Thursday, 23 October 2014

THURSDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2014

THURSDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

Charles Philip Littlejohn CBE, LLM

Mr SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 14 September 2014 of Charles Philip Littlejohn CBE, LLM, who was Clerk of the House of Representatives from 1976 until 1985. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy for the relatives of the late former Clerk. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a brief period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 28 October, the Government intends to continue the Address in Reply debate and progress the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill, and other bills on the Order Paper. On Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, at the times agreed by the Business Committee, a number of members will make their maiden speeches to the House.

Motions

Canada—Deaths of Soldiers and Shooting at Parliament

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave to move a motion without notice in relation to the attack at the Canadian Parliament today.

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I move, That this House express its condolences to the family of the soldier killed in Ottawa today and its deep concern at the attack at Parliament House. As we consider this motion, many New Zealanders will feel concern and sympathy for the Canadian people, who are dealing with the frightening, threatening, and tragic events that have occurred in Ottawa this morning and near Montreal 2 days ago.

We should be careful not to jump to conclusions or rush to comparisons in situations like this, but we also do have to recognise that we live in a very different world today than we did only a short while ago. The threat of terrorism today is greater than it has been at any previous time in our history. This requires even a geographically remote and peaceful country like New Zealand to be vigilant and cautious. It must not be, though, a vigilance or a caution that causes us to turn on ourselves with judgments en masse or reactions that deny New Zealanders their freedoms, their rights, and choice. At the core of those freedoms is the right to religious expression, the right to political expression, and the right to respect, so long as none of those expressions seek to impede the freedoms of others. As a close friend and ally of Canada, we must ensure we preserve the values of freedom that we share. These shared values are the values that the Canadian people are now called on to defend.

On behalf of the people of New Zealand, we express our solidarity with the people of Canada at a time when they are most visibly and dramatically in need of our support. We extend our condolences to the families of the two soldiers deceased in the violent acts of the past 48 hours, and simply offer to our Canadian friends all that is embodied in our uniquely New Zealand salutation kia kaha.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): In support of that motion, the Labour Party joins with the Government in expressing its condolences and sympathies today to the family and friends of Corporal Nathan Frank Cirillo, the Canadian soldier who was gunned down while performing his duties outside the Ottawa National War Memorial. This was a brutal act that appears to have been planned and premeditated, and it comes on the heels of another Canadian soldier who was deliberately killed in a hit and run incident.

These events have clearly come as a shock to Canadian citizens, who live in a country that is peace-loving and has been largely immune to that sort of violence. Our thoughts today are with the Canadian people who are coming to terms with that horrific event. We also acknowledge the quick response of the Canadian security services, which may well have saved other innocent lives as the gunman entered the Canadian Parliament.

It is a reminder that we need to be vigilant in these indeed troubled times when events from elsewhere and overseas impinge and force themselves on to our societies as well. But it is also important to acknowledge that these are the actions of a very small number of extremists. They are not representatives of many of our communities. Much attention has gone on to the Muslim community within New Zealand. It, like others in our society, is a community who are Kiwis, who are hard-working, peaceful, and law-abiding. Indeed, together with Phil Goff, I attended a march on the weekend where Muslims took to the streets, on Queen Street, under the banner of “Not in My Name” to abhor what was perpetrated in the name of Islam. We need to be watchful but never prejudge.

As a close friend of Canada we extend our condolences to the people of Canada.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party joins with the Government in expressing its condolences to the family of the soldier killed in Ottawa today and its deep concern at the attack at Parliament House. The Green Party expresses its solidarity with Canadians and with the Canadian Parliament today. Our thoughts are with all of those caught up in the shooting in Canada. Our sympathies are especially with the family and friends of the soldier killed while guarding the National War Memorial. We also hope for the speedy recovery of the people who were injured in the attack. This is a horrible attack. We hope for peace and for order to be restored in Ottawa. Kia kaha.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First joins other parties in expressing condolences to the family of the soldier killed in Ottawa today and our deep concern at the attack on the Canadian Parliament. An attack on the institution of Parliament is an attack at the very heart of democracy. It is significant and a very serious development. Without security for the processes of government and Parliament there is only one path, and that is anarchy

In New Zealand First we believe that our country needs to be more vigilant. We must follow the events in Canada and see what lessons may apply to New Zealand and, indeed, to security in our Parliament and its precincts. In any country an attack on Parliament is a very, very black day.

MARAMA FOX (Māori Party): Anei rā te mihi atu ki a koe e Te Mana Whakawā, koutou o Te Whare nei. Ā, tēnei tāku e tū ake nei ki te mihi nō te mea ko tēnei taku wā tuatahi ki te kōrero, hoi anō, hei te rā tū taku wā tika. Nā reira, i roto i te tūnga o Te Ururoa, o Te Pāti Māori i tēnei wā au e tū ana. He tuku mihi ki tēnei o ngā rangatira kua mate i tēnei rangi nā reira. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou ōku pou, ōku rahi, tēnā koutou.

[Here indeed is my acknowledgment to you, Mr Speaker, and to you collectively of this House. I have greeted you in this manner because it is the first time I have made a statement, and, furthermore, the proper time would have been when I make my first speech. So in this instance I am standing for the Māori Party in the position of Te Ururoa. I pay a tribute to the leaders who have passed away today. I salute you, my pillars and my greatness, acknowledgments to you collectively.]

I stand today on behalf of the Māori Party to express our heartfelt sympathies to the Canadian Parliament, the Canadian people, and, most of all, to the family and loved ones of the soldiers whose lives have been tragically stolen. The young lives of those soldiers will be for ever entrenched as heroes to be remembered forevermore by their children, by their parents, and by all of those who loved them dearly.

To be a member of Parliament is the greatest honour and privilege—to be of service to one’s people. Today we mourn with all of our peers across the world as we consider one of our own brothers, as we do with all of our own security staff who stand to protect us here. One of our brothers amongst us has been killed today in our world. We have a whakataukī from home: Aorangi tū noa papa kotinga, takoto noa. It means: Aorangi stands alone while I will be struck down to lie forlorn. It referred to the tragic execution of a Wairarapa chief.

I am reminded of how senseless the loss of life is that comes from events such as today’s in Canada. They have huge ramifications for the communities from which these individuals come. It is also time to acknowledge this serjeant-at-arms, who today stood up to protect parliamentarians while standing guard at the Ottawa National War Memorial in front, poignantly, of the tomb of the fallen soldier. It was a noble action well beyond the call of duty and one that represents the incredible calibre of the people who do so much to protect those working in the Houses of Parliament both here and across the globe.

Our thoughts are with the family of the fallen soldier and the guards who have lost their lives in today’s attacks and the attacks of this week. Nō reira e te Whare, tēnā koutou.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I join with others in expressing sympathy to the Parliament, the people, and the families of those so tragically killed in Canada in the events of recent days. When we think of Canada from this distance we think of a country not unlike ours in terms of being a peaceful, tranquil place where these sorts of things do not happen, and when they do, the shock becomes all the greater. I think it would be somewhat idle, premature, and foolish to speculate further upon this incident in the absence of full information. Suffice it to say, it is a shock to people who value freedom and who value democracy.

Our thoughts must be with those who have been adversely affected, particularly the families, and the thought that those men carrying out their lawful duty were cut down in this way is abhorrent. My deepest sympathy goes to the people of Canada, to the families of those who have lost loved ones, and to the Parliament of Canada, as a fellow institution to this one.

Motion agreed to.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Ministerial Responsibility

Mr SPEAKER: Yesterday members raised points of order asking that I reflect on answers given by the Prime Minister during question No. 3. In practice, a wide view is taken of the concept of ministerial responsibility. In each case it will depend on a consideration of the legislative and administrative circumstances surrounding the question. While the Prime Minister is answerable for all actions taken and statements made as Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is not answerable for statements or actions taken as the leader of a political party or in a personal capacity, although this can be a hard distinction to make.

I have reviewed each of the answers given by the Prime Minister during question No. 3 yesterday. On reflection there is one answer to a supplementary question that troubles me. The primary question was a very general one. It revealed no particular connection to any action taken in a ministerial capacity. Dr Russel Norman’s eight other supplementary questions were answered in a way that gives me no concern. However, Dr Norman’s third supplementary question, in asking about a conversation with Mr Slater, made a connection to the actions of the Prime Minister in relation to the Government’s response to the Pike River mine tragedy. A connection having been made to a matter of ministerial responsibility, an informative answer should be given. To simply say “I am not going to describe conversations I have in a capacity other than as Prime Minister.” is not acceptable where the question is linked to matters of ministerial responsibility.

Although considerable weight must be given to a Minister’s claim that actions or statements were not made in a ministerial capacity, this can never be definitive. Ultimately, the Speaker will take a view. This is what I have done. Where I judge a question to reveal a reasonable likelihood of a connection to ministerial responsibility, an informative answer must be given.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Business Growth Agenda and Export Sector Performance

1. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: What measures is the Government taking to help the New Zealand economy become more productive and competitive?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government is taking a large number of measures to help the economy become more productive and competitive. It is, of course, only by having a strong economy that we can lift opportunities and incomes for Kiwi families and provide world-leading public services. This literally requires us to do hundreds of things well. Within the Government’s wider economic plan, the Business Growth Agenda sets out around 350 of these initiatives in the areas of growing exports, capital markets, innovation, skilled and safe workplaces, natural resources, and infrastructure.

Jami-Lee Ross: Within the Business Growth Agenda what are the Government’s main priorities for this term of Parliament?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have laid out many priorities, but during the election campaign we highlighted 10 priorities, in particular for the Business Growth Agenda, on returning to Government. They are all aimed at increasing New Zealand’s long-term growth rate and to create more opportunities for New Zealanders and their families. These priorities include negotiating and signing free-trade agreements, including with Korea, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the World Trade Organization Government procurement agreement. They also include passing the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House, to ensure flexible labour markets that create more jobs for Kiwis. Another priority is introducing and passing a Resource Management Act reform package to provide more certainty, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness in resource allocation decisions.

Jami-Lee Ross: What priorities within the Business Growth Agenda will the Government pursue to improve skills and support more jobs within the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In a growing economy—and, of course, that is what we do have—it is important that we quickly fill any emerging skill gaps to help encourage thriving Kiwi businesses to continue to grow. That is why two of the 10 Business Growth Agenda priorities I identified previously are aimed at training and attracting more young people to innovative and growing parts of the New Zealand economy, with initiatives like information and communications technology graduate schools, more places in engineering, and holding a series of job fairs in Australia. Yesterday my colleague the Minister for Economic Development announced that the Government would be holding these jobs fairs in capital cities across Australia to encourage more expat Kiwis and, indeed, skilled Australians to help contribute to the growth of New Zealand businesses. The first two fairs will be held before the end of the year in Perth and in Sydney, in late November, with job fairs planned for Brisbane and Melbourne in the first quarter of next year.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why has the Government decided to hold job fairs in Australia?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, that is an excellent question. Between December 1999 and December 2008, well over a quarter of a million New Zealanders—277,000, in fact—moved to Australia, which, of course, provided a lot of skilled labour to help grow the Australian economy, but now it is time to get more of those people moving back the other way to do the same here. We are making progress on that. In the year to September there was a net outflow of only 6,000 people to Australia, which is the lowest net outflow since December 1994. In fact, it included a net loss of only 68 people in the month of September. One of the reasons that has changed is because of the Government’s unrelenting focus on growing the New Zealand economy. Our economy grew by 3.9 percent in the year to June, compared with 3.1 percent in Australia, and our unemployment rate at 5.6 percent is below Australia’s now, at 6.1 percent.

Dr David Clark: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Steven Joyce that a target of exports reaching 40 percent of GDP in 2025 is still achievable, given that the export to GDP ratio is forecast this year to plummet to its lowest level in a quarter of a century?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This appears to be the new manufacturing crisis.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: OK, grumpy. Come on, grumpy. Come on, grumpy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I may also add, just answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is wrong. Actually, in world dollar terms and in volume terms, New Zealand exports continue to grow. Yes, because of the high dollar in New Zealand dollar terms they look lower than they otherwise would do. But, actually, I bring good news to the member. I was at the TIN100 launch in Auckland last evening, and for the member, who professed his interest in the information and communications technology and high-tech sectors, there was, once again, a further growth in exports of that sector—the top 100 tech companies in New Zealand—of up to $5.6 billion in exports over the last year. That is growth of 2.3 percent in New Zealand dollar terms, at the highest New Zealand dollar they have had to face, possibly, for 50 or 60 years.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document showing that Treasury expects exports to further drop as a percentage of GDP for the year to March 2015—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. What is the source of the document?

Dr David Clark: The Parliamentary Library.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave; the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular document prepared by the library. Is there any objection? There is none. It will be tabled.

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

Dr David Clark: Given that exports relative to GDP in 2016 are forecast to reach their lowest level in 40 years, the worst since Robert Muldoon became Prime Minister, how much faster will exports have to grow, relative to GDP, to reach Steven Joyce’s 40 percent target in 2025?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We tend to work in actual volumes, not necessarily Treasury predictions. I have been expecting a significantly higher inflation rate, for example, than what has turned out in this last quarter, where New Zealand’s inflation—

Hon Annette King: He’s pretty arrogant, isn’t he?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, no, it is not arrogant at all.

Hon Annette King: He is pretty arrogant.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, it is actually a 1 percent CPI rate, and Treasury only a few days ago was expecting a higher number.

Dr David Clark: Does the Minister understand Steven Joyce’s numbers?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Does the member just want to take a break and listen? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think it just goes to demonstrate that interjections as loud as that do lead to more disorder. It would be much appreciated if the Minister could simply answer the questions being asked.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I was going to say, the Government is working hard to reach that target by 2025. We are working hard, of course, to take New Zealanders with us, and the industries that I referred to in my answer to the previous supplementary question are achieving great progress as well. We are also working, of course, to try to be in Government in 2025 to see that target met.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure how that addressed the question.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, I think the question has been addressed. It may not have been satisfactorily addressed for the member and other members in the House, but it has been addressed.

Prime Minister—Communications with Blogger

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he believe he is Prime Minister all of the time, or just some of the time?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I am Prime Minister all of the time by virtue of my ministerial warrant. I am also a member of Parliament, a party leader, and a private individual all of the time. Like any Minister, I act in a different capacity at different times. I am responsible to this House for actions taken in my prime ministerial capacity, but not for actions taken as an MP, party leader, or private individual.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he be a private individual all of the time, and in what capacity does he speak to Cameron Slater: as “BFF”, or best friend forever, lifestyle coach, speech therapist, counsellor, currency adviser, dietician, or puppet master?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: None of those.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What makes it wrong for Judith Collins to be improperly associated with Cameron Slater and not for the Prime Minister?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question is based on a series of suppositions that the member himself wishes to make and that bear no relevance to any ministerial responsibility or prime ministerial responsibility held by the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which of these statements from the Prime Minister is correct: “I speak to him regularly.” or “Every so often.”? Which one of those two statements is true?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If the member provided the dates on which those statements were made, he would be able to understand that in both circumstances they could be true.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek the House’s leave to table the two dates and the two statements to the media with respect to the comments that he has asked now for evidence of.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table those particular dates of those two comments. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he believe it is dignified for someone who occupies the office of Prime Minister to regularly be in discussions with a scumbag focused on character assassination and deceit like Cameron Slater?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have no intention of agreeing with the various personal assassination points raised by that member.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Mr Brownlee’s answers replying to Mr Peters, he said that both of those statements can be true. The statements were about when the Prime Minister speaks with Mr Slater. The Prime Minister has previously said that he as Prime Minister—and Mr Brownlee is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister—does not speak to Mr Slater. How can those answers be consistent, because he has just said that he does speak to Mr Slater as Prime Minister?

Mr SPEAKER: Does the member want to respond?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

Mr SPEAKER: If I can understand the point the member is raising, he is asking now whether the answers given were in order or out of order for the questions that were raised. I see no difficulty with those answers that were given by the Hon Gerry Brownlee to the questions that were raised. If the member has supplementary questions, he can ask them.

Chris Hipkins: Is it the Prime Minister’s expectation that when Ministers use information obtained in their ministerial capacity whilst in a private capacity, they will be accountable for those actions to Parliament; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It would depend entirely on what the circumstances were. If they were, for example, to pay a parking fine, which is information they would have, perhaps, as a Minister of Transport or something else, then you would expect them to pay that, but not to be accountable to Parliament for it.

State and Social Housing—Housing Stock

3. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: How many Housing New Zealand properties does he intend to sell during this term, and what is the projected number of houses Housing New Zealand will own in three years’ time as a result?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister responsible for HNZC: No target has been set for sales or for the size of the Housing New Zealand stock in 3 years. Instead, the Government is focused on what is actually the most important part, which is meeting the needs of the most vulnerable families. We are doing that by investing $718 million in the income-related rent subsidy this year. That is nearly $200 million more than 5 years ago, and is forecast to increase another $160 million in the next 3 years. We are committing to growing the social housing sector by opening up the income-related rent subsidy to community housing providers and by redeveloping Housing New Zealand properties to get more houses in the right place and of the right type, instead of what we currently have, where one-third of the Housing New Zealand stock is in the wrong place, is of the wrong type, or has mismatched tenancies.

Phil Twyford: Why did the Government not tell New Zealanders before the election that it intended to privatise a large part of the State housing stock, and how many of Housing New Zealand’s frail, elderly, vulnerable, and at-risk tenants will be displaced due to his asset sales cash grab?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I completely reject the characterisations—I think there were about three of them—in that member’s question. But I would draw his attention in terms of the question about pre-election announcements to this, a document from the National Party, actually. It is a social housing policy that I think was released at the time of the National Party’s campaign opening. It says: “Reform social housing sector”—this is right at the top, by the way—“to ensure it is fit for purpose, including passing legislation to facilitate a shift from State housing to a range of new social housing providers.”

Phil Twyford: How about “Flog off $5 billion worth of State houses.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let me repeat that for the member: “to facilitate a shift from State housing to a range of new social housing providers.” If the member would like me to get a copy of it for him, I would be more than happy to pass it across.

Phil Twyford: How does he reconcile his statement about the proceeds of State house sales that “if we want less stock, there’s not much point in rebuilding stock with it” with statements by the other two housing Ministers, who say that they want to increase social housing stock?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is, I think, the nub of the question. The member does not seem to recognise that social housing can actually be provided by entities other than Housing New Zealand. For some Ministers to say “We want to increase the amount of social housing stock.” is entirely consistent with discussing a change in how much social housing stock Housing New Zealand has, provided you do not expect that Housing New Zealand has to be the monopoly provider of all the social housing stock in New Zealand. It has been historically, and I think if the member looks back he will find that it has not been a complete solution and that most other countries do it differently. In New Zealand, this Government is open to different ways of providing more social housing for more New Zealanders.

Phil Twyford: How many of the over 5,500 people in desperate need of a home and currently on the Housing New Zealand waiting list—many of whom are living in cars or campgrounds—will be housed as a result of his State house sell-off?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think, again, the problem with the member’s question is the pejorative way he talks about what the social housing mix should be in this country. Actually, we are very keen to ensure that there are more opportunities for more people to access social housing, which is exactly why we are making the changes that we are making. If the member looks back in the history of New Zealand, he will find that a monopoly Housing New Zealand provider has never solved the problem of the availability of social housing.

Phil Twyford: Will he guarantee that no money raised from Housing New Zealand sales will go into the consolidated account; if not, will any of the funds raised by evicting tenants and selling off State houses end up in the so-called Future Investment Fund to help subsidise irrigation schemes for hard-up farmers?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member shows—I do not know—a level of imagination that is just a bit frightening, really. The reality is simply this: the Government is actually focused on lifting the amount of social housing. How much we put into the capital of social housing and how much we put into the income-related rents will be entirely driven by our determination to see more access to social housing for New Zealanders. Exactly how that is to be done will unfold quite visibly in the next 3 years.

Health Targets—Cancer Treatment

4. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to provide faster cancer services for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The House will be aware that 6 years ago the National Government inherited cancer services that were failing New Zealanders. This Government has invested more than $100 million extra to support people with cancer and get cancer services back on track. The 100 percent achievement of the international gold standard 4-week waiting time target for patients to receive their radiation or chemotherapy treatment has seen patients receiving faster treatment, and, unlike under Labour, no patients have had to go overseas for treatment.

Jacqui Dean: What recent announcements has the Government made to further speed up cancer treatment?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: From 1 October, the Government introduced a new faster cancer treatment target that will ensure patients see a cancer specialist and receive treatment faster than ever before. The new target will see people with suspected cancer receive faster access to all services, from diagnostic tests to surgery or other treatment. Our goal is that 90 percent of patients will receive their first treatment within a maximum of 62 days of seeing their GP, by June 2017. The maximum 62-day wait is an international gold standard for cancer treatment. It builds on the gains that we have made over the past 6 years, and provides New Zealanders with even faster cancer services.

Jacqui Dean: What role is new technology playing in delivering faster, better care for cancer patients?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Recently, I visited the radiotherapy treatment unit at Auckland City Hospital and saw first-hand the impact that additional investment in new technology is having on providing patients with an overall better experience during their hospital stay. Following a successful pilot earlier this year, the Auckland District Health Board has invested $1.5 million in new cancer equipment. The use of a new RayStation computer program enables the enhanced use of the linear accelerator for radiation treatment. This new system means that pinpoint accuracy in targeting the cancer is achieved, that shorter treatment times are occurring, and that more New Zealanders are receiving their treatment more quickly.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not wish to interrupt the member’s line of questioning, but the primary question was from the Government side, and the Minister, in his first answer to the primary question, attacked the Labour Party. The question, Mr Speaker, is whether your view is that that is an acceptable way for us to start the 51st Parliament, with the Minister using a question from—

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard enough. It is not helpful for any Minister to start a question with an attack on another political party or an Opposition member. In that case, I thought it was a relatively mild comment on his interpretation of a former Government’s action. I did not personally perceive it to be an attack.

Islamic State Conflict—Government Response

5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the risks to New Zealand from any commitment of military assistance to counter Islamic State militants in Iraq would be “no greater than I think the risks are currently here today”; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, this is an evolving issue. No commitment of military assistance has been made. Officials are preparing advice for Ministers and Cabinet to consider a range of options, including humanitarian, diplomatic, and military contributions. This will include advice around risks to New Zealand and New Zealanders from any contribution.

Dr Kennedy Graham: What evidence did the Prime Minister originally have to base his original statement on, and any further evidence to reflect that evolving situation, and will he share it, consistent with genuine national security interests, so that both the Parliament and people of this country can be properly informed on this important matter?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Prime Minister has made it clear in the past that there are New Zealanders who want to go and fight with the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) forces, and there are people who want to come into this country after perhaps having fought with them. Those are concerns that the Government has, and beyond those statements I am not offering anything more at this point.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the Prime Minister aware that countries facing security risks to their citizens are those engaged in the military campaigns against Islamic extremists—primarily, the US, the UK, and Australia, and now, of course, Canada?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It could appear that way. We do not quite know what the situation is in Canada. But let us be clear: if we were to do nothing and simply live with the threat that New Zealand clearly is now part of, then in fact we would be allowing terrorists to dictate our current foreign policy arrangements, and therefore significantly impede the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders to make their own choices.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he not concerned that any involvement in the military action against ISIL may be actually doing more harm than good for global peace and security; and does he think that we have an independent foreign policy when the Prime Minister has already stated that New Zealand should join the United States and “other like-minded countries” in fighting the Islamic State?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No decision has been made about what we might do if we do join such an action. Yes, of course there are worries about the threats that could occur here in New Zealand. In case the member has not noticed, there are considerable worries even across the organisation of this Parliament, with some of the restrictions that have been put in place today. These are not occasions when you can simply ignore what is going on around you and hope that being somehow passive about the way in which these organisations operate will make them go away.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he agree with the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy of 2006 that rather than doing nothing or ignoring what is going on around us, we need to recognise that the real triumph over terrorism requires the elimination of its causes; if so, how does he foresee New Zealand contributing through the United Nations Security Council in that respect?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would note that that statement from the United Nations is now 8 years old and that the world has changed a lot in that time. What we have said is that our consideration will be across a range of possibilities—humanitarian contributions, Government contributions, all sorts of things. Nothing is ruled out. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, they are all under consideration.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the fact that the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy of 2006 was reaffirmed in its entirety 2 months ago by the Security Council, having regard to the time elapsed since then, what plan does New Zealand have as a member-elect to the Security Council to develop its conflict prevention role in Syria and Iraq as called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2171 of 21 August?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: All matters relating to whatever we might do in response to the ISIL threat to countries like ours are currently under consideration. Once Ministers in Cabinet have completed that consideration, then, clearly, this House will be notified of that deliberation.

Partnership Schools—Performance and Resourcing

6. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that the introduction of partnership schools is resulting in better educational outcomes for all of the students who are attending them; if so, why?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. At the stage they are at and in all the circumstances, yes. The schools have, however, completed just over 8 months of a first-year start-up. Nevertheless, the flexibility that the model provides is already showing some early positive results. For example, the latest reports from the Education Review Office on two of the five schools show signs of success, and we look forward to further reviews. I am satisfied that the partnership schools are meeting their contractual requirements and are working to do the best for all their students, but of course there will continue to be challenges, as there are in schools across our system.

Chris Hipkins: If charter schools are supposed to be about increased flexibility, which of the following innovations does she believe will do the most to raise student achievement: students making a bong to smoke marijuana out of apples supplied by the school, the incorporation of daily surfing into the curriculum, high staff turnover and lack of qualified teaching staff, or reports of bullying, racism, and vandalism?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Regrettably, every one of those examples given we have seen across our system of over 2,500 schools.

Hon Ruth Dyson: So it’s all right then?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not all right, and that is why we have levers in place to deal with them, and so we are dealing with them. The flexibilities that we are talking about are the hours of operation, the curriculum, the ability to have cashed-up funding instead of it being already paid on behalf of other schools, the range of subjects taught, the way in which they are taught, and the engagement of parents, whānau, aiga, and communities. There is a whole range of flexibilities that these schools offer that we think will bring success for students who have not been successful for many years in other alternatives.

Chris Hipkins: Why does she believe that these students are better served in an experimental charter school that is funded at considerably higher levels than State schools, resulting in a teacher-student ratio of 1:8 at that particular school, when existing schools could arguably do a much better job if provided with the same level of resourcing?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is quite wrong in his assertion. In fact, these schools are funded comparative to decile 3 schools. The difference is that whereas in a mainstream State school the ministry pays directly to provide, for instance, for property, for insurance premiums, and for the provision of professional learning and development, those elements for partnership schools are cashed up. But the comparisons are almost exactly the same. To the first part of the member’s question, none of the students are compelled to attend these schools; their parents freely choose for them to do so.

Chris Hipkins: How is it fair and equitable for a charter school to be funded with guaranteed funding every year for 71 students when, in fact, it enrolled only 61 students at the beginning of the year, and that number has already dropped to below 50, and the Ministry of Education figures show that it is lucky to get 30 kids regularly showing up? That is half the number that it is funded for.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Perhaps if the member was more familiar with the way our entire education system runs, he would know that in start-up years for every school there is a projection of what that roll might be, but it will fluctuate before it settles down. That is equally true for very long-established schools.

Chris Hipkins: Does she believe that charter schools conducting random searches of students to detect drugs or other prohibited items is consistent with the Education Act 1989 and the changes that this Government made last year that prevents State schools from doing the same thing?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: If the member has specific incidents that he would like brought to my attention, I am very happy to—

Chris Hipkins: It says so on their websites and in the documents with the ministry.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: And perhaps if the member would like to wait for my answer to his question, then I would be very happy to answer it. What I can tell the member is that these schools are subject to review by the Education Review Office, two of which have returned very positive reviews—and thank you to the member for celebrating that—and three are still to come. In terms of their further monitoring, the authorisation board also does that, and the Ministry of Education reviews and works with each and every one of these schools.

Welfare Reforms—Priorities and Statistics

7. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received regarding the number of New Zealanders who are benefit-dependent, in particular those relating to sole parents?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Under this Government, the number of people on welfare for this quarter is the lowest it has been since 2008. The latest benefit figures released last week show that there are now over 10,000 fewer people on welfare compared with September last year, and more than 70 percent of them are sole parents. We know that sole parents who go on benefit, particularly in their teens, do have the highest lifetime cost of any group on welfare and are more likely to stay on welfare. The reduction in the number of sole parents on benefit extends across all ages, and this is indeed a positive trend.

Alfred Ngaro: What are the Government’s priorities for ensuring we move New Zealanders who are on benefits into work over the next 3 years?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We believe that the best way out of poverty is through work, and that is why we have set ambitious targets to reduce long-term welfare dependency. As part of this programme we will progress legislation extending the Youth Service approach to under-20s. This will see these young people working with a dedicated provider to deliver intensive support and guidance as well as budgeting support and help paying their bills. This Government believes that the welfare system should provide a safety net for those in genuine need and that people are better off in work. This is particularly the case for our youngest New Zealanders, who deserve to be backed rather than left to sit on welfare.

Sue Moroney: How many sole parents have simply been transferred from sole parent support on to a different category of benefit over the same period?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have any figures on that, but I do not believe that this Government is in the habit of the previous Labour Government of merely shifting people around when it comes to benefit numbers. We are working to make sure that people get off benefit and into work, and, what is more, we are succeeding.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a document showing that the number of sole parents who have been transferred on to job seeker support was about 20,000 over that period.

Mr SPEAKER: I need the source of the document.

Sue Moroney: The source of the document is the New Zealand Herald.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I will not be putting the leave.

Pest Control—Aerial Use of 1080 Poison

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 8, Richard Prosser, and I understand Ron Mark will be asking it on behalf of Richard Prosser.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The breakdown’s occurred already.

RON MARK (NZ First): Good to see you back, Gerry. I would like to see more of your back.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 8.

8. RON MARK (NZ First) on behalf of RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by all her statements regarding 1080 poison?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Indeed I do. The Department of Conservation is halfway through dropping 1080 in an aerial spray over 700,000 hectares. Early monitoring has shown that the numbers of rats, which had been up to 25 million, have now been knocked down to zero in places where 1080 has been used, so the birds will be able to breed this season in their absence. I and many others believe that in order to save our birds from extinction, doing nothing is not an option, and well-managed, biodegradable 1080 is the very best tool for the job.

Ron Mark: Why is the Department of Conservation advising anglers—

Hon Todd McClay: You didn’t come back to ask about rats, Ron.

Ron Mark: I am enjoying this, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will now start again and ask his question.

Ron Mark: Why is the Department of Conservation advising anglers not to eat their catch if, as the department itself is saying, trout caught from 1080-dropped areas “do not pose a food safety risk to humans”?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member is entirely mistaken. The department has never given that advice. In fact, we sought independent advice from a Ministry for Primary Industries toxicologist, who assessed the risk as negligible from ingesting trout that had eaten mice that might have eaten 1080 pellets. The science shows—and we stick to the science, on this side of the House—that the health of the trout themselves is not affected by 1080. An average adult would have to eat many times their body weight in one sitting—in trout, that is; not their body weight and other things, but in trout that had ingested mice that had eaten 1080—to experience any health ill-effects whatsoever.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been a while since I have been in the House and it is wonderful to be so welcomed back, but—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Ron Mark: The point of order is that I just want advice from you. When I was last here, points of order had to be heard in silence—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, points of order will be—[Interruption] Order! I am the Speaker, not Mr Mark. Points of order will be heard in silence. Now would Mr Mark quickly raise his point of order.

Ron Mark: That was it. When I was here last, points of order were heard in silence—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will give the member one more chance to raise his point of order, otherwise I will not hesitate to ask the member to leave the Chamber.

Ron Mark: My point of order and question to you was this: is it still the rule that questions might be asked in silence?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not recall that ever being the case when the member was previously here. It is helpful if there are not a lot of interjections, but frequently during questions being asked and answers being given there is a level of interjection across the House. If it gets to a stage where it is difficult to hear I will call for order, but inevitably there will be interjections and chips from both sides of the House, and for the 20 years that I have been here, Mr Mark, that has always been the case.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister aware that it was indeed not Cawthron Institute researchers who provided that scientific advice, that instead it was Department of Conservation officials who calculated the amount of trout needed to be consumed to receive a lethal dose of 1080, and that this determination amounted to nothing more than a flippant back-of-an-envelope calculation done for spin purposes; and will she order that that work be redone this time by Cawthron Institute researchers in order that we may all be satisfied that there is no risk to the consuming public?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I ask the Minister to respond, supplementary questions should be short, they should contain one supplementary question, and they are certainly not an opportunity to give a very lengthy question as that one was. I will allow the Minister to answer.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member is incorrect yet again. The Cawthron Institute researchers did assess the risk. They did it in a controlled scientific laboratory, not on some back-of-an-envelope assessment, as you attest. The trout in laboratory tanks were orally dosed with a high level of 1080 to assess the uptake and the breakdown of 1080 in their flesh. The trout remained in good health and showed no ill effects. Preliminary results indicated that the force-fed laboratory trout took up low levels of 1080, which break down over a period of days. The member is mistaken. When it comes to residual amounts of 1080 in water, which is also something that we have done some science around, no trace of 1080 has ever been found in any of the samples taken from drinking water catchments. Only 2 percent—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It was a long question so I gave a long answer.

Mr SPEAKER: It was a long question and I took issue with that. I now cannot allow an extremely long answer, either.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister then enlighten the House as to how she, as the Minister of Conservation, would have directly intervened to force a 1080 drop on a territorial authority in the event that that authority on behalf of its community decided against such a drop—such as she stated on Television New Zealand’s Q+A?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I am happy to answer that question. As the Minister of Conservation, it is my responsibility, and that of my department, to ensure that education, information, and science-based evidence are widely disseminated and understood to clarify the science, because there are a lot of mistaken people—as evidenced by the questions that you have asked; you are in that camp—who need to have this information clarified. So there have been, particularly when it comes to the Hunua example, which is one that you are talking about, no traces of 1080 found. In fact, there is more 1080—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY:—in a cup of tea—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] The Minister will resume her seat.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a point of order based on the issue of relevance. My colleague is asking about the Minister forcing her will upon a local authority and she is talking about some education programme. She is not answering the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to go back and look at the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has not had a chance to go back and look at it because it has not been printed yet. But when he does the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I got it the first time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question, when it was first asked, was “Can the Minister enlighten the House …”. The Minister took the opportunity to enlighten the House, but in a very lengthy fashion.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are absolutely correct. But my question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member wants to raise a point of order, he stands to his feet and does it. I will give him another chance.

Ron Mark: I asked that the Minister describe how she would directly intervene to force a drop.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question; that is not the question that was asked. It was included in the question; I certainly accept that, but it was not the question that was asked. I invite the member to go back and look afterwards. He started the question with “Can the Minister enlighten the House … ”, and the Minister took that opportunity. If the member wants a specific question answered, then ask a specific question.

Pike River Mine Disaster—Re-entry and Recovery Operation

9. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his commitments to the Pike River families?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Prime Minister still believe recovery of the bodies of the 29 miners to be “an absolute priority”, and will he accept the advice of the two mining experts, Bob Stevenson, a former UK chief mines inspector, and Dave Creedy, that recovery of the drift can be done safely?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government made available funding to Solid Energy, which has primary responsibility in this matter, for that very purpose. As to the opinion that the Prime Minister might have about the expertise offered by the two gentlemen mentioned, there is no basis for him to make any comment on that.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Prime Minister and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises ensure that Solid Energy makes the decision on whether to re-enter Pike River based on all the available evidence and information, and will he show the families dignity and provide them with the opportunity to seek clarity on any issues raised in that evidence?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question really asks the Prime Minister to get in the road of a decision that needs to be made by the Solid Energy board. It would be inappropriate to do that.

Hon Damien O’Connor: During the more than 12 months of reporting on progress to re-enter the Pike River mine, was the Prime Minister briefed at any stage that any re-entry into the Pike River mine would be illegal because there was no second egress?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Those reports would have gone to Solid Energy.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the question: “Was the Prime Minister”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not exactly catch the question. I am going to invite the member to ask the question once more.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. During the more than 12 months of reporting on progress to re-enter the Pike River mine, was the Prime Minister briefed at any stage that any re-entry into the Pike River mine would be illegal because there is no second egress?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unable to answer that question because I do not have that information available, given that I am answering on the Prime Minister’s behalf. But in any event, it would be my understanding that matters that related to re-entry to the mine would have been conveyed to Solid Energy for Solid Energy to make a decision about a go or no-go. So matters about egress, or second egress, etc., are not matters that I am able to comment on. What I would say, though, is that at the time of the original explosion, and then particularly after the second and third explosions in that mine, there were a lot of suggestions that a second egress would be a good idea.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister has in answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, but I am seeking from him a commitment to provide the information as to whether the Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. You asked the question and the Minister, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, said that he just cannot give you that information. So it is not a point of order, then, to raise a point of order and seek a commitment. If you have another supplementary question and want to try to do it that way, it might be possible. But you cannot use a point of order for that.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the withholding of information from the Pike River families show the same arrogant disrespect as the Prime Minister’s comments about the mother of the young West Coaster killed in a motor accident and other parents of the Pike River miners, which he wrongly dodged responsibility for answering questions about yesterday?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have ruled earlier today in a very interesting way, because you sort of hinted that something might change, but then said it is very difficult and that you would have to make decisions as you go along. But I do not think that you can actually go past, in that consideration, the requirements of Standing Order 378(a), which relates to a Minister, and therefore clearly to the Prime Minister, and which states that a Minister can have questions put to them relating to: “(a) public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, or (b) proceedings in the House or any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible.” The question just alleged a whole lot of statements that came from various sources, and the requirement to comment on those does not fit any of the requirements that are here in the Standing Order. So what I think we are getting to is that we are very quickly going to get to a position where Opposition members can ask as many catch-22 questions on made-up stuff as they like, and Ministers would be expected to respond.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Appreciating your ruling that clearly apportioned to the Prime Minister some responsibility, I am aware, and the Pike River families are aware, of a person appointed by the Prime Minister, which they were grateful for, at least 2 years ago who was to report and liaise directly between the Prime Minister’s office and the families. Those are the questions that I am asking about in terms of briefings and responsibility. The Prime Minister has responsibility in this area.

Mr SPEAKER: I certainly accept the point that the Hon Damien O’Connor has just raised. He raised a question where in my mind there is no doubt there is ministerial and prime ministerial responsibility. The way in which the question was raised was certainly not helpful. I have not got a good record of some of the language used, but it was relatively emotive. The easiest way forward, I would have thought, is for Mr Brownlee—but it is for Mr Brownlee to decide—to simply answer the question and dispute the facts as they have been laid out. Mr Brownlee has now raised a point of order, which, if I understand it, is trying to suggest there was no ministerial responsibility—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, no.

Mr SPEAKER: Well then, maybe I will ask—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I will explain.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the Hon Gerry Brownlee to explain his point succinctly, because it was difficult for me to comprehend.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you for that opportunity. If the Hon Damien O’Connor had asked the question that he managed to get out in his point of order, it would have been a simple thing. But it was everything else that went with it.

Mr SPEAKER: Then I have got a very instant solution to this. I am going to ask the Hon Damien O’Conner—this is a very sensitive matter, and I appreciate that—to ask the question as factually and without emotion as he can, and let us see whether I can assist the honourable member to get an answer from the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the withholding of information from the Pike River families, including the legal advice provided to Solid Energy that it claims prevents it from re-entering the mine, display a level of arrogance by the Prime Minister, or reports about the Prime Minister, towards members of the Pike River families?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, firstly, I reject any suggestion that there has been disrespect shown for the families of the Pike River victims—far from it. The Prime Minister has never failed to turn up to speak directly to them on occasions when that is what they wanted to do. As for the suggestion that information is being withheld by the Prime Minister’s office from the families, that is not something that I can make a comment on, other than to say that for the last 12 months or more this is a matter that has been in the hands of Solid Energy and the board of Solid Energy. If there is any information that they are withholding from the public, then we would expect that it is made available at the time that they make decisions.

Health Promotion Agency Board—Potential Conflict of Interest

10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied that there is no conflict of interest in the head of the Food and Grocery Council, Katherine Rich, being a board member of the Health Promotion Agency; if so, why?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I am satisfied that there are procedures in place to manage any situations where a conflict of interest may arise. All board members of Crown agents are required to declare and manage conflicts of interest in accordance with the provisions of the Crown Entities Act 2004.

Kevin Hague: Is he concerned about allegations that Katherine Rich hired public relations man Carrick Graham to write attacks on health researchers that were later published word for word on the Whale Oil website?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have seen no credible evidence to back up those allegations, but what I do know is that Katherine Rich is a person of the very highest integrity and that her conduct as a member of the Health Promotion Agency has been excellent.

Kevin Hague: What specific actions has he, or his predecessor, taken to ensure that Katherine Rich is not compromising the goals of the Health Promotion Agency by paying for attacks on researchers and others who highlight the damaging effects of the products promoted and produced by some of her Food and Grocery Council members?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have had direct communication from the chair of the Health Promotion Agency, which states: “She has always been an ethical member of the board. As chair I have always had confidence in her contribution.” That satisfies me.

Kevin Hague: As the incoming Minister, will he take that further and, in fact, initiate an investigation into whether Mrs Rich’s conflict as both a member of the Health Promotion Agency and a lobbyist for the alcohol, tobacco, and junk food industries was appropriately managed, and will he hold an inquiry into the allegations that Mrs Rich hired a public relations man to attack health researchers while being a member of the Health Promotion Agency board?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I see no reason to take any further action, and I am going to spend my efforts on improving access to quality health care for all New Zealanders. That is what I think should be the focus of the portfolio.

Kevin Hague: How can Katherine Rich possibly fulfil the goals of the Health Promotion Agency when, with her other hat on, she is promoting unhealthy food, tobacco, and alcohol and paying for public attacks on health promotion researchers?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Dealing with public health issues, including obesity, involves a range of responses, including good diet, nutrition, and physical activity. I believe that the food industry actually has a very important contribution to make, and it is helpful to have them represented around that table.

Road Safety—Progress

11. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What progress is being made in improving road safety?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Safer Journeys road strategy is nearly 5 years old. This Government has introduced many road safety measures during that time, including increasing the driving age, lowering the blood-alcohol levels to zero for drivers under 20, fixing the give-way rule, introducing alcohol interlocks, and continuing to support high-profile and successful campaigns. From 1 December the blood-alcohol limit for all drivers will also be lowered. Since the introduction of Safer Journeys the number of road deaths has reduced by almost one third. In 2010 we saw 375 people lose their lives on our roads. Last year that total fell to 254 deaths. We are not, however, complacent, and that is why this Government invests millions each year in continuing to improve road safety.

David Bennett: What are the key messages for motorists over the long weekend to help keep them and their families safe?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would ask all motorists and their passengers enjoying the long Labour Weekend to keep road safety in mind. The messages are clear: stay focused, drive to the conditions, stay within the speed limit, and do not drive when affected by alcohol, drugs, or fatigue. Last Labour Weekend’s road toll was one of the lowest since 1956, but even one death, of course, is too many, and we need to work together to stay safe on our roads.

Economic Crime—Cost and Serious Fraud Office Report

12. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Police: What is the annual cost of economic crime in New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): An annual cost of economic crime is difficult to accurately identify, but I have seen a draft report that indicates the cost of economic crime to be in the range of around $6 billion to $9 billion.

Dr Megan Woods: Why was the Cost of Economic Crime Report of the Serious Fraud Office not completed?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Considerable work was done on that report to estimate the figure, including reviewing and adapting similar pieces of work from around the world. But it became clear that the proposed methodology, largely developed overseas, was not directly applicable to the New Zealand context. So, as a consequence, the Serious Fraud Office, in consultation with other Government agencies, ended that body of work.

Dr Megan Woods: Was the Ministry of Justice consulted regarding the decision not to proceed with the Serious Fraud Office’s report on the cost of economic crime in New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As far as I am aware, the answer to that question is yes.

Dr Megan Woods: Was the former Minister of Justice Judith Collins in any way involved in the decision not to proceed with the Serious Fraud Office’s report on the cost of economic crime in New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not in a position to be able to answer that question. I do not have any knowledge, but I would be very happy to consider it if the member puts it down in writing.

Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table a document that shows that the office of the former Minister of Justice Judith Collins provided a copy of the Serious Fraud Office’s scale of fraud report under the Official Information Act to a requester in January 2014.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document?

Dr Megan Woods: The document is a table of fulfilled Official Information Act requests compiled by the office of the current Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not exactly sure what the document is, to be honest, and I do not want to consider putting the leave just because a member—[Interruption] Order! I ask Dr Megan Woods, and without interjection, what the document is.

Dr Megan Woods: It is a list of Official Information Act requests that the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: But they have already been released.

Dr Megan Woods: It shows that the Minister of Justice—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now understand that the documents were obtained by the Official Information Act, and they have been released, so they are available to everybody anyway. Is that right? [Interruption] Order! Could the member just try to explain the document to me simply?

Dr Megan Woods: Yes, it is a table of Official Information Act requests that the Minister of Justice fulfilled, showing that she had a copy of the report in January 2014.

Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way—[Interruption] Order! I am going to put the leave. [Interruption] Order! There are too many interjections on these points of order. I am going to put the leave, and the House can decide. Leave is sought to table that particular table listing Official Information Act documents. Is there any objection to that being tabled in this House? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table a transcript of the then Minister of Police—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Where is the transcript from?

Dr Megan Woods: It is a draft transcript of the estimates hearing of the Law and Order Committee—

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member can resume her seat. That is available.

Dr Megan Woods: Did the former Minister of Justice Judith Collins support the decision to abandon any further investigation by the Serious Fraud Office on the cost of economic crime in New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not in a position to be able to answer that question, but if the member puts the question down in writing, I would be very happy to give her a response.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise an issue with you that relates to the previous ruling regarding that exchange around the tabling of the document by Megan Woods, in which you indicated that a document released under the Official Information Act was publicly available. Official Information Act documents are typically released to one person—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any further assistance. The difficulty was the way the document was explained. It was very, very difficult for me to comprehend what it was that we were dealing with. When I finally realised that it was simply a table of documents that had been released—listen, the House has decided. It has been tabled. That is the end of the matter.

Questions to Members

Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill—Status

1. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Member in charge of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill: Why has the member adopted the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill?

METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill): The Green Party believes that in this House we have a moral duty to make sure that children in need have the support that they need. It is estimated by KidsCan that up to 20 percent of children in low-decile schools go to school without either breakfast or lunch. If the Government has the resources to feed these hungry kids, we have a moral duty to use those resources to feed those hungry kids.

Jan Logie: Is the plan outlined in the “Feed the Kids Bill” the ideal way to ensure that children are fed at school?

METIRIA TUREI: The bill sets out one means by which we can feed hungry kids at school. I hope that the bill is sent to a select committee so we can hear from parents, schools, and children’s health and welfare experts as to what is the best means to make sure hungry kids in schools are fed.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 22 October.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): It gives me great pleasure to speak in this Address in Reply debate. It is great to be back for the 51st Parliament, with such a good mandate, I think, nationally. The public saw through the nonsense, saw through the sideshows, and saw the plan that the Government had been laying out to them over the previous two terms, and returned, I think, a very strong mandate for a John Key - led National Government.

Locally, the goal for the party in the Dunedin electorates of Dunedin North and Dunedin South was to win the party votes in both of those electorates. It is an area of New Zealand that is traditionally pretty hard red but I think it is one where there is a definite mood to see a different point of view. It was my great satisfaction to see that party vote wins did go to National both in Dunedin South—for the second time—and, for the first time, in Dunedin North. That is an electorate that is surprisingly left in its leaning. If people have seen the vote compass page on the New Zealand Herald website, there is a very interesting analysis of the sorts of attitudes of all of the constituents around the country, and it surprised even me to see how very left-leaning the electorate is. But, nevertheless, there was an openness to consider a different point of view, and the six booth wins in and around the University of Otago are, I think, a very, very good measure of how things have changed down there. The party has now doubled the party vote as a percentage in the last four elections and increased the party vote in real terms by over 230 percent since 2002.

Look, there have been plenty of pejorative comments about the role of list MPs in New Zealand’s parliamentary democracy. I am very clear that every list MP has a responsibility to represent a constituency, whether that constituency is ethnicity, gender, or geography. For me, of course, that is Dunedin, so I commit to continuing the work over the past 6 years to represent and serve the people of both of those electorates with a great deal of vigour.

And, of course, we heard the Speech from the Throne on Tuesday. It has laid out a very busy agenda for the 51st Parliament and for this Government. It is an active programme that looks, I think, more like a first-term Government than a third-term Government. I think that reflects the new energy, the new ideas, and the new faces that the National caucus has brought to this Parliament. I want to congratulate not only my own colleagues on their election to office but all new MPs from right across the House who have been elected. I think we are quite fortunate in this country with the calibre of the people who offer themselves for public service. This Parliament’s new MPs are, I think, a good reflection of that.

It was certainly my great honour and privilege to be asked again to serve as a member of the executive and retain a portfolio that I held last Parliament as Minister of Immigration. I think we have a unique opportunity, as the Prime Minister has laid out, to set out an economic agenda that positions this country for a step change. There is no doubt that we want our young to be at the front of the queue to benefit from the social, cultural, and economic opportunities that exist in this country. But there is also no doubt that we are a small, open economy trading with the rest of the world, and migration and immigration are going to be a very important part of that process. There is no doubt also that we are going to need to rely very heavily on tradesmen and women from around the world to help us rebuild our second-largest city.

I think we have made very excellent progress in the immigration space. It did sadden me through the election period the peril that some parties were prepared to promote—irrational discussion and deliberate confusion, I would suggest, at positive net migration being somehow trumped up as a migrant wave coming into this country. The simple fact is—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What do you reckon 45,000 net is?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, I thought it would not take long before we heard from the member—there we go, the yellow peril again. It is all right, Mr Peters, the election is over. That member is sitting in exactly the same seat he was in in the last Parliament. I suggest he is going to have a little more time on his hands. It is the same old tired rhetoric from everybody on the other side of the House. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I must say I am very pleased with the three portfolios that I was given responsibility for, because they are interlocking. The immigration portfolio does fit very nicely with the newly named portfolio of workplace relations and safety. Certainly, both of those interconnect nicely with my role as Minister of Police. So it is going to be a busy time. I want to just lay out in a little more detail a couple of the priorities of this Government through that period. I will start with workplace relations.

We campaigned in the last two elections on improving flexibility in our employment relations framework. We are considering a bill that I think will do just that and will be passed before too long. The irrational rhetoric that we have heard around some measures in that bill again reinforce that not a lot has changed. I heard that Mr Little issued a release yesterday talking about the fact that workers’ rights would be taken away if they did not join a union. It is a good marketing strategy for the union, and he is clearly dog whistling to the people he wants to vote for him for leader of the Labour Party, but it is simply not true. For those people who have taken the time to email me and post—in some colourful language, I have to say—on social media their views that this provision somehow takes away their rest breaks and meal breaks, I say this: that is nonsense. Do not listen to the cloth cap - wearing members on the other side. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hon David Cunliffe: Yes, it does. Read the bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member says: “Read the bill.” Of course I have read the bill. The bill says it must be by agreement. You know what? The really interesting thing is those members do not think workers can think for themselves. That is what that says—that they are too stupid to actually work out what is good for them and they need protection. Actually, they are slapping the unions around as well, because it suggests that the unions cannot even fix that. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. The real priority, I think, in workplace relations and safety is the safety element. We have a bill, the Health and Safety Reform Bill, that has been transferred into this Parliament, that will revolutionise health and safety in this country. It follows the task force recommendations and the Pike River royal commission.

I say about the legislative framework that it is a very important recalibration of people’s thinking around workplace health and safety. But until we have a culture change in this country and until we have people who understand that health and safety strategies are not something one does at work when they are not busy, we will not get that step change we are looking for. I am actually really encouraged by talking to workers and unions—and their chief executive officers at a recent health and safety forum in Auckland just this week—that the message is now getting through that we do have an unacceptably high level of people who die and are injured at work and that we need to change that. The Government has set a pretty bold target of a 25 percent reduction in workplace injuries and deaths by 2020, and I think every member of this House will join me in ensuring that the legislative framework is put in place and showing leadership in what is important to achieve that.

I will finally end by congratulating the 12,000 men and women of our New Zealand police force. It is a great honour for me to be the Minister of Police. I look forward very much to working with a very, very professional and committed group of men and women right across the country who have contributed to a significant reduction in crime in this country. We will need to be very clear to continue to stay ahead of the gangs, their criminal networks, the drugs that they peddle, and the money that they launder. This Government has a very comprehensive whole-of-Government strategy for doing just that in order to discourage people from joining gangs, to give them opportunities to leave gangs, and to investigate and punish the crimes that they commit. I think that is a very, very high priority for this Government. I congratulate the New Zealand police on some quite high-profile situations that they have found themselves in over the last couple of weeks already in my time as Minister of Police. I have been very, very impressed with their professionalism.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Tēnā koutou. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. E ngā mate o tēnei waka, haere, haere, haere. Tātou e ora nei, tēnā tātou, kuia mā, koro mā tēnā koutou. Rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the House, standing before me and the ground lying there, greetings. Farewell the deaths of this canoe, depart and journey on. To us the living, to the elderly women and menfolk, acknowledgments. And so to the leaders, a hundredfold greetings, acknowledgments and salutations to you and to us all collectively.]

Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, congratulations on your reappointment as Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege and an honour to stand before you and all of New Zealand for the first time. It is with much humble joy that I take this opportunity to thank those people who have helped me in my long journey. Firstly, I thank my wife, Karen. She has been a patient and loving person. We have been together 19 years. I am a proud husband and a lucky man. With my two daughters Morgan and Jaime I have a home that is full of fun and love, and their support has been the rock I have held to. In my electorate, we have an incredible passionate and hard-working team that I must acknowledge here today. The people I must thank are Lillian Emery, Ann Wattam, Coral Dolman, Amy Uluave, and my uncle Tom. I would like to acknowledge Heidi Te Are, and particularly Don Newport, a member of the party who has been putting up hoardings in Rotorua for decades. Beyond that, I am humbled by the people who work so hard behind the scenes so that they can see someone in this Parliament who shares their vision, their ideals, and their values. I thank you all for your support.

I consider myself a case study in perseverance and loyalty. My journey here has been a very long one: 21 years a member of the party, with four general election campaigns under my belt. I would like to pay tribute to my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. His leadership, determination, and unwavering energy have seen New Zealand First increase its representation by more than any other party coming into this 51st term. It has also been a great team effort. I say to all of the board, the candidates, the members, and the supporters of this party, thank you and I will endeavour to be an articulate voice for you all.

My journey started with my parents and their political activism. It was my mother and father who trained me to think, to question, and to stand up and be counted. My mother, Maria, father, David, and sister, Stacey, all passed away what seems like a lifetime ago, but, regrettably, it was all so recently. So it is that I can still picture my mum and dad sitting in the gallery. They would be beaming and so full of pride for their son. My sister would be shuffling in her seat. I can hear her voice even now: “Be careful. Don’t stuff up.” Instead, I am able to acknowledge Jen and Terry, my in-laws. Their love and support in all things has meant a great deal to me.

It is important to remember one’s origins. I am proud to say that I was born and raised in Rotorua. I grew up on the beaches of Maketū, Pukehina, Lakes Rotorua and Tarawera, and Waititī Stream, but mostly the Blue Lake; in the thermal baths in Ōhinemutu; on the slopes of Tiho-o-Tonga; and in my grandparents’ home on Homedale Street. I remember the family business vividly, a store in Murupara called Tabuteau’s Drapery, where my dad and his brother worked for decades, selling to the forestry workers and their families. My dad and his brother became integral parts of the Murupara community. During my campaigns, especially, people would come up to me and ask about that Tabuteau name and the connection. They would tell me stories of my mother and father, and his brother. The legacy they left to their community and me was made up of integrity, compassion, honesty, and hard work. This is my legacy, and I am so very proud to be born of it.

For the Commission Opening of Parliament, a bus of 40 of my hapū and whānau made the trek to Wellington from that stream in Waiteti. It was a bus full of Ngāti Ngāraranui. We are a proud whānau. Our family is representative of all New Zealanders. We are kids in school—in Catholic schools and kura—we are mums and dads, we are teachers, we are lawyers, and we are businessmen and businesswomen. We are even former sports stars—All Blacks and Kiwi rugby league players, the Black Sticks, international medal-winning bowls champions, and New Zealand titleholders in boxing. We are represented in the current Kiwi rugby league team. One of my whānau is the most senior Māori policeman in New Zealand. One of us is even a judge. What a family. I am so proud to have been born into this whānau. Further to that, what a wonderful picture of Māoridom today, a mix of real New Zealanders living good lives, with some also reaching lofty heights in their many diverse pursuits—high achievers who are celebrated by their whānau.

As with all people, my lineage is made up of so many branches on that family tree. I can trace my Tabuteau name back to La Rochelle in the year of 1601. I am Ngāti Ngāraranui, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and Ngāti Whakauē, and through my Tauranga Moana, Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Tapu. I was schooled at Otonga Road Primary School, Rotorua Intermediate School, and Rotorua Boys’ High School. I went on to Waiariki Polytechnic and as a young man worked for many years in the tourism industry. Rotorua has made me the person I am today, and I am so staunchly proud of my home town. Unlike many others, after gaining my business degree at the University of Waikato I returned to Rotorua. After a few years in retail and returning to Waikato to add more economics papers to my degree, I was invited to apply for a teaching position at my old high school—Raukura. It was the opportunity as a young man still in his 20s to take on the mantle of matua or teacher, and I truly was given the vehicle and opportunity to grow into the man I am today. It was in this role of mentor and educator that I learnt to extend myself, refine my own skills, and develop expertise in myriad areas. In this time I also wrote my first piece of academic research about high-end interactive travellers and their impact on the Rotorua tourism market. I then returned once again to Waikato University, this time to gain my graduate diploma in teaching and learning.

I proudly claim that my students achieved at the highest level nationally. Several of my greatest joys were not my own but, rather, one of my business teams, for example, which won the supreme business award in the national Young Enterprise Trust competition. Not to be outdone by their peers, a year later—for several years in a row, in fact—my economics students would go on to place in the top 5 percent of the Auckland University New Zealand Economics Competition. In the sporting arena, my junior mountain biking team dominated the national mountain biking competitions. My memory was jogged the other day by a member. As part of a team I supported a Russell McVeagh competition winner in one of my many years as a teacher. As head of our future pathways programme customising individual learning plans, placing students in the workplace so they could learn on the job, and also as the senior dean, I can tell you that our secondary schools are doing a fine job with the funding they receive. Give our schools the support and funding that has been bandied about by Ministers and members with regard to alternatives to solutions for problems that I posit are of their own design, and I implore the Government to watch with incredulous amazement as qualified teachers take our students to new heights of success. Our schools already run rigid professional development programmes for their staff. To take experts out of their classes will not help the students who no longer have their teachers in front of them. I suggest to you that there are already mechanisms in place to upskill our new and struggling teachers.

Only 2½ years ago I accepted an offer to become the head of the business school at Waiariki Institute of Technology, the same institution where, nearly 20 years before, I gained my diploma in business. Here I managed and worked with wonderful staff, developed a suite of postgraduate qualifications, and lectured in my favourite specialist subject, economics. Institutions such as these are being asked to do more with less and less, and although I applaud cost savings and efficiency, it takes a wise practitioner to understand when cost savings have gone too far. Instead, these ledger entries, in fact, no longer reflect the true cost, the real negative cost to staff and, invariably, the students. We must seek to better understand our schooling system. To support their structures and to provide good and meaningful funding and well-trained, qualified staff will mean the development and growth of a future generation we can be proud of. I know that in getting these fundamentals right, we support our children and the future they represent.

Rotorua is a region that serves as the life blood of this country. We thrive in forestry, farming, and tourism in particular. Our life blood has slowed and it is ebbing. Our regions need rejuvenation. Not only do we need to stem the tide of overseas ownership—most of the land in our forests is foreign-owned—but we must look to create value to create jobs. This can be achieved through clever management of our fiscal and monetary policies. I hope to play a role in these conversations and this rejuvenation, even if it has to be one company at a time, such as in my current voluntary role as a New Zealand business mentor. This role has meant nearly a decade of supporting local businesses in their endeavours to attain what seems to be that elusive goal of profitability in today’s world, where locally owned small to medium enterprises undoubtedly struggle. We live in times of corporate giants and international turmoil. We live in the best little country in the world. It is a tremendous place to be but it is a tenuous position to be in. We are a small nation, still fledging in our growth.

My goal in my time here is to ensure that I bring my passion in business and macroeconomics to all discussions in this Parliament, and with all of my colleagues we can make a positive change. I will be challenged. I will have to ensure that certain members do not allow this small and beautiful nation of ours to be swept away by unfettered and unrestrained international interests so far removed from the interests of the people of New Zealand itself. When our goals are long term, when the people of New Zealand are our first priority, when the mechanism of commerce and trade favours our own and provides a stable and robust platform, then can we grow together and share in the wealth of our resources and the reward of our toil. When our own businesses flourish and thrive as they are competing with the rest of the world, when they share their success, and when they share in the spoils with their people, then can I say we all win.

It is with a level of dismay that I note just last week that Rotorua International Airport is to become domestic again. I have already spoken to many in Rotorua about this. These conversations bring to mind most vividly one of the biggest challenges I wish to address—a challenge I have looked to as an academic in my fledging research career. My last piece of formal research looked at the operations of oligopoly market structures, trying to understand the pluses and the minuses of these structures in New Zealand. Let me allude to some of my findings by suggesting that there was little in the way of pluses for the average New Zealand household, and I will be seeking to ensure that although businesses must continue to thrive, importantly, the average New Zealand consumer must be better off as a Kiwi energy user, home builder, supermarket shopper, petrol user, and domestic traveller.

I am committed to finding solutions to many real issues everyday New Zealanders face. They include the need for more qualified teachers in front of smaller classrooms, the need for controls on immigration—perhaps even if it is only to stop the property bubble from bursting in Auckland—and the need for more police on our streets. Let us create and encourage real investment with overseas interests and encourage meaningful returns for all, rather than a wholesale sell-off of our land and assets to non - New Zealanders. Going forward, we all need to be mindful of supporting the integration of three core pillars into our organisations: profit, yes; the planet, absolutely; but, most important, people. Let us not forget the people. To be a member of this House is a privilege. To be an effective Opposition is to ensure an open and accountable Government. I have spent most of my adult life working for the betterment of others. I will remember the privilege that is this role every day that I am here. I will continue to work hard for the betterment of all New Zealanders and will endeavour to ensure that this Government is always open and accountable. Kia ora and tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to start by congratulating you on your recent re-election as the Assistant Speaker. I would like to thank and acknowledge also the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his courage and foresight in setting up New Zealand First 21 years ago. This is truly an independent party with strong ethical and moral values aimed to benefit all New Zealanders, and I am honoured to be a part of this new and exciting caucus. I would also like to positively acknowledge all New Zealand First members of Parliament here today and those who are not, my family, my friends, allies, and members of the Opposition. I am very honoured and humbled to have this opportunity to present myself here today as a new member of Parliament with high hopes, big dreams, and positive aspirations.

My political career has taken off like an unexpected rocket, one that I hope does not end like the kind you get at The Warehouse before Guy Fawkes but that is more like the long-serving space shuttle Discovery, which has had over 27 years of safe take-offs, research missions, and successful landings. I have always been passionate about politics but never had a personal political agenda, at least not up until 2013 when I became ever-increasingly frustrated and disappointed in decisions that were being made and the direction we were being led in Tauranga by our city council. It was then that I realised that if you want something done, you had better be prepared to do it yourself, and as my father used to say: “Put up or shut up.”

In the 2013 Tauranga City Council local body elections I was privileged to win the Mount Maunganui - Papamoa ward councillor seat and got into local government. I have very much enjoyed working with a great team of elected members and the mayor to change the direction of the city into a more positive one. In our first 12 months we have signed off on a marine precinct to complement our port, a tertiary campus to educate and enable our youth to live and learn in the cities they grew up in, and we have given the go-ahead to the Greerton Library upgrade and some tsunami exit paths for Papamoa East residents, to name but a few. We, as a council, have recognised the importance of economic growth and development for our city, and we are well under way with a plan to attract new businesses and ideas to Tauranga that complement our natural features and landscape and that add value to industries and commercial sectors that are starting to flourish here.

Tourism is one of New Zealand’s greatest export commodities. This industry has grown exponentially in Tauranga, with the cruise ship market growing 900 percent over the past 10 years, which will continue to grow as the people of the world realise that Tauranga and Mount Maunganui are some of this country’s jewels in the crown.

It is not hard to understand why so many people are moving to Tauranga, particularly when we have over 72 square kilometres of gorgeous and safe inner harbour to swim, fish, boat, and play in. We have a number of beautiful islands, namely Matakana Island, Kārewa Island, Motītī Island, and Mayor Island, all within a short boat ride, with some of the best fishing, diving, and surfing this country has to offer. Mount Maunganui, or Mauao, as it is sometimes referred to locally, is an icon at the end of the Mount Maunganui peninsula, with one of the most beautiful and popular short walks up and around this historical landmark. Our gorgeous white sandy beaches span for kilometres down the coast to Maketū and are protected by three of New Zealand’s top performing and functioning surf-lifesaving clubs at Mount Maunganui—Ōmanu Beach Surf Life Saving Club, of which I am an active member, and Papamoa Surf Life Saving Club.

Tauranga has rich and fertile lands and seas, which produce a range of high-quality exportable agriculture and aquaculture products. Tauranga boasts a world-class marine research facility and an internationally acclaimed agriculture business park, plus the world’s first titanium 3D-printing facility. Tauranga is a multicultural city made up of many micro communities, all of which come together in times of need. This was seen most recently when poor 5-year-old Jack Dixon was swept off the shores at Shelly Bay at the start of the school holidays. I, and my family, along with the people of Tauranga and the wider community, came together to offer solidarity, support, and kindness to the Dixon family after their unfathomable loss. My love and heartfelt thoughts go out to the Dixon family today.

These communities along with many others from around the country also came together en masse when the Rena ran aground on the Astrolabe Reef on 5 October in 2011. This avoidable accident left our coastline and wildlife in a potentially perilous position, but this community of people worked tirelessly to clean the coastline and the wildlife that live within it to minimise the long-term harm this incident could have caused. I feel very proud to be part of this giving, caring, and heartfelt community of Tauranga.

One of the biggest issues we are currently facing in Tauranga is the growing pains and problems associated with rapid growth and the financial implications that this is causing ratepayers in Tauranga, who are currently paying some of the highest rates in the country. The single-largest debt we have on our city’s balance sheet to date is the $63 million of debt associated with a nationally significant stretch of road, namely, Route K. This road brings traffic and products in from Auckland and the Waikato to New Zealand’s largest and busiest port. This road of national significance is one of the reasons I am in Parliament today, as I have been working hard, along with others, to get this debt off our city’s balance sheet. Now that this has been achieved with the recent announcement of the New Zealand Transport Agency agreeing to take over the debt of Route K, I feel I must finish what has been started and get the tolls removed also. It is something that the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First have done for our city in the past with the building of, and the tolls removed from, our city harbour bridges.

I also want to be able to hold this Government to its 2008 pre-election promise stating that it would fund a $100 million central corridor upgrade involving the four-laning of Turret Road and the Hairini causeway bridge and the widening of Fifteenth Avenue. This promise also included a direct link between Welcome Bay Road and Turret Road via an underpass. To date, nothing much has been done except National trying to put the ownership of the Tauranga central corridor into the local road network, which would then leave ownership and roading upgrade responsibility and cost in the hands of ratepayers. Tauranga needs a strong voice and someone who is prepared to stand up and fight for these issues and many more. I intend to be that voice and to back my words with actions.

I change my direction now just by saying I feel extremely honoured and privileged to be able to stand here in this House in front of my very dear family, my friends, and my supporters. I would like to acknowledge and thank my lovely wife and best friend, Erika, my daughter, Jazmin, and my two sons, Oliver and William, who are all here today. I want to take this moment to say I love you with all my heart. They have been so encouraging and supportive during my campaign and career, and to know I have their full backing and support for the future means absolutely everything to me.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge my mum and dad for their support and encouragement throughout my life and career thus far. Thanks, mum and dad. Thanks mum and dad and my sister Bobbi for coming all the way from Australia to share this day with me. I would like to thank my other sister, Joy, along with my niece and nephew Robyn and Jay, plus the plethora of other family members and close friends who have made it here today or who are watching, I am sure, on Parliament TV on this very auspicious occasion.

I have come from a very long line of strong New Zealanders, dating back to our early arrival in New Zealand on a whaling ship in the late 1700s. My ancestor Robert Henry Mitchell was buried in 1820 in a small graveyard in what is now a ghost town outside Hokitika. I am the 10th Robert Henry Mitchell in a very long line of family members with the same name, which now includes my son Oliver. As well as passing on our family name, we have bestowed on our generations of family members a vibrancy and passion for life, honesty and loyalty, as well as strong principles of doing what is right. My grandfather was a socialist who was the leader of the New Zealand miners union unopposed for 20 years, but also a prominent member of the New Zealand Communist Party after being a card-carrying Labour supporter in the 1930s.

On my mother’s side the Robinsons have also come from a strong line of socialistic idealism—my mother’s great-grandparents being heavily involved in the Labour Party, which began in Blackball on the West Coast of the South Island in 1916. These two strong political genetic lines have clearly had an influence on my current position and my strong views on fixing one of a number of large issues that this country is now facing.

This segues nicely into some of the big issues I think this country faces and some of the things that New Zealand First is passionate about fixing, for the betterment of New Zealand and all New Zealanders. This includes separatism that has been allowed to develop in this country, where double standards are made in legislation by giving favouritism to some New Zealanders because of birthright. We must strive for a one-law-for-all country where all New Zealanders, regardless of race or creed, are treated equally and given the same opportunity to get ahead as their neighbour.

Another major problem we are faced with is the wholesale selling off of our State-owned assets that have been built up over generations by our forward-thinking forefathers and mothers. This practice needs to be reversed. The ideology that it is somehow OK to let non - New Zealand residents or citizens buy up vast amounts of our land, which is inconceivable in most other parts of the world, is beyond me, not to mention the direct impact that this is having on the price of residential property throughout our country. Our land is limited and precious, and we need to stop this ridiculous practice.

We are an export nation with some of the finest goods the rest of the world could hope to buy, and yet we seem to be doing very little about controlling our export dollar or adding export value to the goods we send offshore. More needs to be done to create added value to our commodities, which will in turn create more jobs for willing Kiwis. These are big issues, but we also need to find a solution to the ever-increasing gap of inequality between those who have got so much and those who have got so little. This problem has got so large that even some families with two full-time incomes are struggling to keep their heads above water. With the price of living in New Zealand being amongst some of the highest in the world, the thought of getting ahead can be a frustrating pipedream with dire consequences on the mental and physical well-being of Kiwis.

We need to champion profit, because without it our businesses and industries will fail. However, we need to differentiate between this and profiteering, which is the ugly side to irresponsible corporations and companies that take advantage of people’s needs. This is created by the monopolies and the duopolies that are taking hold in this country. I am talking about heroing responsible capitalism. We need a Government that empowers and enables people to get ahead whilst valuing the importance of family time, where a one-income family can support itself fully and make headway into the future. We need mums and dads to get our kids back outside, playing and enjoying the outdoors, for a richer, happier, and healthier existence, and where, through education, we can get families enjoying better diets and understanding the need to be involved in sports and recreation. This will help our ever-growing problem of child obesity.

I will bring to this House a positive energy and a wealth of experience from my sporting pursuits, where I have represented my country, and my successful business pursuits, which span over 20 years and include the hospitality industry, event management, and business coaching and mentoring.

I know that every person who stands here today and speaks for the first time—in fact, everybody who has ever made, or who will in the future make, their maiden speech—will, despite their different political allegiances, share a similar or the same moral and ethical principle, which is to make a positive and everlasting difference. Alas, there are, and will be, those who fall short of their intended positive impact, lose sight of their moral compass, and end up being the people or the person they so avidly said they would not become. I stand here today, in front of the people who have known me the longest and who will know me for the rest of my life, and I pledge that I will stay the same person who I am today. I pledge also that I will not be moved or cowed from my principles and that I will stand strong for the ever-increasingly difficult task to deliver on common sense. Thank you.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Time is the school in which we learn; time is the fire in which we burn. It is with those words that I begin my very first speech in this House as those few words have the power to hold to account all those who dare to represent, whether they have an inevitably finite stay lasting 3 months or a formidable three decades. My hope, of course, is to emulate the latter. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a few people today and may I firstly join my colleagues in congratulating the Rt Hon David Carter on his re-election as Speaker; yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch; and the Hon Chester Borrows, as well as Trevor Mallard, on all of your elections into your positions.

I would also like to congratulate the New Zealand First Party as a whole, from our grassroots supporters and loyal, hard-working electorate committees through to all 11 MPs. The party should be congratulated on the flawless campaign that saw us obtain the highest increase in party vote percentage and, along with it, four more MPs. It is safe to say now that we are genuinely the fastest-growing political movement in New Zealand today. Congratulations also to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who showed incomparable energy, faith, and commitment to lead us into one of the strongest positions our party has been in for a long time. His energy and example were infectious and inspirational and gave our party the strength it has in Parliament.

Last but by no means least congratulations to the two returning New Zealand First MPs, Pita Paraone and Ron Mark. We are immeasurably stronger as a team with your presence. And, of course, congratulations to my fellow first-time MPs from all parties in Parliament and, in particular, to our new New Zealand First MPs. Over the past 4 weeks or so it has become evident that we have a strong team that is balanced with experience, talent, and fresh faces. It has put us in a very strong position this term. I look forward to working together and celebrating our successes.

There are a few people I must acknowledge and thank here today, and, of course, the first are my family. Both my brother and my mother, Brenda, and my Aunt Fiona are here today, and without them both I would not be here. There are a few certain people in one’s life to whom you can genuinely attribute the help to achieve your highs, and it is only their unquestionable love and support that allows me to survive. I am lucky enough to have them both. Thank you to my son and daughter, Alex and Madeleine. Emma, I thank you for your support through the last few years of politics, which consumed my spare time and even time I did not have to spare. It looks set to continue, but I know I can rely on your support, as always. One knows who their mates are even when one has not seen them in years. They still come and support me, as they have today. There are very few professions in the world that can boast of having such an effect on the bond between mates, and for me it is proven here today that the New Zealand Army is at the top of that list. Thanks for your support. I cannot put into words my total appreciation. I would also at this time like to thank John Thorn for his support and guidance as my local chair and campaign manager, and I look forward to developing the electorate through this term.

Thanks to the voters of Palmerston North, who saw the benefit of voting for New Zealand First and gaining more than one MP for our community and, in fact, for increasing New Zealand First’s party vote by 60 percent. We now have not two MPs but three MPs for Palmerston North, and it means that in the end Palmerston North will be the ultimate beneficiary. I look forward to working with both the other MPs in the future to ensure our community has the best representation from all parties. I would also like to mention Rob Young, who passed away before he could realise his goal of sending me into Parliament. Rob was the person who originally saw the beginnings of my involvement with the party. He put his faith in me and helped me on my way. Without him, I would not be here, and I am eternally grateful.

My journey through the rollercoaster ride that is the dipping of my toes into the seemingly parallel universe that hides beneath the thin veil called politics began some years ago in the officers’ mess at Burnham Military Camp, where my incessant opinions on some recent Cabinet reshuffle or my uncontrollable excitement about the latest Budget release not only fell on deaf ears but attracted the ire of many of my fellow officers, not to mention many a taxi driver. It was somewhere close to that point in my life when I knew that my interests in life and consequences around me extended far beyond what any sane 20-year-old should ever be interested in.

I was drawn into getting involved with New Zealand First 4 years ago and somehow found my way up through local electorate representation, on the board of directors, and into the vice-president position in what seemed to me like a whirlwind of goal-setting and hard work, which ultimately dropped me constantly at the peaks of representation for the party. My passion for our country and for the policies that New Zealand First has keeps me driven to work hard for my party and to continue to drive our policies that will ultimately create a better New Zealand. My passion is politics, my passion is this country, and that is why I stand here as a member of New Zealand First.

New Zealand has a wide and varied society. We have people who have and people who have not. We have people who are country folk through and through and we also have big city dwellers—old and young, rich and poor, city and rural, Māori, Pākehā, Kiwi, Indian, Asian-European to name but a few of the wide-ranging demographics. It is not the role of a true political party to represent any one of those certain sections of our society, but we have parties in this Parliament here today that do just that. In fact, it is the role of the true political party to represent all people in New Zealand, irrespective of who they are. New Zealand First does not represent just the bottom 10 percent or the top 10 percent or even only the people in between. We do not isolate race or income or any minority or majority. We are the party that represents all New Zealanders. That is why I stand with this team.

In anyone’s life there are specific moments in time when we can identify a momentum shift, a sea change, a proudly defining moment, and my life story is no different. The first of those, and the most monumental in my life, was when my father died on my 17th birthday. To compare him to a foundation of granite rock would not do him justice. Perhaps to compare him to a titan of security, of discipline, and of love might come halfway near close. With that influence ripped from my life, my direction, my pride, and my mana took a deft blow. I lost my way and I made mistakes. It was only through the support around me, through the means of luck, and through the influence of fear that the path I took, the path I struggled through on my hands and bleeding knees, allowed me to survive. It allowed me to have a perspective of the importance of youth; the important of guidance, of support, and of decision-making at that time in one’s life; and the irreversible costs if we get it wrong.

That period in my life ignited a passion and a drive in me to ensure that the youth of our country are looked after, that they have a safe, secure future, and that they have a progressive future ahead of them. This comes not only through the obvious, sound legislation, but, most important, through genuine care and ownership of the very real issues that they face today. Therein lies my motivation for being here in our House of Representatives. The height of my excitement of being part of our democracy in New Zealand is finely balanced with the reality of the heavy weight of expectation that every representative must bear. The people of New Zealand have placed their faith in our democratic system and in every member with a seat in this House no matter who they voted for or why.

This is my first step into the world of politics. I did not leave school with politics in mind. I did not go to university to study politics. I have not had experience in a political internship or a campaign manager’s role, or any such thing. I did not work for an MP or any other Government organisation. There is no deep history of politics in my family, nor did I join a young political party or run for president of a university club studying double majors and thick books, nor do I have any experience in local government or local politics. This was my very first campaign and the very first time I stood for office. I am brand new.

That is not an admission of somehow being a step behind any of the other new MPs in this House who have done even some of those things—in fact, quite the contrary. I know about what true loss means. I know the inescapable truth about wrong choices, wrong paths to take, and wrong motivations. I know what it means to not know how I going to pay the next bill. I know what it is like to live as a solo father, the crushing lows one can experience with the weight of expectation on one’s shoulders, the courage it takes to stand in line at the Work and Income office and ask for help, and the labels that are planted on one’s back in doing so. I know the absolute sacrifice and total acceptance of one’s responsibility that is needed just to understand what the next step will be towards some sort of normality. I know what it means to wear a uniform and serve our country and the sacrifices that our soldiers make every day, and the ultimate sacrifice our soldiers are expected to accept when there is no one else to stand in their shoes through the heat and chaos of conflict. I truly understand what camaraderie means.

I know what it is to see the troubled youth of our community desperately need help and their not even knowing it, and the harrowing stories of their lives and their truly believing that their experiences are somehow normal. I understand the utmost importance of our quality education system and the one chance we have to get it right for our kids. A teacher does not just stand at the front of a classroom and teach. They lead, they counsel, they guide, they discipline, they nurture, and they empower. Teachers empower our children. There is no substitute for that.

I know these things not because I have read a book about them or because I have worked for an MP who dealt with these issues, nor do I know these things because I have heard it through some research that was conducted. I know these things because I have lived them. I have experienced them firsthand. I have walked a mile or more in real people’s shoes who struggle every day—people who serve our country every day, people who teach and care for our children every day. Where would we be without these real people? And where would we be without real representation? As I said, there are some who may say this political experience being new to me is a disadvantage. Well, I say I am in the box seat.

I was educated at the University of Auckland following my deep interest in biology and science. I then spent 7 years as a commissioned officer in the army. When I left the army I worked with youth in our community and decided to go back to school and become a qualified teacher. I was teaching biology before I made the step into this House. I stand here in the House of Representatives with the passion to serve and with that real life experience of the real people of this country. I have faced many challenges in the past, and now there are many more demanding and unrelenting challenges ahead, but one thing my life has taught me is that there is no substitute for hard work, passion, or sacrifice, and there is no greater judge of those three attributes in an individual than within oneself. “To thine own self be true.”

The army corps that I was in has a motto that is both profound and simple. It has resonated with me through my life and has made me keep my head at important times. It has made me keep the right perspective, and, most important, it has allowed me to focus on the right motivations and the right pathway to take: “Mana hua te tangata”—by our actions we are known. On this grand stage of politics there is no doubt that the people of New Zealand rightly judge us all by our actions, not by our intentions or best wishes and not by our smile or personality. As a wise man once said, they do not judge us by the noise we make when we open our mouths and let the wind blow our tongues around. The people of New Zealand judge us by what we do—by our actions and by what we achieve for the cause. There is no greater cause than our country, our people, and our future. In my time in this House, no matter how short or long that may be, may I rightly be judged on that.

May I close with this: my life has been in the service of others, from serving my country in the army and serving youth in my community to serving our children in our classrooms. Becoming an MP in the service of our country seems a natural step. My path to this House and to this seat has been a roller coaster, a tumble-dryer, and a verifiable litany of opportunity and sacrifice. It has made me realise a few things, the most important of which is that sometimes our dreams are not as far away from reality as one might think. Thank you.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): E te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. E te Kaiwhakawā, tēnā koe. Ngā mema o tēnei rōpū, tēnā koutou katoa. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, and congratulations on your election as Assistant Speaker.

To my fellow MPs and to all of those observers in the public gallery and on social media, today I stand here as a new MP, humbled by the occasion, proud for my family, and thankful to those who believed in me, firstly, the Rt Hon Winston Peters and our party, and also all those who supported and voted for us. The journey has been a long time coming. On that, I left my native India some 12 years ago looking for a better life for my family. I chose, of all the countries in the world, to settle here in this beautiful land, full of opportunities and surrounded by a rich, multicultural diversity of people.

In my previous employment, you might say that I had a captive audience, somewhat like I do today. Yet, we all sought to be here, rather than be put here. It was our choice to run for office, and when looking for the right party to represent, I found that the New Zealand First Party had similar ideals to mine. They are the similar ideals that most forward-thinking, industrious, hard-working, fair-minded, and supportive people have in this wonderland we call Aotearoa, the land of the long white cloud.

I believe in fair play, hard work, and a just reward for all who seek to better their lives. I also believe that we, as a people of many races and ethnicities, have come to this place at this time to improve the lot of our families, our friends, new neighbours, and, indeed, all New Zealanders. We do so with a hard-work ethic and a desire to see a better nation, where all people can live without fear and hatred, never having to live with bombs falling on their heads or in poverty, never seeing leaders take and not share, never having to hear of politicians taking backhanders or creating an unfair society, never worrying whether the water we drink or swim in or fish from is polluted, never having to worry that if we fall into harm’s way we will not have a helping hand to pick us up or to offer support, never worrying if we or our loved ones, when sick or infirm, cannot get medical or hospital care—and so the list goes on. It is a list of blessings fought for and protected by those who have sat in these seats before us, and who have ensured that we need not worry so.

I want to see a country where all can afford a home or pay the rent, and where all can achieve higher education, be it in a university or by way of an apprenticeship. A place where equality and fairness is more important than separatism; a place where you may speak your mind and not have troops knocking on your door in the middle of the night, demanding that you speak the party line of a dictatorship, or even worse. I stand here today warning every New Zealander and everyone who calls this place home that I will stand up and fight to see that this is the case—that you may live without fear in your home in our land.

I see a place where people are paid a livable wage for a fair day’s labour, and where those who own businesses and create jobs share the wealth with those who work for them. People helping people—a fair and caring society that rewards those who work hard, that rewards those who create employment opportunities for others, and that rewards all of us so that our children will live better, safer, and richer lives.

Growing up in Mumbai, a city with a huge population with such disparity between the haves and have-nots, I saw an unequal society that seemed unfair, and I do not want New Zealand to become like that. Some there have great wealth, while the masses have nothing. If you do not work, you do not eat, and if you do not have an education, you do not advance, it seemed to me. My own upbringing was strict and with strong values expected of us all. A respect for our elders and our family was paramount. To live with clear values and a determination to succeed was encouraged, and I see these values with the party that I am so honoured to represent in the House today.

When my beautiful wife and mother of my children was killed in a car crash some 8 years ago, I could have given up on this country. Instead, I embraced all the good that I experienced in that traumatic time and I chose to serve the people—all the people—who live in this remarkable Aotearoa.

The other thing that I care about and love about this party that I serve is our elderly people—those who have worked so hard can enjoy some fruits of their sweat. The SuperGold card is but a small, yet welcome, endorsement of how we appreciate their efforts. I would like to see more given to the senior citizens of this land—something that we can discuss in the working papers with our colleagues, I hope, soon. For our servicemen and women, who have served our land and fought in faraway wars in a combat or supporting role as peacekeepers and observers, I want to see more recognition for the sacrifice that they gave and continue to give. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement being pushed on us by overseas lobbyists should be open for debate by all members of this House, with the public of this country contributing via a commission of inquiry. This needs to be set up by all parties and overseen by an independent committee.

I believe that many changes for the good of all can be achieved by all in this House working together. It can become a reality, where there is no “them and us” or “we and they”. This place here could see amazing changes come to fruition that would continue to endorse this country as one of the truly great places on the planet to reside and live in.

For law and order, justice must be seen to be done to be effective, and I believe we must look at how the rights of law-abiding citizens seem to be overlooked in favour of offenders. We have people charged with crimes being let off because of delays in the justice system. This is not good for those who are accused and never tried, thus being unable to prove their innocence and, therefore, being tainted for ever. And it is not good for those who are the victims of those crimes. Also, I believe that a sentence must be served in full, not lessened because of good behaviour. If a prisoner presents bad behaviour, extend his or her sentence. The needs of victims of crime must be considered way above those who commit those crimes.

And the planet and the place we live in—I feel really strongly about the need to protect our planet from the ever-polluting of it, be it from heavy industry or the felling of our forests. We must find a happy medium. We must grow more forests and look after our waterways. We must come down heavily on those who pollute our environment to the detriment of all who live here. Let us look at offshore drilling. Make those companies that drill around our coastline deposit a huge guarantee into a New Zealand land - sea protective trust, so that any clean-up is insured by those who would pollute our place.

There is so much that needs to be done, and these are but a few of the areas of concern that I have for our people and our country, for our planet and our future.

I want to take a moment of this time to say a big thankyou to those many people who have helped me to get to this place and to those who have supported me along the way. To get here today, I have had to stand on the shoulders of giants, and I would like to say thanks to them. They are many, and they know who they are. I am truly grateful for the help, support, and encouragement that you all have given me, and soon I will speak to you individually to give you my first thanks. My thanks go to Mr Giri Gupta and the entire Indian Weekender team for their support, and to my friends Danny and Cynthia Roger, Jeff and Jennifer Partridge, Colin and Pam Fonseca, and Vanbana Jawalkar for being there for me in good times and bad. I wish to acknowledge my son, Vikram, and my daughters, Sanjivani and Ashwini.

Finally, I thank my ancestors, particularly my grandmother, who instilled it in me to never look for a fight, but if in one, then fight to win. It is better to walk away than to rumble. However, if the need be, then fight to win—never back down. The monsters who will stand against a fair and just society will be confronted by me and my colleagues, for we will defend the rights of all those who feel aggrieved and are.

To close, I thank you, members of the gallery, those on social media, and my honourable colleagues in this House. Nō reira, kia nui toku mihi ki a tātou katoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Firstly, can I pay my respects in the usual way, as tradition has it, to the Governor-General; to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are elected to the high office of Deputy Speaker; and to the Speaker himself for his re-election and his venerable assistance. Can I also congratulate the sixth St Bede College’s old boy, Mr Matt Doocey, my learned opponent, on ascending to the great place in this House. I congratulate him on his win. It is a great honour to be in this House. I say to those who went to other schools like Christ’s College and other second-rate educational institutions that St Bede’s College still maintains the record for the largest number of members in this House at any given time. So I welcome Mr Doocey to that elite club of the famous six.

Can I congratulate the Prime Minister and Government members on his and its election win. It was indeed a substantial victory from their point of view. It is true that New Zealanders have now rendered a verdict and placed their faith and trust in a National-led Government and a National-led Prime Minister. However, I say to the Government that along with faith and trust comes the burden of expectation—the burden of expectation—from a community that was promised much by this Government as it sought a mandate for a third term, such as the expectations, for instance, of those parents who cannot afford to house their families, themselves, and their kids in a warm and dry home. Those are expectations this Government has pledged to meet and it will be judged accordingly. The expectations, for instance, are also of the younger generation, the first-home buyers, who struggle to get on to the property ladder to gain the Kiwi dream of a first-home buy.

I note with interest that one of the three housing Ministers has eventually, after it was drawn out of him like barbed wire, admitted that five houses—five houses only—have been built in the so-called preferential zones, or whatever the term is, that the Government has set up. I note also that Dr Smith, as the Minister for Building and Housing, believes, just for the record, that consents, or should I say, code compliance certificates—which, for the uninitiated, note that the house is built and that somebody can legally move into it because it complies. There are no records of such things in our community. I invite him to check every local government website that asks you whether you wish to apply for said certificate—and, by definition, if you apply, you are granted one, therefore there is a record of that in a local authority.

The expectations are high, especially in the health area. They are high for those who have been diagnosed, for instance, as needing an operation by a specialist, who are then told: “No, the books are full. It will take in excess of 5 months”—the Government’s cut off point—“to have that operation.” Those folks are then told: “The books are full. Go back to your general practitioner.”—not because you are healthy or you are put right but because there just are not the resources there to cater for you, and the Government refuses to have a measure. I say to the Minister of Health, as to the thousands of people who have been told to go back to their GP, I think it is illogical. The Minister of Health also holds, I believe, a business degree. I am sure he would agree with me, in his learnings, that there is an old adage: if you cannot measure a problem, you cannot measure progress in terms of how you are dealing with that problem, negatively or positively, and, more important, you cannot be held to account if you do not measure that problem.

The expectations on this Government are indeed great. The fact, of course, is that it will not measure child poverty, but now it says it will do something about it. I am grateful for the ladder. I still would have thought logic would dictate, in order for them to be judged by the New Zealand people, that a measure is appropriate. The Government will also be judged by the thousands of young people who would like a trade and who would like an apprenticeship, but no real assistance is out there, the numbers are not there to cater for them, or there are businesses that would like to take a young person on as an apprentice but the financial assistance does not exist in any great volume for them to be incentivised to do that. There are the expectations down my way of the Canterbury community. Those people are still waiting after 4 years to have their earthquake claims settled by either a private sector insurer or the Earthquake Commission. The expectations of those folks—the thousands of them—are great, and they will be a great burden on this Government, which has pledged, through an election victory, to do something about that. My hope—my genuine bipartisan hope—on that score is that we will not be here in another 3 years’ time or 7 and a bit years down the track still talking about folks who have not had the ability or not been supported to the point where they can get their earthquake claims resolved.

There are the expectations of those—and I will not labour this point—academics, journalists, community leaders, business people, and others whose reputations we now know were dragged through the political sewer by those outside this place and, yet to be tested, aided and abetted by some in this place, formed and crystallised around the infamous book Dirty Politics. I say to the Government simply that if you take away conjecture and interpretation, documents do not lie. Documents and evidence do not lie. So there is a duty on this Government to meet the expectations of the community.

To be fair, there is also a duty upon the Opposition and the lead party in the Opposition, which is my Labour Party, to meet the aspirations and be accountable to the community by doing our job. Our primary job in this place is to hold the Government to account. It is true though that we have an obligation to get the message that we got. We got a message on election night. It is our duty to humbly receive that message, to analyse that message, and to act on that message. That means that as a political movement the expectations of the community are that we modernise as a party. Though those opposite may see some of our processes and internal workings as rather strange—the leadership contest that proceeds before us now—this is about broadening and modernising a Labour Party. I believe in a Labour Party that is broad. I do not subscribe to a view of a narrow-based political movement. I do not subscribe to a view that if you talk about representing, broadening, and becoming part of the middle ground, somehow you are excluding those groups or individuals on the fringes. I do not subscribe to that logic. I do not understand it. I do not believe it has any validity in a modern political movement. We have a duty to represent as wide a cross-section of the public as we can. We have a duty as a political movement to evolve with the needs, the concerns, and the changing priorities of our community.

I once had a grandfather. I did not meet him. He was an Invercargill guy, dead before I was born. He started life as a baker, a wage worker. He bought a tobacconist’s shop, as it was called back then—a barber’s shop. He did not change his values; he still voted Labour. His mates thought as soon as he became a business person or an entrepreneur—not that that was in vogue those days—that he would suddenly go from red to blue. He did not change his values; he changed his priorities, looking after his family in different ways. He went from a wage worker to a business person. Being a modern 21st century political party, modernising, evolving, and moving with the community does not mean that you sell out your values and your principles; it simply means that you evolve to better reflect in a modern way and move with your community and recognise, accept, action, and be accountable for those changing priorities that your constituency has.

I conclude by saying that there are expectations on this Government and they will weigh heavy upon it. We stand ready as the major Opposition party in this House to hold every one of those Ministers accountable for the promises and the commitments they make. But I give a commitment, and our side of politics gives a commitment, that we also have heavy expectations weighing upon us and we must redouble our efforts and commit ourselves to meeting and exceeding those expectations, even if at times change can be painful. Change and reform can be painful in a number of ways, but political movements that do not change and move with the times—and perhaps even are not humble enough to change their views to reflect their constituency without selling out their principles—are doomed to be in another place. We are a 98-year-old Labour Party. We are the oldest political movement in this country. In 2 years we will be 100. To those who say we will disappear and have forecast our doom for the last 100 years, I have to say that you will be wrong, and wrong again.

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): First of all, since this is the first time I have taken the floor in this Parliament, I would like to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues on your election. I would also like to say—and I am sure this is in common with every member of this House—that having gone through this bizarre, slightly surreal thing that happens every 3 years called a general election, where we go back and account to the people who put us here, it is a great privilege. I know that all the members, from whichever political party they come, would actually really cherish that opportunity. I am certainly one of them.

The issue I wish to take up in this debate is the first matter mentioned by the Prime Minister, which is actually the stunning success for “New Zealand Inc.” in New York, the United Nations Security Council. I really believe that this is something that happens about once in a generation, and it does deserve some extended consideration and discussion in New Zealand politics. I want to acknowledge all the people who have put their shoulder to the wheel, from our previous Prime Minister Helen Clark through to our current Prime Minister—I personally have watched him advocate strongly and very effectively with foreign leaders—and a whole team of officials who have really worked themselves into a grind by putting in a maximum effort to make this possible.

But I absolutely want to single out Murray McCully. I now know Murray McCully extremely well professionally and, I think, personally, and I believe that without his sense of commitment, his drive, and a travel programme that makes my own look positively lackadaisical, we would not have got over the line, so I do want to acknowledge that. You know, everybody in this House who has been around for a while knows the old nickname he used to have: “Minister of Politics”. That applied to an earlier stage in his career. I do not imagine Mr McCully would mind that in the slightest, because nothing is more important to any individual than the respect of your peers, and he would never have attracted that nickname or soubriquet if it did not imply respect for his political skills. What he has done is apply those hard-won, carefully honed political skills to the bigger stage of international politics to come out with a success. I want to put on record my views on that.

As to the benefits, I am aware of the wider arguments that are sort of more centralised on New Zealand interests, and I do not disagree with them, but the core point is this: if one looks at the history of small States over literally thousands of years from the Peloponnesian War to current crises, it is clear what the core interest of small States is. It is global and regional peace and stability—that is, nothing imperils the sovereign existence in every sense and the liberties of the citizens of small States more than the absence of international peace and security and the rule of law. For heaven’s sake, whatever it costs—I have no idea how much it will cost—we should be playing our part, once every generation, in putting our shoulders to the wheel to try to make a contribution. The comments I want to make today are really some reflections on what I think the nature of a contribution from a small, active State like New Zealand could be.

We are in a difficult environment, multilaterally, around the world. I think there are various reasons, but the core reason is a rather paradoxical one. Look at the World Trade Organization, which is in terrible trouble, and climate change negotiations, which are very difficult; we tried to get a long-term agreement in place in 2009 but it has been kicked forward to 2020. I am sure we will get there, but it is very difficult to make multilateralism work. I think the paradox is this: it was actually easier to make it work when we had a single hegemonic power—the United States—driving this process. It had enormous creativity behind the process that it put in place when it was absolutely the supreme power after the war with something like 50 percent of the world’s GDP. But, as we know, that situation is changing.

I am optimistic that the emerging superpowers of China and India will play a very useful role, but the habits of cooperation are not well embedded between the bricks and the traditional centres of power in developed countries. I think this has a very important implication for the role of small States. One could sort of say with a military point in mind that it is a very target-rich environment for small, constructive States to operate and use their skills in and their networks to build coalitions to help a multilateral system that in this process of transition, until habits of cooperation are more deeply embedded amongst the superpowers, can play a very, very important role.

Power matters in international diplomacy. George Kennan, regarded by many people as the finest strategic mind of the mid - 20th century, and the man who crafted the Cold War containment strategy to try to avoid literal nuclear annihilation between the then Soviet Union and the United States, said in 1944: “the realities of power will soon seep into any legalistic structure which we erect to govern international life.” When power is a bit more diffuse, and there is no basis for looking for leadership from these more diffuse powers, this puts a bigger responsibility on responsible small States. I think we are very good at this.

Frankly, I think we have had generations of New Zealanders who have shown outstanding skills in that. I recall, for example, Chris Beeby. I first met Chris when I was about 9 years old and my parents rented a house next to his parents’ house. Of course, he was a big boy of 14 and gave me all sorts of advice, none of which was probably very wise, but I certainly found at the age of 9 that it was very interesting. Of course, I later became a colleague of his. He was more senior than me in the system. Chris was an eccentric man but an absolute genius. His standing in international legal circles was such that when we had law of the sea conferences—this is a huge issue for humanity and an issue of vital economic and political importance to this country, given that we have the world’s fourth-largest exclusive economic zone—the big powers would literally say that there was no point in having a meeting unless Beeby was there to chair it. So we have a bit of a conveyor belt that has turned out world-class people, who are very, very constructive, with real skills.

We are not the only small State that does this. I really pay tribute to Norway’s work, which is not in the same areas that we tend to focus on—for example, its work in the Middle East where it has been used very constructively, albeit not enough, to try to forge peace coalitions of interest there; its work in Sri Lanka; and its incredible work in the Amazon by funding through their enormous sovereign wealth fund hugely useful Clean Development Mechanism projects that are helping humanity. It is not like we should think we are the only group of people who can do this, but we are one of them.

There was a very famous US negotiator called Warren Lavorel—now, sadly, passed away—who I thought was the finest negotiator I had ever met. I remember saying to him that I was particularly frustrated with the United States sitting on the sidelines at one point in the Uruguay round. I said to Mr Lavorel, who was a very, very senior negotiator, that there is one thing New Zealand and the United States share in common in the international trading system, and that is we have an influence totally disproportionate to our real power. It took him 2 weeks before he was prepared to speak to me again, but we made up.

We have been able to use strategy very effectively under different Governments and with different generations of New Zealanders, but we cannot smugly think that this is because we are cleverer than anyone else; you do not meet stupid people, actually, in international diplomacy. A core point behind our position is the strong domestic consensus in place. Colin Keating, who was our then permanent representative the last time we were on the United Nations Security Council, made his famous statement on Rwanda. I cannot recall his exact words, but it was something like the international community should be ashamed of themselves. Did he have instructions from his Government? I very much doubt it. What Colin would have done was know what the core New Zealand value and position were. He would not have needed to go back to Wellington to ask for his instructions on what he should say, because he knew where he stood.

That is, I think, a fundamentally important point. There is a famous phrase by the great Prussian strategist, Field Marshal von Moltke, who said wisely: “No battle plan survives the first engagement with the enemy.” Having been a negotiator in the past, I can assure you that that is what an endgame negotiation is like. People get frightened. They do not have a clear domestic position and that is when New Zealand knows exactly where the consensus lies in our country. People get up and take an initiative on the basis of their own authority, knowing that they will be able to sell it. I wish to congratulate all those people who put us in this position and I look forward, in 2 years’ time, to hopefully congratulating them on their safe passage.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 22 October.

Part 2 Application, savings, transitional, and consequential provisions (continued)

SUE MORONEY (Labour): In beginning my contribution on Part 2 of this bill, I say I was very remiss yesterday. I was quite excited about getting the call from you, Mr Chairperson Mallard, in your capacity as the Chair for the first time, and I failed to congratulate you on your election to that position. So I take the opportunity now to do that, and I look forward to taking many calls under your chairpersonship and your speakership, in fact.

We are on Part 2 of this ugly—I have to say—bill, which is the first act of this Government under its new term. And, of course, yes, the Government is on the attack against workers. Part 2 is the part that really bothers me. Although much of the destruction is done in Part 1, actually Part 2 is about the way in which all of this destruction is going to be brought about in the workplace.

As Iain Lees-Galloway was saying in his contribution yesterday, it is, unusually, retrospective. We hardly ever deal with retrospective pieces of legislation in this House, but when it comes to attacking the rights of workers, that National Government has no shame. It has no shame. Part 2 is where it makes this retrospective. What Part 2 says is that there is no need to conclude collective bargaining—that there will be no obligation on parties to actually conclude and come to a collective agreement with each other about wages and conditions. And the Government, in its hurry to do that, wants to make sure that collective employment agreement negotiations that are already under way are going to be captured by this legislation.

But in order to understand why the Government has done it this way I think we need to backtrack a little. The history is this. The previous National Government really wanted to pass this piece of legislation about 4 or 5 months ago, but there was one big problem: it lost the numbers. It lost the numbers to pass this legislation because John Banks had to leave Parliament because he is on his way to jail. That is what has actually happened here. The Government wanted to pass this legislation at that point in time, but when Mr Banks had to relinquish his seat in this Parliament, the Government no longer had a majority with which to pass this piece of legislation. That is how bad it is.

The Government’s other support partners at the time would not support it. They would not support it because they know the damage this is going to do to the New Zealand workplace. And they know the damage this is going to do to workers and their families. At a time when we face increasing child poverty in this country, what is the current Government doing? It is moving to ensure that wages will be lowered—that wages will not be able to increase with the cost of living—because there will be no pressure, no legislative requirement on employers to conclude bargaining and to actually have bargaining result in a collective agreement.

Part 2 quite specifically says that it applies to all bargaining, whether the bargaining commenced before, on, or after the commencement of this piece of legislation. So workers who are currently engaged in collective bargaining with their employer are going to suddenly find on the passing of this bill that their employer will not be required to conclude an agreement with them. As we sit here, in New Zealand today workers are undertaking bargaining. A lot of those workers are in the health sector, interestingly enough. A lot of workers in the health sector are undertaking bargaining at the moment. It is those workers whom this Government is after. There are a lot of expired employment agreements happening in the health sector. So right now, as we sit, they are engaged in a bargaining process.

What the law currently says is that there is a requirement to conclude bargaining and for it to result in a collective employment agreement. That is a very rational and sensible thing, which has actually seen New Zealand though quite an interesting period of time. The economy has been in recession, yet there have not been extraordinary outbreaks of workers making unreasonable demands and using this part of the legislation to hold their employers to ransom. We have seen none of that. We have seen absolutely none of it.

I asked a question yesterday, and still have not had an answer from anyone opposite, about where they can cite the example of employees, of workers, making unreasonable demands and getting unreasonable wage increases because of this duty.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just now going to advise the member to come back to Part 2 of the bill, which could not possibly involve questions that were asked yesterday.

SUE MORONEY: The duty to conclude bargaining is what Part 2 actually says can start happening before the Act is even passed through this Parliament. That is the point that I making—that, actually, it is unusual that it is done in this way. Many of those workers are engaging in collective bargaining right now. They are already in that process, and yet this part, Part 2, says that it does not matter that they have already initiated the process or that when they initiated it there was a whole set of different laws in place. This part says that despite that, if they have initiated bargaining before the commencement of this Act, the rules are going to change. The rules are simply going to change midway through their bargaining process on them.

Why would that Government be so bloody-minded about having retrospective legislation? Well, I think the answer is the number of employment negotiations that are under way in the State sector—the sheer number of them. I think health is going to be one of its major targets. We have got the resident medical officers’ multi-employer collective agreement that is being negotiated at the moment. We have got the radiation technologists, who are negotiating their collective agreement at the moment. We have got the stenographers. We have got the clerical and administrative workers in the health sector who are negotiating. We have got the clinical physiologists. Importantly, we have got the nursing one. That is the big one that is coming up. That is where the big dollars are to be saved by this Government, and that is what it is after. It wants to suppress the wages and conditions of nurses working in our public hospitals.

Then we go on to the education sector, and we find that there are a few coming up in that regard as well. I think this is what it is about. The secondary teachers’ collective agreement expires on 30 June 2015, and Government cannot wait to make sure that those teachers are going to face a situation where the cards are all on the employer’s side because there is no duty to actually conclude collective bargaining. It is the teachers, the nurses, the police, the firefighters, and all of the other important public servants whom we rely on for our social services in this country whom that Government is after, and it is absolutely plain in Part 2. The Government is making sure that the nurses’ employment agreement, which is up for negotiation at the moment, will be captured by this removal of the duty to conclude bargaining.

So it is absolutely clear in Part 2. As I said before, it is really unusual for there to be retrospective legislation passed in this Parliament. Why is it that this Government would be so keen that this legislation applies to bargaining already under way? Well, it is clear that it is because of the type of work where that is existing at the moment. I have listened carefully to those Ministers as they have argued about containing the cost of public services. Well, when it comes to our education and health services, that can really mean only one thing. That can mean only that they are after wages.

I am thinking about the wages of the nurses who are going to be affected by Part 2, because Part 2 is going to apply to them even though they have already initiated collective bargaining. Thinking about their wage movements, they have had virtually no wage movements under the National Government. They have had over the course of the last 6 years about a 6 percent increase in their national collective employment agreement. That is less than the rate of inflation, so the nurses have already been paying for the savings that the National Government has been making in its surplus in its bid to make its Budget balance.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Like the previous speaker, Sue Moroney, I too have not had the opportunity yet to congratulate you, Mr Chairperson, on your promotion—I think it is a promotion—to assistant speakership.

I am going to restrict my comments to schedule 2, which is under discussion in this part of the debate in Committee of the whole House. Schedule 2 looks at the consequential amendments to other Acts. In particular, I want to address my comments to the changes to the Wages Protection Act 1983, which are about ensuring that employers can make deductions from the pay of workers who are taking partial strike action. Rather sneakily, this amendment to the parent Act, the Wages Protection Act, actually reduces the amount of notice that an employer has to give to an employee that they have made an overpayment. In the existing Act, it says that it should be 5 days’ notice, but this amendment also makes quite a major adjustment—it says that it will be 1 day’s notice. This is quite aside from the whole discourse around what a partial strike is or how much an overpayment is. That is dealt with in the previous part, but I must make the point that it is absolutely unclear as to how much workers will be losing when they take partial strike action.

What is a partial strike? Lots of people are not clear about it, and certainly it is not tested very well in Part 1 of the Act, but of course we are talking about schedule 2 and Part 2 of it. My understanding from my experience as a former union official, has been that partial strikes have not only been around refusing to work parts of an employment agreement or parts of your normal work but they have also been around things like bending some of the rules, and those rules include things like not wearing the proper uniform, wearing a badge, and wearing different colours from what is described in your employment agreement. Workers have been able to be very creative about their partial strike action. We must remember that strike action occurs only after a vote and it occurs only as a measure of last resort when the negotiations between workers and employers have got to a point where there needs to be a bit of force applied to the relationship with the employer to get it to agree to decent pay increases.

I have seen some really remarkable and interesting partial strikes in my experience as a union organiser. Perhaps the most notable one was when a bunch of workers refused to wear pants—this was about the uniform allowance not being paid. They agreed that because the employer had breached the employment contract by not paying the uniform allowance, they would wear only half the uniform, so they did not wear pants. Fortunately, they all worked behind booths just like this. It was not a problem for any members of the public, but it was certainly embarrassing for the union organiser anyway.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am now going to ask the member to come to not just mentioning Part 2 but actually debating Part 2. It is a really good story, but not relevant.

DENISE ROCHE: I was mindful, Mr Chairperson, that yesterday you asked for novelty.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Novel and relevant.

DENISE ROCHE: OK. Thank you very much for that. Part 2 and schedule 2 of the amendment bill talks about these changes to the Wages Protection Act. If we look at what the Wages Protection Act was enacted to do, it is actually about protecting wages. I believe that it is a sneaky and sinister attempt to amend the Act by reducing the amount of notice that goes to workers when they are classifying an overpayment when someone takes a partial strike, and that that is an unfair way to do it because there has not been any kind of discussion in the public arena. There have been no submissions on this part of the bill about changing the Wages Protection Act as a consequence of the amendments to the Employment Relations Act. That strikes me as incredibly unfair and as a mockery of the democratic tradition.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I have got a number of points I want to raise, but first I would like to raise an issue around interpretation, which the Minister, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, might be able to help me with. It might be my misunderstanding of the way the bill has been drafted and some of the drafting changes that have been made to it. If he wants to interrupt me, I will happily yield some of my time for him to do so.

In the first clause of schedule 1, which talks about interpretation, there have been changes made since the bill was originally drafted to remove the definition of “2013 Act” and “principal Act” and simply say now that “In this schedule, 2013 Act means the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2013.” If we then move—and I will pick a clause—to, say, clause 2(6), I think, potentially, the drafting changes have made this incredibly confusing. If you look at subclause (6) it now says: “Part 6A of this Act”—which I assume means this Act that we are now debating—“(as it was immediately before the commencement of the 2013 Act)”—i.e., this Act that we are now debating—“continues to apply to the restructurings as if the 2013 Act”—i.e., this Act—“had not been passed.”

The question I have is how can this Act not apply to this Act if it has not been passed? It seems to me that in the changes to the drafting we have actually created quite a circular situation. You may as well remove the clause altogether, potentially. There seems to be a double negative or some other issue around interpretation, because previously it said that the principal Act would continue to apply, effectively, as if this Act had not been passed. But because of the changes to the definitions, we now seem to be in this situation where that clause no longer makes any sense. If we look at the remainder of the schedule—I am happy for the Minister to explain; I may have got that wrong or I might be right, and I am happy for him to explain—it seems to be that there are these clauses all the rest of the way through this particular schedule. If my interpretation of it is incorrect, then he may be able to clear that up. The rest of the schedule, and I think the second schedule as well, does not seem to make any sense. I am happy to allow the Minister to take the floor and I will come back to the rest of my comments, if that would be useful, or I could just then continue with the rest of my comments.

The second question that I have for the Minister, and I hope he will answer this, again comes back to issues of interpretation. I suspect the intention of this clause or some of these clauses—and, again, I am on Part 6A, which relates particularly to vulnerable workers, and again the Minister could correct me if I am wrong—is to ensure that where the restructuring has commenced prior to the passing of this particular piece of legislation, those workers affected by that restructuring that has already commenced would continue to enjoy the same protections they would have had prior to it. My interpretation of it is that this is specifically designed to ensure that that particular part of the Act is not applied retrospectively.

The question around interpretation that I have on that is how you would deem the commencement point for a restructuring. For example, the contracting-out environment in Part 6A primarily, I would suspect, relates to contracting-out environments. If a contract has been put out for tender, for example, but not let at the point that this Act is passed, would that provision apply? Often the restructuring occurs after the contract has been awarded, but from the employee’s perspective the mere putting out of the contract to tender is the point at which the uncertainty and the vulnerability really starts to kick in. Are we looking at this from the perspective of the employer, who does not get the answer until they know whether or not they have been awarded the contract, or of the employee, whose job is put under question the minute the contract they are subject to is put out for tender? The whole purpose of this particular provision is around providing additional certainty to employees in that vulnerable situation, whether they be catering contractors, cleaning contractors, or whomever.

To put a practical context around it, if I could illustrate it by way of example, if a firm currently contracts with one cleaning company to provide the cleaning of its offices and it has fewer than the number of staff who are covered by the exemption, has fewer than that number of staff employed within it—Mr Chair, I am just waiting for the bell to ring. I can see you reaching forward—[Bell rung] If it has fewer than that number of staff, then that would, therefore, mean it would be covered by the exemption. That contract is put out to tender and those staff continue to do their jobs in the intervening period while the contract is put out to tender. A new contract is awarded to a different company, and at that point, of course, the restructuring is well and truly under way.

But, from the staff’s perspective, once they know the contract has been put out to tender in this cleaning company—for example, it could even be that the company that currently does the cleaning contract does not even apply; it might not even be tendering, but it might continue to do the work until the tender has been let—to all intents and purposes for those staff members concerned, the uncertainty is there. The restructuring has begun, they know that there is a new contract, and they do not know whether they are going to be required by the new contractor. Under the Act as it currently exists, my understanding is that they would be protected and they would be covered. Would that continue to apply to them once this amendment has been passed? It would seem to me that this particular clause in the first schedule, clause 2(6), is intended to ensure that if the restructuring was already under way, the exemptions that the bill puts in place would not be applied retrospectively. I think that that particular point of clarification would be a very useful one.

I think that those are probably the two issues of interpretation that I would like further clarification on because, again—just to come back to my first one around the interpretation clause—“this Act” is referred to all the way through, and the striking out happens in clause 2(2), clause 2(3), clause 2(4), and clause 2(5), and basically all the way through. It seems to me—unless I have got it entirely wrong, and the Minister in the chair indicated that he thought I might have and I look forward to his detailed explanation of how I might have that wrong—that we have got a bunch of double negatives in here, which makes the schedules potentially seem quite redundant and certainly do not seem to make any sense. So if he could deal with that, that would be good.

Schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to the State Sector Act and to the Wages Protection Act. It makes changes around strikes within the State sector and the provisions around strikes within the State sector. Then there are what appear to be minor changes to the Wages Protection Act.

I think I will leave my comments at that. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification of those two points, if he is able to do that for us.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I appreciate the honourable member’s intervention and some very good technical questions around the transitional provisions. Can I start with the first matter—the double negative. I have very carefully considered it, and I have checked with my legal experts, that the references to this Act and the 2013 Act are actually correct, and it does not create a double negative. That is probably for reasons that are a little bit above my small legal brain, but I am reassured that there is no tension around making the clause redundant.

The member also raised a very good question in respect of the timing of the new provisions on contracting. “Restructuring” is actually the generic term that is used for contracting out, and it is more likely now because many of the people who are affected by these provisions are now in organisations—very few large organisations now conduct their own cleaning. I can think of one. It was a hospital that I ran. It still does it. But, generally speaking, what we talk about is restructuring, and generically that term is used. It is actually the retendering of a contract that is already contracted out. For example, if I was to retender the contract, and Mr Hipkins was to win it and Mr Nash was to lose it, the timing of that in law would be the awarding of the new contract. Therefore, if that did not occur until after the law became effective, then the new provisions would apply. But if the contract was started and was awarded before the new transitional provision became effective, then it would not.

It is a question of the facts of each individual case, so it is hard to say in all circumstances what would happen, but I am satisfied that the definition of restructuring, as is contained in section 69, is clear enough to make employers—outgoing and incoming—pretty clear about what their obligations are. But thank you for raising it.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I again have a question that I hope the Minister in the chair, Michael Woodhouse, can provide some clarification on. The Minister might like to follow the logic and explain to me whether I have understood it correctly or not. Part 2 refers to the new schedule 1AA that will be inserted into the Act, and that schedule contains new section 8, which states that “Despite section 95B of this Act (as inserted by section 56 of the 2013 Act), an employer must not make a specified deduction of pay in relation to—(a) any partial strike that ended before the commencement of the 2013 Act; or (b) any period of a partial strike that occurred before the commencement of the 2013 Act.” The effect of that new section is that it means that although the proposed strike tax in clause 56 in Part 1 cannot be applied to partial strike action that has already occurred, it can apply to partial strikes already under way from the date of the Act’s coming into effect, which effectively means that workers who have already committed to strike action with no expectation of pay deductions could find themselves penalised.

For me, natural justice is at issue here. If the workers are already engaged in partial strike action and it is of an ongoing nature, the Act comes into effect. They have already committed to that course of action, and they can then be penalised for a decision that was made before the Act was even thought of, or at least certainly before it was being considered by this Parliament. That, to me, raises an issue of natural justice and I am wanting to know whether the Minister is trying to create a precedent here that suggests that natural justice should no longer apply.

I personally see some parallels in a local case in Dunedin North where we had some school buses that were taking students to their nearest State school and not much further but delivering them to other schools in the area. A rule was interpreted differently by the Government that was in the last Parliament, which took away the right of students to travel on that bus unless they were going to the nearest State school. It was an interpretation of the rules that was different from that which had applied before. I am sure that the Minister in the chair is familiar with this example because he had a transport portfolio at the time and I did petition him at some length to consider the natural justice aspects of taking away the right previously enjoyed by students to travel to any school in the city on the school bus, provided it took them only as far as the local State schools.

Effectively, once the rule was reinterpreted, the students were then allowed to travel on the bus if they had the right uniform on and were not allowed to travel on the bus if they did not have the right uniform on. Despite the fact that they had signed up for that school, despite the fact that their parents had invested in the uniforms for that school, and despite the fact that they were engaged in the sports teams at that school, those parents and those children who had invested in that particular school were then told that natural justice did not apply, and, effectively, that they were no longer entitled to travel on that bus—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to interrupt the member and ask him to stop the novel and get back to the relevant. Thank you.

Dr DAVID CLARK: I will come back to the point that I am trying to make, which is one of natural justice. Where there is an expectation of one course of action when an action was initiated and there is a change of understanding—in this case, a change in the law—that can have a very different effect. So in clause 8, the worker who is already committed to strike action with no expectation of pay deductions finds himself penalised. I am wanting to ask the Minister if this was the intention when this was drafted. Was this drafted specifically to punish those workers who had already committed to strike action in order to curtail their existing strike action, or is this an unintended consequence?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the question be now put.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I have the same sort of confusion that Mr Hipkins and Mr Clark had. Again, I am just a simple boy from the Bay but I am wondering whether the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety can clarify this. This is about new schedule 1AA. We are looking at clause 2(5), “Amendments to Part 6A (Continuity of employment if employees’ work affected by restructuring)”. What it actually says in clause 2(5) of this schedule is: “Subclause (6) applies to restructurings … for which the agreements are concluded before the commencement of the 2013 Act, even if the restructurings they relate to are to take effect after the commencement of the 2013 Act.” For me, I am not too sure what the definition of “concluded” is here. Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act, as you know, is a wide-ranging section and this covers exempt employers and it talks about contractors and contracting out.

The reason why I am focusing on this is that it could have major ramifications because this relates to section 69C of the Act. Depending on what figures you use, between 97 percent and 85 percent of New Zealand companies are actually small to medium sized companies, so the employers are exempt from this. That is about 60 percent of all workers. So what is the definition of “concluded”? Does this actually relate to all restructurings that are concluded going way back when, or does it relate to restructurings that were actually concluded or had started under the 2013 Act? Just a little bit of clarification there would be good.

I would also like to talk about clause 2(7) of new schedule 1AA because, again, it says: “Sections 80, 86, 90, 91, 93, and 94 … apply in relation to strikes and lockouts that commenced before, and continue on or after, the commencement of the 2013 Act …”. I suppose the concern I have about this schedule 1AA is that there is a mixture of retrospectivity and clauses that relate to once the Act had been passed. The inconsistency is, I think, going to make it very difficult for both employers and employees to get their heads round the meaning of this. What I do fear is that in a lot of the cases that are going to go before the Employment Court, these clauses are going to be interpreted through jurisprudence rather than through this legislation, and I think it could be a little bit clearer.

Let me talk about something else as well. Clause 2(1) of new schedule 1AA is called “Amendments to section 4 (Parties to employment relationship to deal with each other in good faith)”. We recognise this is part of the overarching principle under which industrial relations are undertaken. We talk about natural justice and the right of people to actually have the ability to defend themselves and have a fair trial. What this subclause says is: “Despite the amendments made to section 4 of this Act by section 4 of the 2013 Act, section 4 … continues to apply in relation to proposed decisions … (a) if the proposed decision was notified to the employee before the commencement of the 2013 Act; and (b) whether the final decision on that proposal was made before, on, or after the commencement of the 2013 Act.”

So how I am reading this is that if there is a case before the Employment Court at this point in time or when this bill passes into legislation, then you use the old piece of legislation. This is, again, where the confusion arises for me, because what we have here is whole lot of law around disclosure. To me, that sort of cuts to the heart of natural justice. What the new provisions in this legislation say is that an employer does not have to disclose information to an employee around any restructuring if the employer thinks that that may be privileged or may breach the privacy of the person who has applied for that information. So this is where this gets a little bit confusing for me. There are some parts to this schedule that are retrospective and some parts that are not retrospective, but—[Bell rung] Can I just elaborate on this a little bit further because I think it is quite important? Thank you for giving me the right to continue for another 5 minutes, because I think it is important.

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s by definition. You don’t need to say that.

STUART NASH: I think that that Minister over there, Simon Bridges, who was a Minister of Labour, has actually got off quite easily with his interjections. The reason that that former Minister is interjecting is that I have no doubt, he felt the heat and he needed to get out and jump into the positions of Minister of Energy and Resources and Minister of Transport.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Back—thank you.

STUART NASH: Sorry, I just had to respond to the former Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Do not respond to irrelevant interjections.

STUART NASH: I am sorry—sorry. I know the Minister is irrelevant.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you will find that there are in fact Speakers’ rulings that entitle a member to reply to interjections from another member regardless of whether they are relevant to the topic of the bill. I want an indication from you as to whether, in fact, you are changing those.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is right, but the fact that one member is disorderly and frivolous does not give another member the right to do the same, so it is a warning to both members.

STUART NASH: Sorry, I apologise for that. I should have known better and I should not respond to that member.

The thing that concerns me about what we have got here is that the reason that the Minister gave for the change in this legislation is that it created a whole lot of confusion. That was the reason for this change. There was one case in particular, and it was Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley and another, in 2010—in fact, one of the Chair’s former colleagues. There is a whole lot of case law around this. The reason why the Government said it needs to change the legislation is that it created a whole lot of confusion. The way I am reading this is that it does not get rid of the confusion; it just adds to the confusion. One thing that the regulatory impact statement did actually say is that the ministry was unsure of the impact of the old law, which will continue until new cases come on. So the ministry was basically putting up its hands and saying that there was no impact. I just think that this creates a whole lot of confusion because there is a lot of case law around this. I am just really concerned that what we are going to end up with is the courts determining what is relevant and what is not.

I would just like to mention one other point, and again, this is about clause 2(7) in new schedule 1AA. I talked about this subclause earlier, and I should have elaborated a little bit further. We have got paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 2(7), and they contradict each other. One, sublcause (7)(a) is actually saying: “the union or the employer (as the case may be) must give notice in accordance with this Act (as amended … ) on the commencement of the 2013 Act:”. Subclause (7)(b) says: “however, if a notice given by the union or the employer before the commencement of the 2013 Act—(i) complies fully with the notice … no further notice is required:”. Then subparagraph (ii) says that if the notice “complies [only] partly with the notice requirements of this Act … [then] those notice requirements are satisfied by the union or employer providing notice of the additional matters …”, and then the legislation does come into play.

So even one subparagraph above the other we get a whole lot of contradictory statements. My major concern about this is that it is going to provide a whole lot of confusion for the people who need to interpret this legislation, whether they are the employers, or the employers’ lawyers, or the employees, or the unions, or the delegates, or whoever takes the cases. There is a lot of confusion. That confusion will disappear over the space of 2 or 3 years, once the legislation beds in. I think what will happen—

Sue Moroney: They won’t get it right now though.

STUART NASH: I agree with that member, who was actually one of the architects of this. What is going to happen, I think, is that we are going to have cases in the Employment Court running in parallel. We are going to have cases in the Employment Court that are supposed to look at the old law and interpret it as per the conditions of the 2013 Act, and then we are going to have cases running in the Employment Court where they are having to look at the new law, and they are going to have to develop case law around that. So not only is the judiciary going to end up with a little bit of confusion—with all due respect to them, because they are intelligent people—but I just see a lot of confusion here.

The other more important thing is that I see a lot of cost as well. The cost of taking one of these cases to the Employment Court is actually quite substantial. Often the only people who end up taking these cases to the Employment Court are unions because the workers cannot afford the cost of it. Before this came in the legal precedents had taken away a lot of the ambiguity. What this does now, especially with the retrospective and current parts, is to add that ambiguity back. That makes the ability of the employee to take a grievance to court just that much more costly when the uncertainty arises, and I think it may just be a greater deterrent. So what I would like to see is actually a definitive answer around: is it going to be retrospective, or once this law is passed, will it just all happen?

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have no reluctance at all to accept the question. I do want to make a comment, and that is that what we had earlier was, I think, a very good example of some specific questions being asked, and answers. If that occurs and no new matters are brought up, then I am not at all reluctant to take the closure.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to schedule 1 and the following amendment in his name to schedule 1 be agreed to:

in the schedule 1 heading, replace “s 64” with “s 65”.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

SUE MORONEY (Labour): The debate now moves to the “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act” clauses. I want to point out at the start that normally during this part of the debate people are inclined to come up with witty titles that they think that the bill should be called, but this is such a serious issue and such a serious attack on workers’ rights in this country that I am not inclined to go anywhere near coming up with humorous titles for a bill that has no humour in it whatsoever. It is called the Employment Relations Amendment Act and to suggest that this is about improving employment relations I think is completely and utterly incorrect.

I noted in the Speech from the Throne earlier this week that the Prime Minister characterised this legislation as improving collective bargaining. Nothing could be further from the truth unless, of course, the people for whom it is improving bargaining happen to be some of the Prime Minister’s mates and the employers, or perhaps improving some of the Government’s interests in this, because it is going to be those people who have been paid wages from the Government who are going to be under the most attack most immediately. But, of course, after they have been attacked and after their wages and conditions have been suppressed, the Government is going to move on to many other groups of workers as well. Anyone, in fact, who has a collective employment agreement in place will be feeling the effects of this.

So there is that group of people, but then there is also the group of people who are not covered by a collective agreement at all—the people who probably do not belong to a union. They have much to fear from employment relations under this legislation because those people are the ones who will start missing out on their tea breaks, their lunch breaks, and their rest periods, and therefore will have a much less safe workplace because of it.

The commencement date in clause 2 is interesting, because what it says is that the Act comes into force 4 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. For those people who follow parliamentary debates, they will know that that is quite unusual. Normally an Act will come into force the day after it receives the Royal assent or shortly thereafter, and I would be interested to know from the Minister in the chair, Michael Woodhouse, why the period of 4 months has been named in this clause. As we have just finished discussing in the debate on Part 2 of the bill, actually the really dangerous insidious parts of this bill start before now—before we have even been debating it. That is, if people are engaged in collective bargaining already—it does not matter when they have initiated it—that very dangerous ability to not even have to come near concluding a collective bargaining agreement will start already. It has started now. The clock is already ticking on that very dangerous provision.

In that context, I am very much perplexed about why the commencement date is specifically 4 months after the date on which this legislation will receive the Royal assent, because, as I say, the most damaging part of this Act will already be in place and, in fact, is already in place before we have even concluded the debate. Four months after the date of the Royal assent—I have no idea when the Royal assent is going to be, but let us think about some of the collective agreements that are going to be affected by that. As I said before, we have got a number of them happening in the health sector. I note, in particular, that the primary health care one is coming up shortly. The primary health multi-employer collective agreement expired on 31 August 2014. This collective agreement covers about 3,000 health workers. They are people who—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is straying far away from the title and commencement clauses, and I ask that she either be brought back to the very narrow focus of these clauses or that we shut it down.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think that is a fair point of order. The member will come back.

SUE MORONEY: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, it has been ruled on.

SUE MORONEY: OK, it has been ruled on. Just so people can understand what the point is, the point is that this bargaining is actually already under way. This is about the commencement of this bill. The commencement title says it is going to come into force 4 months after the date. What I am pointing out here is that there is a whole lot of bargaining that is all under way that covers large numbers of workers. There are 3,000 under just this one multi-employer collective agreement. That bargaining commenced in September. The collective agreement expired on 31 August 2014. The commencement clause, clause 2, says that “This Act comes into force 4 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, but it is too bad, really, for those 3,000 workers. These are practice nurses, actually, and receptionists in doctors’ practices. It is too bad for them. The commencement date means nothing to them because Part 2, which we have already debated, means that they are going to be captured by it anyway, irrespective of the fact that there has been a 4-month lag time after the date of the Royal assent.

I would be very interested under that set of circumstances to know from the Minister why it is that there is a 4-month period. That is quite a specific amount of time that has been set aside. Are there transitional provisions that the Minister had in mind that the parties—the parties being employers, employees, and sometimes unions—would need to undertake in that 4 months before this Act kicks in? What was the thinking about the 4-month period? I would be very interested to know that.

The good thing, though, is that it does mean that there is going to be at least 4 months before anyone can have their right to a tea break or a lunch break taken away from them. So it will be at least 4 months when people, if they want to uplift their legal right to be safe at work, can do so. You have to go back to the days of Dickens to think about the idea that people might not get the right to have a tea break. The only thing that the 4-month period really saves now in this legislation is the right for all New Zealand workers—no matter what sort of workplace they work in—to actually have the right to a break.

I know that it is too late for some workers. I know that that period will be far too late. I heard yesterday after my speech in the House about the death of a forestry worker. It was reported to me that when the wage and time records of that forestry worker were looked at, they had gone days and days and days without a break. Is it any wonder, working in a dangerous environment like that—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is again addressing neither the title nor the commencement date. She has ignored your previous ruling.

Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order, I say there are two issues that I want to raise, the first of which is that the sole judge of relevancy is the Chair and it is, in fact, out of order to interrupt someone speaking, other than if you were the Chairperson of the Committee, and the second of which is that I draw your attention to Speakers’ ruling 115/1: “When debating the preliminary clauses at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” That is a longstanding provision in the Speakers’ rulings and, in fact, dates back to 2003 when it was decided by the Standing Orders Committee, which is a committee made up of all members of the House, and has been reinforced by two further Speakers.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Thank you, Mr Hipkins. That is a very fair contribution. I think both members have made good contributions. I think the key word is “summarise”. I think if we can do that, we will be OK. We cannot repeat.

SUE MORONEY: I think that the National members are now starting to squirm in their seats about the implications of this bill because the deaths of forestry workers and other workers in the primary sectors, actually, are utterly dependent on their ability to have safe procedures at work, and that does include the ability to have by right—not by negotiation—decent breaks at work. That is what National is going to deny them. That is actually what National is going to deny them. If workers have pressure put on them to negotiate away their right to these breaks, then that is exactly what will happen. We will end up with unsafe workplaces. It will not be, as the National members were trying to say before, because workers are stupid. It will not be for that reason at all. It will be because of the fact that 40 percent of our children who live in poverty are in families where there are wages being earned. When a worker is forced to choose between having a break at work or having a bit more in the pay packet, being able to feed the kids, being able to pay the rent, and being able to pay the mortgage, guess what? They have no choice, often, in that scenario.

This idea about freedom of choice that underpins this piece of legislation is utterly, utterly wrong. It was proven wrong in the 1990s by Bill Birch, who used exactly the same arguments. He used exactly the same arguments—freedom of choice, he said. It was freedom of choice to stop getting penal rates for working Saturdays, Sundays, and long hours. That is the freedom of choice that happened in the 1990s. Exactly that same freedom of choice is going to happen when it comes down to people’s meal breaks and when it comes down to their ability to have a rest period at work. That is exactly what is going to happen in some workplaces. I am going to qualify that statement by saying it is only in some workplaces, but that is why we have these sorts of laws.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the question be now put.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I am going to talk to the title of the bill. The title of the bill is, I think, a misnomer. The Act is going to be called the Employment Relations Amendment Act. That is what it is going to be called—the Employment Relations Amendment Act. Actually, I do not think that describes the content of this bill at all. Like the previous speaker, Sue Moroney, I do not think it is terribly funny either. I am going to try to make some points based on the title of this bill.

I guess we could call it the “Undermining Employment Relations Bill”, because that is what it does. It basically sets up a situation where employers are much more advantaged over workers, where the employment relationship can and will become even more stressful. This bill does not give any signal to employers that this is the type of environment where they should be investing in their workers, where they should be providing good relationships, where they should be providing good conditions, or where they should be ensuring that workers can speak up at work and take an active part in the planning of their work, and basically have some democracy on the worksite. This bill is not going to do that, so let us call it the “Undermining Employment Relations Bill”.

We could also call it the “Undermining Every Piece of Health and Safety Legislation There Ever is to be Bill”, because this is what the bill will do. It will undermine the legislation that this House is looking at around health and safety. It will do that in two ways. It will do that through removing the right for a worker to have a tea break or a rest break. We have heard examples from other speakers of people who have worked continuously—hour after hour after hour, day after day after day—in dangerous and isolated working conditions, who needed a break. They absolutely needed a break. And because they do not get breaks because they are required to work all the hours of the day and night, these are the people who are being harmed at work or who are not coming home from work at all.

The second way that this bill undermines all our health and safety legislation and the reason why it should be called the “Undermining Health and Safety in Legislation Bill”—

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.