which are good for the environment, are being targeted while an industry that continues to pollute profits from a scheme that was meant to curb its pollution—“sticking to the course”, to quote Mr Groser. This activity demonstrates the unpredictable sham that New Zealand’s climate change policy has become, and especially its emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme currently does nothing to mitigate climate change, but instead places a cost on taxpayers while enriching certain industries—sticking to the course.

Let us now consider the fiscal risk to the Crown under the emissions trading scheme. Note that since action was taken to close arbitrage opportunities from one sector post-1989 forestry, the price of the New Zealand Unit has risen about 60 percent, from $3.10 on Budget day to $5 today. That is good, but emission reduction unit prices have dropped from 17c to 12c over the same period, as post-1989 forest owners sell units they can no longer use.

Whom do they sell them to? They sell them to sectors that can still take advantage of arbitrage. This includes energy-intensive, trade-exposed, industrial emitters that are gifted free New Zealand Units each year under the emissions trading scheme pastime of carbon polluting. As a result, the potential arbitrage on allocated New Zealand Units, still permitted, has widened from $2.93 a unit to $4.88. So the regulation introduced on Budget day has increased potential profit for industry by almost $2 million for every $1 million of New Zealand Units allocated—in other words, in total, $70 million on the $35 million units allocated in the past year.

This increase alone dwarfs the fiscal risk to the Crown that had to be so urgently dealt with in the last amendment to the post-1989 deregistration. Of course, the answer was to have prohibited all arbitrage opportunities in the one bill. That really would have been sticking to the course. What have we done to deserve this Government?

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. It is very clear that this Government has delivered a confident Budget for a confident nation. It is very much reflected in your communities when you are in and about your electorate, because you can actually feel the confidence growing. After 6 years of a National Government that has worked incredibly hard to get the books balanced, New Zealanders know and they can feel that confidence. They know the economy is growing, they can see that their incomes are rising, and they can see that the number of jobs is growing. All of those things give them a fantastic, confident, positive feeling.

Unfortunately, if you look across the other side of the House, there is not a skerrick of confidence. I think if you actually look at the make-up that the Hon Bill English talked about before, you potentially have this kind of crazy-shaped Opposition potentially made up of Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, and Internet Mana. So it is fairly obvious why there is not a lot of confidence over there and why there is not a lot of positivity. Actually, if you look at those members, they seem to just shrink further down each time they come in to the House, and they have less and less to say and contribute, whereas this side of the House is focusing on New Zealanders and what is actually important to them.

I want to talk about a couple of things in particular. I want to talk about a couple of things in the area of health and pay tribute to our Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, because as he leaves Parliament, having come in in 1990, he leaves health in a much better condition than any Government previously. In just this Budget alone, there is $500 million for families, which includes an increase for under-13s getting access to free general practitioner visits and prescriptions. There are a couple of things that have not got too much attention that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. One of those is the $40 million that has gone into Healthy Families New Zealand. Often, when you are talking to people, they want to know that you are actually addressing the underlying causes of issues. With this $40 million into Healthy Families, we are actually looking at the causes of poor health, which include being overweight, smoking, and excessive drinking. We have found an initiative that actually works, that actually produces results in terms of community health, and that actually addresses the very underlying issues so that we can address these concerns. We are rolling out this Healthy Families initiative to 10 communities around New Zealand, and I think it is going to be absolutely fantastic. Families will see a significant difference.

The other initiative in the Budget that I do want to bring to the attention of the House is the $20 million into rheumatic fever. This is an initiative that was jointly supported by the Māori Party. If you look at a place like Tokoroa, where we launched it with Minister Turia, it is focusing specifically on an issue that affects the most vulnerable families and families that do not have high incomes. Absolutely, we are addressing the issues concerning our most vulnerable families, and one of these is rheumatic fever.

I think we are doing fantastically well. The response and the confidence that New Zealand communities are showing as a result of these very sensible initiatives that really get to the heart of some of the communities’ concerns—that is why New Zealanders are feeling more confident and feeling more comfortable. I am pretty sure that that will also be reflected when we go to the ballot box.

I do want to finish my contribution today in this general debate by paying tribute to a constituent. I want to pay tribute to a constituent, Keith Crate QSM—awarded for cycling—who passed away in my electorate this morning. He was the former Deputy Mayor of the Taupō District Council, and really, I would say, was the father of cycling for anyone who has participated in the round-the-lake cycling challenge. He led the Lake Taupō Cycling Trust for 15 years. So he will be a huge loss to the Taupō community, and I want to just pass on my concerns and put them on record for the House. Fa‘afetai.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Speaking of crazy-shaped coalitions, let us look across the other side. National is going to have to look and see whether ACT is out of the dock before it goes into coalition negotiations, but that is while it is dealing with a guy who is howling at the moon and who is not sure whether or not there has been a man put on it but meanwhile sure he has seen Elvis down at the supermarket. If you want to talk about crazy-shaped coalitions, the other side of the House should look in the mirror.

On 20 September New Zealanders face a very real choice. And what do they face? They face a choice between two New Zealands. They face a choice where only a few are getting ahead. The previous speaker, Louise Upston, talked about the confidence that she is feeling while she is out there. Well, I suggest she is talking to the very few people who are getting ahead under this Government. She certainly is not talking to the 46 percent of New Zealanders who have not seen a pay rise this year but have seen a rise in their cost of living. She has not been talking to the New Zealanders who are struggling. She is not talking to the New Zealanders for whom housing is increasingly becoming a luxury they cannot afford. There is no air of confidence when you are talking about that.

But New Zealanders face a very stark alternative on 20 September. They can elect a Government that is willing to tackle these problems. They can elect a Labour Government that does have a solution to the housing crisis and is not going to sit back and think some kind of magic market with fairies at the bottom of the garden is going to fix this problem. Maybe this is in between howling at the moon.

Labour does have a plan. We are going to roll up our sleeves and we are going to build 100,000 houses over 10 years that will be available to New Zealanders as affordable homes. We simply have to increase the supply of housing in this country, and this Government does not have big-picture thinking that sees a way to do that. It just howls that it is unachievable and it is unaffordable. Well, I am sure they would have told Michael Joseph Savage in the 1930s that that was the case too. It is time to be brave and it is time to fix things. We will also re-gear our economy so it is geared to the productive sector, and we will stop people investing in the housing market and driving prices up, through the introduction of a capital gains tax. We make absolutely no apology for the fact that we will disincentivise absentee landlords from driving up the price of houses.

On Monday, in my electorate office in Hoon Hay in Christchurch, it was 3 degrees outside. I had several visitors to my office that day. One visit that has stuck in my mind all week was that of three young people who came in to get a cup of tea and get warm because they were living in a car with another one of their friends. They had been living like this off and on for over a year. It is shameful that this is happening in our country. Meanwhile, this is a Government that is telling beneficiaries to come to Christchurch and it will give them a thousand bucks, but that it has no plan to house them. This is not good enough. But what do we have? In my electorate I have a 70-year-old constituent who, at the moment, is couch surfing. This is not the kind of circumstance that I want anyone to live in—let alone elders—in our community. We need to have a plan.

What have we had from the National Government in response to Labour’s plan? It has had the audacity to pull the racist card on us. I refuse to listen to that kind of hypocrisy from the party of the dawn raids. I refuse to listen to that kind of hypocrisy from a party that is willing to sit by and watch the income gap in this country grow between Pacific Islanders and non - Pacific Islanders. When that Government has a plan around housing, then maybe it can do something other than come up with distractions. This is a Government that has failed to do anything to address the housing crisis in this country. This is a Government that sits back, and its Ministers tell us: “No, we’re not going to have problems, because the market is magically going to come in and put it right.” The shrieks and hysterics we are hearing are not credible, and I want to start hearing from the Government members some answers to the housing crisis.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): This is a Government that has had four priorities in this, its second term. The first is to responsibly manage New Zealanders’ finances, because, of course, we need to remember that the Government’s finances are New Zealanders’ finances, and we have done that. The Hon Bill English should be congratulated on returning the Government’s finances to surplus in a context of the worst of economic times, having inherited a basket case economy from Labour after 9 years of the best of economic times.

I am reminded of the contribution made by my colleague sitting in front of me, the senior whip, Louise Upston, when mentioning the initiative for rheumatic fever and conquering that terrible disease. What did Labour do when it had 9 years in Government? What did it do about rheumatic fever? Absolutely nothing. So it is a good idea to remind the House and remind New Zealanders that in this term of the National Government we have addressed some of those difficult and very meaningful issues that beset New Zealanders.

We have built a more productive and competitive economy. I have already said that we inherited an economy that was going into recession, even though Labour would not acknowledge that fact. Now, 6 years later, under the constant and stable stewardship of this Government, we are looking for an economic growth rate of between 2 and 4 percent in the next year.

This Government had a priority of delivering better public services and it is that that I really want to delve into a little more, but I first want to say that the fourth and, arguably for us Mainlanders, most important priority is the rebuild of Christchurch. I have to congratulate housing Minister Nick Smith, who this morning, when speaking to the Social Services Committee, outlined this Government’s plan to address the housing issues in Christchurch. It runs from things like introducing special housing areas to making sure that the Christchurch City Council is up to speed in its consenting processes, because it has not been. The plan has been around social housing and making sure that there is enough affordable housing for the people of Christchurch.

It is so easy to forget now, is it not—it is so easy to forget—that 3 years ago there was a series of major earthquakes that absolutely shattered the city and its infrastructure. This Government, as one of its main priorities, has put so much focus on, and effort into, the rebuild of Christchurch for all New Zealanders.

I did say that I wanted to concentrate a little on public services. It has been our public services that have delivered wonderful education and health services for New Zealanders. I want to talk about another of this Government’s priorities, and that is supporting children and families. This Budget contains a $500 million package of support for children and for families. This Budget is focused on families and on those most vulnerable children who most need our care and protection.

It has got five elements. First, this Government—and it is this Government—will extend paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks. That is 4½ months that new parents will have with their newborns. Second, the Government will significantly boost the parental tax credit. That is something that this Government is doing. Third, the Government will invest $90 million over 4 years to make doctors visits and prescriptions free for children under the age of 13. What a wonderful, wonderful policy for the children of New Zealand. Fourth, there will be an increase in funding in early childhood education. We want most kids to go to early childhood education before they go to school. Finally, there are measures to protect vulnerable children. This is a good Budget. Malo.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I wonder where we are going as a nation and what is important to us. I asked this question of some university students just yesterday, and here is what they said. They said that they need pathways into young people owning a home. Currently, they are priced out of the market. They need coding in schools to learn how to make their own operating systems and to learn how to protect their privacy as a nation and as citizens. These university students said to me that nobody represents them in Parliament and that they are a youth of great ideas, wanting to be equal and wanting to be represented. They also said that we need to address underemployment. There is work, but much of it is for little pay with inconsistent hours. We funnel fresh adults into university with no direction, loading them with debt before they know what they want. They said to me that as young people and teenagers they are not taught anything about the political process, nor do they feel like they are able to have an effect. Most of all, they want a forum through which they can express their well-informed views, and to feel as though they can effect change by voicing their opinions. They asked me to note that it is not very promising when our Government ignores the overwhelming majority of opinions in referendums.

Plato said that one of the penalties for not taking an interest in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. I have got great news for those students. There is a fresh new breeze on the political landscape. It is being formed at the moment, and it is called the New Zealand Independent Coalition. It is a collective of people who recognise that we need to plan for our future and that the future is our own. Nobody is going to give it to us; we have to plan it and make it ourselves. If we plan it correctly, it can be magnificent. We need to value young people. We need to look to the future. In 2020 there will be 6 billion people with 75 billion devices connected to the industrial internet. We need to isolate the jobs that will be lost, because thousands of jobs will be lost with the new technologies. In 2020 there will be 3-D printers, and we will have them just like we used to have fax machines. We could be having a birthday party and we could just plug in and say: “OK. Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.”, and out will come cups and glasses saying “Happy Birthday, Mr Speaker.” Manufacturing as we know it will be turned on its head. As I said, thousands of jobs will be lost. But thousands of jobs will also be created. We need to be planning for children, young people, and existing workforces so that we can give them the skills and competencies so that we as a nation can compete in that new world.

The industrial internet is the internet of everyone and everything, on every screen. It is coming. There may be some dinosaurs here who try to make snide comments, but they will be gone at the next election. They do not realise the massive change that is coming. It is quite interesting because down there is a party that purports to represent seniors, but what has it done for seniors? In the 1960s we had a situation where we had this much tax going into this much societal need with senior citizens and those who were unemployed. But now it has been inverted, and we have this much tax. In 2020 over 20 percent of our citizens will be senior citizens, and we need to plan. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. I have heard a party say that we need more retirement homes. What a lot of rubbish. What a crock. What we need to do is plan. Japan recognised this problem 15 years ago and it has done something about it. Japan values its senior citizens, and it values the integrity and the dignity of senior citizens. Of course, there are some exceptions, but on the whole that is what we need to do. I will repeat again—the future is ours. Nobody is going to give it to us. We need to plan and make it ourselves, and for New Zealand it can be magnificent.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the general debate today. I would like to join the long line of others in congratulating our Minister of Finance, Bill English, on a great Budget 2014. It was a confident Budget and one that shows that the National-led Government is continuing to support jobs and higher wages and to help New Zealanders and families get ahead. These things really matter to us all. Budget 2014 shows New Zealand is heading in the right direction. It is the National-led Government that has an economic plan to help get New Zealanders ahead.

I have had a lot of feedback from the Chinese community and it has been very positive. Members of the Chinese community have expressed their strong confidence in the National-led Government. It is clear to them that the National-led Government is committed to economic development and it is able to deliver. Why? Because many of us experienced the disastrous years before 1978 when China was closed and the Chinese socialist economy was on the verge of collapse. In those years everyone was equal, but everyone was poor. New Zealand’s economy grew by 3.1 percent in 2013 and is forecast to reach 4 percent growth next year. This is despite the global financial crisis and the devastating Christchurch earthquakes. It is growing because the Government has taken the helm and has responsibly managed the economy over the last 6 years. We have not gone on a spending spree like Labour did when it was in Government. We are fully aware that there is not an unlimited pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, yet our books are now back to surplus, to the tune of $372 million, growing to $1.3 billion in 2015-16 and $3.5 billion in 2017-18. We have achieved this by working hard to responsibly manage the economy.

We need to continue to build a more productive and competitive economy, and I am confident that we will be able to do even better. This is partly because New Zealand is well positioned to strengthen its economic relations with Asia-Pacific countries, which include the largest economies in the world, including the United States, China, and Japan. We have excelled at expanding our trade relationship with China. China was our second-largest trading partner over 2 years ago, when I had just become a member of Parliament. Now it is our largest trading partner, with a trade volume of over $18 billion. I have no intention to take credit for that. However, I did make a contribution to that.

In 2010 the Prime Minister, John Key, and the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, had a meeting. At the meeting they set a target. The target was to double our bilateral trade of $10 billion in that year to $20 billion by 2015. Obviously, that target will be behind us very soon. This year in March, when the Prime Minister was visiting China, he had another meeting with the Chinese leader, this time with President Xi Jinping. He proposed a new target of $30 billion by 2020. Now we have a new target, and I am very confident that we will be able to meet the target. Just today the New Zealand Herald published an article entitled “China vital to export growth plan”. So it is very clear that China is particularly important.

We used to have a trade deficit with China. Now our imports from and exports to China are largely balanced. Looking ahead, it is very clear that we will have a surplus and it will continue to grow. However, we should not take our strong economic trade relations with our trading partners for granted. We need to continue to work hard and invest more. For that reason, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will have $69 million extra funding. With that extra funding, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be able to grow New Zealand’s—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill

Third Reading

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Talofa lava i tēnei rangi.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a mai oe?

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kia ora rā. I move, That the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill be now read a third time. I a au e tū nei, me mihi rā ki a koutou i hara mai i tēnei rangi, ko ngā uri, me kī, o Kōraurau, o Hikareia, o Hōri Tūpaea. I tēnei rā nōku te hōnore nui ki te whakatakoto i tēnei pire mō koutou, he whaiwhai haere i te oati o Hēnare Taratoa mā, Hōri Ngātai mā, Rāwiri Puhirake mā. Nō konei te aroha atu, kāre rātau i konei ēngari, te āhua nei kei konei rātau ā-wairua nei i tēnei rangi. Hara mai kai aku rangatira o Tauranga Moana ki te rongo i ngā kōrero e whai ake nei. Ko tēnei te whakatinanatanga o ngā moemoeā, arā, o ngā hapū, o Te Materāwaho, tae atu ki a Ngāi Tūkairangi, Ngāti Tapu, ki Te Whānau-a-Tauwhao.

Kua tata ki te 5 tau tātau e kōrero ana mō tēnei o ngā pire. Ka mihi rā ki a koutou ngā kaitiaki o Ōtamataha. Me mihi rā anō hoki ki a koe e Albert Puhirake Īhaka, mōu i whai nei i tēnei kaupapa, mōu i ārahi i tēnei kaupapa kia eke ki tēnei o ngā taumata. Ka nui te mihi kai taku rangatira. I roto i tō pānui tūatahi ki tēnei o ngā Whare Pāremata, hāngai tonu ana tō kōrero ki te pūtake o tēnei kaupapa, arā ko tēnei, whakahokia te whenua ki te hunga nō rātau tērā whenua. Kāore i kō atu, kāore i kō mai. Nō reira, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ko tāku, ko te whakaingoa noa hoki i ngā kaitiaki katoa i te mea, nā rātau anō tēnei pire i whakatakototo ki roto i te Whare Pāremata nei, a Mōrehu Ngātoko Rahipere, a Desmond Matakōkiri Tata, a Joanne Ngāpeeti Gear, a Peri Rēweti Kohu, a Sylvia Hemoata Willison, a Rena Uruhina Bennett, a Raewyn Ngakumāmā Keith, a William Charles Retireti McGuigan. Ka mutu, ko taku mihi whakamutunga ki a koe, te ringa āwhina, te ringa kakama, Alan Tate, mōu i āki i tēnei kaupapa ki tōna taumata, ka mihi rā ki a koe.

[As I stand here before you, I must acknowledge you the descendants, shall we say, of Kōraurau, Hikareia, and Hōri Tūpaea who have come here today. It is, indeed, a great honour for me on this day to present this bill on your behalf, to follow up on the promise by Hēnare Taratoa, Hōri Ngātai, Rāwiri Puhirake, and others. It is a pity that they are not here but it seems that they are here spiritually today. Welcome, my esteemed of Tauranga to hear the addresses that are to follow. This is the manifestation of the dreams of, namely, the subtribes of Te Materāwaho, including Ngāi Tūkairangi, Ngāti Tapu, and the family of Tauwhao.

We have been talking for nearly 5 years about this bill. I acknowledge you, indeed, the trustees of Ōtamataha. I must commend you once again, Albert Puhirake Īhaka, in terms of following up this matter and for leading this proposal so that it reached this of the levels. I commend you highly, my esteemed elder. In your first reading to this one of the houses of Parliament, your address focused directly on the nub of this matter, which was, indeed, to return the land to those who owned that land, nothing further, nothing less. So greetings to you and everyone.

My part is merely to mention the trustees, all of them, as they presented this bill to this House of Parliament here: Mōrehu Ngātoko Rahipere, Desmond Matakōkiri Tata, Joanne Ngāpeeti Gear, Peri Rēweti Kohu, Sylvia Hemoata Willison, Rena Uruhina Bennett, Raewyn Ngakumāmā Keith, and William Charles Retireti McGuigan.

Furthermore, my final acknowledgment is to you, Alan Tate, executive assistant and nifty handyman in terms of your encouragement to get this matter to its summit. I really applaud you.]

A very distinguished New Zealander, and a former Māori Party member at that, Robert Consedine, has written a very important book with his daughter Joanna in mind, and it is titled Healing our History. The musician and songwriter Tim Finn made a comment about this book, which I thought was pretty apt to refer to at this very important moment in the history of Ngāti Tapu, Ngāitamarāwaho, and Ngāi Tūkairangi—indeed, for Tauranga Moana across the board. This is what he had to say: “I remember singing background vocals on the Australian Aboriginal group Yothu Yindi’s song ‘Treaty’. I felt proud at the time that at least New Zealand had a Treaty. After reading Healing our History I am reminded that we have no reason to feel smug. The theme for Pakeha, of personal responsibility, to learn and apply the lessons of history, comes through loud and clear. …Frank Sargeson out of print. Ronald Hugh Morrieson out of print. Literary and historical amnesia spring from the same culture of forgetting. Healing our History reminds us that for all the stories of duplicity, cruelty and ignorance, there may still be one place where poetry and politics can meet.”

Today at this third reading we trace back over a history in which vast tracts of land were confiscated by the Crown, including the Ōtamataha site. It is a history in which the tangata whenua were positioned as rebels, a space into which the Church Missionary Society took advantage. This bill remedies the original wrong done in 1835 when Archdeacon Brown purchased two blocks of land at Te Papa, Te Papa peninsula being the site of central Tauranga to this day.

I just want to focus on one word in the bill’s title and the fact that this bill is “empowering” legislation. To empower is to give someone authority or power, to give them the means to control their life, to claim their rights, to emancipate, to unyoke, to unfetter, to unshackle, to set free, and to give freedom. Well, today is the final step in extinguishing the New Zealand Mission Trust Board and discharging its trustees. Through the legislation we pass today, we will mandate the change in the trust and the beneficiaries, and, in doing so, unshackle the hapū of Ngāti Tapu and Ngāitamarāwaho. I took the step of naming the trustees who have made this possible because we must not unknowingly contribute to the historical amnesia about the story of our nation. The Māori Party has raised an issue directly with the Prime Minister about appropriate ways in which we recognise those events of our past conflicts, events in which precious strands of whakapapa were desecrated, where land was alienated and dispossessed, leaving the people impoverished.

A key issue at the heart of this bill is that awarding the Crown grant in 1852 was actually contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. But we must not abandon the broader context of this bill, which was that the actions that resulted in the land transaction at Ōtamataha were in themselves a punishment meted out to those so-called natives, those heathens, for the battles at Te Ranga and Pukehinahina. Over the course of this year we have been reflecting on the impact of the Land Wars occurring throughout Waikato at Rangiriri, Waiari, Rangiaowhia, Rākau, and Pukehinahina. In fact, next month we commemorate the last battle, Te Ranga. We must tell the stories beyond the conflict and remember the lives lost, both of British soldiers and of mana whenua who are buried alongside one another. I spoke about that in the second reading.

This was the ultimate miscarriage of justice—the colonial project deteriorating into land being sold by the Crown and vested in the Church Missionary Society. These are not just stories of duplicity, cruelty, and ignorance; this is also a story of a church that took bold action to seek a pathway for reconciliation. It is a story in which the Waitangi Tribunal has enabled a new future to be rewritten. The mandate of the tribunal in 2004 has in effect enabled this legislation to stand to address the Treaty breach of active protection. The tribunal concluded definitively, and I quote from its ruling: “We find that Godfrey failed to ascertain and acknowledge the conditional nature of the transaction under Māori customary law, and that he wrongfully concluded that the Church Missionary Society had fully and fairly purchased the whole area.”

It is a story of courage and determination on behalf of Ngāti Tapu and Ngāitamarāwaho in working with the New Zealand Mission Trust Board to establish a new common law trust. The beneficiaries of this trust will rightfully be, as Puhirake Īhaka stated, the descendants of the tūpuna from whom the property was originally taken. In the space of less than 5 years, the Ōtamataha Trust has worked diligently to rectify the breach over land that has been held by the New Zealand Mission Trust since 1896. The most recent innovation was to amend the Ōtamataha Trust Board just 2 months ago to allow Ngāi Tūkairangi members to benefit through their whakapapa links to the historical hapū of Te Materawaho, whose connections to the land are now recognised in the trust deed. A definition of “Ngāti Tapu” has also been expanded to take this whakapapa into account.

In closing, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague the Hon Tau Henare on presiding over the Māori Affairs Committee, and I acknowledge also my fellow select committee members for their support in allowing this bill to come to its third reading before Parliament breaks up. I acknowledge, too, the Business Committee of the House, which granted leave to compress the second reading and Committee stage of the bill. The priority for all of us in this House was, indeed, to heal our history, to restore the Ōtamataha land to its rightful owners, and, in doing so, to offer up the greatest opportunity for meaningful dialogue to be held across the greater rohe of Tauranga Moana.

This bill provides the incentive for reconciliation between Māori and the Crown, and Māori and the Church. It enables—indeed it empowers—all New Zealanders to learn and apply the rich lessons of history that come through military conquest, through land acquisition, through legislative stealth. Most important of all, it allows new waiata to be written about the significance of whakapapa, the enduring value of land, and the importance of the tribal connections between Ngāti Tapu, Ngāitamarāwaho, and Ngāi Tūkairangi. As I wrap up, I just acknowledge the descendants of those who were involved in this whole issue. They are in the gallery today. They have come down from Tauranga Moana. I wish them well. In moving this bill, I commend it highly to the House of Parliament.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. The New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill transfers land in Tauranga and other property from the New Zealand Mission Trust to the Ōtamataha Trust, so that it can be used for the beneficiaries of the Ōtamataha Trust, the hapū of Ngāti Tapu and Ngāitamarāwaho.

I will not dilly-dally. This is a good bill. This settles for all time an incident that happened. It settles some of the raruraru, some of the hurt, of various people in the Tauranga Moana region. Having said all of that—and it was only 45 seconds long—

Sue Moroney: Oh, that’s enough!

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, that is enough. Well, listen up—the whole House needs to listen up—because the underlying message in this bill is the fact that the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church were complicit in the theft of hundreds and hundreds of acres of land throughout this country, and, quite frankly, they have gotten off scot-free.

They have gotten off scot-free, because although we have been trying to reconcile our differences, trying to reconcile some of the bad things, we have been looking at the Crown. We always love to stand up and belt the Crown, whoever the Government is—we always like to belt it for the past.

But there are certain groups in this society that need to look at themselves. They need to look at themselves very clearly and start on the same track as this Government has, and as previous Governments have, about reconciliation, and realising the hurt that they have caused. So I make no bones about what I say. I make no bones about using the opportunity not only to congratulate those people, those home folk, and not only to congratulate the Māori Party and my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell on bringing the bill here but also to make the point that nothing is done in isolation.

You cannot just do something and leave it there as if it was on its own. So use the opportunity of passing this legislation to have a look, not as some sort of a witch-hunt but as some sort of reconciliation process that the Crown has gone through, that the Government has gone through, and continues to go through, and that organisations like the Church Missionary Society are going through.

It is important that we play our part—every bit—in our part of the reconciliation. Just because the Crown was involved in Treaty negotiations, it does not mean that the whole play of reconciliation is taken care of. My advice to everybody is to get into it, and then we will move on to being a very, very good country. Kia ora.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e ngā rangatira o Ngāti Tapu me Ngāitamarāwaho. Tēnā koutou ngā rangatira o Tauranga Moana, nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. He rā whakahirahira, he rā harihari koa. Nō reira, huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the esteemed leaders of Ngāti Tapu and Ngāitamarāwaho, salutations to you collectively. Greetings to you collectively, esteemed leaders of Tauranga, welcome, welcome to the House of Parliament standing here in readiness. This is a great day and a really joyful one. And so acknowledgments, accolades, and congratulations to you all throughout the House.]

I am delighted to be speaking at the third reading of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. As I have mentioned in earlier contributions, this bill is a beautiful piece of reverse engineering—or reverse privatisation, as I call it—whereby we are returning lands back to the tangata whenua, back to the original hapū. It is a historic day. I have to truncate my speech somewhat today, but the sincerity is there. I would like to acknowledge our rangatira who have travelled all the way down, who have been the stalwart trustees who have been involved in holding the fort for the New Zealand Mission Trust Board and who are soon to be vested in the Ōtamataha Trust.

There is a long history to this bill. It goes back about 176 years, way back to when the land at Ōtamataha, the Te Papa peninsula, was acquired—“acquired”, I should say—by the Church Missionary Society and the Rev. Brown. I am sure that there were some genuine, altruistic-type, good-hearted purposes to the acquisition, but the bottom line is that the land was taken. It was not the understanding of the tangata whenua that they had given up rights to their land, and, indeed, the actions that followed were not so altruistic, because we saw 80 percent of the land that was acquired was subsequently granted to the Crown and further parts of the land were also disposed of. So what we are dealing with today is just a small remnant—a very small remnant—of the original land blocks, which is now prime real estate right in the heart of Tauranga. As I understand it, as you drive around the waterfront by the Sebel suites, I think it is on that sort of drive. Anyway, it is a beautiful piece of land, and this is just a wonderful opportunity to speak on this bill in recognition that that land is returning back to the original owners.

We heard, as the Māori Affairs Committee, submissions from Ngāi Tūkairangi in terms of their inclusion in the bill. I am pleased that the Ōtamataha Trust was able to amend the trust deed so that their ancestral hapū were also included, and so that they could all link up to the Ōtamataha Trust. By and large, it was a very pleasant process, whereby we travelled to Tauranga on a nice, balmy late summer’s day to hear the submitters, who were largely all in favour of this legislation.

But I want to pick up on a point that our chair, matua Tau Henare, mentioned, in saying that these hapū are lucky. They are lucky because they are receiving back the lands that were taken from them, but not every hapū around the country has been so lucky. So there were many other Māori right around the motu who are very generous—very generous—to the Christian missionaries with their tribal estates. We are very familiar with the schools that have been set up around the country by the early missionaries, such as Te Aute College and St Stephen’s School, which is where our kaitautoko—our sponsor—of this bill, Te Ururoa, is an old boy from. These schools were set up to be self-sufficient, and hence there were large tracts of land given for these schools for pastoral, agricultural, and educational purposes.

But other tribes have not been so lucky. I am thinking of a local instance here, in the case of Wi Parata v The Bishop of Wellington, where the Ngāti Toa people had given up land, and 500 acres of that land was set aside for the building of a school. None of that eventuated, and it led to the low point—the absolute low point—of Treaty jurisprudence and judicial pronouncements in this country, when Chief Justice Prendergast called the Treaty “a simple nullity”. Fortunately, we have moved well on from those dark days, but that is just an example that there is a long history. I would like to find out about other pieces of land that the Church Missionary Society may have in its possession, and if it is willing to offer them back to other hapū around the country, then I would encourage it to do so. This is a great bill. I am very pleased to tautoko it and to acknowledge our rangatira here in the House today. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Kia ora. In this third reading of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill, I am very happy to stand in support of it. This bill does right a wrong. It brings back to the hapū the ability to receive benefit from the proceeds of land rent, a benefit that they have not received, essentially, since this land was alienated from them. So I am very happy to stand in support of this bill. As my colleague Rino Tirikatene mentioned, the Māori Affairs Committee travelled to Tauranga and we met with many submitters. There was general agreement and support for this being done. It is an intriguing history, and I think that what we can be very pleased about, and proud of, today is that in many regards—although not fully and completely—we have turned back the clock to where it should be. So I am very pleased to stand and commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki te hapū katoa o Tauranga Moana me Ngāti Tapu me Ngāitamarāwaho. Tēnā rā koutou. Thank you for coming here to see the third reading of this important bill, the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. I would also like to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee and the sponsor of the bill, Te Ururoa Flavell—tēnā koe. It is awesome. As a previous speaker from the Labour Party said, let us make it a trend. You know, this could be a trend of Church Missionary Society descendants handing back whenua to tangata whenua. Sounds like a good trend to me. I was privileged to speak on the first and second readings of this bill. I am going to keep it short but I would like to make just a couple of comments about what we are doing here today and the important history.

I was recently at the battle site at Pukehinahina. I stood there in the heart of Tauranga thinking of the Ōtamataha Trust bill, thinking of everything I had learnt about Alfred Brown and the history of the tangata whenua and what they went through, and just how important it is to go to those places, stand there, feel them, and feel the responsibility that we do the right thing here when we have the opportunity. This is not so much about a chrysalis becoming a butterfly; this is about replacing prejudice, violence, discrimination, and alienation with justice and hope. It is high time, overtime, and just in time that we do this kind of work. I really want to acknowledge the tangata whenua for the efforts, the ahi kā, to hold fast to the whenua, to the whakapapa, and to the history, because that is a gift to the whole nation.

The original purpose of Alfred Brown and the Church Missionary Society was the evangelising of the heathens. It is one of my favourite expressions: the evangelising of the heathens. The problem with the evangelising of the heathens is that it takes messages of love, peace, and hope mixed up with messages of sin and guilt, and the implication of Western religious beliefs being superior. It was that that did so much damage in the history of this country and at places like Ōtamataha, because those are mixed and conflicting messages that have had a destructive effect as well as a positive effect. So, yes, we must congratulate the church people of today on their sincere and well-guided endeavours to work with tangata whenua to create a better future based on justice and to return the whenua. But let us not forget that the evangelising of the heathens is never a good idea. Evangelising—full stop—is usually about propaganda, control, alienation, and the idea that the ideas of the person or the organisation, such as the Church Missionary Society, are superior to others. That in itself is a damaging concept, and so let us have no more evangelising.

I think it would be excellent if we stopped evangelising about Western culture and actually took our relationships back to the concepts that started in the 1800s from Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Declaration of Independence, He Whakaputanga. If we go back to those, we will be guided by a greater and lesser evangelising concept: the concept of negotiation, harmony, and peace based on the recognition of tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti.

So, congratulations to Ōtamataha Trust on shifting, moving over, for the rightful owners of this place to take their leadership. We recognise again that the whenua and the whakapapa have eventually been acknowledged. It takes a long time—far too long—for these things to be acknowledged in this country, but at last we have got there. I would like to just express the Green Party’s full support for those people, for their efforts, and for their leadership. May tangata Tiriti follow the lead of tangata whenua and let Te Tiriti o Waitangi speak. Kia ora tātou.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei. I was in such a rush because this is such a great day, so I do apologise to my colleague Catherine Delahunty for trying to jump into her speaking slot. But can I first acknowledge our rangatira who have turned up here in the House from Ngāti Tapu me Ngāitamarāwaho. E ngā rangatira kua tae mai, tēnei te mihi aroha ki a koutou.

[To the leaders who have arrived here, fond greetings to you collectively.]

It is always a privilege to stand and support the third reading of a Treaty settlement bill. Like all the previous speakers, I say that it is a great day for the hapū of Tauranga Moana in seeing that this land is being returned to the original owners. As a proud member of the Māori Affairs Committee, I say that after the way in which this bill was championed by my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell—tēnei te mihi ki a koe, te rangatira—and handled by the Māori Affairs Committee, this is one of those proud moments that you can stand there and celebrate, but you cannot imagine what it feels like for the people who have joined us here in the gallery and those who are at home in terms of the returning of this land and what that is going to do for the people of Tauranga Moana.

In my earlier contribution on the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill, I did talk about the particular submitters who felt themselves excluded—Ngāi Tūkairangi—but, again, through the reality of our shared whakapapa, those descendants of that particular tipuna are recognised through their links with Ngāti Tapu. I am a big believer that the iwi-Māori, hapū-iwi way of dealing with challenges is to go back to our whakapapa, and so I acknowledge in the passing of this bill the importance of that to ensure that we see the passage of the bill through this third reading.

I want to take a bit of time to just divert and pick up on what the Green member Catherine Delahunty spoke about in relation to the role of the Church Missionary Society in shaping or influencing the fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand in terms of the early missionaries. Like we have seen in this particular bill, whether the establishment of this post and the acquisition of the land were legal can definitely be challenged, and these kinds of things have had a huge impact on all parts of Aotearoa New Zealand. In my area, in my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, there are Te Aute College and Hukarere Girls’ College, and we also have St Joseph’s Māori Girls’ College. They are schools that have been touched by Christianity. They are founded on the principles and values of Christianity, but for a lot of those schools, if you visit them—and I encourage members to visit both Te Aute College and Hukarere Girls’ College; you will see that they are great schools, which produce great leaders—you will see that though they have got endowment land attached to them, they are struggling to keep the maintenance of the hostel areas.

On the one side I am seeing the Church Missionary Society sitting on huge economic opportunities in terms of the land that was gifted for the purpose of education so many years ago. So my contribution is to support the plea in this House that this gifting back to the people of Tauranga Moana should be the catalyst for the return of the missionary land gifted by hapū and iwi so many years ago. It should come back to the original owners, so that the original owners can enjoy the economic, the social, the spiritual, and the environmental returns that land gifted back to the rightful people quite rightly creates.

I do not want to go on too much longer. This is an exciting time. I am honoured to support all members in the House in this third reading, and I do in all sincerity wish the people of Tauranga Moana a very safe journey home. You have done your deed, you have seen the passage of this important bill in its third and final reading, and I celebrate your success and that of the people you represent here on the gifting of what I know is an important piece of whenua to the people of Tauranga Moana. Nō reira, I stand again and support the third reading of this bill. Kia ora tātou.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Kia ora, talofa lava, and greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is just a brief call on behalf of New Zealand First to support the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. We are fully supportive of it and the sentiments that have been made in this House. We recognise the work of the member Te Ururoa Flavell in bringing it through to the third reading, and we are very supportive of it. The previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, mentioned Te Aute College. I have fond memories of playing rugby against Te Aute College in my days at Central Hawke’s Bay College. We lived in fear every time we played Te Aute College, because we always knew we were going to come out much worse off. We certainly went up there and came back battered and bruised, and we were usually many, many points down. But it was always a great experience going to Te Aute College. The haka of the whole school on the side of the field was enough to have us quivering under the goalposts at the other end of the field.

Tim Macindoe: I’m surprised you lived to tell the tale.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Yes, exactly. But having been to the mission house and the trust in Tauranga, and having seen what was done throughout this whole bill, New Zealand First is fully in support of it and we commend it to the House.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Talofa lava. I rise to support this private bill, the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill, in the name of Māori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell. The return of the land is highly significant to the hapū of Ngāti Tapu and Ngāitamarāwaho. It re-establishes the hapū connection to their wai. It provides income to the hapū to finance other activities, including allowing the hapū to participate in the economy of downtown Tauranga. It comes with the 150-year anniversary of the Battle of Gate Pā, which was commemorated a couple of months ago—just this year. I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora. Talofa lava. It is my pleasure to rise in the third reading of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to mihi to Te Ururoa Flavell. This is another bill he is going to get through the House—kia ora. I would like to mihi to the Church Mission Society, the Ōtamataha Trust, Ngāti Tapu, Ngāitamarāwaho, and the representatives who are here today.

I just want to take us through a very brief history lesson. Essentially, there was a transaction, and lands were gifted from Māori to the Church Mission Society in 1835. In 1852 there was a dispute about those lands. The Crown stepped in and said: “The lands don’t belong to you, tangata whenua. They belong to the Church Mission Society.” I just want to read an excerpt from Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims, dated 2004. It says “We accept that the strictly legal beneficiary of the trust was the CMS, not Tauranga Maori. The land had already been permanently alienated from its Maori owners through the Crown action of granting the land to the CMS, an action which we have found was in breach of Treaty principles. In a narrowly legal sense, then, Maori had no remaining rights in the Te Papa block, and the CMS was free to use the land for whatever purposes it wished.”

What the Church Mission Society did was gift 80 percent of that land back to the trust, and it retained 20 percent, which has been retained in the form of the New Zealand Mission Trust Board in Tauranga. What I want to acknowledge is that the Church Mission Society since 1998 has actively ensured that tangata whenua have been involved in that trust. Essentially, what this piece of legislation is doing is changing the beneficiaries—and I do want to read this, because it is interesting. Currently, the trust is for “the spiritual benefit and spiritual instruction of Maori people in the North Island of New Zealand or failing that, the evangelisation of heathen races in any part of the world:”.

The beneficiaries from the enactment of this piece of legislation will be Ngāti Tapu and Ngāitamarāwaho, and I think that that is the most significant part of this legislation. I again want to commend the Church Mission Society for giving back what belonged to tangata whenua originally. Kia ora tātou katoa.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Talofa lava. Ā, tēnā koutou ngā rangatira o Tauranga Moana.

[And salutations to you collectively the leaders of Tauranga.]

I am pleased to take a short call on the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill, a private bill in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell, the Māori Party co-leader. It has seemed like a lifetime for the hapū Ngāti Tapu, Ngāitamarāwaho, and Ngāi Tūkairangi to see this bill reach its final destination in the House.

There have been many words expressed to date, and no doubt I could add many more, but I see it as a time for action, a time for ngā hapū o Ōtamataha Trust to move forward and implement their economic development plans for their whānau. I want to thank those who have worked diligently on this bill: whānau and hapū, the officials, the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and, of course, the member Te Ururoa Flavell. I am proud to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next speaker, is this a split call?

Kelvin Davis: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not? In that case, I call the honourable member Kelvin Davis.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngāitamarāwaho, Ngāti Tapu, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i tae ā-tinana mai hei kite ā-kanohi, hei rongo ā-taringa i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tō koutou whenua. Nā reira, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Salutations to you, Ngāitamarāwaho and Ngāti Tapu. Greetings to you who have arrived here personally to see and hear the addresses about your land. So welcome, welcome, settle in.]

I whakapapa to the Church Missionary Society. My great-uncle Manu Davis from Tōrere was an Anglican minister. His son Rangi is an Anglican minister. My father’s eldest brother, Walton Davis, was an Anglican minister. His son Kerry is training to be an Anglican minister. My mother is an Anglican minister, and my brother-in-law is an Anglican minister.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What about you?

KELVIN DAVIS: I aspire to be a Minister of other sorts, but that road has been full of potholes and speed bumps, I must say.

Despite my whakapapa to the Anglican Church, of which I am proud, I agree entirely with the words of Tau Henare when he said that the Church has a lot to answer for. Taking land was one of the biggest crimes that the Anglican Church has committed over its many years here. We have a saying in Māori, and it is very clear, and I think it sums up this whole bill, the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill. It goes “Riro whenua atu; hoki whenua mai”—land has been taken; return it. That is what this bill is doing; it is setting right a wrong. As my uncle J J Johnson, who was a cousin of my grandmother and who was also an Anglican minister, used to say to me, if you make a mistake, fix it up. This is a mistake that has been fixed up for the betterment of Ngāitamarāwaho and Ngāti Tapu.

Before I close, I would just like to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell for bringing this bill to the House. Obviously, I missed all but this part of it, I think, due to my forced absence from the House, but I have to say I am pleased to be back. If the House can just indulge me one last time. I tētahi tau i mua i roto ahau i tōku whare e whakarongo ana ki ngā poroporoaki mō tōku hoa, a Parekura. I te mātakitaki ahau i roto i tōku kāinga, taumaha ana te ngākau, mākūkū ana ngā whatu ēngari, tēnei taku tāima tuatahi hei hoki mai ki te Whare, hei mihi atu, hei poroporoaki ki te rangatira rā, a Parekura. Nā reira, Parekura, haere atu ki a rātou, rātou hoki o Ngāitamarāwaho me Ngāti Tapu, rātou i mate i mua i te taunga o tēnei o ngā pire. Nā reira, e te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[A year ago I was in my home listening to the farewell tributes for my mate, Parekura. I was watching in my place heavy-hearted and tearful, but this is the first time I have come back to the House to pay a tribute to and farewell that esteemed elder, Parekura. So therefore go forth, Parekura, go forth to them and to those of Ngāitamarāwaho and Ngāti Tapu who died before the settlement of this one of the bills. And so I salute you all the House.]

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Talofa lava. Tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I think it is appropriate, as that was the first speech in debate of the member Kelvin Davis since he has returned to this House, that we acknowledge in kind that he is indeed back with us. Mr Davis, I personally extend a welcome to you. It is good to see you again. We entered Parliament together in 2008, and I have respect for that member. I share his comments on the late Parekura Horomia.

I had the privilege of speaking in the second reading debate on the New Zealand Mission Trust Board (Otamataha) Empowering Bill, and I did so in detail, so I will take only a short call at this point, but I do again wish to acknowledge the fine work of the member Te Ururoa Flavell. It is a significant occasion when any member is able to shepherd a bill through this House, and he has done that skilfully—that is very clear. I understand that when the Māori Affairs Committee considered the submissions on it, it was felt that a good job had been done.

As my colleague the Hon Tau Henare noted earlier in this debate—and I say this as a proud member of the Anglican Church—sometimes the Churches got it wrong, as well, and this was indeed one of those occasions. So I am pleased to see an injustice being corrected after a very long period of time. It is said that sometimes good things take time, and I welcome my honourable colleague Nicky Wagner into the House and thank her for taking the time to be here. It is a significant occasion. I congratulate the member Te Ururoa Flavell. I am delighted to support the bill and to be the final speaker on it. Me whakanuia e tātou.

[We must celebrate it.]

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill

First Reading

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I move, That the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill. I have been asked to be the member in charge of the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill, which sets out to validate the rates irregularities that came to light for the council last year. Each June the Christchurch City Council resolves to set its rates for the next financial year, beginning 1 July. Since 2004 the wording used for the resolution has been the same or similar. However, at the beginning of August last year the Department of Internal Affairs advised council staff that the council resolution that it passed in 2013 did not meet the requirements of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The council did not pass a specific resolution stating the due dates for payment or a resolution to authorise the imposition of penalties on unpaid rates. In other words, when it simplified the language back in 2004, it left out these important parts of the resolution.

Section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act requires a local authority to include in its rating-settings resolution each year “the date on which the rate must be paid or, if the rate is payable by instalments, the dates by which the specified amounts must be paid.” Although on occasion the information has been made available in the council’s rating policies and funding impact statement, it has not been included in resolutions passed since 2004. So the information has been available, but it has not actually been in the resolution. Section 57 of the Act enables a resolution to be passed that authorises the addition of penalties to rates not paid by the due dates. This resolution must be made no later than the date on which the local authority sets its rates for a financial year. It must also state how the penalties are to be calculated and the dates on which they are added to the amount of the unpaid rates. Again, although this information had been available to ratepayers, it had not been included in the resolutions passed by the council since 2004.

As a consequence of these irregularities relating to the payment dates of the rates and the imposition of penalties, the council undertook a thorough review of all its resolutions that had happened since the rates were set in 2004. This review identified a number of other technical irregularities in relation to the setting of seven targeted rates and the uniform annual general charge. Again, although the funding impact statement for each year included information about how liability for the targeted rates was to be calculated—for example, as a fixed amount per rating unit, per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit, or per connection—this information was not included in the rates resolution. Although the funding impact statement for each year also indicated how the uniform annual general charge was to be calculated, generally as a fixed amount per separately used or inhabited part of the rating unit, this information was not included in the rates resolutions.

The council was able to rectify the situation for the 2013-14 financial year by resetting its rates under section 119 of the Act. However, that particular process is not available to correct similar issues with regard to rates set in previous years. Parliamentary intervention by way of a local bill is required in order to validate the rates set, payment dates, and penalties imposed. The local bill before you is needed to rectify the situation for the council. Parliament has previously validated rates irregularities for other local authorities, including the Kaipara District Council and the Tasman District Council.

This local bill, the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill, is a short and focused bill. It will achieve the following outcomes as if those resolutions were made on the date that the council set the rates in each year from 2004-05 to 2012-13. Clause 5 validates the payment dates for the rates. Clause 6 validates any penalties added to the rates. Clause 7 declares all money received by the council in payment of the rates and any penalties paid in respect of those rates to be, and to always have been, lawfully paid to and received by the council. Clause 8 provides that any part of the rates, or any penalties payable in respect of those rates, by virtue of clause 7, that have not been paid to the council on or after the commencement of this bill are lawfully payable to the council and may be recovered by the council as if the rates and penalties had always been lawfully payable. Clause 9 validates the specified rates. The specified rates comprise the council’s uniform annual general charge and seven targeted rates where irregularities had been identified in terms of section 23 of the Act.

This bill validates rates that have been incorrectly set since 2004. It is not about their being calculated wrongly and it is not about the wrong amount of rates; it is all about a technical irregularity in the wording of the resolution. Thank you.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava i lau afioga le fofoga fetalai. Talofa lava i Samoa o loo afifio ma papa aao i Kalaisetete, le aai o teufugalaau. To all the Samoans living in Christchurch, the city of gardens, of flowers, greetings to you, one and all.

The House has heard from the promoter of the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill, the Hon Nicky Wagner. This is one of those bills that again places us between a rock and a hard place. I acknowledge the fact that there were irregularities that occurred in the resolutions setting the Christchurch City Council rates for the financial years 2003-04 to 2012-13.

This bill now goes to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I would invite all people in Christchurch to take the opportunity to make their feelings known, and maybe make their feelings known not just about the rates validating bill but also about the general state of affairs. I know that some see that Gerry Brownlee needs to ensure that all the rebuild costs to the Crown are accurate and that the figures were not underestimated so that this Government could achieve its 2014 wafer-thin surplus. Gerry Brownlee had an agreement with the previous mayor, Bob Parker, to not do an independent audit of the costs, because he knew the estimates they had would not stack up. This is putting the council’s financial position at risk.

We support this bill through its first reading. I would invite all members and citizens of Christchurch to take the opportunity to submit on this bill and make their views known to this Government about the lack of action that they are seeing in the rebuild there. Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Talofa lava to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to all of us here as I rise to speak to the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. It is at its first reading. This is a bill that we do not know very much about at this stage, but in our colleague we trust. The Hon Nicky Wagner, who ably led the Local Government and Environment Committee for some time, has put this bill down for its first reading and has indicated that it needs to be done because it needs, as other bills in the House have, to correct the problems of the past. Unfortunately, in one 3-year term, having three validations of rates is an unfortunate situation, because many would say that it is something that really ought not come to Parliament. We have had Kaipara, we have had Tasman Bay, and now we have this bill. But it needs to proceed through the House, as the Hon Nicky Wagner has said, to rectify this situation for the council.

We need to revalidate the dates for the rates from 2004-05 to 2012-13 and any of the penalties added to the rates. I would imagine that there will be some complexities around it. This is a bill that affirms all money received by the council in payment of those rates and any penalties paid in respect of those rates to be and always to have been lawfully paid and received by the council. So we have a situation that Parliament needs to oversee, and the passing of this piece of legislation is an important thing to do. There has, of course, been a rich background to it, which I really do not have the time to go into in this particular reading, but I will certainly do so in a later call. I think it is important that we address the issues in a general sense today, and then, as it goes through its readings and through the select committee, we can examine it in more detail at that time. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Fa‘fetai mo le avanoa, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that there is often a little bit of reluctance when we are bringing retrospective legislation to the House, but I also understand that there is a precedent for Parliament validating rating irregularities through a local bill, as is the case today. Today we are talking about the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I for one would not want to obstruct any efficiency of the council’s ratings collection or cause any issue for the council in conducting its usual business affairs with regard to rates. I think that this bill does do what it needs to do, in terms of ensuring that the anomaly with the rates payments from 2003 through to 2013 that potentially could mean that those rates are invalid will be corrected, so that the council can validate the payment of rates and also validate the penalties added to those rates.

I understand that it also declares that all money received by Christchurch City Council in rates and penalties is lawful, that any unpaid rates are therefore recoverable, and that specified rates such as the uniform annual general charge have been identified according to section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. This bill safeguards anyone who might be taking action against Christchurch City Council to deem that the rates collected were unlawful. It is an unusual step, but it is unlikely that action will be taken if this legislation is passed to correct that.

It is a short and simple bill. I do not want to talk too long on it. It does do what it is required to do in terms of validating those rights and penalties as required, and it puts the Christchurch City Council back into position. The only thing I would comment on is that it does highlight that it is possible to have an appropriate relationship between a council and central government. I would hope that as Christchurch continues towards its rebuild, the relationship continues, though the complexities are there.

So I just want to say that we commend this bill in its first reading, and I look forward to seeing it progress. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Talofa lava, Mr Deputy Speaker. This will be a short call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I have been in this House for less than 3 years, but this is the third time that I have spoken on a bill where a council is asking Parliament to pass retrospective legislation to validate the rates that it has set, because there have been errors or irregularities in the way those rates were set. This highlights a point that the Green Party has made repeatedly in relation to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), which the House was debating earlier this week and will debate again tomorrow, which is that the Minister of Local Government needs to instruct the Department of Internal Affairs to provide much clearer guidance to local authorities around New Zealand and a template of the form of rating resolutions, to avoid us having to consider retrospective legislation to validate those resolutions when they have been incorrectly passed. The Government’s reaction in its changes to local government legislation is to give the Minister more power to intervene, to constrain the way in which local authorities operate, and to put more criteria in legislation that they have got to assess their actions against. But it has not been to provide the guidance, through the Department of Internal Affairs, to local authorities on things as basic as how to set rating resolutions.

This bill, as others have alluded to, validates the problems that arose in the way the council set rates between 2003-04 and 2012-13 and the way in which it did not correctly impose penalties on unpaid rates. Research that the Parliamentary Library has done shows that the average bill that is considered by Parliament costs $1.43 million. Every hour that Parliament sits costs about $20,000. So we are having to spend valuable public money and parliamentary time on this legislation to correct errors in rating, when if adequate guidance was provided by the Department of Internal Affairs, we would not need such bills. The Green Party will be supporting the legislation because without it it would make the Christchurch City Council vulnerable to legal challenge, and that council is already struggling with quite major financial challenges, so we do not wish to add to that. But if there was adequate guidance from the Department of Internal Affairs, we could avoid the need for such retrospective legislation, which none of us supports.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. This is, as we have heard, the third bill during this term of Parliament to validate some actions of a local authority where there has been an administrative error. Just recently we did the bill with the Tasman District Council, where, again, the council had not properly gazetted the information. In that particular case, it was a map that it had not included for the ratepayers, which invalidated the rates it had set. In the case of the Kaipara District Council bill—we all know the history of the Kaipara one—again, the council had not consulted with the people and advised them of the increasing amount of rates required and the charges that were going to go through for the increased sewerage system.

But in this particular case the Christchurch City Council simply has not passed the required resolutions under the Local Government (Rating) Act to ensure that those resolutions were passed by the governing body of Christchurch so that then, in turn, the rates demands that were sent out to the people of Christchurch were valid. In that respect, it is a simple administrative error. It is somewhat surprising that it would occur in a city the size of Christchurch, and one does wonder how it would have slipped through, because every authority knows that it is required, in terms of passing its resolutions, in order for the management to then carry out the policy. In effect the management was carrying out acts in terms of the rates and sending out things to the ratepayers that had no legal substance to them. So this bill is validating that.

It went on for a period from 2003-04 right through to 2012-13—a considerable period of time. Again, I wonder why it took so long to be picked up. It should have been, through the auditing processes and all the various other processes. I would have expected that it would be picked up by somebody both within its internal audits and by external audits looking at how it had structured its rating process. However, it was not, and we are now having to put it right.

At the end of the day, nobody is wrongfully affected by this. The rates themselves were valid. They were correct and true. This bill just simply makes sure that they were legally set. New Zealand First has no hesitation in supporting this local bill, and we commend it to the House.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I rise in support of the previous speaker, Andrew Williams, as is my habit, and I back him 100 percent on this Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. It is true that this is the third piece of validation legislation that this particular committee, the Local Government and Environment Committee, will be dealing with in the course of this year. As was said, the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Act was one. Was Tasman? What was the other one?

Hon Nicky Wagner: Kaipara.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Kaipara one, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Act, and now, of course, the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill.

It is true that each June the Christchurch City Council resolves to set its rates for the next financial year, which begins on 1 July, as is normal. Since 2004 the wording used for this resolution has been the same or similar. But at the beginning of August the Department of Internal Affairs did advise council staff that the resolution passed this year did not meet the requirements of the Local Government (Rating) Act. Although information about the rates to be set was contained in a schedule or appendix that was referred to in the resolution, the council has not passed resolutions stating the due dates for payment or authorising the imposition of penalties on unpaid rates. This has been rectified for the 2014 year by the council resetting its rates under section 119 of the Act. However, that process is not able to correct similar issues with regard to rates set in previous years, hence the regulatory intervention of this local bill, which Andrew Williams supports, and I, in turn, support him.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to speak at this first reading of the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill, particularly as I am the only Māori MP to cover the great city of Christchurch and the district of the Christchurch City Council. I support this bill, but it is regrettable that this legislation is coming through the House. I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Nicky Wagner for her work in sponsoring this bill, but it is regrettable that yet again we are having to tidy up the blunders and all the faux pas that are going on with certain councils around the country. How hard can it be? How hard can it be for a council, when it actually goes through the procedural aspects of approving the rates, to not do this? And not just on one occasion—it actually goes back 9 years. For 9 years it failed to follow the proper procedure or proper resolutions that were passed, which has led us to this situation, where we are now having to tidy up these messes.

I think this is a real wake-up call for councils around the country to get their act together. These are not small organisations. The Christchurch City Council is the council of our second-biggest city, metropolitan area, in the country. It is not a very small, rural, provincial-type local authority. We would expect that this council would have some smart people on board who would be there to make sure that the council at least ticks the appropriate procedural boxes when it is passing resolutions to approve the rates. It is regrettable that we have to resort to tidy-up legislation. We should also think of the people whom it has impacted on and the fact that this has caused people to pay rates or pay arrears or whatever they have had to do—meet their obligations and meet their financial commitments in terms of paying rates to the council—when for 9 years the council failed to properly approve the levying of those rates or those arrears and penalties. So we would hope that this would be a wake-up call for the council.

I know that the solicitor who is now involved in crafting this legislation is from a very good firm, Simpson Grierson, which I used to work for many years ago, and I am pleased. That firm is an expert in local government. I would hope that councils around the country would get good advice or get people who know what they are doing when councils are holding these meetings in order to make sure that they get things procedurally right. As you know, for everything that happens in this place of Parliament there is a tikanga, there are rules, and there are procedures that we must follow. So if it is good enough for our Parliament, it is good enough for our local authorities around the country, to ensure they get it right. We are not talking about lay people. I would expect that the chief financial officers, the chief legal counsel, and the chief executive—we are talking about highly paid public servants—would have the skills, the ability, and the wherewithal to actually get the procedures right when the councillors meet to approve these rates.

What I fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. I fear this is the tip of the iceberg, because we do not want to be using more of Parliament’s precious time to be fixing up the faux pas that have been conducted by incompetent staff from councils around the country. Having said that, I do support this bill because we need to get this matter fixed. Kia ora.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I rise to take a call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I take exception to the member who has just resumed his seat, Rino Tirikatene, referring to council staff as incompetent. I absolutely reject that contention. At the same time, I acknowledge that, yes, there is work to do to validate some incorrectly set rates resolutions, but I do not think it is helpful to then extrapolate out and call the sector incompetent. I do not think it is true, and staff are not here to defend themselves. Well, I will defend them. I think the local government sector is a very good sector. It does a marvellous job on behalf of its ratepayers and all New Zealanders. We do have this matter to deal with, but I do not think we should tar them all with the same brush, as did that thoughtless interjection we have just had.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I would just like to recap to the House on this Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. What it does is it validates irregularities that came to light for the council just last year. Since 2004, when the rates resolution was simplified, the council failed to specify the rates payment dates, the penalties charged, how penalties were calculated, and the dates by which penalties would apply. Let me make it clear. All this information was available elsewhere, but because it was excluded from the resolution the rates were invalid.

In 2013, when this issue came to light, the council undertook a thorough review of all its rates resolutions and discovered a number of other technical irregularities. These irregularities were in relation to the setting of seven targeted rates and the uniform annual general charge. Again, the information was available. It was available in the funding impact statement, and that gave all the details about the charges and how they were to be calculated, but it was not specifically stated in the rates resolution. Again, let me be clear. There is absolutely no problem about the calculation of rates and there is no problem about the amount of rates that needed to be collected, so nobody has missed out through these irregularities. This is a very simple bill. The irregularities were identified by the Department of Internal Affairs, and the council has acted pretty swiftly to rectify its errors, through this bill.

I would just like to reflect on our previous validation bills. This bill is quite different, I think. Members have spoken of their dismay at having to process another validation bill, and I do concur with that. It is an expensive process to put these bills through the House. But I think this is a slightly different situation than that of the Kaipara District Council or the Tasman District Council. In 2004, when the council made the changes to the resolution, it did it in good faith. Those changes were made deliberately. The council was looking to simplify and to make resolutions easier to understand. It was aiming for a simple, plain English resolution that everybody could understand and follow. Unfortunately, in its haste to make it easy, it left out essential information. But there have been no adverse consequences of these errors. I believe that the Christchurch City Council has acted promptly when errors have been found in its work, and I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 119

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 1

Mana 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Voting

Correction—Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): As previously advised to the Clerk, I seek the leave of the House to amend a New Zealand First vote.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In relation to which vote?

BARBARA STEWART: I seek leave for the vote on the second reading of the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill, and the amendment proposed thereto, to be recorded in the Journals as follows—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will put the leave now. I just needed to know what you were doing, and whether it was pertinent to the vote we had just taken or not. The House needed to know, so now that we know, we will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be none. Leave is granted. The member may now determine to the House the action that she wishes.

BARBARA STEWART: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek leave for the vote on the second reading of the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill, and the amendment proposed thereto, to be recorded in the Journals as follows: on the question that the amendment be agreed to, New Zealand First—6 votes for the Ayes. On the question that the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill be read a second time, New Zealand First—6 votes for the Noes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does that change the outcome of the vote?

Barbara Stewart: No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, it is just recorded in the Journals. I see. Right, are members clear? This is just the intention recorded in the Journals. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed? There is not. It will be recorded.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I move, That the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It is a great pleasure to take a call on the second reading of my bill. It has had a long gestation period, being the latest in a number of ideas that I have had for members’ bills. Other proposals pitched include changes to the right-hand rule that were adopted by the Government, measures to deal with low-ball share offers that were rolled into Government financial legislation, and a strategy to increase small and medium scale renewable electricity generation, a proposal that has not been adopted. However, three out of four is not bad.

I have great pleasure to be a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the chairman of which, David Bennett, is right beside me here. He did an excellent job of chairing that committee, which has examined this bill and recommended unanimously that it be passed. I am very grateful for the support that we received on the select committee from across the House. The select committee recommended that it be passed with amendments.

The bill seeks to amend the Summary Offences Act 1981 to make it an offence for a person to possess a handheld laser in a public place without reasonable excuse. If I could just hold this up, this is a handheld laser. It can sit in the pocket very readily, but it can cause enormous—enormous—damage to people’s eyesight, and, equally, it can blind people who are driving motorcars, but more important is the damage it can do to the night vision of pilots.

The committee recommended changing the name of the bill to refer more accurately to the type of laser that it seeks to control. The committee felt that an amendment to retitle the bill as the “Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill” would better reflect our recommended change to the definition of the devices that the bill covered. The definition now provides that a “high-power laser pointer means a device that,—(a) in the Director-General of Health’s opinion, is of the kind commonly known as a laser pointer; and (b) is battery operated; and”—as you can see, this one I am holding has no power cable—“(c) is designed or intended to be operated while held in the hand; and (d) produces a coherent beam of optical radiation of low divergence;”—namely, a laser beam—“and”—crucially—“(e) has a power output of greater than 1 milliwatt.”

The definition of high-power laser pointers is that used in the two new controls that came into effect from 1 March to help manage the health and safety risk to the public of the use or misuse of high-power laser pointers. I refer, of course, to these new controls that the Government has brought in to cover the importation, supply, and acquisition of high-power laser pointers. The Customs Important Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013 restricts the importation of high-power laser pointers unless a person has consent to do so. Anyone who commits an offence under that regulation is liable to a fine of up to $5,000. Similarly, a body corporate is liable to a fine of up to $10,000. The Health (High-power Laser Pointers) Regulations 2013 restrict the supply or acquisition of high-power laser pointers unless a person has obtained permission to do so. Anyone who commits an offence under that regulation is liable upon conviction to a fine of up to $500.

The committee felt that it was important that there was consistency between the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill’s definition of a high-power laser pointer and the definition in the other legislation. Hence, it recommended that it applies to laser pointers with power outputs greater than 1 milliwatt.

In my original bill, the legislation would have empowered the police to seize and retain any laser found on a person in a public place. The committee recommended omitting the seizure provision as seizure powers are now available to the police under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which came into effect after my bill was originally drafted.

The committee also recommended amending the start date so that the legislation would come into force 28 days after the date upon which it received the Royal assent. This would, it was felt, provide the public with reasonable notice of the law change.

This bill has been a long time in getting to its second reading. I have my office in the vibrant and diverse community of Manurewa, as, indeed, does Louisa Wall, the member for Manurewa, who is sitting opposite me at this point in time. I think we both take pleasure from the fact that our community in Manurewa will be rendered safer by the passage of this bill. From my time in the electorate since 2008, I have been very much aware of the many planes flying over our Manurewa community. In fact, Auckland International Airport receives over 140,000 flights a year—140,000 flights a year. I became aware of the increasing attempts to interfere with these flights, particularly on take-off and landing.

This was happening not just around Auckland Airport but around many of the airports of New Zealand. Since the first draft of this bill, the number of laser pointer attacks on New Zealand aircraft has been steadily increasing. In 2011 the Civil Aviation Authority received 100 laser strike reports. In 2012 there were slightly more, at 102. In 2013 there were 119 reported, and already this year, more and more are being reported.

In a recent instance just a few months ago, a laser pointer was aimed at a Nelson-Marlborough rescue helicopter on its way back from a late-night rescue mission. A few weeks ago a man appeared in the Auckland District Court charged with pointing a particularly powerful blue laser at the police Eagle helicopter. This particular individual was on the balcony of his home on Karangahape Road and he engaged the helicopter as it was taking off from the police helicopter pad at Mechanics Bay. For those who are unaware of Auckland geography, this is a distance of some 4 kilometres—4 kilometres. As the police stated at the time, the incident had the potential to be fatal, given the power of this laser and the potential for things to go wrong. It was incredibly dangerous and incredibly silly, especially over a populated area. It should be noted that as this offender was apprehended actually using a laser pointer, he was—not surprisingly, given that he was doing it to the police Eagle helicopter—prosecuted under section 270 of the Crimes Act. The Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill is designed to have a preventive aspect to remove the potential for these random acts of mischief from miscreants out and about with laser pointers, such as this one, in their possession.

I am extremely pleased that this House is in the process of considering this legislation, which we know will decrease the chances of these lasers being misused. They are potentially exceedingly dangerous weapons. Just last year, a simple internet search revealed that it was possible to purchase high-power lasers of up to 800 milliwatts relatively inexpensively on the internet. They were advertised as 532 nanometre lasers “to impress even the serious professional.”

Dr Megan Woods: Like a Jedi.

Dr CAM CALDER: These lasers “can burst balloon’s, melt plastic, light matches and have a range of up to 60 miles!”—yes, up to 60 miles. These devices can be readily carried—I can see you blanching, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are blanching with fear at the damage that these devices could cause if misused.

Last week I checked the internet again—and this brings me to a comment made by Dr Megan Woods, my colleague from across the House, because in that internet search just last week there was advertised a laser of 2,000 milliwatts in power, costing under $300, with quotes such as: “A real life lightsaber” from CNN, “The perfect gift for the supervillain.” from the Wall Street Journal, and “A seriously baddass laser device.” from Wired magazine. These user reviews underline just how dangerous these devices are.

I could go on, and I shall in the later stages when we are considering this, but for now I will say that this is a very simple bill. It is a perfectly formed bill. There is nothing complicated about this bill. I understand that it is widely supported across the House. This bill will make New Zealand a safer place. I commend it to the House.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I want to thank the member Cam Calder for enlightening us on the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill and for shining a light on the priorities of this Government—shining a light on the priorities of this Government on a members’ day, when we have more important issues that we should be debating, like paid parental leave. I am sure that Cam Calder will be delighted that this bill has finally reached its second reading. I know he has been very anxious about his legacy—his enlightened legacy—that he will leave behind. He wants to have this bill as his legacy. The people of Manurewa, he tells us, are lined up waiting until this bill is concluded so they will know that they are safe at night—that they are safe because Cam Calder has brought forward a bill to ban lasers.

All jokes aside, I do have to say that there are some issues here about aircraft and shipping. I think it is fair enough that he has tried to address this issue, although I do question whether it could have been slipped into a transport bill. I think it could have been. Cam Calder, along with David Bennett and me, has sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the last 3 years. We have considered several bills on transport—really important ones, actually, like reducing the blood-alcohol limit. It was really important that the Government finally got to that. But we could have slipped this into a transport bill instead of wasting our time on a members’ day. I really do think that your party has done you a disservice, Dr Calder, by not doing that. It has not shown you the respect that you deserve, bringing such an important bill to the House on a members’ day, and not shown you the respect that you need in order to have as your legacy that we are going to ban lasers. We are shining the light on the issue of lasers.

As I said, all jokes aside, there are some issues here. There are some issues. There are one or two minor things—one or two minor things. There have been a few lasers thrown around in the House by Dr Calder, actually. There have been instances in recent years. It is not a new idea. In fact, I think we were talking about this in 2010, were we not? However, the bill does aim to have a preventive impact—we will see. We will see. I am not sure that you can control larrikins who decide to get a hold of new bits of equipment and shine them in the wrong places.

But I would say that we are a very generous Opposition. We support members’ bills when there is a worthy cause, unlike the Government, which has been extremely miserly and mean when it comes to members’ bills. I can think of four member’s bills in my name that will not be part of my legacy when I leave this Parliament in a few months’ time because the Government is too miserable to see a good idea when it comes up because we presented it. If it was not the Government’s idea, it does not think it is a good idea. However, in conclusion, I do extend my congratulations to the member Dr Cam Calder. I do wish him well in his post-parliamentary life, and I am sure that there are going to be many enlightened times ahead of him. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is great to see such camaraderie between members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Both members, Cam Calder and Darien Fenton, are departing from this House after the election, and both have contributed significantly to that committee. It has been a pleasure to have both of them on the committee and to have the input that they have given.

In relation to this bill, the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill, I would like especially to commend Dr Cam Calder—one of our fine members of Parliament from the region of Auckland and a very proud representative of that region—for a bill that has actually brought something that is relevant and that will potentially save lives. We never know what may happen. You see many planes that crash near airports. You see many accidents that do happen and nobody really knows, sometimes, what actually did happen. This bill is the prevention and the cure for the illness that potentially may afflict somebody.

It was important that the select committee looked at this bill, and changes were made. The select committee looked at the definition of “hand-held lasers” and then changed it to the high-powered types, and that is reflected in the change in name for the legislation and also in the definition of “high-power laser pointer”. The select committee members looked at what the options were and came to a good conclusion, which actually assists this bill while keeping the heart of it together to achieve the purpose that Dr Cam Calder rightly brought before this House.

This is a good bill. It is a bill that will actually make a difference. It will do things that are important. I would like to congratulate the member on bringing this forward and on the way that he has taken it through the House, and I also acknowledge the support of other political parties in this House to make sure that this bill is passed and that we see the results of the endeavours of Dr Cam Calder. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Talofa lava lau afioga, Mr Deputy Speaker. E muamua ‘ona ou fa’aali atu. ‘O le vaiaso taua lenei. ‘O le vaiaso ‘e fa’ataua ai le gagana Samoa. ‘O le gagana Samoa ‘o se ‘auro ‘e fa’ataua aua le fa’alelei atili mo tupulaga i tausaga i luma. The Samoan language is a treasure we must safeguard for future generations.

I want to add my voice to the support already expressed by my colleague Darien Fenton for the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill. It did not escape my notice that there was an outbreak of cross-party camaraderie when the last couple of speakers were on their feet. I am glad to be rejoining the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under the avuncular leadership of David Bennett. David is now going to look that up in the dictionary. We support this bill. It is a common-sense measure. It has been clear for a few years now, and I want to thank Darien Fenton and Iain Lees-Galloway for their efforts in bringing the issue of lasers and the hazard they pose to aviation to public awareness. We are happy to support this bill. As Darien Fenton pointed out, we think that it would have been better dealt with in a more timely way if the Government had made it a Government bill, but, nevertheless, we are happy to support the efforts of Cam Calder. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a short call to speak to the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill—a short call being appropriate, given the length of the bill itself. This bill, I think, among other things, is a testament to the value and the importance of the select committee process. As the bill was first drafted, the Greens were unable to support it. The bill has gone through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and necessary changes have been made that now make it a piece of legislation we can support. In presenting the bill originally, Dr Calder made very sound argument and, in fact, there was a problem with these instruments, with these lasers—not least of all is that there is a level of self-interest for all of us, because we all fly a great deal. We have a high number of recorded incidents of these lasers being used inappropriately against aircraft and, indeed, against moving vehicles, which is an incredibly dangerous and stupid thing to do.

When the bill was presented, it was acknowledged that there was existing legislation to deal with the malicious use of lasers. This bill was seen as a preventative mechanism. In fact, it was described as a prophylactic in the earlier debate, which I believe caused some confusion to some members. Nevertheless, one of the key changes that needed to be made to this bill and that has been made is that it now identifies possession without reasonable cause of high-powered lasers—lasers or instruments above 1 milliwatt. It does not sound like a great deal, but, of course, in terms of these instruments, it is, indeed, a very powerful and potentially very dangerous tool in the wrong hands.

The original bill allowed for search and seizure. We had some unease about that. We are concerned that the innocent possession of a simple device used for legitimate purposes could be used as a bit of a stalking horse inappropriately. We are pleased that that provision has also been taken out of the bill. The bill as it stands does address a real problem. It does it in a way that offers some protection and it puts some sensible definitions around the type of instrument or tool or whatever you call these things that will be managed and controlled by the bill. It is something around which we hoped common sense would prevail—that people would not use these items maliciously—but, unfortunately, that has occurred.

I would agree with the sentiments from some of our Labour colleagues. We have some concerns about the way in which the member’s bill process has been used, particularly in this Parliament. But, nevertheless, all credit to Dr Calder for presenting what has, ultimately, become a useful piece of legislation that the Greens will support. Thank you.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I also stand to join in the love fest for the fine member Dr Cam Calder and this piece of legislation, the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill. Although there has been a little bit of tongue in cheek—I think in one previous debate we were talking about Iain Lees-Galloway playing with his pussy in his living room, with his laser light or something of that nature—

Iain Lees-Galloway: You’re obsessed.

MIKE SABIN: Indeed! There is a high possibility. There has been an element of joviality, I guess, but, in all seriousness, this bill deals with what potentially is a fatal act. Indeed, we have seen it overseas in warring nations, where high-powered lasers have actually been used in efforts to take down enemy aircraft or allied aircraft. Although we do see them obviously here in the New Zealand domestic setting, it is a fact to say that hand-held lasers and particularly high-powered ones are used as a weapon of war. What we are dealing with here, putting all jokes aside, is a very serious piece of legislation. I know that Dr Calder has worked very, very hard to try to ascertain exactly where this piece of legislation should land, in terms of the nature of the possession of hand-held lasers. This is very much talking about the preventative end of the spectrum, rather than a punitive one, after the act, if you like, and also what would constitute a laser light sufficient to cause distraction to a pilot or blind a pilot or a vehicle user.

I know Dr Calder did have some reservations about the idea of consigning it only to high-powered lasers. That said, the officials made very good points as to why that should be the case. It is interesting, when we reflect on something such as the possession of a knife, which in itself may not constitute an offence but in given circumstances obviously can do. But we do not measure the length of a knife, in terms of whether or not it would constitute being a dangerous offence. I guess Dr Calder rightly pointed out that we are in that same territory when we talk about a laser. But I think, on balance, we have landed in a good space on this bill. I think it is testament to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee process that we are able to work through this, so that the bill achieves what it is intended to do and that is not to send shivers down the spines of university lecturers around the country who have a hand-held laser in their pocket and are on their way to lecture the fine citizens of New Zealand. It is for those who have a high-powered laser in their possession and potentially would use it in a malicious and dangerous manner. In that regard I think the legislation has achieved its purpose.

Like so many things in life, I think it is the little things that get you—not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so much, but the public—and this is one of those things. A little thing can have a marked and significant impact, and in fact can cause the loss of life. Although I do not believe that every pilot in New Zealand is sitting around watching the passage of this legislation through the House, I know that they will certainly be grateful for the work of Dr Cam Calder. I think it is a very tidy, constructive piece of legislation. I have enjoyed working with members from across the House and actually doing something that, while we can trifle about it in some small shape or form, is a significant and important change. I think it has the potential to save lives. It is as simple as that. I am very happy to commend the work of Dr Calder, the select committee, and this bill to the House.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. We are happy to support the bill, and we congratulate the member, the fine and, some might say, truly gentlemanly Dr Calder, on bringing it to the House and on being fortunate enough to have it drawn out of the ballot.

The world has changed a great deal in recent decades. The rapid march of technology, and in particular the rapidly increasing availability and the equally rapidly diminishing cost of that technology, means that even more and more advanced technological devices are very much a part of that changing environment. Thirty years ago—30 quite frighteningly short years ago, I might say—I was a high school student, as I know many similarly youthful members were also. Back then, in the early 1980s, not so very long ago, advanced devices such as lasers were still very much the thing of science fiction here in New Zealand. They were not dime-a-dozen devices playing a part in people’s ordinary, everyday lives.

Today we have lasers employed in surgery and in dentistry, when back then it was drills and scalpels. Not so very long ago at all the idea of laser eye surgery was nothing more than a cruel fantasy for people suffering from correctable vision problems. We use lasers for finding levels and for building, where once we used spirit levels and string lines and plumb bobs. Lasers in industry guide everything from the blades in the sawmill to the container cranes at the seaport, to the robots in the car factory. Lasers can tell the police how fast I am driving, and they can ensure that the unfortunate bunny, or other creature, in the cross-hairs of my telescopic sight has no chance of escape.

Lasers are part and parcel of modern-day life. Thirty years ago the concept of CDs and DVDs would not have been believed by most people, let alone accepted as truth of the near future. Today every home in the country has one or two or more of the devices that play these now nearly obsolete formats, and every one of them uses lasers to extract the information off the disc and convert it into images and sounds. Thirty years ago, lasers were the stuff of Star Wars. Today they are in everything from the reversing camera in a car to the cutters in the engraving industry, to medical science, to music shows, to barcode readers, to welders, to range finders, to printers, to pointers, and to God alone knows what else.

Once upon a time—again not so very long ago—tattoos were for ever. Today they are easily and almost painlessly able to be removed by yet another application of the marvellous and versatile thing that is the laser. Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation—that is what the word “laser” is an acronym for. It was developed in 1958 as one manifestation of the discovery of wave-particle duality, the mechanism by which light can exist as a wave or as a particle, but not both at the same time. From those humble beginnings, just a little over a half century ago, lasers have indeed grown and developed, so that today what were once mere fantasies of the future have become the reality. The fiction that is Star Wars is being rolled out in real life, even as we debate. The United States Navy will deploy its first naval laser weapon system aboard the United States Navy ship Ponce this northern summer.

It may surprise and disturb some people, perhaps even some members, to learn that lasers are already being used as weapons in New Zealand. Some people are using lasers as weapons of stupidity, potentially as weapons of crime. Perhaps, even here, there is the possibility that they may come to be used as weapons of terrorism. Powerful laser pointers—not the ones in the same league that the US Navy intends to employ to shoot down missiles and drones and even incoming artillery shells, but powerful enough—can light a match, burst a balloon, set fire to a piece of paper, or blind a pilot or a driver from as far away as 10 kilometres. Those lasers are available for a couple hundred bucks over the internet. They are as small as a ballpoint pen and are powered by a couple of ordinary AAA batteries.

It is these devices that Dr Calder’s bill seeks to remove from the hands of the irresponsible and the malicious, and we support him wholeheartedly in that. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee agreed, as do we, that this bill be passed, albeit with a couple of minor amendments. The committee proposed that the name of the bill be changed to emphasise that it is for only powerful laser pointers and not the very small, low-powered ones, which are used legitimately as actual laser pointers or for driving one’s cat to distraction. It is for the powerful ones that put out up to 3 watts in power, and for which there is no legitimate justification for ownership. This is a sensible change in our estimation.

The committee also recommended that the commencement date for the legislation be 28 days after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. The reasoning is that this will give the public reasonable notice of the law change. We do not agree with this. In New Zealand First’s view it would give the aforementioned irresponsible and malicious users of these devices a 28-day window in which to order up large on the internet and gain possession of a stock of these powerful lasers—but so be it. We register our disapproval but we accept the will of the majority of the House. We urge the House to reconsider this particular recommendation of the committee.

The committee has recommended deleting the seizure provision in section 13B, in clause 4 of the bill, on the grounds that it is not necessary as seizure powers are available to the police under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. That may be so, but we would prefer the provision to remain or to at least be retained as a general provision incorporating a reference to the relevant section or sections of the aforementioned Act. In the interest of avoiding any possible doubt or ambiguity, the retention of the provision would, in our view, have made for pretty cheap insurance.

Lastly, the committee recommends amending the definition of “laser” as it pertains to this bill by way of adopting the definition of “high-power laser pointers” in the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013. This definition specifies devices with a power output that is greater than 1 milliwatt, and it ensures consistency with other legislation, such as the Health (High-power Laser Pointers) Regulations 2013. It also quantifies the committee’s recommendation as to the change of the name of the bill. New Zealand First agrees with this final recommendation.

In this time when the safety of air travel is foremost in our minds, New Zealand First sees an added urgency for the adoption of measures such as this bill. The illicit use of powerful laser devices that can blind and disorient aircraft pilots, not to mention drivers on the motorway, holds the potential to cause great damage and to put the lives of literally hundreds of innocent people in genuine dire jeopardy. In closing, I wish to reiterate that New Zealand First congratulates Dr Calder on bringing this fine bill to Parliament. We welcome it. We support it. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): As always, it is a pleasure to follow on from Mr Prosser. He gave such an illuminating speech on this particular item, like he did last time.

Tim Macindoe: You little ray of sunshine, you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh, thank you so much.

Richard Prosser: Are you talking about me?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Indeed, indeed. The Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill is a very important bill. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak about it, because it is so sensible in that it is a preventative impact bill.

I well remember getting a phone call one morning some years ago when I was asked whether I could arrange for a member of staff to go around to my office in Motueka where a window had been broken and it presented a security risk. So I asked: “Oh, blow. I wonder why they broke it?”, and they said: “Oh, we watched them.” I said: “You what?”. They said that they had watched them and that it was going to be either my office or the sports shop next door. The gentleman was apparently inebriated. They were pretty sure it was going to be a window that he went for, and they watched him and he did it. So I said that if they were fairly sure he was going to do it, it might have been prevented. They said: “Well, sir, we can’t go around arresting people just because of what we think, can we?”.

I think that preventative laws are a very good idea. Incidentally, I asked whether there were any political implications in him smashing the window and they said: “No, no, he didn’t know it was your window. He just saw a reflection that he didn’t like and took to it.” As they said, it was either my office or the sports shop next door.

This bill will have a preventative impact and will make it an offence for a person to have in his or her possession a high-powered hand-held laser pointer in a public place without reasonable excuse. This bill also gives the police the power to confiscate lasers found in the possession of a person in a public place.

We have had speakers say that, you know, it is a matter of common sense, and surely we want to hang on to them so that people can use them to play with their cats, and that sort of thing. Well, we are talking about high-powered lasers, but we are also talking about a very real situation. I was astonished to hear that one of our All Blacks had had lasers shone at his eyes when he was lining up to take a kick. Apparently, it also happens in other sports, where you get that sort of thing. People who live in Auckland will remember the period when people thought it was funny to drop things off the overhead bridges on the motorways and on to the cars, because they could not be detected by the time the car was stopped, and that sort of thing. So you cannot say that common sense will dominate a situation.

National is committed to ensuring that the safety of New Zealanders using the transport system is not compromised. This bill ensures proper regulation of devices posing a threat to New Zealanders. It is a thoroughly sensible bill and it is a tribute to Dr Cam Calder that he has brought it forward. He was acquainted with the problem, I think through professional pilots, and he was determined to do something about it.

We have heard people say that this should not really be a member’s bill. I think this is a classic case of a member being approached, being advised, being determined to do something about it, and here we are on the second reading of the bill. It went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—

Simon O’Connor: Fine committee.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —a fine committee—admirably chaired by David Bennett. We have produced a few changes and recommendations. All in all, this will be a successful bill. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill is a good bill. It does deal with a serious issue, one that is serious enough that one would have thought that the Government would have actually attended to it and included it within any one of a number of transport bills that it could include it in. It is very pleasing to see that the bill has been tightened up. The one concern that we in the Opposition had with the bill as it was introduced was that it was too broad in its scope. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has seen fit to tighten it up to apply only to high-power lasers with a power output greater than 1 milliwatt. That is a sensible improvement, and we in the Opposition are very happy to support it.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am really pleased to rise and speak to the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill on this—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has come to suspend the House for dinner. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, the House has resumed. Before the dinner break, we were on the second reading of the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill. Iain Lees-Galloway was speaking at the time and has 9 minutes—

Iain Lees-Galloway: No, Simon O’Connor was speaking at the time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Simon O’Connor was speaking and has 9 minutes and 50 seconds remaining to speak.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know that my colleagues across the House, particularly Mr Iain Lees-Galloway and the buddy MP crossing the border into my electorate, Carol Beaumont, have been anticipating this speech. When I was rudely interrupted 10 seconds, or 1/100th of the way, into my speech, I was talking about how it was a pleasure to talk to the summary offences bill. The pleasure is because not only is this is an important bill and an important member’s bill but it is in the name of my good friend and colleague Dr Cam Calder. He has put an enormous amount of effort, time, and passion into this bill. I think it is great that the House is supporting it here at its second reading.

It is an important bill because it is responding to what is really a pretty key area of abuse often, which is people using high-power laser pointers. There are plenty of instances in the public domain where helicopters and jets coming into airports have been interfered with. As someone who has had the pleasure of being in a cockpit a few times over the last few years, I realise the critical nature of what is occurring, particularly between 0 feet and 10,000 feet. The pilots are very focused. The last thing they need is a bright laser shining in their eyes.

We are taking this very seriously. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee looked at a range of options, particularly around the penalties. As I understand it, every person is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000. I think this is a proportionate response and sends a strong signal. We are also saying that those with a high-power laser in their possession need to pretty much have a reasonable excuse. It is hard to think, other than if you are an academic or a researcher, why you would need such a high-powered device with you.

One other thing I would note before concluding the call is that we, as a select committee, looked at the whole search and seizure element. Initially it was in the bill. In itself the bill would have empowered the police to be able to search and seize equipment. It was seen that, actually, that is already within the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, so we were happy to have the bill refer to that. It is a good bill. It has been worked at very hard not only by the select committee but, of course, by Dr Cam Calder. Once again at this second reading, I acknowledge the work that he is doing and commend this bill to the House.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a pleasure to speak on the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill. Like others, I would like to acknowledge Cam Calder for his work in this and wish him well for when he moves on from this place. Essentially, this bill is to have a preventative impact and to make it an offence for a person to have in his or her possession a hand-held laser in a public place without a reasonable excuse. It is a safety measure. Labour supports it and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Do you have authority to speak on behalf of Sue Moroney?

Carol Beaumont: Yes, I do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call on Carol Beaumont.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) on behalf of Sue Moroney (Labour): This is a really important—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, you must move the motion. You cannot start the debate without moving the motion.

CAROL BEAUMONT: Sorry. I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This is a very important bill. This is a bill that has been waiting for some time to receive its second reading, and that is a shame. It is a shame that we have had to wait so long to get to this point. But I am delighted to stand here and acknowledge my colleague Sue Moroney, who will be speaking on this bill, for the work that she has put into this very important piece of legislation and the work that has gone on in the community to support this legislation.

This is a bill that is about children. This is a bill that is about our families. This is a bill that is widely supported in the community. This is a bill that New Zealanders want. This House should deliver on that bill.

Children and families are at the heart of Labour’s thinking. My colleague Sue Moroney put this bill in the ballot because New Zealand has not dealt well with the issue of paid parental leave of recent times.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. The member whose name is on this bill cannot be in the House when it is her bill. She must leave. You can come back after, but you cannot be in here when the bill is in your name and you were not here to lead off and to move it.

CAROL BEAUMONT: As I was saying, the matter in this bill, paid parental leave, has not been progressed in the way that it should, which is why my colleague Sue Moroney put this bill into the ballot and has worked so hard on it.

Under the former Labour Government, paid parental leave was introduced. It was introduced in 2002 and extended in 2004 and 2006. But where we sit at the moment, with 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, is inadequate. It is inadequate to meet the needs of modern families. The reality is that in this country now, in most families there is a need to ensure that there is income from more than one source to meet the family’s needs. Often, women, particularly, who have children are going back to work before they might like to, before the very important bonding with a young baby and before the very important breastfeeding has been established and continued for an adequate period of time, purely and simply because of financial reasons.

None of us, I believe, in this House should think that that is appropriate. What we want as a country is to ensure that every child gets the best possible start, and that every baby is able to be born, to be loved, to be looked after, to bond with their parents and their family, to be breastfed where at all possible, and to really have that start in life. This is what paid parental leave enables us to have. It provides women with choice.

Many women, as I have already said, go back to work before they would like to, because of financial reasons. Paid parental leave helps, but 14 weeks is insufficient. New Zealand is lagging behind other OECD countries in relation to paid parental leave. In fact, I think we are second to bottom in that group of developed countries with the amount that we currently provide. So this bill, providing for 6 months, is very, very important. The way that it is being put into place, or suggested, is to be staggered in over a period of 3 years to ensure that we are being fiscally responsible in how we do this, but to give a very clear message that we will move from 14 weeks to 26 weeks over that 3-year period.

It is interesting to me, and I spoke on this a lot immediately after the Budget, that we saw National making a move in this direction but not going nearly far enough. The cynic in me says that that was purely and simply in response to the head of steam that has been built up around this bill, around a bill that makes a real change and a real improvement to our families. It is a head of steam that means that out there in the community, people have strongly supported this 6 months’ paid parental leave bill.

In the Budget we got a pale imitation. Paid parental leave was extended, and we voted for it because it is an improvement and because National has obviously finally realised that paid parental leave is important, is a reality, and is a need. But we get 2 weeks next year and 2 weeks the year after, to 18 weeks’ paid parental leave, and the possibility of an extension to a broader group of people.

This bill talks about 26 weeks—6 months—and that 6 months is vital. The World Health Organization has long argued that, where possible, exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is important to give children the best start, to ensure that their immune system is well developed, and it assists with the bonding process. It is very, very difficult indeed for those women who manage to continue breastfeeding while they are back in the paid workforce, and I want to acknowledge all of those women who do, in fact, do that. They go to quite heroic lengths to ensure that, because it is so much better for our children.

I want to also say, as Labour’s women’s affairs spokesperson, that an issue like paid parental leave is very good for women. It is really important for women because the reality is now that more and more women do want to and do need to manage to balance both their family responsibilities and their responsibilities in the paid workforce. Having something like paid parental leave provides a real choice and a real opportunity to have time away, but to have time at a reasonable level means they can have that real bonding going on, and know they can go back to their workforce and maintain that attachment to their workplace. It really does assist.

Lots of women at the moment end up in situations where they do not maintain that link with the workplace they are in when they take leave, because the 14 weeks currently provided is inadequate and the unpaid leave of 52 weeks is not sustainable financially, and so you get people making decisions based on that.

I want to again note that we could have passed this bill already but there has been filibustering by members opposite to stop us doing that. Why is that? Well, the reason why is that there is support in this House for this bill. The majority of members of Parliament in this House support this bill, and that is because it is the right thing to do. It is because there is the demand in the community: 99.6 percent of submitters to this bill submitted in favour.

I am standing here urging members of Parliament in this House to do the right thing, because what we understand is that the risk is that the majority of members of Parliament will support this bill but that the Government will veto it. The Government has a choice here. National has a choice, and that is to do the right thing, to extend this bill, and to do it because it is affordable. It has been structured in such a way to be fiscally responsible, while meeting a very real need.

The Government Administration Committee has done some very good work on the costings to show that, and I understand that the select committee has worked very effectively together to do that work, to look at the policy implications, to look at the costings, and to say that for the cost, the benefits of investing in this way far outweigh the costs. So I urge members opposite to consider that and to think about voting in favour, and certainly to not veto this bill.

On behalf of the families of this country, the people who support this, I say: “Support Sue Moroney’s bill.” Certainly, Labour strongly supports this bill. I look forward to hearing the debate in this House tonight on the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the motion be agreed to. The question is—

Jacinda Ardern: Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call—

Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You started the vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I did not. I am accepting a call and I am calling Jacinda Ardern.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak on this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, and to create a resounding build-up to the moment when Sue Moroney will have the opportunity to speak to her bill. Some may be confused as to why she has not already. It is simply because the National Party appears to be trying to collapse the debate, which is entirely indicative of how it has treated this bill. The fact is that it is absolutely extraordinary that we face a bill tonight that has majority support in the House—majority support from MPs in this House—and we still face the prospect that it may not pass. That has not happened yet, but I sincerely hope that we have a situation where the will of members of Parliament, who are here to represent New Zealanders—who have resoundingly said “We support this bill.”—is listened to.

I want to begin, though, by acknowledging the work of Sue Moroney. I remember when Sue proposed to our caucus an extension of paid parental leave, because that is the process we go through when we have members’ bills. It was clear to me at that time that there is a fantastic evidence base behind what has been proposed by Sue, in conjunction with the Labour Party—a fantastically strong evidence base. Everything that she needed to present in order to get this bill through was there. She had costed it out as far as we were able with those resources, and again that is costing that has been extended by the work of the Government Administration Committee.

But what was really clear to me was Sue’s absolute passion and commitment to this issue. She has been joined by members of the community, and I particularly want to pay homage to 26 for Babies. The passion within that group comes from a deep understanding of the pressures of parenthood. That is what struck me—the pressures of parenthood and the deep desire for all parents to do the very best they can by their children and, in particular, their newborns. Those two groups, Sue and 26 for Babies, have done such a fabulous job and I acknowledge their work here in the House tonight.

I want to highlight what it is that this bill actually does. We know that currently—and it remains currently in New Zealand—paid parental leave is stuck at a relatively low 14 weeks. Yes, the Government made some changes recently, but they are not coming in for a little while yet. That is probably one of the reasons why, when you compare New Zealand with other OECD nations, we spend roughly half what other OECD nations do on the early years of a child’s life. It is around the $20,000 mark, and that is when you take into account health, education—every bit of spending that goes on in those first 5 years. So we spend half in terms of that investment. You can put that down to things like the fact that New Zealand does not really have universal credits, family tax credits for families with newborns. We do not have a particularly lengthy period of paid parental leave. Those are the reasons, predominantly, why we spend so much less than other OECD nations. But there is good evidence to suggest why we should.

We know that the most important period of a child’s life is the first 3 years—and, in particular, the first 6 months and first year of that child’s life. We know that paid parental leave at 6 months is based on strong evidence from the World Health Organization. All of that evidence is there and is strong and is irrefutable. That is the reason why Sue ultimately brought this bill forward and why Labour has supported it every step of the way.

I think, as I have said, the strength of support you see for this bill from families, in particular, is probably borne out from personal experience. I do not have children but my sister very recently brought into my family the first grandchild, and it was the most exciting thing for my family. But watching my sister struggle with choices around work and being a caregiver, I can only imagine what that feels like when you are a mother, and a new mother. I think that that has really brought home to me the importance of this bill, which is ultimately about trying to give families more choices when they are in those very early stages of a child’s life.

The Growing Up in New Zealand study demonstrates again, I think, that, actually, most families are trying to get to that 6 months’ leave mark as best they can, even if they are given only 14 weeks’ paid parental leave. When you look at some of the statistics and the work that has been done, you see that families are cobbling together whatever sick leave they might have, whatever holiday leave they have, and even unpaid leave, to try to get to at least that 6-month mark. That sends a strong signal to us that—and, actually, it tends to look more like 6 to 9 months—that is kind of the marker that parents want to reach, at the least, before they have to even consider going back into the workplace. So that should be the marker for us of what we should be looking at in terms of a policy response.

I acknowledge that there are a range of views on paid parental leave. Some people out there in the sector have said that if they were picking an initiative, they would do X or Y or Z first. It is our view that the evidence is overwhelming for paid parental leave, and that having that and undertaking other initiatives that assist families not eligible for paid parental leave are not mutually exclusive. We do not have to make a choice between the two, and, in fact, Labour has not made a choice between the two. That was one of the reasons we brought in our Best Start package. We acknowledge that 40 percent of families would be eligible for paid parental leave of 6 months under a Labour Government, but for those who are not, we want there to be a little bit of extra support for them as well. That is our $60 a week payment for almost every family. Ninety-five percent of families are eligible for that payment.

What I would highlight as well is that the Best Start payment for someone on paid parental leave kicks in after their paid parental leave has finished, and it continues on for another 6 months. So, in all, those families would receive a year of support from Labour. And why is that? Well, it is our belief that actually giving parents that choice, that extra support for the first year, is our ultimate goal but one we know is going to take us a little longer to get to when it comes to extending paid parental leave. So this is a way that we can bridge that and provide a little bit of extra support for those families in that first year, while we look to be able to extend paid parental leave. That also, I think, highlights the fact that we have been fiscally responsible in the way that we have rolled out this policy. We costed it, we decided we could not go as far as we might want to, we put that on hold, and we have gone as far as we can in a staged way.

I do find it interesting that, actually, when we brought out the Best Start package as a whole, the National Government called it unaffordable. It was not that far off the costings of its families package in the Budget, but, apparently, that is totally affordable because National came up with it. You would have to explain to me the differences between the two, because, as far as I can tell, it seems to be that National is just playing into rhetoric and attempts to slate what I would say—I am holding a little promo here—is an excellent package and one that Labour is very, very proud of.

I will save my very last words for the National Party. As I said at the beginning of my address, it is a rare thing that we have majority support for a member’s bill in this House. When it happens, it is fantastic. We see it with the odd conscience bill. Marriage equality was a fantastic debate to have, because it showed that we could come together on bills that were, for want of a better phrase, for the greater good. I would put this bill in that category. There is majority support for this bill tonight. That should mean that it passes. In anyone’s view of democracy, the simplistic view is that if you believe in democracy and the majority of people vote for something, it should get through. I would hope that that is the outcome tonight, because that will be the best outcome not just politically—not just for politics—but for kids, for families, and, in particular, for mums. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to seeing the National Party allowing it to be seen through to the end.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I refer you to Standing Order 136(1) and Speaker’s ruling 66/4. Standing Order 136(1) indicates that “Except where otherwise provided, as soon as the debate upon a question is concluded the Speaker puts the question …”. Speaker’s ruling 66/4 says “Once a vote is commenced, it has to be completed.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. My ruling is this: there was no member who accepted a call at the time when the next call was to be taken, and I was moving to put the motion for the vote, but I never completed it. Until the words I use to put the vote have actually concluded, I can accept a call at any stage during that time, and that is exactly what I did. So the ruling that I made at the time is correct, and that was the end of the matter.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I had hoped to be following Sue Moroney, and I do not say that with any sense of criticism or disrespect—hence the delay in taking a call—because it would be logical and, I think, courteous to hear what Sue has to say on her Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As it was, we have had it introduced very clearly in the second reading by Carol Beaumont and spoken to very thoroughly by Jacinda Arden. So, in anticipation of Sue taking a call, I will perhaps say the things I would have liked to tell Sue—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full name.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —Sue Moroney—had I heard what she wants to say. We have got to know one another quite well over this bill, so I think none of it will come as a surprise.

I guess I would say that this bill is a little before its time. I think the events that we are seeing at the moment are indicating that that is the case. Carol Beaumont and Jacinda Ardern both commented that they understand there was a lot of work done by the Government Administration Committee in a very non-partisan way, and there certainly was. It was a very, very interesting exercise that we went through as a committee and as individuals and in working together. I do not doubt that there will be criticism levelled against National, but I am afraid that I do not colour up and feel guilty, because we worked very sincerely in the hope that we could see whether we could avoid the financial veto with the work that was done, and whether it could be incorporated into National’s version of the bill.

But let us see where we are at the moment, because we are not just talking about this bill; we are talking also about the entitlement basis we live with. Today the Minister of Labour, Simon Bridges, announced that parental leave payments will increase from 1 July 2014. The maximum payment for eligible employees and self-employed persons will increase from $488.17 a week to $504.10 gross per week. The minimum parental leave payment for self-employed people will also increase from $137.50 per week to $142 gross per week. National’s website states: “ ‘We have increased parental leave payments to reflect the 3.3 per cent increase in the average weekly wage over the past year,’ says Mr Bridges. Under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987, parents eligible for the scheme are entitled to up to 14 weeks paid leave at a rate calculated on the basis of their average weekly earnings. The maximum rate is adjusted every year to account for any increase in average weekly earnings.”

Minister Bridges adds that “In addition to this increase, the Government announced a significant overhaul of parental leave as part of Budget 2014, which will make it available to more people, for a longer period, and with increased flexibility.”—and that, I think, is a considerable advantage. “The current 14 weeks’ paid parental leave will increase to 18 weeks in two stages—to 16 weeks from 1 April 2015 and 18 weeks from 1 April 2016. The eligibility of paid parental leave will also be expanded to include caregivers other than parents (for example, permanent guardians),”—and that is a wonderful development—“and to extend payments to people in less-regular work or who recently changed jobs. Some flexibility will also be introduced to parental leave to allow, for example, an employee to attend a course or work an occasional day. Supporting children and families is a priority for this Government, and the changes will ensure New Zealand’s parental leave framework better reflects modern working arrangements in today’s diverse family structures.”

I think that was a concurrent thought that we have running through our discussions at the select committee. In fact, the previous system before the alterations that came through the Budget was very much about sector payments—very much about sector payments.

Darien Fenton: What? Who’s a sector? Which sector?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: A sector, yes. Which sector? The ones who benefited from it, and there were not lots of them. It was fairly isolated. So all that we have achieved in the Budget would not have occurred, because this is part of a suite of changes that are a real benefit to parents.

I was moved listening to Jacinda Ardern celebrating her family’s production of a grandchild. I can well remember the pressures of parenthood, when we were blessed with our two children. It is tough—it is tough. Things like doctors visits being free until the children are 13 are a huge thing for parents—they really are. They really are. We do not want to do without any of those things. So I think we examined this bill, which we are talking about now, very thoroughly—we considered it very thoroughly. It has never been a goer, as far as National is concerned. Previous speakers have been saying how there was a majority of people and therefore it should pass, must pass. Well, I think Labour and every party in the House acknowledges that the Government has to have fiduciary control over legislation, and therefore I do not think anyone has criticised Mr English for having the power of a veto. We were unable to produce a convincing enough argument for the indication of a veto to have been removed.

I think Sue Moroney should be proud of the work that she has done on this bill. I think the committee members can be relaxed in the face of criticism because we did do a very thorough job. It was enjoyable and it was certainly something I think we all learnt a lot from. From that point of view, it was a satisfactory bill, but we will not be supporting it going through Parliament. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to again offer the Green Party’s support for Sue Moroney’s member’s bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, to extend parental leave to 26 weeks. I would like to acknowledge that we believe that this is a perfectly reasonable and affordable initiative alongside the changes that this Government has signalled in terms of extending the entitlement as well as the amounts that are coming from this.

I would like to, firstly, address some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, and his comment that this bill is, unfortunately, before its time. I would like to ask him what he thinks the suffragists would have said to that, when they were fighting for the equality of women and for this Parliament to recognise the role of women in society. Now, well over a hundred years later, would they be saying that a measly 6 months’ leave is before its time? I do not think they would.

New Zealand has the second-lowest provision of paid parental leave in the OECD. Denmark, Italy, and the UK can afford between 9 and 15 months. Those powerhouse economies of Estonia, Finland, and the Czech Republic can somehow afford up to 3 years, and yet this country—the country that led the world in providing the vote for women—is saying that we cannot afford 26 weeks’ leave for our families. That is just blatantly ridiculous, particularly on the same day that we have heard in this House that the Government is throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars to polluters without even reporting to the public on who is getting that money. The fact that we would suggest that women’s employment conditions are unaffordable is ridiculous.

Hon Hekia Parata: Well, since you’re against every growth opportunity, it’s not, really.

JAN LOGIE: Against every growth opportunity is what we are hearing—well, I would say that supporting our children is probably one of the greatest growth opportunities that this country has in terms of investing in our families and women and employment conditions.

I would like to remind this House that there were 3,809 submissions made on this bill and 3,795 of those—a resounding 99.6 percent—supported 26 weeks’ leave. The benefits that they identified as their reasons for supporting it included that 26 weeks’ leave facilitates bonding and attachment between parent and the baby. It improves health outcomes for mothers, babies, and children. It reaches the World Health Organization’s guidelines of exclusive breastfeeding for up to 6 months. It supports families and ensures the stability of family incomes. It allows choice for women and maintains workplace attachment. It updates our employment conditions to recognise women’s participation. It improves employment retention and assists employers to manage leave and workflows. They are some of the benefits that were listed in the submissions that we heard on this bill. For the Government to say that those benefits are unaffordable to us as a society shows a very, very narrow view of investment and value.

This bill would have also offered us a chance to improve our really poor ranking in the OECD. The only country at the moment that is worse than us is the US. The Government’s recent legislation will, admittedly, take us up a little bit further on that scale, but not to a level that gives honour and credit to our foremothers. This bill would also have given a chance to deliver on something towards our international human rights obligations and documents that we have signed that have obliged us to review and, where possible, extend paid parental leave. It would have created more job opportunities. As employers told us quite clearly, in the shorter length of time they are just covering the work, whereas if it was 6 months, they would actually employ somebody to fill in that time and that space. This would have created opportunities, but the Government’s provisions probably will not, tragically.

I do want to just itemise the costs of the 26 weeks, which were worked out to be $138 million a year by 2016-17 when it would be fully implemented. That would have been offset by potential short-term savings, which is not even taking into account the long-term savings and benefits to society. The short-term savings would have been $28 million per annum, so it would be only $110 million a year. Remember, the Government is currently throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars to polluters without even looking twice. Some of that $28 million of savings that would have happened would have been from a reduction in early childhood education subsidies, an additional $8 million in tax from recipients of paid parental leave, an additional $5 million in tax from temporary employees filling in for those on paid parental leave, and benefit payments being reduced by $2.4 million per annum as a result of beneficiaries replacing paid parental leave participants.

For a Government that is saying that it is absolutely committed to getting people into paid work and off benefits, this is a lost opportunity, and that is a shame. I really do want to also challenge the Government a little bit more, specifically around saying that it is unaffordable, because the Government has gone beyond this bill and come up with its own options, but it has done it in a very, very limited sense and has not looked at all at the options.

There was a presentation to the Government Administration Committee around looking at paid parental leave as a basic employment right. It recognised that, basically, annual leave, sick leave, and bereavement leave are currently all funded at 100 percent in this country. Even ACC is funded at 80 percent. Yet paid parental leave is funded really at only about 26 percent of the allowed time for 1 year, and then that payment is up to only about 48 percent of the average wage. So we have a very gendered outline of employment conditions.

Our employment laws and employment protections are based on the old-school idea that there was one earner and somebody at home looking after the children. Paid parental leave offers us the opportunity to update our laws to recognise that, actually, we have parents and women in the workplace—just like annual leave protects and recognises that people deserve holidays. It is kind of basically the same thing.

ACC and paid parental leave also have a lot in common, which I think is worth noting. They are both contributed to universally but used only by a small percentage of people for limited periods of time. And it is worth noting that ACC has a marked gender bias in payouts, with $641 million more per annum being paid to men than to women through ACC. Actually, we could have looked at an employer contribution for paid parental leave, which would not have cost the Government’s fiscal outlook anything. When the Government was supposedly looking outside of the square to provide the best option, it did not even look at the option that would have cost its books nothing. So I really think that to use a financial veto when it has had such a failure of imagination or has not even actually listened to the submitters is disingenuous, and it does seem to me to be letting down New Zealanders.

Finally, I just want to finish on a lived story from one of the submitters, because at the heart of it this is about people and about families. It is of a woman with twins who had to go back to work when her twins were 5 months old. She had to leave work every 2½ hours to breastfeed, all while her babies were both still waking at different times every night to breastfeed. Unsurprisingly, this was not sustainable. She could not cope and she quit the job to look after her babies. Her family lost that income, she lost that attachment to her job, and her family is worse off for it. This bill gives a chance to redress that.

Debate interrupted.

Points of Order

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—Leave to Amend Māori Party Vote

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a slightly convoluted way, I am going to seek the leave of the House for the Māori Party vote on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill to be recorded as three votes. Mr Flavell, who was to be here, has been called away in the last 2 hours to the birth of his grand-daughter, and I understand and I am advised that the Māori Party has been unable to get someone back here in order to replace him in the House to get the numbers from two to three for the voting. So what I am going to do is seek leave that, notwithstanding the fact that the Māori Party would normally be entitled to two votes in these circumstances, the Māori Party vote on this reading of this bill only—just this reading—be recorded as three votes. I so seek the leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Bills

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak during the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. We in the National Party, just like all other New Zealanders, care about parents being able to look after their children. That is why ever since we have been in Government the amount being spent on providing parental leave has constantly increased. This was further strengthened in the current Budget when the Minister of Finance allocated a further $500 million support package for families and children. As promised by the National Government, these are the dividends of a well-managed and growing economy that hopes to continue its Budget surplus in the years to come. The focus of this additional spending of $500 million is towards helping young families and vulnerable children who need the utmost care and protection. Specifically for the purpose of this bill, can I add that the package provides $172 million towards extending parental leave by 4 weeks. What most practical New Zealanders care about is attaining a balance between parents looking after their children without adding to their and the country’s fiscal constraints. To extend parental leave to 6 months is an unsustainable position—one that I believe will further create intergenerational debts. With these words, I oppose this bill.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I hope that members of the National Council of Women and the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women and the 52 percent of the voting public of New Zealand who are women have been watching the debate this evening. I hope they have noted the behaviour of National with regard to this bill, and its attempt in the first instance—even raising a point of order—to collapse this bill. I have been here for 3 years. It is the first time in 3 years that I have seen that behaviour used to try to close down a bill that over 3,000 New Zealanders asked to be considered. And yet the Government tried to not even address it.

I am stunned by the way the National Party has chosen to deal with this issue. It is surprising and it is disappointing—certainly as previously we had such collegiality in this House with a National Party member’s bill. I think it is really disappointing that the National members were unable to rise to their feet. They attempted to close down a bill so that they did not have to stand before the public of New Zealand, particularly the 52 percent of the voting public who are women, and explain to them why the Government will veto this bill. It has the ability to veto it. Stand up in the place where you are and answer to the public why you will ignore their overwhelming submissions in support of the bill.

You say paternalistically that it is all very nice and lovely that the New Zealand public whom we are supposed to represent support this bill. It is all very nice and lovely—even though it is the money of taxpaying New Zealanders who have come through the select committee process to this House and have overwhelmingly said “This is what we want the Government to do with our money.”—to then stand and say “We know better. We know better.” That is at the same time as spending $27 million on charter schools that not a single New Zealander who needed to be here came to this House and submitted on, and at the same time as spending millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on other things that the Government needed to actually give it the ability to rule, but that were not asked for by the public of New Zealand. To then try to shut down the conversation is beyond belief. It is incredibly disappointing. So I do hope that those women’s organisations are watching today and taking note of how this has been dealt with.

This reminds me of the Kōwhai Festival in my town. Around about 15,000 people come. At the last Kōwhai Festival we ran a survey. The survey that we ran was not a very scientific survey. We stood there, we stopped people, and we said “What would you like your Government to do with your taxes?”. The answers were quite interesting, and there was a clear division. Most of the women actually stopped and said “I’m quite happy to pay taxes, but I want the social contract to be there. I want the support for my family. I want the health care. I want the education for my children.” They wanted their children to be supported. They were prepared to work. They were prepared to pay their taxes. They were prepared to do everything that the State asked of them as long as their children were cared for. That is what this bill is about.

There is an old saying that where there is a will, there is a way. This Government says that this bill is unaffordable. The Government pushed through, in the Budget, the smallest amount of support it could give to newborn babies, to try to convince the public of New Zealand that it cared. Whereas the reality was that the pressure placed upon the Government by Sue Moroney and by the 26 for Babies campaign made it almost impossible for the Government to say no. That is why two speakers, after they were unable to close down this debate, stood and read out their own Act. That is the only comment the Government members have made—they have read out their own Act. It is an attempt to ignore what the public of New Zealand asked them to do, which was to support Sue Moroney’s bill. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no will here for the women of New Zealand. There is no will here and there never has been from this Government. It has merely taken this moment and given the small crumbs that it could give, because it was forced to, to try to stay in the game.

I say to the women of New Zealand, the 52 percent of the voting public of New Zealand: do not feel guilty about asking for things that support your children and do not hold back your vote. The women should say to this Government “We gave you our voice. Support us. Support our newborn babies.” The Government tells you that this bill is far too expensive. So let us just go to another nation. Swedish parents are actually entitled to 480 days of paid parental leave when a child is born or adopted. The one thing that the Government did do inside the Budget legislation that was very good with regard to newborn children was when children are placed in a Home for Life. It extended that to a Home for Life. That is absolutely appropriate and I applaud it for doing so.

Of those 480 days of paid parental leave in Sweden, 60 days are reserved for fathers. In 2012, 24 percent of Swedish dads took the whole of the parental leave. For 390 of those days, parents are entitled to nearly 80 percent of their normal pay. The remaining 90 days are paid at a flat rate. Those who are not in employment are also entitled to parental leave. Why? Because it is parental leave. It is not an in-work family tax credit; it is parental leave. It is for the benefit of the child. We keep having a conversation about adults. The whole purpose of bills such as this is around the benefit of the child. Yet we keep talking about—and Mr Simon O’Connor was the very one talking about it over there when Ms Logie was talking—the adults in this conversation, and that the women themselves should be standing up and being independent. I am sure Mr O’Connor is going to rise to his feet, or perhaps he will not, because we are not sure how many calls the National members will actually take on this. They did not want to discuss it to start with, so they may not take any now. But we are yet to see.

One of the great things about extended parental leave, apart from what we know are cost savings around the health of the children, is the long-term benefit and economic benefit for families because those women who can are able to breastfeed longer without stress. Anybody who has been a mother and been able to breastfeed will understand what stress does to the quality of that breastfeeding. To remove stresses from mothers gives a better start to the baby. That is what this is about. It is about babies, not about women wanting to skive off and take some time off. It is not about women asking any more from their Government than they deserve. They are taxpayers too. It is about the best start for babies.

This Government will veto this bill. That is obvious. Government members have stood up and said it. They have tried to shut it down already. But, New Zealand, do not allow the Government to tell you that we cannot afford it, because look at what else money is being spent on. Do not let the Government tell you that you do not deserve it. Do not let it tell you that it makes no difference. This was an opportunity. This Government has no will because ideologically it does not believe in it. It got forced to do something in this Budget. Good on you, Sue Moroney. New Zealand First will support the bill.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am proud to take a call in the House on this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, which is very different from what the New Zealand First speaker preceding me, Tracey Martin, said. I am proud to speak on this bill because this side of the House does oppose this bill. That is not the same as opposing paid parental leave. We are extending paid parental leave. Like it is for this Government, sound, responsible fiscal management is a priority for hard-working New Zealanders in this country. Part of that is extending paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then from 16 weeks to 18 weeks. It is somewhat ironic that that side of the House is making some argument about breastfeeding being a core part of this bill. Having had my first child in Auckland, I am proud to say that Herne Bay is not the only suburb in Auckland in which you can breastfeed your children.

I am proud that we are extending paid parental leave—we are extending paid parental leave. We are extending it in a way that hard-working New Zealanders see as responsible and fair and affordable. Not only that, we are also putting in provisions for extending the parental tax credit that mean that there is more flexibility for those most vulnerable parents. I know that that side of the House may have different views from us, but on this occasion we are going to have to agree to disagree, and I will not be supporting this bill. This side of the House will not be supporting this bill. That does not mean that this side of the House is not supportive of paid parental leave, because this side of the House has just extended it.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am absolutely delighted to take a call in the second reading of this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, and I am delighted that I am also going to have the opportunity to speak on this bill in the Committee stage as one of the last things I do before I leave this Parliament. As I start my speech, may I first of all acknowledge my colleague Sue Moroney for the fantastic work that she has done. Can I also acknowledge the chair of the Government Administration Committee, another wonderful Labour woman, Ruth Dyson. I also want to acknowledge all the women up and down New Zealand, the child advocacy groups, community organisations, business organisations, unions, and working families who have got behind this idea of the 26 for Babies campaign.

But I want to go back a little bit further than that, if I can, because paid parental leave is not a new notion. It has been around for decades. It goes right back to that wonderful woman, that wonderful Labour MP, Sonja Davies, when she got involved in the working women’s charter in 1974, I think it was. Women began saying that if women were going to be treated fairly in the workplace and carry out their responsibilities and were going to be part of the economy but at the same time had to raise the babies of the future, they needed paid parental leave. There has been a very long history of paid parental leave advocacy from women in this country, and I acknowledge my sisters in the Green Party and my sisters in the Labour Party because many of us have been together over many, many years—many, many years—advocating strongly for paid parental leave.

I am proud to say—very proud to say—that it was a Labour-led Government in 2002 that finally implemented 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. That was fantastic. And then we extended it to 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, and then after that we extended it to the self-employed. In fact, now we are in a situation in this country where almost everybody supports paid parental leave.

The National Party has never supported paid parental leave. It has come to this debate and to the Budget in a very grudging way. It has been forced by the women and the mothers and the fathers of this country to accept that having paid parental leave, having time off when your baby is born, having time to bond with your baby, and having time to breastfeed is something that is not only about women; it is about children but it is also about the workforce. It is about the contribution that women make in the workforce. It is about the contribution that fathers make in the workforce. It is about accepting that raising our children is as important a part of our future as anything else we do in this country.

As I said, National has been incredibly grudging about this. It has voted against every paid parental leave provision over many years. It even voted against, as I recall, extending it to the self-employed when Labour introduced that. It seems to me, as I prepare to leave this Parliament, that good ideas are not welcomed by National. If it is a Labour proposition, it says there is something wrong with it and it must be opposed. Let us look back at some of the abhorrent comments that were made by National Party members—going way back now to 2002—and from some of the Ministers of the National Government who we are supposed to believe have now had a change of heart. The Hon Anne Tolley in 2002 said: “This legislation … shows how the Labour-Alliance Government is stuck in the radical feminist era of the 1960s and 1970s … and is completely out of touch with women of the 21st century.” Can you believe it? I would like to know from the Hon Anne Tolley whether she still thinks that. Does she still think that?

Hon Anne Tolley: I still think Labour is stuck in the 1960s and 1970s and the man ban proves it—absolutely.

DARIEN FENTON: You still think that. So you do not support your Government’s pitiful move to increase it from 16 to 18 weeks. Then there was Nick Smith, that father of I am not sure how many. He said in 2002: “I say that if a member went out of their way to draft a dumb bill, this would have to be it.” He said the bill in 2002 introducing 12 weeks’ paid parental leave was a dumb idea. Now, here we are, more than 10 years later—how many years later? More than a decade later, and suddenly it is not such a dumb idea. Finally National has caught on.

Look, I could go on. The Hon Judith Collins—we have been quoting her quite a lot—in 2004 said: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes.” That is what the Hon Judith Collins said. That is what she did, and yet she has been part of a Cabinet that has just brought forward a Budget that has grudgingly increased paid parental leave, and it has grudgingly increased it because the women and parents of New Zealand have forced this Government to accept that it is the one that is behind on this issue.

Look, one of the most important jobs that we ever have in this country is being parents and raising children and future generations. Having extended paid parental leave will give parents the opportunity to give their babies the best start in life. I am sitting here with some of my colleagues who had children when we did not have paid parental leave. My only complaint about this is that I had a child without paid parental leave, so I would quite like it to be backdated.

Tracey Martin: Me too.

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, I reckon a few of us, I think, would like it to be backdated, except for Anne Tolley, of course, who would turn paid parental leave down for herself—well, actually, for her daughters and her grandchildren—because she still thinks it is from the radical feminist era of the 1960s and 1970s.

The only little thing I would say about the Government, and the only slight kudos I would give the Government, is its extension of paid parental leave to casual, temporary, and seasonal workers. That needed to happen and that would have happened under a Labour Government. We also know that this is a tiny little move—a tiny little move—because the Government was forced to do it. We continue to be criticised internationally because of our record not only on progress for women but also on paid parental leave.

As other speakers have pointed out, we are still well behind. In fact, since the time when Labour was in office, we have had this long, long gap of 6 years—and, in fact, longer than that, because the last extension to paid parental leave was in 2004, I think—when nothing has happened on paid parental leave. In fact, all the Government has done is waste members’ day after members’ day on making sure that we never got to have the vote on this bill because it was too ashamed to stand up and say it did not support mothers, it did not support babies, and it did not support the parents of New Zealand having the opportunity to raise their children to have a good start in life, and to have a decent go at doing the most important job that has to be done, which is giving our children and giving our families the best possible start in life.

Instead, National would rather waste money on a whole range of foolish ventures. We have seen it in the last year or so wasting more on consultants, on crazy asset sales, and on tax cuts for the better off. Goodness knows what it is going to do should we have the misfortune to have National re-elected as Government.

I end by repeating what I said at the beginning: I am really proud to be able to speak on this bill on behalf of Labour and on behalf of all the women and men who, for decades, have fought for paid parental leave in this country. Shame on the National Government for being so miserable about this.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): The National Government does not support the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. We will not be supporting this bill, just in case you did not get it the first time. This bill and Labour’s proposed 26 weeks of parental leave goes far too far, costs too much, and is poorly targeted.

What this Government does support is parents being able to look after their children. We spent $157 million on providing the current 14 weeks of paid parental leave in the 2011-12 financial year. Since taking office we have also increased the maximum paid parental leave payment by $67 a week. We also worked hard through a large recession to preserve income support entitlements for whānau. These include Working for Families and paid parental leave.

On 1 July last year the maximum parental leave payment available to eligible employees and self-employed people increased from $475.16 to $488.17 a week. The minimum parental leave payment for self-employed people also increased. The National Government does not support this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call—the Hon Trevor Mallard, 5 minutes.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am going to make a relatively short speech and say that I am ashamed of this House today. I have been around for a while. I have been here over many years when members have had a lot of issues. When there have been deaths in families, when there have been serious illnesses, and when there have been births of children and grandchildren, this House has always been positive. It has always showed compassion. What has occurred is that there has been some flexibility.

On a number of occasions I have been called in from the Hutt to vote in order to let one of my colleagues go, but I also know that there have been occasions in the past when parties have had their vote go down by one in order to allow for someone on the other side to attend to a family member, a family birth, or something similar. In fact, the Muldoon Government from 1981 to 1984 survived only because of the integrity of the Labour Party at that time in voting one down. Jonathan Young is looking at me. He knows that his father stood up for a compassionate and a positive Parliament. To say that while the great-grandchild of the Labour icon Jeff Hond is being born, the child’s grandparent’s vote in this House is being denied by the National Party because that child’s grandparent, Te Ururoa Flavell, wants to go to the birth of his granddaughter is very, very low.

What sort of workplace are we? What sort of compassion do we have for the people, for the members who work here, when those members say: “Choose between your job and your grandchild.” Choose between doing your duty here and your grandchild. This place has flexibility if it wants it. Our rules have the flexibility to be able to say: “Te Ururoa, go to where you should be and be with your grandchild, because your vote will count here.” What do we have from the National Party? Nothing positive, no compassion, no caring, and no wish to make this a positive place at all.

Members opposite are catcalling, but I say to them that death, birth, and serious illness are the areas where we have as a community, in the past, worked together and been positive. We can differ heavily on policy. You know, there are members opposite whom I agree with a lot of the time, but much of the time I disagree with them. But, in the end, compassion and being positive is something that this House should stand for. This is a place where we should show that we care about each other’s families and where we do the things that are important. It is not the fault of the grandchild, the great-grandchild of Jeff Hond. I just think it is appalling.

I support this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I actually support the changes that National made to paid parental leave, but they did not go far enough. I think some of the changes that it made that are not in our bill are actually good changes. I agree with them. They were on our list of things to do when I was Minister of Labour. They were part of the next round. But this bill gives something that is more immediate. It is important, and should be supported. The fact that it will go down and will not pass in this House because Louise Upston is so hard that she wants to try to stop a grandfather going to the birth of his grandchild is something that I think is shameful. National, be positive and let the vote count.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Denise Roche—5 minutes.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take this short call for the Greens on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I agree with the previous speaker, Trevor Mallard, that it is indeed a sad irony that one of the members of this House will not be granted leave for the birth of a child, which he wants to be at, and to have his vote counted. We will be supporting—

Hon Hekia Parata: He’s got leave.

DENISE ROCHE: His vote is not counted. We will be supporting this bill because our policy is for 13 months’ paid parental leave and we agree that this bill—26 weeks’ paid parental leave—is a step in the right direction.

Parental leave was first introduced in legislation—and that was unpaid parental leave in 1987—and it has been baby steps since then. That was a deliberate pun. We have taken baby steps. In 2002 we first introduced paid parental leave. It was for 12 weeks. In 2006 we extended it to 14 weeks and it has languished there ever since, until, of course, the last couple of weeks, when the National Government signalled that from next year paid parental leave will be extended to 16 weeks and to 18 weeks the year after.

If we carry on at this rate it will be 2020 before we get to 26 weeks. Frankly, I do not believe that the women of New Zealand can afford to wait that long before the National Government—or any Government, for that matter—catches up with the rest of the world. We are behind the rest of the world. The average amount of paid parental leave internationally is 30 weeks. We are ranked about 24th out of 25 OECD countries for what we offer families who experience the birth of a new child. In Norway, which is probably the best place to be, I would say, it is 56 weeks. It is more than a year.

The benefits of paid parental leave have been well canvassed, and were well canvassed through the Government Administration Committee, where, I note, there were 3,800 submissions, with most of them supporting an extension to paid parental leave. It is good for families. The research is unequivocal. Twenty-six weeks—6 months—helps to establish strong parent-child attachments and that has longer-term benefits for families because the bonds are extended and established, which means there is less likelihood of abuse and neglect and that fathers are involved in those families. That is what we need—strong, healthy families. That is what we have not been getting from this Government.

Paid parental leave is good for babies. We have seen that with the World Health Organization research, which says that children—babies—should be breastfed, if they possibly can be, for at least the first 6 months of their life because it establishes and enhances the emotional and physical benefits and attachments that a child has with its parent. It is good for them in the longer term—for their cognition, I understand—and it usually results in fewer behavioural problems for the child.

I also think that paid parental leave is good just in terms of gender equity. We seem to forget that the work of women should be counted, so their jobs should be protected when they take leave to bear their children. We do not take that into account. It has been going on like this for years. It was a National Party member of Parliament, Marilyn Waring, who established that beyond doubt in her book Counting for Nothing.

We cannot afford not to invest in our families. It is good for the economy to invest in paid parental leave because we need to keep those jobs open and to be able to compete internationally on workplace provision, so that we attract the best and brightest to our country and to our workforce. It makes sense economically because it is good for businesses. They spend less on retraining and recruiting new workers. I implore the other side of the House to see reason and support Sue Moroney’s bill.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I am extremely proud of this Government’s record on protecting the most vulnerable, and of what we have done in the time that we have been in this House, on the Treasury benches, to look after the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. I am talking about our children. We see this in a range of efforts and innovations that we have made. Not only are we increasing paid parental leave but we have inherited a situation that was, quite frankly, an absolute shame and blot on the escutcheon of this nation. I refer, of course, to the Third World levels of rheumatic fever that we had in many of our communities in this country. I am referring, of course, to Manurewa, to Porirua, to places in Flaxmere and Hastings, and to other places across the country, in which we inherited problems when we came into Government as a result of the neglect of those in power before us.

This Government is spending $60 million to protect those who are the most vulnerable amongst us, and I refer here to Pasifika and Māori children living in homes that hitherto had not been heated. We insulated about 250,000-plus of those homes along the way. We are putting out programmes at schools, drop-in centres, and the like so that these kids can be safe from the ravages of this appalling, debilitating disease.

Of course, it is all about triage. We have not got a magic wand. I went to the $2 Shop recently, and there was not one there. You cannot buy a magic wand. You cannot change things overnight. But you have got a lot of things that you have to be able to address, and we are addressing the problems of rheumatic fever. We are addressing the insulation of homes. We are addressing the vulnerable kids who are abused time and time again by their families, and that is why I am wearing a white ribbon. The work that Paula Bennett is doing on this is huge.

I cannot support this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak to the second reading of this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. The first reading of the bill was on 25 July 2012, almost 2 years ago—almost 2 years ago. People listening to this debate might wonder why there is a little bit of heat in this debate. Well, there are very good reasons why there is a little bit of heat in this debate. The reason why it has taken so long to get to the second reading of a bill that supports families, that extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks, is that the Government—that National Party—has done every single thing in its power to stop this measure from taking place. That is the truth of the matter. That is the ugly truth of the matter, actually.

What has happened tonight, what has played out tonight, has been absolutely pure politics from the National Party, and it has been like this since day one. Since the time this bill was drawn it has been politics as usual from the National Party, while the Labour Party has been attempting to put people first. We have been attempting to put people at the heart of what happens in this Parliament, and what has the National Party done? It has filibustered. It has opposed. It has played dirty tricks all the way down the line. The National Party might think that that is quite an entertaining thing to do with the Labour Party, but it is a disgraceful thing to do to the families of New Zealand. It is a disgraceful way to treat the families of New Zealand. It is a disgraceful way for the National Party to show its contempt and its undervaluing of parenting.

Make no mistake about it. That is exactly what the National Party has demonstrated tonight. It is exactly what that party has displayed, and it has displayed it now for 2 solid years. Actually, the National Party has displayed it since 2002 around paid parental leave, because National voted against it then and it has consistently voted against it since. No one is going to be fooled about its little election-year ploy to give 2 weeks’ extended paid parental leave, but not until next year, and a further 2 weeks, but not until the year after. National has simply done the least it thinks it can get away with—the least it thinks it can get away with.

I say to the families who saw this tonight, and the families who will learn it from the front pages of the newspapers tomorrow, that the reason why the National Party will have this bill being voted down tonight is that it refused to allow compassionate leave for Te Ururoa Flavell’s vote to be counted for this bill. Te Ururoa Flavell has gone to support his daughter in the birth of his first moko—the birth of his first grandchild.

Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that the Standing Orders actually forbid members from referring to the absence of a member from the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Technically that is right. The member should not use the name in that regard.

SUE MORONEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So let us be clear. Again National members tried to shut this debate down because they are ashamed, and they should be ashamed of what they have done. But there is a member of Parliament who is voting for this bill tonight but whose vote cannot be recorded because he is attending the birth of his first grandchild. What a disgrace! We are here debating paid parental leave, extending paid parental leave, supporting families, and the National Party members have decided that they will play politics—that they will put politics first, even though they know that this bill has the majority support in this Parliament to pass. Even though it knows that, the National Party has prevented that from taking place. Why? Because National does not value parenting. National members certainly do not understand the importance of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. They do not understand what Plunket has called for, what Barnardos has called for, and what Every Child Counts has called for. They have not listened to those organisations, because if they had listened to those organisations they would know that their pitiful 18 weeks is looking like the election-year gimmick that, in fact, it is.

What Plunket has said is that it believes 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is the way to go. I will tell you why. It is the reason why I actually proposed 26 weeks in this bill. This is the reason. The World Health Organization says that exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months—26 weeks—is the way for a child to get the best start in life. It says that if mums are able to do that, if mums can do that, then that child’s health is going to be better for the rest of its life—for the rest of its life. That is great for that child and their family, but it is also great for the rest of us. We get a really healthy, productive individual to live alongside in society, and we do not have to keep building more hospitals and we do not have to pay for the bad health outcomes that would otherwise take place. I do not know what the National Party does not get about this.

But can I say that this bill is about people. It is about families and supporting them in the best way possible. It is absolutely clear now—absolutely clear—to everyone in New Zealand that it is Labour and a Labour-led Government that will truly support families in an appropriate way, and that the National Party members will try to be the pretenders who look like they care, but they really cannot do it, and they exhibited it again tonight. When it comes down to it, they exhibit that they do not care, and they proudly show that to the nation. Well, I think the nation already knows it, but now it doubly knows it.

I want to pay my respects to the 3,809 submitters who put their views forward on this bill. Those 3,809 submitters, almost without exception, supported extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. They did not buy—they did not buy—the shonky argument from the Government that it was too expensive. They did not buy that because actually what New Zealanders know in their hearts is that giving children the best start in life is not too expensive. It saves money. They know that. The National Party, with its tiny 1-year accounting brain, cannot see more than a year in front of its own nose. It cannot see into the future. It cannot cost the benefits that the Government Administration Committee came up with, because National members cannot think more than a Budget year in front of their noses. That is not going to give the country the sort of future it needs. That sort of accounting approach, where they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, is not going to get this country to the place where it needs to be. This Government thinks that children are a cost. It can see paid parental leave and extending paid parental leave as only a cost. It cannot see it as an investment. On this side of the House we are very clear that we do see it as an investment.

I want to thank the parties that have supported this bill, because they have recognised right from the outset that this is an investment in New Zealand’s future. They have not regarded it as a cost. They have regarded it as an investment. I will start with my own party, the Labour Party. Who else would come up with a bill like this? The support that I got from my colleagues when I took—

Louise Upston: We passed one last week.

SUE MORONEY: Oh yeah! Louise Upston—the Government has, yeah. The Government was pushed into it. The Government was pushed into it, begrudgingly, and it has proved it again tonight, so let us not be having that nonsense at this stage in the debate, Mrs Upston.

The Labour Party came fully in behind the bill. The Greens obviously are right in there behind it, and I want to thank Jan Logie in particular for her role on the select committee. New Zealand First was there right from the start. The Māori Party was there right from the start, even though the National Party will attempt to rob it of a vote tonight, to make sure that parents and children cannot be supported in this way. Mana has been on board from the start, and also United Future. I think I have got everyone. That equals a majority in this Parliament. That majority needs to be honoured.

Carol Beaumont: Brendan Horan.

SUE MORONEY: And Brendan Horan, who started out voting with New Zealand First and now is casting his vote as an Independent member.

So we have got the majority support. We have got the majority support, and I think the National Party needs to honour that. I think the National Party should honour that there is majority support. National members should not be the grinches who try to steal lollies from babies, take lollipops out of their mouths, because that is exactly how they are behaving tonight. It is the way they have behaved from the very first moment. They have threatened financial vetoes, they have stripped Te Ururoa Flavell of his vote, they have filibustered, and they have misled me in terms of extending my bill and saying that they were going to do extensions through my bill. They have played every trick in the book. This bill is about supporting families, and Labour is proud to do that.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not the vote for the Māori Party. The vote that was just cast by the Government’s junior whip is not the vote that the Māori Party wishes to be cast in this House. I think that if the Government whips check that, they will find that the Māori Party is in favour—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am bound to accept the integrity of the whip, and the whip knows the consequences of misappropriating a vote. The whip knows that, and he knows it now because I have said it anyway. So we accept the vote as cast.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to table an email from the Māori Party telling me that it supported this bill with its three votes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us just conclude the voting and then we will take any leave to table anything after that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 58

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

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

The result having been corrected to Ayes 61, Noes 60 on 29 May, the bill was read a second time.

Bills

Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill

First Reading

HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): I move, That the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Nelson Mandela once said that there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way it treats its children. If I could add a comment, it would be that blaming those who are too vulnerable to care for themselves and their children speaks more about our selfishness than it does about the hopelessness of poverty.

Back in April last year I was part of a big Mana party Feed the Kids gig, where we fed more than 1,500 kids up in Ōtara. They had heaps of fun, and when they left they all took away a lunch, happily chanting, “Feed the Kids.” I thought to myself, these kids get it. Their whānau get it, their teachers get it, and I sincerely hope that enough of us get it, too, because Treasury itself has told us that there are now 285,000 kids living in poverty in Aotearoa, 100,000 of whom go to school hungry every day.

It is nice to know that KidsCan feeds some 10,000 of them on most days, and that the KickStart Breakfast programme feeds about 12,000 a day, but the reality is that even with the Government’s announcement in last year’s Budget, nearly 80,000 children are still going to school hungry in Aotearoa every single day. Yes, schools around the country have started their own breakfast clubs with support from teachers, students, parents, local businesses, and the wider community, but they tell us that it takes a lot of hard work and a lot of goodwill to keep them going, and that having secure funding would be a godsend.

The really embarrassing thing is that nearly every country in the OECD, apart from us, already runs programmes to feed kids at school. Some countries like Finland and Sweden provide fully State-funded meals to every school student as part of a wider framework of child well-being. It is a commitment that sees them regularly top the international surveys in child health and educational achievement. Some countries provide free meals to kids with parents on low incomes, and others provide free meals to schools in areas of high deprivation. But although the approaches differ, they all share the same view, backed up by the same kind of research and information from teachers, doctors, nurses, and policy analysts that is available to us here: kids need a good feed every day if they are to develop into healthy and well-educated adults. New Zealand really needs to join the rest of the enlightened world and make a commitment to feeding our kids, starting with those in greatest need, to help them to grow well and learn well.

Groups like the Child Poverty Action Group have long advocated for Government-funded food in schools programmes as a simple and cheap step to reducing poverty. The report of the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, released a year and a half ago now, did not recommend throwing in a few dollars only if the corporates gave some, as this Government has proposed. No, it recommended that the Government should develop and implement a Government-funded food in schools programme, and that the Government has a responsibility to provide leadership and resources to assist schools through a national strategy for food in early childhood centres and in schools in low-decile neighbourhoods.

I have been humbled by the positive responses to Mana’s Feed the Kids bill from a whole host of child, family, health, education, and faith organisations all around the country that helped raise awareness about just how many of our kids are going to school hungry in Aotearoa and what we should be doing about it. They have worked hard to remind us all that the crisis of child hunger and its devastating effects on brain development, health, and learning mean that we need to urgently focus on feeding the kids, rather than on blaming the parents; that poverty has doubled in the last 25 years and children are its greatest victims; and that poverty will not go away without big changes in employment, wages, housing, and support for families in need.

Things have changed a lot from when everyone was scoffing at Mana for even talking about feeding the kids—during the 2011 general election—right up to when a TV poll last year showed that 70 percent of Kiwis now support a Government-funded food in schools programme, and food in schools was the only policy issue to make the top 10 news stories of 2013. Much of that awareness has come about as a result of the excellent work and commitment of the Community Coalition for Food in Schools, which now has 30 members, and, in particular, through the efforts of Deborah Morris-Travers, former chief executive officer of Every Child Counts and now advocacy manager for Unicef New Zealand.

The Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty said that child poverty does not just impact on children and their families, it costs all of us a lot. In fact, it is estimated that child poverty costs New Zealanders $6 billion to $8 billion a year in health, justice system costs, and in lost productivity and a lower tax take. Yet, we continue to be one of the worst performers in the OECD on child well-being. Our rates of preventable diseases like rheumatic fever are high, we have lower educational achievement than in other developed countries, yet we will happily spend nearly $1.5 billion a year on prisons to feed one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

Unemployment is the highest it has been for nearly 15 years. Nearly half of all young Māori and Pacific Islanders are without work and are not in education or training, and the other half are getting ready to go to Ozzie. Feeding the kids will not solve all these problems, but it is real. It is affordable, it is something we can do right now, and we know that it will help our kids to grow up to be better, healthier contributors to society.

We have costed the bill to allow for a coordinator in each school to oversee the provision of breakfast and lunch in all decile 1 and decile 2 schools in Aotearoa, feeding more than 100,000 kids in our poorest communities and using existing programmes like KidsCan and KickStart Breakfast or working through other local initiatives. With very few exceptions, schools have supported the Feed the Kids kaupapa, because they know they will get more bang for their educational buck. Kids will turn up to school on time, they will be settled and not disruptive, and they will be ready to learn. While I am at it, I would also like to thank all the secondary and tertiary students who back this bill, because when young people say that hunger is their No. 1 priority and that food in schools is the best solution to it, then that says it all.

I know the bill is not perfect. I hear the kōrero about feeding the kids being a parent’s responsibility, but the truth is that a lot of people have been so poor for so long that they struggle to make the right choices and often end up making the wrong ones, and all the while our kids go hungry. I have heard a lot about increasing employment opportunities, upgrading housing, improving access to health care, and developing better educational pathways. All of that is necessary and good, but it takes a long time to happen, and all the while our kids go hungry.

Every other proposal that I have heard about from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Children’s Commissioner, the health promotion agencies, and advisory groups all the way up to the World Health Organization’s report on child health makes a lot of sense to me, but all I want to do with this bill is make sure that as we work through all of these other critical and important initiatives, our kids are getting fed.

I welcome the calls to extend the bill to include the kōhanga, early childhood education sector, and decile 3 and decile 4 schools and to allow those involved in school and community gardens to make a contribution to this discussion too, because this is an exercise that will require the efforts of the whole community. I urge the House to vote this bill through at its first reading, so that the Māori Affairs Committee can call for submissions from those who know best and those who care most, in order that we can develop a robust food in schools programme that enhances the well-being of our children and enhances the future prospects of our society. Tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I stand to address this bill, the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to amend the Education Act 1989 to provide fully State-funded breakfast and lunch programmes to all decile 1 and decile 2 schools and other designated schools in New Zealand. The meals would be available free of charge and be required to meet Ministry of Health nutritional guidelines.

Even though the member opposite, Hone Harawira, who presents this bill has got good intentions, this Government is hard at work supporting vulnerable children and working with families to ensure that children get a great start in life through early childhood education and right through their schooling years. We do not support this bill because of the work that is currently under way, work that in most regards does not need legislation because there are people in our communities who have a strong commitment to the welfare of our society.

We have expanded the KickStart Breakfast programme and last year committed $9.5 million over 5 years, which the member has acknowledged, as one part of our programme to better support children in our schools. Well over 1.5 million breakfasts have now been served. We are making a number of changes across the Government to focus on reducing hardship and its effects on New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders. We are ensuring that every child gets a great education. It is one of the most important things that we can do as a Government, and what we do in this regard raises the standard of living and creates a more productive economy, where every child has the opportunity as they go through our educational system to participate in it, achieve in it, and succeed in life. Our great philosophy and slogan is, of course, our belief that we want five out of five children to succeed.

We do understand that children going to school need to have nutrition in order to be able to concentrate, to learn, and for their well-being to increase and to grow. The KickStart Breakfast programme that was started back in 2009 is a partnership in New Zealand and is supported very strongly by some of our strong companies. Fonterra partners with Sanitarium, and schools right throughout this country that seek to participate can give their kids a breakfast of Weet-Bix and milk and they can enjoy the start of the day in that regard.

This bill forces boards of trustees of decile 1 and decile 2 schools to deliver a breakfast and lunch programme to students. The Secretary for Education would have the discretion as to whether to designate a school that is decile 3 to decile 10 to be part of the programme if the board requests, subject to a precondition. To meet the precondition to be a designated school, a school would need to be in the decile 3 to decile 10 bracket, it would need to have an enrolment scheme and therefore a zone, be taking a significant number of out-of-zone students, which should not be happening in any zoned school if the zone is set correctly, and these out-of-zone children would need to come from the catchments of decile 1 or decile 2 schools. The bill requires the Ministry of Education, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, to conduct annual monitoring of the programmes. It also requires a review to be reported to the Minister of Education and Parliament within 3 years.

It is not good enough for members of the Opposition to rail against the National Government, as speakers did on the previous bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, saying that there is a lack of compassion, a lack of commitment, and a lack of feeling for the people in our communities. That is not so. I believe that right through this country people resoundingly support the Budget. It is family orientated, and seeks to undergird and support the families and the children of our country.

Reducing hardship is one of National’s commitments in delivering Better Public Services to New Zealanders. We are making a number of changes across the Government, focusing on reducing hardship and its effects on New Zealanders. We would remember the statements of the Minister of Finance about protecting people from the harsh edges of the recession. During all those very difficult years, this Government supported New Zealanders. At the expense of every New Zealander, this Government took on debt to ensure that vulnerable people in this country were cared for, protected, and supported.

We are investing significantly in supporting New Zealanders off welfare and into work, because that is the single most important step households can take to help themselves. A particular focus is on addressing the hardship that vulnerable children face, so that they can be set on the pathway to a better future. One of the, I believe, more significant pieces of legislation that this Government has brought through the House is the Vulnerable Children Bill, and the Children’s Action Plan arising from that piece of legislation. It is plain to see, in fact, that this Government is very committed to the well-being of our communities.

The KickStart Breakfast programme is a fantastic programme, and it also incorporates not only the support of the Government but it has a strong degree of corporate social responsibility. Something that we do applaud and we encourage is companies that do succeed in our country being able to contribute to its well-being.

Not all poor children attend decile 1 and decile 2 schools. With KickStart Breakfast expanding to schools of every decile, it will actually target more kids in need than this bill will. Ultimately, parents are responsible for feeding their children, but we cannot ignore the fact that some kids turn up to school hungry and they cannot learn on an empty stomach. That is why this is not just about the Government, but includes the community, non-governmental organisations, and business partners that get out there with breakfast clubs, at times every day of the week, in our schools to support those kids.

We all have a shared responsibility for children. It is not good enough just to put some legislation through. What we want to see is our communities all stepping up, and we are seeing that. We have some great examples of organisations stepping in to do their bit to support families. We applaud companies like Sanitarium, like Fonterra, that step up and give back to Kiwi kids in our communities. Since 2009 Fonterra and Sanitarium have been providing, as I said, Weet-Bix—that great breakfast sustenance that probably most of us grew up on—and milk. In fact, I went to the launch of this programme in Taranaki not long ago.

Last year KickStart Breakfast was expanded to be available 5 days a week in decile 1 to 4 primary schools. Over 730 schools and over 25,000 children now participate. Eighty-five percent of decile 1 schools participate in this programme. Since the beginning of 2014 schools of any decile have been able to apply to be part of the KickStart Breakfast programme. More than 1.5 million breakfasts have been served by people in our communities—not just teachers, but parents, people from NGOs, people who care, and people who get out there and make a difference.

What we also do is we provide fruit in schools. We have a Fruit in Schools scheme available to all decile 1 and 2 primary and intermediate schools, resulting in about 97,000 students receiving a piece of fruit each day, and we fund it with $174 million a year. That is commitment. That is proof, I believe, that the intent of what this bill is about is being enacted already in our schools and in our communities. We do not need legislation to launch a Government-funded programme to support the delivery of food for schools when it is already happening through community effort, through corporate sponsorship, and through the work of this Government. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Shearer—5 minutes.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Labour supports the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. It supports it simply because we do not believe that kids should go to school hungry. We do not believe that kids can learn when they are hungry. We do not believe that kids can concentrate when they are hungry. And we do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of either the child or, obviously, of our society, as well. That is why Labour will be supporting this bill.

We have a number of amendments that we would like to make to this bill. We are not saying that it is absolutely perfect, but what we do believe is that this bill should have the opportunity to go to a select committee so that we can hear from people right across our community about what they want to see in this bill. Jonathan Young talked about—and it had obviously had an impact on him—the level to which we said that the National Government was uncompassionate. We are not talking necessarily about individuals, but as Governments you have choices. You have choices about what you support and what you do not support, and when you do not support something as plain and as simple as this, and you do not support it at least to a select committee where we could have a better opportunity to discuss the issue in front of us—one of the most important issues in front of us today—then collectively it shows a lack of compassion.

This bill comes on top of the bill we were looking at previously to this one—the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—where the National Government used a policy of trickery in order to be able to change the vote so that the paid parental leave bill would not be able to go through. It is hard to escape the fact that this is a Government that responds to opinion polls rather than to what is right—rather than to what is right. Let me quote this to you; it is on paid parental leave: “[Paid parental leave] is completely out of touch with the women of the 21st century and their diverse involvement in today’s labour force.” That was Anne Tolley. That was Anne Tolley talking about paid parental leave. Let me give you another quote: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to win some votes.”—to win some votes. That was Judith Collins. So you can see where I am coming from. When the Government is pushed with its back to the wall by the community, which says: “Do something about this issue.”, it does something, but it is certainly not with the compliance and the agreement of senior members of this Government.

We support this bill because we believe that kids deserve the right not to go to school hungry, and we know that they do. My colleague Hone Harawira—who is right behind me, as well—has talked about the numbers involved and the numbers of children who are hungry. Mr Young talked about Fruit in Schools, a Labour Party policy that this Government took away when it came into office. It took the programme away for a few months because it did not want it there, and then reinstated it because of the shouts of horror from the schools, which were saying: “Do you realise that this is actually doing some good?”. Milk in schools and healthy food in schools are Labour Party policies. That is why we support this bill.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): I rise to take a call on the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. This member’s bill is in the name of the Mana party MP, Hone Harawira. But before I do take a call on the bill, I just want to state that the member for Mt Albert made an appalling accusation in relation to the bill we were debating previously on paid parental leave, and he is wrong.

I am taking a stand to speak on this bill and I want to talk just a little bit about my relationship with the member of the Mana party, Hone Harawira, because I think it goes to the heart of this bill. Not very many people know this, but Hone Harawira’s whānau and my whānau grew up together in Auckland. Hone’s whānau grew up in Avondale and mine grew up in Mount Roskill. Hone’s whānau came from Tai Tokerau and my whānau came from Tai Tokerau, or my mother did, and my father came from Ngati Porou. We were part of the shift of Māori whānau that moved to the urban areas after the First World War and the Second World War.

My father and Hone’s mother and father were probably the first members of Ngā Tamatoa. There is a lot of talk about Ngā Tamatoa in the sense that a lot of people talk about the members of that organisation from around about the 1970s and 1980s. But, in actual fact, the genesis of that organisation started a lot earlier—probably after the Second World War. My father and Hone’s parents were also supporters of Lieutenant Colonel Awatere. The talk at that time, after the Second World War and through the 1950s and 1960s, was about rangatiratanga and it was about mana motuhake. And it was about us coming into town, into the urban areas, so that we could work, so that we could have housing, and so that we could have a better education. When I say so that “we” could have a better education, it was the tamariki like me, my sisters, my brother, and Hone and his brother and his sisters.

Hone was really privileged, just like my brother and sister. In their generation they were sent off to boarding schools. Hone and his brother went off to St Stephen’s College, and so did my brother, and my sister ended up at Queen Victoria School. That was about rangatiratanga. That was about motuhake. That was about Māori whānau sending their children, their tamariki, to school, so that they could be the next generation of leaders.

I do not believe that that background, that life, that education, and that teaching from our parents back then in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s was so that we could then turn round and tell the State to feed our children. I do not think that when we marched in the “Not one acre more” protest against land confiscation with Whina Cooper—and Hone and his whānau were the absolute leaders of that, as well—it was about us then turning round and telling the State to feed our children. I do not think that sitting up on Takaparawhā with the whānau Ngāti Whatua was for us to relinquish our rangatiratanga and motuhake so that the State could pay for kai for our tamariki. And I do not think that those who protested against the raids on Tūhoe thought it was about relinquishing our rangatiratanga and motuhake so that the State could then turn round and feed our babies.

Therefore, I stand and, with great regret, say to my brother that this is a relinquishing of our rangatiratanga and motuhake that I would never ever challenge this member on. I grew up with him, I believed in what he said, and this is not what I thought it would result in.

Can I also add that the Internet Mana party was not something that I thought I would ever see this member—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired. [Interruption] Order!

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): What a bizarre argument—to say that we should not be addressing the very real needs that we see every day in schools in this country. Hungry kids are coming to school and they are unable to learn, and some bizarre argument is being laid out by Claudette Hauiti, who is saying that the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill is somehow the rejection of rangatiratanga, which is just ridiculous. Tell that to the children who are hungry and who need to be fed. My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker, for my passion, but it is just not acceptable to have this kind of argument being played out in this House.

What we know is that children are going to school hungry and need to be fed. We are a Parliament that has a responsibility for the well-being of the people in this country, including our children. We have a responsibility to put children at the heart of all the decisions we make in this Parliament, and we fail to do that over and over. This legislation gives us one more opportunity. An opportunity has already been lost tonight with the Paid Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill debacle we saw earlier this evening. This is the second opportunity tonight for this Parliament to say that our children come first, that our children’s needs come first, and that we will do what it takes to make that happen.

The Green Party is proud to support this bill. We also have proposed a school lunch fund to help provide assistance to those families, those children, and the schools, teachers, principals, and communities that are affected to make sure that our kids do not go hungry. We know that a child who is well and who is well-fed is ready to learn. If we want to combat the effects of poverty on our communities, we must make sure that our kids get the best possible education. Therefore, we have an obligation to remove the barriers that prevent them from doing so, and hunger is a barrier to kids’ learning.

This legislation sets out one method for achieving that aim of protecting our children, as we are obliged to do as members of Parliament. We listen to the prayer every day in this House when we are sitting in this Chamber that asks us to put the well-being of the people of this country ahead of all else. Do we take that seriously or not?

The Green Party proposal for a school lunch fund is slightly different from this one, and it was set out in our paper on schools as community hubs. Catherine Delahunty and I, and other Green MPs, have been very proud to travel the country talking with schools about those proposals, which include the school lunch fund. Our design of the fund would be so it is available to children in schools from decile 1 to 4—so a slight extension from this legislation—so the schools are able to use that money to provide lunch for their own kids as they best see fit. Some communities have got great relationships with businesses that will donate food. Other schools will have—

Catherine Delahunty: Rangatiratanga.

METIRIA TUREI: That is right, Catherine Delahunty—this is about schools exercising their rangatiratanga, their choice, and their control. Other schools have community gardens where they need someone to help with the production of that food so that the kids themselves, along with parents and volunteers, can actually turn that food into lunches. They are working together, cooking together, and sharing food together. Our plan would be to provide that fund to schools to use as they best see fit to provide lunch to their kids in the way that best meets the needs of those children, because those communities know what their problems are and they know how to devise the solutions to those problems. That is very similar to the proposals that have been put in this bill.

We would very much like to see the bill go to a select committee so we have a discussion on how we should meet the responsibilities as a collective, as a country, for the needs of our kids. The best situation would be, of course, that we did not need this bill. That would be preferable, so that is why we need a living wage. That is why we need decent benefits—so families can survive. That is why we need sustainable jobs and an environment that is clean and healthy—so we can go and collect our own kai, knowing that it is safe for our kids and us to eat. In the meantime, until we get to that point—because we are not there yet—we must make sure that no child suffers because of the neglect we have seen of their families over decades. That neglect is our responsibility to fix, and this legislation gives us one more opportunity to do so. Let us not waste that. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill from its first reading through to select committee consideration. We do so because I think that if nothing else has been obvious here tonight, what is obvious is that there needs to be a conversation about this issue. There are strong feelings on both sides.

I want to pick up on a point because of the demographic that my party spends a lot of time with. It often comes up, this issue of parental responsibility and who should feed children. It is really interesting having that conversation with that age demographic. I say to them: “When you went to school, you got milk every day, right?”, which they acknowledge is true. And when they went to school, they got fruit every day. Yet, there was not a single headline that said their parents were neglectful parents. There was not a single headline in the 1950s through to the 1970s that said having the State feed children meant that their parents did not give a damn. It was not a conversation about that. It was a conversation about: “These are the children of our country—give them something to eat.”

Claudette Hauiti: Milk isn’t about that—it’s about health.

TRACEY MARTIN: I do not believe that there is a single member in this House who, if a child came and knocked on their door and was hungry, would not feed that child. I do not believe that Ms Hauiti would not feed that child. I do not believe that Ms Hauiti would say: “Go home to your parents, even though there is no food in your cupboard, and you tell your parents that is their responsibility.” Of course she would not. That is not what she is saying. This is the conversation we need to have.

From a New Zealand First perspective, we are not 100 percent sold on this bill. In some ways it is too broad and in some ways it is too narrow. If I can just explain that, as we have heard, this bill would actually provide breakfast and lunch for every child in decile 1 and decile 2 schools. In one way that is too broad. There are many children who are fine. I am talking particularly about the Kāwhia coast, up there in the hills there in Hauturu, where there are some decile 2 schools. Those kids’ lunch boxes are fine. They are fine. They are full of homebaking. They have got sandwiches and rēwena bread, and so on and so forth. They do not need this programme. But then I could also take the author of this bill to a decile 8 school in Warkworth with the largest Kiribati community in the whole of New Zealand, with children showing up who do not have food. And it is not because their parents are lazy. It is not because their parents do not care or do not love their children. As a country, we should not tell people to go to their church and prove they are good enough to get some charity. That is not where we want to be. That was 18th century England; this is 21st century New Zealand.

We need to have this conversation. If we have children showing up at schools without food, let us have a conversation about, one, feeding the children appropriately and, two, fixing the cause. If we ignore this issue, if we do not have a conversation about putting the children first in this issue—not again talking about the adults when it is the children who are paying the price, as we just had in the last bill under debate, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Deal with the adults after we feed the children.

I am not going to take much more time. New Zealand First will support this bill because we believe that there needs to be a conversation. It is a shame that the Government does not believe it can actually have a conversation about this, just like the bill just before this where Government members tried not to stand and speak. Give the people of New Zealand an opportunity to come in and tell you what they think. This is supposed to be a House of Representatives. This is supposed to be one of the finest democracies in the Western World. People come to see our select committee process because it is the best part of our democracy. Do not stop the voice of New Zealanders coming in. Let them have their say, then do as you will. Let them decide at the polls, but let them have their say.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take a brief call in support of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. I want to start, though, with the acknowledgment that I do not necessarily think it is the role of schools to be feeding kids, but if kids are arriving at school hungry, then they are not going to be learning. So this is not an ideal measure. It is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. I would rather that we built a fence at the top of the cliff, but in the absence of that being there, we have to do something. Not doing anything simply is not an option as far as I am concerned.

I visit schools up and down the country all the time and I know just how hard schools work to make sure they create an inclusive learning environment and how difficult that can be when kids are arriving at the school gate not ready to learn. It can place enormous strain on the school. It can place enormous strain on the classroom teacher and strain on the other kids. Hungry kids are not kids who are ready to get on with their learning. That is actually an easy problem to fix. Why should we not do it?

We have a bizarre sort of attitude to food in schools in New Zealand. We say that it is not the role of the school at all; it is the role of the parents. Actually, many other countries that we compare ourselves with all the time have quite institutionalised food in schools programmes. If you go to a school in the United States or the UK, school lunches are commonplace. Those schools actually provide their kids with school lunches. There may be some payment involved in that, but it is very standard for the kids to show up at school and be fed at school.

Here in New Zealand, increasingly we are seeing early childhood services providing food for the kids who are attending those centres. That is perfectly accepted. It is a perfectly accepted part of sending your kid to an early childhood centre that they will be fed while they are there. In doing that, the early childhood services are making sure that kids are getting healthy food and they are making sure that they can manage allergies. They can prepare food that is not going to cause issues for any of the other kids. It is actually a perfectly acceptable and healthy thing. So I am not sure why there is this sort of ideological opposition to the idea that schools could be providing meals for the kids who need them.

I think really we should be looking at this from the perspective that if kids are hungry, let us get on with it and feed them so that the schools can actually be focused on doing what we really want them to do, which is making sure that kids get the best possible education. It is really simple: hungry kids do not learn. I know—and I think we can all speak from experience—that when you are hungry, you get a bit scratchy, you get a bit grumpy, and you have more difficulty focusing on whatever it is that you are doing. Adults have that problem; kids have that problem. Let us make sure—

Metiria Turei: Yes, that’s right.

Catherine Delahunty: Look at Anne Tolley.

CHRIS HIPKINS: They definitely have that problem around here. Maybe we should have more food—I do not know. But let us just get on with it, and let us deal with the problem.

One of the things that I have been really interested to see in schools around the country is the response to the Fonterra Milk for Schools programme, because, actually, some of the concerns that are being raised about this bill were raised about the milk in schools programme when it was first introduced. Actually, I have not visited a single school anywhere around the country that has said that milk in schools has not worked for it and has not been good for it. Schools love the programme. Why should it be that we are reliant on charity for programmes like that to happen? Actually, the Government should be making sure that things like that are going on. I think it is fantastic that Fonterra is putting a bit of money into the milk in schools programme and putting that support in. Fisher and Paykel are also supporting it by supplying the fridges.

It is an excellent programme. The milk arrives and the kids actually have a role—they go and pick up the milk and take it to their classrooms. They make sure that more milk is put into the fridge so that the following day there is plenty of cold milk there. The cartons are then collected at the end of the process and taken away and recycled. It is a really good, comprehensive programme. Fruit in Schools is very, very well supported by the schools in my electorate. They all rave about it. The principals and the teachers all love it. It is a very good programme.

But those things—a little carton of milk and a piece of fruit—are not enough to get a child through the day. They actually need to have more sustenance than that. If they are arriving at school hungry, we can do something about that. We have got to tackle the causes of kids arriving at school hungry, but that is going to take time. In the meantime, let us make sure they have got food in their tummies when they are at school, so that they can actually focus on learning and so that their teachers can be focused on teaching them, rather than dealing with the consequences of them being hungry, which far too many schools are having to cope with at the moment.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora. I stand to take a call on this bill, the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill. You know, you do not need legislation to launch a Government-funded programme to support the delivery of food or meals at schools unless you want the board of trustees to do work other than govern their school—the role they have been put into.

I take offence at the fact that people have said that we do not put children at the heart of our policies. Of course we do. Look at the vulnerable children policy that we have provided and the Children’s Action Plan. Where was Labour when it came to looking after the kids when it ruled for 9 years? It was nowhere. It was absolutely nowhere to be found when it came to looking after our kids. It has been this National Government that has stepped up and put children at the heart of our policies.

I just want to talk a little bit about our KickStart Breakfast programme. Already, 85 percent of decile 1 schools participate in the Government’s KickStart Breakfast programme. We are a Government that is about a hand up, not a handout. We respect what parents’ roles are in raising their children. We respect that, and that is why we want to be able to give some support to them, but not take away their mana as a parent raising their children. The KickStart Breakfast programme is in almost 600 schools, and over 25,000 children are benefiting from the programme. And not all the children are from poor families in decile 1 and decile 2 schools; they are from across all schools. This is what this Government is doing. We have responded to the needs of all children.

Actually, in 2014 National extended the KickStart Breakfast programme to schools of all deciles, as I said, that wished to participate. It is their choice. It is about choices, and that is what this Government is about. In 2013—

Tracey Martin: What about the hungry children in the decile 5 schools?

JOANNE HAYES: —if Ms Martin would just listen—this Government invested $9.5 million across 5 years towards the breakfast in schools programme. And let me say again, Labour never did a thing in its 9 years—nothing, nada. Businesses in New Zealand have stepped up. They have stepped up to do their bit for children. Fonterra and Sanitarium have provided Weet-Bix and milk in our decile 1 to decile 4 schools.

This Government continues to support young kids. KidsCan continues to provide food for 4,500 children a day. KidsCan is in 223 schools. That is absolutely amazing. The Fruit in Schools scheme also has received $174 million per annum, which results in 97,000 students receiving fruit on a daily basis—a daily basis. Opposition members cannot turn their noses up at that. We are doing it. We are doing it for the children of this country.

Let us talk about the Tip Top Nourish Our Kids programme, which is working with KidsCan. What is it doing? It is making an annual donation of 100,000 loaves of bread, delivered weekly to primary and intermediate schools, decile 1 to decile 4 schools, across this country. That is about 7,200 children a day being fed by the Tip Top Nourish Our Kids programme.

The potential cost of providing school breakfasts and lunches to all pupils in decile 1 and 2 schools is unlikely to be less than $100 million per year. That is a lot of money. The number of full-time equivalent students at the 500 decile 1 and decile 2 schools is approximately 108,300, based on the March 2013 roll, which is provisional. This includes both primary and secondary school students. When you start to add $5 per day per person per meal, we are looking at approximately $100 million a year—$100 million.

This Government is continuing to invest in the children of our country. We are looking after their education needs—remember, no other Government has; we have—and we are working with various businesses and organisations to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are receiving the best start to their school day through food in schools programmes and schemes. National does not support this bill.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): What an absolutely bizarre contribution that was from Joanne Hayes. It is absolutely bizarre to stand up and claim that a Labour Government over 9 years, a Labour Government that was focused absolutely on the core business of lifting the well-being of people and children, did nothing to support children. I have got a couple of really simple policies, which obviously the member missed, that would be quite educational for her to remember.

Working for Families lifted over 100,000 children out of poverty. We are proud of that policy, and clearly the National Government is too, because it has done nothing to remove it. The member raised the issue of vulnerable children and care and protection issues. We were the Government that made sure that Child, Youth and Family was properly resourced to do its job. We reviewed Child, Youth and Family Services in 2006 and we boosted its support and the number of social workers. Paid parental leave—something that the Government just voted down—is something that Labour has a proud track record on.

When it comes specifically to the issue around things like food in schools, we have a bill that says that we want food to be in all decile 1 to decile 3 schools. It is slightly different from this member’s bill, the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill, but that, obviously, is why we support the bill before us today. Annette King, when she was the Minister of Health, put in Fruit in Schools as recognition of the need to encourage healthy eating in our schools. We promoted healthy food in our school canteens and tuck shops—something that the Government voted down.

The member Joanne Hayes said, if I remember her words correctly: “We support a hand up not a handout, and mana for families.” There is no mana in poverty. There is no dignity in poverty. The children who are afflicted by it, and who lose the opportunities as a consequence of it, are the ones who lose their mana, because where are they then left? To prove a point, the National Government would rather leave those children behind. We, when we are in Government, will make sure that children are at the heart of everything and that we do not place moral judgments on parents that end up costing their children. Who is better off when we do that?

We have got to remember the context in which we are debating this bill. There are 285,000 children living in poverty. One in three Māori and Pacific Island children are living in poverty. That is an absolutely alarming statistic. We cannot sit back and allow moral judgments over personal responsibility to get in the way of assisting those children, and that is ultimately what this bill is all about. But even beyond the poverty statistics, which are focused primarily on income, even if you look at other markers—if you look at material deprivation, that is an assessment of whether or not a family has enough money to buy three healthy meals a day and whether or not children are living in overcrowded housing. We have seen that get as high as 21 percent in recent times. We know that has consequences.

The member sponsoring this bill, Hone Harawira, talked about the cost of poverty. Even if the Government does not want to follow the moral obligation that we on this side of the House feel towards children in New Zealand, even if it does not want to buy into that, it should at least buy into the fiscal responsibility. Poverty costs us money, and a lot of money—up to $6 billion. If we get this right, if we do something positive for children, we can actually save ourselves money as a country. Not only that, we start to see that we can enhance the opportunity for kids.

I am not saying this is just pie-in-the-sky stuff. The Programme for International Student Assessment results have strongly suggested to us that, yes, we have a good educational system in New Zealand but that, actually, social deprivation is starting to impact on our educational outcomes. Its strong recommendation to us—and from the OECD—was that if we wanted to start improving our outcomes, we have got to look at the child’s wider context. It is not just about what happens to them when they walk in the school gate; it is about what happens in their lives at home, it is about what kind of support they have, it is about whether or not there is enough money to put food on the table, and it is about whether or not they are hungry at school.

That is the pure and simple issue we are debating. If you strip that right back, do we want our kids to go hungry? The obvious answer is no. That is why Labour is supporting this bill.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Nobody denies that there is considerable hardship in many communities in our country. Nobody denies that a child who is consistently hungry at school is ill prepared to learn and needs our compassionate help. But the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill is not the answer to that problem. In fact, for those who have just tuned in, it is worth pointing out that the implication of this bill would be to force every decile 1 and 2 school in New Zealand to deliver a breakfast and lunch programme for every child. Not only that, it is worth pointing out that because of the way our decile system works, not every child in New Zealand who attends a decile 1 or 2 school comes from a poor family. The reverse of that, of course, is that there are many children from poor homes who are not attending decile 1 or 2 schools. So this is a very inefficient and inexact way of trying to deal with the problem.

It has been estimated that the cost of this measure would probably be in excess of $100 million per annum. That is significant when you consider what else is being done by this Government and by many generous companies, organisations, and individuals throughout the land in order to try to tackle the very real problems. As a constituency MP, I am always heartened and humbled by those in my electorate in Hamilton West who are in schools and community organisations in my electorate early each morning delivering food in schools programmes and breakfasts in schools. I salute them. I thank them. I know that all the children and their families, parents, and caregivers also appreciate that. But it is something they have done to meet the needs of children in their community—children whom they know well. It is not blanket compulsion, across the decile system, that does not take into account any other circumstances.

Other speakers on this side of the House have quite rightly pointed out a number of initiatives we have seen introduced in recent times. It was about a year ago that the Prime Minister announced that the Government would support KickStart Breakfast with $9.5 million in funding over 5 years, and that that would be matched by Sanitarium and Fonterra. That was an outstanding gesture by those companies, and I was proud of that initiative by the Government. More than 1.5 million breakfasts have been served since the expansion of that programme last year. We do not need legislation to launch a Government-funded programme to support the delivery of food or meals at schools unless we are determined to force boards to do something they may be totally unwilling and ill-equipped to do. That is one of those things.

Tip Top Bakery has also very generously supported this need in our community with its Nourish Our Kids programme. It works with KidsCan. It consists of an annual donation of 100,000 loaves of bread, which are delivered weekly to primary and intermediate schoolchildren in decile 1 to 4 schools across the country. This is practical and it enables those who are in receipt of those significant donations within the school communities to ensure that they can identify the children who are in need. It is done in a discreet, compassionate, and sensitive way. These are just some of the many initiatives that are responding to the need we have in our community.

The member’s bill takes a blanket approach and does not take into account what is already being done. It instead imposes huge cost, in many instances where it is not justified, in order to try to meet the needs of those who do require help. I have sympathy for his concern because, like all members of this House, I have great sympathy for hungry children—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for the House to rise.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.