Wednesday, 25 June 2014

WEDNESDAY, 25 JUNE 2014

WEDNESDAY, 25 JUNE 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Poland—Senate

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation from the Senate of Poland, led by His Excellency Mr Bogdan Boruswicz, Marshal of the Senate, and would wish that he be accorded a seat to the left of the Chair.

His Excellency Mr Bogdan Boruswicz, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Meetings

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Following discussions in the Business Committee, I seek leave for the Health Committee to meet outside of New Zealand with its counterparts in Australia from 14 July to 18 July 2014 as part of the annual joint committee exchange with Australia.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Inequality—Assets and Income

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he accept inequality, including asset inequality, is increasing in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No. The best evidence shows that income inequality is not increasing in New Zealand, and I am advised that there is no reliable time series on changes in wealth inequality. As the Minister of Finance noted yesterday, the OECD has reported that New Zealand was one of only six developed economies in which both income inequality and disposable income inequality were flat or slightly better between 2007 and 2011. This is quite an achievement through one of the worst recessions in decades.

Hon David Cunliffe: How does the Prime Minister feel about the Oxfam report that shows that the top 10 percent of wealthy New Zealanders own more than the other 90 percent put together?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I suspect that is probably similar to lots of parts of the world, but what I can say is that under a Labour Government, with its announcements today, every single New Zealander in KiwiSaver will be worse off when they have a capital gains tax on their KiwiSaver account.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can he be so relaxed about the growing gap between the rich and poor, when the median income in, say, St Heliers has increased by $6,700 a year since 2006 to $42,700, while the median income in Māngere has fallen by $200 to just $19,700?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not actually say what the member said that I said. What I would say is that at a time when the economy is in surplus, when it is earning more than it is spending, putting a tax on every farm, on every business, and on every KiwiSaver will simply make the situation worse for so many New Zealanders. No wonder they will not vote for that.

Hon David Cunliffe: In light of that answer, does the Prime Minister agree that a 35 percent increase in luxury car sales over the past 2 years while at the same time the number of children living in poverty has grown to 285,000 shows that inequality is rising, or does he not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, that is not a reliable measure of income inequality. What would be worth noting, though, is that households that earn $60,000 or less—that is, 50 percent of all New Zealand households—pay $2.5 billion in tax and they receive over $7 billion in benefits. Through the worst of the economic times this Government has supported those most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Hon David Cunliffe: How does the Prime Minister feel about the fact that homeownership rates are at their lowest levels in 50 years, and does he think it acceptable that half of the pupils in schools in our lower income areas are changing schools once a year or more? So we have declining homeownership, dislocated children, and growing inequality—how does he feel about that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One thing I do know is that if you put a capital gains tax on rental properties, as the member is suggesting—because, in fact, virtually all property is excluded under the Labour plan—what that will do is put rents up. So those who are renting a property and watching parliamentary question time today better know that under a Labour Government they will pay more. In other words, they will have less to spend. No wonder they will never support that policy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If New Zealand is doing so well and Australia is doing so bad, how is it that the income gap between New Zealanders and Australians has grown, not shrunk, since he has been the leader of this country?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is utterly wrong.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that the incomes of the top 1 percent of income earners in New Zealand have risen 10 times faster than the bottom 10 percent, and does he think that a capital gains tax might just help equalise some of that growing gap between the rich and the poor?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the last part of the question, no. What is really important that New Zealanders understand is that a capital gains tax in the way that Labour has described today will be on every small business in New Zealand, every business in New Zealand, every KiwiSaver account in New Zealand, and every part of the productive sector of New Zealand. If we want people in poverty, then we should cancel their jobs, and that is what Labour would be doing—putting a tax on prosperity for New Zealand.

Hon David Cunliffe: Since the Prime Minister opened by quoting the OECD report and then went on to criticise our capital gains tax, could he confirm to the House whether his and the OECD’s measure of income inequality that he just cited, includes capital gains as income, or would he accept that his credibility is now down the “Liu”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need to check the paperwork on that, and it would have been quite helpful if David Cunliffe had as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as Mr Liu has been put into contention, how is it, Prime Minister, that just 6 weeks ago, according to Maurice Williamson, Mr Liu did not speak a word of English, so he could not have a relationship, but now he is singing like a bellbird to the Prime Minister in the best of English?

Mr SPEAKER: If the Prime Minister considers there is any prime ministerial responsibility—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Labour Opposition would like to yield a question to New Zealand First to enable Mr Peters to re-ask that question so that the Prime Minister can recover his memory.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can resume his seat. I know we are in an exciting time of the year, but members still have to abide by the Standing Orders. Question No. 2—Metiria Turei. [Interruption] Order! Show some respect to Metiria Turei, whom I have called for question No. 2.

Child Poverty—Government Initiatives to Address and Reports

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his rejection yesterday of research that showed 40 percent of New Zealand’s poorest kids cannot afford a raincoat, given that the research was based on Ministry of Social Development data?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is incorrectly paraphrasing me from yesterday.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister also think that Ministry of Social Development data is wrong when it shows that 42 percent of New Zealand’s poorest children do not own two pairs of decent shoes because their families cannot afford them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot talk about the veracity of their data, but what I can say is that the Government has been supporting the least well off New Zealanders through a variety of programmes, as I described yesterday, similar to the ones we are doing with KidsCan.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister commit to reading even just a few pages of Bryan Perry’s 2013 Ministry of Social Development report, which explains the basic items poorer Kiwi kids are regularly going without, because of the cost, such as their own bed, their school uniforms, all the way from their jumpers to their shoes, and healthy food?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have read part of the report and I have had Bryan Perry in my office. The very interesting thing, when you have him in your office and talk to him, is he is absolutely adamant that income inequality in New Zealand is not widening and has not widened. So if the member is now quoting Bryan Perry I congratulate her, because he is actually right, but it defeats her own argument.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is pages 196 to 200 of Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship, written by Bryan Perry, from July 2013, showing the non-monetary indicators of hardship and deprivation.

Mr SPEAKER: And the second? Is that the two documents?

Metiria Turei: The second document is page 9 from the Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand, showing also the level of deprivation—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am assured that both of those documents are publicly and freely available to members.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with the new Ministry of Health findings that 27 percent of Māori children do not go to the doctor when they need to, often because their parents cannot afford the cost of transport to get them to the doctor?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, I cannot talk about the veracity of that quote. Often they are misquoted by the member. But what I can say is that this is the Government that provided free doctors visits for children under the age of 13. That is a tremendous step for any Government to take.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister say to the House yesterday that the Government had borrowed $5 billion to support vulnerable New Zealanders during the global financial crisis, when in fact it borrowed $5 billion to pay for tax cuts for the very wealthy; and when will he stop blaming poor New Zealand children for the country’s debt?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is quite wrong. But what the member is demonstrating, which she is in agreement with the Labour Party on, is that they want to tax New Zealanders a lot more. Fair enough, but that is going to slow the economy down, cost jobs, and put more people into welfare.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister believe it acceptable for him to be wilfully ignorant of his Government’s own evidence of serious child poverty and deprivation suffered by 25 percent—one in four—of all New Zealand children?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is wrong.

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

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to seek your assurance that the interjections from the Minister for Social Development that gave you the assurance that you needed to reject the tabling of documents will show in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will have to wait and look at Hansard, but I doubt it. If there was not any response to the interjection, I would not expect them to show.

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

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard: The point of order is that you responded by saying you had received an assurance that they were in the public record. That was done by way of interjection while Metiria Turei was taking a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I knew they were in the public arena. [Interruption] Order! We are not going to have a repeat of yesterday. When I am on my feet I expect all members to be silent, and that includes the Hon Trevor Mallard. I was listening very carefully to what those documents were. I am absolutely confident that they are within the public arena. They are easily available. In fact, I think I have had one of them across my desk relatively recently.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Again, can I just check before I take this point of order that this is a fresh point of order—

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: —and not in any way relitigating a decision I have already made.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, I am not. I have not relitigated any decision.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then the member will get to the point. Thank you.

Hon Trevor Mallard: My point of order is will you withdraw the assurance you gave the House that you had received—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat, and if I get another point of order like that, the member will be leaving the Chamber for the balance of question time.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister take full responsibility for the fact that there are 45,000 more children living in severe poverty since he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start off, that is not correct. What I will take responsibility for is that we have got one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD. At the worst of times we borrowed billions and billions and billions of dollars to support New Zealanders in need, and we have got a system in New Zealand that is fair and highly redistributive, and that is the way it should be to protect the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

Economic Programme—Social Issues and Support for New Zealand Families

3. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: As part of its wider economic programme, what progress is the Government making in dealing with the most challenging social issues facing New Zealand families and children?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is making good progress. Much of this is as a result of the Better Public Services targets that the Prime Minister set in place a couple of years ago. By honing public services on specific and measurable objectives such as higher educational achievement, better health care, less crime, and less long-term welfare dependency, we are starting to make significant gains on those things that are a feature of long-term deprivation. For example, as at the end of 2013, 91 percent of babies were fully immunised by 8 months of age, and we are on track to achieve 95 percent by the end of this year—much higher immunisation rates than at any time in the last 30 years. We are finding that what is good for communities is good for the Government’s books, so we are willing to spend where we can get a pay-off and better results.

Jami-Lee Ross: What specific measures did the Government take in Budget 2014 to help New Zealand’s children and families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As New Zealand is one of a handful of developed countries heading into Budget surpluses, we believe it is important that all New Zealanders can benefit from a stronger economy and better Government books. In Budget 2014 we provided five elements of a $500 million package: $171 million to boost paid parental leave by 4 weeks to 18 weeks; $42 million to increase the parental tax credit from $150 a week to $220 a week and increase the entitlement from 8 to 10 weeks; $90 million to provide free doctors visits and free prescriptions for children aged under 13 years; $155 million to help early childhood centres remain accessible and affordable; and $33 million targeted on doing a better job for our most vulnerable children. So, although our spending is constrained, it is well targeted at where we can get results.

Jami-Lee Ross: What other measures has the Government taken to support the most vulnerable New Zealanders, particularly those on low incomes facing challenging social issues?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite the fact that we have had significant deficits, the Government has made a priority of supporting the most vulnerable. The Budget last year, for instance, included $100 million to extend the home insulation programme, $20 million for rheumatic fever prevention, $35 million for the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust, microfinancing options for those on low incomes, and progressing a warrant of fitness for all State houses to ensure they meet basic requirements. In addition, the Government is working with other providers to provide free healthy lunches in schools that choose to take part in the programme. This is a range of measures designed particularly to help those who suffer from persistent deprivation.

Jami-Lee Ross: What were some of the main social challenges inherited by this Government in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: These were set out comprehensively in the Salvation Army state of the nation report of February 2008. It talked about the rising number of referrals for abused children and increased numbers under Child, Youth and Family care. It talked about rising youth offending, climbing teenage pregnancy rates, and continued educational inequality, and it talked about climbing prison numbers. This was all through a period when the economy was growing significantly. All up, the Salvation Army said that significant extra Government spending under the previous Labour Government contributed little to social progress. Since then we have been spending less and making a lot more progress.

Budget 2014—Revenue, Expenditure, and Return to Surplus

4. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does Budget 2014 show the full effect of revenue cuts and expenditure that the National Government expects over the next four years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. It reflects all the decisions the Government has made and also any risks that Treasury sees both to expenditure and to revenue over the next 4 years.

Hon David Parker: What did he mean when he said that his next Budget “will be the most radical restructuring of government spending in 50 years”, as quoted in the Rod Oram column in the Sunday Star-Times?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think that I actually said just what he wrote down, but it was in the context of a discussion about the greater use of data and analysis to understand at an individual level the needs particularly of our most challenged families and children, so that we can act individually across departments to change the path that those people are on—investing now to save money later.

Hon David Parker: So when will he show us the money?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: You can see in the surpluses the impact of a much more focused Government spend on reducing welfare dependency, and on reducing crime and the flow of people into the very expensive justice system. So the money is there in the surpluses.

Andrew Williams: Can the Minister of Finance assure the public that no Government payments arising under the Christchurch rebuild were deferred in order to achieve the surplus announced in Budget 2014?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Hon David Parker: Why will he not commit to maintaining the real value of health and education spending adjusted for inflation and population change through to 2021?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is a very good reason why we will not commit to that. We do not fund the services just in order to have them; we put in more money to get better results. For instance, the Government has put more money into health, and it has achieved higher immunisation rates, shorter waiting times in emergency rooms, more elective surgery, and faster access to cancer treatment, even though the new money going in has not been as much as the Labour Party says it should be. That is Labour’s problem: it just shovels money in and it thinks that is an indication of success.

Richard Prosser: Is the fact that police are having to choose between protecting vulnerable children or pursuing organised crime yet another hidden cost of the so-called Budget surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member followed the activities of the Government, he would know that we are doing both, actually. We are pursuing organised crime in a vigorous manner, backed up by changes in policing activity and better use of intelligence, with a 20 percent reduction in crime. We are also spending more on doing a better job of supporting our most vulnerable children, where the issue is not so much about money; it is actually about how the Government organises itself and whether it is serious about protecting vulnerable children or is just maintaining its own agencies.

Hon David Parker: By what date does his Government plan to have paid down all of the debt it has borrowed since 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have got a date, and a track that is honest about the numbers. The Labour Party says it can reduce debt by redefining it to make it look a lot smaller; we are not going to do that.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat the question.

Hon David Parker: By what date will the Government have repaid all of the debt it has borrowed since 2008?

Mr SPEAKER: It is a slightly different question, but—the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot give the member an exact date, but what I can tell him is that by the time of the election, we will not have done dodgy accounting to make it look like we are paying down debt.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister of Finance read pages 15 and 16 of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s record last week, where Mr Brownlee confirmed that in the last Budget the Christchurch repair costs were down by approximately $500 million and that the Prime Minister has talked about an extra $5 billion being required into the future? That $500 million is, of course, the same sum that is in the surplus. Why should not someone conclude that the people of Christchurch—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just bring the question to a conclusion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —are paying an awful cost for his mythical so-called surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm that, simply because it is not correct. There has been no doubt about the Government’s commitment to the rebuild of Christchurch, and at the same time there are ongoing discussions with the Christchurch City Council to ensure that it can meet reasonable costs but does that in the context of strong Government support. Of course, we do not know yet what the final numbers will be, because there are still some years to go in the rebuild of Christchurch.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seeing as it is apparently not available at this point in time to the Minister of Finance—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member has the opportunity to raise a point of order. I have failed to understand what the point of order was that the member was raising, but it is not a means of contesting the answer that has just been given.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Then I will listen to the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is the last thing I did. What I did was seek to table the transcript—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then if the member wants to table something, the procedure is he rises to his feet and he seeks leave to table. [Interruption] No, he did not. He took a point of order and then there was a long lead-in to a rather garbled message—[Interruption] Order! If the member wants to table a transcript from a select committee, that is something that I assume is freely available—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. No.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not available?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from—[Interruption] Order! The member wishes to speak to the point of order?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am loath to make any comment, because the member is attributing a certain comment to me, which I am not disputing. However, these are transcripts from the estimates hearings, which are not yet reported to Parliament. They cannot be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that they are not yet reported to Parliament, I do not think it is appropriate to put that leave, and I will not.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I hope it is a point of order. Let us hear it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You may be able to tell me before I make it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You made a ruling in respect of Mr Peters. When you ruled you said, I think, that Mr Peters put a preamble in front of his point of order. Mr Brownlee did exactly the same thing by contesting—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member will be accompanying other colleagues if he also continues to talk when I rise to my feet.

Kris Faafoi: There’d be a rather long queue.

Mr SPEAKER: There could be a rather long queue; that is indeed so. [Interruption] Order! I was informing the Rt Hon Winston Peters of the correct process for tabling a document. The correct process is to raise a point of order and then simply say “I seek leave to table a document.” The member himself, Mr Cosgrove, has been here now for a few years. He should actually know that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In this I am going to plead guilty immediately to contesting a ruling. A public—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member does not need to go any further. [Interruption] Order! The member does not need to go any further. I warned the member that if he was going to raise spurious points of order, I would be asking him to leave the Chamber. The member will now leave the Chamber.

Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have another point of order. There is a habit developing here, but I will hear it.

Chris Hipkins: It is a new point of order. The issue that I want to ask you to give further consideration on is that where a select committee meeting is held in public and a transcript is taken of it that would not otherwise be available to all members of the House, it seems quite reasonable that a member may seek leave to table that. If it was a confidential part of a meeting, it would therefore be subject to the privilege of the committee, but if it is a public session of the committee, then, in fact, members who were not present at the meeting would be disadvantaged compared with members who were. So I wonder whether you could give some further consideration to that matter.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. I will give it further consideration, but also affecting my decision will be the fact that all transcripts after the report back are subsequently available to all members.

Louise Upston: How has the Government used revenue reductions to make the tax system fairer for New Zealand households and families over the last 5 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over successive Budgets the Government has made a number of changes to repair the damage done to the tax system by the previous Labour Government. In particular, we have removed the ability for people to shelter their income, raised the effective tax rate on property investment, increased funding for the Inland Revenue Department to target property speculators, prevented people using investment losses—including from rental properties—to make themselves eligible for Working for Families and other Government support, and brought in stricter rules to ensure multinational companies contribute their fair share of tax. The result of all that is that people on the highest incomes now pay a slightly larger proportion of the tax then they used to when rates were higher but there were more loopholes.

Better Public Services Targets—Reduction in Reoffending

5. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has the Government made in reducing reoffending rates for prisoners?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): I am pleased to advise the House that the number of prisoners returning to prison within 1 year of release has dropped by 4 percent since June 2011, with a 3 percent drop last year. Prisoners are the most serious offenders in our community. Less than 10 percent of convicted offenders are imprisoned, and they often have a long history of criminal behaviour. For this reason they are often the most difficult offenders to successfully rehabilitate. Our unrelenting focus on rehabilitation has seen New Zealand’s prison population stabilise. It is now forecast to fall in the coming years. By comparison, Australia’s prison population has increased by 10 percent in the last 18 months. The House might also be interested to note that the current prison population is 8,600 prisoners, which is significantly lower than the 10,200 prisoners who were forecast by 2014 when Labour was last in Government.

Scott Simpson: How has the Government achieved this reduction in reoffending by prisoners?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: To reduce reoffending, we are focused on tackling prisoners’ alcohol and drug addictions, supporting them to get an education and work skills training, and providing them with appropriate support when they are released from prison. Every sentenced prisoner now receives an education assessment when they enter prison and has an individual learning programme developed. Since 2008 there has been a 1,500 percent increase in places on drug and alcohol programmes, a 155 percent increase in the number of offenders in numeracy and literacy programmes, and an 830 percent increase in the number of prisoners gaining qualifications from the New Zealand Qualifications Framework. To better support prisoners on release, corrections launched the Out of Gate programme last year, which sees prisoners work with a dedicated provider, connecting them with social services, and helping with accommodation, employment, and general living skills.

District Health Boards—Health Benefits Ltd

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: What recent action, if any, has he taken to find the leak of information relating to Health Benefits Limited?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: None. However, the Minister of Health has been asked to comment on the document supposedly leaked, but that member will not make it public. It appears to be an undated, unsigned opinion piece printed on a plain piece of paper. I—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was asked. I want to hear the answer, even if some of the members here to my left do not.

Hon JO GOODHEW: I invite the member to table it. The Health Benefits Ltd strategy aims to free up hundreds of millions of dollars for front-line services. It has already delivered over $200 million in savings.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Points of order are heard in silence.

Hon Annette King: They might need to leave.

Mr SPEAKER: We do not need school teachers here; I just need—[Interruption] Order! OK. [Interruption] Order! Now let us get back some order. I am going to hear a point of order from the Hon Annette King, and I am going to hope to hear it in absolute silence.

Hon Annette King: Mr Speaker, I am seeking your guidance, in fact. The Minister, in her answer, said I have refused to provide the information. I have never been asked—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a valid point of order. If the member feels—[Interruption] Order! If the member feels that in any way she has been misrepresented, she knows what to do—refer to Standing Order 355.

Hon Annette King: Aha! Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: You asked for guidance; I am here to help.

Hon Annette King: Did he say in September 2012 that he would use powers under the Crown Entities Act—powers he called “a very big stick”—to force district health boards into a partnership with Health Benefits Ltd if they did not comply with his instructions?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I do not have in front of me a transcript that would confirm that member’s allegation that that is what the Minister said. However, what I do know is that the district health boards have taken some time to come to the table to see the benefits of this—a little longer time than we would have wished. However, they are now all engaged in the various committees that will assist Health Benefits Ltd to achieve savings for New Zealand’s health sector. These savings translate into front-line services, which is what the health care public of New Zealand are asking for—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very long answer.

Hon Annette King: Did he threaten to withhold approval of district health board annual plans for organisations that did not overtly support Health Benefits Ltd?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Again, I am unable to confirm the veracity of that. However, what I do know is that when this Government was elected in 2008, procurement services were very inefficient. Twenty district health boards all having a procurement service is very inefficient. Therefore, gains will continue to be sought so that the health care public of New Zealand will be the beneficiaries.

Hon Annette King: Is he aware that the pressure he has applied to district health boards to continue to support Health Benefits Ltd has led to “a culture of fear and distrust that is producing a range of consequences that are short-sighted at best and dangerous to patient care at worst.”?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Again, I would repeat an answer that I gave yesterday, which is that this is exactly the sort of rhetoric that we would expect 12 weeks out from the election. However, what we do know is that district health boards are engaging constructively and collaboratively in trying to achieve back-office savings to deliver more money to the front line.

Hon Annette King: Could the loss of confidence by district health boards in Health Benefits Ltd be because of the fact that although 400 staff throughout New Zealand look set to lose their jobs, Health Benefits Ltd has grown to have staff of 49 employees and 81 contractors, a total of 130 staff, and nearly double the policy staff at the Ministry of Health?

Hon JO GOODHEW: What I do know and can assure the member of is that when there is significant change in the health sector—or in any sector, in fact—there is always some discomfiture on the part of the people who are working through change process. However, what I can tell you is that these processes are being worked through collaboratively and that the beneficiaries, in the end, will be the health care public of New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to that question from Annette King, because it concerned some numbers—

Mr SPEAKER: Can the member just make his point of order, please? What is the point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will do it as succinctly as I can.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will not do it as succinctly as he can; he will do it in accordance with the Standing Orders. What is the point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer to a question about numbers. None of that happened in that answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now questioning whether the Minister answered the question in accordance with the Standing Orders. In this case, the question was addressed in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Extraction—Economic Impact

7. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What reports has he received on likely future support for oil and gas development in New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I have seen several reports this very morning about an upbeat and confident attitude to oil and gas development and its future under this Government. By way of contrast, yesterday I saw reports, within hours of each other by the same person, emphatically ruling out and then ruling in future Taranaki oil and gas activity. Then this morning I saw a report ruling out future oil and gas activity in Taranaki, despite what his leader had just said. David Carter should reign in his new candidate—

Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister should not bring the Speaker into the debate. And, anyway, I will hear from Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Previous Speakers have ruled—particularly on Government questions, and this is a Government primary question here—that the Minister should be talking about things that he has responsibility for, and he is not doing that.

Mr SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Order! The question was certainly in order and accepted, but the answer is seriously close to breaching the Speakers’ rulings, and I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 154/2(a) and 154/2(b), which, in effect, say that it is not in order to put a question down that is simply a means of then commenting on any comments made by the Opposition. I invite the member to ask his supplementary question, but I will be listening very carefully to it and the answer.

Jonathan Young: What are the implications for the Taranaki region if the oil and gas sector does not continue to be supported by the Government?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Flip-flops on policy do no good for business certainty, but fortunately this Government knows its policy positions and knows that oil and gas ensures that Taranaki has the highest GDP per capita in New Zealand. Average salaries from oil and gas are twice the national average, and the region has the lowest unemployment in New Zealand. We do not have renegade candidates saying—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Jonathan Young: What are the implications for New Zealand if oil and gas sector development is brought to a standstill?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It would be very bad. Oil and gas is New Zealand’s fourth-largest commodity merchandise export earner. It employs thousands of people and brings in nearly $1 billion in royalties and taxes a year, providing for schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure. So it is very clear that we cannot have people out there, like Tāmati Coffey this morning, saying the sorts of things he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the second time during this question, Mr Bridges has strayed well outside the Standing Orders and has defied your ruling. You have told us on this side of the House consistently that if we defy rulings, we get thrown out. He just did that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is very close to also coming—[Interruption] Order! I listened very closely to both answers, and the member is right. Towards the end of the answer, Mr Bridges strayed into material that was not going to help the order of this House. I, on both occasions, immediately ceased the Minister’s answers. But prior to that, his answer was adhering to the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—prior to that.

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

Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order, Grant Robertson?

Grant Robertson: Yes. You ruled after the primary answer that Mr Bridges gave that he should not stray into material for which he is not responsible, saying that it would lead to disorder in the House. He then did that again. That is in defiance of your ruling. You have ejected someone from this side of the House today for exactly the same crime.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is wrong, and I invite him, afterwards, to have a look at the Hansard. Both questions were quite in order. One was on the implications for the oil and gas industry. We listened to that, and when the Minister then strayed into something to do with an Opposition party’s policy, I shut it down immediately. The second question was around implications for the New Zealand economy. Again, it was answered quite in order until the Minister strayed, and the moment he strayed, I rose to my feet and stopped that answer—[Interruption] Order! I cannot continue with the points of order when the member is going to continue to talk above me. The member may well shake his head, but there is a certain decorum required in this House that when I am on my feet, members should cease interjecting, and that applies to all members in this House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to be clear, can a Minister be asked for an opinion that relates to his portfolio and then go ahead and give the information to the House, indicating who actually supplied him with the information that causes him concern?

Mr SPEAKER: It is a matter of my ruling on the occasion, but it is not appropriate for any Minister. He may well be aware of alternative policies, which he can mention, but then to lead the answer into blatant criticism of the Opposition policy is not a responsibility of any Minister in this House.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A further point of order?

Hon Annette King: No, it is a new point of order. During the point of order, when my colleague was on his feet and there was meant to be complete silence otherwise people would be kicked out, the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, interjected very loudly with: “Sit down.” So I wondered whether you heard that and whether you would be taking action.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear that, but—[Interruption] Order! I did not hear that—

Clare Curran: Selective memory.

Mr SPEAKER: The same comment I have just made applies to Clare Curran. I did not hear it, but there have been numerous occasions when I have been on my feet and members from both sides of the House have continued to talk. I have asked for it to cease. I will continue to ask for it to cease, but in this particular case I did not hear the interjection, and I am not proposing to ask Mr Brownlee to leave the Chamber.

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said you were listening very closely. Prior to that question, did you hear the Minister refer to a candidate’s sexuality? I did and I found it outrageous.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I did not hear such an interjection, but if the member did and he takes offence, we will take the matter from there.

David Shearer: Why did the Minister jump the gun when he announced the major commercial discovery of West Coast oil by Mosman Oil and Gas, the company, when the company said it was not even at the stage of economic assessment?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, I have not jumped the gun. I stand by everything I said—unlike Tāmati Coffey, who today has been saying the precise opposite to that of his leader, David Cunliffe.

Roading, Bay of Plenty—Hairini Link

8. BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to the Minister of Transport: Can he assure the people of Tauranga that the Hairini Link project will include four-laning from the Cameron Road intersection to the Maungatapu and Hairini roundabouts; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): The four-laning still remains a project in the National Land Transport Programme, but it is a low priority because it currently does not meet the funding cut-off. To try to sort this out, the New Zealand Transport Agency has reached agreement that State Highway 2A will be revoked and will become a local road. This is programmed to occur in the middle of next year. When this does occur, the four-laning project will become a local road, and that project will be funded from local road activity classes and subject to standard New Zealand Transport Agency funding rules for a National Land Transport Fund contribution. The council has agreed to this position.

Brendan Horan: Can the Minister explain what happened to the Prime Minister’s ironclad guarantee on 4 November 2008 of a four-lane State Highway running along Fifteenth Avenue, along Turret Road and the Hairini Bridge to the Hairini roundabout; and is this now a case of the National Party saying one thing in Opposition and doing another thing in Government?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The programme I have just outlined and the process that is going to be put in place, with agreement with the council up there, indicates the exact opposite of the position the member is putting. I am deeply disappointed for the member that his legacy will not include this project being opened by him.

Brendan Horan: We will see on 20 September. If the bridge remains two lanes, can the Minister commit to the city’s proposal to provide a safe pedestrian cycle access walkway for pupils who attend the three large connecting schools and who are having bus services cease next year?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If I may answer the first part of that question, it is that I think I am in the same camp as the speaker. I can see the future, and I bet I am right.

Conservation Land—Commercial Logging Operations

9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Have any commercial logging operations started on conservation land since the Department of Conservation was established in 1987?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Yes, many times. Operations of commercial forest harvesting have been authorised by my department in Northland, Hauraki Gulf, central North Island, Bay of Plenty, Wellington, Marlborough, Golden Bay, Canterbury, the West Coast, Otago, and Southland. Some of these operations are exotic trees, some are areas approved for mining where the native timber is permitted to be removed, some is where the trees pose a safety risk, and others are areas after 1987 where native forest harvesting was still permitted. There is nothing wrong with commercial timber recovery off conservation land in the right circumstances. The important fact is that under this Government, the area of native forest is growing, as is the area of public conservation land.

Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister weakening our conservation law and overturning the 27-year national consensus that we do not log native forest on conservation land, because the department is short of funding as a result of National’s $54 million cut to the Department of Conservation’s budget?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am all for saving live trees, but when you have a massive storm and tens of thousands of hectares are felled I cannot get the conservation idea of leaving it there to rot. The extreme green position seems to be that the bugs and slugs that want to eat the rotten timber have rights ahead of West Coasters who might want a job.

Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister saying that Emeritus Professor of Botany Sir Alan Mark is wrong when he says: “Preserving and understanding natural processes, no matter how destructive, is a key reason why we have preserved these conservation forests.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know Sir Alan Mark well. He is at the extreme green end, and I do not share his view on this and on many other issues. That is because we are a balanced Government that wants to look after New Zealand’s national treasures, but we also want a strongly growing economy, something that the Greens just do not understand.

Eugenie Sage: Will the Minister rule out any further weakening of our conservation law, which for decades has prohibited logging in reserves and on conservation land, or will New Zealanders have to rally to protect our native forests from logging every time there is a big storm?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think New Zealanders are in a very practical space, so that when a storm kills a tree we should not prohibit New Zealanders from being able to use the timber. Only the extreme Greens go out in that space that says that a dead tree has to be protected. I further point out to the member that there are numerous examples over the last 25 years where the department has been pragmatic and has allowed the wood from such events to be used.

Tim Macindoe: What indications of support has the Minister had for the commercial recovery of timber felled in Cyclone Ita; and is he confident that he has the numbers to pass the bill tomorrow?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had very strong support, particularly from the West Coast community. I have also had other support, and I thank both the United Future party and the Māori Party for recognising the unique situation on the West Coast. I have also had indications of support from New Zealand First, but my understanding is—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you haven’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I have. Andrew Little told me yesterday.

Hon Member: Andrew Little?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Andrew Williams—I apologise. They are hard to distinguish, but I understand that the Labour caucus had a right row on Tuesday—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Minister support an amendment to his legislation that will guarantee it is West Coasters who get the job opportunities and West Coast businesses that are the beneficiaries of his piece of legislation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know that protectionist arguments about nations might fly, but this narrow idea—

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very simple. Will the Minister support—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What we then want is the opportunity for the Minister to answer before the member raises the point of order, but what we are going to do is—

Hon Damien O’Connor: I would just like to clarify the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to allow the member to re-ask his question. There was so much noise that it was actually difficult for me to hear the intricacies and the subtleties of the question.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Minister support an amendment to his bill that will ensure that West Coast businesses and West Coast people are the beneficiaries of the jobs that he claims will come from his bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It would be a nonsense for us to say that the timber can be used only on the West Coast. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot even hear myself think, and I am attempting to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked, and an answer is required, and it will be given without this level of barracking coming from my left.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that there is a sawmill in Moutere, in the Nelson area, that could well use the timber. I have had letters from furniture makers in Auckland and Christchurch who would want to use the timber. I cannot believe the Labour Party is now going to require that natural products be used only in their local area. It seems like an out for a very embarrassed member for West Coast - Tasman.

Student Achievement—Investing in Educational Success Programme

10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour - Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that the $359 million Investing in Educational Success Programme is the most effective way to invest that money to lift student achievement; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes; evidence shows that quality teaching and school leadership have the greatest in-school influence on student achievement, as the member is on record agreeing.

Chris Hipkins: What specific evidence does she have that removing great teachers from their own classrooms and replacing them with relievers, while they go off to work in other schools, will raise student achievement?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I can refer the member to a wealth and a body of evidence up on the Ministry of Education website. We know that professional collaboration—

Chris Hipkins: Name one.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, Professor Fullan has talked at length about the point of collaborating. Professor Stuart McNaughton has talked about how to raise achievement in difficult areas. We have evidence, in the best evidence synthesis, that says in a meta-analysis of 800,000 pieces of evidence the two biggest in-school effects are quality teaching and quality leadership.

Chris Hipkins: Why is she confident that the policy can even be implemented, when 69 out of 73 regional principal representatives at a recent meeting voted total no-confidence in the policy, or does she expect the applications for the new roles to materialise out of thin air?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The president of the New Zealand Principals Federation, in reporting on that particular meeting, said that there were 72 members there, and with a show of hands they said that they felt it was unworkable. Since then they have continued to be members of the working group—

Chris Hipkins: Brilliant—69 out of 73.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, Mr Hipkins, there are 52,000 people in the full-time workforce and 100,000 in the part-time workforce. We are beginning planning for negotiation with the teacher and principal unions, and we will wait for their views on that. In the meantime we have had reports of support all around the country.

Chris Hipkins: In that case, will she rule out legislating for the policy’s implementation in the event that teachers and principals vote against it during their bargaining; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: In response to the member for the New Zealand Educational Institute, can I say that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That sort of commencement of an answer will not help the order of this House.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We will not predetermine the outcome. We are looking forward to hearing back from teachers and principals, and what we are hearing is very positive.

Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the comments by John Prescott, president of the North Otago Principals Association, who has argued that the policy will do little, if anything, to raise student achievement, and he also said it was fraught with difficulties and unworkable; if so, why does she continue to press ahead when those who are supposed to do these new jobs are clearly saying they do not think they will work?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, I have not seen those particular comments. But can I point out to the member—[Interruption] Those particular comments. But can I point out to the member that there will be no compulsion for people to apply for these 250 principal positions, out of a pool of 2,500; or for the 5,000 lead teacher positions, out of a pool of about 100,000; or for the 1,000 expert teacher roles, out of that same pool.

Courts and Tribunals—Legislative Reform and Case Management

11. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for Courts: What recent announcements has he made on work to modernise and improve specialist courts and tribunals?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): The Government is working hard to modernise the way our courts and tribunals work. I announced yesterday a package of legislative changes to the 24 tribunals run by the Ministry of Justice. These reforms will update and standardise tribunal processes and powers, such as practice notes, suppression of sensitive information, and publication of decisions. These changes will give tribunals the tools they need to work faster and more transparently, and address weaknesses or loopholes in their current processes. These changes will be included in a bill I intend to introduce to Parliament later this year.

Joanne Hayes: How will these changes address delays in dealing with appeals against ACC decisions?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: ACC appeals are handled by a specialist District Court registry and a tribunal, depending on where the case stems from. Both of these bodies face significant delays, with cases averaging over 695 days for one and over 1,100 for the other. To wait 2 to 3 years for a decision on an ACC appeal is simply not acceptable, and that is why these reforms replace both appeal avenues with a new specialist tribunal. This tribunal will apply the same substantive law as existing bodies, but will have dedicated members and improved processes and powers. The new tribunal will aim to decide cases within 250 days—an improvement of around 60 percent for most types of ACC appeals.

Joanne Hayes: What progress are other specialist courts and tribunals making towards reducing the time it takes for court cases to be dealt with?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Like all our courts, specialist courts and tribunals are working towards improving the speed they deal with cases, measured by the average age of active cases in the system—by 20 percent this year on the April 2013 baseline. Collectively, tribunals have already achieved a 16 percent reduction in the average age of active cases, well on track to their 20 percent target. In the specialist courts since last April, the coroners have cut 54 days off the average age of cases, the Employment Court has cut 85 days, the Environment Court has cut 64 days, and the Māori Land Court has cut 69 days. All are either at, or well on their way to, their end-of-year goals. These results are a real credit to the court staff and the judicial officers in our specialist courts and tribunals.

Climate Change Policy—Government Position

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with reported moves by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to build an alliance with like-minded countries to dismantle carbon pricing initiatives and undermine recent efforts by United States President, Barack Obama, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and if not, will he rule out his Government joining such an alliance at any point in the future?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: I am aware of conflicting media reports on the existence of such a proposal, but the Government has seen nothing to suggest that such an alliance has been proposed.

Moana Mackey: Will his Government lobby his Australian and Canadian counterparts and encourage them to address climate change with urgency, given that the impacts of climate change are already being felt in our own backyard by our Pacific Island neighbours, who have consistently called on developed countries, including New Zealand, to do a lot more domestically to reduce emissions?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member misses the point. There is a conflict in the media reports as to what is actually going on here. It is a little like what we saw from the Labour Party this morning where Tamati Coffey is still continuing to insist—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I was expecting somebody to acknowledge that the question was not even addressed, in which case I would have invited the member to ask it again.

Moana Mackey: If President Obama can make significant progress on climate change despite huge resistance from Congress, why has his Government utterly failed to do the same here, given that moves to ensure an effective price on carbon and to stop price gouging by energy companies, thereby reducing costs to businesses and households, would attract overwhelming support in this Parliament?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member is entirely wrong. New Zealand is respected internationally for its climate change efforts. Indeed, last week New Zealand was praised by Barack Obama as a key ally on climate change. We can get our stories straight—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Moana Mackey: Does he agree with one of our Pacific Island neighbours, the Marshall Islands Vice-President Tony de Brum, who at last year’s Pacific Islands Forum said that New Zealand should be doing far more than we are currently doing, and that our 5 percent reduction target is “a joke”; if not, what action will he take to meet John Key’s pledge, signed at that forum, that New Zealand would do more domestically to address climate change?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We do our fair share. We are the only country outside the European Union to have an emissions trading scheme. We are the only one that is comprehensive with our emissions trading scheme, including all gases. We show real leadership internationally, where we have got a comparative advantage, and domestically, of course, we also do a lot. I think of the things that I am doing as the Minister of Energy and Resources with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority in our wider energy emissions profile. There is a lot that is going on. The member maybe should read some more of my press releases.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In an effort to contain the spiralling downward credibility of its leader, David Cunliffe, the Labour Party today released a fiscal plan. I have to say I was a bit disappointed. It looked a lot like the 1996 one, which looked a lot like the 2002 one, which looked a lot like the 2008 one. They can all be summed up in three simple words: tax and spend. On the way into the House I was asked what I thought about it, so I said that: “Yep, nothing new—tax and spend. That’s what you’d expect.”

Actually, the truth is that what I think about it does not matter; what matters is what the Greens think about it. What matters is what the “German-Māori Billionaire Poverty Party” thinks about it. Why does that matter? Because there is no real, plausible, alternative Government where the Labour Party has much more than half of a Cabinet. So this plan does not represent what an alternative Government would do. For instance, it leaves out the carbon tax. That is not in there. That is not referred to. So what the Greens think about this plan matters. It leaves out free tertiary education, which apparently is the top priority for the “Billionaire Poverty Party”. It leaves out free tertiary education. What the Greens think matters.

We have only had to see the spin that the Labour Party got into over Māui’s dolphins in the last 24 hours to see that Labour is the tail on a very green dog. The leader of the Labour Party had three positions on oil and gas exploration

I can sum them up in one sentence that has been used before—it is not original—“I was against it before I was for it, before I took a balanced position.” Or was it the other way round: “I took a balanced position before I was against it, and then I was for it, and then I couldn’t remember, so I sent the media to ask Tamati Coffey.”, who is clearly the new—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, he is effective. He has been on TV more than the rest of the Labour Party put together.

Hon Steven Joyce: He’s been consistent.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: He has been consistent. He sounds authoritative. He has probably done more background homework than the leader of the Labour Party has done on the oil and gas industry—that is what a poor effort the leader has made.

Whatever anyone thinks of Labour’s finely honed fiscal plan—as I am sure its architect, Mr Parker, thinks it is—does not matter, because it is not the plan for an alternative Government. Nothing like it. So I am looking forward to hearing the Greens’ version of it. Their questions will be “Are the higher taxes punitive enough on the people we do not like?”, “Is the spending wasteful enough to make it worth it, or should there be more?”, and “How can we hide the impact of a $25 carbon tax from all of New Zealand’s households, who will have to pay one big new tax on top of Labour’s list?”. Then, of course, we will be waiting while the—oh, yes, the “Internet Billionaire German-Māori Party” is not here today, so it will not be able to tell us.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, the member still has a minute.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker, I thought you had had enough. This is the truth of the debate over the next 3 months: it is not about what is in Labour’s plans; it is about what the plans of the multi-headed hydra of the Opposition are. In no way does the Labour Party document that was put out today reflect the potential for more damage, more spending, higher taxes, and more disregard for the livelihoods, incentives, and aspirations of New Zealand. The real shame of this document is just how out of step it is on its own merits with a New Zealand that is increasingly forward-looking—

Hon Amy Adams: Positive.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —and positive, that understands incentives for work and rewards for effort, and that is flexible, innovative, and resilient. On top of that, the Labour Party is planning to dump its view of big government and take more of your money, because it apparently knows how to spend it better. We know that the Greens, of course, will do that with speed.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Party vote Green on 20 September—party vote Green. The world has changed and we need new ideas and modern thinking to solve the problems and to seize the new opportunities. Old parties leave our economy, our planet, and our kids in a worse situation than ever before. Years of being hands-off has proven to be a serious let-down for our kids. The Green Party is ready to step up and kick off a new approach—an approach that invests in our people and in our planet. We love New Zealand. It is time for a new deal under which all our people and the whole of our planet will prosper.

Three more years of National puts our kids and our environment at risk. I am asking New Zealanders to give their party vote to the Greens and to join us in removing the National Party risk from this Parliament. We need a Government that looks after every New Zealand child. When one in four New Zealand children lives in poverty, something is seriously wrong. National does not even know about those children and it cannot even see those children, let alone plan to build a fairer society for those children. National prioritises oil companies over our environment. Our beaches, the Māui’s dolphins, and the forest parks are all at risk from National’s oil agenda. We want to protect our precious places for all of us to enjoy and for our children and their children. National has run out of ideas on the issues that matter. It does not want us to follow the rest of the world on climate change. It wants us to follow the rest of the world as a tail rather than be the leaders on climate change that we know New Zealanders are. National is out of touch with the cost of living, and we see that demonstrated in this House every day.

The Green Party has never been more ready to deliver a better future for every New Zealander. We will invest in our children’s future to change their lives. We will deliver real support to our kids, end child poverty, and bring back hope for young New Zealanders. Already we have announced free doctors visits for all children from 0 to 18, community services in schools, dedicated nurses in schools, a national school lunch fund, and removing discrimination from Working for Families that leaves out the very poorest kids.

Our economic opportunities are green. We will steer our economy towards smart Green innovation that will deliver more and better jobs while protecting our environment. Our climate tax cut that puts a price on carbon will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and deliver a tax cut to all New Zealand families and businesses, while our Green Investment Bank makes capital available to new sustainable industries to innovate in existing industries and to develop new well-paid and sustainable jobs and the opportunities of a 21st century global economy.

Our environment is at the heart of our identity. We will step in to protect the environment and the precious places and species that make New Zealand the best place in the world to live. Every river should be clean enough for our children to swim in. It is their birthright to have the basics of clean water. We will fight to protect conservation land and our marine environment from the dirty mining industries that National puts ahead of everyone else. It puts our Māui’s dolphins, our communities, our critically endangered species, and our forests at such risk. I am asking New Zealanders to give their party vote to the Green Party at this election to deliver to the country the Government that they deserve: a Government that puts our children and our environment at the forefront of every decision that we make and that puts children and our planet at the heart of New Zealand politics. Party vote Green on 20 September. Thank you.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety): I was out door-knocking at the weekend, as I have been for the last 3 years, and what I want to tell you is I have seen a change. When I was walking up the streets, I really expected to hear people say they were voting for different political parties, but what we heard was, yes, they were voting for National, and there were a few people who were voting for the Greens, but people were not declaring for Labour. I have been door-knocking for a number of years now, and it actually dawned on me when that Labour Party list came out that when you have nearly a quarter of candidates in the Labour Party not willing to associate themselves with that party, something is seriously wrong. We have a very clear choice at this election. We can vote for a party where there is not a whole lot of confidence in its leader, where you do not have a united team, where you have policies done on the hoof, and where you have flip-flops all over the place. But if you compare that with a party that has a leader, the Prime Minister, who has the extraordinary confidence of New Zealand and who has delivered over a very difficult period, there is only one choice at this election, and it is party vote National.

What people are saying to me is that it is really clear: all of the rhetoric that comes from the left-wing parties says we do not care. Well, I am going to run through some of the reasons and some of the policies that show that our party has done more for our most disadvantaged than any of those Opposition members did in their time in Government. Under our Government there have been six successive increases in the education spend—$857 million in the last Budget. Under our Government there have been six successive increases in our health spend. We have programmes: $20 million for rheumatic fever, and a second cochlear implant for some of our most disadvantaged. We have got breakfast in schools. In terms of early childhood education, there is another $155 million, which is particularly for some of those children who may never have had access in terms of their families before.

In this Budget there is $284 million to help build more modern, better schools. In terms of our record with young people, we have incredible results: almost 25,000 young people were placed in employment and training under Youth Opportunities. There are 13,000 jobs that were created under the 90-day trial period. We have invested $148 million in wraparound services for youth. So to those members opposite who continue to claim the rhetoric they always have done that we do not have a strong social conscience, they are wrong. The reason that our party is polling at over 50 percent is not only that we are a standout economy in terms of bringing our country into surplus in one of the most difficult fiscal times ever—particularly, we believe we had the largest hit of any developed nation in the world in terms of the Canterbury earthquakes. You combine all of that and you see us in surplus, but then you see the extraordinary social investment we have made.

The Deputy Prime Minister made the point that just because other parties are claiming they are going to spend more money, that does not mean they are going to do the best for New Zealanders. Under our Government there are more immunisations, more children have got National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, and more Māori and Pacific students than ever are getting those results.

So what we are really clear about is that under our Government, with less money, we have done more. We have helped some of our most disadvantaged New Zealanders, we have got our economy and our books in order, and we also have a united team and a Prime Minister whom we believe in. That is the difference at this election. Why would you vote Labour if a quarter of its caucus members will not even put themselves on the Labour Party list? We have a leader we believe in. We have delivered for New Zealand. We have the best policies to deliver for another 3 years. Party vote National.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): Why you would vote for Labour is if you want a better country. That is what we stand for. Today we released our alternative budget. We are not going to be diverted by the cynicism of our political opponents or the exaggerated and incorrect attacks by people who, frankly, have been unbalanced and unfair in their criticisms.

I have not got time to go into that today. I am going to be focusing on the positive agenda that the Labour Party will deliver if we are elected, and, as today’s announcements show, in our alternative budget everything is paid for, plus we are in surplus. We do collect additional revenue from the capital gains tax, which is largely a tax on those people who are the wealthiest in society. In fact, the top 5 percent of asset holders pay the vast majority of any capital gains tax.

We apply the additional revenue we collect to things that make the economy stronger, the cost of living lower, and people’s lives better. We give taxes back to business through a research and development tax credit and through accelerated depreciation. We give tax credits to all of the other people who come into a universal KiwiSaver and we give them their Kick-start payment. We provide some additional money to low-income families through the Best Start package because we know it is disgraceful that in this country we have got rising rates of child poverty.

We do something serious about housing. Our tax pushes that way with our capital gains tax. Our KiwiBuild policy is funded through money the Crown borrows initially to build the houses that are onsold to New Zealanders, who pay the money back to the Government. This is all shown in this budget. There is a small tax increase for the highest income earners in New Zealand. It applies to the 2 percent of New Zealanders who earn more than $150,000 per annum. Their tax rate goes up to 36c in the dollar, which is a far lower rate than applies, for example, in Australia. Our tax system becomes fairer and funds other services that we need. We increase the trustee tax rate to 36c as well, so that we stop trusts being used as tax-avoidance vehicles. We crack down on multinational tax avoidance. All of this is spelt out in this document, which shows that everything is paid for, plus we are in surplus. Indeed, our surplus is slightly larger than that which the Government projected in its Budget.

We restart contributions to the Cullen fund because we believe in a sustainable superannuation scheme. That is why we report our debt figures as net debt, including the Cullen fund. Otherwise, that is misrepresented by the Government. By the end of 6 years we repay net debt down to 3 percent of GDP—i.e., we pay off all of the debt that National has clocked up over the last 6 years. We know how to do that because we ran nine surpluses in a row when we were last in Government.

Our policies upgrade the economy. We upgrade the economy towards better-paid jobs, more secure jobs, career paths and hope for our young people, and a fairer distribution of income and, therefore, less inequality in our country. Currently, we have got the lowest rate of homeownership in 50 years, and homeownership rates are still dropping. We have had a huge increase in the sale of luxury cars. We have got increasing rates of child poverty. We have got increasing gaps between incomes in wealthy suburbs and poorer suburbs in Auckland. And yet the Prime Minister denies that we have got rising inequality.

Our fiscal plan is responsible. We do balance the budget while we invest in a future for New Zealand that is more prosperous and more fair. The revenues that we garner more than cover our modest increases in expenditure. A lot of those increases in expenditure are themselves tax cuts in other parts of the economy. I am sure that our plan is going to go down well.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): There is nothing quite like an election date coming close to let us think about some of the statements that have been made over time about the wonderful system of MMP that we have. I would like to quote David Lange, who said that it was “the flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog.” To quote another very well-regarded member of Parliament the Hon Steven Joyce, he said to me and a few of us earlier on that if the answer is Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First—and Andrew Little sitting over there—and Hone Harawira, Kim Dotcom, Laila Harré, and Pam Corkery, then let us have a look for another question. It is bloody—it is absolutely frightening to think what a piece of unparliamentary language dropped into a general debate could possibly mean for the order of the House.

But when we think about Labour and its releases today, you have got to wonder just how far it would want to go. What Labour members have released today in their fiscal policy is one thing, but it is completely different from what they were saying just a couple of years ago, and it will be completely different from what they say down the track if the New Zealand public were stupid enough—thank goodness they are not—to invite them into Government. Who knows where that motley crew would end up, bearing in mind the policy that they have announced today?

One of the things I find really interesting is that a couple of years ago when Labour was in Government it decided that you were rich if you earned over $60,000 a year and so it taxed you at 39c in the dollar—39c in the dollar because you were rich if you earned over $60,000 a year. Then Labour changed its mind, and it said you were rich if you earned over $150,000 a year. This is what Labour decided in Opposition. If you earned over $150,000 a year, you were rich, and so Labour would tax you at 39c in the dollar. But now Labour has decided that you are rich if you earn over $150,000 but will tax you at only 36c in the dollar. The interesting thing is that Labour members always accuse people on this side of the House of looking after their rich mates. Well, we have found recently they have got a few rich mates of their own that they have been looking after.

Under this National Government, which is so intent on looking after its rich mates, we know that the top 2 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand pay 22 percent of all personal tax in this country. Well, if that is a way of looking after your rich mates, I am sure they are not all that happy about it. What we also find out is that the top 12 percent of households in this country pay 76 percent of all net income tax, before you even account for New Zealand superannuation.

Hon David Parker: What about GST? Tell us about GST.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: What we do know from Mr Parker, and he will agree, is that the poorest people in this country pay no net tax because they get Government subsidies for all the GST they pay and PAYE. But having been accused of always being so mean on this side of the House—Labour and the Greens and the rest of their motley crew being the only ones who care—I would like to know why the Labour-Greens Government did not insulate 280,000 homes when it was in Government. Why did it stop at 8,000 homes? Why did it not raise health care for under-13-year-olds to 24/7? Why did it stop at 6-year-olds? Why did it not spend $43 million on mental and physical health assessments for kids coming into State care? Labour and the Greens did not do that, but they are the only ones who care!

Why did they not provide microfinancing options for beneficiaries so that they would not have to run off to loan sharks? They did not bother doing that either, but they are the only ones who really care! Why did they not set targets for child achievement in schools? They did not. They never set a target that they could be held to account for. Why did they not set targets for recidivism for people leaving penal institutions? They did not bother about that. Why did they not set a target for lower crime? The reason is that they did not care enough or they never believed for a moment that they would achieve it. What we found when we came into Government was a skyrocketing prison population and an estimate that it would carry on growing. They never once set a target to achieve any social indicator. The only target we know they set was for more women on their side of the House, and it is going to shaft them.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Well, we have an interesting day in the House today, because David Parker has put a document on the table. There are our numbers. There is our plan. It is out there 3 months before the election. It is out for scrutiny. The media, the analysts, and everybody will pore over it, but the plan is out there.

I have got to say that Bill English has in this Budget projected a $500 million surplus, but we know that that surplus, of course, is balanced against and taken from $500 million out of repair costs in Christchurch. But here is a fact for Bill English: Bill English has never actually achieved a surplus. He has projected one, he has targeted one, he has promised one, but he has never actually delivered one, compared with the Government that David Parker and I were part of, which did not deliver one or two or three surpluses but delivered surpluses every year for the 9 years that it was in Government—every year for 9 years. [Interruption] Do not worry, Tau; there will be a job at the Porirua pub where you can go back to being a bouncer or something akin to your skill base. But for 9 years—for 9 years, every year—the Labour Government delivered a surplus.

So here is the plan: I say, as David Parker has said, show us the dough. Show us the money. There is our plan—it is out there; open for delivery, for scrutiny—and it stands. It stands well because it is a quality document. And what will it do? Well, as David Parker said, we will actually reduce debt. We will actually reduce and pay for the debt that this Government built up over its last 6 years.

Chester Borrows, of course, talked about who gets what and who pays the majority of tax. But poor old Chester did not get the abacus out, did not add three letters in—GST—when he made his spurious calculation. That is the credibility of that economic genius over there. Part of the tax base, Chester, is derived from a thing called GST, which your Government put up after it lied to the people of New Zealand and said that it would not. That is a promise that the Government made, and it lied to the people of New Zealand because it broke that promise. Now Mr Borrows, in his shonky figures, forgets a big chunk of the tax base, and he cannot add it into his calculations.

As Mr Parker has said, everything is paid for in this document. Every line item is paid for in this document, plus we achieve a surplus, which, in the first year of our Government, will be the 10th we achieve, added, of course, to the other nine. It will be No. 10. At the same time, this document puts in place a series of programmes around employment, around health, and around education, that back the battlers in this country—the good entrepreneurs, the people who are trying to get ahead, the people who are struggling out there. They need a decent health system, not the shonky stuff, of course, that the Minister of Health has been exposed by today and yesterday around Health Benefits Ltd—the Ponzi scheme that Ms King outlined.

People want a decent health system. They want the ability to be trained. We have a policy for that, the dole for apprenticeships, and if it had been implemented 3½ years ago, we would have 40,000 or 50,000 young people who would be trade trained, swinging hammers in Canterbury and around the country, contributing to our rebuild, off the dole, paying tax—including GST, Chester, in case you have forgotten—and actually contributing to our economy.

We do not know from this mob over there whether, when we get into Government, anything will be left after the big tax cut for the big end of town and whether David Parker as Minister of Finance will be left with economic archaeology—an industrial graveyard—in terms of manufacturing. They talked about who they said they backed, but, of course, they did not tell you and they did not allude to whom they have run into the ground. If you take dairy production away—which is another sleight of hand by Steven Joyce—it is the manufacturing base, which, in large part, provides a heck of a lot of jobs in this country—

Hon Chester Borrows: How much are you going to tax them?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —that Mr Borrows and his ilk have left and driven into the ground. National does not have a decent monetary policy. Its only monetary policy, of course, is to say: “Do nothing. Everything is fine.”

Hon Chester Borrows: Why isn’t that in your fiscal plan?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I invite Mr Borrows to go back to his constituency in Wanganui and maybe ask some manufacturing exporters. We have a plan. It is fully costed. It is all paid for. We will achieve our 10th surplus. We will back our manufacturers and exporters. We will give those on the bottom of the heap a fair go, which they have not had for 6 years.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Anybody listening to the contribution of the previous member, Clayton Cosgrove, on television or the radio will have done two things. The first thing is they will have turned the volume down, and the second thing is they will have quite rightly concluded that the good folk of Waimakariri made a very sound decision at the last election when they decided that they no longer wanted Mr Cosgrove as their member of Parliament.

It is a great privilege for me to represent the fine folk of Hamilton West in this House and to have served them in that capacity since November 2008. I am now campaigning proudly for a further mandate. I am hoping to be only the third member for Hamilton West since the seat was created in 1969 to secure a third term. It has the reputation, of course, of being the great bell-wether electorate of New Zealand. Therefore, I suggest to people that we look carefully at what is happening in Hamilton West when we decide whether we are on the right or the wrong track. The people of Hamilton West tell me not only that we are on the right track but that they appreciate that we are getting the job done, that we are focusing on the things that matter to New Zealand, and that they want to see a continuation of the John Key - led administration.

New Zealanders know that John Key and his team have governed New Zealand through the most challenging conditions that any Government of this country has faced since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The impact of the global financial crisis has been immense. One needs only to look at North America and South America or the countries in Europe and in most other parts of the globe to understand just how devastating the impact of the global financial crisis has been in so many countries. New Zealanders have had it tough through the recession as well. They know, in particular, that the reckless previous Labour-led administration spent like drunken sailors at a time when it failed to take any significant measures to grow the economy and, therefore, left this country deeply vulnerable when the good times ended and the global financial crisis hit. That is why they are so grateful for the leadership of John Key, Bill English, and their excellent Cabinet team.

New Zealanders are scared witless at the prospect of a weak, Labour-led administration, with a Prime Minister whom even his own colleagues do not respect, and of being dependent on a volatile cocktail of extreme Greens, who want to stop everything in their tracks and who oppose every possible measure for growth, development, and prosperity. A Labour-led administration would then be propped up by the “Billionaire Poverty Party”—goodness knows where it would take things and what the price of its support would be—and possibly two or three other combinations. What an appalling combination that would be for a Government of this country.

It is very important to get the economy right, because, ultimately, an economy is all about people. It is about the impact of economic decisions on health, law and order, education, and all those important areas where we are working to deliver public services of a first-class standard—and we are. Look at the record over the last 6 years, where, with less money to spend, those people out on the front line in our public services have lifted their production, lifted their delivery of services, reduced waiting lists in our hospitals, boosted elective surgery, raised educational achievement, and reduced crime right across the board. Things are looking good. Why would you put that at risk?

This is a Government that is getting the job done, and in Hamilton West that is the message I get from my constituents. I believe quite firmly that they know they must stay the course that we are on. The evidence has been out just in the last few days when we have seen 3.8 percent growth in GDP, putting us right up there in the top bracket, above most of our trading partners. In the eurozone it is 0.9 percent. Here in New Zealand it is 3.8 percent. So when we hear our opponents talking about increasing inequality or all the rest of it, they need to get beyond the rhetoric and look at the figures, because the figures show that income inequality is not increasing; it has flat-lined. In fact, those people at the top end of the tax bracket have had it a little tougher in respect of having to pay more of the tax. Most of my constituents are now paying only 17.5 cents in the dollar on income tax.

This is a Government that is getting it right and delivering for New Zealanders. It deserves to be re-elected, and I am proud to campaign for that end.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. In the next—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Tracey Martin. Your time starts again. [Interruption] Order! If the members want to have that conversation, then they can leave the Chamber. Tracey Martin—starting now.

TRACEY MARTIN: New Zealanders, I would suggest you take note of the two major parties that you have just heard trying to out-policy each other. Within the next few weeks, New Zealand First will have up on its website its refreshed 2014 manifesto. The New Zealand public will be able to go and see that manifesto and see why New Zealand First lives up to its name and actually puts New Zealanders first. Rather than trying to compete for a political arena, we concentrate on putting the people of our country first in every decision we make.

With regard to the education policy that will actually come up on that website, I am proud to have participated strongly in the writing of that education policy and to have consulted front-line people in education. We have not decided to pick an academic expert who suits us, similar to what this current Government has done. We have gone and spoken to the parents and the teachers, and had the student voice inside the development of our policy.

New Zealand First is going to put the aspiration back into education. For example, take one little aspiration, which this Government continues to articulate but cannot live up to, that of five out of five students being successful. This Government cannot get even five out of five charter schools successful. This Government, forced into a position by one of its three other coalition partners, has actually created an environment where it has handed over $8.6 million worth of taxpayers’ money in a single budgetary year—in a single budgetary year—and it cannot get even five out of five schools right. I am asking you, the parents of New Zealand: how many teacher aide hours would that actually pay for, do you think, for your Asperger’s child, for your autistic child, or for your child with any other special needs? How many one-day school places for gifted and talented children do you think that would have provided? The fact is that this Government lost its aspiration for your gifted and talented children by removing the “well above” achievement category of its flawed national standards. It decided that just having the “above” category is fine. The Government has no aspiration for New Zealand’s children.

But let us go back to the fact that it cannot even get five out of five special schools right—schools funded for the ACT Party; the legacy of a dying party. Let us have a look at Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru. On 29 May the Minister of Education stood up and said that these schools would be more transparent and more accountable and that the contracts would hold them to account on assisting those students or they would be closed—or they would be closed. That was in May. On 17 April the business director of Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru resigned. The Ministry of Education put in a supervising facilitator because the place was falling apart, and the Government knew it was going to. Previously, prior to it even being said that it would become a charter school, the authorisation board—headed by, again, an ex - ACT Party president, and with John Morris on it, no less—recommended that this particular applicant go forward.

The ministry tried to advise the Minister yet again that this would be a mistake. The ministry said that the applicant had a long way to go to arrange suitable facilities, finalise the academic curriculum, and find suitable staff. So the ministry identified all the key risks. We also have the fact, disclosed under an Official Information Act request, that half the school was not built, as was pointed out by New Zealand First in December 2013. The school shifted its focus from the toilets, which were not going to be ready, to then decide that it would not have a kitchen ready, so the children could not continue.

The other thing that was really interesting about this Government was that it told the public of New Zealand that these schools would have an open-door policy—that any child could bowl up to a charter school and access these schools. Have a look at Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru’s enrolment priorities. You have to be the child of a staff member first, you have to be Ngāti Wai second—

Hon Tau Henare: Leave them alone. Why don’t you leave them alone, you bully?

TRACEY MARTIN: Because, Mr Henare, those children have been let down by your Government. These were among the most vulnerable children—seven of them had to be removed to be protected from other students—and your Government does not care. Your Government, as shown in documents, has hidden it, and kept a lid on it. As the Ministry of Education employee and Official Information Act documents have quite clearly pointed out, the Government has said it will not tell the public; it has kept the lid on it for as long as it can.

Hon Tau Henare: Keep your nose out of it.

TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Henare and this Government do not care for vulnerable children. This was spin, and New Zealand needs to see through it.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): That was a stunning contribution by Tracey Martin, I have to say. I honestly believe that people have been making up their minds about this coming election—which I think will probably be the most significant election in a generation, for a number of reasons—over the last year or so. There might be a few votes here or there as we get closer to the election and the noise increases, but, actually, I think people having been sitting back, living their lives, and what it will come down to for them is the direction that the country is heading in. I think it is as simple as that. Does the voter, as a New Zealander, feel as though the country is heading in the wrong direction or in the right direction? If people believe it is heading in the right direction—and we know from recent articles in the New Zealand Herald and a number of other media commentaries that 60 to 75 percent of the country believe the country is heading in the right direction—the next question then becomes whether the voter has trust and confidence that that direction can be maintained. I actually think that we can stand here and bluster and carry on as we do in this House, but out there in the real world, for the people whom we are here to serve, it boils down to those two things. Is the country heading in the right direction and can they trust the leadership to continue that direction? On both those counts, I know why the Opposition is worried, and it is because on both those counts, the voters believe that the National-led Government is the answer.

Then we look at the Labour Party today. As Opposition parties will do, it has tried to launch an alternative. It has decided all of a sudden that it has got this new vision of what will resonate with the New Zealand public, and it is not all about the beltway. Actually, that seldom resonates with people out there in the real world, in my view. Labour has now suddenly decided that it has got an alternative financial policy position that it will take that will lead to the promised land. I have a couple of issues with that. One is the fact that it is a sort of Back to the Future tax and spend approach. Nothing Labour has been doing is working so its approach is “Let’s go back to what did work and give that a go.” What we do know is that when that was last working for Labour, during the 9 years of the last Labour Government, it was a fair-weather sailing situation. The Labour Party is a party that knows how to sail well in fair weather.

The reality is, though, that what this country has faced and what political leaders, businesses, and families have faced in this country over the last 5 or so years has been very, very stormy weather—unprecedented. It was the perfect storm, if you actually look at it in that sense. So, in many respects, the reason that what the Labour Party is saying is not resonating with New Zealanders—“We returned nine surpluses!”—is because that is all well and good when it is fair-weather sailing, but when the storm hits, I would put it to you that New Zealanders actually understand that that is not good enough. And why is that? It is because for New Zealanders, Government is not the answer. The Government simply resources the community to go about doing its best to create the opportunities and to create the jobs through the right economic conditions and the right policy direction. We just enable; we do not provide the answers. That is the problem. The Labour Party has this crisis of thinking that because it delivered nine surpluses during the fair-weather years, New Zealanders will think that it can do it now. They actually do not. By now, they have been telling us that.

I think the issue that the Labour Party has is an identity crisis. New Zealanders might not be completely politically engaged with what the Grant Robertsons of this world believe is important, but they are quite savvy; they get a sense of it. The sense they have is that for Labour to be able to form a Government, it has got to cobble together and bolt on a whole lot of pieces that actually do not make sense in themselves. They do not actually make sense. They do not make a complete picture. One of the challenges that the Labour Party has in its identity crisis is the Green Party. The Green Party is the political equivalent to that kind of weird uncle who always turns up at Christmas time and makes everyone feel uncomfortable because he is a bit freaky and he does not quite fit in this place. That is the identity crisis here, because the public realises that for the Labour Party to be able to in Government, it has got to bring the weird uncle into the equation, but New Zealanders do not actually want the weird uncle.

So what I see is that there are two things on which New Zealanders will determine this election, and I believe they have already done it. Those are: are we heading in the right direction, and can National continue in that direction? And we can.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): A Labour Government will transform the New Zealand economy into a higher-value and higher-income economy through higher investment, innovation, and industry development. But it will do more than that—it will actually transform our nation into a tech-savvy nation. But in order to do that, it has to tackle the technology issues that exist within our own public sector. It might interest members on the other side to hear that Government agencies are significant users of information and communications technology products and services. They are a direct employer of skilled workers in information and communications technology, and a customer of local product markets. Government purchasing in New Zealand makes up almost 15 percent of GDP—15 percent of GDP. That is significant.

It is the Labour Party’s view that there are many huge, costly IT projects inside the Government. They often go badly and it results in vast sums of money going offshore. Departments are secretive about their technology products and they do not share them, even with other departments. Historically, the willingness of Governments to adopt proprietary software has enabled various vendor monopolies within Government IT, and there are significant issues emerging around this that are impacting on our Government and the way that we operate, but it is also being seen across the world, particularly with the countries with which we do a lot of business. Citizens, businesses, and delivery partners such as charities and voluntary groups need to be able to interact with Government officials, sharing and editing documents. Officials within Government departments also need to be able to work efficiently and to share and collaborate.

It is also the Labour Party’s view that the one-size-fits-all approach to public sector procurement and build processes is fundamentally flawed. It costs this country millions of dollars every year in failed software projects, robbing us of the chance to be a world leader in the development of innovative public sector products. All I have to do is mention Novopay. More than 2,000 schools are still struggling to deal with this dilapidated system. There is more than $9.3 million in debts to recover, and ongoing errors are still creating hundreds of thousands of dollars in new debt. As for the Inland Revenue Department project, we have a Government that is demanding that IT contractors be massive and slow moving. Even the former Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne has got problems with the way that the procurement processes have occurred—$1.5 billion. These are things that we have serious concerns about, and it is not just us who have serious concerns about it.

Interestingly, apart from the wider sector, which has serious concerns, the New Zealand Productivity Commission also has concerns. Last week it released its latest report, and in it were some damning findings about the lack of integration within the Government on information and communications technology policy to do with regulatory issues and to do with Government information and communications technology purchases. It referred to siloed thinking in Government departments, a lack of coordination, and regulation being introduced without regard for economic impact. That is very interesting, because it even made a recommendation that said, as a matter of promoting good policy advice, that “The Treasury, the State Services Commission and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet should ensure that the design of regulations that significantly affects the adoption of ICT by firms takes comprehensive account of costs and benefits.” If that does not tell you that you have got problems, then I do not know what does.

The biggest problem here is the lack of leadership. There is a lack of leadership and a lack of vision on that side of the House around tackling these very important things. This report went on to say that “knowledge spill-overs from Government ICT procurement are only likely to have value if the Government is at the leading edge of ICT adoption.”—which it says it is not—“On the contrary, the technologies that government agencies use are often older than those used in the private sector. For example, some agencies continued to use Windows XP long after it has been superseded by more recent versions and right up till security support was withdrawn by Microsoft.” That was in April this year. There are nearly 20,000 Government computers being used without security support at this point.

CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call at this time because I do want to say to my colleagues in the House that it is all about trust and it is all about empowerment and that this is a Government that knows what it is doing for a country that knows where it is going. New Zealanders want a Government that they can trust and Māori want a Government that they can trust. Māori want a Government that will listen to them. Māori marched, Māori protested, and Māori demanded that the Crown honour the Treaty. In 1975, at the “Not one more acre” Māori Land March, we heard the word “rangatiratanga”; in 1978, at Takaparawhā, we heard the words “mana motuhake”; and in 2004, at the seabed and foreshore hīkoi, we heard “Honour the Treaty”, “rangatiratanga”, and “mana motuhake”. We heard rangatiratanga and mana motuhake.

Māori came knocking and the National Government opened that door—not the Labour Government, but National. We have had 69 Treaty settlements. All the claims in the South Island have been settled. A pragmatic approach to settlements is a focus on equality. With our partner the Māori Party we have targeted whānau. There is $500 million supporting tamariki and whānau, including $172 million for paid parental leave, $42 million for parental tax credits, and $16 million for Māori housing. That is a Māori housing fund, and that is over and above our partnership with iwi, the Tāmaki Collective, Kirikiriroa, and the Kōkiri Te Rāhuitanga Charitable Trust—these are just some of the partnerships that we have forged as of right under the Treaty of Waitangi.

In hauora, free doctors visits and rongoā, prescriptions, for under-sixes are extended to under-13-year-olds. There is $33 million targeting the whānau in most need. There is $15.8 million in disability services for our people. There is $830 million in education, including $359 million to strengthen leadership in schools. Although I hear the Opposition talk about principals and head teachers not wanting to participate, make no mistake about it that there are schools in South Auckland and schools in west Auckland that are more than ready, more than willing, and more than capable to step up into those positions.

There is $2.4 million for the Reading Together programme for deciles 4 and 5 kura, and $12 million for Te Reo Māori. There is $80 million for kirikā rūmātiki, to battle a Third World disease—rheumatic fever. This National Government has done it. And $8 million is going into suicide prevention. In terms of whenua, there is $5 million for te mana o te wai. There is $3.5 million to assist beneficiary whanau to take up full-time mahi in Christchurch.

If you do what you have always done, you are going to get what you have always got, and so that means that if we did nothing for Māori and if we did not honour our responsibility under the Treaty of Waitangi, we would have got what we have always had under the previous Government. But this is what we have got for that investment. This is what Māori have done for themselves under rangatiratanga and motuhake. This is about empowerment.

The early childhood education participation rate for Māori in 2013 was at 92 percent and climbing. There were 77 percent of 18-year-olds achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 in 2012, and that number is rising. Māori NCEA level 2 achievement or equivalent rose higher than in any other group—54 percent of Māori school leavers achieved level 2 in 2009, compared with 45 percent under the previous Government. In 2012, 28 percent of Māori students were in tertiary education and studying at a Bachelor’s degree level, compared with 21 percent in 2007, and that figure is rising.

Fifty percent of those in trades training are our tāne Māori. Yes, we are getting about a five out of five achievement rate and success rate for our kids in school. Under the previous Government, it was three out of five, and that Government was satisfied with that. The two who were failing were our Māori and Pasifika tāne. This Government is intent on and focused on getting five out of five achievement, and that includes our boys, our tāne, who were failing under the previous Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dr Kennedy Graham. [Interruption] Order! Can I just take the opportunity to advise members who are new to the House that in the general debate it is the custom and practice that as soon as the bell goes, members sit down.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Over the past few months I have intervened on a number of occasions in the general debate to draw our collective attention to the issue of climate change. I have heard it said, including in this Chamber, that the Green Party does not own the issue of climate change. We could not agree more. The issue is owned by humanity—which includes the National Party—so the Greens do not have sole ownership.

But shared ownership does not in itself mean shared insight. The Prime Minister, as we have noted before, was sceptical of global warming as recently as 2005, a decade after the previous National Government signed the global treaty acknowledging it to be a threat to the future of humankind. On becoming Prime Minister, Mr Key allowed himself and therefore his Government to acknowledge climate change to be a problem, but the sceptical mind-set remains. Its mutated form lives on in policy prevarication. We are small, so mitigation is not essential; it is long term, so mitigation is not urgent; and as long as it is not urgent or essential, we can continue with our mercantilist, “New Zealand Inc.” approach to the world, where we earn dollars through raw commodity export earnings off the global economy. Wrong on both counts. Mitigation by New Zealand is essential and it is urgent.

It is urgent because serious climate change has already arrived. This week the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a finding that May 2014 was the hottest month in recorded history. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surface was 0.74 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average—15.5 instead of 14.8. Is this significant? Yes, because it is part of a pattern. Four of the five warmest Mays on record have occurred in the past 5 years. May 2014 is the 351st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. Does this matter? Yes, because it is linked to severe climate change, beginning with precipitation. Extreme wetness, says the agency, was observed in May over Europe and equatorial Africa, while extreme dryness was experienced in South America and Australia.

Why go into such detail on what is essentially a scientific issue, and so soon before an election? Because this is the House of Representatives and we are meant to be responsible for the future of this country and our people. Because although we sit uncomfortably in our chairs here when the subject comes up and avoid eye contact, the fact is that climate change is the biggest issue to confront us ever. So when we receive news of this kind reinforcing the obvious, it needs to be read into the record of this House, even if only once. It needs to be on record that this House was warned, during debate, over the impending danger of a warming climate.

So what might this Parliament do then in response? We could begin by taking seriously the Wise Response petition, which calls for a national risk assessment supported by cross-party endorsement. We could agree that our Parliament has two responsibilities: a short-term one to protect the job security of the present generation, and a long-term one to ensure the next generation has half a chance to protect their quality of life. And even a distant responsibility that would recognise the possibility of a sea level rise over centuries and millennia of 10 to 20 metres if Greenland and Antarctica are truly in irreversible ice-melt.

If this sounds politically surreal in 2014, perhaps we are in new and uncharted territory. We could then acknowledge together the international advice that today’s preventive measures will actually be economically advantageous to us all. Then we could agree, even with an election looming, that we will not misrepresent each other’s policies, and could search for common ground that can underpin an enduring national climate policy, because this climate thing is bigger than politics and bigger than all of us mortals alive right now, really.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill

First Reading

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National - Christchurch Central): I move, That the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust 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 this bill and I am delighted, because I can tell you that the Arts Centre holds a very special place in the hearts of my family but, more important, in the hearts of the people of Christchurch.

The Arts Centre is a collection of historic buildings on a site previously occupied by the University of Canterbury and two of the city’s original secondary schools. It represents one of the largest clusters of heritage buildings in New Zealand and is a cultural asset of local, national, and international significance. As well as reflecting a unique part of our country’s architectural heritage, the Arts Centre has a rich history of education, of arts, and of science. Nobel Prize - winning scientist Lord Rutherford completed his undergraduate degree and carried out most of his groundbreaking research at this site, and his den has been restored to commemorate that.

By the late 1970s the University of Canterbury had relocated to the suburb of Ilam and the buildings were transferred to the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board. The trust was established in 1978. It was to provide a cultural centre and to preserve the architectural character and integrity of the historic stone buildings on the site. Since this time the Arts Centre played an important role as a community asset and it has been used for a variety of arts-related activities, including art and artisan studio spaces, cafes and restaurants, theatres, cinemas, retail, outdoor markets, galleries, and public performances. The Arts Centre became known as a key destination for visitors and for locals alike. An estimated 1.5 million people visited the Arts Centre every year, with approximately half of them coming from outside the Christchurch region. But in 2010 and 2011, when the Canterbury region was struck by a series of devastating earthquakes, all but one of the Arts Centre’s 23 heritage buildings sustained significant damage and were subsequently deemed unsafe. This forced the closure of the site in 2011 for the foreseeable future.

Work is now under way on a path of transformation to restore and to reawaken one of New Zealand’s most significant heritage sites. The Arts Centre’s restoration programme is understood to be one of the largest of its kind to be undertaken in the world today. Piece by piece the Arts Centre is being strengthened and restored to its original form. It will be stronger, more durable, and safer than before the earthquakes, and at the same time we are adding modern services to improve public access and the use of the buildings. Over the coming years there will be a phased reopening of the site. The first building in the programme has already been opened, and that is the restored Registry Building. Such is the work that it has been recognised for excellence with a Christchurch Civic Trust award in late 2013. The commitment of the Arts Centre to the re-emergence of arts and culture in the city is also evident in its redevelopment, and the gymnasium, which opens in the coming months, will be the new home of Free Theatre Christchurch, in collaboration with the Arts Circus project.

Significant planning and work is under way to enable the Arts Centre to achieve a vision for the future. This is about not just restoring the physical buildings but also providing a foundation for arts, culture, heritage, and education in a much stronger way than has ever been done before. The goal is to create a hub of creative entrepreneurs in the heart of Christchurch that is undeniably 21st century. This is informed by the objects of the trust and the need for the Arts Centre to be financially sustainable. The activities at the Arts Centre will complement and support a broad range of cultural, arts, and education activities in Christchurch. Importantly, the revitalised Arts Centre will bring people back into our city.

This bill is a key part of protecting and preserving the Arts Centre of Christchurch for the future. It sets out the objects of the trust in legislation and reflects the cultural and heritage significance of the Arts Centre. It provides an opportunity for greater certainty around the original intentions of the trust deed to preserve the architectural and heritage values of the site and to provide a vibrant cultural centre for the people of Christchurch and visitors to the city. The bill will also enable the Arts Centre to modernise its governance arrangements. The new governance structure has been recommended by the Arts Centre’s trust board following a comprehensive review. This included the commissioning of an independent report with the support of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and also involved an extensive consultation process with stakeholders over the last couple of years.

The bill provides for a skills-based board appointed by an appointments committee. Stakeholders, including the broader community, will have the opportunity to nominate candidates for trustee vacancies. This will provide trustees with the essential support of the community. It is vitally important that the trust maintains a strong set of skills during the restoration phase of the Arts Centre but also over the next few years, and that an enduring governance structure is in place for the repopulation phase and beyond. In the unlikely event in the future that the trust is unable to carry out its charitable objects and is wound up, the bill also provides for the site to be vested in the Crown on an interim basis until a new entity is put in place. This is to ensure that there is always a safe pair of hands in the short term if such circumstances would ever arise, and that gives a level of certainty that the current trust deed cannot provide.

This bill is about protecting the Arts Centre of Christchurch for the future. It reflects the local, national, and international heritage significance of the site. The bill will provide legal foundations for the trust board to continue to be able to recover from the impacts of the earthquakes. It is also appropriate for the governance structure to be adapted to account for changed circumstances and to better secure the protection of this important cultural asset into the future. In this way the future of the Arts Centre can be assured.

The Arts Centre of Christchurch is an absolute treasure. It deserves to be respected and cared for. The trustees and the management at the Arts Centre are all highly committed and working incredibly hard on this project. My hope is that in years to come people will feel that a revitalised Arts Centre has really anchored them back into Christchurch. I strongly believe that the Arts Centre will be an inspiring public place that is recognised from the past and protected for the future. We will benefit from not only restoring our history and culture but also from the site being strengthened and improved for future generations. From the damaged buildings and the rubble there is a unique opportunity to create a new, vibrant centre that will be a source of great pride for Christchurch and New Zealand as a whole.

I am delighted to move the motion for the first reading of this bill today. I look forward to the select committee deliberations and the bill’s return to the House, and its ultimate passage.

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

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour - Port Hills): Can I say that I am very pleased that after our years in Parliament together you do recognise me. I would be very disappointed if you could not recall who I was. It is a real pleasure for me to stand in support of this legislation, the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill, and I want to begin by acknowledging the Hon Nicky Wagner, who has introduced this private bill as a local member of Parliament. I want to commend her for that. I also want to acknowledge the eight members of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board, and in particular our former parliamentary colleague the Hon Margaret Austin, who I know is very passionate about this legislation. She is very passionate about heritage and, like all of us from Canterbury, I suppose, she is devastated at the loss that has happened as a result of the quakes in our city. Actually, it is not just as a result of the quakes; it is also as a result of the demolition orders of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, where we have had magnificent heritage buildings demolished rather than be repaired. That is a travesty and I know that the Hon Margaret Austin and her fellow trustees would feel that very keenly.

That is another demonstration, actually, of the National Government being so out of touch with where people are. People in Canterbury would love to see more of their heritage buildings repaired and restored so that we could once again have that connection to the past, which is actually so important for people looking to the future. But this is not about the buildings that have been destroyed by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—thank goodness. This legislation is about an extremely damaged set of buildings at the Arts Centre, which have started to be lovingly and tenderly put back together, piece by piece. It is going to be such a magnificent restoration of a set of buildings that really are at the heart and history of our city. As Nicky Wagner noted, the University of Canterbury used to be there. I want to acknowledge the Hon Michael Cullen, who was one of its pupils. Knowing Michael, he is probably listening to this debate, because he is very interested in heritage and history. That was his speciality when he was at the university.

This bill is pretty straightforward. It puts into legislation the trust’s objects, and that is very important. It also makes changes to the governance arrangements and other terms of the trust, so it is a legislative protection. The trustees and other people who have been involved in the operation have proposed to our Parliament that this is the best way to ensure the continuity of care, passion, and dedication to the running of the Arts Centre, but also to ensure that, whatever happens in the future, work is still able to continue. So I think it is a bit of the responsibility of Parliament to accept that that work has been done and it is really our job to progress it from here, as is appropriate with private bills.

The Arts Centre is actually undergoing a huge restoration job at the moment. It is a 7-year time frame. It will cost $290 million, which is a huge amount of money, and I think that having this legislation will mean that many potential donors will have more confidence and understanding of the needs of the trust and the needs of Canterbury and will be better positioned to support them. I hope that that is one of the many benefits of this legislation.

Can I just conclude by expressing a small amount of disappointment. I do not want to personalise it, but I need to direct it to the member whose name the bill is in, because she just said she is going to refer the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am devastated, because the Government Administration Committee has got nothing on the agenda. We are a really competent committee and Margaret Austin told us that we were probably going to get this bill. She thought that we were going to have it referred to us. The members of that committee agreed to an informal discussion with the Hon Margaret Austin, just so we were ahead of the game, and that was much appreciated by everyone. Now we are devastated. I think that my colleagues on that committee are probably too upset to contribute to the rest of the debate, to be honest. So if the Minister changes her mind before the conclusion of the debate, the members of the Government Administration Committee stand ready, willing, and able to take charge of this bill.

I am really delighted that this bill is here. I am proud to support it, and I hope that it progresses and creates some interest in our city and some good debate. I hope it creates a further sense of pride in our heritage and a respect and passion for the people who do so much in our city, particularly the trustees of the Arts Centre. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the honourable member, I just wish to advise members that the people’s House, the Chamber, is a place of listening and debate. This is not a call centre. Cellphones are not an extension of a member’s office, and when in the House they must be in silent mode.

JACQUI DEAN (National - Waitaki): I am very pleased to stand up in this first reading of the Hon Nicky Wagner’s private bill, the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I am absolutely delighted that this bill has been referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Don’t rub it in.

JACQUI DEAN: I am delighted that this bill has been referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, not least because it is a pretty damn good and hard-working committee, with an excellent chair in Maggie Barry, who will be taking a call on this bill in due course. We are dealing with some related matters that will help inform the discussion on this bill, and no doubt that was in the mind of the Hon Nicky Wagner when she introduced this bill—that the Local Government and Environment Committee is dealing with the earthquake-prone buildings legislation and that, in fact, its members are travelling the length of New Zealand listening to submissions. That information will inform our consideration of this bill. So I want to congratulate the Hon Nicky Wagner on introducing this bill and undertaking to give it a pretty good working over in the committee.

The Arts Centre in Christchurch is something that all of us New Zealanders who have travelled around New Zealand are very well aware of. It is the secondary magnet in Christchurch—is it? The first magnet is Cathedral Square and the secondary magnet is the Arts Centre, for its vibrant, wonderful centre of creativity and arts for a number of years—since, I think, about the mid to late 1970s, when the trust was formed and it was recognised to be the future hub for arts and creativity. Unless you were there, you cannot imagine the devastation caused by, and the impact of, the two earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. Twenty-two of the 23 buildings were closed to the public, pending a major restoration effort. Although it is one thing to restore the buildings, it is a large project. It is a 7-year project, and something like a $290 million restoration programme. It is one thing to undertake the physical works, but what needs to go with that, and the very reason for this bill, which is why the Hon Nicky Wagner is so right to introduce it, is that the governance arrangements need to be updated to enable the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board to undertake this major, major piece of work, so that the Arts Centre, once it is restored—in 7 years, I hope—can return to being the exciting, vibrant, and thriving centre that it has been in the past.

Actually, we have been there several times since the earthquakes and there are little pockets of activity. It is still an exciting place to visit. Is there a wonderful cheesemaker’s there? Yes, that is right. The Hon Nicky Wagner took us to the most wonderful little artisan, boutique cheese shop, Canterbury Cheesemongers—fantastic. I believe I bought some cheese to take home to North Otago, but do not tell Whitestone Cheese—but never mind. It is still a vibrant part of Christchurch, encapsulating all that is good about the recovery in Christchurch. Something devastating has happened. The board of the Arts Centre in Christchurch understands it needs to do the physical rebuild, but it also understands very clearly that it needs to bring the governance structure in line with the responsibilities, the aims, and the purposes of that very rebuild.

I do look forward to the scrutiny of this bill as it passes through the excellent Local Government and Environment Committee, and I do commend the member for bringing it to the House. I commend the bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to take a very brief call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I want to join my colleagues in congratulating Nicky Wagner on bringing this bill before the House. It is good to see some discussion around heritage issues in Christchurch.

Although at the beginning of the recovery it was very necessary to take a safety-first approach to Christchurch’s buildings, we on this side of the House have been concerned for some time that we are now at a point where we are concerned about the powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Act, and in particular section 38, which allows for the demolition of those heritage buildings. It is time now, we believe, for that section to be repealed and for there to be due process over the removal of further heritage buildings. We have lost 50 percent of the heritage buildings in Canterbury, and it is time, I think, for us to take a step back and say that we have addressed those immediate safety concerns and we do need to turn our minds to preserving the wonderful, beautiful history of the Canterbury region. I just make that plea at the beginning of my statement.

Just very quickly, to summarise, obviously Labour supports this bill. The Arts Centre is the jewel in the crown of heritage buildings in Canterbury. It is important, though, that we ensure that the framework that sits around the trust and all of the work that it is having to do now—the comprehensive and expensive restoration work—is fit for purpose, that it gives the trust a good, sound footing, and that it adapts to the situation it now find itself in.

I wish very well those who are on the governance committees of the Arts Centre for the work they are doing, and I particularly acknowledge, as my colleague has done, Margaret Austin in that work. Finally, I just reiterate our support for this bill and our thanks to Nicky Wagner for bringing it forward.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill, which the Green Party will be supporting. Like other members, I acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for bringing the bill to the House, and the hard-working and committed members of the trust board.

I was privileged to have an office in the Old Chemistry building on Hereford Street through the 1990s and early 2000s. It is indeed a privilege to work in a building that has got such a history of craftsmanship and has been used and enjoyed by so many people over the decades. As you enter the Old Chemistry building, the stone steps have a depression in them, and each time I walked up them I wondered how many thousands of students’ feet had passed that way before.

The craftsmanship in the buildings, in terms of the ornamental stonework and the architecture, is not found in many buildings today. The buildings, the whole complex itself, were constructed by some of Canterbury’s early significant and leading architects, like Benjamin Mountfort and Samuel Hurst-Seager, and that is one of the reasons why it is one of the most significant clusters of heritage buildings in New Zealand. They are not just nationally important; they are internationally important.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga has recognised the Arts Centre campus as a building with special or outstanding historical or cultural heritage significance and value. It was really disappointing that in the series of earthquakes, despite the work that the trust had put into earthquake strengthening prior to the quakes, there was significant damage to all but one of the 23 buildings on the campus. But whenever you walk down Worcester Boulevard or Hereford Street and you see the very steady and thoughtful progress of the restoration work that is being done, it is very encouraging, particularly because it is being done in a careful way. The work is being phased. It is a significant and very large project—one of the largest in the world, I understand, given the complexity of it.

There is a very marked contrast between the thoughtful work that is happening to the Arts Centre and the desolation we have in the rest of the central city because of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s very aggressive demolition strategy in relation to heritage buildings. Its strategy has seen the destruction of over 230 buildings with a heritage listing. It is really disappointing that the same care that is being put into the Arts Centre could not have been exercised by the authority in terms of its decisions on whether buildings should stay or go.

The buildings are significant not just for their craftsmanship and their architecture but also for their history. The University of Canterbury was founded in 1873. It moved on to the site in 1876. The buildings were there to accommodate the university and two of the city’s major secondary schools, Christchurch Boys’ High School and Christchurch Girls’ High School. When the university celebrated its centennial in 1973 it got the Government’s permission to preserve the buildings and to sell off some of the ones at the western end of the complex, and that has been the basis of the buildings growing to form a very special place in the hearts of many Christchurch citizens.

We are very pleased to support this bill, because it updates and modernises the governance arrangements for the trust, and it consolidates the trust’s administration. It includes provisions that will provide for the appointment of a skills-based board, and it provides a much more secure future for the Arts Centre because of the provisions that mean that in the event that the trust board had to be wound up, the Crown would have to establish a new entity with objects as close as possible to the objects in this bill. At the present time, if the board had to be wound up, then it could use the assets that the Arts Centre represents for any educational or charitable purpose. So it has a much more secure future with this change.

Another one of the improvements in terms of the governance arrangements is that the board will have to hold an annual public meeting, because Christchurch citizens are concerned about the future of the Arts Centre. It was very controversial in 2009, with the University of Canterbury’s proposal to establish a new school of music on the site.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First as the arts and culture spokesperson. I am pleased to stand in support of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and to acknowledge the member of Parliament Nicky Wagner for bringing the bill to the House, and the trustees who have been working around these heritage properties for some time.

In my own experience in my own town, where we have a grand lady that was also 100 years old, and where there have been a substantial number of voices calling for us to pull down our heritage, to attack our heritage, because it might be in a prime spot that might have more commercial value, I know how difficult it can be sometimes to argue the point that these buildings must be protected and must be maintained. In the circumstances that I am talking about, with this category I building with the last building made of hollow blocks, not of a stone block construction, we have to raise only $1 million more to make sure that the inside is preserved and strengthened, as opposed to $290 million.

My hat is off to the very brave people who have put themselves forward, who will put themselves forward, and who will commit themselves to these buildings and to the maintenance of this heritage, as already has been suggested, not just for Christchurch but for the country. It is just another step on the way to making sure that this Parliament supports the people of Christchurch in any way that it can to bring their city back to the fabulous city that it was. They still have the character, the strength, and the backbone that they always had, and they are probably even more resilient than they ever were, due to the circumstances of the earthquakes. But they still need support in particular ways, and this is one of the ways that this Parliament can give that support.

We do not see any reason to take up any more time to talk any more about the bill. We look forward to the select committee process. We look forward to reviewing the wide consultation that has already taken place around this particular issue. We believe that it has strong support from the local area, so we will commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise members on 5-minute speeches. Custom and practice dictate that, like the general debate, speakers with 5-minute slots are to be seated on the ringing of the bell and the next speaker should seek the call.

MAGGIE BARRY (National - North Shore): I rise with great pleasure to speak to the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill at its first reading. As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I am delighted that the Hon Nicky Wagner has chosen to take this bill to our committee. It is a very good thing indeed, and, of course, she is extremely well placed, unlike a member from Auckland. Nicky Wagner understands only too well the importance of the Arts Centre to the community of Christchurch. It is an essential part of the fabric, the history, of the town.

As someone who studied horticulture in Christchurch many, many years ago, to me the building really does typify what is quintessentially Christchurch. It is a magnificent building. One of the many tragedies that occurred after the earthquakes is the fact that all but one of the centre’s 23 buildings were very, very badly damaged, and it is wonderful indeed to see this magnificent building be restored and be able to be used in a way that will reflect the history of the city, even when so much else all around it has changed.

It seems to me that when you modernise and make more fit for purpose buildings of the importance of the Arts Centre, it is also very important to change the governance structures so that they too are able to reflect the changing needs of those buildings. So to get people in charge of the buildings who have the skill set required to guide and push them through to the place where they need to be—to be again a jewel in the crown of Christchurch City—is indeed a very important thing.

As Nicky Wagner pointed out in the opening call in this debate, the centre used to be visited by 1.5 million visitors annually, and, of those, half came from outside the region. I think that when you look at the proud history of Christchurch’s buildings—apart from the Cathedral, and I share members’ concerns that that is a building that has not been restored to the grandeur it deserves—we can see that the remaining buildings do need to be very carefully looked at and preserved. Piece by piece, stone by stone, these magnificent buildings will rise and be fit for modern purpose. Buildings of this kind are very representative of Christchurch.

This bill will enable the centre to modernise the governance arrangements. It will set out the objects of the trust in legislation, which will protect it and enshrine those protections. It will also reflect, as a baseline, the cultural heritage significance of the Arts Centre, but with that modern edge and with that post-earthquakes edge as well. This is a bill that will ensure that the Arts Centre will be in a safe pair of hands in the short term, and in the longer term the vision for the future and the governance role of the directors will ensure that it remains relevant and fit for purpose, no matter what challenges might occur for it in the future.

I think that setting out the trust’s current objectives in legislation, with the consequences that they can be changed only by amendment to the legislation, is a further strengthening. It is as important as the earthquake strengthening. It is important that people cannot fiddle and tamper with something that really needs to be able to just get on with the very challenging job that it has for its future. As I indicated, this is a bill that provides for a skills-based board that will be appointed by an appointments committee.

Sometimes in the past—I have seen it a little bit in Christchurch and in other places—well-intentioned people who have got time on their hands and who would like to get involved in a project, do get involved in it, but sometimes there is more required than that. So, with the best will in the world, that very important decision-making role of who should be on a board and what skill sets are required needs to be properly protected and enshrined, so that there is not going to be any misunderstanding.

Given the amount of time, energy, and resources that have been put into this bill, and into the centre itself, it is really important that in the future it be secured in perpetuity. I think the objects of the trust, as set out in the legislation, do need to be clearly distinguished from the powers of the trust board, and that is all because those objects need to be advanced. Along with the other reasons and points that have been made by other speakers in this debate, I join with them in commending this bill to the House. I look forward to it coming before the Local Government and Environment Committee and going through due process in due course. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour - Christchurch East): Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. Meitaki maata. I rise to take a short call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for bringing this bill to the House. Of course, it is something that we are very happy to support because it is a beautiful precinct and it has a lot of history and significance in Christchurch. I want to acknowledge the members of the trust board who are here today to support the discussion in the House.

I am a little envious, I have to say, of the member Eugenie Sage, who actually got the opportunity to work in the precinct. What wonderful memories you must have of that place. I have to say that my own connection is rather more recreational, but I have spent many, many times enjoying the markets there previously. I know what a touchstone the whole precinct is for that part of the city and that many people gather there. It is unfortunate that we have lost so much in Christchurch, but the care and the love that the trust board has for this centre and has really put into saving the buildings will ensure that the centre will go on into perpetuity for the people of Canterbury and for people from outside the region.

I have to say that that is a really important part of this bill. It is about the structure of the board and governance issues and ensuring that there is good, sound structure for the Arts Centre to continue, but it also has a very emotional heart because we have lost a lot of the touchstones that we had in that city. You would connect different parts of the city to the significant buildings that occupied those spaces, and we have lost so many of them. It is a particularly pretty and beautiful part of our city, and it is wonderful to know that those buildings will be retained there.

I do not have too much more to say on this, other than to commend the trust for wanting to strengthen the provisions within its charitable objects, wanting to strengthen the work that it does within its board structure, ensuring that it has the right people and the right skill sets on board, and ensuring that it has got the opportunity to get all of the expertise to continue to develop not only the recovery and the rebuild of this particular precinct but also the sense and the mana of the Arts Centre to continue on past this particular board into the future. I just want to say that it is a great bill. We are really happy to support it and I commend the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on this. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National - Whangarei): I rise to support the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill in its first reading and I acknowledge the sponsor, Christchurch Central MP Nicky Wagner, for introducing it to the House. I know that this is not just something that she simply does. I know that her heart is very much in this bill, just as her heart is very much in Christchurch. I congratulate her and happily support the provisions in this bill.

The Arts Centre restoration programme is understood to be the largest of its kind ever to be undertaken in the world today. This bill is a key part of protecting and preserving that very Arts Centre of Christchurch for all of our futures, but not least of all for the people of Christchurch and of wider Canterbury. It sets out the objects of the trust in legislation and reflects the cultural and heritage significance of the Arts Centre. In noting that, it is important that the objects of the trust, as set out in this legislation, are clearly distinguished from the powers of the trust board to advance these objects. This is because of the local, national, and international heritage significance of the Arts Centre and its historic buildings. It is because of the importance of the trust’s objectives in relation to ensuring that the Arts Centre continues as a cultural centre for the people and visitors of Christchurch, and it is so the heritage integrity of the Arts Centre and its historic stone buildings are preserved.

The Arts Centre holds a very special place in the hearts of the people of Christchurch. It is a collection of historic buildings on a site previously occupied by the University of Canterbury, and the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery gave us a brief history lesson on that. The Arts Centre was occupied by the University of Canterbury and two of the city’s original secondary schools. In fact, it represents one of the largest clusters of heritage buildings in New Zealand and is a cultural asset of local, national, and international significance—as I outlined before. Interestingly, the Nobel Prize - winning scientist Lord Rutherford completed his undergraduate degree and carried out most of his ground-breaking research on this site.

This bill also provides an opportunity for greater certainty around the original intentions of the trust deed. This is to preserve the architectural and heritage values of the site. It is very important that we keep as close as possible to what was originally intended by designers and those involved in the act of construction way back when the original build occurred. It will provide a vibrant cultural centre for the people of Christchurch, and, of course, the bill will also ensure that the new governance structure that has been recommended by the Arts Centre’s trust board, following a comprehensive review, does in fact occur. This process included the commissioning of an independent report, with the support of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and also involved an extensive consultation process with stakeholders over the last couple of years.

The bill provides for a skills-based board appointment by an appointments committee. That is very, very important. Stakeholders, including the broader community, will have the opportunity to nominate candidates for trustee vacancies. I see an opportunity there. This will provide trustees with the essential support of the community.

Phil Twyford: A career opportunity.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: As one who is searching. Importantly, prior to the drafting of this bill the trust board has undertaken wide-ranging consultation with key external stakeholders already—including the University of Canterbury, the Christchurch City Council, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, the Christchurch Civic Trust, and papatipu rūnanga of Canterbury—about the nature and the effect of the proposed changes. So the community as a whole is well weaved into this process and there is tremendous support for what Minister Wagner wants to achieve here for the community.

These stakeholders are supportive in principle of the proposed changes, including the move to a skills-based trust board. They see the sense in that. That is something that this National Government has over the last 5 or 6 years ensured—that skills on boards throughout the country are made top priority.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I would just like to take a call on this particular bill, the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill, because coming, as I do, from the West Coast, the development and the restoration of Christchurch institutions are very, very important to us. Not only that, I was a resident in Christchurch for some years and this particular centre was where my children used to go when they were playing in their orchestra, and I would join many a parent listening to the wonderful renditions of children under 10—and I was very heartened.

Another reason I would like to speak on this bill is to provide support for my colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner, who is a very, very hard-working MP in Christchurch. It was very pleasing to hear some of the principal speakers on the Labour side saying that they felt she had done a jolly good job. However, it would seem that Phil Twyford finds it boring. He asked Phil Heatley in the previous speech to hurry up, when he was talking about something as important as this.

Hon Amy Adams: It’s not about Auckland.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is not about Auckland; therefore, Phil Twyford is not interested. I was astonished. I had always given him a little bit of credit for being reasonably cultured: you know, not just having books with illustrations in them, but into the odd chapter books, some joined up writing—Phil could handle this. But, no—

Jami-Lee Ross: He should be out doorknocking.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: He should indeed be out doorknocking, and it is just something of a disappointment to hear such a stream of criticism coming over from the other side. Well, I hope he was listening to Phil Heatley, because I am going to say much the same things myself, because there may be points that he missed. But all jokes aside—

Phil Twyford: He was a fine housing Minister, Phil Heatley.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It was a fine speech by Mr Heatley. I quite agree with you. Thank you for saying that. I do remember the building, and, of course, it is not just a matter of Christchurch residents benefiting; it is the whole area—the diaspora of Christchurch, the entrepôt of the South Island, and the second-largest city in New Zealand.

This centre of it—the cultural centre, the Arts Centre—is a very important aspect. This bill sets out the objects of the trust and the powers of the trust board to advance these objects in an Act. Mr Assistant Speaker, I realise that you were getting frustrated with the level of interjection that we were receiving from the other side. I did not really notice it, but I think Mr Twyford had something else to say.

Phil Twyford: A top-quality interjection.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: You had a question?

Phil Twyford: Top quality.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: A top-quality interjection?

Phil Twyford: I said it’s pronounced “di-aspora”, not “dia-spora”.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: “Di-aspora”? Well, I pronounce it—“envelope” or “on-velope”; “di-aspora” or “dia-spora”. I probably use a Scottish pronunciation. I probably use a—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Let us talk about the bill.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am keen to do that. The bill sets out the objects of the trust and the powers of the trust board to advance these objects in an Act. Basically, the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill reflects the local, national, and international heritage significance of the Arts Centre. The bill is a key part of protecting and preserving the Arts Centre of Christchurch for the future, and it sets out the trust’s current objectives in legislation, with the consequence that they can be changed only by amendment to the legislation.

I have been privileged to have a visit from one of the trustees, who wanted to acquaint me with the work they have done. I think that everybody here is familiar with the voluntary efforts of people with experience who sit on trusts and on boards and bring their skills, and this trust is no less deserving of credit for what its members have done. They have worked very, very hard to bring this bill to this point. Because the bill will enable the Arts Centre to modernise its governance arrangements, it sets out the objectives of the trust in legislation and reflects the cultural and heritage significance of the Arts Centre. Perhaps without straying from the bill, Mr Assistant Speaker—without straying from the bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): In reply I call the honourable Minister Nicky Wagner.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National - Christchurch Central): As we have heard this afternoon in the House, the Arts Centre is a much-beloved part of Christchurch. We all have our family stories of how we have enjoyed it. I remember most of all taking my little sons down to the Arts Centre most weekends to go to the food carts, because we lived only a couple of blocks away from it. I also used to make a regular trip every Christmas to do my Christmas shopping there. The Arts Centre was also a place that we liked to take visitors who came to Christchurch to see. We took them there so they could enjoy the magnificent heritage buildings, reflect on the history of Christchurch, enjoy the arts, perhaps shop for local crafts in the stores and markets, and really enjoy the public space, the entertainment, and the performances that were there.

When the 2010 earthquake hit Christchurch, the Arts Centre was damaged. Fortunately, there was some work done on the Arts Centre, including securing one of the turrets that is on Rolleston Avenue, before the 2011 earthquakes, which did further damage. I think we were particularly fortunate to have nobody injured in those earthquakes, because a lot of people spent a lot of time in the Arts Centre. Immediately after the 2011 earthquake, the site had to be closed because of unsafe buildings. As we have heard, the rebuilding is under way. It is a huge restoration project, and it is going very well. I was delighted to see the new Registry Building opened. It has been beautifully restored, it is fully tenanted, and it looks fantastic. The next thing we are looking forward to is the opening of the gymnasium, which will be the home of the Free Theatre and the Arts Circus project. Lots of people are looking forward to that and to coming back into the city to go to their performances.

The vision of the future of the Arts Centre is important to Christchurch. It is a vision of a hub for creative entrepreneurs that will support a broad range of cultural, arts, and educational activities. It is a place for all Christchurch people and our visitors to gather, to enjoy a vibrant, creative, and historically important experience.

The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill also seeks to modernise the governance arrangements, as we have heard. It provides for a skills-based board of trustees appointed by an appointments committee, and candidates will be recommended by stakeholders and the broader community. It is essential that the trust has a strong set of skills as it works its way through this restoration project, and also that it has a strong governance structure for the ongoing future. This bill is about protecting the Arts Centre of Christchurch. The Arts Centre is a unique cluster of historic buildings, and it will be a fabulous creative arts centre and cultural hub. It is has been a much-loved public space, as I said. It has been enjoyed in the past by the people of Christchurch and many, many tourists, and once again it will be a fabulous, people-friendly, vibrant space for our city. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I seek leave for the clauses to be debated as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose—that the clauses be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is an extraordinary pleasure to stand and take a call on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill in this, the Committee stage. I am told that I can actually take—

Hon Amy Adams: As many as you like.

Dr CAM CALDER: —as many calls as I want, and I cannot believe this, because rarely does one have that honour in this House.

Simon O’Connor: In these final days.

Dr CAM CALDER: Indeed. As you know, my time here is coming to an end, so I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I have to say that this was something that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee changed the title of. It changed the title of the bill. Many of the members of the committee are here today, and I have to acknowledge the extraordinarily fine chairmanship of David Bennett and the remarkable support of Chris Auchinvole, Simon O’Connor, and other members of the committee, who looked at this bill long and hard. There was no withdrawal from the scrutiny they gave this bill. What they decided—for very good reason—was that the name of the bill should be changed from the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I would like to go into some of the reasons why.

Phil Twyford: Don’t feel you have to.

Dr CAM CALDER: Some of the reasons can be found on the internet, Mr Twyford. I know, Mr Twyford, that you are a habitué of the internet. You, yourself, were you to peruse the entry for high-power lasers, would be surprised at what you found. What he would find is the extraordinary power of these devices. I noted in the speech I made on the second reading how easy it was to purchase high-power laser pointers for a relatively small price. I am pleased to say that now if one goes on to the internet, one finds warnings to prospective customers from the Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Customs Service outlining to potential buyers of these devices our new customs and health regulations, which cover the importation and supply of these dangerous goods. These new controls on the importation, supply, and acquisition of high-power laser pointers are reinforced in this legislation that we are debating in the Committee of the whole House today.

As I said, the title of this bill has been changed to purposefully bring in the definition of “high-power laser pointer” because what we found at the select committee—and I am sure members of the committee may bring this out, draw it out, and expand upon it a little bit more in their own contribution to the debate—and what we heard was that there was a body of opinion that suggested that devices of 1 milliwatt and less in power were highly unlikely to cause problems. I have to put up my hand and say that when I drafted this bill I personally wanted to include all laser pointers because I was of the opinion that one could still be distracted by a laser beam in one’s eye at whatever strength. But the committee looked at the various arguments for and against this—and I am sure one of my colleagues may bring this out to a greater degree later—and the committee made the decision that it would apply to laser pointers of over 1 milliwatt in power. This is the reason we changed the title of the bill, which we have alluded to before—to make it clear that this Summary Offences (Possession of High-Power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill applies to the possession of high-power laser pointers and makes it an offence to carry such a device in a public place without reasonable excuse.

This bill is another strand in this Government’s efforts to reduce the very real danger—very real—posed by these devices. So just to recap, it is not just this bill; this bill is an adjunct to some excellent legislation that the Government has brought to the scene. The Government has brought in Minister Jo Goodhew and some extraordinarily good legislation. When I get the opportunity I will speak more on that later in this debate.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Cam Calder, fellow member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, has said, this bill has had a change of name to limit it, because previously it was too broad.

Essentially, the bill aims to introduce law to govern the possession of hand-held lasers in public places—to have a preventative impact and 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. This is a safety matter, and that is why we support this bill. Thank you.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, which I do think is very important. I would like to congratulate Cam Calder on bringing this through. I know that it is part of a much bigger piece of work that has been done on hand-held lasers, particularly those with high velocity, and the dangers of them. I have actually been on a plane when a laser was pointed at the plane. I was flying—not actually flying the plane myself, but I was a passenger on a plane going into Invercargill. People saw a laser and the pilot came on to say that it was disturbing. I did think that only in New Zealand would it be that other passengers on the plane actually identified the street, right down to the house where the laser had come from. Is that not the beautiful thing about New Zealand—that you actually know—

Hon Amy Adams: And probably who it was as well.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: They knew who it was! So I am not kidding you—as we were landing, we were literally having the discussion as to where the house was and what the street was, and people were discussing whether they knew them or not. The pilot had already rung the police to go around there. That is kind of a nice anecdote, but it was a very serious matter, and the pilot took it very seriously. Just having had that rather small personal experience, I think that we do need to take the possession of hand-held lasers really seriously.

But I have a question for the member in the chair, Cam Calder. The member was saying something about how strong a laser is. As the member has identified, he is leaving Parliament this year. We will be very, very sad to see him go. I was wondering whether this would affect lasers being used by motivational speakers on whiteboards—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! When we are debating in Committee on clauses, we have to relate to the clause. We are on clause 1. I would like the honourable Minister to actually mention the title. We have been going for over 2 minutes. I would actually like to hear the title mentioned.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry about that. I think I was getting the title wrong, and that is because I kept saying “the possession of hand-held lasers”. I acknowledge that you have changed the title to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers” Amendment Bill. My question is related to the title, and it is most definitely related to the possession of high-power laser pointers. I note that the member himself said that there was discussion within the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about how high-powered those laser pointers could be.

My question also relates to motivational speakers, because they use laser pointers. I am thinking that, after Parliament, the member might have a career on the speaking circuit—I find him incredibly motivational, I have to say—and I wonder whether he thinks that this legislation will affect the laser pointers that may be used in his motivational speaking as he goes around. [Interruption] This is most definitely about the title.

I accept that the title of the bill was changed at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee based on the fact that it should be just for high-power lasers. I would just like to know that this bill will not negatively affect what the member is doing when he is on his circuit—and I actually think the member would do a fantastic job—striding across the stage with his laser in his hand, and pointing to his presentation.

I would also be interested if the member would address a few other things around the title. It sounds like it was quite a discussion about lasers within the select committee. I do not understand completely what you mean about the strength of the laser and what that means. Is it about distance? Is it about how far the laser’s light actually shines light as to whether it is considered high powered? Who will actually be testing the lasers to see whether or not they come under the title of high-power laser pointers? Those were the sorts of questions that I had that I would really appreciate some sort of address on. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I take a call in this debate on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is nice to be speaking in a debate about a bill that will surely be the political epitaph of the member in the chair, Cam Calder. I think that is fair to say. I think of him as the Abe Lincoln of the New Zealand Parliament. Never has so much alliteration been delivered by one man in one House of Parliament with so little thanks—with so little thanks. Labour is supporting this bill. We would like to see it passed into law as quickly as possible. For that reason, I commend this bill to the Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call—[Interruption] Hang on. This is how it works: if you want a call, you stand up and say “Mr Chairman”. All right?

Dr CAM CALDER (National): Look, it is an extraordinarily, extraordinarily fine point that the honourable Minister Paula Bennett has made.

Hon Amy Adams: But she didn’t make it with a pointer, though.

Dr CAM CALDER: She did not make it with a laser pointer—agreed. But with a laser pointer at 1 milliwatt or less, she could have made it. She could have been addressing her adoring electorate in the west of Auckland—and they are going to be mortified, Minister, when you move on to another group of people who will similarly adore you, but should you be wanting to make a point in one of your debates, you could use a pointer of less than 1 milliwatt. That is what the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee decided, in its wisdom, was a reasonable strength. [Interruption] In fact, Mr Prosser has made a point about these 1 milliwatt lasers, and I am sure he will perhaps talk about this in a contribution that we are all very excited to hear very soon.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call to speak to this Committee of the whole House as we debate the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First has supported this bill from the outset and continues to do so. This is, as I have mentioned in earlier stages of this debate, a fine member’s bill from a fine member. It will be a fitting legacy for Dr Calder as he departs this House at the election and strides out in search of pastures new and, one would hope, in some ways greener.

Hon Members: No!

RICHARD PROSSER: There is nothing Freudian in that. Members will appreciate that time is against us as the election approaches—looming, one might say, like a colossus on the horizon and dominating the attention of members and hopefuls alike, not least because of the not inconsiderable degree of overlap between those two categories. That being the case, I do not intend to consume too much of the remainder of the 50th Parliament in arguing the self-evident merits of a bill that we are happy to support into law. Its passing is of greater import, and I do not believe that delay for its own sake is warranted. Other members who are also in support will agree, I am sure.

However, there are two aspects of the bill on which I wish to make very brief comment. The first is the definition of a hand-held laser and the recommendation by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that this be changed to “high-power laser pointers”, along with changing the name of the bill to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. That will bring the bill into line with other legislation, such as the Health (High-power Laser Pointers) Regulations 2013 and the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013.

This makes a distinction, and it is an important one. The definition limits the power output of permissible laser points to less than 1 milliwatt, but also specifies that such pointers be designed or intended to be operated while held in the hand. If this distinction were not made, the prohibition could well be made to apply to certain laser devices with a power output greater than 1 milliwatt but which are not designed to be operated while held in one hand, including certain laser sighting devices fitted to certain firearms and perhaps even including one or more such devices owned by myself. I am most satisfied, therefore, by the distinction so made. I am very pleased to report that the New Zealand First Party is also most satisfied and is pleased to be able to support the committee’s recommendation.

The second aspect is the commencement date for the bill, which, as I have alluded to earlier, we do not agree with.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. We are on clause 1. We do not talk about the commencement date; that is in clause 2. When we are doing the bill clause by clause, we can talk only about what is in the clauses. It is not a bill where we are coming back to the clauses, which is what we do when we are doing the bill part by part. When we are doing a clause by clause debate, we talk only about the clause—nothing else. We are on the title.

RICHARD PROSSER: That being the case, I will wrap up what was going to be a fairly short speech anyway by reassuring the Minister Paula Bennett that laser pointers as used by motivational speakers and others such as lecturers usually have a power output of round about 0.05 of a milliwatt, so they fall well into that category of under 1 milliwatt, and neither the Minister nor the sponsor of the bill, Cam Calder, has any cause to be concerned. On that note, I thank you. We support this bill.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on this stage of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. May I begin by just congratulating Dr Calder on his success in bringing the bill thus far. I would hope, sincerely, that his colleagues do not delay matters to an extent that he is unable to see this bill through all stages before his unfortunate departure from this House in a few weeks’ time.

This bill came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in an imperfect condition. As I said at the earlier reading, the select committee did its job well. It made the necessary amendments. In its original form, this bill was inadequate for the task. It has been much improved. Given the improvements that have been made, we are now able graciously to support this bill through further readings. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I would like to join with colleagues across the Chamber—it appears to be, to put not too fine a point on it—to acknowledge Cam and the work that he has done to put the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill in the House.

As we begin to look at clause 1 and around the title, I think it is appropriate to thank you again, Cam, for the work that you did. I think it is an honour to come through this House and to be able to put your name to a piece of legislation. As things change, just like clause 1 has changed, you have brought about changes through this bill, and others in the Committee have acknowledged the work that has happened around this bill. It came in with a variety of intentions, and through the process has been refined down. The best and foremost example is clause 1, the title. As it notes, “this Act is the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act 2012.”

What people at home may not know is there has been a simple change. It may initially seem semantic, but what we have changed in clause 1 are the words “hand-held lasers” to “high-power laser pointers”. The member in the chair, Dr Cam Calder, has noted this was not necessarily his preference, first and foremost. I think for most of us in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, working under the tutelage and support of David Bennett, we all sort of just went with that colloquial notion of a hand-held laser.

Phil Twyford: Tutelage?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Tutelage. Well, newer members have to accept the tutelage of older members; some would also say “wiser”. What we are drawing out here around clause 1 is that we did start with the title. We started with a title that reflected a colloquial understanding. We all would accept it is a hand-held laser—something that we would point. I am thinking my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson would be right into the technology. No, he is not so sure. But the key was that we were working within that colloquial expression of a hand-held laser, and we have moved now to a high-power laser pointer. There is still some concern, and there has been, even though we have reported back to the House around this clause 1, that we may have missed some elements, but what we wanted to do by redefining the title, moving into this clause 1, was to point towards—no pun intended—the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order of 2013. This customs import prohibition around the high-power laser pointers is, I suppose, the mechanism, the conduit, and the basis of understanding of why we made this titular change.

David Bennett: Titular!

SIMON O’CONNOR: It may help the Committee. It certainly has helped me to understand a little bit. Titular change—yes, that is right: a good Latin derivative there, but we will not get into that, and into declensions and conjugations, even though it is to do with titles.

David Bennett: It’s not Spanish, then?

SIMON O’CONNOR: It is not Spanish.

So what we are saying here is around the title moving from hand-held to high-power lasers. That is linking us into the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order of 2013. It starts, first and foremost, with the fact that the Director-General of Health, in his or her opinion, understands that this device is commonly understood to be a laser pointer. It also refers—and there is an “and” here—that it is a battery-operated object. [Interruption] Well, you can immediately see why we are moving away from the hand-held nature. We are trying to be a little bit broader here with the title of the bill—that it is a high-power laser pointer. I mean, not for a moment am I suggesting that we are going to be taking a modern theodolite and shining it at a plane in the way that the Hon Paula Bennett experienced down in Invercargill, but we are trying to say that there are lasers that could be of detriment to aviation that are more than simply hand held.

Returning to the customs import prohibition, which clause 1 links to, eventually, it is intended to be used by the hand. That is another element within the customs import order. It has a coherent beam. I think this is something that the Minister Paula Bennett was referring to and had asked for clarification about from the member in the chair. I would welcome that as well, actually. It has to be a coherent beam. I suppose it is the nature of the laser, hand-held or high-power, that it has a coherent beam. We know about the milliwatts, Dr Calder, but we would also want to know whether there is an element of distance that is required here, and where the coherence begins to break up. It may be too much within the physical realms, but who knows? And 1 milliwatt—this is one of the critical reasons we did make the change there in clause 1 around the title to say it was a high-power laser. By referring to the customs order, we were referring to this 1 milliwatt of power.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am very pleased to be able to take my first call on this first clause of—

Hon Member: It is.

MIKE SABIN: —absolutely—the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill. Can I just join others in acknowledging the work of Dr Cam Calder. There has been a degree of frivolity throughout the progress of the bill, Dr Calder, but of course we have all acknowledged the seriousness of offending or incidents that can occur as a result of people misusing these instruments. The Hon Paula Bennett has alluded to it. Certainly we have seen, even in warring nations, the use of hand-held lasers to attempt to take down aircraft and to successfully take down aircraft.

The crux of the title discussion throughout the course of this bill, and fundamental to this clause, was the change from it being simply a hand-held laser to a high-power laser of 1 milliwatt, which the previous speaker alluded to. There was much conjecture and discussion on this at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and, indeed, officials and the police provided some good advice. I think we have landed in the right space in terms of the redefinition of the title, but also the fact that we are talking about high-power lasers as opposed to simply hand-held lasers, which may be used in a completely inane domestic area and not present the same risk. I guess if we look at the difference between a hand-held laser and a high-power laser, one could argue—and I think that Dr Calder certainly did successfully bring this point of discussion to the table—that it is no different the summary offences possession of a knife. We do not talk about the knife being of a certain length; it is simply the fact that it is a knife, which, used inappropriately or in an offensive manner, can cause grievous harm. One can do that with a very short knife in the same way as one can do it with a very long knife. So one could argue, in terms of the redefining, and as it relates to the—

Hon Maurice Williamson: What about a two-edged knife?

MIKE SABIN: Sorry, what was that?

Hon Maurice Williamson: What about a two-edged knife?

MIKE SABIN: Double-edged? It is a double-edged sword, indeed. But we jest. Coming back to the point that we arrived at the select committee, which is now obviously highly relevant to clause 1, in terms of the title, the decision was made—and it is probably, on balance, a wise decision—that high-power would be over 1 milliwatt, and that is, I guess, given where the substantive damage is likely to be done or the risk is actually arrived at, probably a fair landing place. Therefore, the Act, when it comes into force, will be known as the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act. I think that, on balance, Dr Calder accepts that that is fair. It will still achieve its purpose and ultimately that is something that we can discuss later in the passage of this bill.

I think the title certainly reflects accurately what it is that this legislation aims to achieve—that it is high-powered lasers over 1 milliwatt that are likely to cause the most risk to those travelling in vehicles and by air that we are concerned about, if someone is stupid enough to use them in a malicious way. Of course, that will, I am sure, ensure that university lecturers all around the country will feel that they can go about their business without fear of being unfairly targeted by this legislation. The Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill will be amended as discussed to incorporate high-power laser pointers. In that, I think that Dr Calder should be congratulated on his pragmatic efforts to ensure that he did not lose the essence of what he was trying to achieve legislatively and that this bill will achieve its purpose in that sense.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I have been asked a couple of questions during the course of this debate that I would like to take the opportunity to answer, and one of them was from the honourable Minister to my right, Paula Bennett, who queried the distance that one of these laser pointers can reach.

Hon Paula Bennett: They’re high-powered.

Dr CAM CALDER: Yes, well, let us just start with low power lasers—and I thought the honourable member Richard Prosser may address it—but even those of 1 milliwatt or less, which are by definition low-powered laser pointers, can actually go several hundred metres. I remember going to a market in a country from whence many of these laser pointers, both low and high-powered, come. Some of those laser pointers were low-powered, some were high-powered, but the majority, it has to be said, were of the nature of those that you would find on the end of a key ring, so they were not large, and they were not more than 1 milliwatt. They were extending beams across the night sky that were several hundred metres in length. That is why I was initially concerned by the fact that even these were in the public domain and were able to be used. But as we have alluded to, many perceptive and erudite members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, on both sides of the Chamber, have reflected upon the in-depth discussion that took place within the select committee walls to try to deal with it. I see that through doing that we have the support of the Greens. It has to be said that that support—

Hon Amy Adams: That’s rare.

Dr CAM CALDER: —is quite rare, but it is very much appreciated. In fact, I think I am right in assuming that we have support across the Committee on this particular bill. Let us face it: this bill—what will be titled the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill—actually makes all of us safer. It probably makes our wives, girlfriends, grandparents, and children significantly happier to think that the planes that we are travelling in, as we all have to do, to come to this House, are not going to be assailed by—or are less likely to be assailed by, it has to be said, because no legislation stops anything happening—the dangers of having a pilot blinded by these devices.

I would like to come back to a point that the honourable Minister Paula Bennett further asked. She asked how far some of these high-powered laser pointers can extend. It is absolutely staggering that you can go on the internet at the moment and you can purchase, for under US$300—and given our exchange rate, that is not a lot of money—high-powered laser pointers of over 2,000 milliwatts of power, which have a range of how far?

David Bennett: Twenty kilometres.

Dr CAM CALDER: Twenty kilometres?

Hon Amy Adams: Fifty?

Dr CAM CALDER: Fifty kilometres? They have a range of 60 miles. It is staggering—it is staggering. These are the devices that, under this bill, when you are walking along the road, you are not allowed to have in your pocket, because—why the hell would you need it? Nobody has got any reason—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I say this for the third time—when we are on clauses, we must relate the debate to the clause. We are on the title clause. I ask the member to come back to the title clause.

Dr CAM CALDER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The point I was making is that that is one mother of a high-power laser pointer—a high-power laser pointer, which is in the proposed amended title of this bill.

Just to recap, this bill is not just standing alone. The Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act will be part of a basket or cable of measures to reduce the chances of these devices being misused. I mentioned Jo Goodhew, who is an excellent Minister. The honourable Associate Minister of Health brought in the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013, which restricts the importation of these high-power laser pointers. This is an extraordinarily useful regulation because it means that one can import high-power laser pointers—which is in the title of this bill—only if a person has consent to do so. Anyone who commits an offence under this regulation is liable to be fined. How much do you think that fine is?

Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask whether, under Standing Order 108, “Relevancy”, the issue to do with where the member in the chair is now going is relevant to this bill—and also Standing Order 108(2), about repetition.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. Three times I have mentioned that when we are on clauses, you must relate the subject of the debate to the clause. This is not a peroration of what is in the total bill; this is specifically about the clause. I ask the member to come back to clause 1, which is the title.

Dr CAM CALDER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The title of this bill has been altered, as we have heard, by the select committee, and that was done for very good reason. I am actually trying to keep right on the topic of this because I think it is very important that we make this point, and please tell me, Mr Chairman, if I am straying. But, I mean, what we see with the possession of high-power laser pointers, as in the title of the bill, is how necessary the bill is, and I was bringing this point up. When you go on the net the fearsome nature of these high-power laser pointers becomes immediately obvious. Not only are they available but they are inexpensive. You could imagine a paper boy saving his money to purchase one of these things—one of these high-power laser pointers—which is in the title of this excellent bill that we are debating in the Chamber at the moment.

May I mention a quote about these high-power laser pointers in this debate, because what one can read on the internet is that one could purchase the Arctic, which is a model of high-power laser pointer that is outlined and is covered by the title of this bill. “A real life lightsaber”, was the quote from CNN, and another one was “The perfect gift for the supervillain”—we are talking about these high-power laser pointers. This is the type of device that this bill, as its title denotes, is designed to make it extraordinarily difficult for anybody in our country, in New Zealand, to purchase over the internet.

These are high-power laser pointers and, as a result of the select committee’s work on the bill it now covers these particular devices. I think it is extraordinarily important that we do that because until now anybody could have brought them into the country. With the work that has been done by the Minister, as I said, in the supporting legislation about importation and sales and acquisition, this will be an extraordinarily useful addition to our legislative armamentarium to keep New Zealanders safer. They will be safer from the high-power laser pointers, which hitherto have been so readily available, by this legislation’s passage. It will make that fact that you cannot walk down the road, the boardwalk, the sidewalk, or the beach with one of these stuffed down your boardshorts. Why would you want to do that? I do not know. I do not know, myself, but the high-power laser pointer amendment bill will stop that from happening without reasonable excuse.

It is possible that some people will be able to have a reason to have one. University lecturers have been mentioned in this debate. So, presumably, if a university lecturer wanted to stuff one down his boardshorts and go to a lecture, he could, but only with permission. Without permission—without reasonable excuse—the title of this bill, the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Lasers Pointers) Amendment Bill, would make it impossible for anybody, without reasonable excuse, to walk down the road with one. They might be going out in their dressing gown at night, and they might have it in the pocket of their dressing gown, but they cannot do that under this bill. The high-power laser pointer amendment bill means that you cannot walk around in a public place, whether you are in your boardshorts or in your dressing gown, with a high-power laser pointer in your possession without reasonable excuse.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the question be now put—

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has moved that the question be now put, but that member has already done that previously in this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not a point of order. The question is that the question be now put—

Hon Maurice Williamson: She did the closure already.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): She can move a closure motion—

Mike Sabin: But she has already done it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I know, and she can do it again.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on clause 1 will continue, but I want to make it very clear—or I will terminate speeches in future—that when we are on the clauses, we will stick to the clauses, or I will terminate the speaker’s call. [Interruption] I am still on my feet.

Hon Amy Adams: It’s hard to tell.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I am standing. The other thing is that with closure motions, a member can move more than one closure motion. They can, but that is treated as a call. They cannot take more than four calls in a debate. So the member from the Labour Party who moved the closure motion was quite proper, and that is why I accepted the closure motion.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): I have certainly listened to and heard your guidance on the issue of speaking to clause 1, Mr Chair, and I do thank you for the call because there is just one small point on the issue of the title that I did want to raise. I was not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which has done good work on this bill, but I have been here and listened to the whole of the debate on clause 1, and I think there is just one point that is important to get on record. I have listened—and I have found it quite interesting, actually—to the debate around the reasons for the change in the title clause. I have heard Dr Cam Calder talk very eloquently, I thought, and very informatively about why that change in the title clause to include the words “High-power” was important, and I found that very helpful.

But the piece that I do not think has been talked about in this debate at all, and it is the one thing that I just wanted to pick up on, was that the select committee has actually recommended two changes to the title clause. The first is to add in the words “High-power”, which I think is very, very important. We have heard a lot about that and I thank the members for their contributions. The other change to the title clause that was recommended by the select committee—which I do not think has been discussed anywhere as yet in this debate, and it is why I was so anxious to take the call—was the addition of the word “Pointers”. I think that this is something that we have not really dealt with in this debate, and I did want to contribute just briefly on that point.

It is important that when we describe this legislation and we attribute a title to this amendment bill, we make a very clear distinction between the type of harm that the bill is definitely intended to capture—which is what we have heard discussed in terms of pointing at planes, which Paula Bennett discussed, and the outrageous examples of devices that the member in charge of the bill, Cam Calder, has talked about—and, of course, the other very real but very legitimate and valid uses of high-power lasers. High-power lasers are prevalent in many, many aspects of society and are perfectly legitimate. It has not, in this entire debate, been highlighted that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has made, I think, a very important change to the title clause, when it added in specifically the word “Pointers’, because originally the bill was titled “Possession of Hand-held Lasers”. It added, obviously, the change to make them “High-power” but also, very, very importantly, highlighted that what we are talking about is laser pointers.

That is a critical change. I appreciate that it is just one word, but it makes a very clear delineation between the absolutely legitimate and valid use of legitimate high-power lasers of other forms. So there are laser cutters. There are obviously a lot of high-power lasers used in medical technology, and we certainly would not want for one minute to suggest that this bill was in any way criminalising the use or possession of those devices. So I particularly wanted to highlight that aspect to the change in the title clause.

I think, Mr Chair, you will allow me to also take my opportunity, as other members have done, to congratulate Dr Calder on this bill, because it is an important bill. It is a bill that really reflects his contribution as a member, which from day one has always been to be passionate about the public safety of New Zealanders, and public safety will be enhanced by ensuring that we have legislation that is focused on high-power laser pointers. I do think it is important that when we are crafting legislation we are very careful to delineate very carefully, particularly when we are criminalising or ascribing the status of a summary offence, so that we do not put more into that catch than should really be there. We certainly would not want New Zealanders to get the wrong idea about the impact of the legislation from the title clause. So getting that defined properly is very important.

I wanted to particularly commend the select committee for picking that up. I know that that was always Dr Calder’s intention with the legislation—that it certainly would not catch high-power lasers that were not pointers and that were of, as I say, medical or cutting or other technologies—but I think, as I said, that having listened to the whole of the debate, it is not a point that had been mentioned.

I do absolutely endorse the comments that have been made about needing to focus very much on clause 1. To ensure that, we now have a piece of legislation that is properly, I believe, titled Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Lasers Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is a small change, I accept that, but, actually, as is often the case in legislation, the use of precise words and precise titles is a critical part of ensuring that our legislation is as certain and as clear-cut as we would want it to be. We all know the intention of the bill was always to do that, but intention is only of limited use if we cannot be clear in our language. As a lawyer before I came into this House, I can tell you firsthand that if you are not incredibly careful in words like those in the title, to ensure that they do properly capture the meaning and the essence of the legislation, then problems can ensue. So I did think it was worth highlighting and getting into the record that the addition of the word “Pointers” is deliberate.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Basically, I have one point to make, concentrating very much on the title of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, as you have made it very plain we must do so, and that is all I want to do, so I might not even take the full time.

But if we have a look at the title—I have had a careful look at it—there are, I think, 15 words in it, although one of them is hyphenated, so I do not know whether a hyphenated word is one word or two words. But of the 15, most of them make sense. Most of them follow, and we have heard the reasons for the change and everything else. So I take it, and really it is a question for the author of the bill, that it is agreed to change the title of the bill, and it was unanimously agreed, to “high-power laser pointers” from “hand-held lasers”, as the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Amy Adams, has just been speaking about. The thing we did not change, though, and this is my question to the author—it might be a technical point, but we still have it described in clause 1 as “Amendment Act 2012”. Is it to remain like that, or is that a change we should make at this stage? Because it was not an Act in 2012 at all. We have passed 2012; we are into 2014.

I had hoped that Mr Twyford might spot this, because, you know, when we were in Opposition, it was sort of our part of the contribution to get things absolutely right. But, no—complete disregard for correctness other than in pronunciation, where he makes a fuss. So I could say that as far as the title is concerned, I was disappointed in the lack of diligence on the part of the Opposition. I am glad to have noticed it myself. I think every member on this side is aware of it. So it is something that we would invite the author of the bill, Dr Cam Calder, who we all agree has done a really good job on this particular one, to address and to give us some form of reassurance and technical explanation. To make sure that there is time for that, I think I will just make that particular point in the hope that the bill’s author will be able to guide us appropriately. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is a pleasure to speak on this bill, the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Bill, especially in regard to clause 2, which is the commencement date of the bill. Clause 2 states that “This Act comes into force on the day that is 28 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That clause was somethinpg that was also well debated within the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I remember we spent much time on that date because there were a number of alternative views on what that date should be, that is, being the number of days before the commencement date would come into force.

But just before I progress on to those, I want to acknowledge the fine work of Dr Cam Calder in bringing this bill before this House. I think the Hon Paula Bennett indicated the nature of the issue that can be involved in such situations, and it takes somebody with Dr Calder’s great desire to see results-based politics and also his capacity to undertake the level of research and dedication that is needed to bring a bill of this fortitude to the House. So well done, Dr Cam Calder, a very valuable member of the committee. All members of the committee will miss his presence, but it is a very, very important bill that he has done today and it is something that we commend him for bringing in front of this House.

But going back to the commencement date—[Interruption]—when we have the commencement, it says “28 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I am sorry, Mr Chair. Did I not talk about Dr Calder long enough? Do you want me to go back to him? But no, the commencement date is 28 days. Some of you may ask, well, why is that so important. Well, that is the number of days in the month of February, which is important, but it also is the time that we looked at to be—

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: What’s that got to do with the bill?

DAVID BENNETT: Is that the New Zealand First member over there, the lone member of New Zealand First in this debate? It would be great to have a call from her, but it might be more difficult than she can manage at this stage of the afternoon, I think. Dr Calder actually wanted to bring it forward earlier. He wanted a commencement date immediately, and being such a fine and astute committee that we are, we look at prudence as something that we also value in our committee. So the question the committee members had to decide was whether we bring it forward and immediately, as the member who was bringing in the bill thought was the best option, or whether we look at having a little bit of prudence there just to see whether the 28 days would be appropriate. The committee members in their entirety—and Dr Calder was part of this—decided that, yes, the 28 days would be a good time period. It could have actually been a longer time period. It could have been 3 months and that would have been just too long for this bill to have achieved its purpose, but 28 days was a good balance. It was not something that was immediate, but it was something that gave some time for it to work through. The question you may ask is why you would want to give that time for it to work through, and that was something that we had advice from the officials on.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The House is in Committee for consideration of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is resumed. Before the dinner break we were debating clause 2. David Bennett at that time had the call, and he has got just over 1½ minutes, should he wish to avail himself of the opportunity.

DAVID BENNETT: I think I will need more 1½ minutes, just as a warning to the Chair, because this is a very important section of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It was part of—is this all right, Carol? Are you all right? It was something that was debated long and hard in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and that was around the commencement date. I will read it to give a summary to people who may have missed it just before the dinner suspension: “This Act comes into force on the day that is 28 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” As everyone can see, that is very clear. It is 28 days afterwards. That is the month of February, effectively, for those who look to do it on dates—

Mike Sabin: Except in a leap year.

DAVID BENNETT: Except in a leap year. Yes, Mr Sabin from the north is very correct.

Hon Todd McClay: My wife’s birthday—February.

DAVID BENNETT: And it is also the Hon Todd McClay’s wife’s birthday, and we would like to see that—

Moana Mackey: Relevance.

DAVID BENNETT: The relevance is that 28 days is the period that the commencement comes in after it receives the Royal—

Hon Todd McClay: The point being that if I miss her birthday, it is a summary offence.

DAVID BENNETT: Yes, and as Mr McClay says, if he misses her birthday, it is a summary offence. He would get more than a hand-held laser, I am sure.

Hon Todd McClay: If it was my birthday I would get a Taser.

DAVID BENNETT: You would get a Taser.

But effectively what the select committee had to look at was that timing. As I mentioned earlier, the mover of this bill, Dr Cam Calder, who was bringing this bill forward, sought a date for it to come into force immediately on achieving the Royal assent. The choice of the select committee was whether we do it immediately or whether we do it on some other date that would be seen as prudent and reasonable. The select committee came to the decision that 28 days was the reasonable approach.

Tim Macindoe: But why was that? Interesting.

DAVID BENNETT: Well, it is very interesting, actually, because we did receive advice that it should be longer than 28 days.

Tim Macindoe: Oh, and why was that?

DAVID BENNETT: I will come to that. That might need another 5 minutes when I come to that bit. So the options were basically either longer than 28 days or the immediacy of it, and in the end we decided as a prudent select committee that we would settle on a month, and so 28 days was the time.

Dr Cam Calder: Far too long.

DAVID BENNETT: As Dr Calder says, far too long, and I can understand his desire to see this piece of work enforced as soon as possible, because who would know when the next incident could occur? If it occurs within those 28 days, are we actually putting people’s lives at risk?

Scott Simpson: How can you be sure?

DAVID BENNETT: We cannot be sure. That was the debate that concerned the select committee for much of its time. It was a very serious issue, because we take a risk that in those 28 days there may be an incident, and that is the nature of it. Mr Macindoe, the very good member from Hamilton West, has just returned from overseas and come back to New Zealand. Good to see you here, Tim.

Tim Macindoe: It will be man love soon.

DAVID BENNETT: Yes. When we considered that period of time, the question was why not go immediately and why have a period of time. It was to give a sense of understanding and education to the community around this change in legislation. There would be some people who do have hand-held lasers, and they may not be aware that suddenly they had come under the rules. For education purposes, for those legitimate people in the community who may hold these products—

Tim Macindoe: I am sure most people are legitimate.

DAVID BENNETT: —who hold these products, I said, Tim—and who were in a state that they may have been engaging with them, they would need to know that there was a period of time in which they would then become aware that the laser itself was the issue. So the reason is to give a period of time for education so that people are well aware of the circumstances of the bill. It was felt that if there was an immediate commencement, there would be the potential that there would be some people who did not receive that notification. We did not want to put anybody at risk, but at the same time we had to balance that. If we left it for 3 months, that was a long period of time where there could have been another incident within that period. That was the difficult balance that—

Scott Simpson: The wisdom of Solomon.

DAVID BENNETT: And it was the wisdom of Solomon and that is because we have such a fine select committee there. I am surrounded by good committee members in front of me here, who spent hours poring over these finer details, and took a very considered approach, in the end, to this bill.

If we go back to clause 2, that is why we settled on 28 days. It is a date that would achieve the purpose of being relatively quick after the passing of this bill so that it is not a period of time that is too long. But it is also a period of time that enables people to be notified and made aware of the consequences of this very fine piece of legislation. In essence, that is the dilemma that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee found itself in, and the decision was made to stick with 28 days. We find that is a very good balance and will achieve the purposes for all concerned. Thank you.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): It appears I have blown the Opposition away.

David Bennett: You’ve lasered them out.

MIKE SABIN: Lasered them out, indeed. I just want to pick up where my good Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chairman, David Bennett, has left off on this clause 2, the commencement date, because there was a fair degree of conjecture and I am hoping that the member Dr Cam Calder will actually take a call and advise as to why he was willing to concede that a date of 28 days after the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill received the Royal assent was satisfactory.

Suffice it to say that there are a number of challenges in terms of this bill becoming an Act and going live as legislation because these devices are actually quite commonly held in the possession of people around the country. In fact, there needs to be some degree of education and some degree of notification for those people that the possession of the high-power hand-held laser pointers would constitute an offence. It is quite right that we do not want to catch people on the hop. I think it also prevents stockpiling. Dr Calder may want to comment on that, but the last thing we want is people, of course, stockpiling if they are given too much lead-in time. So it is all about getting the balance. Imagine someone having an enormous stockpile of hand-held high-power laser pointers that could be weapons of mass destruction in that context.

I am quite confident that the member Dr Calder will be elucidating for the public as to the live commencement date of this bill, once enacted, being 28 days after the Royal assent, because it is incumbent on him as a responsible member of Parliament to inform the public that this legislative change has occurred and that the malicious behaviour of individuals who seem to find some sort of entertainment in this use of these high-power laser pointers has come to an end. I think that gives Dr Calder fair time to inform people. Of course, the police did allude to the fact that they would need some time from an enforcement point of view to actually see where this thing lands, because although it is not a punitive bill—and I am sure Dr Calder will inform us all when he takes his next call on this—it is very much about prevention rather than taking a punitive approach.

But the point is that the enforcement agency, the police, obviously have a role in that and there were some quite considered comments given by the police through the select committee submission process. So that is why when we wrestled with this point in the select committee, and we did wrestle with this point—I think it was this point, as well as whether or not the title should include “high power”. Those were the two points that caused the select committee some contention. But in terms of the commencement date, I know that Dr Calder wanted to see this go live as soon as humanly possible. I know he was concerned that there was a likelihood that people would stockpile these things and there could be some sort of travesty in the fact that people would take liberties that they should not take. But I think we have landed in the right space with this. The 28 days simply provides ample opportunity, firstly, for the police to be fully informed of this law change.

In all seriousness, these things will take down an aircraft, they will blind a driver, and they have been used for those two purposes. I suspect that the police will be quite happy to go out and find someone to make an example of, if they choose to disobey what will be a very sound piece of preventive legislation. But no doubt there will be some who will choose to challenge it. I think the police need that little bit of time to get themselves across that.

Carol Beaumont: Relevancy.

MIKE SABIN: Sorry, you want me to talk about the—

Carol Beaumont: Commencement date.

MIKE SABIN: I am talking about the commencement date. The member is very, very helpful—

Hon Member: They are not listening.

MIKE SABIN: They are not listening. The reason I am saying the commencement date—28 days after the Royal assent—is the importance of the police having the opportunity to get themselves across this legislation in due course. OK? Is it not funny when the boot is on the other foot? Is it not hilarious when the boot is on the other foot? But that 28 days is about balance. If there is one thing I will say about Dr Cam Calder, it is that he is a man who sees the perspectives from all angles.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): This is a very important point that my colleagues have actually aired, at some length, in the Chamber. It is quite true to say that I was somewhat saddened by the decision the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made because, as has been alluded to by my honourable colleague Mr Mike Sabin, I wanted this legislation, the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, to come into effect as soon as possible. I make no apologies for that. As we have heard, this clause provides for all provisions in the bill to come into force on the day after the Act receives the Royal assent. That is what we thought. That is what I wanted to happen. But after we had considered it as a committee, when does it come into force, Mr Auchinvole?

Chris Auchinvole: 28 days.

Dr CAM CALDER: Twenty-eight days after receiving the Royal assent. So I asked this question of the committee members. I said: “What possible reason is there for delaying the implementation of such an important bill?”. We have heard some of the arguments. I have to pay credit to Carol Beaumont, who is part of the committee and contributed to this debate. In fact, we had a committee made up of members from all sides of the House, and it was a collegial committee. The upshot of the combined wisdom was that, for a number of reasons, 28 days after receiving the Royal assent was preferable to the instant implementation that I was hoping for. The committee recommended that clause 2 be amended to provide that additional time after the Act received the Royal assent before the provisions of the bill came into force. We have heard that this is to give people time to understand about the law having changed. But I would submit to you—

Mike Sabin: That’s right.

Dr CAM CALDER: That is right. But I have a lingering bit of schadenfreude here, because I just think—as you raised the very valid point yourself—what if an act occurs in the interim period between the Act receiving the Royal assent and coming into law? We hope that people will realise, as word gets out about the passage of this bill, and the commencement date being what it is, that we have had some publicity from the Airline Pilots’ Association recently, calling for a bill just like this in light of a recent incident that occurred just a few weeks ago. That 28 days is what we are left with. I just hope that that 28 days will not be a time where people take advantage of the fact that the bill has not come into law and they pick up their high-power laser pointer, put it in their pocket, and march off out into a public space. There is actually no reason for that. The commencement date of 28 days after the Act receiving the Royal assent means there is going to be a 4-week period where that could occur. I have just done my sums. It is an interesting situation. My valedictory speech is timetabled for 23 July at 4 o’clock.

Phil Twyford: Can we book seats now?

Dr CAM CALDER: You can secure your seat now, Mr Twyford. I will look forward to seeing you there. The interesting thing is that this bill is likely to go for its third reading after I have given my valedictory speech. I might be in the position of not being able to deliver a third reading speech on my own bill, but such is the way that Parliament works. Really, it is a small price to pay for the chance to get this bill through the House whilst I am still a member of this House. It is a huge privilege to stand here—I must say, it is a great privilege to stand here—and be able to speak in the House without getting dark looks from the whip, saying to stop speaking. It is very rare that that actually happens. How many of us sitting here tonight can say that they have had that privilege?

Tim Macindoe: What an aspersion against my good character.

Dr CAM CALDER: You are a very fine whip, it has to be said. It has to be said that you are a very fine whip, and you are doing remarkably well for a man who has just come back from attending a high-level Westminster seminar in the United Kingdom, representing our Parliament in the best possible way that you have done. The commencement is 28 days after receiving the Royal assent. If I give my speech on 23 July, then it is likely to receive the Royal assent on 25 July, because normally the bills go to the Governor-General to be signed, and it is possible he might be in town and he could give the Royal assent on 25 July. So 28 days from that period—have we got any people in the House who are good at mental arithmetic? It is all right. I have done the sums. It is actually 22 August. So I wonder. I pose this question: do you think that it is likely that this date—28 days after the Royal assent, which we are suggesting is a putative 22 August—when you google what happened on 22 August sometime in the future, could come up as the day the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill passed? Could that be?

It is very interesting to see what did happen on 22 August historically. Remember that 22 August is the putative commencement date for this bill. It is the putative, possible commencement date when the Governor-General, His Excellency Lieutenant General Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae, signs the bill and effectively it gains Royal assent. I am posing the question to the Committee that in years to come could it be that when you google 22 August it comes up that that was the date that in the New Zealand Parliament the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill passed? What else has happened on that day?

Tim Macindoe: My brother-in-law has a birthday.

Dr CAM CALDER: Ah, well that was not on Google. But the commencement date of 22 August has had a mixture of the sad and the joyful, and a mixture of the memorable and the less memorable. But let me just outline some of the things that have happened on 22 August, which we know is actually the likely date of the commencement of this bill.

Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I call your attention to Standing Order 108 around relevancy, and also note in Standing Order 108(2) tedious repetition being referred to, and wonder whether this meets that clause.

Tim Macindoe: Previous speakers have drawn attention to the fact that the commencement date of this bill is very significant because of the significant implications, particularly for those who will be charged with enforcing it. Therefore, for members opposite, who frequently delight in filibustering on matters, to criticise the member in charge of the bill for going into some detail for discussing the significance—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): All right, that is enough. I do not need any more assistance, thank you very much. There were two points that the member made. One was that we should be speaking about the commencement date, and, certainly, Dr Cam Calder is doing that. With regard to repetition, I think he is probably getting into the furry edges of actually doing that.

Dr CAM CALDER: I cannot imagine I have ever been in the furry edges in this Chamber before. That has to be a first. I am going to move swiftly along from there because there is nothing furry about these edges, which I am about to delineate for you. We are talking about 22 August. All these points are relevant—all these points are relevant—because 22 August is the likely putative commencement date of this bill. I ask the Committee what else happened on that date. Sadly, the first thing that came to mind was—and this is not something that I am treating with anything other than the utmost seriousness—that there was a suicide bombing in western Iraq. That was 22 August 2013. When you think about what is happening now, that is an extraordinarily sad indictment of the world situation. I was unaware of this, I have to say. In 2012, on 22 August, which is the putative commencement date of this bill, Russia and Vanuatu became members of the World Trade Organization.

Could it be that in a few months’ time, or maybe longer, after this bill is passed, in 2014, on 22 August, this bill being passed into law in New Zealand—because this is a worldwide problem; it is not peculiar only to New Zealand—could be of such significance that it would also come up in a Google search? If somebody wanted to look at significant dates, and we have heard that it is Tim Macindoe’s brother-in-law’s birthday—

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure and a privilege to stand and speak. I hope that some of the things that I say about the commencement date of this Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill will go some way to consoling the author of this bill, Dr Cam Calder, a known sensitive person.

Tim Macindoe: He is.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh, indeed. He is extremely proud of having his own bill in the House, and he is shattered by the callous comments from the other side that he was being repetitious and boring—oh, how dreadful!

Hon Member: And furry!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well—adding to it. And those comments came from a lady whom we have always considered to be quite polite.

When we look at this bill, we have heard about how we did not wish to have conjecture over when it took effect because it is quite significant. We heard from my colleague on my right, Mike Sabin, with his police background, talking about people stockpiling these sorts of things. This is what happens. On a serious note, because this is a very serious business, I cannot remember last week, but—[Interruption] Let me rephrase that: I cannot remember in which part of last week I heard the news item that a farmer had had to endure a large number of sheep being shot on his property.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: That was North Otago.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: North Otago. And how many sheep were shot on the first night?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: About 110.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: About 110. Then he moved his flock of sheep into a safer paddock, and the next night they shot another 80. The point about this is that it is vital that we have this bill commence fairly quickly because there are very odd people around. Well, think of it, none of the sheep were eaten and none of them were taken away; they were just shot. Some people are nuts. If you give weaponry of any sort to people, they are going to use it.

Remember, this bill does not stop people owning these things; it stops them having possession in a public place without reasonable purpose. For those who think you cannot use lasers for that sort of thing, I think there was an advertisement that might have been in the Sunday Star-Times last weekend, where a company was advertising helicopter drones that fired pepper spray and used blinding lasers to blind demonstrators at meetings.

Mike Sabin: Surely not.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, surely not. But, I mean, we say let us do it seriously, and this is a very serious thing. The 28 days, though, will achieve the purpose, and it was carefully discussed by the committee.

The immediate commencement could easily cause confusion. You have got these things. You are allowed to have them, you can own them, but you cannot have possession of them in a public place without due reason. That is the whole purpose of the bill. So by giving 28 days, it is enough for the education to hit the papers, to move around, and for people who own these things to become familiar with what they should and should not be doing with them, where they can take them and where they cannot take them. [Interruption] Do you have another point, Mr Sabin?

Mike Sabin: That’s the crux of the commencement date.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is the crux of the commencement date.

This is a behaviour-changing bill, and that is why it needs education for it. [Interruption] I hear chuckles—chuckles—from the other side of the Chamber. I have seen an All Black ready to take a goal kick who was lasered, to put him off. This happens—this happens—and it happens, fancy that, in sport. I remember when we introduced this bill, with all due respect to the serious-minded members on the other side, that there was a certain “Oh, come on. They’re only toys for cats to play with.” and that sort of thing. It ain’t. These lasers can be extremely dangerous articles—back to the furry edges again!

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call Simon O’Connor.

Hon Member: Oh, this will be good.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased. It is a good choice. I am biased, though, of course. I am very pleased to talk to clause 2, the commencement clause of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is a little bit similar, in fact, to the first clause in so far as some simple elements got quite complicated, as we heard in clause 1. Of course, that was around the change of semantics in terminology; in the commencement clause it is obviously a debate around timing. Should we bring this about immediately? Should the Royal assent be granted quickly and efficiently, or should it be held out for 28 days? As you can imagine, with anything to do with dates, there is a whole continuum of debate there. There was some thought of whether we should go out to 6 months. There was some thought that we should even look to 8 days and so forth. They have been too facetious.

I did notice earlier when the member in the chair, Dr Cam Calder, the sponsor of the bill, was noting the calendars, he did lack clarity on whether it was a Julian calendar or a Gregorian calendar. I am very disappointed—very disappointed. But, seriously, this was an area that we debated quite a bit, because on one side immediate commencement recognises the fact that this is an important bill and that there is a serious consequence here.

I was talking to some friends last week on a different topic, around what we would say is high risk but low frequency. There is a degree of that here, but when you are talking about an airliner, or even if it is just the Eagle unit helicopter—I have friends in the police, particularly in Auckland, who are noting the dangers even to the police helicopters—surely, the argument goes, we should put this into immediate effect.

We as the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee debated that at length. The corollary to that, and where we ultimately ended up, though, was that we needed time to embed the launch of the bill to seek Royal assent, as is proper in this constitutional arrangement. What we thought was that 28 days allowed two things. First and foremost, it gave an opportunity to our constabulary, to the New Zealand Police, to put its structures in motion in order to allow the police a full and proper consideration of what is required to get the paperwork sorted and to read through the various legal consequences, because, as other speakers I am sure have noted, this bill itself relies on other legislation. We heard Mike Sabin earlier talking about the possession of knives and so forth, so there are those elements that have to be considered.

The second side, though, was the fairness of the law. I am no lawyer, which may be a good thing for the country, but one of the elements is that people have to understand the laws themselves—what I suppose we would look on in philosophy as natural justice—giving people the opportunity to understand what this law means and what it means for them. At the heart of this are hand-held lasers, items that people are quite familiar with, from those who use them for quite normal and adequate means, be they a lecturer at a university or so forth, or in an engineering firm, to those with more nefarious intent. Whether or not, Dr Calder, those people are fluffy, hirsute, or otherwise is a point for another debate, but we need people to fully understand—I am sorry, I just had to get “hirsute” in tonight.

The key, though, is what the appropriate timing is. I think what we have tried to note is the balance between those two points of tension. Do we get this bill under way immediately to show it is a serious piece of legislation, or do we give enough time so that consideration can be undertaken by the constabulary, by the police, and so that people can understand what this law means to them? It is particularly for citizens who are used to carrying around a hand-held or a high-power laser, so that they can fully appreciate what is required.

I think that after a bit of debate in the select committee—and I note that the chair, David Bennett, a fine chair, is here with me in the Chamber, and a number of my colleagues—we came to the belief, which we have now articulated in clause 2, the commencement clause, that this Act comes into force on the day that is 28 days after the date on which it receives Royal assent. We thought that was a good spot so that we can take this bill—once it is completed in the House in a timely and appropriate manner, which is quite germane to this clause in itself—and we can send it to the Governor-General. He can sign it on behalf of the Queen of New Zealand. We can get it into the statute book, but then we have 28 days for consideration so that Kiwis can make—

David Bennett: In 28 days?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, actually a lot of things can happen in 28 days. I believe you can even bite a player, which seems to be in vogue at the moment. Fortunately, this is not part of it. Again, this was an area, like clause 1, which took up a bit of time in the select committee as we considered the various options. I am hearing from my colleagues in the Chamber, but I would be open to more discussion, but I think that we came to a point that we felt was appropriate, balancing those respective rights—

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I do appreciate the sensitivity that fellow members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee are displaying when we are talking about the commencement date. This Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill is a very serious bill. There has been a bit of banter about it over the course of it because I think a lot of people mistakenly think when they think of laser pointers, even if they think of high-powered laser pointers, that they are actually toys, and of course they are not. That is why the commencement date for when this bill comes into effect is so important. Members of the committee sensed my pain when I was unsuccessful in getting an immediate enactment of this bill, so that once it is passed and has got Royal assent, it then comes into force.

I picked up on the points raised by a number of speakers. These speakers have raised points that are very, very pertinent, and it was canvassed at some length by the committee. It has been said that we could have gone out to 6 months. That would have been ridiculous as the commencement date. Why would you go out to 6 months? I cannot think of any reason why. However, I think it was one of the timespans that was canvassed by the committee. I thought I had it won. I thought I had it won initially on the committee with saying “immediately”. Nothing succeeds like success; let us get it done, in, down, out—we have got it. But it was not to be.

I have to pay credit when talking about the commencement date to the artful hand of this maestro of committee chairmanship. I refer, of course, to David Bennett. David Bennett is known for many things, he is esteemed for many things, and he has a reputation for many things, but nothing is more illustrious than his highly burnished reputation as a very successful and capable committee chair. It was his calm handling of what could have been a fraught situation—it could have been a slightly angst-ridden situation, despite the inherent collegiality of this committee when we were discussing this very pertinent point of the commencement date. But as it transpired, through the calmness, the demeanour, the ability to build bridges that he displayed within the committee when we were discussing the commencement date—

Mike Sabin: He built bridges and got over them.

Dr CAM CALDER: Well, there you go—a very pertinent point from the member from the far north, who is doing an outstanding job in the far north, not only with his perceptive speeches in the Committee on this very important bill but also as the calm presence on the committee who just grounds the chairman and makes sure that things happen in a timely manner, with consultation.

So we got to this stage that I was uncomfortable about. I have to say that I was uncomfortable, but for the greater good I was convinced. I mean, I am learning. I am almost away from this place, but you learn every day in this House and you realise that politics is the art of the possible, is it not? It is the art of the possible. The commencement date is possible only because we came to an agreement, because there was openmindedness on both sides. We had a very collegial Opposition. There was a lot of debate—6 months; as I say, I was going for “immediately”. And yet the voices in the committee gradually moved around so that 28 days was the length of time that the committee agreed to—I do have to take responsibility; I was part of that committee—unanimously. This has been the great thing about this bill. It has been unanimous not only in the committee but across the House. So I think that if you ask anyone in this Chamber, they will support the 28-day period, because that is what came about from the select committee for the commencement date.

I have to say I am very grateful, as the member who first put up this bill, and did not even think about the commencement date at that early stage, because I had to get it through the caucus, and then we had to get it drawn from the ballot, and—

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 59, Noes 60.

TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not wishing in any way to doubt what has been expressed by the Opposition whip, but it was my understanding that Mr Horan was not casting a vote on this matter. Can she assure the Committee that she has received a proxy for—[Interruption] Sorry, could I just complete my point. Can she assure the Committee that she has received a proxy on a procedural motion?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): All members in this House are honourable members, and I think we are getting into dangerous ground when we start challenging the right. Members who cast a vote know what the consequences are if they mislead the House. In any consideration a change in that particular vote is not going to change the outcome of this particular—[Interruption] It still is not going to change the outcome. The member can ring up the whip on the other side.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have just two quick points, if I may. The issue of the procedural motion proxy would determine the outcome of the motion. The second thing is I do not think the Government whip was intending to cast aspersions on—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, I know.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the Opposition whip. I do think it is important for her sake, though, to clarify the difference between a proxy on a procedural matter, which is—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I have ruled on this. Let me reread the votes. Those who voted for the closure were 59, including Brendan Horan. Those who voted against were 60. So the motion is not agreed to. I have made that quite clear, and we are going to gain nothing by casting aspersions. Members know the consequence of casting votes they do not have.

TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Are we going to get into some new material?

TIM MACINDOE: This is new material. I believe that you have just mistakenly declared the result of the vote, and I think you have actually just cast the names and numbers the wrong way round.

Hon Member: Yes.

TIM MACINDOE: Even the Opposition is agreeing with that point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I declared that the motion is not agreed to on the first cut. Did I—[Interruption] The key point was that I said the motion is not agreed to, so we are not having the closure.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I will continue where we left off on the commencement date in clause 2 of the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill, soon to be enacted as the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Act. In terms of the commencement date, there are a couple of key points I want to speak to. One of the fundamental things, I think, was around the education period and the time that was needed, particularly for the enforcement agencies.

This is a narrow piece of law, and it is a narrow field, I guess, in terms of the likelihood of offending, but when it does occur, it is very, very serious. The police submitted that what they need is an opportunity to carry out training. That is why the commencement date was set at a month—and, actually, that is quite limiting for the police to carry out training.

Typically, what they will do, and let us bear in mind that they have to do it within 28 days, is have a number of training days where the sectional police officers in particular—the front line, if you like, of the police force; those who are out there in the incident cars—will go through a training process. They will learn what this legislation is about and what the expectation is in terms of how it will be enforced.

This is not a punitive piece of legislation. The Summary Offences Act in itself is not something that wields a significant amount of weight. But the point is that the implications of someone using one of these high-power laser pointers maliciously is significant, and that fact will not be lost on the police. So in that first 28 days the police will actually have to carry out some training days across what amounts to probably several thousand police officers—the front-line police officers in each police station across the country. What the police will want to understand, really, is not just the law and what the expectations are, and what the ingredients of the offence will constitute, but in what manner the police intend to actually police that. I would suggest that they will very much take a proactive, informative position on it.

That brings me to the next point I want to make about the commencement date and the time allowed for the education process, which is that an education process must occur for the general public. So in those first 28 days from the Royal assent, what the public has to get its head round is what a high-power laser pointer is, as distinct from a laser pointer that may be used—

Grant Robertson: A low-powered one?

MIKE SABIN: Sorry, Mr Robertson?

Grant Robertson: As distinct from a low-powered one.

MIKE SABIN: Exactly—as distinct from a low-powered one. Of course, in the university world this will be a big deal. It will be a big deal because there are a number of people who use these things in the education setting, and, of course, there are many who use them at conferences and seminars and what have you. I would hazard a guess that inside the equipment box of a number of seminar presenters, at conferences and so forth, are laser pointers. Also, there are many people who use these things as toys and many stores that sell them as toys.

Chris Auchinvole: Do they?

MIKE SABIN: Yes, absolutely. Obviously, they are going to need to determine, as retailers of these products, where they land. That is not to say that they cannot sell them, but, obviously, if one falls into the hands of someone who uses it for a malicious purpose, then that will obviously be of concern to retailers. So that 28 days from the commencement date provides that opportunity for the general public, for those who are commonly using these devices, to get their heads round what the expectation is and what is this legislation is actually about. It is not about punishing law-abiding citizens who are going about their lives using laser pointers for legitimate purposes; it is about those who would use them for malicious purposes.

Then we have the impact in terms of the workplace. In many workplaces laser pointers are used. In fact, in many workplaces lasers are used. So there will be some question that workplaces will have to resolve within that first month as to whether the lasers they are using would constitute high-power lasers if they were actually held and used by hand. In fact, in engineering and even on building sites lasers are used. I have used one myself—not well. I have to say that if I laid down a snooker ball on the living room floor, it would roll to one corner—disappointingly so. I did use a laser and obviously got that wrong.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I would just like to congratulate Dr Cam Calder on his great work on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, as well. I felt I had to respond, since he did go through what the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had done when we had to go through clause 2 and the conjecture that there was around the commencement date—around the 28 days. Dr Cam Calder raised a number of issues there around how the committee approached that issue and why it came to the result that we have here in front of us tonight. It is simply that there was, as he said, a desire for him to see the commencement date being immediate. Although we appreciated his intention to make sure that there were no more incidents that could be attributed to these hand-held lasers, we were also mindful of the fact that we had received advice from the police and others that we potentially needed to give a bit more time for them to get themselves in a position to be able to enforce the law, and also to educate and inform members of the public about what the change in the law would be. So that is why 28 days was settled upon as the appropriate balance.

We were actually asked in the committee to go for an even longer date than 28 days, but we felt that it would accommodate Dr Cam Calder’s wishes more if we went for 28 days rather than, say, a 3-month period. That was something that could well have been the case for this bill.

Simon O’Connor: What about 26 weeks?

DAVID BENNETT: Well, you can go for any number you want, really. And just remember that numbers are important today, because the Labour Party has put out its tax rates, and they are all going up. It chose 36 as the number for all those good, hard-working New Zealanders—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Come back to the bill.

DAVID BENNETT: —who have to pay 36c in the dollar. Twenty-eight days is the one that was decided upon here today, and that is why we are looking at clause 2 of this bill.

Once again, it is a very good bill in the name of Dr Cam Calder, who has taken a great interest in making sure that it passes through this Committee. We look forward to its passage through the rest of the evening.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act

Dr CAM CALDER (National): Clause 3 refers to the principal Act, and clause 3 provides that the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill amends the principal Act. The principal Act is the Summary Offences Act 1981. It may come as no surprise to members of this Committee that, actually, no submissions were received on this clause, because, effectively, it is what it is. There being no submissions received, the Ministry of Transport, which was our adviser, unsurprisingly made no recommendations.

Let us look at what the Summary Offences Act 1981 is. This is the principal Act, and it is actually quite a solid body of work—a solid body of work. Its commencement date, since we have been talking about commencement dates for some time, was actually 1 February 1982. I just let you know in case anybody was wondering, because we have been talking about commencements. But this is the principal Act we are talking about here, the Summary Offences Act 1981. Those of you who have been listening to this debate—and it has been brought up by a number of speakers—will recall that the name of this bill is the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, so this legislation we are debating today amends this Act. This is the principal Act.

So what does this Summary Offences Act do? It is actually quite a remarkable piece of legislation because it is brought into its own umbrella and deals with a lot of different legislation. It is pertinent to note that in itself it was an Act to reform and restate the law relating to summary offences—not surprisingly, given the name of the legislation is the Summary Offences Act—and to replace the Police Offences Act 1927 and its amendments. So what we are seeing here when we are thinking of the principal Act is the fluidity and flux involved in legislation—how legislation evolves and is, in turn, superseded or amended. So what we have got in this piece of legislation in front of us today is actually amending this principal Act, the Summary Offences Act 1981.

So what actually does the Summary Offences Act do? It is actually, as I said, quite encyclopaedic in its scope. The first pages, section 3 right through to section 8, deal with offences against public order—offences against public order. So what might we consider these offences to be? I could see Todd McClay coming up with a few ideas. These offences include disorderly behaviour—not that he would ever be associated with such an offence against public order himself, being an upstanding Minister. They include offensive behaviour or language, disorderly behaviour on private premises—I mean, we all could have been guilty of that at some stage; we are only human. We are only human. I have met many good men and women in my life but I have never met a saint and I have never met an angel. All of us at some stage could have been guilty of disorderly behaviour on private premises. The offences include disorderly assembly.

The next one—possibly Mr Sabin saw this in his previous role as a policeman— is associating with convicted thieves. This is definitely one that Mr Sabin would have seen—look at his broad shoulders. We are very lucky that he has been part of the thin blue line—the thin blue line. The offences include associating with violent offenders and—here we are, because this could be describing Mr Sabin’s modus operandi and raison d’êtrê—associating with serious drug offenders. We know his stance on the evils of drugs. Proof of habitual association—goodness me, you could be actually charged under a lot of this, were you not a police officer. Fighting in a public place—that could apply to any member of the Parliamentary Rugby Team.

I just want to get to my point, which is coming up. The offences include fighting in a public place, publishing a document or thing explaining the manufacture of explosives. I have to put my hand up and say I have been young and I experimented with—I will not say what it was. I will not say what it was.

Chris Auchinvole: When were you young?

Dr CAM CALDER: Well, it was a long time ago. It was probably in the chemistry lab—we have all done this in the chemistry lab. It led to a satisfying little explosion, but under carefully controlled conditions, of course. Offences against personal property—this is the point that I am very pleased that we have come to. We have got another member formerly of the police force here, a very able former member of the police force, who in the past actually made his contribution in the thin blue line with the aid of a large dog. I am talking about Mark Mitchell here, who has gone on to carry his abilities in security into some of the world’s hottest trouble spots and now brings it to bear on the rugby field for the Parliamentary Rugby Team as the co-captain. Sitting next to him is the vice-captain, Alfie Ngaro. They are two rather large gentlemen with extraordinarily broad shoulders who are part of the potency of the team, it has to be said—part of the potency of the team.

Section 10 of the Summary Offences Act 1981—which is, of course, the principal Act that we are debating—talks about assault on police, prison, or traffic officers. So were anyone to be so foolish as to offer violence to Mr Sabin or Mr Mitchell, they probably would regret it quite quickly, but after that assault had been offered they would have been able to be prosecuted under this principal Act here. The next is something that there is no excuse for, and this is something that we do not want to see in New Zealand. We see it too often. We see it on hot days when mum or dad nips into the supermarket and leaves their child in a car without reasonable care or supervision. This is a very serious issue. This is covered by the Summary Offences Act, as well as wilful damage, graffiti vandalism, tagging, and defacing—all things not quite on the same level. The Act covers the possession of graffiti implements, acts endangering safety, things endangering safety, and, here we are, the possession of knives.

I have to pay credit to Todd McClay, because when we were backbenchers together and I said to him that I had got this idea for a member’s bill, he said he would look for and find the Act for me, because he thought he knew where it was—and he did. He was a very, very helpful man. I want to pay credit to him in this Committee stage. It was about the possession of knives—section 13A. Section 13A of this principal Act is what I based this bill on—section 13A of the principal Act is what I based this bill on. It just seemed to me to make sense. Why is it that we cannot walk around in our country with a knife in our possession? It seems perfectly sensible that we should not be able to, but I posed a question to myself. With a knife, you can be dangerous and cause harm, of course, to somebody who is quite close; with these high-power laser pointers that this bill is about—and this is the principal Act on which we are talking—the damage you can cause is grievous and huge. “Catastrophic” is the word that police have used in public statements when they are talking about the misuse of these devices. They have got more powerful.

Coming back to section 13A of the principal Act here, which is based on the carriage of a knife, why should you be able to carry in a public place a device in the form of a high-power laser pointer, which is actually far more dangerous than a knife? If I had the time and it was relevant to clause 3 of this bill, which it is not, I could mention military applications, which other members of the Committee have brought up. They have pointed out how these are not toys; they are weapons. A high-power laser pointer, I would submit, is far more dangerous than a knife. That is the reason a knife—

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, which refers to the principal Act, the Summary Offences Act. In many ways this comes down to a lot of what Dr Calder has noted. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered whether we needed to replicate a number of elements out of the Summary Offences Act 1981 in order to integrate them into the bill here. That would, of course, have made it substantially longer. It would have made this debate, consequentially, substantially longer as well. But we felt—and we took a lot of advice from officials and made our own considerations—that we could actually rely on the Summary Offences Act 1981.

I think Dr Calder, in his address just earlier, noted in particular the impact on police and turned to two of my colleagues, Mark Mitchell and Mike Sabin, who, I have just learnt, was a police officer. I would also want to note actually that I am very fortunate to have my father here in Parliament as well. I mention that because as a former police officer himself, he would be very familiar with elements of the Summary Offences Act of 1981, of course—effective, if I recall correctly, in the last years of his service to the Crown.

The really important thing for us—and it is around the principle of good law—is that we do not need to replicate. We are relying quite heavily on the Summary Offences Act 1981. Cam went through it quite well. I am looking at my notes beside me here. The Summary Offences Act really does look at the behaviour and conduct of New Zealanders, citizens, residents, and so forth in the community—so everything from the possession of spray-cans, to knives, to how one conducts oneself in public and in private.

The Summary Offences Act is quite a critical piece of legislation, and, again, we have seen how that has been applied, particularly through our police force. The best advice that we were getting from officials, including from the police, was that actually the thing that we needed to do in clause 3 was point towards the Summary Offences Act. It provided enough context for us to move forward.

During the course of the debate, it has been raised with me, by a constituent, actually, concerned perhaps that legitimate uses of hand-held or high-power lasers may be excluded. The constituent, I think quite rightly, pointed towards laser devices that are used for astronomical observation and for navigation, and colleagues have gone further to discuss military applications, and so forth. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did consider this. It does form part of clause 3. The fact that we look towards the Summary Offences Act means intent becomes quite important. So if you are an engineer, an astronomer, a captain in terms of the merchant navy or on the seas, or an academic, of course, you can rightly have a hand-held laser and be able to use it in the same way that someone may actually have items that we have heard about in the Summary Offences Act. They may be in possession of what could well be described—I mean, I can think of chefs who walk around with knives. They are often initially concealed as they take them to work. We are not expecting fine police officers to be detaining them, or if they are stopped, questions will be asked. In fact, I think of myself—and this does fit within clause 3 and the Summary Offences Act—as a fencer and as a fan of that sport of l’escrime, to use a bit of French, Dr Calder. As we were colleagues and friends, we would often be walking to and from the university gym carrying what were effectively seen as weapons at times. They are swords. There are three different types: foil, épée, and sabre.

Dr Cam Calder: You’re a bit of a swordsman?

SIMON O’CONNOR: A swordsman—somewhat accomplished, we could say, but that is by my own assertion. Others would argue against it. But what I am trying to draw is that we can have objects—in this case, a sword, a piece of sporting equipment—that could be seen as offensive.

Paul Foster-Bell: What about lightsabers?

SIMON O’CONNOR: No—no lightsabers, Paul Foster-Bell. That is another generation to come.

What I am trying to illustrate is the purpose or the intent. If I were to ever be stopped, of course, by a police officer, I would respond and explain the intent of what I was carrying—in this case, a fencing foil—and I think this is analogous, therefore, to how the Summary Offences Act here in clause 3 would work with high-power lasers. If a person is able to explain why they have this high-power laser, why they have this item of over 1 milliwatt in their possession, and why they need to use it, that could be explained to the constabulary.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am very pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill to talk about what really is the bread and butter of front-line police officers’ work, and that is the Summary Offences Act. This bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1981—

Alfred Ngaro: Were you a policeman?

MIKE SABIN: Yes, I was a policeman. It is a fact less often known, but I am happy to get it on the table for this particular purpose to help elucidate the importance of the Summary Offences Act 1981, which received Royal assent on 23 October 1981. The Summary Offences Act typically contains—Mr Calder did allude to some of them—offences that we would constitute as being at the minor end of the scale. They are what you could often refer to as the rats and mice type of offences. The penalties are commensurate. Is that the word, Mr Calder? You are a scholar.

Dr Cam Calder: Oh, an excellent word!

MIKE SABIN: Thank you. I learnt that one at Police College. They are commensurate—commensurate—with the offences.

If we look at the detail in terms of the Summary Offences Act and the framework that it is set in, first and foremost, a summary offence is an offence that is trialled by judge only, so there is no option for a jury trial. A jury trial matter would be something that is an indictable matter. A purely indictable matter is a high-end High Court matter, if you like, and receives penalties that have the most significant consequences. Summary offences deal with the lower end, and they are a judge-only matter.

The second point to note is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations refers to the time between the offence and the offender being placed before the court and charged. For summary offences, it is 6 months. When we talk about amending the Summary Offences Act, what we are discussing is amending a piece of legislation that typically deals with lower-end offences, where the penalties are of less consequence, where we are dealing with a judge-only trial, and where we have a statute of limitations of 6 months.

The other interesting point to note is that those who are arrested for matters in the Summary Offences Act typically do not have to provide their fingerprints, which is a fact lesser known, and they are bailable as of right. Typically, they will be in a position where they can receive police bail to go about their lives and be summonsed to court at the next sitting day, generally speaking, if they have been charged and processed through a police station. That gives the context of the Summary Offences Act 1981 and gives us a sense of—[Interruption] I hope my colleagues are all paying attention.

Chris Auchinvole: Yes, I’m taking notes.

MIKE SABIN: Absolutely—taking notes. There is another former police officer behind me, of course, Mike Mitchell, but as a dog handler, he did not often deal with the Summary Offences Act as much as the “101 My Dog Bit Someone Act”.

I just want to allude to a couple of specific features that I think draw absolute comparison with Dr Calder’s bill here. The first deals with graffiti. That is section—can I borrow your glasses? No, I am only kidding. It is very, very small print. That section deals with graffiti. Can you bring section 11A and 11B on the big screen? Section 11A of the Summary Offences Act deals with graffiti and section 11B talks about being in possession of items that may be—there it is, right there. That is the next one I will be talking about. Section 11B deals with the instruments that may be used for graffiti purposes, and then there is a subsequent offence in section 11A that actually makes it an offence to then commit the graffiti. If we draw the analogy between that and the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, what we are actually saying is having possession of them is one thing, but then there is a second step before it becomes an offence.

TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I apologise for jumping in before my colleagues, but I seek leave to correct a vote that I cast on the procedural motion earlier.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that?

TIM MACINDOE: It appears that I cast a vote of 2 for the Māori Party; it should have been 3. I was not aware that I had said that. That was why I questioned the arithmetic, and I do apologise to the Committee for my error.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): So what that means is that the vote will be 60-60, and it takes an outright majority to win a vote. Leave is sought to correct the record of the Māori Party vote from two in favour to three in favour. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I am particularly pleased to have been able to offer a token of technical assistance to my colleague Mike Sabin, who was in the police force. I think that needs to be established. We need that established. Not only that, but we have another colleague, Mark Mitchell, who was in the police force, and now I am a little bit nervous, because we also have the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections, Anne Tolley, with us in the Committee. So I do hope that I get this completely right.

We are talking about clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. Clause 3, as we have already heard, amends the principal Act, which is the Summary Offences Act 1981. I have always understood that a summary offence is a crime in common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily—

Mike Sabin: “Sum-air-ily”.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —oh, “sum-air-ily”, you would say; he also says “Wang-ana-why”, as well—without the right to a jury trial or indictment. It is governed by the statute of limitations for 6 months, arrest is bailable as of right, and no fingerprints are taken. Is that right?

Mike Sabin: That’s correct.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: That is correct. We have got that bit covered. When one has a look at the Summary Offences Act—and I will just bring it up on my little screen. For a layperson such as myself, who is not overly familiar with the law beyond the level required to be a—

Dr Cam Calder: JP.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: A justice of the peace. It is interesting, if one has a moment, to look at the summary of the Summary Offences Act. It covers offences against public order, persons, or property, and spray cans. I can remember when we brought that one through Parliament. It was necessary to introduce legislation to control spray cans. I am old enough to remember—and I am sure that there are members on the other side of the Chamber who are too—when graffiti was simply “Kilroy was here.”, and that was about it; you did not see anything much else. Then spray cans came along.

Summary offences also include offences resembling forgery or fraud; offences against official information; intimidation; obstruction and hindering police; indecency; loitering and trespass; offences resembling nuisance; infringement offences; search, arrest, and jurisdiction; and amendments and appeals. It is an interesting chapter in history and is all meat and potatoes to the boys in blue—the thin blue line. I remember that I worked with a colleague who had been a policeman—

Mike Sabin: This is the meat and three veg.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: This is three vegetables, yes. Some of these laws were, of course, quite convenient from the point of view of apprehending people.

Mike Sabin: Possession of a knife.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Possession of a knife is a particularly significant one, and that is the one that we have alluded to quite frequently in discussing the principal Act. [Interruption] Thank you. Perhaps I can just refer to section 13A of the Summary Offences Act, subsection (1): “Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in any public place, without reasonable excuse, has any knife in his or her possession.” This is tricky if you are a Scottish gentleman wearing a kilt with a sgian-dubh in your sock, but it is also tricky for some Sikhs, I think—where is Kanwal when you need him—because I believe they carry knives. The similarity of section 13A—

Hon Maryan Street: You are making a fool of yourself, Mr Auchinvole. Just cut the crap and get to the business.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. It is amazing that what we object to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Just come to the point of order.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —is what we least like about ourselves. It was an indictment of that member Maryan Street to speak like that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member cannot use a point of order to attack another member. With the way in which the member raised that point, he transgressed into that. But I say to the member Maryan Street who called out the interjection that it was inappropriate and it is not the sort of decorum we like to see in the Committee. Members can express their dissatisfaction by using higher-grade language.

Hon Maryan Street: I’ll try to ramp it up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am on my feet. The member will be trying somewhere else, if she is not very careful. Mr Auchinvole has about half a minute to go.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am so sorry to see my parliamentary colleague so deeply upset. I do not know where she has been or what the cause of this is.

Mike Sabin: Offensive language is in the Summary Offences Act.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Offensive language is in the Summary Offences Act. I do not know what it was and I do not know who it was that has upset Maryan Street, but I am sorry to see her behave in the way that she is behaving, because this is a very important bill. It might appear not to be so to that member, but it is to us.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 New section 13B inserted (Possession of high-power laser pointers)

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): This is the first time I have spoken in this debate, and clause 4 is of course the weighty clause of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I hope the Committee will indulge me if for just a few seconds I pay tribute to the retiring member in charge of the bill, my very good friend Dr Cam Calder, who is a man who served as deputy chair when I was chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and who was a very loyal and hard-working deputy chair. In recent times the roles have been reversed and I have had the pleasure of serving on the Education and Science Committee, which he has chaired admirably as it has dealt with some very important legislation. So I want to thank him for being such a collegial and congenial member of this Parliament, congratulate him on his achievement in bringing this bill to this point, and wish him all the very best in what I know will be a long and illustrious retirement. I have no doubt at all that he will reflect with great pride on his achievement in getting this bill through the House.

I would just like to put a few questions to the member on this particular clause of the bill, clause 4. As I said, it is the clause that deals with all the substantive issues that arise from this important bill. Let us not be under any doubt, despite the humour that has at times prevailed in this debate: this is a very serious matter. It is a matter that enjoys considerable support from our law enforcement agencies, from civil aviation authorities, from health authorities, and from others in the community, because the real risk to public safety from these particular weapons or lasers being in the wrong hands and misused is very, very serious indeed.

I would like to ask the member, and perhaps he might be good enough to jot down some of the questions that I raise to see whether he could answer them, why the change was made in the bill that he initially introduced as it has come back to the Committee from the term “hand-held lasers” to “high-power laser pointers”. As a layman I am sort of left wondering what the difference is, but in particular I am wondering whether there is some potential for legal ambiguity here, in that not everybody would necessarily need to hold a laser in their hand for it to be able to be used in a dangerous way. It might, for instance, be held in the mouth, or even between the toes.

Sue Moroney: Where are the women of the National Party? Why aren’t they down here, taking this hit? They don’t want be involved in this, because it’s ugly.

TIM MACINDOE: So I would be interested to know whether that is going to be sufficiently watertight in order to stand up, should there be a need for this matter to go to court. Although the Opposition member Sue Moroney is in some way questioning the basis behind this, I would suggest that that is a very serious issue. One never wishes to have legislation that is ambiguous and therefore subject to some sort of judicial ambiguity, because that can be the reason that people who are otherwise as guilty as sin get off on a technicality in court. If the Opposition members think that that is not serious, they are misguided.

The other question I would like to put to the member in charge of the bill is whether it is to emphasise that possession is sufficiently worrying without having to demonstrate an intention to use, because, obviously, in criminal law, normally it is both actus reus and mens rea that are required. As I read new section 13B I am just wondering what the particular emphasis is on that issue. In an earlier contribution the member in charge of the bill made the point that these are not toys, and he was absolutely right in saying that. So my question would be—as one who has not sat on the select committee and who, therefore, has not had the opportunity to hear the submissions on the bill—what submissions were made on the specific issue of the definition by the police, by the Civil Aviation Authority, and by other submitters.

Could I also ask him what the motivation was of other submitters on this clause in the bill. Clearly, there are certain people for whom the danger of hand-held lasers being misused in aviation is very obvious. It is extraordinarily dangerous. There is also a danger of lasers being used, as one of my colleagues mentioned, during a rugby game. Potentially blinding somebody is obviously very, very serious, and for that reason we understand why both the police and health authorities would be concerned. But I wonder what the motivation of other submitters was and, indeed, what backgrounds and experience they brought to their submissions on the bill. It would help us all to understand what this particular clause is driving at, I think, if we understood what in particular it was that other submitters had in mind when they submitted on the bill. I was also interested, in view of the fact that the member drew our attention to the fact that this bill amends the Summary Offences Act—

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have heard only one speech. [Interruption] I have heard only one.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Yes, there has been only one call, as I recall. The Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill—

Hon Maryan Street: Oh, this is going to stretch your brain. This will stretch your brain, Mike. Come on, get into it. Come on, I’m looking forward to the argument.

MIKE SABIN: I think what the member is suggesting there is that she would also like to take a call, and so I will be very, very interested to hear the member’s call. Clause 4—and I just want to pick up where Tim Macindoe, the previous speaker, left off because clause 4 is the meat of this bill. It shows us that new section 13B will be inserted after section 13A of the Summary Offences Act, right after “Possession of knives”.

There are distinct similarities between what this bill sets out to achieve and what the possession of a knife does, and the crux of it rests on having a reasonable excuse and why it is that someone would be in possession of that. So it is not so much—

Hon Maryan Street: Struggling, struggling, Mr Sabin. Struggling.

MIKE SABIN: She is good, is she not? It is not so much that—[Interruption] Well, that is right. It is not so much that just having possession would constitute an offence, but it is the context in which a person may then go on to use it. If we look at, say, possession of a knife, what we know is that the length of the knife has no bearing on whether or not the person is in unlawful possession of it.

One part of the clause we are dealing with was an area of contention, which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee dealt with at some length, about the difference between a high-power laser, or a hand-held high-power laser, as the bill’s title has been amended to, and the possession of a—what was it, Dr Calder?

Dr Cam Calder: There were a number of definitions I can touch upon in my answer.

MIKE SABIN: That is right, you can touch upon that. What the committee determined was that the possession of a high-power laser was where that line should be drawn. Although there are a number of low-power lasers that can still project laser light, if you like, for a significant distance, the decision of the committee was that 1 milliwatt was the line that needed to be crossed. So when we look at the possession of a knife and the similarities of this section to that section, if someone is to be in possession of a knife for an unlawful purpose, the length of the knife has no bearing on whether or not that would constitute satisfying the ingredients of the offence. However, in this particular bill, when we are dealing with hand-held lasers, there is a distinct difference, and that difference is that it must be 1 milliwatt or higher.

Dr Calder will be able to inform interested members of the Committee, and I believe that Maryan Street in particular would be very interested to hear Dr Calder explain just how far some of these laser lights can project and the dangers they present—

Chris Auchinvole: 1-1.

MIKE SABIN: Sure. We have heard my colleague Chris Auchinvole here talk about rugby players. I do not know, but it was 60 miles. I know he trifled with us here and asked us how many kilometres that could be, and then gave us the answer that it was 60 miles, which of course trumped us all because we just were not expecting that to come out. But the reality is that if we look at 60 miles, it would be somewhere in the order of 100 kilometres?

Chris Auchinvole: 100 kilometres.

MIKE SABIN: Is it about that?

Chris Auchinvole: Yeah, yeah.

MIKE SABIN: That is a long way up in the air in terms of the ability for someone to sit near an airport and project a hand-held laser at an aircraft. When it hits the inside of the aircraft, it reflects. When it hits the windshield—if we can call it a windshield on an aircraft. I am not sure what it is called, but it certainly stops a lot of wind coming in, and you do not have to be an ex - police officer to know that. [Interruption] That is right—that is right; I am an ex - police officer. But one thing is for sure: it basically completely blinds the pilot or the driver or, in some cases, a sportsman on a rugby field. But if a high-power laser can reach up to 100 kilometres into the sky, that is a dangerous weapon when used in the wrong context. One thing is for sure: what this bill is ultimately dealing with is those who would take something that has a legitimate use and purpose and use it for an illicit purpose that is dangerous. If we look—

Scott Simpson: Nefarious.

MIKE SABIN: Nefarious—is that Latin? I am not sure. Sounds good; I will go with it.

Dr Cam Calder: Furry edges?

MIKE SABIN: Furry edges—absolutely. But the point is that in foreign lands we have seen these things actually being used in a war context, and one thing is for sure—

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I will take a call. I have been asked questions by my colleagues about some of the thinking behind this. I want to commend the ex - police officer Mike Sabin, who has shared the benefit of his experience in law enforcement and who understands how dangerous these devices are. As we know, clause 4 is the meat of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. There were no submissions on any other clause. All the submissions that we got were on clause 4, which is not surprising. This is the meat of the bill. We have heard that when I drafted this bill I modelled it on section 13A of the Summary Offences Act, which deals with the possession of knives. Section 13B in clause 4 is a new section. When clause 4 was initially drafted, it inserted new section 13B, which not only made it an offence for a person to have a hand-held laser in his or her possession without reasonable excuse but provided the police with the warrantless power to seize and detain that hand-held laser. In our debate in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, it was pointed out that it was not necessary to have that seizure provision, and the committee came to the conclusion that we should omit that seizure provision in section 13B(2) in clause 4 because it is not necessary, as seizure powers became available to the police under the Search and Surveillance Act in 2012.

We had a number of submissions, and I will put the eyes on a couple of them to give you a flavour. The Director of Public Health, Dr Darren Hunt, stated that the current definition of “hand-held laser” that I had originally drafted in the bill was too broad and would inadvertently capture many devices that actually posed minimal risk to public health or safety. So he made the point, which was picked up by the committee and I think echoed by some other submitters, that we should use the definition in the Health (High-power Laser Pointers) Regulations 2013 and the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013, which we have touched upon previously in this debate. He felt—and the committee agreed—that adopting this definition would restrict the application of the bill to laser pointers with a power output greater than 1milliwatt. This, of course, reduces the broad scope of the bill, but the feeling of that submitter, the Director of Public Health, was that the risk posed by small lasers of 1 milliwatt or less was extremely low. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists noted the same point—that generally the risks associated with using low-power lasers up to class 3, which is up to and including 1 milliwatt power output, are very low. That was expert advice from the people whom we respected and we, as a committee, took that on board.

In respect of new section 13B, inserted by clause 4, we altered it from possession of “hand-held lasers” to “high-power laser pointers” to make it clear what the definition was, and that what we were talking about was the same device as used in the health and customs input regulations. What we have in new section 13B(1) now is that “Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in any public place, without reasonable excuse, has any high-power laser pointer in his or her possession.” That was a significant change, but a particularly meaty, “beaty”, big, and bouncy change, because it made the scope of this bill directly on high-power laser pointers, which are the subject of those regulations and the order hitherto mentioned.

As you may recall, I have to acknowledge here the presence in the Chamber of the Hon Jo Goodhew, whose hard work, endeavour, and assiduous attention to detail meant that those regulations and orders came through. It has been a pleasure working with the Minister, and I think that together, with the regulations and orders that she has brought through, and when this bill, hopefully, gets through to its final reading and is enacted, we will have a much safer country because the availability of these devices will be severely restricted.

The hope that I had when I first drafted the bill was that, bearing in mind the position a policeman such as Mike Sabin—who we have heard in the Committee today has been a police officer, and Mark Mitchell, who himself has been in the thin blue line. Well, I thought that we should give the police the chance without a warrant to seize these things if they find a miscreant lurking with intent with one of these in their possession. We discussed this at the committee but, as I think I briefly alluded to before, we deleted that seizure position, because from the time of drafting the bill, the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 was brought into law, so that actual provision was superfluous. What we did keep, of course, was that on conviction of any person of an offence, under section 13B(1)—that is, being in a public place without reasonable excuse—then that court may order that the high-power laser pointer be forfeited to the Crown.

I will summarise briefly, if I may. What we have then is a change, as has been brought out by some of the previous speakers, in the definition in subsections 4(a) 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), and 4(e) in section 13B as inserted by clause 4. The definition is: “In this section, 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 (c) is designed or intended to be operated while held in the hand; and (d) produces a coherent beam”—that was the word that Mr Sabin was looking for before—“of optical radiation of low divergence; and (e) has a power output of greater than 1 milliwatt.” That is the definition of the high-power laser pointers. That is clear to all concerned. The police are happy with that. We debated it at some length at the select committee. Indeed, as well as talking about the actual appropriate title and the commencement date, we did spend a significant amount of time on clause 4 of the bill, because we wanted to get it right. We wanted to make it simple to understand. We wanted to have coherence between the regulations and the order governing the importation and supply, and I think the committee achieved that.

I have to once again acknowledge the collegiality on the committee, with members of all sides of the House agreeing that this was a worthy bill. It will make New Zealand a safer place. It is a good bill and I am very pleased that it has got to this stage. My only regret is it appears that unless things change, I will not have a chance to speak on the third reading of this bill, which I believe is timetabled for after I have given my valedictory speech. But I know that I have got some excellent colleagues who will carry this bill through, hopefully, on Wednesday 23 July. It would be wonderful to see that bill enacted and subsequently get Royal asset and become law 28 days after receiving Royal assent. Thank you.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

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

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

SUE MORONEY (Labour): You cannot begin to understand how relieved I am to take a call in the Committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill tonight. It has been a long time coming. I am sorry for everyone who has had to sit through the bizarre performance that we have seen from the National members this morning as they have again—

Mike Sabin: This morning?

SUE MORONEY: —this afternoon, this evening—as they have continued to play these political games around something as simple as supporting families at a time when they need it most, which is when they have a newborn baby. I think it is very disappointing and I am sure that families up and down the country will feel ashamed of what they have seen the Government doing tonight. I certainly do.

But before I go on, can I acknowledge my own parents, Mary and Denny Moroney, who are here with me this evening, hoping to hear this bill being debated and voted on. It is their 59th wedding anniversary, so happy anniversary, Mum and Dad. This bill is about families. You have been a wonderful, wonderful example of the sort of support that children can have, and look what you produced—look what you produced. This bill is not about me and my family, but I just did want to acknowledge that very special occasion for my parents this evening.

I really hope that the National Government will honour my parents’ wedding anniversary by now ceasing the game. Let us just cease the game. I want to get this bill passed through its Committee stage tonight. I would love to have my parents here tonight see that occasion occur, but, more important, I want to see families throughout New Zealand actually have this issue heard, and actually have it debated in this Parliament in a democratic and civilised manner.

This is not a controversial bill. This is a measure to actually extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks, but not immediately. I have an amendment to my bill that will bring paid parental leave to 22 weeks on 1 July next year and then to finally get to the 26 weeks on 1 July 2017. It is a very affordable way of bringing forward this very important measure. This measure is important because, as Plunket says, when we give children that best start of bonding and attachment with their parent and when we give them the best opportunity to have 6 months’ exclusive breastfeeding, then we know that as a country we can support those children. They will have a better life. We will all get to live beside these better-balanced and more productive citizens, and we will all get to save money. We will not have to spend so much money on remedial education. We will not have to spend so much money on those children’s health care, and actually a lot of the research and evidence tells us that we will save money on our youth justice system as well. Would that not be a great thing?

This is what the brighter future for New Zealand really looks like, New Zealand. I want to thank all the parties and independent MPs who are supporting this bill, because they know that investing early, investing in those early months, is going to be the thing that is going to make us a better country. That is what this bill is about. People listening to this debate will be able to hear which other parties are truly prepared to put their money where their mouths are and prioritise families and children. The one party, the National Party, that is now voting against this bill in this Committee is showing that it does not prioritise families. That is what it shows when it opposes this bill.

I just want to make one more quick point, and it is this: if the National Party truly believes that this bill is not affordable, then use the financial veto. Stop playing political games and use the financial veto. Stand up and be counted. Stop the political game-playing.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is indeed a pleasure to follow Sue Moroney as we begin the Committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that I like to think we—the Government Administration Committee that worked on it together—can call a bill that can be shared. I do not think Sue Moroney has said anything that we would not agree with in a different financial situation.

I would like to say, at the very beginning, that it was a bill that received a lot of attention from the select committee. We received excellent advice from the advisers we had, and Sue Moroney put a huge amount of personal effort in, which I would like to acknowledge. There was also a really good atmosphere at the select committee and everybody worked very hard to, I guess, make the best of it that we could.

Perhaps the difficulty with it—as I started to say but I think the member Sue Moroney was engaged in conversation—is that the timing, perhaps, is the crucial part of this bill in terms of the political climate that it is born in. We have just seen a—

Mike Sabin: No pun intended.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, no pun intended. We have just seen a Budget that has come through. It is forward-looking, positive, inspired, inspirational, and inspiring. It is a Budget that we can all be proud of and participate in, in the knowledge that it is targeting and it is targeted. It is selfless in that it does not seek to glorify the author; rather, it seeks to authorise attention being given to discretely measured sections of our population, and our overall New Zealand family—people who need help. I honestly think that the parts of the Budget that I am referring to, and we will look at those in detail in a moment, can be embraced by both sides of the House because they are very sensible things to do—they are very sensible things to do. Let us examine just a few aspects of the Budget that are of particular benefit to families. There was that “do not play political games” remark, and I accept that Sue has been through a difficult time with this bill, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Sue Moroney has been through a difficult time with this bill, and I understand that. It was difficult for all of us, but it is $500 million we are talking about in terms of family support.

So let us see the sorts of things that we have got in the Budget. The Government is committed to doing its part to give children the best possible start in life. Extending paid parental leave could certainly do that, and nobody whom I have heard has ever said it is a silly idea. No one has said that. I do not think it is right to paint the Government in that particular colour. It is a matter of time, affordability, and priority. Investing almost $500 million more in this Budget in the well-being of New Zealand’s children and families is at the heart of Budget 2014. Families will benefit from a growing economy offering more jobs and higher wages. It is also appropriate that they are amongst the first to benefit from extra Government spending as the economy picks up.

Budget 2014 provides a comprehensive package of practical measures focused on young families and those vulnerable children who most need our care and protection. The things that are included are free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for children under 13. I remember when I had children under 13, and it is a huge lift to know that that care is there. There is 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave, and that is extended to caregivers other than parents. There is an increase in the parental tax credit by $70 to $220 a week in total, and it is extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. There is $155.7 million more for early childhood education, to get more kids participating and keep fees down for parents. There is $33.4 million extra to support vulnerable children. It includes eight—

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I see from the number of members that are jumping up on that side of the Committee that they have suddenly felt a rush of interest in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. It is a level and degree of interest that I do not recall having seen until now.

Mike Sabin: We’ve got a good story to tell.

JACINDA ARDERN: And the member claims they have a good story to tell. I assume by that he means the story that was created by the National Government only in response to the excellent story that Labour wanted to tell. But actually, if we are taking an analogy of paid parental leave being a story of some description, what the National Government has written is the preface and what Labour has written is the actual story and conclusion, because National has not gone far enough. It has not actually gone beyond the tokenism of acknowledging that, yes, we need a lift in paid parental leave, but all of the evidence suggests that we need it to go far beyond the 18 weeks that National has proposed.

Chris Auchinvole: When we can afford it.

JACINDA ARDERN: When we can afford it. If what the member just said then were the case, why would the National Government not introduce a stepped plan for the introduction of paid parental leave to 26 weeks? If the true story is that it is not about the principle of going to 6 months but the affordability of it, why did the National Government not set out a staged plan for reaching that goal? Because—

Chris Auchinvole: We have.

JACINDA ARDERN: You have not. Your policy is not 26 weeks. Unfortunately, National does not seem to understand what it has actually proposed, which was a tokenistic, 4-week increase staged over time. That is the National policy. I am sorry that I have to remind you of that. You are obviously disappointed by it, but it was Labour that has actually said that we believe that 26 weeks is possible. We have set out a timetable to do it. We have staged it. But ultimately—

Mike Sabin: Of course you do, because you’ve got great form for spending taxpayers’ money, haven’t you?

JACINDA ARDERN: Mike Sabin seems to think that it is affordable to go 4 weeks, but anything beyond—is 19 weeks unaffordable and a reckless spend of the taxpayers’ money? What about an extra 14 days? Where does the line sit, Mr Sabin, between reckless and fiscally prudent? Wherever National decides the line sits, that is where it is. That is why this was never a policy of principle for National; it was a policy of politics. That is exactly what National has done, because if it was a policy based on principle, those members would have read the research by the World Health Organization, which does not say 18 weeks. It does not say that bonding and attachment can be achieved in 18 weeks. It does not say that you will improve health outcomes at 18 weeks. It all points to 26 weeks. I would be generous enough to say that I believe the National Party members in the Chamber tonight know that, and they know that they have made an unnecessary trade-off.

On this side of the Chamber you might see that we were taking more succinct calls, and that is ultimately because there were 3,809 submissions on this bill—overwhelming. Of those, 3,794—over 99 percent—were in favour.

Chris Auchinvole: Well, that’s natural.

JACINDA ARDERN: It is natural, because it is the right thing to do, which is why the majority of MPs in this House are in favour of this bill passing.

I would just use the time that I have available to me to make a plea to the National Government—a plea. We have gone through a rigorous process. We have set out a timetable that is eminently affordable. The only thing standing in the way of this bill passing is National’s veto. It is not a vote, and it is not another member, an MP; it is National’s veto. Be it on those members’ conscience if they deny the democratic right of this Parliament to pass a bill that an overwhelming number of New Zealanders are in favour of. That is the plea that I make to those members tonight. Do not veto something that this Parliament has a majority of support for, because that reflects entirely badly not just on the National Government but on the democratic process of this House to start with. In doing so tonight, it is not just about voting in favour of what the evidence says, what the research says, and what is best for children, best for families, and ultimately best for babies; it is also about maintaining the faith that people have in the democracy of this place, and the people have strongly sent a message to this place to pass this bill. All I ask is to let the votes stand for themselves, and that is the plea I make.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I seek leave to have the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill debated as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am very pleased to take a call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and speak to some of the points that Jacinda Ardern has just raised. I can understand that the member has a passion about this particular bill, as the member who introduced the bill has. Of course we all, right across this House, see absolute merit in giving every child the best start possible. It is right, it is absolutely right, that there will be passion in this debate, but it is also right that the Government has the opportunity to, and does, enact changes that it believes are prudent and right for the time and that address need. Although in a perfect world every mother would be able to stay at home and have the Government support them to do that—I mean, why stop at 26 weeks; the member Jacinda Ardern said 26 weeks—it is all about 26 weeks. When my children were growing up it was 5 years, but there was no paid parental leave. There is actually nothing to say that the Government has to support parents to bring up their children well. That is not the case. It is not necessary. There are plenty of people—sorry, what is the member saying?

Carol Beaumont: Go on, scrap Working for Families then.

MIKE SABIN: Well, you see, there is something that that party has introduced. I personally actually believe that there is a balance to get in terms of where the individual’s responsibility to plan, to take into account the costs that may be associated with having a child, and to ensure that the requisite care, support, nurturing, and so forth can be provided for.

One of the interesting calls that has been made, right from the get-go, is around playing politics. There is a word beginning with “h” that I could probably pull out of the hat, but I am not going to as I am sure members know it. There is a degree of irony about the fact that what we know is that for children who are living in vulnerability or families who are struggling, one of the best things that can happen to them is they have an economy that is growing, that is job-rich, and that has well-paid jobs, so that families have the opportunity to increase their income and therefore increase their freedom of choice and their ability to make choices that will be fit for purpose for them—for the needs of their family. When we talk about playing politics, what we have seen from the Labour Party, the Green Party, and a plethora of mixtures on the Opposition benches, is essentially parties that have consistently voted against the Government’s economic programme.

I would challenge the member Sue Moroney to stand up and say—if she is so concerned about supporting families; often the ones who rely on support, who are at the margins—why she opposes the efforts of the Government to grow the economy. Why is that? I would like the member to tell us. I suspect it is because what the Labour Party wants to see, what the Opposition parties want to see, is for the Government to fail, so that they can get on to the Treasury benches. The cost, of course, of that is that ultimately, when they are not voting to support measures that will help grow the economy, they are actually hampering the very people whom they say they are there to support. If we are talking about playing politics, then I would suggest that members might want to consider what they do at all times, and not just when it suits them on a particular bill.

That is the other interesting point, because what we are doing around paid parental leave, with the steps process to 18 weeks, is what we believe to be fair and reasonable, meets needs, and is prudent in terms of the fiscal conditions. We have heard successive comments about Government debt, about high Government debt. There is a certain member in this House who keeps going on about the worst economic record in 50 years. I cannot remember what his name is—

Louise Upston: David Clark.

MIKE SABIN: Of course. That is right—Mr Clark. The reason that debt exists is that this Government has ensured that for the most vulnerable people we have taken the sharp edges off the recession and the Canterbury earthquakes. Again, I would put it that members cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they cannot say that you need to do more and it is about 26 weeks—it is about basically spending more, because this matters—but then ignore the fact that that is exactly what the Government has done, particularly since the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. This Government has absolutely been prudent and responsible in ensuring that those most vulnerable people are well looked after. Let us not forget that people out there in the real world, on $50,000 with two children, are tax-neutral. They pay as much in tax as they get back in support.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to take a call for the Green Party in support of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in its Committee stage. I am going to keep my contribution quite short. I think the public does not really want to hear us debating economic visions, Mr Sabin. For every example you can give, I could give others of wastage. The truth is that the 3,795 submitters who submitted in support of this bill submitted in the knowledge that this Government was talking about using a financial veto. Those people said that this bill is an economic priority. This is affordable, and we want you to do it. They convinced us. They convinced the majority of this Parliament. The fact that this executive is looking at extending its power to override the legislature is really dodgy.

Colin King: It’s called democracy.

JAN LOGIE: It is not democracy as we standardly know it. This provision has not been used before, and it is extending your powers much further than they belong. It is unbalancing our democracy. You are in power, in a Government, with parties that do not want you to do this. You are given power by this country in your collective votes, and your collective votes do not support voting this down. This House supports this bill going through, and for you to be opposing it when it is the will of the country to prioritise children and this piece of legislation, is shameful.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I am going to take just a very short call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. It is always exceptionally good to follow Mr Sabin because he provides so much material to work with. This is for the New Zealanders out there who are listening to this debate—those of you who were brave enough to have sat through the last bill, those of you who stayed in front of your televisions and in front of your wirelesses and actually watched National members trying to push this bill so far down this evening that they hoped you would fall asleep. They hoped you would not see what they intend to do with regard to the majority vote of this Committee. They tried to delay this bill and filibuster it so that you would not hear the fact that they will not stand up for children at home. [Interruption] I beg your pardon, Mr Chair, but I know that you yourself sat through that last bill, waiting, waiting, and waiting for this very important bill.

This bill is important to so many New Zealanders. It is important to women, children, fathers, and mothers. It is important to all those people who actually value children before the jobs that Mr Sabin said this should all be about. Mr Sabin, in his speech, epitomised the problem with National’s line of thinking. He again referred to, or took us back to a place of, working, and completely devaluing staying at home and looking after children. Mr Sabin, really interestingly—listen to his words, New Zealand; go back and have a listen to his words—said that the Government should not have to support families. Mr Sabin suggested that he had never been supported by his country or by his Government.

When Mr Sabin was little, when Mr Sabin was a baby at home, his mother was supported by this country through the universal family benefit—by the universal family benefit. It was removed by the National Government in the 1990s. Mr Sabin does not know about that because Mr Sabin never asked his mother how her country had supported him and his family. Mr Sabin does not know because Mr Sabin never studies anything that he is supposed to get up and speak on; he just pushes the line that his whips tell him.

So, New Zealand, what you are going to find here is that this Government will attempt to force this bill past the end of this evening in the hope that you will forget about it and that you will go to sleep. No wonder a million of you—a million New Zealanders—decided not to engage in democracy, when you have the arrogance of a Government like this that votes down, on a financial veto, what you, the people, have said you wish—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

TRACEY MARTIN: I apologise again, Mr Chair. This bill should go through this House. It will be only as a result of the undemocratic way that the National Government responds to this bill that it will be stalled. The New Zealand public will know about it. The New Zealand public, at this upcoming election, will hear it. That is why, New Zealand, National members are frightened that you are watching the television.

MELISSA LEE (National): Ahn nyung ha se yo, Mr Chair. I would like to apologise to my learned colleague Alfred Ngaro, to my right, who very passionately called out so that he could have a say. It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Although I am opposed to it, it is very interesting to listen to the members opposite. I know that they speak with passion, but sometimes it is really difficult to take in, especially when they start talking about the arrogance of the Government or the fact that we on this side are filibustering when in the past, members opposite have filibustered to the point that it has gone on for days and days and days so that some member’s bill would not come to pass. I have a vague memory of something to do with a heritage bill or a student union movement bill not actually coming before members’ day. So that is very rich coming from them, talking about filibustering, and I will not take that as a salient point of objection for members on this side of the Chamber to talk on something we believe in.

I would also like to take a moment to talk about what Jan Logie said. She talked about the economics of it all. I take objection to taking a lesson in Economics 101 from a party that wants to print money for the economic well-being of this country. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—

Tracey Martin: Tell New Zealand why you oppose this bill.

MELISSA LEE: Tracey Martin can say whatever she likes, but when she talks about arrogance, she should look in the mirror, because her party opposes Asian migration to New Zealand every election time. This Government has always said that it was prepared to extend parental leave—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There is a significant number of Standing Orders that grant us good grace and good order and an opportunity for all members to make a commanding contribution. I urge all honourable members to play the ball and not the member. Remember that, and we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas.

MELISSA LEE: I would like to start by saying that this Government has always—and I repeat, always—said that it was prepared to extend parental leave but in a way that was affordable. Affordability is something that is very important to us, obviously. When we could afford more, we would do more. When this country is in a financial crisis, like the rest of the world, our focus is to get our country back in the black—get back in the black, not in the red—so that we can afford to pay for things for our New Zealand families. That is exactly what we did in Budget 2014.

Labour’s 26-week paid parental leave goes too far, costs too much, and is definitely poorly targeted. I would like to reflect back on what Mr Sabin has said: why do we just stop at 26 weeks? If the country can afford it, we would all love to be at home. As a mother, I would have loved to stay at home with my son when he was born. My son is now 15, and sometimes as a working parent I feel very guilty that I did not stay at home longer. Most mothers—most fathers also, probably—would want to stay at home looking after their children, but for them their desire cannot be fulfilled. I think all parents would want to do that, but they have responsibilities. Just like a good Government has a responsibility to its citizens, parents also have a responsibility to their children.

Only around 40 percent of families with newborns get paid parental leave, and Labour’s policy is not targeted on need. I would like to emphasise the word “need” because we want to do what is needed. When the people of New Zealand need something, we want to supply it for them, but the thing is that this Government is fiscally responsible. We want to be managing our books carefully so that when we can afford to do it, we will do it. That is what we promised and that is what we have delivered in Budget 2014. Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave—

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): With the advances in modern science I have just had communications from the lady who brought me into the world and I happy to be able to inform the member Tracey Martin, who seems to have an uncomfortable fixation on me but I will go with it, that the universal benefit—what was it called? Actually, I did not know what it was about because—that is right—I was a baby at the time.

Hon Members: Family benefit.

MIKE SABIN: What is it? Family—family benefit. She informs me that it was—let me see here. With the wonders of modern science, I have it on my phone—$6 a week for a fortnight. Good heavens! There you go. So that brings things into stark reality.

Jacinda Ardern: The same amount as what you just increased the parental tax credit by.

MIKE SABIN: Sorry? Six dollars—

Tracey Martin: Ask your mother.

Jacinda Ardern: Have you heard of inflation?

MIKE SABIN: There is a lot of passion in this debate. So $6 a week for 2 weeks puts some perspective into how generous the Government of the day is now and how measured we are in terms of what the appropriate balance is.

Tracey Martin: Go and do some research.

MIKE SABIN: Just ease up on the fixation—ease up on the fixation. A very, very important point was made also by Tracey Martin, because she said that I was saying something about the Government—that it does not care about the children and does not have to pay for them, or something like that. The point I was trying to make—and let us just get back to some accuracy here—is that there are plenty of parents who actually do not need paid parental leave, even now when it is available, notwithstanding the fact that when it was not available, people actually got by. So it is not the case that the Government should always be the default mechanism in this equation. It is certainly the case that where there are those who are at the margins, who are struggling and have a family, that extra assistance makes all the difference, but it is about getting that balance right.

I want to just reflect on some of the other things that we are doing that would reflect the context of that balance, because the member also made some pretty interesting allegations about us on this side of the Chamber not really caring about those people. Well, a $500 million package announced in the Budget is far from not caring in my view. What we are looking at are free GP visits for those up to 13 years of age. That is a good thing. That is a good thing, because there are many who will not take their children to the doctor because of that additional cost, so that is huge. We are moving in a staged, careful, and considered manner from 14 weeks to 16 weeks to 18 weeks over the next 2 years, and that is what we think is prudent and appropriate at the time. We are also increasing the parental tax credit by $70 a week to $220 a week—

Jacinda Ardern: The equivalent of the old universal family benefit.

MIKE SABIN: Well, as I say, I am not in tune with the old days, because—that is right—we are forward-looking. We are forward-looking and it is about now. It is about what is appropriate for the context now. To come back to the point, it is an increase of $70 a week to $220 a week in total and it is extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. There is $155.7 million more going into early childhood education. This Government has had an absolute commitment to getting children into early childhood education because we know the outcomes for those children are much more positive if they can get themselves into that early childhood education.

The reason I am bringing these measures up is that our steps in terms of paid parental leave have been subject to some significant criticism and aspersions that we are playing politics with it, but it is about the balance that we have tried to achieve. So it is hard for me to discuss that balance, which has been highly criticised by the other side, without mentioning that. I am still waiting for the member in the chair, the sponsor of this bill, Sue Moroney, to stand up and tell us why she is happy to accuse us of playing politics but not happy to vote for the legislation that will help grow the economy. The economy is growing and as the economy grows, so does our support for people who are in need. It is about need.

I want to acknowledge and thank my mother, because it was not—

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): It is a privilege to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I just want to reflect on an international study that was released earlier this year and championed by Harvard University, which is called the Social Progress Index. Many New Zealanders would think that as a country we would come up near the top of that sort of survey, but were surprised when, in fact, we came out as No. 1 in the world—No. 1 in terms of social progress on the entire globe. That survey canvassed some 60 to 65 measures, if I recall, and the fact of the matter was that New Zealand did not come No. 1 in each of those measures, so I am the first to admit that there are a range of things that as a nation we can do better. I think all of us would want to think that we can stay in the No. 1 position in terms of social progress as a nation internationally, because that bodes well. As my colleague said, there were 132 countries in that survey, and we came out at No. 1.

The point I make in regard to the fact that we were not No. 1 in each of the initiatives that were measured is that we can make more progress. To that point, I make this other point, which is that I truly believe that every member of this House comes in here with the goal of improving the lot of all New Zealanders. Tracey Martin, Jacinda Ardern, Alfred Ngaro, Mark Mitchell—all of us actually come in here with that goal. That is a fact. We all want to leave this place having left New Zealand in a better place than when we came here. The point I make is that we make different choices about how we achieve that progress, and that is just politics. It is about a scarce resource, which is taxation, the revenue that comes into the Government from taxpayers, and it is about how we choose to spend those resources. The fact of the matter is we are not all going to agree on the exact composition of that expenditure.

The fact of the matter is we have made choices over on this side of the Chamber to extend paid parental leave—because we think that is a good thing—from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. We have not agreed to extend it to 26 weeks at this point in time, but we have made other choices that my colleagues have discussed tonight. Free general practitioner visits—which we announced in the Budget—for children under 13 years of age, lifting that from 6 years, come at a cost. That is not free. It is one of the choices we made as a Government about improving the lot of New Zealanders. Another choice we made was to increase the parental tax credit. Jacinda Ardern said it is not that much. It is not a huge increase—I accept that—but it still comes at a cost, which means you have to make choices about other things that you are not going to extend in terms of a set level of taxation. We particularly made a decision to increase by $155 million the amount that is going into early childhood education. If there is one thing we can do in this country for all children, for our nation to lift their ability to climb the ladder, it is to invest and to continue to invest in education. I am talking about the ladder of opportunity. With early childhood education—

Tracey Martin: The one that you’re pulling up behind you.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: We have delivered on that, Ms Martin, and it is going to actually continue to ensure that we stay up at No. 1 in that social progress indicator. In that regard we have made huge progress for Pacific Islanders, for Māori, and for all New Zealanders.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Here we go. Dissing Māori and Pacific. Taking them for granted.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: In fact, we are going to achieve that 98 percent target within the next few years. Ms Asenati Lole-Taylor, that is something you should be championing. For your people, the fact that we have lifted the number of young Pacific Islanders who are in early children education is an outstanding achievement and something we should all cherish. So my point is that we have choices.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Ahn nyung ha se yo. Sat sri akaal. It is very important that we are debating the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in this Committee. My colleagues have explained a lot of things. There is one point that is missing so far. No one has touched on it, because these members were not on the Government Administration Committee. The point I want to touch on is that the Opposition members have time and again said that 99 percent of the people who submitted support the bill. But 1 percent were against it. Who were they? That 1 percent were business organisations that represent hundreds of businesses in New Zealand. They represent thousands of families who are members of those business organisations. They were opposing this bill because they can see that this bill is not viable in the present conditions. The global financial crisis has affected businesses. Before we decide such a measure as is proposed in the bill by Sue Moroney, it is very important that businesses feel comfortable about paying that to their employees.

It is not that this Government is not considerate about families. In the Budget we have many measures to help families, which have been very well discussed by members in their speeches. With these words, I conclude my contribution on clause 1, but I assure you that our Government is very focused on families.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question that clause 1 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just on the issue of voting, I need clarification about United Future’s vote. I have it as a No.

LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National): No, I cast it in favour. I cast it in favour, Mr Chair.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3, Mana 1; United Future 1.

Noes 59

New Zealand National 59.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 59, Noes 60.

Clause 2 Commencement

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Comments have been coming, especially from Tracey Martin and others, who have chosen to condemn both the National Party and also its members, and they have been made in a way that really has been quite offensive to many of us because we have children, we have been raised by our own parents, and we have been in a situation where we know what it means to raise our children and to care for them. Yet that is what has been coming from the other side, especially from Mrs Tracey Martin, which I am a bit surprised about. The truth is that many of us absolutely care for children. We not only care for children; we care for parents who care for their children.

My parents came here from the Cook Islands. They did not have much. My mother was a cleaner. My dad was a labourer. They worked hard, often working two or three jobs. They did not have much. [Interruption] That is right; they were good parents, Mrs Asenati Lole-Taylor. They were good parents like your parents, I imagine. They were parents who came here with a dream and a belief that if they worked hard enough, their children would survive. To turn round and say that we do not care what happens to our parents and what happens to parents who look after children is really offensive to us because we absolutely care in so many different ways about parents who look after children and about the children themselves. We know that that is absolutely important to us.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that my colleague Chris Tremain talked about the Social Progress Index. This was measuring multiple dimensions of social progress. Really, at the heart of this—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I have to advise the honourable members that the Ayes in the last vote were 60 and the Noes were 59. So, the motion that clause 1 stand part is correct, but I just want to correct the votes—60 for the Ayes and 59 for the Noes.

ALFRED NGARO: As I was saying, the fact is that, as my colleague Chris Tremain raised, the Social Progress Index 2014, with 132 different countries, showed that New Zealand was not only caring—

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

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill without amendment, and progress on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.