Tuesday, 31 March 2015

TUESDAY, 31 MARCH 2015

TUESDAY, 31 MARCH 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Support for Families

1. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What policy measures has the Government announced that will help to distribute dividends from the growing economy to New Zealand families and children?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): A number of measures will come into place on 1 April that will help families and children. Paid parental leave will increase by 2 weeks to 16 weeks and by another 2 weeks from 1 April next year. The parental tax credit will rise from $150 a week to $220 a week. The entitlement will increase from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. The Government’s HomeStart scheme will begin, and this is likely to help around 90,000 Kiwis into their first home over the next 5 years. Average ACC work levies paid by employers and the self-employed will fall from 95c to 90c per $100. And New Zealand superannuation will increase by another 2 percent, meaning that it has increased by 31 percent since April 2008, more than double the rate of inflation in that time. These things are possible because we have a stronger economy, we have resilient New Zealanders, and we have a Government that is managing its finances.

Andrew Bayly: Following the policy changes on 1 April, what other Government measures will take effect in the next few months that will benefit families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some of these changes are just the normal changes you would expect in an economy that is going somewhere. The annual cost of living adjustment for all benefit rates and student allowances will, of course, occur. The adult minimum wage will rise from $14.25 an hour to $14.75 an hour, an increase in the last 12 months of 3.5 percent, which is not bad, given that inflation today is around zero. Further, there will be other policies coming into effect from 1 July, including children under 13 having access to free GP visits, and the ACC levy for private motor vehicles will fall by around $130 a year—a very significant decrease in the cost of registering a car. Again, these policies are possible—a 3.5 percent increase in the minimum wage—because our economy is showing it can grow in a sustainable way.

Andrew Bayly: What reports has he received about how the growing economy is further helping families to get ahead?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a number of reports that confirm that we are in a phase of sustainable growth—that is, growth that generates moderate but consistent benefits for families. A number of them I have listed, but there are others. Eighty thousand new jobs have been created across New Zealand in the last 12 months, and labour market participation is at a record 69.7 percent—that is, more Kiwis have confidence in getting a job than has ever been the case before. Average weekly wages rose 2.5 percent in the calendar year 2014, during which time inflation was less than 1 percent, and mortgage interest rates are staying lower for longer, assisting families with their cash flow.

Andrew Bayly: According to the official statistics, how do latest average wage increases compare with inflation, and how does this compare with historical movements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The survey used by all Governments to set national superannuation rates shows average weekly wages rose 2.5 percent in the 12 months to 31 December. Annual inflation in that period was 0.8 percent. In the last 5 years average wages have increased by 15 percent and they are forecast to keep rising moderately and faster than the cost of living. This is contrasted with the position that we inherited from the previous Government, where wages were barely keeping pace with consumer price inflation of 5 percent per year, at a time when first mortgage rates were over 10 percent.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave for a bill extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks to be introduced and debated next members’ day—because it would win now.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular bill. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is.

Prime Minister—Northland By-election

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “there’s a message from Northland” for the Government; if so, will the Government take that message seriously?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; and yes.

Andrew Little: Does he accept that one of the messages Northland sent was that his Government should have invested in roads while it had the chance rather than slashing funding by $36 million and resorting to last-minute bribes worked out on the back of Steven Joyce’s envelope?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, one of the feedbacks we got in Northland was that people there were delighted we were spending almost twice as much on roads as the previous Labour Government, which completely ignored the region of Northland.

Andrew Little: Has he received the message that funding an election bribe with $70 million of taxpayers’ money, without any proper cost-benefit analysis, displayed an irresponsible attitude to the public purse?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, one of the strong messages we got in Northland was that they do want an upgrade to their bridges, and, actually, spending an additional $69 million over 6 years makes sense, given that we are spending about $135 million to $140 million per year. But if we do want to get into the matter of the costing of election promises, I am more than happy to get Treasury to run the ruler over Labour’s policies, which were “a dog”.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the National Business Review that one of the messages from the Northland by-election is that “The Government is biddable, highly biddable, and, to be blunt, a bit weak.”; and is that reflected in his dealings with Skycity, Rio Tinto, and Warner Bros?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but what it does reflect, actually, is that this is a Government in touch with New Zealanders, because if the member is saying that—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, we should go and have that discussion with the people of Southland and Invercargill, where Rio Tinto backs up 3,000 jobs, so under Labour, they are gone. We should speak to the people who work in the film sector in New Zealand, who actually physically went out and campaigned, who went out there and protested for this Government to clarify the definition of a contractor. The whole way through, Labour members were Hobbit-haters until the premiere came round and then they all turned up in droves.

Andrew Little: Is he aware that it is not only Northland that has seen its road funding slashed under National—in fact, Northland, Gisborne, Hawkes Bay, Taranaki and State Highway 3, Manawatū-Whanganui, Marlborough, Nelson-Tasman, and the West Coast now get a total of $100 million a year less to maintain and improve their roads than they did when this Government came to power?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite incorrect. The only thing that got eroded was the Labour Party’s vote in Northland, which fell by two-thirds—the first outing under Andrew Little and he got done.

Andrew Little: In light of the result in Northland, is he aware of demands in other National-held seats that their MPs resign too, because it is the only way this Government will ever fix their roads?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I find it interesting, actually, that the Labour Party all of a sudden thinks that National does not spend enough on roads. We have had roads of national significance, roads of regional significance—there has been more money spent on roads under this Government, I am pretty sure, than under Labour over a very long period of time, which were all resisted by Labour, I might add. So, if it is a debate over roading, we win.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Reduction Target and Emissions Trading Scheme

3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he submit an emissions reduction target to the UN by the 31 March deadline; and does he stand by his statement that New Zealand’s net emissions are projected to increase 48 percent in the next decade?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: We will be submitting a target for beyond 2020 well prior to the Paris conference in December, but the member is incorrect in claiming there is a 31 March deadline. Only four of the nearly 200 parties to the climate change convention have so far submitted a target. The 48 percent increase quoted in net emissions is notional and not real because it assumes that when forests are harvested, all the carbon dioxide is released as though the wood was immediately burned. This, as the Minister pointed out at the time, is not a true figure but an accounting anomaly that we are seeking to change through better rules in the negotiations.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he disputing the projections produced by an official report from the Ministry for the Environment that show that New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 48 percent over the next decade under current policy settings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I said in answering the primary question, and as the Minister has pointed out, that is based on a set of rules that assume that when a tree is cut down—and New Zealand has very large areas of forest that were planted in the early 1990s that are due to be harvested in the next decade—the moment those trees are cut down the carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. That is a scientific nonsense. That is not what actually happens, and that is why this member, quoting that 48 percent and implying that it results in a big increase in New Zealand’s actual emissions, is incorrect.

Dr Russel Norman: So does the Minister disagree with the Forest Owners Association president, Paul Nicholls, who said last month that the emissions trading scheme had been watered down so much that in each of the last 2 years about 10,000 hectares were deforested as a result of the Government’s policy settings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When this Government came to office it took a very balanced decision that the full cost of the emissions trading scheme on consumers and on business when the global financial crisis hit was too large a cost, and so implemented a more moderate emissions trading scheme. I think that was a very sensible response. It actually has New Zealand doing significantly more than most other countries, in that we are actually the only country outside of Europe to have an emissions trading scheme. My view is that our response has been balanced. I note that New Zealand’s gross emissions are less than when we became the Government, and they actually increased substantially when the Green Party supported the previous Labour administration.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister accept that the weakening of the emissions trading scheme that the Minister just described has resulted in reducing the price of carbon to pretty close to zero, and that is one of the key reasons why New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 20 percent under this Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, and the member’s question shows he does not actually understand the emissions trading scheme. You see, the reason the carbon price has been so low is that New Zealand emitters have had access to very cheap international units arising from the global financial crisis. But that was only true until 1 January this year. I note that the current carbon price is about $4.50, and that current emissions emitters no longer have access to those international units. That actually means the emissions trading scheme has a far higher effective price.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister commit to matching the recently announced European climate target of 28 countries—part of the European Union—that they will be reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are a number of significant differences with Europe. The first is that its economies have done very poorly and, unlike New Zealand, are not growing. We on this side of the House are actually for growing the economy and for growing jobs. That is not occurring in Europe, and we do not want to match its example. The second is that the population in Europe is in decline, and because New Zealand is now so popular—is doing so well—we actually have our population increasing, and that makes us different. The third element that makes us different is that New Zealand has a phenomenally high level of renewables. In fact, it has increased from 65 percent to 80 percent, unlike Europe, which has about 15 percent. And so because we have a far higher proportion of renewables, and our biggest portion of emissions is actually from agriculture, we are in a very different position to those European countries. We do intend to pose a target. It will be a responsible target, but one that does not ruin the New Zealand economy.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister accept the basic economic logic that a lower price on carbon will result in higher net greenhouse gas emissions, and, hence, the Government’s policy of having a lower price on carbon is the reason why our net greenhouse gas emissions have increased so dramatically?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let us get the facts clear. Current gross emissions—gross emissions, not including the forestry—have come down by 3 percent since this party has been in Government. Let me compare that with the previous Labour administration, when greenhouse gas emissions grew by 8 percent. So, actually, emissions have come down. The member is absolutely true—that is, the higher the price of carbon, the greater incentive there is to reduce emissions. There is an honest trade-off to have between the cost of living and the cost of the economy and how much we want to reduce emissions. We are of a view on this side of the House, post the global financial crisis, that we need to take a cautious view on putting further New Zealanders out of work and putting extra costs on New Zealand households.

Dr Russel Norman: So does he accept that the reason the Government has struggled so far to come up with an emissions reduction target is because the Government spent 6 years implementing policy that has resulted in increased net greenhouse gas emissions of 20 percent so far, and a further 48 percent under the Government’s own projections?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We came into Government with a commitment that we would meet our Kyoto Protocol obligations. That member said we never would. We have, and we have done some. This Government set a target of a 5 percent reduction in emissions by 2020. Advice from the Ministry for the Environment officials is that we are on target to achieve that. The member keeps confusing net emissions with gross emissions, and Kyoto rules with the Framework Convention on Climate Change rules, to try to paint New Zealand in the worst possible picture. I invite him to actually look at results—look at results—like the fact that the level of renewable electricity in New Zealand has never been as high for 20 years, with figures last week showing it has reached 80 percent.

Roading, Northland—Bridges Upgrade

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Transport: What are the construction start and end dates for each of the 10 bridges the Government has announced it will upgrade in Northland?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The Government has committed to investing between $32 million and $69 million to replace 10 single-lane bridges with modern two-lane bridges on Northland’s twin coast highway over the next 6 years. The first of these bridges likely to be modernised are Kaeō, Taipā, and Matakohe bridges. Preliminary work on these will begin and construction will start once all design and consenting issues are completed. I would expect the balance of the projects to follow a similar process, which could be sped up if the member’s party supported our Resource Management Act changes.

Phil Twyford: When will the last of the bridges be completed: 2030, 2040, or 2050?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We are far more ambitious than the Labour Opposition. Our intention is that they will be completed in the 6-year period as stated.

Phil Twyford: How does he intend to pay for the bridges, given that the New Zealand Transport Agency says that the bridges will not even be considered for funding until the 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme and that they will need to pass the benefit-cost test like any other project?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member needs to upgrade his contacts inside the New Zealand Transport Agency to get to a better level so he gets better information. Four of the bridges are already in the regional land transport plan, and the balance will be considered as we move along. Might I say that this Government has a very proud and strong track record of making funding available for regional projects outside of the National Land Transport Fund.

Phil Twyford: Does he stand by the statement of the Minister for Economic Development that “the Northland people were very, very enthusiastic about these projects.”; if so, how does he square that with the fact that 74 percent of people in Northland said they thought it was a bribe?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member cannot come into the House and give just half a story around a TV3 poll, because an overwhelming majority of people in that poll, although they may have expressed that view, said that they thought it was a good idea.

Phil Twyford: When he knocked back funding for the proposed Wellington Airport runway extension this morning because of the lack of a comprehensive business case, was he advised that doing so would make him look foolish, having approved 10 new bridges without one?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It may come as a surprise to Mr Twyford that an airport runway is not a road.

HomeStart Grants—Eligibility

5. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: How many families is the Government budgeting to benefit from the new HomeStart programme and how will prospective homeowners be able to find out their eligibility?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The Government has budgeted $435 million for HomeStart grants over the next 5 years, in which we expect 90,000 first-home buyers to access the extra support of up to $20,000 to buy a new home. The grant entitlement rules do vary according to a person’s income, the house price by region, and the number of years that they have contributed to KiwiSaver. Housing New Zealand tomorrow will be launching a new website and information campaign to highlight the scheme and to encourage uptake.

Alfred Ngaro: What deposit would an average family earning the average wage, with no other savings, be able to access in a higher-cost housing market like Auckland, and what other support does the Government have available to help them secure a mortgage?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new HomeStart would mean that a typical Auckland couple each earning $50,000 per year, and who have been in KiwiSaver for 5 years would be able to withdraw $35,000. This is a greater amount because of the legislation we passed last week that enables them to withdraw their Government contribution, the employer contribution, as well as their own savings. They will also be eligible tomorrow for a new HomeStart grant of $20,000 for a new home, giving them a total deposit of $55,000 with no other savings. Tomorrow we are also changing the eligibility rules for the Welcome Home Loan, so this same couple will be able to purchase a home with a 10 percent deposit and a Government guarantee on a house up to a value of $550,000.

Phil Twyford: Is he aware that his own figures show that only an additional 40,000 people will be eligible, and that the $212 million budget that he is gloating about means a miserable $2,000, on average, for each prospective homeowner under this policy, and with Auckland house prices rising at $1,700 a week, what is he going to do when 8 days of house price inflation wipes out his policy and he is back at square one?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, I would note that house price inflation under this Government has been significantly lower than what it was under Labour. During 1999 to 2008 house prices more than doubled. They went up by more than 28 percent in a single year. What we know is that the Government does not control house prices. What it can do is help young families pool together a deposit for a home, and, as a consequence of our policy, tomorrow there will be up to 90,000 families over the next 5 years who will get a grant of up to $20,000, and I think that is great news.

Marama Fox: What changes has the Government made to the scheme in response to concerns from the Māori Party that access to KiwiSaver savings and Government support has not been available to homes on Māori land?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The KiwiSaver Act 2006 did discriminate against access to KiwiSaver funds and grants if a person was buying a house on multiple-owned Māori land. This issue was raised by the Māori Party with the Government during the policy development of Homestart. We believed it was an error by the previous Government and should be corrected. That is why we, with the Māori Party, passed a change in the law last week that will enable young Māori families to access both the withdrawal and the Homestart grants for multiple-owned Māori land in the same way that every other New Zealander has access to these schemes.

Resource Management Act Reforms—Commentary

6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he still believe that affordable housing, natural hazards, infrastructure development, economic growth, jobs and exports needed recognition in the Resource Management Act 1991?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, but politics is the art of the possible. Ministers and officials have been working on detailed options for reforms. Discussions with the Government’s support parties will determine the final Resource Management Amendment Bill that the Government is proposing.

Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with the ACT Party’s Northland candidate, Robin Grieve, that the Resource Management Act needs to be reformed because of Māori zealots using the Resource Management Act and voodoo wāhi tapu to delay repairs to a major slip on State Highway 1 in Northland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, this Government does believe that the Resource Management Act does need change and that there are houses—for instance, the Resource Management Act is the principal law by which we can get sections. I am not familiar with the specific example that the member quotes in Northland, but I would welcome the support of that member and of all parties for sensible reform of the Resource Management Act.

Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table the transcript of a tweet from earlier today—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that information is freely available to members.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Levies

7. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for ACC: What changes to ACC levies come into effect on 1 April, and what impact will these changes have on New Zealand businesses and families?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): Tomorrow the first of a series of Government ACC levy cuts will happen, returning an estimated $480 million to the New Zealand economy. From 1 April 2015—tomorrow—the work account levy paid by businesses will decrease by an average of 5 percent. This will return money to hard-working businesses and self-employed people. All up, New Zealanders will be better off by around $480 million through ACC levy cuts in 2015-16. This will mean around $1.5 billion in ACC levy cuts will have been returned to New Zealanders since 2012.

Sarah Dowie: What other levy reductions come into effect this year?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: From 1 July 2015 the motor vehicle levy paid by people who renew their registration will go down by an average of 41 percent, saving the average car owner around $130 a year. Specific amounts will be determined by a new risk rating applied to different types of vehicles. That is about recognising that some vehicles are safer than others. On top of that, the petrol levy Kiwis pay at the pump will also go down by 3c per litre on 1 July. This National-led Government’s good fiscal management means more Kiwis will be getting levy reductions.

Sarah Dowie: What reports has the Minister seen about the impacts of these levy reductions on small businesses?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have seen a report from ACC that shows an example of a small-business owner who earns $67,000 a year, employs three staff, and owns two vehicles, and who could be paying about $350 less in levies this year. I am pleased that ACC’s strong financial performance means that Kiwis will now see around $480 million in levy reductions flowing back into the New Zealand economy this year.

Sue Moroney: Why is there no cut to ACC levies for workers tomorrow, given the account they pay into reached 130 percent of full funding in December last year, and why is the levy for businesses substantially higher than the levy decrease recommended by ACC, given that the account they pay into reached 140 percent of full funding required in December last year?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: With regard to the second part of that question, the member constantly gets her figures wrong. As I have said, if you look at the report that was produced, it does not take into account gradual process. So the 140 percent that she is quoting does not take into account gradual process, and that brings the solvency of the accounts down massively.

Regional Economies—Northland

8. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when he says of the people of Northland: “They want more. They want to go faster”; if so, does he believe that this view on economic growth is unique to the people of Northland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I do agree with the Prime Minister. In fact, I told Q+A on the weekend that “There’s an impatience in Northland to do more and, frankly, I share that impatience.” Although we have had some positive economic growth and employment growth in the Northland region in recent times, we recognise there is much more to be done, and that is why we are fast-tracking critical infrastructure like regional roading projects, the roads of national significance, and ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband. That is why we are working with other parties to reform the Resource Management Act to cut red tape and encourage investment in the region.

Dr David Clark: Did he use the same calculator to work out the benefits of bridges that he used to calculate the Skycity deal, the Chorus bailout, and the likelihood of electoral success in Northland; if so, will he be returning it to the Crosby/Textor concept—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not in order.

Dr David Clark: In terms of going faster, then, how much time will the double-laning of bridges save the average Northlander on their way to the polling booth in 2017?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member can make light of that if he wishes, but, actually, there is a number of reasons why those projects were a good idea. One is the longstanding safety issues. Secondly, one of the key industries in Northland is tourism. Another one is forestry and another one is the dairy industry, and those single-lane bridges do cause both safety risks and resilience risks. I think this Government is very proud that we are making investments in roading in Northland.

Dr David Clark: Is he planning to take his successful “everyone gets a bridge” policy nationwide, since it seems to be his only idea for growing regional economies?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Unfortunately for Dr Clark, who is obviously not paying attention, we are actually delivering the double-laning of bridges nationwide. In fact, I recall soon after we came into office doing the Kōpū Bridge to the Coromandel. We have done the Kurow bridges in Otago. We are doing bridges on the West Coast of the South Island. We are doing bridges all over the country as well as roads of national significance. Actually, this Government has invested more in New Zealand’s roading network than virtually any other Government.

Rt Hon John Key: Has the Minister seen any reports of falling numbers—numbers that would indicate in 2008 they may be 38 percent, in 2011 they may be about 28 percent, in—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility there.

Dr David Clark: Does he expect that his attempts in recent weeks to address several years of economic neglect in Northland will lead to improved employment outcomes, especially given recent reports that at least one well-paid job as National Party’s campaign manager is now up for grabs?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, there is no ministerial responsibility for that.

Oil and Gas Exploration—2015 Block Offer

9. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Can he rule out exploration for oil and gas in the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: There are two large exploration permits in the marine mammal sanctuary on the west coast of the North Island. These permits were granted in 2002 and 2007 by the previous Government, supported by the Green Party. In addition, the giant Pohokura gasfield, which provides 40 percent of New Zealand’s natural gas, is in the sanctuary. The activities coexist with the inhabitants of the sanctuary and there is no evidence to the contrary. So no, I cannot.

Gareth Hughes: Why did the Minister just yesterday offer block 17E38 in Taranaki for oil and gas exploration where a Māui’s dolphin was literally sighted and the sighting was confirmed, knowing that the potential for an oil spill in a seismic survey and test can have devastating impacts on the last 55 Māui’s dolphins?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government commissioned in 2002 a report from experts looking at the issues that might exist between Māui’s dolphins and the oil and gas development of this area. What it concluded is that the oil and gas exploration creates a very, very small possibility of damage to a Māui’s dolphin. Their greatest threat comes from the set-netting, and that is why the Government increased the area inside the sanctuary that is free of set nets to about 100,000 square kilometres per Māui’s dolphin.

Gareth Hughes: When the Minister signed off oil blocks in water deeper than 3.8 kilometres, was he aware of data from the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement that shows the deeper you drill, the greater the risks of a spill?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Of course we keep up with data provided by other areas of exploration, but we also, of course, have our own environmental standards, and we have been progressively making those standards part of the application that people have to make when they bid for a block that is up for offer.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table a summary of spills of 50 barrels and greater from platforms and rigs from the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which shows that one in 19 wells—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. On the basis that it might not be easy for members to source, I will put the leave. It is a summary document. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.

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

Gareth Hughes: Why was the public given no opportunity to be consulted on block offer 2015, and was it because the Minister knew that Kiwis would not support drilling in the Māui sanctuary, would not support drilling in the albatross and blue-eyed penguin sanctuary, or in the pristine Victoria Forest Park?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the member is being a little disingenuous by making such a bold claim. The reality is that he appears to be saying that if Labour and the Greens do it, it is OK; if National does it, it is not. The reality is that it was the National Party that put in place the Environmental Protection Authority. It was the National Party that brought in the exclusive economic zone legislation. It was the National Party that brought in the standards around the requirements for anybody who is prospecting to meet environmental standards. So we are very, very confident that our record is a strong one. In the end, this is a huge export earner for New Zealand—our fourth biggest—and it brings in royalties of some $700 million a year. If the Green Party wants to do away with all of that and also shut down the Pohokura gasfield, which provides 40 percent of all the gas used in New Zealand for home heating and for jobs, factories, etc., then good luck.

Environment, Minister—Resource Management Act Reforms

10. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the Prime Minister regarding Government proposals to amend sections 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act 1991 that “there’s just no question that you’ve got to rip up what we’ve got now”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes. The Māori Party and United Future have made plain they do not support the Government’s 2014 proposals for changes to sections 6 and 7. I have been working with Ministers and officials on possible alternatives. Cabinet has made no decisions, and will not do so until we have properly consulted with the Government’s support parties.

Dr Megan Woods: How do his proposed amendments that the Prime Minister is going to rip up differ from the radical reforms of the former Minister, which the Prime Minister ripped up in 2014?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member will have to wait and see. As I said in my previous answer, we have got discussions to have with the Māori Party, with the ACT Party, and with United Future. When we have an agreement about a bill to introduce to the House, I will welcome the member’s input and support.

Dr Megan Woods: Will he finally back down from gutting the core principles of the Resource Management Act, given the Property Council’s Chief Executive, Connal Townsend, has today said that the council does not see these changes as critical?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has never proposed gutting the Resource Management Act. That is the sort of rhetoric that we get from Labour. I have a simple challenge for the member. Is it not time Labour stated what its policy is on the Resource Management Act, so that we might be able to have an intelligent discussion?

Dr Megan Woods: Is his willingness to abandon his radical changes to sections 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act evidence that the so-called reforms were never about housing, but are a smokescreen to gut the core environmental protections of the Resource Management Act?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Any analysis of housing prices shows that the biggest increase in cost has been in the price of a section. It is the Resource Management Act that governs the creation of sections. So if any member of this House is serious about improving affordability of housing, they will support this Government in wanting to reform the Resource Management Act so that we can have more affordable housing.

Prime Minister—Northland By-election

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is Tracy Watkins’ Dominion Post comment correct: “At a kiwifruit picking plant in Kerikeri, Key admitted the campaign team decided against rolling out further spending promises, after the initial reaction to its announcement on one-way bridges.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, as he said, the Government would unveil these promises after the by-election, will he now categorise precisely what these promises are, now that the by-election—thank heavens—is over?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member should know Northland well enough to know what the priorities are that the Government is going to announce.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question did not concern priorities; it concerned the promises. An entirely different word.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! My difficulty, and I am going to give the member a chance to rephrase his question, is that there was quite a lot of lead-up to the question. If I can have a simple question, then I will try to assist the member to get an answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: As Tracy Watkins referred to, spending promises—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have the supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, you’ll get it. Don’t worry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I am trying to assist the member to get an answer. To assist me to help the member get an answer, I need a short, sharp supplementary question that is in line with the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: For your benefit, Mr Speaker, if, as he said, the Government would unveil these promises after the by-election, will he now categorise precisely what these promises are, now that the by-election is—thank heavens—over?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In the fullness of time the Government will have more announcements to make in Northland.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Government put into these further intended promises the same amount of policy planning, analysis, and costing as it put into—

Hon Steven Joyce: You’re already arguing against the roads.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, I would not have thought you would be speaking here.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just carry on with the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —the 10 one-lane bridges and faster broadband for Northland roll-out announcements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The announcements made during the course of the campaign, and in earlier times, actually, are for the benefit of the people of Northland. I am surprised that the member, now that he has won the right to represent them, does not actually want to be advocating for more two-lane bridges, does not want to advocate for more ultra-fast broadband—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You sit down; I am not finished.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Sit down.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There’s a good lad. Sit down. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking precisely—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is going to raise a point of order arguing now that the question has not been addressed, then I am saying that it has been. Again, I advise the member, if he wants to make progress—[Interruption] Would the member please resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. If the member wants to make progress, he is better to tighten his supplementary questions.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I had not finished my answer. I would like the opportunity to finish it. That was not a point of order, and he interrupted me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was precisely—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with that. If it is a fresh point of order, I will hear it, but if the member is going to trifle with the Chair—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! I have a very good mind to ask the member to leave the Chamber now. When I stand to my feet, the member resumes his seat. I have addressed the point of order as to whether that answer addressed the question. That is the end of that matter. I invite the member, if has got a fresh point of order, to raise it, but if he is simply going to relitigate a ruling I have made, that will lead to disorder.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A point of clarification, then. When an answer comes back that the member for Northland does not support the policy promises, how can that possibly be the answer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Speaking to the point of order, I did not say that. I said that if the member does not support these priorities, and was going through the list of things that actually are required in Northland, which I would have thought the member wanted to advocate for, I am more than happy to talk about the Government’s agenda in Northland—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now this is no longer a point of order. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, surprisingly, I do. Did the Government put in the same amount of policy planning, analysis, and costing behind the further intended promises as it put into the Government-financed cell tower installation and the Pūhoi to Wellsford superhighway promise?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If one looks, firstly, at Pūhoi to Wellsford, it was already well and truly announced. Again, I am surprised that the member, given that he has taken a month off to be in Northland, does not actually recognise how important that arterial route is. If the member is serious about being the member for Northland, then the member will have to get to a point where he actually understands what he is going to need to work on. He clearly does not understand that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How will the people of Northland, in his words, “go faster” and be better served in respect of either business or tourism when Air New Zealand closes next month the Auckland to Kaitāia service as well as the direct Whangarei to Wellington service?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In the case of Kaitāia, obviously it is disappointing, but what Air New Zealand is doing is actually replacing that service with 50-seat aircraft that will fly into Kerikeri far more regularly. The member probably knows the number of flights that Air New Zealand has from Auckland to Kerikeri every day. If he does not, I am more than happy to give him a briefing on that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What, with precision, are the costings for, first, the 10 bridges; second, the Warkworth to Wellsford superhighway extension; third, the faster broadband roll-out in Northland; and, fourth, the taxpayer-funded cell tower installations in Northland?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sorry, I did not hear the first part of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to ask the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What, with precision, are the costings for, first, the 10 bridges; second, the Warkworth to Wellsford superhighway extension; third, the faster broadband roll-out in Northland; and, fourth, the taxpayer-funded cell tower installations in Northland?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, some of those tenders are not in, but it does sound like a busy list of things here from the Government. But I am sure that it is cheaper than what it cost to stay at the Eagles Nest.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will he, as Prime Minister, support me, as the member for Northland, to address responses to one of the most serious and most abhorrent issues facing Northland—that of sexual violence?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, the member makes an excellent point—an excellent point—which is that he wants to work constructively on issues that will support Northland. If that is what the member is saying to me today, well, I can say, as Prime Minister, that I am more than happy to work with him on those. I look forward to him supporting the Ngāpuhi settlement and the legislation that will go through there. I look forward to the member working constructively in areas like Resource Management Act reform so we can see more investment going into Auckland. I look forward to the member’s party voting for the Korea - New Zealand free trade agreement—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the answer is now getting too long.

Business Growth Agenda—Export Markets and ACC Levies

12. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for Small Business: How are small businesses benefiting from the export markets initiatives in the Business Growth Agenda?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Small and medium businesses that are export focused are benefiting from the Business Growth Agenda, which is helping to create a more competitive and productive economic environment. The export market strand in the Business Growth Agenda is assisting small businesses in a number of ways, such as improving access to international markets through free-trade agreements, such as the recently signed Korea - New Zealand free-trade agreement, and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is helping internationally focused small businesses succeed in overseas markets. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise works hard with 3,500 companies, focusing intensively on 700 of those. These initiatives and many others show how this Government is supporting and growing export markets and opportunities for New Zealand small businesses.

Joanne Hayes: What reports has the Minister seen on export growth for small and medium businesses?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen a number of reports that show that exporting opportunities for small and medium businesses are continuing to grow. The 2014 Statistics New Zealand Business Operations Survey released this month shows that the number of small businesses engaged in export sales has increased—

Dr David Clark: Why are there fewer small businesses under National?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: —listen carefully to this—from 13 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2014. For medium-sized businesses engaged in export sales, this has increased from 21 percent in 2007 to over 28 percent in 2014. This export growth of our small and medium sized enterprises is leading to more revenue, higher profits, growth, and more jobs for New Zealanders.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he stand by the statement made on the business.govt website that “No business should pay more than it needs to for insurance cover,”; if so, why does he not accept the advice from ACC itself that currently businesses are paying too much for their insurance cover?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I welcome the member’s patsy once again—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Just rise and answer the question.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: A pleasure. Small and medium sized businesses are already benefiting or are about to benefit from a locked in $1.5 billion reduction in ACC levies, as we have heard from me in response to many questions—17 questions on this matter, I believe—from the Opposition, as well as in what the Minister for ACC just recently said. Cash flow considerations for small and medium enterprises such as insurance and taxation are essential, and the last thing that they need is complex new taxes that will negatively impact upon their cash flows.

Joanne Hayes: What would negatively impact export growth among small and medium businesses?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Small and medium businesses are experiencing increased export growth. They need certainty as they look to grow further and grow their export opportunities. Small and medium sized businesses do not want uncertainty on whether existing free-trade agreements or new free-trade agreements are supported or not. They do not want uncertainty as to whether new and complex new taxes would be thrown on to them. They do not want uncertainty, as they look to explore export growth, as to whether they can employ new Kiwis and more workers under the 90-day trial as they look to expand export growth. The statistics that I mentioned earlier show that the trade policies of this Government are very good for New Zealand’s small businesses.

Bills

Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Debate resumed from 25 March.

Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 (continued)

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I think that at this time it would be appropriate for me, as the sponsor of the bill, to set out the substantive changes that are being proposed by the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 65 and also to address some of the issues that have already been raised by members, both at the commencement of the Committee stage and also in the second reading debate—questions, actually, much more measured in the Committee stage—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Mr Bennett—if the member can resume his seat or sit beside the member he is talking to. It is quite rude to talk like that with your back to the Minister who is speaking.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Also, I will address some of the issues that were raised in a much more measured fashion, I think, at the Committee stage than they were at the second reading, where things got rather emotive. I just want to put some of those comments in context. It is a disappointment to me that parties such as Labour and the Greens—I should just record—that understand the importance of protecting—

Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We cannot hear the Minister because the microphones do not seem to be working.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will do my best to speak into the microphone. I will just raise it. Clearly, I was too tall for it.

It is disappointing to me, I have to say, that Labour and the Greens are not supporting this bill, because I know that they support the notion behind it—that is, that those who are being ill-treated, who are those legally able to work in New Zealand who are being exploited by their employers, should be protected, and that those who are perpetrating those sorts of misdemeanours should be subject to a much heavier sanctions regime, which is the primary purpose of this bill. It does sadden me that Labour and the Greens will not support that because of their concerns around some of the search powers. That seems to me to be the essence of their concern—

Sue Moroney: No, it’s not.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: They were concerns that were addressed in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I will be very happy then if that is not the only concern, but I know that has been raised by both Labour and the Greens. The legislation has passed comfortably the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that is required to be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, but I hold out hope that through this Committee stage I am able to put at ease some of the concerns that the Opposition members have, and to support this bill, because I know they support the goal.

In respect of the Supplementary Order Paper, we are introducing a new offence. At the moment there is almost a binomial offence of the exploitation of a worker on a temporary visa, regardless of the employer’s knowledge of their immigration status. It has been drawn to my attention that there could be a defence of ignorance, and so what we are doing is saying that there should be another infraction, which is that if the employer is reckless as to the immigration status of the employee, that in itself will be an offence. It still has some very severe punishments in it: up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. The Supplementary Order Paper also makes some changes to the bill to align judicial review and appeal pathways to provide consistency between the two pathways, and it clarifies that an application for leave to the High Court, firstly, must be brought no later than 28 days after notification of the tribunal’s decision and, secondly, requires leave to be sought before a party can appeal to the Court of Appeal. It also amends section 64 to clarify that when a new visa is issued to a person whose visa is cancelled under the new cancellation provision of the bill, the new visa does not cancel the person’s liability for deportation.

A subsequent amendment, which I will acknowledge Mr Seymour on, is in respect of entry and search powers under new section 277A, inserted by clause 61. This is an amendment that has given some members some anxiety, and in respect of Mr Seymour’s interventions the Government has agreed to do two things. Firstly, through the tabled amendment, it will require the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to review the exercise of the entry and search powers under that section within 3 years and to report to the Minister of Immigration on whether any amendments should be made to the Act concerning those powers. So, often a review provision is brought into a piece of legislation if there are concerns about how it might be used. But, in addition, the amendment will require that the ministry will report to Parliament annually on the use of the entry and search powers under new section 277A.

I want to move to the three questions that were asked by Mr Lees-Galloway in his initial intervention in the Committee stage. His first question was: why does the Government choose to give to immigration officers, and not labour inspectors, the power to search private dwelling houses without warrant? Well, this is the Immigration Amendment Bill. Effectively, without sounding glib about it, the reason we have chosen to give the additional search powers to immigration officers is that labour inspectors have no powers to investigate offences under the Immigration Act. But I would also add that often the investigative search powers that are required by immigration officers are much broader than those that are less required for work visas or in a work setting. So I am perfectly comfortable that, in respect of the Immigration Act, these powers are appropriately given to immigration officers. I should also just note that the warrant for search can be sought by an immigration officer, but presently it can be executed only by a police officer. That was a provision in the Act that had a sunset clause in it, and we are bringing that back.

I want to acknowledge also the questions that have been raised, mainly in the second reading, around whether these powers are necessary or appropriate, because it certainly does appear to be the thing that is giving some members anxiety. In respect of those search powers, this will enable immigration officers to undertake a personal search at the border for the person’s passport or identity document if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the passenger is concealing those documents. I think any reasonable person would expect that at the border, those immigration officers should have the power to do that.

The third amendment is probably the one that gives members the most anxiety: trained immigration officers would undertake a search of certain places for a passport or identity document in order to facilitate a deportation, and they could do that without warrant. The search does not need a warrant in the sense that, often, the officer does not know until they go on to the premises that a search is even necessary. We have the ludicrous situation at the moment where an immigration officer could walk into a person’s premises—a person who could be liable for deportation—and the passport could be sitting on the table in front of the person, but the immigration officer has no powers to require the documents to be presented. That may sound utterly ridiculous, but my immigration officers tell me that it is happening reasonably frequently. These people simply either refuse to hand over or deliberately hide their passports in order to delay or impede their deportation. This power will allow immigration officers to search the place where the deportee is located—their abode, their premises, or their vehicle—if they believe the identity documents are in that place. Currently the immigration officers can enter and search premises for the person in order to deport them, but not their documents. I think that is ludicrous. That is why we are making the change. It is necessary in the field for the officers to have this power. I would be very disappointed if that kind of provision—which has been New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - vetted—actually prevented parties in this House from supporting this bill.

Two other issues were raised by Mr Lees-Galloway. The first one is the immigration levy. Is it really a tax? Well, there are very clear descriptions about what constitutes a levy and what constitutes a tax. A levy has to be levied for a specific purpose, and I can assure the member that the activities will be related only to the funding of the immigration system. It will meet the definitions of a levy.

Sue Moroney: That’s what they said about ACC levies.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, the better example is the road-user charges levy, which the member held up, actually, as a good example. The levy is paid by road users to contribute towards the upkeep of our roads. That is exactly what the immigration levy does. It contributes to the upkeep of the immigration system.

Lastly, Mr Lees-Galloway raised a question about why the bill contains a clause that allows regulations to be made that could override the primary legislation. In fact, I can advise the member that although this was the case when the bill was introduced, this was removed by the select committee at the second reading. So the provision that the member was concerned about that would override that primary legislation is no longer in the bill. I could point to the specific part of the bill if the member wishes, and I am sure officials could assist me, but I can reassure the member that that is no longer the case. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I rise to speak in the Committee on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to clarify that the characterisation by the Minister of Immigration of the reasons for the Labour Party’s opposition to this bill is not, in fact, correct. Of course, it goes so much deeper than the issues that he was talking to. I think the Government’s response to this—and this is the part of this bill that really resonates with the Labour Party—is the attempt to resolve the exploitation of migrant workers in New Zealand workplaces. That is an incredibly important issue because it is part of the Labour Party’s determination to build decent work and decent jobs back in this country after it has been decimated by the Government members sitting opposite. Part of doing that is ensuring that migrant workers are not being used to undermine and undercut New Zealand workers and that they are, in fact, not being exploited themselves.

If this bill satisfactorily came up with the right solution that addressed that issue, then of course the Labour Party would be supporting it, but, in fact, it is a bit of window dressing. It purports to fix the problem, but, just like it found up in Northland, National has once again come up with the wrong answer. It has come up with the wrong answer to the problem. I just want to enlarge on this because the Minister’s explanation for why it was immigration officers who had extended powers when it came to the exploitation of migrant workers was that this is an Immigration Amendment Bill. I am sorry, Minister, but that is not a good enough reason for getting this so badly wrong. The fact is that if anyone understands the power relationships in any workplace—let alone the power relationships for migrant workers, who also have the additional power relationship of dealing with immigration and being here at the behest of a decision made by the immigration department—then they would understand why workers who are being exploited are not going to feel comfortable reporting that exploitation to the immigration department. The rightful place for addressing the issue of the exploitation of workers in New Zealand is for that to be reported to the department of labour and the labour Minister.

It is not an acceptable excuse to say that the reason why migrant workers, if they believe that they have been exploited, have to report this to the immigration department is simply that the Minister decided to bring this forward as an immigration bill. That Minister, in fact, happens to be the same person as the Minister of labour, and he should have been bringing this forward as a bill under that category because it is the department of labour that has the speciality in dealing with the exploitation of workers in New Zealand workplaces. It is the department of labour that the Labour Party believes migrant workers would feel more comfortable in reporting exploitation to, because they do not have a power relationship with the department of labour—or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, “MoBIE”, as the department is hidden in that monstrous ministry these days—as they do with the immigration department. The immigration department has the ability to deport and the ability to look into a range of issues about their status as migrant workers, and, therefore, is not the appropriate body for worker exploitation to be reported to.

Again, I cannot help but think that this is the Government recognising its own failure to actually resource the department of labour and the labour inspectorate properly. It knows that it does not have anywhere near the number of labour inspectors it needs to deal with the issues of worker exploitation in the New Zealand workplace, let alone deal with the issues and the complexity of issues that are brought about when migrant workers are exploited in the workplace.

This would seem like an awful lot more genuine an attempt by the Government to deal with worker exploitation, particularly of migrant workers, if this was not the same Government that has currently suspended the work-testing rule in Queenstown. Why I raise that in this debate is that the Government suspended that work test where employers have to prove that they have in the first instance tried to recruit New Zealand workers first and foremost into these roles in the hospitality sector in Queenstown. So these are not very high-paying jobs; these are cleaning jobs, these are hospitality jobs in the main, and this Government has now—for the first time that I know of in New Zealand history—suspended that very important market-testing requirement where employers are required to make sure that New Zealand workers have been approached first.

I raise it in the context of this debate because this is one of the main ways that we can ensure that migrant workers are not being used to undermine New Zealand workers by being exploited in their workplace. We know that in the case of Queenstown, there are very high accommodation costs. Anyone who has been to Queenstown will know that it is not a cheap place to live at all. It is not a cheap place to buy your groceries in, not a cheap place to rent in—the costs are probably amongst the highest in any location that you could go to in New Zealand. Yet it may be exactly there where, because of the temporary suspension of that market test by the Government, we may find that exploitation will be at its highest. I say that because if employers, as those members often argue, actually want market rules to apply in setting wages, then in Queenstown they would be prepared to pay higher wages to get New Zealanders to actually be able to afford to live in Queenstown and be able to undertake those jobs. It is of concern that at the same time as putting this legislation through the Government is making it easier—well, in fact, it is saying to Queenstown employers: “You don’t actually need to even bother trying to recruit New Zealand workers into those jobs. It’s a free-for-all. Get the backpackers to come in and do that job.”, and that is all fine as far as that Government is concerned.

Therefore, on this bill I believe that it is simply window dressing. The Government has no real intention to address issues of migrant exploitation. If it did, it would have been bringing forward a bill that actually lifted the number of labour inspectors throughout the country. It would have been bringing forward a bill that made sure that it was the labour department that migrant workers were reporting exploitation to, rather than the immigration department, for the reasons that I have already outlined.

Although I am taking a call on this bill, I am not satisfied with the Minister’s answer to our questions—and I think they were very legitimate questions—about wanting to make sure that the levy being imposed in this bill on migrant workers when they make their applications is not simply a way of the Government properly funding the Immigration Advisers Licensing Authority. It has become clear to the Labour Party that the amount of Government funding put towards establishing the Immigration Advisers Licensing Authority—whose legislation was, in fact, initially set up under the previous Labour Government, but it was implemented by the incoming National Government—has not been adequate to make it work properly. Therefore, we are concerned that this migrant levy is being used to prop that authority up, and I am not satisfied with the answer from the Minister in which he said that a levy is not a tax because it has to be used for a certain purpose. Well, at the moment we have got this Government using ACC levies to prop up the Crown’s accounts in order to return them to surplus.

Andrew Bayly: No.

SUE MORONEY: Well, we absolutely do, Mr Bayly, by the Government’s own admission. By the Government’s own admission, ACC levies are being used to return the Crown’s accounts to surplus.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call in the Committee of the whole House stage on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to say from the start that I support everything that Sue Moroney, the previous speaker, has just said. We have to acknowledge that there is some goodwill towards the Government for putting forward this bill, because it is an attempt to address the exploitation of migrant workers. I also agree with the previous speaker that the way the Government has gone about it is not good enough. So we will not be supporting this bill.

We recognise that migrant workers are some of the most vulnerable workers in Aotearoa New Zealand. As the previous speaker explained, a power imbalance in the employment relationship for workers exists under the current situation, but when you are a migrant worker it is even more of an imbalance. We are now in a situation with our industrial relations environment where workers are becoming increasingly vulnerable. They have less say, less power, and less ability to negotiate, and when you are a migrant worker this is a problem that escalates by about tenfold.

The labour market is becoming increasingly swamped with migrant workers, and we are increasingly concerned at the amount of exploitation that is occurring. As outlined by the previous speaker in terms of the situation in Queenstown, the Government’s actions in welcoming low-paid workers into the country is having an impact on the ability of New Zealand workers to be paid anything above the minimum wage. What is happening, in effect, is that many employers are using migrant workers to force down wages so that wage costs become less and less for the employers, which is all very well for the employer, but in terms of what it is like for workers, it makes it harder for people to make a living and it makes it harder for them to make ends meet.

It is also really bad for local economies if you are relying just on low-paid migrant workers, as is the case in Queenstown. What it means is that local families are not able to afford to live in the areas, and you get the situation—which we seem to be heading for on Waiheke Island, where I live—where we are actually importing low-paid workers to get the hospitality jobs done because nobody can afford to live there because they are not being paid enough.

We see the Government’s attempts to bring some sanctions against employers who are migrants themselves as a step in the right direction. It is a nod in the right direction, but we do not believe it goes far enough. The bill still does not address the fact of—or offer any protections for—migrant workers who are themselves being exploited when they blow the whistle.

Quite recently I dealt with a very sad case—and I want to thank the Minister of Immigration’s office for its support and assistance in this issue—where a woman was faced with deportation basically because although she had come to New Zealand to work in a specialist job at the request of the employer, who was a migrant themselves who had received residence, as soon as she got to New Zealand she found out that the job she had been given had changed. It was changed at a whim. So instead of being given a specialist job, she was being asked to clean. Not only that, she was on very limited hours and was on call, so it was basically a zero-hour contract. She was also paid the minimum wage.

Within a couple of weeks she had talked to her employer and said that she needed to earn enough to be able to live here and she needed to do the work they had brought her over here to do. She was sacked immediately, and within a month or two her employer had actually dobbed her in to Immigration New Zealand, so her work visa was revoked. When she came to see me she was facing deportation, and at that stage she was also receiving assistance from an advocate in the employment relations field. While she was still trying to avoid deportation, they took the issue through to mediation with the Employment Relations Authority, through the mediation service with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

The employer admitted that they had failed her in terms of providing what was supposed to be provided in the employment agreement that she had agreed to—and signed, for that matter—and they agreed on a settlement. But that settlement made no impact at all on the fact that her work visa had been revoked. So she received no protection whatsoever for being able to identify the issue that there was a rogue migrant employer—an employer who was not treating workers fairly and who was exploiting them. Raising that issue led to her being deported from New Zealand, despite the fact that she did receive a settlement through our labour relations laws. She was basically left in a situation where the settlement that she received was spent on her ticket back to her home country.

This is a very sad state of affairs for any worker, but particularly for this woman, when she and her family had been looking forward to coming to New Zealand, settling here, and contributing to our economy. It is not an easy thing for workers or anybody to make that decision. We know from people in this House who have migrated here themselves that it is not an easy decision, but it is one that shows they want to contribute as much as they can to this economy and this society. To have that taken away from under her feet in a very unfair way was just incredibly sad, and there was nothing we could do about it.

This bill does not go any way towards trying to address this issue. It does provide sanctions against employers who may be acting unlawfully themselves, but it does not protect the workers. I agree as well with previous speakers about the powers of immigration officers. I absolutely agree that these matters should be transferred to labour inspectors because, essentially, we are looking at workplace relationships that have gone sour. Immigration is an area where migrant workers feel very, very vulnerable and that at any moment they could be deported and their visas could be revoked. So to place them in a situation where they will be investigated by immigration officers with extended powers is to increase their vulnerability.

So we will not be voting for this bill. We understand that it is an attempt to try to address the situation of exploited workers, but it is not going to do that. I would like to see this Parliament operating in a way that does actually fix the problems that come to us. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): This Government does take very seriously the issue of immigrant exploitation in the workforce. We have seen different media releases about those sorts of occurrences. There are a number of reasons, of course—not just the human rights reasons—why this is such an important component of this bill. We have companies in New Zealand that work hard at what they do to employ people and pay good wages and put into place in the workforce very strong health and safety measures. As soon as an employer starts to exploit an immigrant worker they undercut and undermine all of those companies that, through their goodwill and compliance with New Zealand law, seek to put in place employment conditions that keep a workforce safe and pay a good wage to help New Zealand families.

It is not just about the human rights of people, which are incredibly important, but it is also about maintaining a workplace environment in this country that we can be proud of. The particular measure in this bill that deals with the exploitation of migrant workers is very, very important because it shores up that sort of behaviour and brings it to accountability. Sue Moroney in her speech made a comment that we do not have enough people in the labour inspectorate to actually enforce these measures and to ensure this does not happen. Looking back at the number of people in the labour inspectorate, what we see is that since 2008 until today there has been a 37 percent increase in the number of inspectors. I would certainly say it is important to have those people, and surely her statement now becomes an indictment on the previous Government because we have increased that number by 37 percent. We do need labour inspectors to be empowered in those places in order to address these issues, and aspects of this bill address that.

As I just mentioned before, one of the reports that has come to light has been a case in Auckland. Let me just briefly touch on this for the sake of those listening here and outside this Parliament. There was a case in Auckland where a number of immigrant employees were taken advantage of, and the Employment Relations Authority became aware of this, addressed this issue, and brought fines against the employer. The exploitation claims were that the employees had to pay a premium or capital infusion of up to $15,000 to secure employment. I mean, what a travesty of the New Zealand way of life that that sort of extortion would take place. They were not paid any wages at all, and they were pressured to loan further sums to the company. An office in central Auckland in a commercial building was turned into accommodation for those who ran out of money for rent, but it had no access to a shower or to a kitchen. The people survived mainly on fruit and instant noodles. This is the sort of behaviour that this bill determines to stamp out.

Sue Moroney: But it won’t.

JONATHAN YOUNG: It will stamp this out, and we will be putting tools and measures in place. The bill makes employers who are residence class visa holders liable for deportation. They have come to New Zealand for the better way of life that they have sought, and instead they have brought with them misery. They do not deserve to live in this country, to experience what they hoped they might achieve. They are liable for deportation if they are convicted of exploiting migrant workers.

This Government does take this sort of behaviour seriously. Not only is it dreadful treatment and a denial of human rights—a denial of the right of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, which we know the workforce in this country desires—[Bell rung]—and relies upon in order for us—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Does the member wish to continue?

JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes—sorry, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Mr Young.

JONATHAN YOUNG: This bill includes two amendments that will protect migrants from exploitation. The amendment in Part 1 will see employers who hold residence class visas liable for deportation if they are convicted of that degree of exploitation of migrant workers—just desserts, we say—or if they knowingly employ migrant workers without the right to work. I guess this is also protecting the New Zealand workforce because they need to be people who have the right to work. We know that this is an area of real tension.

I remember a case back in New Plymouth where some migrant workers came in, employed by a reputable company. The local workforce was pretty upset that these men came in to work in New Plymouth. They were aluminium welders. People felt: “Well, I can do that job.” These men came from the Philippines with their families. They previously had been welders of aluminium air frames, so they were highly specialised. The work that this company was doing was welding bumper bars and accessories to utes and vehicles and exporting these across to Australia and different places in the South Pacific and in Asia.

When it came to the test of whether there were New Zealanders able to do this work, in this case they were able to do it for about 1 or 2 hours but not for the whole work day. So the experience of these welders was something that was a skill not currently resident in the workforce. After the tension around that issue and the debate around it, from what I understand, the union appreciated the fact that the experience of these welders—particularly in aluminium—enabled the workforce at large to be involved in a project that brought export dollars into that company and into the country.

Immigrant employment is important to New Zealand but we must ensure that it is not exploited and that we have labour laws and immigration law that protects workers’ human rights and protects them in the workforce. This bill has many provisions that address that. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the Committee.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). It is probably no surprise to the Minister of Immigration that New Zealand First does not support this bill. We cannot support it, although we have a lot of sympathy for those temporary migrant workers who are being exploited and we have a lot of sympathy for those illegal temporary migrant workers who are being exploited, as we have a big issue with any worker in New Zealand being exploited. So we would just like to talk and explain to you the issues that we have.

As early as today there was a media release—and I am sure Mr Young was speaking to the same one that I am speaking to—about a fine that was given out to a restaurant up in Auckland for exploiting some workers. These were illegal immigrant workers, and these workers had been taken serious advantage of. The interesting point here is that this outfit, this organisation, really could not be fined because, of course, it has gone into liquidation now. This is not the first time that this has taken place.

This situation is continuing throughout New Zealand at a time when New Zealand is having some major internal issues of its own around employment. At the moment we have got 138,000 temporary migrant workers in the country, 54,000 working holiday visas per annum, and another 100,000 student visas with expanding working rights. We are approaching, if you include the illegal temporary migrant workers or the illegal migrant workers, close to 400,000 workers coming to this country—temporarily, I might add. We are not talking about migrants who are moving to New Zealand for the benefit of the long-term looking after of their families, as Mr Young mentioned, where the money would stay in this country. This money goes out of our country. This money, at the end of their seasonal work and picking, goes back to the other countries. We have some serious issues. When we have got an unemployment rate of 143,000 people, this bill does nothing to help get those workers—New Zealanders—into those jobs.

The biggest issue that we have got, which this bill does not attack or in any way mitigate, is closing the borders to those people who are coming here to take advantage of our generosity, our hospitality, and our open-arms policy of immigration. This bill needs to address the issue by taking closer consideration of it and by taking a deeper, harder look at those people who are coming here. As recently as October last year, there was a case in Tauranga where we had a whole group of temporary migrant workers who were over here to do some kiwifruit picking. It had a similar issue of exploitation—they were being paid between $5 to $7 per hour. There were eight people living in a shack with one toilet. They were promised food, they were promised suitable accommodation, they were promised clothing, and they got none of it. These people came to New Zealand First, where they were actually assisted. They wanted to go back home to Fiji. They did not want to be here any more. This is what has been going on for such a long time.

We want to reiterate that this is in no way New Zealand First supporting this sort of exploitation, but a lot more could be done with this legislation at our border control areas. If we can control the entry points into our country, we are going to have a lot more control over what is going on within our country. We need to look at incentivising and offering opportunities for the youth. Northland is a very, very topical point at the moment. The unemployment rate up in Northland is much higher than anywhere else in the country. We could incentivise like we have in Christchurch by getting some of these people some money to get themselves down to areas where there is work required for them to do, and get them trained and upskilled. These are the sorts of things we need to be doing for the betterment of New Zealand and for the betterment of our people.

As far as exploitation goes, I reiterate that we are in no way condoning that. We sympathise with these people who have come here to the land of milk and honey, the land of opportunity, to get themselves ahead, but the bill does not help New Zealand or New Zealanders. We need to do more to look after those people. Prevention is by far the best cure in this situation.

We can understand why so many people want to move here and certainly come and work here. We have got great weather. We have got fantastic opportunities for jobs, but we have got to get back to the most important issue, which is getting our 143,000 unemployed workers out there taking up some of these jobs. We cannot support this bill going through. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member I am just going to remind the Committee that we are in a relatively broad Committee stage because there are big amendments on the bill, but we are in the Committee stage. The principles have been accepted. We are not doing a second reading debate. I think all of the last four speakers did not really spend much time considering the clauses of the bill, which is the purpose of this debate.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to add some comments to the debate that we have had so far about the enhanced search powers for immigration officers. What the bill does—and what one of its primary effects is—is give search powers to immigration officers so that they can search employers’ premises, talk to people present to identify offending, search for unlawful workers, check documents, and ensure that migrant workers are complying with the Immigration Act 2009. I want to take at face value the statements that have been made by members opposite, particularly by Jonathan Young and by the Minister of Immigration, in which they say that they are genuinely committed, through this bill, to putting in place a mechanism to address the exploitation of migrant workers.

We can certainly agree with a couple of things that Jonathan Young said. One was that migrant labour is essential to the prosperity of our country and to the functioning of our economy, and the second was that the harmful, negative effects of the exploitation of migrant labour are not only that people’s human rights are being breached but also that they are undercutting other good employers and undercutting the wages and conditions of other workers in the workforce. We see plenty of evidence of that principle operating today. We have had a huge increase in student migrants who are allowed to work under the current rules. Large numbers of them are working for minimum wage rates, and that has had the effect, according to many observers now, of driving down pay rates in those industries, particularly in the fast-food joints and the service stations in Auckland. Many of those are now staffed, by and large, by student migrants who are getting paid minimum wage rates.

I want to come back to the Minister’s statement at the beginning of this particular part of the debate, where he said in response to Labour’s concerns—for example, about enhanced search powers being given to immigration officers instead of labour inspectors—that he was satisfied because this is an immigration amendment bill, and that labour inspectors have no power to investigate immigration offences. Well, that is an entirely circular assertion. It does not take us anywhere. The proposition that we are putting up here is that if the Government is genuine—and I am happy to accept that it is—about trying to eliminate exploitation, then it would be much better policy to actually give those enhanced powers to a labour inspectorate.

As I was listening to the last few contributions, I was thinking about experiences that I had as a young man, as an organiser with what was then the northern Hotel, Hospital and Restaurant Workers Union, which has morphed over the years into what is now the Service and Food Workers Union. The union came across many cases, actually, of exploitation of migrant labour. I am thinking of one case in particular: a restaurant where there were about 20 migrant workers—many of them unlawful in terms of the rules attached to their visas—working in the restaurant and sleeping upstairs. The employer held their passports, and there was what was then a vast sum—tens and tens of thousands of dollars—in unpaid wages that they were due. Those workers were reluctant to report their exploitation to the authorities, but they were willing to talk to a union because they understood that the union did not have the powers of the State and was not there with a view to catching them out about immigration offences. They were willing to come to the union, and as a result of that, we successfully busted that operation and were able to get those workers not only the tens of thousands of dollars of unpaid wages but also the legal advocacy and support that got their immigration status regularised.

That is the opposite of the kind of mechanism that is being proposed in this bill, where beefed-up powers of compliance are being given to immigration officers. I think that it is just common sense to realise that workers are not going to feel comfortable. Many of us know from firsthand experience as members of Parliament that people who come to our electorate offices seeking support to help navigate their way through the immigration system and stay on the right side of the law are often incredibly vulnerable. They are absolutely powerless, and their options are often very limited. To think that they would go and report exploitation in the workplace to an immigration officer who, essentially, has the power to have them apprehended and, in some cases, booted out of the country—I just think is really laughing in the face of common sense.

So I would really like to hear more from the Minister about why he thinks that this kind of mechanism will make a difference. I want to come back to the point that Darien Fenton, a former member of this House, made in relation to this bill—that not only would labour inspectors be better able to deliver on the intent of this bill but, actually, the labour inspectorate has to be properly resourced in order for this to happen. I cannot help thinking that in this case, the Government is kind of hobbled by its ideological preference to not have an organised and strong workforce that is capable of asserting its rights. It prefers to go down the line of beefing up immigration compliance and enforcement, rather than putting in place the machinery to actually ensure that exploitation is driven out of our workplaces.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I am a little disappointed, actually. I did think there might have been some opportunity to not just convince but encourage Opposition members to understand that when they say that they want to support exploited migrant workers, they need to place a greater value on the prevention of exploitation than they do on the protection of people who are unlawful. Effectively, what we are hearing today is that Labour and the Greens want to protect migrant workers, but not as much as they want to protect people who are unlawfully in this country and who might be subject to a search power that they do not like. That someone liable for deportation can sit there laughing at an immigration officer with their passport on the table and those members can say: “That’s OK.” because it is consistent with some human right that they have to fly in the face of common sense—well, I am really sorry. I am really sorry.

I cannot, for the life of me, fathom how many times during the last 6½ years the Labour Opposition has said: “We don’t think it goes far enough fast enough, but we will support it anyway because it does not do any harm.” Labour members must think that the harm that this bill does to people who are unlawfully in New Zealand and may be subject to what they perceive—not the Ministry of Justice, not the Attorney-General, but what they perceive—to be an illegal search power is strong enough to prevent them from supporting exploited workers. Clearly, they did not get the memo from the Council of Trade Unions. The council supports this bill. It is in favour of this bill, notwithstanding its misgivings.

I want to touch on the issue—and I still cannot understand, for the life of me, why Opposition members are dancing on the head of this technical pin about why this power is not given to labour inspectors. Well, I suggest to the members that there is a very good reason why I am both the Minister of Immigration and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, such is the symbiosis and the overlap between those two important functions of the public sector—that is, the maintenance of minimum employment standards and the protection of all workers, lawful and unlawful, whatever their industry and wherever they are. I have been encouraging and cajoling and imploring—and I have been very pleased with the response—those two areas, the labour inspectorate and immigration compliance and fraud, to work more closely together, more seamlessly. We have significantly boosted resources, in straitened times, to enable them to do their jobs better, but we have asked them to work smarter, and they are doing that and they are doing that much more effectively. The flow of information between the labour inspectorate and Immigration New Zealand is preventing, and prosecuting, far more illegal activities than ever.

I am sorry that the volumes are going up, and that is why we are improving minimum employment standards at the same time as passing the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I think it is an indictment on Labour and the Greens that despite whatever misgivings they have, they cannot bring themselves to support this bill, when their track record of pragmatic support for other legislation, even though they do not think it has gone far enough or fast enough, speaks volumes—speaks volumes—to how bitter they must be feeling right now. This is the one bill where I thought, despite those misgivings, we would have that support. I am deeply disappointed but always the optimist. It is not too late. It is not too late for them to have a change of heart.

I want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell’s intervention. He had the same concerns, but, true to form, New Zealand First just wants to close the borders. That is its solution to migrant exploitation: let us not have migrants. Well, that will be a great sell for the champions of small business in Northland. New Zealand First can go up there and say, when it wants to grow Northland’s primary sector, when it wants to grow those industries ahead of the demand for labour: “Don’t worry, no solution there.”

But I will accept what Mr Twyford and Ms Moroney said, which was that successive Governments of all colours have always had a “Kiwis first” approach to immigration policy. And I will accept—

Sue Moroney: Not in Queenstown.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will come to Queenstown, because those champions of small business are going to go down to Queenstown and say: “Forget that—forget that stuff that National’s done. Labour, in office, wouldn’t do that. It would not support small business in Queenstown.” It is different down there, and I do accept—here is the point—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will call the Minister again, but I am going to issue the same warning to him as I issued to members before. We are now talking about the detail of the bill, not broader immigration policy.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will finish on this point. There are a number of industries and areas that have relied far too much on immigration policy to inoculate business risk. It is important that immigration policy is at the end of a pipeline that has other strategies to improve the domestic availability and supply of labour to meet those growing job demands. I thought we all had that in common, but in the Canterbury rebuild, in places like Queenstown, and in our horticulture industry it will always be necessary at this time to rely on immigration policy to meet those labour needs. The challenge for this House is to make sure that those labour market - tested temporary visa holders are protected.

I want to touch on an issue that Ms Logie raised in the second reading, because it actually goes to the heart of some of the themes of what is coming through here in terms of why we are doing what we are doing. It relates to the issue of a power that will be given to the Minister of Immigration to consider the liability for deportation of people who have lied on their visa applications. She said that this was somehow going to catch people who inadvertently make a mistake in their visa applications or who do not understand the questions. Well, that is not true. That is not what the bill says.

She also said that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee never considered this and there is no problem to solve. Well, that is also not true, because the select committee was advised by officials of the grounds that required this particular change. It was a widespread rort uncovered some years ago on police-vetting checks for labour market - tested visas and residence applications under a certain category, where hundreds of applicants had been given false police clearance letters. It does not matter who, it does not matter where, but when I was asked when I would see these files for consideration for deportation, I was told that if the applicant, notwithstanding that they had lied on their application, would have otherwise been granted a character waiver and given residence, there were no grounds for me to reconsider that decision. I think that is ludicrous, and that is why I have proposed the amendment. It means that a commission of a criminal fraud on a visa application could be grounds for deportation. And the Greens will not support this bill because that is somehow unfair to a person who has committed a criminal fraud, and they see that as being more important than the protection from heinous exploitation of legally entitled workers in this country.

I find that a damned shame because it speaks volumes for the parties that are not supporting this bill. I encourage them to reconsider. I encourage them to see that, whatever misgivings they have about those clauses in respect of search powers and a power to deport for a criminal fraud, they should set aside those misgivings. They do not even put in a Supplementary Order Paper. Mr Twyford goes on about the labour inspectorate not having the powers. Where is the Supplementary Order Paper? We cannot even consider it because they will not put it up. I think that is a bit lazy. But it is not too late for Labour to have a second thought—a reflection on whether or not Labour really is the party of the people and the champion of the workers, and not of the fraudsters—and support this bill. There is still time.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I came into the Chamber during the Minister of Immigration’s earlier contribution, during which he responded in a very measured fashion to some of the questions I asked when we were last considering the Committee stage of this bill. I must say I actually appreciated the answers that the Minister gave. I think the Minister will be aware that for two of the three questions that I asked we did not accept the response that the Minister gave. I asked some genuine questions about the legislation during the Committee stage, as we are supposed to do, and I appreciated the fact that the Minister answered them. I was going to delve into the exact—well, I am going to delve into the exact issue that the Minister has just raised, but with a little bit of trepidation, given the fact that that was a slightly more political speech from the Minister than the one he gave earlier on.

But, nevertheless, Minister—oh, Minister Foss—in the spirit of a good Committee process, I will ask some questions around clause 42. This clause amends section 158 of the principal Act that we are amending. This relates to the deportation liability of residence class visa holders if the visa or citizenship is obtained or held by fraud or forgery, etc. There is no concern on this side of the Chamber with having measures that ensure there are consequences for fraudulently obtaining a visa or residency or citizenship, and those provisions already exist in the legislation. What we do have some concerns about are the exact issues that were raised by a number of submitters at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Forgive me, Minister, but this term’s select committee is markedly different in personnel from the previous term’s select committee. Most of us who are speaking during this Committee stage by virtue of being members of that committee did not get to consider this legislation. So these questions are genuinely asked because I was not part of the select committee process.

I understand that the body representing immigration practitioners, the Legislation Advisory Committee, and the Law Society all raised concerns around the expansion of powers under clause 42 of this legislation. Essentially, the current situation is that if a migrant has been convicted of an offence involving their procurement of a residence visa or citizenship by fraud, forgery, or false or misleading information, or concealment of information, then the Immigration Service is within its rights to revoke their citizenship and seek deportation. The amendments in this legislation significantly widen the scope that is currently contained in section 158. It will no longer be necessary that the discovered fraud, etc., contributed to or led to the procurement of the visa. At the moment it has to be demonstrated that the fraud occurred in order to procure a visa. Now the scope is being widened considerably. I must say, despite the Minister’s previous contribution, which I have to say was rather political in its tone, we have not yet heard the reason that the Government has determined that that widening of the scope is required.

However, it goes a lot further than that, and this is where the real concern from submitters came in. It was around the fact that a migrant may lose their residence visa or citizenship due to fraud or concealment committed by somebody else. The migrant themselves does not even need to be aware that that fraud or concealment took place. Now, of course, it does not matter whether that fraud or concealment committed by someone other than that migrant actually contributed to the gaining of their own visa or citizenship. This is a significant widening of the scope of section 158.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment explained that the immigration system should be based on true and accurate disclosure to maintain its integrity. There is no argument from this side of the Chamber that that should not be the case. The ministry also explained that cases involving false or inaccurate disclosure erode that integrity, even if it is not the false information that leads to a visa being granted. If that is the case, then the consequences relating to the giving of false or inaccurate disclosure or false or inaccurate information should relate really to the matters that that false information related to, not necessarily to the granting of a visa. The ministry also explained that the change is expected to provide a strong incentive for migrants to tell the truth in residence class visa applications, and presumably make sure anyone else supplying information is also doing so.

However, and this is the point that the Legislation Advisory Committee raised with the select committee, it is possible that some visa holders will be unreasonably tainted by someone else’s fraud, or by that other person’s possibly innocent or inadvertent falsification of some peripheral information. Some migrants, through little or no fault, may still lose residency or citizenship or be deported. These so-called innocent migrants will still have rights of appeal in matters of fact, but it is not clear in the legislation, given the wording of the legislation, whether a defence such as having taken all reasonable steps to avoid submitting anything false, or absence of fault, will be available to those migrants should they be appealing against such an order to revoke their citizenship or to be deported. The Legislation Advisory Committee considered that such a defence should be expressly available, as it is consistent with normal policy for strict liability offences.

That was the concern that I believe Jan Logie raised during the second reading debate. It is a matter that has not been considered in great detail by the Committee of the whole House. Given that Minister Foss is in the chair, he may be able to respond to this, or perhaps some member of the National backbench may be able to respond if they have been given a brief on what their party’s position is on this. But I think this is a genuine concern. It is one that has been raised by multiple submitters. It was considered significant enough that it was included in the departmental report, but as yet we have not seen a considered response from the Government on that matter.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I have got some questions for the Minister in the chair relating to clause 94 of the bill, which deals with the question of migrant levies. We have not had a lot of discussion about migrant levies in the Committee, but as the Opposition spokesperson on ethnic communities, I am particularly concerned about the implications of the change that this clause makes for those people who are coming to New Zealand. We have long had the requirement that there is a levy paid by migrants who are coming to New Zealand, but this has been on the basis of an understanding that a migrant pays a levy that is then reinvested into the new migrant community to pay for English language training, to help that new migrant individual or family to understand the customs of the country and the language of the country, and to give that migrant the chance to settle as quickly as possible into New Zealand society.

For all of those reasons, I have not been a critic of the migrant levy that exists in the current Act. But there are some serious changes in clause 94, and I want to refer the Minister to the Legislation Advisory Committee’s comments on the changes that have been made. I think it is worth reading to the Minister what the Legislation Advisory Committee said about the changes in this particular clause. It said: “The existing Migrant levy is narrowly focused, and raises approximately $4.5 million annually, or about 2 per cent of the Immigration budget. The current levy’s purposes are expressly restricted to funding settlement programmes for migrants and research into settlement issues.” This is exactly what I have been explaining to the Committee. It says: “The existing levy is clearly not a tax.”, but the change that the Government has made in clause 94 makes the levy into a tax. This is a new tax—a tax being smuggled in through this legislation—and one that has not been explained to the migrant community.

To go back to what the Legislation Advisory Committee said about this, it said that in contrast to the existing levy, “the proposed Immigration Levy could be construed as a tax.” The Legislation Advisory Committee is not a political body. It has advised on this bill, and has advised on things that it regards as poor legislative and statutory practice, and it says this is poor practice. It says that “Clause 94 broadens the potential purposes for the levy considerably, including helping pay for any immigration system infrastructure and operations and funding the Immigration Advisers Licensing Authority. In principle, such general expenditures should preferably be met from tax revenue or from properly targeted fees for services where these can be identified.”

So what we have got here is a fundamental change that the legislation is making without the Government giving justification for why that change is here. If you are going to levy a tax, call it a tax. Explain to the migrants that you are now taxing them to pay for the basic functions of the Immigration Service, but do not come into the House and smuggle a piece of legislation like this into the House that detracts from the levy that helps people to settle in New Zealand and requires the migrants to pay for a fundamental, core Government service. And when the Legislation Advisory Committee, chaired by Sir Grant Hammond, makes a criticism of this magnitude, the Minister needs to take it seriously.

So I would like the Minister to take the next call and explain why the old levy—helping people to settle in New Zealand; a justifiable objective that the migrant themselves could be expected to contribute to—is suddenly becoming a tax to pay for the basic bureaucracy of the immigration section of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. This is a serious change. It has not been advertised as such. It has not been referred to by the Minister in the speeches that have been made. It has not been justified to the House. And I am saying that in this Committee stage the Minister has the opportunity to get to his feet and explain why that change is being made.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure again to be talking on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). It is slightly disappointing to hear the Opposition talking about this bill, because this bill is really important in terms of protecting those migrants and those immigrants who come to New Zealand and provide an important contribution to this economy. In my own electorate I see a number of them who come and support the horticultural industry in Franklin, and they play a very important part. On the other end of this, we need to also make sure we put in place proper controls so that the Immigration Service can do its job. This bill is particularly focused on legitimately enhancing controls and procedures, particularly focusing on screening and monitoring and also powers of inspection.

We want to make sure that those migrants, those immigrants, who come here are protected and that they are not exploited. A number of speakers have spoken about that concern and those issues that have been occurring and that we want to make sure we stamp out. Probably the most important thing about this bill is that it introduces quite severe penalties—namely, a jail sentence of up to 7 years or a fine of $100,000, or both. These penalties reflect the seriousness that this Government is putting on this issue. We are simply not going to tolerate illegal treatment of our migrant workers.

I want to turn my mind to three clauses of the bill. The first is clause 42, which my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee just spoke on previously. Under this bill, section 158(1) of the Act is actually widened by clause 42(2), whereby the definition now states that a person commits an offence if any information on the application form for a visa or an entry permission was fraudulent, forged, false—the three “f”s—or misleading or omitted relevant information, whether or not the person holding the residence class visa or the entry permission provided the information. My view is that the first part of that change is absolutely understandable. The second element really gets to the heart of the issue with someone else filing on behalf of the resident or the person getting the entry permit some false documentation and therefore allowing a travesty to occur. I think that is a particularly relevant part of the clause—to make sure that all information provided to the Immigration Service is actually timely and accurate and full.

With regard to the second clause I want to focus on, it is new section 277A in clause 61. This clarifies the definition of “specified employee” as it relates to the powers to enter and search an employer’s premises. The new definition now gives the immigration officer powers of entry to search for employees on an employer’s premises—and this is the new bit—if they have “good cause to suspect” that a specified employee is committing an offence. Personally, I think it is essential that the immigration officer can undertake their duties, but it is also vital that the Immigration Service also undertakes that search in a proper manner.

The third clause I want to just turn my own mind to is clause 80(3A). This addresses the obligations of the employer in relation to the hiring of unlawful employees. So you can see that on one side, under clause 61, we have talked about the unlawful employees; on the other side we are now talking about the employers’ obligations. This new amendment replaces section 351(7) of the Act and states that an employer is committing an offence if he or she knows that an employee is not entitled to do any particular work if, within a period of 12 months prior to that period, the employer is informed of the fact by the Immigration Service, whether or not that employee is holding a temporary entry visa or otherwise. Again, this clause is really dealing with the issue of employers hiring—

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I come down to take just a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First, predominantly in response to the Minister of Immigration, who was previously in the chair, and his comments with regard to New Zealand First’s reasons for opposing this bill. The Minister was somewhat simplistic, which does not surprise us, but we need to clarify these things. The Minister suggested that the reason why New Zealand First opposes this bill is merely that New Zealand First opposes immigration, which, of course, is not correct. New Zealand First, as I think the Minister actually articulated in his contribution at that time, strongly believes in putting New Zealanders first. It is not a difficult concept; that is the concept upon which our name is founded. But we also believe that the moment—the moment—a migrant, a temporary worker, or any new settler to New Zealand places one single foot on New Zealand soil, they will be treated no less than any New Zealander who has been here for all time, or even a new New Zealander or a new settler.

The reason why we are opposing this bill is quite clearly outlined in some of the move—and I believe that Ms Moroney in her contribution highlighted it—to powers that are going to be given to immigration officers. This is around warrantless search. This is around actually targeting workers—the very workers whom the bill says it is trying to protect. So, first of all, let us go back one step and say that we agree that migrants need to be protected from unscrupulous employers—absolutely need to be protected from them. However, this bill, in a very strange way, takes away some of their rights, which no New Zealander would accept, and that includes allowing a warrantless search of any premises at any time by an immigration officer, as opposed to—as Ms Moroney said—putting in place more labour officers, more workplace officers, so that those workplaces can be checked in the first instance and the appropriate person held to account. The appropriate person to be held to account is actually the employer.

We agree with the clause that says that if an offence was committed within 10 years of the employer’s visa being granted, then that employer needs to go. They obviously have not understand the values that New Zealand places upon the work environment. We believe that for any citizen, any individual, who comes to our country, whether it be for holiday work or whether it be for temporary migrant work in our avocado orchards or in any other place in New Zealand, we place value on having the minimum criteria, which must be met. But, unfortunately, there are no clauses in here—actually, the exact opposite will take place—with regard to encouraging these people to come forward and report, and surely that is exactly what we need to be putting into place.

There is no statement in here with regard to where, if any migrant worker comes forward and reports to authorities—and we would suggest that those authorities should be workplace inspectors, not immigration agents. Those are the very people who come around to find illegal workers and deport them. We would suggest that there should be criteria in here that give some protection for whistleblowers. We are prepared to go forward and say that the case needs to be proven, so that if the whistleblower makes an allegation and it is proven in the courts, then that individual gains protection. Perhaps it might be just 6 months’ protection while they seek another employment opportunity, but nothing in this bill will encourage those workers to come forward. Nothing in this bill will suggest to those workers that New Zealand is actually trying to protect them—nothing in this bill.

I think that the other thing that is probably important is that it has been the case where New Zealanders who are born New Zealanders have been taking advantage of migrant workers, and at this stage we have raised the penalties a little bit, but not enough. Again, there is nothing to encourage those workers to come out and report those environments.

I want to also pick up on the point that Mr Goff just made with regard to the levy being changed to a tax. It is an uncomfortable feeling. We have had a tax on foreigners previously in this nation. It is an uncomfortable place to be in, and I find it ironic that it is a New Zealand First member who is going to stand up and say that it smacks of the poll tax. These levies were there for a purpose and they should not be seen as another cost in order to try to buy your way into New Zealand. They should be collected for a specific purpose and the Government should be able to show where those funds will go. An example would be the levy on English for speakers of other languages that you can actually pay to come into New Zealand, should you not meet the English language criteria. I am going to go back to my memory now—I think it is between $1,200 and $1,500 when you come in. If you do not meet the English-speaking criteria, you can pay this levy to the Tertiary Education Commission for a prepaid certificate, and it is trackable. That is what the levies are supposed to be for. There should not be a tax on a person merely because they are a foreign worker. There should not be a tax on a person merely because they are coming to take up a temporary work placement.

So I want it to be very clear because the Minister made it very simplistic. New Zealand First is not standing here and opposing this bill because we believe that migrant workers and temporary visa workers should be treated any less than any other New Zealand citizen or any other New Zealand resident or New Zealand worker; we are standing here opposing this bill, as the majority of the Opposition members are, because, in a strange way, this bill hunts those workers down. It gives powers to the immigration agents that they should not have. People should not be able to do a warrantless search in this way. The bill provides no protection for migrant workers that we can find. We think it takes away some of the protections that they have now. It will not encourage anybody to come out and tell us about the employers who are taking advantage of these workers, and that is supposed to be the purpose of the legislation—to avoid people being exploited.

Again, one can have at the end of it a certain punishment for somebody who is exploiting them, but where in this bill is the support to stop people taking advantage in the first place? Where are the supports to make sure that those migrant workers can actually report? Where are the supports in here so that should they support, as they did down in Nelson—I am pretty sure it was in around about 2008 that there was an incident in Nelson when those workers were treated and housed horribly by a New Zealander. They were deported when they reported those conditions. That New Zealander was fined and then went about his business.

We cannot support the bill because the bill misses its mark. Kia ora.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to speak to the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which Labour will oppose because it does not significantly tackle migrant exploitation and there are some significant issues that we have with the bill. We in the Labour Party have a concern that far too many migrant workers are having their employment rights abused. That is something that we certainly see down at the end of the country in which I live. In the wider Otago-Southland area there are countless tales of exploitation on dairy farms. That should not tar all farmers with a brush, because there are also plenty of good employers in our region. But where there are abuses we need to ensure we have good legislation to tackle them, otherwise it simply puts pressure on good employers as they seek to stay afloat competing with bad employers.

There are, of course, also isolated cases in Dunedin itself. There were cases raised before the election where I personally was asked for comment about employment rights being abused. The position that Labour took was that there should be appropriate fees in place—and I see here in this legislation that there is a muddling of levies and taxes, which has been criticised because the thinking is not clear thinking. When we do have appropriate levies in place that pay for sufficient inspectors to ensure that the employment rights of immigrant workers are not being exploited, we will end up with a more even and level playing field.

Of course we all recognise the need to have seasonal workers and immigrant workers here in New Zealand to meet shortages in the labour force. We must balance that, of course, with the need to have opportunities for New Zealand workers, many of whom are willing to work and may or may not be located in a position where they can do so easily. Sometimes the wages, of course, are insufficient to cover transport costs, and we find that migrant workers are willing to live in conditions that New Zealanders would not work in, and that is an issue to do with minimum wages that is not unrelated to the material in this bill.

We need to create in this country, I think, an environment where workers are able to report abuse. This is the problem, of course, that we are trying to tackle, but that is tackled inadequately in this bill. Workers are not going to report exploitation if they are going to risk being deported. We need to think carefully about how we set in place those mechanisms, so that we have the principle preserved that where there are abuses, the migrant worker can feel that they are safe to report them, so that our labour laws are strengthened and so that our labour market functions in a way that is fair before the law for all parties.

The Government, it has to be noted, continues to fail to employ enough labour inspectors to reduce the pressure on migrant workers to report. If we had sufficient inspectors, we would be living in a situation where we had fewer cases of exploitation, and so it seems logical to me that we need to set in place the appropriate levies, taxes, fees—however they are collected—to cover the cost of inspecting to make sure that exploitation is not taking place. Where there is an incentive in place to report or sufficient oversight that the abuses do not occur in the first place, we then have a functioning labour market, we have the appropriate workers being brought in and treated fairly, and we preserve our international reputation as a good place to work and to live, and these reputational effects, of course, also have wider benefits. As a country we depend on our reputation for fairness in many, many situations, including at the international trade table. New Zealand earns its place at the trade table as a small country often because it is seen as a straight talker—as one that will not align itself with other countries’ interests just for the sake of it, but will take a principled position. That is based on our reputation for fairness and, of course, that can be undermined by poor legislation that does not seek to ensure that immigrant workers are protected appropriately.

In the bill itself, as I said, there is a mix of levies and fees. The Legislation Advisory Committee regarded the bill and proposed that there should be greater specificity to show that what has been proposed is not simply an unwarranted tax and to ensure that migrants will not be made responsible for the Government’s failure to properly fund the Immigration Advisers Authority. So there is some muddled thinking in the bill and it is clear that that needs to be picked up and addressed. I would be interested in what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, has to say about that recommendation, as I am sure he is across these issues as a former Finance and Expenditure Committee chair, one whose nomination I thoroughly supported. I am sure he will have some words of wisdom about the recommendations of the Legislation Advisory Committee. I see Mr Goldsmith nodding, so I will look forward to his contribution soon. He is someone who does have something to say in debates that is worthwhile from time to time, and this may well be one of those occasions.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Like Halley’s Comet.

Dr DAVID CLARK: My colleague comments he is like Halley’s Comet, but I will come back to the matter at hand. In the select committee 18 people submitted on the bill and a number of changes were recommended. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to support the amendments that are being put forward. We do not think that they really address the issues that have been brought forward through the submissions process and we do not think that they get to the heart of unpicking the problems that sit in the bill, so we will still not be able to support the bill even if the amendments were adopted by this Parliament.

I want to finish my contribution where I started off, by encouraging the Minister in the chair to indeed address those issues. Maybe he has got some other ideas as to how we can solve the muddle that is in the bill. I would like to see the Government significantly tackle migrant exploitation in a way that is meaningful and that preserves our international reputation for fairness and the fair treatment of workers, because we depend on that reputation in the international trade sphere. We depend and trade on our reputation for fairness in many areas in world affairs. Ultimately, it is about fairness, and New Zealanders have a real sense that fairness must be preserved. That is also true for our New Zealand workers—it is about making sure there is a fair market place and that exploited migrant workers are also not undercutting the opportunities, effectively, for New Zealand workers. So we will not be supporting the bill as it stands and I do very much look forward to Minister Goldsmith’s contribution to the debate. He is someone who occasionally sheds useful light on an issue.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to:

In new section 5(4) in clause 5, replace “must be sent” with “must be given or sent”; and

in new section 175A(5)(c)(iii) in clause 47, replace “for liability against deportation” with “against liability for deportation”.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in his name to Part 2 be agreed to:

in the heading to clause 61, replace “New section 277A inserted (Powers of entry and search for employees on employers’ premises,” with “New sections 277A to 277C inserted”;

in clause 61, after new section 277A, insert:

“277B Department must review and report on entry and search powers under section 227A

(1) The Department must, not later than 3 years after the commencement of section 277A,—

(a) review the exercise by immigration officers of the entry and search powers conferred by section 277A(3)(a) and (b); and

(b) prepare a report on the review for the Minister.

(2) The report must include recommendations to the Minister on whether any amendments to the Act concerning the powers under section 277A(3)(a) and (b), or both, are necessary or desirable.

(3) As soon as practicable after receiving the report, the Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives.

277C Departmental annual report to record exercise of entry and search powers under section 277A

(1) The chief executive must include in every annual report prepared by the chief executive for the purposes of section 43 of the Public Finance Act 1989—

(a) the number of occasions during the period covered by the report on which immigration officers exercised the powers conferred by section 277A(3)(a) or (b),or both; and

(b) the number of persons charged during the period covered by the report with an offence under section 350 or 351, if the collection of evidence relevant to the offence was significantly assisted by the exercise of the powers under section 277A(3)(a) or (b), or both.

(2) To avoid doubt, this section does not require the chief executive to include in any annual report information about an entry or a search undertaken by consent.”; and

in new section 351(8)(a) the definition of temporary worker in clause 80, replace “visa” with “visa; or”.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

In Committee

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for consideration of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate, with each part to be voted on separately.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought that Part 1, Part 2, the schedule, and clauses be taken as one question. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Parts 1 and 2, clauses 1 to 3, and schedule

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): It is a pleasure to be able to speak on this very important Animal Welfare Amendment Bill up in front of the Chamber this afternoon. I want to talk about some of the specific parts of this bill, and also make a couple of introductory comments. The first one is that animal welfare really matters to New Zealanders. About two-thirds of New Zealand households own a pet—and some of them have more than one pet—so it is hugely important that we get this bill right, and it is my belief that, broadly, we have got this bill right. The other important thing about animal welfare is that we have a multi-billion dollar industry—in terms of the primary production part of our economy—that relies very heavily on animal welfare. A lot of our exports depend on animal production. And so this bill goes a long way to line up both of those important parts of animal welfare in New Zealand, both for those members of society who treasure their pets and for those whose income and GDP rely heavily on animal production and, importantly, on those very important export markets.

The other important thing regarding this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is that I want to acknowledge all of the Primary Production Committee members, who got it into very good shape. I want to come to one particular member this afternoon, and that is Mojo Mathers from the Green Party. She has put a lot of effort into it, with her team, focusing on some of the important issues for this amendment bill.

Mojo Mathers has a variety of Supplementary Order Papers on the Table this afternoon. I want to address, in particular, Supplementary Order Paper 44, which was introduced by Ms Mathers. This is because of concerns that the Government has about Supplementary Order Paper 44 being too broad and potentially having unintended consequences in the way it was drafted. I thank Ms Mathers for bringing this particular issue to the Government’s attention. As a result of that, sitting on the Table is Supplementary Order Paper 69 in my name. We believe that this amendment still captures the essence of what Mojo Mathers was trying to achieve with her Supplementary Order Paper 44. I had a very good chat with Mojo Mathers this morning and explained the Government’s decision for introducing a Government Supplementary Order Paper, and I know that she is broadly supportive of the introduction of my Supplementary Order Paper.

It is a useful point to draw to the Committee’s attention—in terms of focusing on that Supplementary Order Paper—that there never has been any animal testing of cosmetics or finished ingredients in New Zealand. But this amendment sends a very important message that New Zealanders care about their animals, that testing of this nature is unacceptable, and that it will never happen if this Supplementary Order Paper passes this afternoon. It is also important to note that we have a very strong framework and processes in place for any animal testing done in New Zealand. Any testing for products like medicines has to be approved by an independent ethics committee and has to prove that the benefits outweigh any harm caused.

While I am on my feet, I also want to address Supplementary Order Paper 46, which is from Mojo Mathers. It is the Government’s view that we will be supporting and adopting this Supplementary Order Paper. The member has rightly pointed out changes made at the select committee to transitional provisions in the bill by removing the words “on a particular sector”, and this Supplementary Order Paper is consistent with the original policy intent in the bill. I thank the member for spotting the need for this minor technical change.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): That was a very relaxed speech from a very relaxed Minister for Primary Industries, and I think relaxation in the area of animal welfare is something that he is becoming renowned for. We have an appalling history and series of practices in New Zealand in animal welfare, on farms—in particular, on poultry and pig farms—but not only there; we have an appalling record of cruelty to some pets. And we have a Minister who regularly, when there is a crisis, fails to act, fails to show concern, and pretends that the ineffectual approach taken by the ministry, which is basically understaffed and scared to do proper promotion of animal welfare, is OK. It is not.

There has been a slow approach to this piece of legislation, which was introduced in May 2013. It languished on the Order Paper until August 2013, when the Government gave it a first reading. It was reported back in June 2014. It got a second reading in November 2014. Now, nearly 2 years after its introduction, we have come to look at the details of the bill. Anyone who cared about animal welfare would have given this legislation higher priority than that Minister has.

The Labour Party finds cruelty to animals abhorrent but we also know—and my colleague Damien O’Connor often reminds us—that the international reputation of our exporters depends on having good policies and practices in New Zealand, and the example of a few idiot farmers can destroy the reputation of our primary industry and place our exports across a wide range in danger. It is particularly important going into Europe, becoming more important going into the United States, but now even in the Asian market, at that top end, people are looking at the practices that we have when they are looking for premium product. If we ignore that, we ignore some of the best markets for our product. As I say, there are some idiot farmers who place that at risk and, frankly, the attitude of the Minister and of his ministry is far too often to turn a blind eye to it, not to crack down and prosecute.

This legislation is better than what is currently in place, but it will depend on the enforcement. But, frankly, a Government that takes 2 years to get legislation through, which has really stretched the agency responsible for enforcement, does not give me a lot of faith in its ability to get this sorted. I do want to compliment the Minister. I think that now, 700 days after it was brought to the Government’s attention, the bill has a Supplementary Order Paper that addresses the cosmetic testing issue. It was not an issue on the first reading, it was not an issue in the select committee, and it was not an issue on the second reading, but at last the Government has folded. I want to join with the congratulations to Mojo Mathers on the work that she has done on leading on this issue. It is something that she knows she has always had our support on, but the fact that the Minister has finally caught up with the importance of our international reputation in this area to the rest of our primary industries is something that is a compliment to her. For that reason, we will of course support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper.

I have moved Supplementary Order Paper 48 to the bill. What this Supplementary Order Paper does within clause 56 of the bill is replace a 10-year phase-in period and a 5-year renewal process for the abolition of cruel practices with a 7-year period. What we are saying is that we should not have cruel practices at all, but what we do accept is that changing the practices in some farming operations is going to take some time. What we want to do is be reasonable to farmers in order to make the changes. But 15 years to stop the awful practices that we see on many of our pig farms—practices that are actually worse than the practices of a generation or two before. They have just got to stop, and 15 years to stop them is just far too long.

So that is why I am moving Supplementary Order Paper 48. What that does is take the 10-year cruel practice exemption that the Minister can grant—and he can grant a 5-year renewal of that—down to a maximum of 7 years with no right of renewal. I say to the Minister that if that is not good enough and if he thinks that farmers will, in fact, need a longer period and he thinks it should be renewed after 7 years, then he should bring—as an Opposition member, because I can accept that that is what he will be by that stage—something back to Parliament for the whole Parliament to consider. I think it is unreasonable for any Minister, whatever their party, to be left with the right to continue for 15 years practices that this Committee today is deciding are unacceptable. We are making a decision to have a better regime, but we are granting a Minister time and an ability to override it, and in my opinion that is something that is not acceptable.

There is a further series of Supplementary Order Papers that the Committee is considering. We will be guided by Mojo Mathers on whether she wants her one to go through as well. I am assuming that the Minister’s one will override her one, but if that is not the case, it would be good to have discussion on that one. We will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 355 in Mojo Mathers’ name. We think that it is appropriate for there to be a balance of practicality and economics in making decisions on the part of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. That is something that I think you have got to do as part of that process, and taking out that balance is something that I think goes a step too far, so we will not be supporting—as we have indicated to her—that particular Supplementary Order Paper. We will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 47, which deals with the deprivation of life for non-human hominids. This is generally known as the great apes issue, and we support Supplementary Order Paper 47, which essentially limits the reasons for killing apes within New Zealand to euthanasia. It cannot be done just as a matter of convenience.

Of course, I am pleased to hear that the Minister is going to be supportive of the tidying up of his untidy work on the legislation. The bill is better than the current legislation, but not good enough.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a shame when you have got to start at the back end of your speech and finish at the front end, but that is what I am going to do. I take issue with the previous speaker, Trevor Mallard, on a number of things he has raised in the point of that speech, and I take exception to the way that he dealt with farmers. Clearly, legislation is never going to stop errant people; it is only going to prosecute them or punish them for being errant. I think those numbers are very few in New Zealand, and I think it is a gross miscarriage of the use of this House, in fact, to use the terminology that he used around the number of people who, I guess, break the law and things like that. I also need to defend the Minister for Primary Industries and his ministry. I think they do an outstanding job. We have an international reputation second to none when it comes to animal welfare—the only countries that do better than us have no animals—and I think we are particularly careful about how we treat animal welfare in this country. We do have a great record, as I have said.

I just want to touch on Supplementary Order Paper 48, in the name of the previous speaker, which I will refer to as Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper. Over the years a regime has evolved around the way we look after and, I guess, treat animals, and that has evolved over centuries throughout the world. We have some practices in New Zealand that this Parliament clearly thinks—and I agree—will eventually need to be changed. But changing practices that have evolved throughout history and evolved for the better on the whole throughout history is a long-term process. I think it is totally impractical to think we can stop these practices after 7 years when we may well need to take significant notice of the changes that occur in those years leading up to the expiration date of our tolerance for them. We certainly need to have some ability to allow those practices to continue, provided they are closely monitored and managed in a proper manner. So for that reason we will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 48. I think it is far too severe, and I think it places our ability to farm in at least two areas of our food chain at great difficulty when, in fact, all we would do is accept produce from countries that do not have the same set of standards we have.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it wouldn’t.

IAN McKELVIE: It certainly would. So I think that is interesting.

I want to go back to the beginning of this bill and the reason for it. It is hugely important to New Zealand. It deals with about $25 billion worth of exports annually, and that is increasing on an annual basis. We have a huge amount of importance put on that. I also want to deal very quickly with the select committee process. I know that the Minister touched on it, and I think that the cooperation around the somewhat, I guess, agitated debate on this bill was pretty good around that table. It took quite some time to get the bill through the Primary Production Committee, and that process, certainly from the Green perspective and from a number of inputs from the Labour Party, had quite an interesting impact on where this bill has eventually got to. I think we have arrived in a pretty good space on that. So some 2½ years after the introduction of the bill we are back in the Chamber talking about the Committee stage, and I think on the whole we are in a good space.

I want to very briefly talk about the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister, Supplementary Order Paper 69, which is very important in that it enables us still to deal with, if we need to, issues that are quite, I guess, complicated around the health and welfare of the New Zealand community, and at the same time it protects animals from any kind of cosmetic testing—I guess the word “cosmetic” is probably the most logical word. So it puts us in a good space in that respect. It enables us to do some work if it is urgently required, but, certainly, it precludes us from doing what I would call the spurious or the miscellaneous stuff, which we can certainly find other ways of satisfactorily getting through if we need to.

I think we have arrived in a good space on this bill. I think the select committee did a great job on it, and I think that all those people involved in it, from the chairman, Shane Ardern, down, had a great input and did very well.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He was a real farmer.

IAN McKELVIE: He was a very good farmer, Shane Ardern. I am happy to leave it there in the meantime. I think we are in a good space.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast—Tasman): I am recalling the passage of the original animal welfare bill in the late 1990s, when my colleague Pete Hodgson took over from me. I was a member of the Primary Production Committee then, as I am now. He, though, as a vet, had a particular passion and skills in the area of animal welfare. So he took over and did a lot of the negotiating for Labour, and now we have my colleague Mr Mallard, who is spokesman for animal welfare, but I remain the spokesman for primary industries. It is a healthy balance. He likes the poodles; I like the big dogs. I guess there is a different approach to it, and as a farmer and as a representative of the primary sector, I guess, keeping some reality in this debate is really important. I think that, generally, Parliament has done a good job. I acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy. He has had, at a very late stage, a flash of brilliance or wisdom and has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 69, which, I think, addresses the things my colleague Mr Mallard has been asking for, as indeed has Mojo Mathers, for some time. The Government is slow to learn but it does learn, and I have to acknowledge that.

As Trevor Mallard said, our international reputation relies on our ability to care for animals properly. The finer points are that there are many who want to eat meat but do not want to slaughter animals. That is the reality, the conundrum, that faces many consumers, I guess. They want to be the beneficiaries of a really good, safe food system, including good animal welfare. Indeed, that is what they expect, and at the end of the day there are some realities, some harsh realities, of course, around the slaughter of animals for consumption that we have to continue to allow, be it in relation to hens or to the production of pork or beef. We just have to make sure that we keep the right balance. Indeed, the issue of exemptions and the time frame to allow those practices to be phased out is a very important issue. We acknowledge that there are practices that we have now accepted are unacceptable—if you would like to include that contradiction, I guess—so we want to phase them out over time.

Let us take sow stalls, for example. They were introduced to protect the piglets, of course, so they would not get squashed. A harsh reality of pig farming is that many of those young piglets do get squashed in an uncontrolled environment. However, 50 percent of the pork in this country comes from production systems that do not use sow stalls, so we need time to ensure that the rest of the pork industry can transition to the phase-out of those sow stalls. Indeed, that was an agreement early on. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has accepted that. There were recommendations, and we say that although the Government has extended the time, there should have been a commitment to that phase-out period, which was 2015, I think, originally.

None the less, the Government has eased off on some of those things, and with that easing-off comes a risk to our international reputation. We have moved in the area of the export of live animals. We have banned that practice until we get robust or absolute guarantees of the safety of those animals. Some ask, of course, for their treatment to be monitored in the export market to which we send them.

Consumers are ultimately the people who will drive this. There are ethical obligations for us, of course, as humans, to look after animals, but as a country dependent upon the production of food we have to make sure we meet consumers’ expectations. I have before me here a recent report from Lincoln University, which was investigating maximising export returns and consumer behaviours and trends. In China, India, and the UK, all of our export markets, all those consumers basically said they would pay more for a product that came from systems that had robust animal welfare regimes in them. They have actually quantified it. The report notes, for example, that in Sweden and Denmark a 4 percent premium could be obtained for beef products where there were good animal welfare standards, 32 to 96 percent for pork, and 36 to 112 percent for chicken—more for outdoor housing access. There are now many scientific and well-researched figures that back up the value for New Zealand of having the very best animal welfare system in place.

There is a concern—and my colleague referred to it—as to how we oversee this. The Minister is in charge of a Government department called the Ministry for Primary Industries. It is a big organisation. It is charged with the oversight of forestry, fishing, farming, horticulture, biosecurity, food safety, and indeed animal welfare. It is Labour’s view that that is too broad a range of responsibilities, and I think we have seen the ministry and the Minister fail in terms of their oversight in the area of biosecurity, and, indeed, in food safety. We hope that it does not fail too much in animal welfare, because all of those three crucial areas must be maintained in terms of the standards, the regulations upheld, and our reputation, which is integral to our ongoing export of food from the country. I think there are some real risks because of the structure of the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Minister’s oversight, and the fact that the Government has not funded them properly.

So, in the passage of this bill and the implementation of better and more up-to-date standards, I hope that we can ensure that the standards can be policed properly. In fact, out in the domestic area and in farming areas, the ministry is relying on the SPCA to go out, to monitor, to alert, and sometimes to enforce these regulations. I do not think that is necessarily good enough for an organisation that relies to a large extent on voluntary funding.

We in Labour will support the passage of this legislation, but there will be issues we raise along the way. One of the things put forward, of course, is that if we have a very robust, sound animal welfare regime in this country then we should be proud of it and indeed market it and get some value, as identified in this report from the market place. But this Government refuses to accept country-of-origin labelling for products made and produced in this country. It is head in the sand stuff for the Minister to advocate for the best production systems but not to acknowledge that and promote that in a way that delivers a benefit from it to the farmers, to the pork producers, to the chicken producers.

So what I say to the Minister is that he should perhaps follow through with this more robust animal welfare regime and ensure country-of-origin labelling to meet the requirements across the Tasman, in Australia—we normally have trans-Tasman food regulations—which would say to the farmers of whatever, beef, or pork, or chicken, that if you have abided by this new set of regulations and the passage of this legislation, then you deserve to have a premium for your product. That is where this Government is failing the producers in New Zealand. It will impose upon them, through the passage of this legislation, often additional costs that we believe, collectively as Parliament, are necessary to uphold our reputation. But to then not offer those same producers a benefit to offset that cost is, in our view, irresponsible. The Government has played, I think, an odd role in taking a hands-off approach to country-of-origin labelling when it has had a hands-on approach to all of these other necessary areas in food production.

Can I just say that there are a number of issues for the farming sector that need to be considered. They will not be addressed directly in this legislation. They are things such as the housing or the pastoral production of beef and milk across the country. There is increasing scrutiny of systems within New Zealand as to how we are producing our milk and beef and whether we are going to actually get, as I say, a premium from pastoral production. We now have people putting a lot of dairy production in housing or part housing, and some of them, in fact, have full-time housing of cows. So the question of whether that then does put us at risk is something that I think the ministry has to look at. Very briefly, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee—

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this Committee of the whole House as we debate the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This is a bill that New Zealand First does support, and we have supported it from the outset.

I am not going to take too much issue with the position of the Minister for Primary Industries and berate him too savagely at this stage, in spite of what other Opposition members have done. I think the National Government has taken enough of a flogging at the hands of New Zealand First this week, so we will let those wounds heal a little before we come back to it. I do wish to look at some of the Supplementary Order Papers, and particularly the Minister’s own amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 69.

I do, as other members have done, want to acknowledge the work of Mojo Mathers and her team in the Greens in bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I would call it a success in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has now brought. We did look very closely at Mojo Mathers’ first Supplementary Order Paper dealing with cosmetic substances, but we are much more comfortable with the version that the Government has now brought. We are certainly not happy that there has not previously been a prohibition on testing cosmetic substances on animals in New Zealand, or at the very least that there has not been a practice of prohibition for quite some time.

We were concerned, when looking at the original draft that we saw from the Greens, that there was no protection for ingredients in the supply chain that, although they may end up being used in cosmetic substances, were not solely intended for that. We might have had a situation where there would have been a prohibition on the testing of ingredients for cosmetics that also had application to other products such as medicines, agricultural compounds, and veterinary medicines, as the Minister has pointed out. So we are much more comfortable with the thrust of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has brought forward, and we will be supporting it for that reason, not because we are opposed to the proposition that Mojo Mathers has brought. We do support it, and we thank her and the Greens for it. We just feel that the version that the Minister and his advisers have created is going to be far more practical in terms of its utility.

I will now turn to Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of Trevor Mallard. We do support it. There is a great concern that the bill as drafted, as the explanatory note says, “allows regulations to be made for up to 10 years with a potential extension of another 5 years when phasing out harmful practices relating to animals.” At the time this was being debated through the select committee and through the term of the last Parliament, I sat on that committee as an observer, by the committee’s leave. It was noted, both by industry and by ministry advisers, that for certain things, such as sow crates, there was no technical alternative on the horizon to the crates as they were being used. It was not a case of people being opposed to phasing them out, but for the system of farming that requires them there was simply nothing available on the immediate horizon to replace crates for that type of usage.

We certainly take note of that. However, we do agree with Mr Mallard that 7 years has to be a sufficiently long period of time for the industry and for technology to catch up with where that requirement is at. We could, of course—as I have mentioned earlier in the debate—move to an entirely free-range farming system that does not require the use of crates. That is a decision that the British Parliament made some years ago, and so all pork that is farmed in Britain now is free-range. However, Britain has a situation where they still have subsidies for agricultural production, as does the rest of the European Union. We do not, of course, so if we were to bring in such a system in New Zealand, it would be the New Zealand consumer who would be shouldering the entire cost of that more expensive free-range farming system, whereas in countries like the UK and other places that do have subsidies obviously that cost is not borne, so that is a consideration that does have to be taken into account by politicians and by voters in New Zealand. It is a separate question that has got to be addressed differently.

Just taking a step backwards slightly, I say that when we look at Supplementary Order Paper 355 we do oppose it. Again, I give credit to Mojo Mathers for bringing the issue to the attention of the Committee, but to remove the ability of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to take into account practicality and economic impact when carrying out its functions kind of runs contrary to the basis, the reasons, for New Zealand being an agricultural nation. Yes, we do have a reputation to protect in terms of how we are regarded in overseas markets, and yes, we do want to give the best regard to the animals that we farm, that we keep as pets, etc., etc. But we also have to remember that at the end of the day when we are farming animals, we are farming them predominantly for our own purposes and for our own benefit. Regardless of how well we treat them and how well we keep them, at the end of the day for the most part we kill them and eat them. It is a matter of expediency for us to do that.

There is some ground in between the two ideals—the one that is purely economically driven and the one that is purely ideologically driven. Somewhere in between those two extremes there has to be a practicality that takes account of the fact that in order to enable us to farm these animals in a way that suits our purposes, there are going to be times when we do not treat them particularly nicely. One of those, of course, is at the end of their lives when, as I say, we kill them and we eat them.

So there does have to be provision, I think, for the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to take into account the practicality and the economic impact of the measures that they bring to bear on animal welfare. For that reason we will be opposing Supplementary Order Paper 355.

As the Minister pointed out in his opening address, thanks again to Mojo Mathers, who really has done a great deal of work with regard to this—to the benefit of animal welfare and to the benefit of the whole Committee. It is gratifying to know that if a technical fault such as the words of a particular sector can slip through the net, with all the oversight that the ministry gives it and that political parties give it, that technical fault can be taken out at this stage in the Committee. We are thankful for that. We appreciate that. We will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 46.

There is another one that we will support—Supplementary Order Paper 367, also in Mojo Mathers’ name—but with a little clarification. It speaks about a suitable alternative. It says: “In this section, suitable alternative means [an] equivalent project that does not involve the use of an animal.” I do have a slight concern, going back to what I said before, with regard to the higher cost of some non-animal tests. We would just like some clarification from Mojo Mathers, or perhaps from somebody else from the Greens when they make a contribution, as to whether or not economic considerations will be included in the definition or in the consideration of the word “suitable”.

It is all well and good saying that there may be alternative methods for determining, say, toxicity, and there are technological advances that are happening right now and other ones that are on the horizon, which will mean that certain tests that now require the use of a live animal can be done with dead animal tissue or even cultured animal tissue. But we do also have to look at the practical considerations that those tests, certainly in the early years until the advance of technology reaches a certain point, may be prohibitively expensive. If we can get some clarification on that, we would be much happier about supporting that.

Finally, getting down to Supplementary Order Paper 47 with regard to the deprivation of life of non-human hominids—we will be opposing this. The primary reason is not that we do not believe that our great ape brethren do not deserve the same regard. It is simply that we believe that if an animal such as a great ape is going to be deprived of life under these circumstances, it should be a vet who makes that decision rather than a bureaucrat. We do not want to leave that decision solely to a director-general who, for all their qualifications and professionalism, may well be subject to any other kind of political pressure. We would rather leave that to the vets, and that is why we will be opposing Supplementary Order Paper 47. However, all those things said, we do still support the passage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I will speak more about this in the third reading. Thank you very much.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would just like to express my deep appreciation to the Government for stepping up and basically adopting a ban on animal testing for cosmetics. Having campaigned on this for a very long time, and finding out about it only this morning, I say that it is, I think, a real win for animals in New Zealand.

I think it will be an incredibly important move to make because the reality is that we talked about a strong ethical framework for the animal ethics committee that approves the testing, but the reality is that it does not make consistent decisions. With regard to the outdated LD50 tests, one animal ethics committee had approved a number of these tests in the last few years, whereas another one said that it would never use them or approve them because basically they do not meet the three Rs of research. Given that they make inconsistent decisions, and given that assurances in the past that certain tests would never be used in New Zealand have been proved wrong with regard to the LD50 tests, there is a real desire that we take this step and adopt a clear ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals. It is one that is hugely popular, that the public supports, that there is massive international support for, and it is a really good step forward.

I really appreciate the consistent support that Trevor and the Labour Party have given for a ban on the testing of cosmetics; it is really appreciated. I also appreciate the New Zealand First question around the testing of cosmetics. The amendment that the Government has put forward is much tighter than the one that I would have put forward in my Supplementary Order Paper 44. But, none the less, the principle that certain types of tests are not appropriate to be undertaken, they are not ethically defensible, is one that was really important to establish in the bill.

I also, just at this point, want to pick up on another aspect while we are talking about animal testing. The committee, after much discussion, put my amendment that proposed to require animal ethics committees to consider or use alternatives not to approve a particular animal test if there was a suitable alternative available. I am pleased that the Government at least has stepped up to say that they must be required to consider the alternatives. Even if they are not required to, they can still go ahead with an animal test.

Section 100(f), inserted in clause 35 of the bill, says they have to assess the suitability of using tests that do not use animals. Up until now, animal ethics committees have not even had to consider that. So sometimes there are very standardised tests that do not use animals that are available to test the toxicity and other things. This was really highlighted during the whole debate on the psychoactive substances bill, where the whole paper by the Ministry of Health proposed only animal tests to be used for testing psychoactive substances. In fact, there were alternatives available for all of the necessary testing that was being proposed that did not use animals.

You have to ask why animals have to suffer for the sake of a psychoactive drug or for the sake of a lipstick, or any of these things. We really need to be moving forward to stopping any unnecessary testing. There have been incredible advances made in alternatives to animal testing, with skin cell cultures, replicas of organs, and computer models. There are all sorts of things. All around the world they are shifting away from using more animal data, which is often totally unreliable, and are using alternatives. So we have taken some small steps in this bill. I will be leaving my Supplementary Order Paper to require alternatives on the Table, because I do think that that is the stronger requirement.

With regard to the concept of affordability, some of these tests are at the moment more expensive because they are not established in New Zealand. Once we have established them, once they have bought the computer models, then moving forward it will actually be cheaper in the long run. That has happened overseas, and that is what needs to happen in New Zealand. We have become too reliant on the old ways of testing. We are not being innovative enough to bring in these new forms of testing that do not involve animals, and that is what the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill needs to be requiring.

I would like to thank Trevor and talk about Supplementary Order Paper 47, which is the great apes Supplementary Order Paper. Thanks to the Labour Party for its support for that. This Supplementary Order Paper was basically motivated by Dr Jane Goodall’s work around the great apes, and how her work has showed that they have the most incredible capacity for language development and using tools. They can learn sign language. They can communicate with people and express their actual emotions in abstract concepts. There was one very powerful video that I have seen of a chimpanzee. When her primary caregiver explained that she had been away for a while because she had had a miscarriage and lost a baby, the chimpanzee made the sign for cry, expressing sympathy. Even though chimpanzees do not cry, it was able to express real emotion and identification.

So, basically, their emotional and intellectual development is very much on par with human 2-year-old children, and the question then becomes: should we be convenience killing any of these animals, because it just should not be happening in New Zealand. People say: “Oh, but it won’t happen.”, but again zoos do convenience kill a whole range of animals when they have more than they require or the animals are redundant for their purpose or it is no longer fashionable for people to go and look at them. So there has been a lot of international outcry around the world where they have done convenience killing of animals. The purpose of this Supplementary Order Paper is really to protect the ones that are the most advanced emotionally and intellectually in terms of their development, and it will be interesting to see what kind of support there is for that.

Finally, I want to touch on Trevor’s Supplementary Order Paper 48, which proposes to restrict the transitional arrangement from up to 15 years, down to 7 years, and we absolutely support that. The bill has moved forward from where it was previously, so I do want to thank all the select committee members and the Government for the removal of having an indefinite time frame for practices that breach the Act, like battery cages and farrowing crates. It is wonderful that we finally have a concrete time frame, which means, as I understand it, that those farrowing crates, which have been determined to be in breach of the Act, will now have to be phased out within 10 years or at the most 15. But I would hope it is within 10 years because the industry has been widely signalled that these farrowing crates are not acceptable.

We are in support of Trevor’s amendment reducing it down to 7 years, because we do think they can do it. The suffering in these farrowing crates is horrendous. We have all seen footage and videos of the suffering that goes on in these intensive pig farms. It is just not acceptable. There are other ways of doing it, and that is what we should be moving towards. We need to be moving towards free-range pig farming, and these kinds of cages are things that are just not OK for that kind of suffering to be implemented.

I just finally want to say that the bill talks about international reputation. It is all very well to have a law that sounds good on paper or reads well, but at the end of the day it is the monitoring and enforcement that are really going to count, and that is going to require more funding, more resourcing, and more proactive enforcement of what happens on farms. Thank you.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I would like to just start by saying that I do not think I can let the member who started out, on the Opposition side, get away with the comments he made about farming. I would like to just point out that farmers do not have a monopoly on idiocy, and I think that you have got to be very careful when you go down that track. I would like to say, actually, that farmers are reliant on their animals and they live with them every day when they are out working with them. They rely on their productivity. Happy animals are more productive and farmers have a vested interest in their animals being happy and productive, a good financial interest in it. Having been a farmer myself, I know only too well that stock that do really well are very happy, and we have seen lots of evidence of that.

I would like also to congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries. I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Primary Production Committee when this bill started through the process, but I think we have ended up with a really sound bill. It is important that we get a bill that has a good framework that will last through time, because what is acceptable today may not be acceptable in the future. Certainly, what was acceptable in the past is not always acceptable today. To get that bill written in such a way that it will last a long time is really a great skill and I tip my hat to the Minister on that, so thank you.

It is important that the bill is able to be enforced, and enforceability in the bill is really important, and I do take on board what the previous speaker, Mojo Mathers, said about it coming down to whether there are enough resources there. I am very confident that there are currently. I think that it is easy to point the finger and say that there are not and you always need to throw more money at it. In fact, the Government under its Better Public Services has shown that Government can actually deliver more for less, and we have seen that right across a number of different ministries. I am sure that that is the case in the Ministry for Primary Industries. Having that clear enforceability is really very important, but you must have the framework and the legislation, and we actually have that on this side. I congratulate you on that. We must have clarity as well in this legislation, and I am very pleased that it is there and the bill is transparent. That is really important.

We have talked a lot about farming and I think that we must not forget that, actually, as the Minister for Primary Industries pointed out, two-thirds of households have a pet—at least one. That is a lot of animals when you think about it. Often there is no economic driver to look after those pets necessarily that well and it is important that we have a good framework to enforce that and ensure that those animals get the treatment that they deserve.

Farming is the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. In fact, I think if we took primary production away, the New Zealand economy would virtually disappear. It was talked about earlier that animal welfare issues would be a threat to our exports, I think the threat is not so much that we would not have our export markets; it is actually that the price that we sell our exports at is so important. We are niche marketers and the people who buy our products at a higher price are buying them on choice. Things like animal welfare are essential to their having confidence in that area. That is where I think it is. It is not necessarily about having our markets closed to us; it is about being able to sell at that higher end. That has been recognised and I know the Minister has a great understanding of this, and it is really important for the future of New Zealand’s agriculture that we aim at that top end. That is where we are going as a country and that is how we will grow our export returns. It is going to be value, really, over volume in the long term, in a sustainable way, and I think that is very important.

I would like to talk about Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper 44. I would also like to congratulate her on putting up a Supplementary Order Paper that was well thought out. Unfortunately, it was a bit broad and there were unintended consequences that could have come out of that. The Minister has recognised that and come up with Supplementary Order Paper 69, which deals with that area but in a much more concise way, and achieves what the member set out to, but ensures that we do not foot-trip ourselves by getting tangled up in little technicalities further down the line. So I think that is very important. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak at the Committee stage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I am pleased to speak on this because, first of all, Labour is supporting the legislation. It is good to speak on a bill where we can actually be positive about what is occurring in Parliament, because frequently we find that that is not the case under this Government. I am also pleased to rise and speak on the bill because I do consider myself to be an animal lover. I have been around animals all my life. Actually, I was brought up on a dairy farm in a little place in the Waikato by the name of Walton—this is probably the only thing that the Hon Judith Collins and I have in common. I have had animals involved in my life right from the very start—animals that we have relied on for our family income, and animals as household pets. And through my association with the horse racing industry, I have been involved in animal welfare from that perspective as well. So this is an issue that is actually very close to my heart.

I would say at the outset that this bill does concern me. I do not rise to speak to too many bills where, when we are talking about the commencement clause, the bill talks about quite a number of sections coming into effect 5 years after the date that the Act receives Royal assent. It concerns me that for quite a number of sections—I think it refers to sections 4, 10, 12, 13, 16, 20, 22, 25, 45, and 57—it could take 5 years before they come into force. I was not on the Primary Production Committee, so I am not familiar with the details of those sections, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to why that particular time period has been named in the commencement clause of this bill, because, as I say, it is very unusual. Mostly when we are debating bills and giving priority to those bills by the use of parliamentary time, it is because we want them to take effect immediately. That is normally what we are doing.

I will, however, note that I do want to speak strongly in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 48, put in by my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard, because his Supplementary Order Paper actually speaks to that issue. It ensures that the piece of legislation that we are passing, which bans or outlaws the mistreatment of animals, will be a reality within 7 years—not the possibility of 15 years, as the bill in its current form allows. The bill does actually allow up to 10 years for these practices to become completely outlawed or banned, and then it has the provision of another 5 years as, I guess, a little bit of fat in the system as well. It seems alarming to me that given we are dedicating parliamentary time to this debate, right here, right now, in the year 2015, we would find it acceptable for some of these practices to continue until the year 2030 or beyond, depending on when Royal assent is given for this bill.

It seems to me that there appears to be a lack of urgency from the Government benches as to how soon they want to make sure that these practices disappear. From the Labour side of the Chamber, we are clear about this: it should not take anywhere near 15 years to be able to get rid of the mistreatment of animals, which this bill is designed around—7 years is well long enough and easily adequate for those practices to change. So I would challenge the Minister and his colleagues to give us the justification for why such a long period would, in fact, be needed. I think it may well be that the Government underestimates the ability of those involved in deriving their livelihoods from animals to be nimble and to change their practices in a shorter period of time. I think it tells us quite a lot about how the Government feels about those who rely on animals for their income—that the Government thinks they will be slow to respond. That is why the Government is giving this extraordinary amount of time for these practices to change. I would very much like some comment from the Government benches on that issue.

I notice that new section 30C, inserted by clause 17, protects hunting in safari parks. Maybe this is a piece of local information—local to New Zealand, that is—that I am unaware of, but I would like to know from the Minister where the safari parks are that this new section would apply to. It is not actually something that I have been involved in. I have not booked myself into a safari park in New Zealand to hunt and kill animals. I am really quite unsure as to what new section 30C applies to. If the Minister could let us know about that, I would really prefer that he do it in a way that was not an advertisement for that one safari park that might exist in New Zealand that has escaped my attention. But I would be interested to know where that does occur.

I do, however, want to note that the bill outlaws—and so it should—the killing of animals in a wild setting. It does not actually use that phrase.

Dr Megan Woods: Does it cover moa?

SUE MORONEY: I am sure it does cover moa. The issue that I really do want to cover—because it is a very serious issue, and it is the one that sticks in my mind, which I believe this bill will deal with—is that shocking incident where seals were clubbed to death. It is a very, very important thing that we do make sure we have got a piece of legislation that does address that issue, not just because animal welfare is important to our economy and to our export sector, not just because of that, but because it is the right thing to do. In that instance, when those seals were killed—just for the pure entertainment of a few young men, it appeared—that is something that the entire nation, I think, found completely distasteful.

I do want to draw a link, because I have been thinking about why it is that the mistreatment of animals is so abhorrent to us. Yes, it is abhorrent in its own right, but there is a lot of research that now backs up the assertion that people who will be cruel to animals will be equally cruel to humans. There is a very strong link between those who find it entertaining to be cruel to a defenceless creature that cannot fight back and those who will hurt children. There is a strong link between those who commit offences against animals and those who are involved in domestic violence as well. I did not want to sit down after speaking in this debate without making sure that we drew that link—that this is an important bill, in its own right, but that it is also equally important because it relates to how we interact with each other as people. Thank you.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): It is good to make a contribution to this very important bill. We have had a very good discussion around the Committee this afternoon. It is interesting to hear some of the comments that have been made this afternoon by all of the parties represented in the New Zealand Parliament. They are broadly supportive of the direction of amending the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and bringing it up into modern times.

It is interesting that some of the comments have been that the Ministry for Primary Industries is not doing enough or the Minister is not doing enough. I would refute that very, very strongly. The reason why I can say that is that we have done a lot, and this bill shows that we are prepared to do even more when dealing with animal welfare issues and making sure that we have modern regulations. We have still got all of that discussion to be had, because once this bill is through the Parliament we will work on the regulations, which are basically going to give the teeth to implement the primary legislation that we are indeed debating this afternoon.

I will give you a few examples to show that the Government does care about animal welfare. In 2010 we introduced the new offence of reckless ill-treatment, which means the imprisonment term has gone from 3 years to 5 years. That has been broadened out. Fines have increased from $50,000 to $100,000 for individuals, and from $250,000, as it was then, to $500,000 for bodies corporate. Also, last year we introduced a ban on blunt force trauma killing of bobby calves. We all know that that is unacceptable as a routine practice, so that changed. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee went out and consulted, and brought advice back to me, and that change has been implemented. Also, last year we banned shark finning, and that needs to be acknowledged because it is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act. That has been toughened up as well. We have got more compliance officers working on animal welfare. If people have concerns, then they should ring the Ministry for Primary Industries to get it to investigate. The ministry does investigate, and indeed it does bring prosecutions to bear.

There is an important point that I think we should not lose in the debate this afternoon. Just a few months ago, in November 2014, the global charity World Animal Protection ranked New Zealand as first equal, out of 50 countries around the world, for our animal welfare regulatory system, alongside the UK, alongside Austria, and alongside Switzerland. Is it not fantastic that we have an endorsement from a global charity that has looked at 50 countries around the world and ranks New Zealand first equal? I think we should all be very, very proud of that fact. There has been a bit of discussion this evening about Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 48 and the 7-year transition. The Government cannot support Supplementary Order Paper 48, because we are of the view that industry needs that 10-year transition period—

Dr Megan Woods: Industry are more nimble than that.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Well, I am very happy to have the debate, but let us talk about egg producers as an example. They are currently transitioning away from battery cages. I think we would all acknowledge that. They have started doing that. Industry is making good progress. Of course, this came from the fact that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee went out and consulted, looked at all of the science, and produced the evidence for the Government to make the change. We should be aware of the fact that eggs are one of the cheapest sources of protein for Kiwi families. They are an extremely reliable and important food source for low and middle income families, and many others, actually, in New Zealand as well.

If you go too hard and too fast on this transition period, then you need to be aware of the changes that industries need to make. Egg producers, for example, have got to change. They have got to change from battery cages to colony cages. They need to, first of all, go and purchase some land, because we are talking about a new building in a lot of cases. They need to then go out and raise the capital. They then need to go to the local authority and get a consent. More than likely that is a publicly notified consent process. So let us bring some practical realities into this debate about this transition period.

The other important thing is that currently I do not think there is any egg importation, because of biosecurity conditions here in New Zealand. So if you close down an industry and move too quickly on the transition period, you will see a huge spike in the price of eggs, and I do not think anyone would want that. That is why we need to be very practical on this transition period.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Kia ora. I would like to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and some of the Supplementary Order Papers. I would also acknowledge the Government’s changes in terms of the issues around the use of blunt force and shark finning as great examples of change, but I would also note that those changes came with a lot of public pressure. The Government bowed to public pressure. These are what we see as issues that have risen to public attention, but meanwhile huge cruelty carries on and the Government is doing little on some other areas where it could. So I look to the Minister for Primary Industries and hope that he and his ministry will drive harder on issues of animal welfare during this very term—during this very year would be a really good start.

I realise that in New Zealand we have a major cultural weakness, in fact, around farmed animals and what we can do and what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, but, clearly, there is a shift. Even this bill shows some of the shift and the issues around animals as sentient beings and so forth.

As my colleague said, the monitoring and enforcement will be where this bill and other changes that have happened in recent times are really measured. The word “practical” comes up here, and most in the House, apart from, I think, the Green Party, have talked about the practicality or balance—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

STEFFAN BROWNING: The people on the Government side who say “balanced” and “practical” and laugh do not mind the cruelty going on in cages and farrowing crates and other things that are happening in nearly every form of farming. What is balanced about accepting cruelty? There is nothing balanced about it.

The Minister for Primary Industries talked about the cheapness of eggs as a protein source but totally forgot that vegetable protein can be produced a hang of a lot more cheaply and with far fewer environmental effects in terms of a lot of our animal production. In saying that, I am what I call a selective omnivore. I will eat some meat if it is produced organically or it is wild, or something like that, and has not been brought up in a cage. There is no excuse for carrying on with caged farming.

I have a lot of sympathy for the pork industry. We have got to look at the pork industry in context, because the context is an import health standard that allows almost 50 percent of the pork consumed in New Zealand to be imported and that we do not have any control over how those pigs are produced. Those disadvantaged pig farmers in New Zealand are competing against pork produced in ways that we are saying we need to phase out. So, Minister, I ask you to look at issues around the import health standard as well. I know that they have been traversed right through in a range of courts, but why was that? It was because the Biosecurity Act is not strong enough. All these bills and Acts need to be looked at in the context of the others. We must have some changes so that we get rid of those farrowing crates sooner but also help our producers so that they do not have to compete with cheap, cruelly produced meat, imported from overseas.

In terms of hens, the last time the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee did any changes I think it basically, effectively, said that hens could still live in space that is the size of an A4 sheet of paper. They might be in a slightly bigger cage, a few of them, but, effectively, each has that much space. There is no need for that, and the sooner we change that, the sooner people will look at, and take up, the opportunity of genuine free-range systems. We must move to that. The context is also how the regulations are enforced and how the Minister and his ministry get in there and ensure that enforcement and monitoring.

I would like to speak a little bit, too, on the alternatives. My colleague Mojo Mathers talked of what happened in terms of the psychoactive drugs part—another context. That context there showed that there are real alternatives to these cruel practices. But if we say “practical” and “balanced” too often, you would say “Oh, it’s not practical. Economically there’s a disjunction and we can’t afford to go down that path.” If it was people being involved in the testing, we would be doing that as quick as lightning. We would have no problem with bringing in the alternatives. There are tissue cultures and there are a whole range of technologies that are very advanced that can take the place of all these sorts of testing. There will be more changes that will need to come and there will be amendments in the future beyond those that are in front of us today.

I am also grateful to see the Government doing something around the cosmetics area and doing it as a leader in the direction of change that we need. I really do acknowledge, and am grateful for, that change in Supplementary Order Paper 69, but with the exemptions to the measure, there is a real risk that you could drive almost anything through it because of the number of different substances that might be included in the exceptions. It will be over to the Minister and the ministry to make sure that it is not rorted in some way, that we have real depth to this, and that we are leaders in the world and show the way forward around animal welfare. It was said that we are first equal in the world. That might be in terms of the system we have, but the application of the system, I would suggest, needs a little bit more scrutiny.

So thank you. We will, obviously, be supporting this bill and the bulk of the Supplementary Order Papers in front of us. Thank you.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members, we are considering the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The question is that Part 1 and Part 2, the schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. I will put the motion. I will put the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69. All those in favour will say Aye—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Voting presumably had not started on this matter prior to the dinner break. It would, therefore, usually be customary for the Chair to ask whether there are any additional people who wish to speak before putting the question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, it may or may not be customary. If we had not stopped for dinner, we would not necessarily wait to see whether there were any calls, bearing in mind the calls that we have had. We note that Labour members have had six, National have had five, New Zealand First have had two, and the Greens have had four. At the time members were seeking the call there was only one member seeking the call and the Minister had previously spoken in the call before that. If we had not stopped for the dinner break, I would have put the motion at that time. I do not see the fact that the dinner break has intervened as a reason to hold off putting the vote.

Chris Hipkins: I certainly understand that that may be a rationale for accepting, for example, a closure motion by the Chair, but simply closing down a debate without testing the will of the Committee at the present point seems to me to be at odds with the practices of the Committee.

Steffan Browning: Mojo Mathers had one 10-minute block and I had the best part of 10 minutes. You have called it four speeches. Mojo Mathers particularly, who has got a number of amendments that are being considered, needs to speak further to that. I have certainly got another—I would like at least another 5 minutes if I could too. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am prepared to show some leniency on this particular occasion, bearing in mind the mover of those Supplementary Order Papers. The point is that at the time that people were seeking the call immediately before the dinner break there was not a scramble to be called. There was only one person on their feet seeking the call and it became appropriate to actually put the motion at that time. I am prepared to take another call from Mojo Mathers, if she wishes one.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I wish to speak to clarify the intent of my Supplementary Order Paper 355, which is the one that would delete new sections that have been inserted around economic impact and practicality. There seemed to be a misunderstanding that this Supplementary Order Paper would mean that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee can no longer consider these factors. That is not the case. There are already existing allowances to consider other factors, including economic impacts and practicality. What we were concerned about is that this bill now elevates them to explicit factors that may be considered. Our concern around that is that these factors are precisely the ones that have been used historically in the past to justify codes of welfare that allow extremely cruel practices such as keeping and confining battery cages, sow crates, and farrowing crates. Therefore, given that history of how economic impacts and practicalities had been abused in the past, we are very concerned that elevating them explicitly in the bill will send the wrong message about what kind of factors are important when we are setting codes of welfare, when we are setting regulations. It is not that they cannot be considered; they can be considered. They already are considered.

But we do not think these factors in particular justify explicit elevation in the bill. That is what this Supplementary Order Paper aims to do. It just removes the elevation of these factors. It does not remove them altogether as factors that can be considered. I wanted to clarify that in light of the comments that were made by New Zealand First and Labour in particular. So it is not about removing those factors that can be considered altogether; it is about stopping them from being elevated because we think that that is, given the history, not desirable in this bill.

I wanted to also respond to the comment that was made by the Minister for Primary Industries around us having been assessed for regulations, as being world leaders, first in the world. That does not apply, in fact, to many practices. In particular, it does not apply to practices such as battery cages and colony cages. Overseas countries have gone in a very different direction. Many countries are far more progressive around animal welfare than New Zealand is. For example, a European Union directive has set a phase-out date of battery cages from 2012, which is nearly a decade ahead of our phase-out date of 2022. In Austria, Germany, and Switzerland they have set phase-out dates for colony cages now. So at the time that we are bringing in colony cages, they are going to be phasing them out. That is how far behind we are in terms of our factory farming of animals. The earlier factory farming is something that still, unfortunately, is a really significant issue that this bill does not really come to terms with.

It is fantastic that the bill is going to have more enforceable regulations, but the real test will be whether the Ministry for Primary Industries actually uses the new powers that it has under this bill to take cases to prosecution. The Press just the other week did an inquiry into the number of prosecutions that were happening on Canterbury farms in particular, where literally thousands of animals have been found to be mistreated or neglected. They were absolutely shocking cases of abuse, and hardly any of them were taken to prosecution. Some of these examples are absolutely appalling, like a video of four boys who videoed shearing a sheep that was left with bloodied legs. They should have been prosecuted. Instead, they ended up with verbal advice being given to them by the Ministry for Primary Industries. I do not consider that acceptable. The public does not consider that acceptable. We expect more from the Ministry for Primary Industries. We expect it to take cases like that to prosecution. We hope that when the regulations become more enforceable the ministry will be given the tools to be able to prosecute clear cases of animal cruelty on farms, because there are far too many and they need to be followed through.

The final bit that I wanted to talk to was Supplementary Order Paper 367, which is the one around suitable alternatives. I am hoping that Labour and New Zealand First will support this one. What this one does is require that if animal ethics committees know of a suitable alternative to a particular animal test that complies, then they may not approve the trial on animal testing. They may approve it only if it complies with the restrictions on the use of animals in research and testing or teaching and if it complies with any conditions issued by the committee.

In this Supplementary Order Paper, “suitable alternative” means an “equivalent project that does not involve the use of an animal”. That is really interesting because the Ministry for Primary Industries officials took this particular Supplementary Order Paper out for feedback from research companies and people actually doing research on animals. Some of them came back with the sort of sense that the sky was going to fall in if they actually were not allowed to continue doing all the animal tests that they currently do. It really hinged around their interpretation of what “a suitable alternative” meant, because they were saying: “Well, we’re required to do some particular animal tests by such and such a regulation.” The reality is that if you are required to test a particular product by regulation on an animal, then there is no suitable alternative that does not use animals, because you are required to. Maybe the regulations should be updated, but this does not affect these kinds of requirements, because for the purpose of a suitable alternative means one that meets the purposes of what they are aiming to test for. If you are required to do that by regulation, this Supplementary Order Paper would not affect that.

Nearly all of the concerns that were raised by animal testing organisations were around that, and it is really important to realise that there is a vested interest by these companies in continuing to use animals in their research because their reputation has been built around that, that is where they have acquired their skills, that is where they have invested in the research facilities, and they actually have not invested in the alternatives that need to be brought in from overseas expertise. We need to build up that expertise here, and this Supplementary Order Paper will help drive innovation in New Zealand in the direction that we want to go as a country—one that does not rely on the use of animals as testing subjects. This is some of the most cruel, barbaric, and awful exploitation of animals that goes on in some of these testing research facilities and we should be doing everything we can to ensure that they go through only the most appropriate tests and that everything else is replaced wherever possible. That is what this Supplementary Order Paper demands. Thank you very much.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I intend to make only a relatively brief contribution to this debate. In reply to Mojo Mathers, who has asked our position on her Supplementary Order Papers, I am happy to indicate that the Labour Party will be supporting the majority of the Supplementary Order Papers that she has put forward. I also want to say that we will be supporting the bill overall.

There is one clause in the bill, on my quick reading of it, that I have a concern about, and that is, simply, the clause that potentially allows for bad practices to continue for 10 years, and even, potentially, for that to be extended for a further 5 years beyond that. It simply raises a very basic and fundamental question: if something is going to be unacceptable in 15 years’ time, why would it not be unacceptable now? Although I understand the need for some transition, surely we should be trying to speed that process up. Simply allowing poor practice to exist for a further 15 years is something that I think members of the public would want to see the Parliament move significantly faster on. So I am fully in support of Supplementary Order Paper 48, put forward by my colleague Trevor Mallard, which would restrict that to 7 years, and not allow it to be continued forward for a further 5. I think that is a very sensible amendment.

Overall, there are some good provisions in the bill. I am pleased to see that there will be the ability for tighter regulations. I am particularly pleased to see some of the provisions around live animal exports. I think those are steps in the right direction, so overall, although I think it would be fair to say that I do not think that the bill goes far enough, I think the provisions that are in the bill are worthy of support.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 355 in the name of Mojo Mathers to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 13

Green Party 13.

Noes 106

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of Mojo Mathers to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 47

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2.

Noes 72

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of Mojo Mathers to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Mojo Mathers to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments related to objectionable publications

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. I am glad that the Minister of Justice will be in the chair for the debate around Part 1 and also around Supplementary Order Paper 67, one of the recent Supplementary Order Papers that has been tabled in her name. I want to focus, firstly, on the substantive clauses within Part 1, which make the most significant changes to this bill. Before I do, though, I want to make the general comment that these are amendments to a piece of legislation that has a broader scope than simply objectionable material as it relates to children. I think that there has been some discussion, perhaps even within the Justice and Electoral Committee but certainly within our party, over the need for an overall strategy when dealing with objectionable material, child exploitation, and so on as it relates to children. It feels like this is a piecemeal approach to what is a much wider and very substantive issue, but that is just a contextual point that I wanted to make before getting into some of the details of this bill.

I will start by looking at clause 4 of the bill, which amends section 124 and relates to offences involving knowledge in relation to objectionable material. This is the first clause that alters the penalty regime for, essentially, the supply, distribution, or the making of objectionable material by way of exportation from New Zealand. I think the point that it is important to make here is that, as I said in my introductory comments, because this legislation is an amendment to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act there is a fairly wide interpretation around the term “objectionable”. The reason that that is important is that to most people’s minds, and certainly when the select committee was considering this, the effect on children is the primary consideration. So when the committee decided that it was right that a maximum term of imprisonment for an offence involving the supply and creation of objectionable material involving children would move to 14 years, that is whom they had in their minds at that time. But as the select committee, I think rightly, pointed out—because we do not have specific child exploitation offences, the term “objectionable” is still relatively open and up to the discretion of the Film and Literature Classification office. There was a bit of a debate at the select committee level as to whether or not, actually, we should be dealing with a separate piece of legislation or whether leaving that discretion around “objectionable” was the right way to go.

I think that probably the point that the select committee made that is of the most relevance is that it becomes very difficult, then, if you are creating separate legislation that applies just to children, to determine where you draw that line. For instance, would you say that “objectionable” would mean anything that was exploitative as it related to a young person, which means that you would probably go from 14 to 17 years, or would you say simply a child, which therefore, under existing definitions, would take you only to the age of 14? You start, then, having to get into some of those arbitrary lines. I think the example that was raised by the select committee was that, for example, it could be argued that material depicting sexual violence against women also warrants higher penalties. So I certainly understand the justification of the select committee for leaving it somewhat open-ended in terms of determining what is objectionable and just allowing penalties to be as consistent as they can be. I think it is slightly disappointing, though, that we do not, for instance, have a body like a Sentencing Council that would be able to ensure that we have consistency in the application or the determination of what that definition of what objectionable is, and whether or not those maximum penalties are being used appropriately or as Parliament intended. We come time and time again in the House to examples where I think a Sentencing Council would really prove its worth, and I think this is another example. Given that we are allowing that discretion, it would have been useful.

I also would like to ask the Minister in the chair—if we are not going to be as definitive as to point out “child” within the definition of objectionable—whether or not it was considered that embedding that as an aggravating factor at the point of sentencing was another way that, perhaps, you could create that point of difference in the legislation. I would be interested to know whether that was ever considered, because that might have been an elegant way to deal with some of those definition issues. I am also interested in how many cases we know have fallen into the category of perhaps being objectionable but not relating to children—how broadly is that definition applied for this penalty regime? I think that might have been information provided at the select committee, which would be useful.

The other issue that the select committee raised was whether, in raising the penalty regime from 10 to 14 years, we then get into a situation where the supply or creation of material actually becomes a higher penalty regime than, for instance, physical assault against a child—making sure we have that consistency in the legislation. It is a very important point to make. If you take a quick example from the Crimes Act, sexual conduct with a child under 12 has a term not exceeding 14 years. Again, I think it is important to make sure that we have rules that are consistent. Again, I think the likes of a Sentencing Council would have been in the position to take a broader view as to whether or not we have got a proportionate response in every element of the law as it relates to the abuse and exploitation of children. In and of its own right, of course, anyone looking at this law would say “Yes, it is right to have those maximum penalties lifted”, and we would agree with that, but I think it is important that we make sure that the other offences that relate to harm to children keep pace with the expectations of Parliament as well. And, again, it is hard to do that from within Parliament, and so a Sentencing Council would have proved its worth there.

Clause 5—these are the new subsections that talk about possession of an electronic publication. A really important point here is that, obviously, the drafting has very particularly made sure that you do not have to have material literally saved on to your device in order for it to be considered possession. I think that it is incredibly important that we make sure that we are really clear on what possession is considered to be. I understand that there was a case, which I think was the rationale for making sure that this was stepped out very clearly—Meyrick v Police. I believe that was a case that actually involved an ex - police officer, if I am correct, in possession of objectionable material. I found it hard finding some substance around that case. If the Minister was willing to speak to how the bill is now in alignment with the outcome of that case, I would be very interested because I found it hard to find details online.

Clause 6, though—I wanted to come to that because that relates to offences of possession. So it is not just the supply penalty regime that we are increasing but also possession, and it makes sense that if you are lifting one, you would consider lifting the other. We are looking at amendments now that will increase the maximum available term from 5 years’ imprisonment to 10 years. Again, keeping alignment with other regimes I think is incredibly important, but from the select committee report it does not seem to be the main concern out of all things that the select committee has raised.

Some concern, however, was raised on new section 132B, to be inserted in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act by clause 7. This section sets out a specific expectation that if there is a repeat offence, the presumption from the court will be to hand down a jail-based sentence. You can absolutely understand why there would be the view that we would need to send a strong signal. We are talking about a very specific classification of offending. There are some principles that apply to this type of offending that are specific to child exploitation and the circulation of objectionable material.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you for the chance to have a call in the Committee stage of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, but I have spoken in all stages of the debate so far. Labour is supporting this bill, but there are some particular issues of concern that I will speak to, and I will echo some of the comments made by my colleague Jacinda Ardern, who spoke before me, around three particular issues. One is around the lack of an overarching strategy within which this bill fits—an overarching strategy on a number of levels, actually, because it is a strategy that deals with children and the abuse of children, and the way that the abuse of children is perpetuated online as well as in the physical environment. Unfortunately, we have another bill before the House at the moment, the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, which was to all intents and purposes developed in isolation or in a separate way, and there are questions around how these bills mesh and how the issues that they raise align. That is one of the issues—around the lack of an overarching strategy.

The other one is particularly around how laws that are created that have an impact on the online environment actually align with laws in the physical environment. This is a particular concern of mine. You would have heard me speak about this on a number of occasions, around the precedents that are being established without what I consider to be a really thoughtful process that has actually allowed the real consideration of some of the impacts. Although I applaud the Minister’s intent around addressing these issues, I seek—and, I guess, plead—for the Government to actually take a little bit more care when putting pieces of legislation in front of us that actually create offences in an online environment that do not necessarily mirror, or are not proportional to, the actual physical enactment of the abuse. There is a difference, but there is also an alignment. I suspect that what we are going to see—and we are already hearing this—is concern from the judiciary and concern from the legal community, particularly, around some of the lack of thought that has gone into these things.

I also want to talk to clauses 4 and 5 around increased penalties and also around the possession of electronic publications. The specific issue that I want to focus on is the increasing of penalties and the question that was raised by a number of submitters around whether or not this would act as a deterrent. The increase in penalties that this bill enacts includes an increase in the maximum penalty for the possession, importing, and exporting of an objectionable publication from 5 years’ imprisonment to 10 years’ imprisonment. So that is a doubling of the penalty. The maximum penalty for the supply, distribution, or making of an objectionable publication is increased from 10 years’ imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment.

There were concerns raised at the select committee by the Dunedin Community Law Centre—the good old Dunedin Community Law Centre, which submits on many pieces of legislation—and the Salvation Army. Both pointed out that increasing the penalties for objectionable publications offences could distort relativity with other offences by treating some physical offending as being less serious than the depiction of that same offending. I know that my colleague Jacinda Ardern touched on this as well. The Salvation Army submitted that this created an anomaly, as physical crimes should be punished more severely than objectionable publications offences, and the Dunedin Community Law Centre suggested that this may send the wrong message to those who are physically abusing children.

I want to be quite clear here that, in principle, I do not have an objection to the increasing of penalties for the abuse of children in any environment, whether it be online or physical, as long as there is due care taken to ensure that the relativities in terms of the kind of abuse are maintained and that there is not the suggestion that one form of abuse—a physical form of abuse—is somehow being diminished in the process. I think that was the point that was being made by those two submitters. In fact, the regulatory impact statement itself raised this issue and said that “it is difficult to predict the effect of an increase in the maximum penalty for an offence.”, and it gave a range of reasons for that, and gave some evidence around the number of people who had been convicted: “In the 8 year period between 2004 and 2011, 393 people were convicted of an objectionable publication offence.” Of them, 33 percent were sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Of that 33 percent, 40 percent of fewer than, I think, 14 cases actually received a term of imprisonment that was less than 40 percent of the maximum available sentence. The regulatory impact statement pointed out that “There are also low rates of recidivism. During the 10 year period … only 8 people were convicted of a repeat objectionable publication offence.”

I guess that my question is—and I refer back to the Salvation Army’s submission on this bill: it questioned whether the increased sentences will actually work as a deterrent, and it submitted that this should be closely monitored. So I have a question for the Minister of Justice, and I hope that she does take a call. The question is: what is the process for that monitoring to take place? Is it included in the strategy around this legislation, and will we be seeing close monitoring of that? We are not opposing this measure, but we are asking for some further clarification around it.

Turning quickly to the offence of possessing an electronic publication, as my colleague Jacinda Ardern said, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act is amended to provide that possession includes intentionally viewing without knowingly downloading or saving. This is a very new provision. So you can receive it, and if you are looking at it—you do not have to download it and you do not have to save it—by the mere act of seeing it intentionally, you are committing a crime. I think this is an interesting part of the bill. I raise that because this is the part of bill that is about updating for modern technology, where we really are looking at the way people are using technology and what that is doing to impact on the legislation that is coming before us. Again, the submissions before the select committee covered this part of the bill quite considerably and really did have good look at it. I think that there was a considerable amount of discussion within the select committee and also by the officials, which gave it quite a lot of attention to ensure that it aligns with common law, under which possession of objectionable material includes intentionally viewing.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): It is good to see this bill back before the House. The Justice and Electoral Committee, from my recall, was hearing submissions on this bill about a year ago. There was a sense of urgency about it because it was seen that there was a gap in the legislation and that we needed to remedy that. So, as I say, it is good to have the bill back in the House.

It is interesting that in the last few weeks, I believe—possibly more than a few weeks—there has been a programme on Prime Television looking at the history of censorship in New Zealand. I think it is called The Naughty Bits. I have caught only a little bit of a few episodes, but it has been a really good reminder that when we are dealing with words like “objectionable” and “indecent”, and “indecency” in this instance, we have to tread very carefully. These are incredibly subjective terms. One of the parts of the programme I did see that gave me some amusement was from back in the early 1970s, when the film Ulysses came to New Zealand. It was deemed to be of such an extraordinary nature that you could not possibly have men and women sitting together in an audience. So it was allowed for public showing to people over the age of 18, but men and women had to be segregated, which is extraordinary. I suspect that today it could go on air with perhaps a PG rating or some such. The point is that our perceptions, our understandings, our social mores in terms of what constitutes objectionable or indecent change dramatically over time. We have seen remarkable shifts even in the last 30 or so years in New Zealand.

Having said all that, I will say that the Greens are supporting this bill, primarily because—and this has been touched on already—it is seen that the legislation essentially has not caught up, or kept up, with available technologies. With the internet and the availability of pornography, particularly of child pornography, part of the problem is that it is now possible to observe such things, which inevitably involve abuse and harm to children, without actually committing the offence of possession. Obviously, to look at something online is not to possess it, and this bill overcomes that gap in the legislation. I guess that at some point we have all fallen into the trap where you click on something that appears innocuous and suddenly you are looking at something you would rather not, particularly if you are using a parliamentary computer—so one quickly moves away from that site. Clearly, it is not the intention to catch people out, but where people are using that sort of material, it needs to be controlled and it needs to be managed. They need to be taken to task.

The part of this bill that caused us difficulty, and continues to, is the increase in the penalties. The evidence, I would argue, is overwhelming that increased penalties on their own are not actually an effective deterrent. We had not a lot of submissions, actually, on this bill—fewer than a dozen, I think—and only a handful of people submitted orally, but they tended to be well-informed submissions, and that came through in a number of them. They said that simply increasing the penalty for a particular offence can in no way give us any expectation of reducing offending rates. Where the investment needs to go is into treating people, particularly people who use child pornography. There is something wrong with those folk. They need attending to, and we need to understand what the motives are for that behaviour. Those are the issues we need to address. I have argued before that we need specialist courts, in the same way that we have the drug and alcohol courts, to deal with these cases. We need to endeavour to actually heal them, to remove the temptation or, in some cases, the need these people seem to have to utilise this form of very objectionable and damaging material. So the Greens continue to have serious concerns about the additional penalties.

I guess we are still able to support the bill with the expectation that the judiciary will apply judgment and common sense. They understand the social context. They understand the limited value of simply putting somebody in jail for longer periods of time. So it is to be hoped that we will get some positive outcomes around that and that the penalties will actually involve treatment and dealing with the cause of the offending as well as the offending itself.

I have touched already on the issue of the definition of “possession”. In the select committee’s report back to the House, the point is made in respect of the whole notion of sexual grooming offences that in many instances it is much easier to commit those sorts of offences, to present to a naive young person as a peer, as somebody you are not, in order to affect their behaviours and ultimately to even bring them into a position where abuse can occur. So we think it is a very positive step that there is recognition of just plugging the possibility or minimising the possibility, or the opportunity, for that sort of offending to occur, online in particular.

Part of the report does engage with these notions of indecency particularly. The point is made that there is actually not a definition of “indecent” in the Crimes Act and in other parts of the law where we deal with issues around what is objectionable, what is indecent, and what is outside of what is acceptable to the so-called responsible normal person. Where we have some comfort is that there is quite a well-established set of case law, and I think that that is the place to leave it—with the courts. The courts should make those determinations because I fear that if we endeavour to make a hard and fast definition in this place of what constitutes “indecent”, it is almost certain to fail, and probably fail in a relatively short period of time. Certainly within 5 or 10 years we will be back here trying to unpick it. Although it might initially look attractive to provide clear definitions—and often good law does that so there are fewer grey areas, if you like, and there is less room for subjectivity in terms of interpretation—I think that these sorts of moral judgments, which these matters essentially are, are best left to the judiciary, where the intention of Parliament is made very clear.

We want and need to protect people, young people in particular in this instance. We want to remove the offences around child pornography and the like, and we want to deal with people who feel the need to indulge in that sort of behaviour, and deal with them humanely but forcefully at the same time. So I do think we had better not endeavour to lock definitions into legislation in these instances. We will have a bit more to say later, but for the moment I just reiterate our support for this bill. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. I note that in her second reading speech the Minister who is currently in the chair, Amy Adams, said: “A 2009 study estimated that internationally 200 new images depicting sexual abuse of children were put into circulation every day. There is also evidence that the content of the publications is getting worse and the children are getting younger. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that those who reoffend in this area tend to do so with a high level of premeditation and go to great lengths to avoid detection.”

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill because something needs to be done. My colleague Denis O’Rourke has previously spoken on this bill and has articulated his concerns that the bill does not go far enough. I repeat those concerns here today; however, we feel that at least it goes somewhere. We agree that there is a very strong need for a deterrent to those who exploit our children in this way.

We would like to pick up on David Clendon’s contribution and one particular point he made in it that was around the length of incarceration and whether that is a deterrent in its own right. We would agree with him that it is not a deterrent in its own right. However, I note that my colleague in his contribution to the second reading said that what we know for sure is that a shorter incarceration is definitely not a deterrent. Nothing about this should be about imprisonment in its own right. Nothing about locking a person up just like that fixes anything. So we would agree with the Green Party member’s contribution that there needs to be care, counselling, and services provided for those who are imprisoned, but we do welcome the provision that increases the incarceration ability for these offences.

We are disappointed, however, that although clause 4, for example, increases the penalty for supply and distribution of objectionable material from 10 years to 14 years, it does not go as far as we would like. It is about the distribution—those who provide the service, I suppose, if we want to talk about a supply and demand situation. If nobody is supplying it, then demand has got to drop off. So we would like to see those who are supplying it be punished at higher levels than are currently inside this bill. However, as I have said, we will support this bill because at least it goes some way toward making these amends.

I believe that my colleague Denis O’Rourke in his contribution at the second reading also argued that there needs to be, or should have been, a special provision when the offence was against children under the age of 16. He was not convinced by the officials’ arguments that this should not be included. We continue to suggest that if the offence is committed against children under the age of 16, this should be an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing.

Also inside this bill we looked at clause 13. The bill creates a new Crimes Act offence of indecent communications with a young person, and that means anyone under the age of 16. The new offence applies where persons charged communicate indecently with a—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! The member seems to be straying into a part that is not currently under debate. Can we go back to Part 1, please?

TRACEY MARTIN: I beg your pardon. I will address that later on. At this time then, with regard to the contributions there, we talk about—I believe clause 4 is appropriately in Part 1, which is helpful for me. So if we actually talk about clause 4, again, we have concerns around this clause and would have liked to see that time increased, but, at this stage, we accept that those penalties are what they are.

So taking aboard all those, and, obviously, I am going to make a contribution later on in the piece, I reiterate that New Zealand First will support this bill because it does something, but we would have liked to see it do more. Kia ora.

ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to take a call this evening on the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill in its Committee stage. I acknowledge the contribution by Tracey Martin, because we did have some robust conversations and debates when the member Denis O’Rourke spoke. National members were surprised, because we were part of that committee and there were no objections at that point in time with the advisers, nor were any concerns raised—concerns you have just shared, Ms Martin—with regard to what Mr O’Rourke discussed when he last spoke. It is heartening to hear that he has also come to the view that this bill is much needed and that it does provide provision, even though it may not be to the extent that he or New Zealand First considers necessary. It is heartening to see that New Zealand First is now, along with all the other parties, supporting this bill.

The bill is important because its purpose is to increase penalties. But the bill is not just about being punitive. It is about sending a message, not only to ensure that it protects the rights of children but also with regard to a concern that has been raised. I want to just highlight this concern. It relates to Part 1 of the bill, which is around protecting children from these objectionable materials.

The New Zealand Herald this morning talked about online risks and the stress that that causes for parents. In fact, The Parenting Place research done with Colmar Brunton showed that 72 percent of parents are concerned. So the issues that are related to this bill are of concern to wider parts of our community, and we believe that what we are doing with this bill is ensuring that the penalties do relate to that, which is important, especially when we are talking about the different types of publications. The article also talked about the internet and the fact that technology has gone ahead of the legislation. So this bill will meet those concerns. It also talks about balancing those concerns. So although we talk about whether the role of the legislation is to ensure that we increase a punitive approach, it also talks about the roles and responsibilities of parents in this case. So we think the article is showing that the bill is relevant to the concerns raised by our wider community as well.

I will just touch on some of the key provisions again, especially those in Part 1. The maximum penalty for possession and for the importing and exporting of objectionable material has been increased from 5 years to 10 years. We think this is in line with the advice given. We know there were eight submissions in all—three oral submissions. There were not a lot, but what they did state was the importance of being able to send a very clear message. We believe that that is what bill is doing. It is increasing the maximum penalty for supplying and distributing—and I know that Ms Martin talked about this—from 10 years to 14 years. Again, that is in line with the advice from the ministry and in line, again, with the submissions about the fact that increasing that level of imprisonment is sending a very clear message.

The bill creates an assumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders and any forms of recidivism. Again, we think we need to send a clear message because of the concern about recidivism. But, at the same time, we also agree that there need to be forms of rehabilitation. So along with the Greens and New Zealand First we think it is important that there is rehabilitation, with support surrounding it, because we want to reduce recidivism. We want to ensure that people can get on with their lives, and, most important, we want to protect those who are most vulnerable in our communities.

The other thing that we are doing in this Part 1 is making it clear in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act that the possession of objectionable material includes intentionally viewing. We know that there were some concerns, and they were shared by Mr Clendon, in regard to the unintentional consequences of people clicking with their mouse into a site. We believe that the tools that have been used to regulate this will ensure that those unintended consequences will not be punished. But we will be able to pick up on those whose choice not to download material is a way of putting themselves outside any provision of this bill. So we believe that we have got a good balance there.

Section 3 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act states that a publication is objectionable “if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.” We know that these things are important and we define them inside this definition, and that is important because these are the publications that are of great concern to many in our communities. We know that today’s offenders can access material through technology in ways and speeds that were never imagined when the Act was enforced. We are making it clear that possession includes intentionally viewing. The amendment ensures offenders with particular technical expertise do not escape liability.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Poto Williams.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Good choice.

POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, I agree—it is a good choice. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call. I hope I can make a valuable contribution in the Committee stage of this particular bill.

As many of you know, I am very concerned about ensuring that we do what we can, as is our responsibility, to ensure the protection of our children. I believe that this legislation makes a serious attempt to deal with the issue of objectionable material and publications.

I do have a couple of opening comments I want to make, particularly with regard to this legislation perhaps making the best of what it can. But in terms of good legislation and good laws to protect children, we could possibly have taken a much broader approach and looked more fully at lots of different aspects around issues of child protection, rather than making fixes to legislation as they come along.

With specific reference to clause 4 in Part 1, with your indulgence, I did look up some references to the term “objectionable”. I think that is obviously key to this piece of legislation. What is “objectionable”? I had a look at a previous Act, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, and, if you would just bear with me, it says: “a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.”

Included in that definition, of course, is the issue of violence. Many of you will know that you just have to switch on your televisions, download a movie, and, actually, just have a look through some Facebook feeds sometimes to realise that what may have been objectionable at the time we started defining that, in terms of publications, certainly is in a different space today. We are exposed to things that we would not want our children exposed to, things that were not even thought of as being accessible in the days when we were defining “objectionable”, particularly in that Act that I referred to from 1993. We were not even considering the availability of that material in everyday use on every device that we have in every situation of our lives.

So just in terms of clause 4, the knowledge relating to objectionable material and the offence, and in terms of the increase to the penalties, the maximum term is moving to 14 years for the actual manufacture or the provision of that material. I know that this was brought up by other speakers in other submissions on the topic, but it does seem that the actual manufacture of these publications, the presentation of these publications, is penalised at a term that is actually out of step with the penalty for the abuse that occurs in the manufacturing of these publications. I for one would like to encourage the Minister to perhaps make reference to that and perhaps answer why that is, and whether there are going to be steps to actually align that more consistently.

I also want to refer to an issue that was brought up in terms of what happens around the ability to rehabilitate people who have been charged with these offences, and that the length of term potentially does not guarantee that they will actually be able to access the type of rehabilitation services that they need.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I did have a couple more comments I wanted to make on Part 1, so I will make a quick call on those. Before I sat down I started to talk a little bit about clause 7 of the bill. This was the clause that makes very specific reference to repeat offences having the presumption of a term of imprisonment attached to them. The reason I wanted to speak to this is because there was some discussion, obviously, at the Justice and Electoral Committee, over the increasing use of giving much more prescriptive guidance to the judiciary around expectations of sentencing, and whether or not this was considered a good or bad thing. The general view seems to be that, actually, leaving sentencing to the discretion of the judiciary should be our presumption as legislators.

However, I do think that there is room for a category of offences where we know there is a particular pattern of behaviour, where there is a bit more understanding of the psychology of this kind of offending, and I think that for anything related to child sex offences, there is some specific knowledge base behind that type of offending. Certainly, that feeds through into, at least, the treatment plans that seem to sit within our corrections system around the idea that there are certain patterns of behaviour that are perhaps more predictable than other forms of offending. I would be very interested and, if I am wrong, happy to be corrected by the Minister of Justice on that, but that is, generally, the sense I have got since holding various portfolios in this area. So there seems to be a comfort, at least, with saying: “Well, if you see a pattern of behaviour where you have repeat convictions, we do think that, therefore, it requires an escalation.”—that escalation being a presumption that there would be a particular sentence applied to that individual.

The way it is set out in the legislation is to state under new section 132B, inserted by clause 7, that it applies “only to an offender who (a) has been convicted of and is to be sentenced in respect of a specified publications offence committed after the commencement of this section … and (b) before the conviction for the repeat offence was entered, had been convicted of 1 or more specified publications offences committed before or after that commencement.” The issue that I wanted to raise, though, is whether or not there was any discussion given to whether or not a repeat offence could, instead, have actually been an aggravating factor at sentencing, rather than having that presumption around imprisonment be so expressly stated in the legislation. That probably would have given a greater amount of discretion to the judiciary to make a decision as to whether or not, in their minds, it was appropriate that a term of imprisonment be used for that second offence. I do not know whether or not that was something discussed or considered by the select committee. Obviously, the Sentencing Act has a range of aggravating factors and it could have, perhaps, been specific to offences under this law that that could have been added as one.

I am also interested to know how many repeat offences have been committed already. If we had this legislation, how many times would you have had someone who would fall under this criterion who has not been given a term of imprisonment, and, therefore, would be likely to have been had this legislation existed. I am always interested to know whether or not we are—[Interruption] Sorry, what was that?

Clare Curran: Very low recidivism.

JACINDA ARDERN: I am hearing that it is a very low recidivism rate, which is the general rule of thumb for these kinds of crimes. So, because there is a low rate of recidivism, I would be interested in how many occurrences we have seen where someone has come before the court for a second time and has not been given a term of imprisonment. My assumption would be that, if it was a repeat offender, that would be likely to have been the case anyway. So are we legislating for something that, actually, has not been a problem, or have there been some cases where that second offence has not been met with a term of imprisonment? I am just interested to know the context.

The next issue I am interested in is, given that, again, we are talking about a very specific set of types of offences, we do know that, relative to other types of offending, there does seem to be a relatively high success rate for treatment programmes. Was any discussion had at the select committee around agreements, memorandums of understanding, or what have you between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections around ensuring that if there is a repeat offence, and that if there is the presumption of a term of imprisonment, there is also a presumption that there would be an appropriate Department of Corrections - led programme attached to that person’s sentence? We know that there are a number of programmes. They are lengthy programmes, and sometimes scheduling of those programmes is an issue, depending on the length of sentence. But it would seem to me ridiculous to have a regime where we say “Look, we’ve got a repeat offender. They weren’t in prison the first time, and obviously haven’t addressed the causes of their offending.”, but not to, therefore, have something that also comes in and says “Well, if we’re giving a term of imprisonment, the expectation is that there would be treatment attached to that as well.” Obviously, by and large in corrections you do see that kind of planning, but I think if we are talking about repeat offenders it is particularly important.

The final point I want to make in Part 1 still relates, I think, to clause 7. The explanatory note talks about the exceptions to when an offender must be sentenced for repeat offences to a sentence of imprisonment. The exceptions, it says, are: “unless the court considers that the offender should not be so sentenced, having regard to the particular circumstances of the repeat offence;”—so there is some discretion there, obviously—“and the particular circumstances of the offender (including, without limitation, his or her age if he or she is under 20 years of age).” So there is an exemption built in there around the age of the offender, if we are talking about a term of imprisonment. What I am interested in, and perhaps the Minister of Justice would like to comment on it, is why the age of 20 was selected here. In a lot of legislation, it is true to say, we have a wide-ranging group of ages that are considered to be the age of majority, but by and large the age of majority in a lot of legislation is 21—but not in criminal justice. In our criminal justice system, as the Minister in the chair well knows, it is 17 years of age.

Labour members, personally, do not agree with that. We think it should be 18. New Zealand breaches the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by it currently being 17. It is one of the lower ages compared with overseas jurisdictions, but that is the age that tends to be used to distinguish between a youth and an adult. So I am interested that the age that is specified here is 20 years of age. I am interested in the rationale for that. It seems inconsistent. I am not advocating that this law should say 17. I would advocate 18, perhaps, but 20, to be honest, seems odd, and it seems an “out there”. There might be very good reason for that—someone who was on the select committee might be able to give me some justification for that—but at the moment I would say that it strikes me as being a bit of an “out there” and a bit of an anomaly. And there is another section of the bill where I think there is a similar age issue, but I am going to resume my seat in the hope that the Minister might be able to respond—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Don’t hold your breath. She’s not on to it tonight.

JACINDA ARDERN: —I am ever the optimist—to answer some of these questions. Thank you.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and thank you for allowing me to take this short call. Just before I start, I want to congratulate you, because every time you resume the Committee or the House in your role as Chairperson or Deputy Speaker, you always welcome everybody back in Te Reo Māori, and it is more than just a “kia ora”. It is actually something very appropriate for the time and for the occasion. Nō reira, ngā mihi nui ki a koe. [Interruption] Ha, ha!

Just to the bill at hand, the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill, I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee at the time, but I am fortunate to be on that committee now and I did have the opportunity to speak in the second reading, so I am excited to get up now just to flesh out a few more of the thoughts that I had then in the hope that some clarification can come about. My colleagues have mentioned an overall strategy around justice and whether or not there is a coherent approach to dealing with such matters, especially for such an abhorrent crime. I think the recent report released on the Roast Busters case certainly highlights a few questions for me. One of those is around how in Part 1 of the bill it talks about increased sentences from 5 to 10 years, and I think the other one here is from 10 to 14 years. One is for the importing—that is 5 to 10 years—and for the distribution it is 10 to 14 years.

I just wonder, in light of the Roast Busters case, whether, if those penalties were about, they would be deterrent enough for those young men who were involved in that particular case. Some of the statistics, and my colleagues have mentioned some of them this evening, perhaps question that. I cannot see the direct link to it being a clear deterrent, especially when we know, and the report says here, that of the 131 offenders that have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, approximately 50 percent have been sentenced to less than 20 percent of the maximum sentence available and 89 percent have been sentenced to less than 40 percent of the maximum sentence available. I am just trying to find a link there between why harsher penalties should be an absolute deterrent for such a crime, when I think that, more important, what the report did was highlight some deficiencies in the ability to be able to police such terrible crimes. Some of my colleagues in the Committee have already mentioned just how hard and difficult that will be in the fast-changing times of modern technology, what with the internet and the ability to access it at any time and at any place.

For the avoidance of doubt, and I am speaking about section 131(2A) in clause 5—it targets technical expertise and the definition talks about not consciously downloading or sourcing. It has already been mentioned this evening about just being able to view objectionable material—it is just being able to glance at it and just being able to see it. I notice, having a young son myself who involves himself in a young scene, how easy it is just to wave around cellphones, to show Facebook feeds, and to be able to share an internet page just by turning round a laptop or a cellphone. The question is whether or not that makes his friends culpable or whether that falls under this bill—whether or not they can be prosecuted or whether or not they fall under this bill and could find themselves in a heck of a lot of trouble.

My esteemed colleague here Clare Curran mentioned how the proposed sentences distort the relativity with physical offending sentences, and it has been highlighted already, but I want to continue on that point to talk about how it does distort the relativity between physical offending and, of course, the nature of offending that this bill proposes to sort out or to squash, or certainly to be able to bring pertinent penalties to those offenders. We notice that by increasing the penalty time from 5 to 10 years and from 10 years to 14 years, my concern—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, I have just come into the Chair. I will consult the list. I call Peeni Henare.

PEENI HENARE: Oh, tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and just as I heaped praise upon Mr Borrows in his time in the Chair before you, I do so now and I thank you for the opportunity to continue. I was talking about how it distorts the relativity between sentencing for physical offending and the kind of offending that this bill proposes to deal with by increasing the imprisonment time from 5 years to 10 years for importing and 10 to 14 years for distribution. I wonder whether, and I hope that the Minister, or certainly those who were part of the select committee during this bill’s passage, can explain, or at least provide a bit of clarification around, the relativity that it is talking about there. In order to impose harsher penalties just for the mere distribution or for the importing of such terrible images and what have you—I am concerned that it is still such serious offending when you consider that the actual physical act of offending, of sexual abuse of young children, of minors, is sort of lumped in as one and the same thing as distribution, when quite clearly the evidence, and indeed some of the submissions and the kōrero that I hear around this particular bill, is very, very clear, and it highlights the ongoing effects and the mental effects that it has on the victims and their families and their friends.

So that is just for a bit of clarification around that—about how it distorts the relativity with physical offending. Some of the terms in here are very technical, and probably far too technical for this individual. But there are some—and Mr Clendon has already touched on this—about the vagaries of some of the words that are being used. I also—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

PEENI HENARE: No, I will not speak about that. That is in Part 2. I will stick to Part 1. Bear with me, Mr Chair. I cannot find the term. However, I do know that Mr Clendon spoke about there being some vagaries around the very technical terms. What we are hoping in this bill that is being proposed is that some clearer definition can be given to allow the proper processes to take place with the judiciary, and to give the judicial system the right framework to allow it to make sure that this bill certainly squashes the kinds of behaviour and activities that it intends to. Nō reira, kia ora e te Tiamana, ā, kāti rā tēnā tātou. [So thank you, Mr Chairman. I end here with acknowledgments to us.]

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Given the fact that no one is going for the call, I have no—[Interruption] Does the member really want it put, or shall we just move to putting the questions? [Interruption] I will decline it, and I will just move to putting the questions.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments related to indecency

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): There are a number of pieces of Part 2 that I would like to speak to, but I would like to turn my attention first to Supplementary Order Paper 67, tabled by the Minister of Justice, to which I am hoping the Minister will speak. Supplementary Order Paper 67 adds new clause 14 and new Subparts 2 and 3 to Part 2. I am hoping the Minister will speak to this because this is a completely new clause in the bill and there has been no ability for there to be a debate or a discussion at a select committee.

The Supplementary Order Paper creates a completely new part to the bill. It ensures that New Zealanders who assist foreigners to commit sexual acts against children overseas commit an offence under New Zealand’s law. This amendment, as the Minister has said in the explanatory note of her Supplementary Order Paper, is in response to a recent Supreme Court decision that was given in 2014. I cannot find the exact date, but from memory I think it was in August 2014. The ruling in LM v R is that a New Zealander who assists a non - New Zealander to engage in sexual conduct with a child overseas would not be guilty of an offence under New Zealand law. This Supplementary Order Paper, as I understand it, is meant to address that. If the principal offender is neither a New Zealand citizen nor ordinarily resident in New Zealand, they will not have committed an offence under New Zealand law. Therefore, the court is unable to convict an assisting party because there is no offending to be party to.

So, specifically, the amendment provides for party liability where the principal offender is a foreigner who has not committed an offence under New Zealand law, and it provides for accessory liability for assistance given by a New Zealander to a foreigner after the offence has been committed. I have done the Minister’s job for her, because I have just read out the amendment to you. To all intents and purposes this looks as if it is an amendment that has been raised in a previous case as another gap in the existing law, and it is seeking to address that gap.

My question to the Minister—and I am hoping that in good faith she will be able to address it—is whether there is precedent for this, what the context for it is, where the recommendations came from, and what ability she has had to receive any reports on it. I think that when you put a completely new amendment into a piece of legislation at the Committee stage, then you should be prepared, as the Minister, to get to your feet and actually address the context for it, so that we are not just sliding something new into law that has had no ability to be tested, that has had no ability to have officials provide advice around it, and that has had no ability for there to be any discussion through the select committee process. So I am hoping that that is what we will hear from the Minister on during the debate on this part of the bill.

I also want to address clause 13 in Part 2, which inserts new section 124A, “Indecent communication with young person under 16”, into the Crimes Act 1961. This creates a new offence under that Act of indecent communication with a young person—anyone under the age of 16. This new offence also applies where the person charged communicates indecently with a police constable, believing the police constable to be a young person. I think we all know that this basically occurs predominantly, as I would understand it, in an online environment where there is an attempt to try to entrap the perpetrator into revealing their true purpose, which is to commit an offence. This falls into the category of the gaps in the law that this bill is trying to address, which we support.

The submitters who submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee all seemed to support the creation of this offence and seemed to consider it to be a positive step towards curbing the culture of child exploitation through the internet. They stated that it was worded in a way that allowed for new technologies in the form of social media to be included as they appear, and I think that is very sensible for this legislation because it may very well be that new forms of media that we do not even know about yet will emerge where these kinds of offences will be perpetrated and young people will be preyed upon by the abusers. I think it is critical that we are writing legislation that can provide some kind of window to the future and that it is not always retrospective. I applaud that and think that it is important.

One of the submitters, the Legislation Advisory Committee, agreed that there was a gap in the law that needed to be remedied, although it considered that the explanatory note that described the gap as being between objectionable publications offences and the sexual grooming offence was inaccurate. The Legislation Advisory Committee said that it did not think it was clear that objectionable publication offences applied only if the offender makes a record of the communication, as “distributes” in section 123 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act appears to capture the same action required in the proposed new offence.

The comment was that there was a defence available where reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the young person is over the age of 16. I think the officials did go to some steps to reassure the committee. Even though I did not sit on the committee, it does appear to me that there was an attempt to ensure that—although a legislative gap does exist where no record is made of an indecent communication because section 123 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act relates only to publications, and the definition of “publication” in section 2 of that Act is such that in order to establish an offence against that section, a record of the communication must be deliberately kept by the offender. I think that the discussion in the select committee—which recommends inserting into the Crimes Act new section 124A(3), which provides a defence where, before making the indecent communication, the person charged took “reasonable steps” to find out whether the young person was 16 years old or older and “believed on reasonable grounds” that they were that age at the time of communication. That is where the defence lies.

So certainly this section of the Act really goes quite a long way to addressing the entrapment concerns that submitters had where the person charged communicated indecently with a police constable, believing the constable to be a young person. I think that is the issue, and concerns were raised at the select committee as to what extent the police could undergo that investigation with the person on the other end not knowing that they were being entrapped but where they did not make an attempt to find out whether the person was under 16 or not. I am reasonably comfortable that where that ended up is probably in the right place.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I did want to take just a brief call to respond to Supplementary Order Paper 67, which Ms Curran talked about in her first call on this part of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill, because I do think it deserves a little bit of time to reflect on how it got to that point.

The Supplementary Order Paper, as the member has pointed out, contains a number of reasonably operational changes to legislation, but the one that I think Ms Curran talked about and that I think is worthy of spending a little bit of time on is new clause 14 of the bill, added by the Supplementary Order Paper. It does create a very clear provision about the liability of New Zealanders when they commit offences as a party against a child internationally. It did come about as a result of the Supreme Court decision in a case called L M v R that was issued by the Supreme Court late last year.

In that case it was a very sad fact pattern, as many of these cases are, where a New Zealander was found to have been involved in taking sexually explicit photos of their 7-year-old stepdaughter in Russia. The issue before the appellate court was whether, in fact, the legislation permitted a New Zealander to be liable for an offence committed in another country where the principal party carrying out the offending was not a New Zealander. In that case the finding was that, in fact, New Zealand law had a gap in it, which was that if the offender was a New Zealander, then all parties to the offence who are also New Zealanders could be liable, but if the offender themselves was not a New Zealander, then the fact that a New Zealander was a party to that offence could mean they would escape conviction.

That is certainly not the intention of the legislation, and it would be quite wrong, I think, and against the will of most right-thinking New Zealanders to allow a New Zealander in that sort of situation, taking sexually explicit photos of, in that case, their stepdaughter, to escape conviction merely because of the nationality of the principal offender. Luckily, in that case, liability was not escaped, because the court concluded that the offender was liable as the principal offender. None the less it raised a very serious matter that officials advised me should be addressed in this bill, and I agreed with them, to ensure that we do carry out our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and what is called the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography to ensure that there is full and effective criminal liability for transnational offending in this space.

This is one of the categories of offending that I think it will not surprise anybody to know is seen to be of such seriousness and such severity that it should attract transnational liability, and it has always been the intention—my intention and I think the Government’s intention long before I became the Minister—to ensure that the liability of New Zealanders should be comprehensive. Certainly when this gap was highlighted, through the decision in L M v R, the advice I received from officials was that this bill should address it. I agreed with that advice, which is why we have in the Supplementary Order Paper before the Committee now this new provision that makes it very clear that no one can escape liability merely because the principal offender would not have been a New Zealand citizen at the time the offence was committed.

I think that makes good sense. I do accept the point that that was not part of the bill when it came before the House, but I would not want to have it resting on my conscience that a New Zealander could escape liability merely because their partner in crime—quite literally—was an offender of a different nationality. That was never the intention. I think it would be an unwarranted hole in the legislation, and that is the basis on which the Supplementary Order Paper and the addition of that new provision are in front of the Committee.

The other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are reasonably prosaic, addressing the Accident Compensation Act to ensure that the new offence of indecent communication with a young person and the existing sexual grooming offences are included in schedule 3 of the Accident Compensation Act to ensure that appropriate support is available. Similarly, the new offence of indecent communication is added to schedule 2 of the Vulnerable Children Act so that anyone found guilty of such offences can have the appropriate restrictions placed on their employment in core children’s workforce roles.

With the indulgence of the Committee, if I can just mention the technical amendment to clause 7, which we have already covered in the first part, which just makes it clear that that recidivism has to be an offence that both occurred and they were convicted of, which I think is an appropriate safeguard.

I just wanted to take that call to take the Committee through the matters in the Supplementary Order Paper very clearly and the rationale for them. If the Committee wants to debate that, I would be very interested in hearing it.

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister of Justice for rising and explaining. I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee. Obviously, the clauses that make these changes to clause 13 of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill did not go to the select committee, which is unfortunate, but I understand that. The bill went some time ago, and it has taken a while to come back to the House. I appreciate her explanation because it is concerning to see what looks to a layman like quite a substantial change or insertion into the bill. So having only this part of the debate to truly flesh it out, and therefore not having access to the same advice the Minister has, it is greatly appreciated that she took that time, so thank you for that. Up until that moment I was unsure whether New Zealand First would have been able to support the bill, because it would have been preferable, obviously—and I am sure we all agree—to be able to discuss the change and have submissions on it at the time with the rest of the bill, but, obviously, that was not able to happen. So, again, thank you, Minister, for that. Certainly, New Zealand First also supports the amendments to ACC legislation to allow for support for young people who are harmed by the actions of others in this way.

Can I also pick up on another statement of the Minister at the second reading, where she mentioned clause 13 and the other changes to clause 13. I quote from the Minister: “the bill creates a new Crimes Act offence of indecent communication with a young person, and that means anyone under the age of 16. The new offence also applies where the person charged communicates indecently with a police constable”—we have been hearing this from Ms Curran—“believing that constable to be a young person. The new offence will be punishable by a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment. This offence aims to address a gap in the law that exists between objectionable publications offences, which apply only where an offender records a communication, and the sexual grooming offence, which is only made out where the offender takes steps to meet that young person.” This is the bit I am particularly interested in, Minister: “Indecent communication with a young person can occur in a variety of old and new media, including text or picture messaging, internet chat, and, of course, the telephone.”

We fully support the new offence. New Zealand First fully supports the new offence, although my colleague Denis O’Rourke, who sat on the select committee—and I am sure he articulated the point very clearly—did not believe that the maximum of 3 years was enough for this particular offence. He pointed out that, compared with other offences inside the bill that he felt were not that different in nature, where the possible outcome for the offender was that it went from 5 years to 10 years, and in one case 14 years, the 3 years for this offence was not, he felt, adequate. I think he articulated that quite clearly in his second reading speech.

I want to pick up on the contribution around that particular last paragraph and the contribution from Ms Curran previously, when she mentioned the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. I am wondering whether the Minister might take another opportunity to actually rise and speak to this particular point and her comments that these indecent communications with a young person can occur in a variety of old and new media, including text or picture messaging, internet chat, and, of course, the telephone. I am assuming that this also means Facebook grooming. A real-life incident that I am aware of is a 17-year-old going on Facebook and grooming 13-year-olds to then meet them and try to have sexual relations. My understanding is that—and, please, I hope for some clarification, Minister—this legislation could catch that internet grooming.

I guess my question around the two bills is whether it would be more appropriate if what we are trying to capture in the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, which has a sentencing provision, I think, that is around about the same—2 years or 3 years is the recommended sentencing around digital harm in that bill—was actually covered by that paragraph, Minister. With regard to the digital harm legislation, we have an approved agency and we have all these other ways to deal with it up to a point. Perhaps this legislation actually takes that point onward, and this might be the answer to the impasse New Zealand First has with that piece of legislation. I am just putting it out there and looking for any sort of direction. We certainly do not want to minimise, in that comment, the impact of digital harassment.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I rise to take a very brief call. It relates, somewhat, to the provisions that the member who has just resumed her seat, Tracey Martin, was speaking to. As I discussed in Part 1, I am concerned around the consistency of the age of criminal responsibility that is scattered through this bill. I am speaking specifically to clause 13, new section 124A(1). If you make a cross-reference back to the Crimes Act, there are some significant differences when compared with the amendments we are making today. New section 124A(1) provides that “A person of or over the age of 16 years is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years if he or she intentionally exposes a person under the age of 16 years (the young person) to indecent material (whether written, spoken, visual, or otherwise, alone or in combination) in communicating in any manner, directly or indirectly, with the young person.”

At the moment it seems that we are debating legislation in this House, controversial legislation around digital harm, that has an overlap with legislation. There has been some discussion as to whether or not we are creating inconsistencies with what is able to happen in an online context versus what will happen elsewhere. I think it is important that we are consistent in the way that we legislate in this area. My concern is that this is an increase in the potential term that might be applied—3 years as opposed to 2 years, I believe, as it is currently written in the Crimes Act under this section. But the Crimes Act is also silent on age. The Crimes Act does not specify an age, so we assume that it is the age of criminal responsibility that applies in the provision as it may apply currently. That is my assumption, just on my quick read of the Crimes Act.

But now we are creating liability if an individual is of, or over the age of, 16 years. I question again why it is 16 years when in the Crimes Act it is 17. So why is it 16 years in this legislation? There might be justification for that. It might be that you create another regime that applies to young people. But I am consistently concerned that there is an erosion of the youth justice system in the way that we are no longer differentiating between adult and child, and that we have consistencies across our legislation when it comes to care and protection at 17 and when it comes to the age of criminal responsibility at 17.

Our care and protection age is the lowest age in the developed world that someone will exit care and protection. When it comes to criminal justice it is 17. When it comes to being able to take out tenancy agreements it is 18, and accessing most of our benefits it is 18. I believe even real estate licences wait until at least 18. There are a few things that sit at 21.

Clare Curran: Cyber-bullying.

JACINDA ARDERN: Cyber-bullying is 14. We have to decide in this Parliament when we consider an individual to have moved from child to youth to adult. If we listen to the overseas jurisdictions, they have generally stuck to a rule of thumb that it is 0 to 12, 12 to 18—or it might be 14—and then from 18 on you are considered an adult. Yet in our legislation we are consistently all over the shop.

I understand carve outs for legislation as it relates to, for instance, significant crime like murder. I understand that. But I am concerned that we have pepper-potted through our legislation different ages for liability. If we do that, I think we should be explicit that that individual should still be considered a young person or child for the purposes of the way that they are dealt with, perhaps in the court. If we are going to say we want that liability to apply to a 16-year-old, perhaps you say, therefore, from 16 to 18 we want it dealt with in the Youth Court, for instance, because that is what the Youth Court is designed to do. Maybe then your penalty regime for that age group might be different. We are not saying ignore the issue; we are saying make sure the response is catered to work with a young person. This is based on the fact that we know the evidence tells us that the earlier you criminalise a young person, the less likelihood you have of being able to turn that situation around. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Can I just acknowledge the comments from the speaker we have just heard from, Jacinda Ardern. I think in the context of what we are talking about here that there is a discussion to be had about age in terms of offending. The age that was not mentioned is that of students, in terms of their eligibility for student support. Until the age of 25, I think, one still considers the income of their parents as part of the criteria. So we have got an age range virtually from 12 or 14 to 25, and that does seem peculiar. Presumably the 16—I mean, we have got an age of consent. It is difficult because between 16 and 18 often there is a significant development in young people. They do move almost from childhood to adulthood in those few years. So that is probably a debate worth having.

In the context of Part 2 of the present bill we are looking at, the Greens do support this inclusion of the specific reference to this offending, the notion that improper indecent communication with a young person should be captured within the legislation. The example given in some of the conversations is that it may be for purely nefarious reasons and an individual’s gratification that they seek to address a young child to expose them to pornography or whatever it is. I think we need to be aware too of the more general harm that can be done.

There are lots of evidence and research findings emerging that point to the significant harm that can be caused to young people who are exposed at an early age to pornography. It is pervasive. It is much more accessible than it has been in previous years I guess. We know from the research that young people who are routinely exposed to pornography at young ages often have trouble developing relationships in later life, including sexual relationships but not only those. Their expectation about what is normal sexual behaviour between consenting couples is also sadly skewed. There is a lot of significant psychological and, by extension, physical harm that can be done to children simply through excessively early exposure to pornography. So I think it is appropriate that we do seek to put some boundaries around this, having acknowledged the rather inconsistent approach we take to ages.

I will leave that, but the other significant part of this bill, of course, is this question of a constable who may act as a fictitious young person. Again, the example given is that if the parents of a child of 12, 14, or whatever age discover that their child is being exposed to some sort of approach online, they can then inform the police and have somebody essentially pick up where that left off and just see how far this individual is going—whether it steps across the line and whether it is something that ought to be prosecuted in this way. There are issues about entrapment or potential issues about entrapment, but I think we were given some comfort in the conversation at the select committee level that the police force and other agencies are very aware of the boundaries around entrapment, and, although this is a new environment, the principles of that do carry over. It is in nobody’s interests for them to go out and try to stimulate this sort of behaviour to endeavour to get people to initiate this sort of behaviour, but certainly where it exists I think it is entirely appropriate that these provisions should be there to enable police or other agencies to intervene in order to establish the boundaries of the offending, and to respond appropriately.

There were some concerns about this language about people taking reasonable steps to determine the age of a person they are communicating with—reasonable steps to determine whether they were above the age of 16—and whether they might believe them to be that on reasonable grounds. Again, these terms are not defined clearly in this legislation but there is a body of case law on this notion of reasonableness. It is subject to context. It is subject to the time, place, and situation. Again, I think that we are wise simply to let it lie as it is, to trust in the discretion of the agencies and, indeed, of the judiciary to establish whether somebody might in a particular instance have reasonably and genuinely thought that a person was 18 or 20 years old, or whatever, when in fact they were only 13 or 14. So with those two comments I just continue to say we support this legislation and, as we have indicated, we support Supplementary Order Paper 67 from the Minister of Justice.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Objectionable Publications) Amendment Bill, the Customs and Excise (Objectionable Publications) Amendment Bill, the Crimes (Indecency) Amendment Bill, the Accident Compensation (Cover for Mental Injury—Indecency Offences) Amendment Bill, and the Vulnerable Children (Children’s Worker Safety Checking—Indecency Offence) Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 483.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members, it has been drawn to my attention that when the Committee voted on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) it inadvertently did not vote on the schedules to the bill.

TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the Committee to reconsider the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) solely to enable schedules 1 and 2 to be voted on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that course of action? We will proceed.

Bills

Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Schedule 1 New form 2A for Immigration (Certificate, Warrant, and Other Forms) Regulations 2010

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 61, Noes 59.

Schedule 2 Amendment to Schedule of Search and Surveillance Act 2012

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2;

Schedule 2 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 61, Noes 59.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment, the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill with amendment, and the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into five bills.

Report adopted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): The House has made excellent and, indeed, unexpectedly rapid progress through all of its business this afternoon and evening, as a result of which I wish to thank members and seek leave for the House to rise early.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

Bills

Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)

Third Reading

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. I do not intend to take a long call on the bill in the name of the honourable Minister Anne Tolley, but I do just want to reflect that this is a bill that is before the House to ensure that the benefit system works appropriately to treat people fairly in similar circumstances. We cannot, of course, have a social security system that does not apply consistently, and the changes in this bill certainly act to work in that direction.

The bill has been through a full select committee process, and I note that the Minister was very grateful for the assistance of the Social Services Committee when it reported back to the House. She certainly made reference, in her second reading speech, to two core submissions made to the committee, both of which urged the Government to increase the amount of accommodation assistance available to students. The committee, of course, quite rightly ruled those outside the scope of the bill. With those few words, I wish to commend the bill to the House.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): That was indeed a brief call from the Minister in charge of the third reading of a bill, but I think that probably shows a little bit of the disregard with which this bill has actually been put forward by the Government. It is not surprising, really, because it is a bill that makes busy work. We have got all the way to the third reading of this bill, and we have yet to hear some examples of why it is important that these loopholes be closed. The Labour Party does support the closing of these loopholes, but we are still unconvinced that anyone has ever used these loopholes. We are still yet to see the evidence as to whether that has happened. None the less, it has been an important occasion on which to be able to talk about some of the issues that might drive people to look for loopholes because of their personal circumstances.

But before I get on to the substance of that, can I just take the opportunity to welcome Chris Bishop back to Parliament, and to congratulate him on his special skills. It is something quite special to turn a 9,000 majority into a 4,000-odd loss, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Reluctant as I am, I am going to ask the member to come back to the bill.

SUE MORONEY: And now I will come back to the bill, of course, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you for that guidance.

This bill, when it went through the Social Services Committee—and I regret that I was not on the select committee at the time—did give people an opportunity to talk about some of the circumstances that might lead people to look for such loopholes. One of the loopholes that is being closed off by this bill is the ability for students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where that might be more generous. I think that in itself begs the question that if the Work and Income accommodation supplement may, in some cases, be more generous for students than the student allowance, then I think that describes the very tough circumstances that some students actually find themselves in.

In fact, when the two submitters came in front of the select committee—and the Minister, when proposing this bill, did make mention of those two submissions. But what she omitted to say was that the reason why the issues they had brought before the select committee were ruled out of the scope of this bill was that in fact because they were there to tell the select committee that the student allowance has flat-lined under this Government. That meant that many students were living in situations of hardship. So closing off this loophole that we are not sure anyone has ever used—it might have been, actually, of some advantage to students because of the very difficult situation they find themselves in of not being supported to undertake their studies, as this current Government has put those students in that position. Those submissions were ruled out of scope by the select committee, quite rightly; but, none the less, they were raising important issues.

The other loophole that this bill is designed to close off is, again, something that we are not sure—we have yet to be convinced—has ever actually happened. But it is a loophole that, apparently, would mean that for people who are being paid ACC compensation by way of a third party provider—or, as we sometimes call them, partnership employers or approved employers—rather than directly by ACC itself, they could also claim a benefit from Work and Income as well as getting an ACC payment from a third party insurer or a partnership employer. Clearly, that was not the intention of the law, and so therefore Labour does support that particular loophole also being closed.

But I do want to take the opportunity to ask the Government, as we are talking about different rules applying to people getting their ACC payments directly from ACC as opposed to people who are in the ACC Partnership Programme—it has come to my attention in the select committee recently that there is not as much monitoring going on of the partnership programme as there is of ACC and its dealings with its clients individually. It is one thing that I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Government to do, because this bill is showing an inequity in the way partnership employers’ payments have been treated in the past as opposed to payments directly from ACC. So I take the opportunity to ask the Government to put in some good monitoring processes for the partnership programme, so that we can know more about how those claims are being dealt with. Are they being dealt with as equitably as when dealing with ACC itself? Are there more claims being turned down? Are there more being approved? Are there more reviews being held? These are things that I think we need to know about when it comes to the partnership programme, because it is the part of the ACC programme that seems to have less scrutiny on it. Our ACC programme is a very, very good one. It is, of course, not perfect, but internationally it is admired for the sort of support that it does give to people.

I am not going to take up too much more time on this bill. I am pleased that I have made a more substantial contribution than what the Minister was able to make, but I just want to lend Labour’s support for this bill, which is not very substantial and probably will not make a difference to the way anyone is living in New Zealand. But, none the less, on technical grounds, it does close off some loopholes that were unintended. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) in its third reading. The bill clarifies that students who choose not to apply for assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations are excluded from receiving an accommodation supplement. It also clarifies that the income test includes the income of a person’s spouse or partner, as well as parental income. Assistance for students is designed so that there is a shared approach from both the Government and the student to contributing resources. This is because the benefits from tertiary education accrue to both the student and the country. The bill is not about the level of assistance provided. The reason for this bill is not to save costs but to ensure that the legislation is clear in relation to the policy intent.

Currently, assistance with accommodation costs for students is available through the accommodation benefit provided under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998. A student is not eligible for an accommodation supplement if they are receiving a basic grant or an independent circumstances allowance, but the wording of the legislation does not make it clear that a student is not able to receive an accommodation supplement if they are eligible for a basic grant or independent circumstances allowance but do not apply for such assistance.

A student is also not able to receive an accommodation supplement if their income or the income of their spouse or partner, if any, or the income of their parents is too high for them to be paid a basic grant or independent circumstances allowance but they are otherwise eligible. The wording of the legislation does not make it clear that income includes the income of a spouse or a partner, so this bill closes loopholes that allow for some students and beneficiaries to receive varying levels of income support. The accommodation supplement is intended to assist low to middle income people with accommodation costs—those who do not receive any student allowance or a loan.

The National Government encourages equality and fairness. This loophole in the Act is leading to an inequality in the benefits received by two people in exactly the same kinds of circumstances. The proposed commencement date will have no immediate impact on those students currently receiving an accommodation supplement. Work and Income plans to use the annual review cycle to review and adjust ongoing entitlements. Students should receive the assistance designed for them. Students who are eligible for student allowances should not be able to take advantage of the system and request an accommodation supplement. The current wording in the Social Security Act is not clear enough and it leaves a loophole that allows people to claim the accommodation supplement if they give up their student allowance and accommodation benefit and simply do not apply for a student allowance. This bill closes that loophole, it provides clear wording to exclude students who have access to the student allowance scheme from being granted the accommodation supplement.

This bill also intends to ensure that the direct deduction of weekly compensation payments from income-tested benefits applies whether these payments are made by, or on behalf of, ACC or by an accredited employer. The changes set out in the bill will provide for the current practice in relation to treatment of weekly compensation payments to continue. It will amend the definition of weekly compensation to make it clear that it includes compensation paid by, or on behalf of, ACC or an accredited employer. It will make it clear that weekly compensation paid by, or on behalf of, ACC should be deducted dollar for dollar from income-tested benefits, and will also validate best practice in this respect.

The weekly compensation received should result in a corresponding reduction of the benefit to ensure that the person is not advantaged over other people receiving benefits in similar circumstances. The largest difference is reached at the point when the weekly compensation rate is the same as the benefit rate. Direct deduction of the weekly compensation results in no benefit payment at this point, while treating the weekly compensation as income results in an unemployment benefit payment of $116.70 per week or a DPB sole parent benefit payment of $196.87 per week.

The bill also addresses the fiscal risk of $0.7 million per annum in benefit payments and the more than $3 million in one-off backdated benefit payments. These payments would be made to beneficiaries who have received their weekly compensation payments from their accredited employers rather than ACC. In addition, Work and Income resources will need to be diverted to identify the beneficiaries affected and the amounts and time periods covered by an accredited employer and to make the adjustments to the benefit payments.

This bill has been examined by the Social Services Committee and the Committee of the whole House. The select committee received two submissions on this bill at the select committee stage. I was not part of the select committee when these submissions were received. The first of these submissions was from the Dunedin Community Law Centre and the second was from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. These submissions discussed wider issues of the adequacy of accommodation assistance provided to students through the student support system. There was a view expressed that student accommodation rates are inequitable and do not meet the needs of students. There was a suggestion that we should consider why students seek to access the accommodation supplement, just as the members on the other side of the House are saying, but this bill would not be an appropriate vehicle to make changes of the type suggested to the assistance levels provided to students.

As to the other view from members on the other side that students are having a tough time, that simply does not stack up with the evidence, and also the bill is not about changing the assistance levels provided to students. If you look at the evidence, it says that the National-led Government is focused on improving tertiary education, lifting achievement, increasing skills, and focusing on better outcomes for students and taxpayers. Since 2008 there has been a rise in the number of full-time students and we are seeing more graduates than ever before and at higher levels. Data from the Ministry of Education shows that New Zealand students completed a record number of undergraduate degree qualifications in 2013. It shows—

Chris Bishop: More Māori, more Pasifika.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes—more Māori, more Pasifika. It shows that our reforms across the tertiary sector are steadily delivering much better results for students. Having more people achieving tertiary qualifications means a more highly skilled labour market. Higher skills mean higher-paying jobs for all New Zealand families. This is because of the New Zealand Government focusing on the things that matter to New Zealand families.

I am actually astonished at the stance from members on the other side that they do not mind having a loophole in the legislation and they do not mind the loophole being used by some to gain financial advantage. The National-led Government is focusing on improving tertiary education and increasing skills. The National Government is committed to efficient and effective legislation that treats people fairly, and this bill closes fiscal loopholes, supporting the National-led Government’s undertaking to responsibly manage finances on behalf of taxpayers.

So, in summary, the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) amends the Social Security Act 1964 to ensure that people in similar circumstances are treated equally in relation to the treatment of weekly compensation payments and assistance for students’ accommodation costs. I support the bill and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before we go on, I did not interrupt the member as she read her speech because I did work on the assumption that she might have been using some notes that were prepared for an earlier speaker. But I do want to make it clear to the speakers who are following now that the leniency that was shown to that member will not be shown to further members.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We would expect nothing less of your good self. The truth of it is that it took longer to endure that speech than it took to draft the bill in the first place. This is the ultimate nothing bill. This must be an embarrassment to the Government. For goodness’ sake! Here we are in the dead of late evening working to pass a bill that—how many people actually made submissions on? Mr Assistant Speaker, I hesitate to draw to your attention the fact that only two—two—members of the New Zealand public were excited enough about this bill to actually make a submission. What does that tell you about this Government?

Chris Bishop: A good Government.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It tells you that Mr Bishop needs to go back to Northland, because he is part of a trend, and that trend is called “third-term-itis”. This is a Government in decay. It is a Government that I need to come back to the substance of the bill to describe.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is exactly right.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is with an amazing bout of perspicacity that I am learning to intuit your body language from the Chair, and I think that is fantastic.

I come back to the substance of the bill. It really has been an amazing experience to hear the member who has just resumed her seat, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, read out the Minister for Social Development’s notes. That is what one comes here for, is it not, as a Government backbencher—to get the Minister to pass the notes back, and read them out again just in case any poor, long-suffering radio listener failed to hear them the first time. What a miserable experience those Government backbenchers are having. They are seeing their prospects of ever entering the executive in their mortal lifetimes slip, slip, slipping away with the current Government’s poll rating.

I will get back to the substance of the bill. I would like to turn my attention to a very important part of the bill—namely, the student allowances. I am the Labour spokesperson on tertiary education, so I thought it was appropriate to remind New Zealanders that this Government is royally dismantling the tertiary education system. It did so by ruining university councils recently. It has done so by gutting student associations, and—

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Despite several of your warnings to the member, he still has not in any way addressed the bill, and I would ask you to bring him back to it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think the question of relevance is a question for the Speaker’s judgment, and I will work on it but without your assistance.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. You can lead a horse to water and occasionally they sip, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will now speak about the bill and not about the ruling or the ruled-out point of order.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you. It is good to see that that Minister has not lost her sense of humour. The bill does touch on closing a loophole, and nobody bothered to tell the speaker who has just resumed her seat that in fact the Opposition, or at least the Labour Opposition, is supporting the bill—supporting the bill—because we believe in good fiscal management and closing down loopholes. There is no reason that students who are eligible for the accommodation allowance should be able to get a different social security benefit just because of a legal error. So of course that should be tidied up. There is no debate about that. But, frankly, who can blame the students? Student allowance rates have barely increased while the price of rental accommodation, particularly in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, has absolutely skyrocketed. Students have seen course fees increase by up to 4 to 5 percent every year, and they have absorbed a hike in GST as well. Student loans have been cut for part-time students and have been limited for postgraduate students.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member was up until the last sentence or so marginally close to discussing the bill. When he was talking about allowances and rents that was probably OK, but when he gets on to loans I think he gets beyond it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I will follow your guidance, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was endeavouring to rebut the point made by the previous speaker that the Government somehow had evidence of its generosity to tertiary students.

I would draw your attention to the regulatory impact statement drafted by Treasury in relation to this bill, which is where the Social Services Committee noted that only two submissions had been received. Treasury notes that despite small numbers of students being likely to know of the loophole, it is inequitable for the loophole to be left and different payment levels available. Who could argue with that? I think Treasury itself has unwittingly drawn the attention of Parliament and the New Zealand public to the metanarrative that underlies this bill. Here is a Government that has nothing to do but push through Parliament legislation that only two New Zealanders could be bothered commenting on and that Treasury says students themselves are barely aware of. So here we are, frankly, taking up Parliament’s valuable time and your own close attention, Mr Assistant Speaker, with a bill that is worthy of the Opposition’s support but hardly likely to inspire New Zealanders to give a fourth term to members opposite, who have clearly run out of puff, run out of imagination, run out of goodwill, and who are rapidly running out of support.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak to the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). But before I start, I cannot resist, given the comments about how terrible it must to be on the backbenches of the Government, reminding the member David Cunliffe that the worst day in Government is better than the best day in Opposition.

Hon David Cunliffe: Touché. Stung.

STUART SMITH: I am sure you have heard it before.

Tim Macindoe: The worst day in Opposition will be familiar to the member.

STUART SMITH: Yes. This bill, I think, follows a longstanding principle known as the “one-benefit” principle—that is, one form of income replacement for one particular set of circumstances. I think that is key to this bill, and I think that we have to get that right. I do share the member’s enthusiasm, and I congratulate him on supporting the bill to deal with the loopholes that have been identified.

Hon David Cunliffe: Fiscal prudence is our middle name.

STUART SMITH: Absolutely. Fiscal prudence is absolutely a great thing, and this Government has spent a lot of time getting its house in order in that particular area, and Better Public Services is absolutely a major target for the Government.

ACC and the Accredited Employers Programme amendments are really about the dollar for dollar deduction from benefits. The Accredited Employers Programme is a really important part of the ACC system—and if I could just take a moment to explain that situation. Employers have the ability to take over, for an agreed period of time, the payment of the ACC benefit and medical costs of injured employees. In return, they get lower ACC levies. I have seen, through employers in my own electorate, the culture change this brings to a business, not only from the point of view of the employer but also from that of the employees who take ownership of managing their health and safety. I think this is a fantastic initiative. But what we see with this particular loophole is that the bill is written in such a way that it could be read that an accredited employer’s ACC benefits are not subject to the same dollar for dollar deduction as an ACC payment.

I have got an example here. If a domestic purposes benefit recipient is paid $100 in weekly compensation, with no other income, their benefit will be reduced by $100 if it is paid—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Drawing the attention of your good self to your new-found robust interpretation of the rules against reading from the member’s notes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat. I recommend to him a good reading of the report of the Standing Orders Committee at the end of the previous Parliament, and then he will not be disorderly and interrupt in that way.

STUART SMITH: It is quite good reading, actually. I can recommend it. [Interruption] I might start again because I have lost my thread—if that is OK? If the recipient of a domestic purposes benefit is paid $100 in weekly compensation, with no other income, their benefit will be reduced by the $100 from ACC, on a dollar for dollar basis. But if that person is paid the benefit by an accredited employer, then there will be no dollars taken off their benefit. That is unjust and has to be fixed.

You could say that the unfairness of that is quite obvious, but in previous speeches at earlier stages of the bill, it was pointed out by some that the benefit is not enough anyway and, therefore, we need to deal with that. It did not come from the Labour Opposition but it did come from others. The whole point of our benefits system is fairness. People pay taxes in the belief that that they will be distributed in a way that is fair. If we do not meet that fairness test, then the whole system falls apart.

If we move to the student accommodation supplement, we have a similar situation. For some students whose own personal income, their parental income, or their spousal income does not allow them to get a student allowance and a supplement, they can apply for an accommodation supplement. That is also grossly unfair. I do have an example for this, if I may be permitted to read on that one. For a sole parent in Auckland with two children, the maximum amount that can be paid in the accommodation supplement is $225 a week. In contrast, the accommodation benefit for a student is only $60 a week.

Tim Macindoe: That is deeply inequitable.

STUART SMITH: It is terribly inequitable. The point is, I guess, that on one level you could say that if a student can identify that loophole and exploit it, then perhaps for certain courses that they are taking at university they deserve a merit pass, I would have thought. But it is inequitable, and students—

Darroch Ball: Have you thought that maybe they need it?

STUART SMITH: Ah! The member brings up a good point—maybe they need the money. The supplement is designed for a student. If somebody can identify a loophole and exploit it, that is inequitable for everybody else. Encouraging people simply to exploit little loopholes like that is not good legislation. It is not good law. It leads to everybody trying to exploit those loopholes, because, after all, we are a competitive lot. That is what brought us out of the caves, after all—the fact that we were all able to try to exploit the little differences that were available. I think that this bill aims to fix this particular loophole. That is something I really support. The Government is all about equity. It is about getting good public services. And the only way we can do that is to ensure that the benefits that we do have—that we pay out—are paid on a needs basis, not to whoever can exploit the law as it stands.

I do not think there is a lot more that I can say, unless we perhaps talk about clause 4, which clarifies eligibility for the criteria—[Interruption] Yes, clause 4—absolutely. That is an absolutely essential part of dealing with that accommodation supplement.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption on the next sitting day. I am doing this a little bit early because in Committee this evening the votes on schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) were incorrectly recorded as Ayes 61, Noes 59. In both cases, the votes were Ayes 61, Noes 57. The record will be corrected.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.