Thursday, 2 April 2015

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2015

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Next week the House begins a 3-week adjournment. When the House resumes on 28 April, it is the Government’s intention to begin the debate on the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill as well as a number of other second and third readings on the Order Paper.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Can I start by wishing all members of the House a very happy Easter break. I notice that there are currently only 21 Government orders of the day available on the Order Paper, and in fact there are 22 members’ orders of the day available on the Order Paper. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has given any consideration to increasing the allocation of time to members’ orders of the day, given that the Government seems to be having difficulty filling its half of the Order Paper.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Well, the relative inexperience of the shadow Leader of the House is showing through in that statement. He will know that this is a very busy Government; they are big pieces of legislation that are before the House at the present time. And if I might quote a former Leader of the House when a similar question was posed to him, in about 2004, his reply then was: “Stand by; more is on its way.”

Points of Order

Australia—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move without notice and without debate a motion in my name regarding the forced closure of aboriginal communities in Australia.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move that particular motion without debate. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 12 to Minister—References Ruled Out of Order

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today you ruled out of order the original text of my colleague Mahesh Bindra’s question to the Minister of Corrections, which referred to yesterday as April Fool’s Day. The question’s original wording was accepted by the Table Office as valid. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 160/6 and Standing Order 377. Going through both those references, the question as originally put and accepted by the Table Office as valid meets all points. Can I ask you as the Speaker to give the House a ruling on this matter, because your determination now effectively rules out primary questions that reference unofficial dates such as Mother’s Day, St Patrick’s Day, and Father’s Day.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): That is an interesting request that has been made by the New Zealand First member. Other days that are referred to are days that are less than ironic expressions. You could hardly suggest that Father’s Day or Mother’s Day is an ironic expression or that Easter Sunday is an ironic expression, but April Fool’s Day is most definitely an ironic expression, and that is clearly dealt with in the Standing Orders.

RON MARK (NZ First): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow Ron Mark if he has further to add.

RON MARK: This question was accepted by the Table Office as valid. The reference to April Fool’s Day might well be—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member adding anything further to the point of order?

RON MARK: Well, the point is that at every point of Standing Order 377 this question was within the parameters of the Standing Orders and should not have been ruled out. I think that if it is going to be, we deserve a ruling from the Chair so that, going forth, we can be better guided.

Mr SPEAKER: And I am only too happy to help the member. Although I accept the point made by Mr Mark that the question was initially accepted by the Table Office, I am the ultimate adjudicator as to whether a question meets the Standing Orders. On this occasion I referred to Standing Order 380(1)(b) and considered that it did have an ironic expression. I further considered Standing Order 380(1)(c) and thought that such a discreditable reference brought this House into disrepute. On that basis I ruled the question out of order. I gave the member a chance to change it and refer to the date being 1 April. The member then accepted my judgment and the question was submitted and accepted on that basis.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a fresh point of order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Good. I look forward to it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If that is your ruling, then how come yesterday members were able to raise that in their supplementary questions and were not ruled out by you, but a day later—today—they are? What is the consistency there?

Mr SPEAKER: I am only too happy to explain it to the member. The consistency is that I have an opportunity to study every primary question before it is ultimately accepted. When it comes to supplementary questions, I do not have any pre-warning about where a supplementary question may go. Over time we have seen all members of this House allow more political debate to creep into their supplementary questions, which leaves me, as I have explained to the member on other occasions, two choices: to simply rule the question out of order, which I think I did on two occasions yesterday or Tuesday, or to accept that the question contains some politics or irony in it and give the Minister then answering that question more licence in his or her answer.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

KiwiRail—Locomotives

1. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What reports, if any, has he received about KiwiRail’s plans to get rid of electric locomotives on the North Island main trunk line and replace them with diesel locomotives?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I have not received any reports on KiwiRail’s review of its locomotive assets. However, I am aware that KiwiRail has put out a statement, which said: “As with any responsible business operator, KiwiRail has a continuous process of asset management. The EF class of locomotives have reached the point that a review of their future is required. They are performing poorly and this is beginning to impact on our operations, so we are currently reviewing their future.” It is my expectation that KiwiRail reviews any asset that may not be performing well, to ensure that it continues to meet operational requirements. However, I also note from the KiwiRail statement that no decision has been made.

Phil Twyford: Why was he not told by KiwiRail’s board, under the no-surprises policy, about its proposal to implement dirty diesel on the North Island main trunk line, putting hundreds of jobs and billions of dollars of infrastructure in jeopardy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I am informed by the statement that KiwiRail put out that no decision has been made yet, so what the member is doing is speculating. This is a decision and consideration for the KiwiRail board. When it has made a decision, it will signal that to us.

Phil Twyford: What is his view about the consequences of a proposal that would put at risk billions of dollars’ worth of electrification infrastructure, based on the assumption that if electrification infrastructure is not used, it will have to be removed from the line, and has he told the Minister of Finance about that possibility?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Government’s commitment to KiwiRail is clear. Since 2008 we have invested $1.3 billion in this. When one considers the amount that was spent by the previous Labour Government to buy KiwiRail—and it spent too much of it—more than $2 billion has been spent. We expect KiwiRail to run its business efficiently, and I think that taxpayers have a right to expect that KiwiRail will consider the very best way to deliver service in that environment.

Phil Twyford: How does dirty diesel on the main trunk line square with his Government’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the transport sector at a time when every other country is trying to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and increase electrification in the transport system?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I repeat, again, that no decision has been made. Firstly, I expect KiwiRail to assess all of the options, including environmentally. Secondly, I think this Government’s commitment to renewables is beyond question. Almost 80 percent of electricity generated in New Zealand is renewable. I expect KiwiRail, on behalf of the taxpayer, to run its business efficiently and effectively, and that is what we are waiting for it to do.

Phil Twyford: Why is he allowing KiwiRail to buy cheap Chinese diesel locomotives when the last lot of cheap Chinese electric locomotives have spent months in the workshop laid up with mechanical problems and asbestos contamination, and the cheap Chinese rolling stock has had equally disastrous consequences?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Government, on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer, has invested $1.3 billion in KiwiRail since 2008. I do not think that anything it is doing is cheap.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from KiwiRail management to staff about the dirty diesel plan.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this letter. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! There is objection.

Question No. 2 to Minister

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I seek leave of the House to have my question transferred back to the Minister of Transport, as my question pertains to a critical component of our transport infrastructure.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not prepared to put that leave. It is quite clearly established in the Speakers’ rulings that the Government has every right to decide who is, in its opinion, the most appropriate Minister to answer the question. It has transferred it and that must be accepted.

KiwiRail—Locomotives and Environmental Impact

2. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Is he considering replacing the electric locomotives with diesel locomotives on the Main Trunk Line, and would this mean removing electrification on that line?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): No. I would note that this is an operational matter and it is a decision for the KiwiRail board. I would also note that KiwiRail has made no decisions on this issue.

Julie Anne Genter: Why does his Government not consider that decisions relating to core components of our transport infrastructure, like the electrification of the main trunk line, are not a matter of Government policy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, that is not what I said in relation to the primary question. What I would say, however, is that this Government has spent more on transportation infrastructure than any Government in the history of this country.

Julie Anne Genter: Would replacing the electric locomotives used on the North Island main trunk line with diesel locomotives increase or decrease the carbon pollution from rail freight movements?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I do know that that is a hypothetical question. I guess it would depend on how much the trains are used.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave of the House to table research from the Parliamentary Library showing that the pollution from diesel locomotives is 20 times greater than from electric.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is objection. Question No. 3—[Interruption] Order! Question No. 3—

Julie Anne Genter: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: In future, if the member wants to ask a supplementary question, it is important she follows—supplementary question, Julie Anne Genter.

Julie Anne Genter: Will his Government rule out ditching electrification infrastructure on the main trunk line to avoid locking us into a high-carbon transport future; if not, why not?

Hon TODD McCLAY: There is nothing to rule in or rule out at this time. KiwiRail is assessing all of its options. Included in that, I expect KiwiRail to consider all options’ environmental impacts—of each of those options.

Julie Anne Genter: Is the impact of climate pollution from transport a key factor in investment decisions for KiwiRail and for this Government; if not, why not?

Hon TODD McCLAY: There are a number of factors KiwiRail will be taking into account, and that, I am sure, will be one of them.

Julie Anne Genter: Will his Government commit to investing in upgrading or replacing the electric locomotives here in New Zealand, which would support high-value manufacturing jobs today and preserve climate-friendly infrastructure well into the future?

Hon TODD McCLAY: As with my answer to the previous question, our commitment to KiwiRail, on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer, is $1.3 billion. I think it is fair that the taxpayer should ask KiwiRail to make sure that the funds the Government is giving it are used as well and as effectively as they can be. The Government expects it to consider all options, including environmental.

Julie Anne Genter: Would KiwiRail be forced to cut corners to save money if his Government was actually committed to investment in rail as part of our core transport infrastructure to the same extent as it is committed to spending billions of dollars on low-value motorways?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The answer to that question is no. I have been the Minister for State Owned Enterprises for only 6 months. I have learnt in that time that trains are not very good at cutting corners.

Economy—Employment

3. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy and business sentiment?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Treasury recently released its Monthly Economic Indicators for March. The report presents a positive economic picture, with the New Zealand economy growing 3.5 percent last year. Treasury states that the elevated net migration and a higher level of consumer and business confidence point to solid growth in consumption and investment. I also received the ANZ Business Outlook report yesterday, which showed increases in business confidence, firms’ own activity expectations, and profit expectations. A net 21 percent of businesses expect to be hiring more staff over the year ahead, and a net 25 percent expect to be investing more. The New Zealand economy is not without its risks, as the recent fall in dairy prices shows. However, these are healthy signs. Reducing unemployment and increasing wages for New Zealand households happen when businesses invest.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask for a little less interjection from my left.

David Bennett: How is elevated business activity supporting more employment and higher wages for New Zealand workers?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Treasury’s Monthly Economic Indicators reports summarise the views of businesses interviewed around the country. Business activity has remained strong across the country, with increased sales supported by higher consumer confidence and the fall in fuel prices. Businesses expect—

Dr David Clark: Why are median wages down so much in the regions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Just get yourself a question. Businesses expect higher activity to continue for the foreseeable future. All businesses interviewed are expecting to maintain or expand their labour forces. Businesses are expecting wages increases of 2 to 3 percent this year, well above inflation—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt. The level of noise is now getting to the stage where I am going to be asking somebody to leave the House. Would the Minister complete his answer.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is question time, not story time. The—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to raise a point of order I will hear it, but I am not prepared to put up with that sort of rubbish from a senior Opposition member.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It does relate to the point of order I raised yesterday. When Ministers read long-winded, pre-scripted answers to Government questions, there is going to be more interjection from this side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: If the answer goes on for too long and it looks like it is a speech, then I will, and I do, intervene. On this occasion I do not think the answer was particularly long. I hope it does not go for too much longer, as I asked the Minister to complete it, but at the end of the day I am the adjudicator of the length of answer, not the Opposition whip.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you do adjudicate on the appropriateness of the length of an answer, but I would hope that we do not get to a situation where the Opposition, which has every right to question the Government through the procedure of the House process, gets us to a position where it actually cannot get answers.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a fresh point of order. This point of order relates to your comment to the member Chris Hipkins. Mr Speaker, can I ask you to reflect. Yesterday you allowed some very spurious points of order from Mr Brownlee. You gave Mr Brownlee some leeway to interject from a seat that was not his own, from a position where he deliberately took the opportunity to take advantage and break up my leader’s speeches. I would ask—[Interruption] Points of order are to be heard in silence. There we go once again. It seems—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from the member, because that in itself is a very spurious point of order. I think question time is a very serious time for this House and for democracy. I object to it being termed “story time”.

David Bennett: What are the risks to New Zealand’s economic outlook?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have consistently said that we must not be complacent that the good growth that we are currently experiencing makes us immune from economic risks. For example, we saw a further decline in dairy prices overnight, with the global dairy trade index down 10.8 percent. New Zealand does well when our major trading partners do well, and at the moment the outlook for two of our major trading partners is not as strong as it has been in recent years. In Australia, which has higher unemployment than we do, the Reserve Bank there has cut its cash rate to 2.25 percent. Growth forecasts have also lowered in China and there has been more monetary easing there. Meanwhile, the euro area remains burdened by debt problems that are unresolved. So although we have a solid and positive outlook for economic growth, falling unemployment, and growing wages, we do need to keep focused on further economic reform to help ensure the growth is sustained.

Dr David Clark: Is he aware that of 34 OECD countries, 10 now have lower unemployment than during the global financial crisis and a further eight have had a smaller increase than New Zealand; if so, does falling into the bottom half of the OECD on jobs equal economic success for this Government?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions—the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the second part of the member’s question is wrong. I think we are about the 10th or 11th lowest in the OECD right now out of a country list of 34, so that is definitely not in the bottom half. It is actually, incidentally, one place better than when the previous Government left office in 2008.

David Bennett: How is the Government supporting businesses to get ahead through investment and increased hiring?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is taking a range of steps to assist businesses to get ahead. The Government’s microeconomic reform programme, the Business Growth Agenda, is supporting businesses to invest and create more jobs. We are opening up access to markets for businesses through the free-trade agreement with Korea as well as, of course, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement. The Government is supporting further diversification of the economy with the Callaghan Innovation research and development grants programme. The Government’s fiscal restraint is helping keep interest rates lower for longer. It is great for families with a mortgage but also takes some pressure off the exchange rate. Overall, the signs are encouraging. Real business investment has increased by around $8 billion in 4 years, and 80,000 jobs were added to the economy last year.

Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Act—Impact

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he believe the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Act 2012 has achieved “a stable, permanent capital base for the Co-operative, secures our future and will support progress with our strategy to grow volumes and value”; if so, why?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yes; the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Act 2012 set out to ensure that the original Dairy Industry Restructuring Act was fit for purpose and that the contestability of milk supply provides incentives for the New Zealand dairy industry to reach its full potential. That said, we are legislatively required to review the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Act. The review of the legislation will consider the state of competition in dairy markets in New Zealand and whether the pro-competitive elements of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Act are still required. This process begins in June this year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister concerned that a low milk price, instead of generating a higher dividend for farmers, which was the theory behind that legislation, has instead seen Fonterra cut its dividend forecast?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Right now we are in a very volatile global market. I think the member needs to also remember that last year we had a record payout of $8.40. Right now we are seeing a very volatile global market for a range of reasons, and they are that the world is basically awash with milk, we have got milk currently that is displaced from the Russia ban, from the EU looking for a new home, and, of course, we have got some stockpiling in China. So all of those things mean that right now we are in a very volatile dairy market.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What can he say to Waikato farmer Dave Robertson, who said the other day: “I don’t believe what they are saying anymore … The company is not owned by farmers, it’s totally lost touch.”?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I would disagree with those comments. That farmer has a process to talk through that at the top table. There is a Fonterra Shareholders’ Council representing farmers. They have a direct link to the board of directors. The board of directors are currently on a roadshow addressing all of these concerns with farmers. And I am hearing a wide range of views that farmers are expressing to the board of directors, and that is the appropriate mechanism for them to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he respond to Waikato University professor of agribusiness, Jacqueline Rowarth, saying that farmers “are questioning whether Fonterra is actually operating as a co-operative anymore, and that’s dire. That is abysmal.”?

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a question that should be addressed to Fonterra.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister consider that the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Act passed by himself has indeed achieved its goal and that of his Prime Minister, which is that it is ultimately to set up tension so that Fonterra will be floated on the stock exchange, as the Prime Minister stated was his preferred option?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I refute the allegation from the member. That is completely wrong.

Child, Youth and Family—Review

5. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made to improve statutory child protection in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yesterday I set up an independent panel to lead a complete overhaul of Child, Youth and Family. The panel, led by Paula Rebstock, will look at all aspects of Child, Youth and Family operations and will oversee the development and implementation of a new operating model to modernise Child, Youth and Family. We must do better to protect vulnerable children in need of statutory care, and this review will ensure that Child, Youth and Family is in the best possible position to improve results in the decades ahead.

Matt Doocey: Why has she established an independent panel to lead the development of a new operating model for Child, Youth and Family?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: A number of reports in recent years have highlighted issues with Child, Youth and Family, and it is clear that significant change is required. An expert panel will inject fresh thinking and external expertise into the development of a wide-ranging business case. We need to make sure that Child, Youth and Family is focusing on its core business and is putting children and young people in care at the centre of everything it does. The panel will deliver a high level business case to me by 30 July this year and a detailed business case by the end of this year.

Darroch Ball: If the Minister believes so strongly that improving our child protection systems needs to be prioritised, then why on earth did she and so many of her colleagues refuse leave for the member for Northland, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to introduce the Criminal Procedure (Removing Paedophile Name Suppression) Amendment Bill yesterday?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I believe that looking after our vulnerable children is a really serious issue, and I believe that that piece of legislation was a knee-jerk reaction.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she asked the expert panel to look at why the police’s recorded offences against children is 56 percent higher than when her Government came in—notifications have increased dramatically—and yet Child, Youth and Family is still investigating only roughly the same number of cases that it was 5 years ago?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If the member goes to the Ministry of Social Development website, she will see the terms of reference for the expert panel, which are broad ranging. So meeting with the panel today, I have told them to look at all the structure of Child, Youth and Family and the operation of Child, Youth and Family so that we can all be sure that we have a model that is looking after those most vulnerable children in our communities.

Regional Economies—Northland

6. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: What lessons, if any, on regional economic development has he drawn from his recent ministerial visits to Northland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I learn things from every regional visit that I make to every region in New Zealand. Over the last 3 years I have visited hundreds of New Zealand companies and organisations in different regions around the country. I always take away their issues and ideas to address, and many of these have led to the development and implementation of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda.

Dr David Clark: Is he aware that the regions of Waikato, Taranaki, Manawatū, Wanganui, Tasman-Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, and Otago all have unemployment today that is more than 50 percent higher than it was during the worst part of the recession; if so, does he think that his 6 years of glossy Business Growth Agendas and shady deals with casinos have led us to this point?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, speaking of shady, I think I would have to check the member’s figures before I made any comment.

Dr David Clark: Has he yet seen the OECD report Promoting Growth in All Regions, which says that focusing on helping struggling regions to catch up with more developed ones has a positive impact on a country’s national growth overall; if so, why has he neglected New Zealands regions for 6 long years and spent all his efforts on dodgy deals with casinos?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The second part of that question is exactly the discussion we had earlier. It will lead to disorder. The first part is certainly in order and I invite the Minister to answer it.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are right that political questions can entertain political responses, but they are still in order and there is nothing in the Standing Orders and there is nothing in the Speakers’ rulings, which I have checked during this session, that would say that political questions are out of order. They are in order.

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] No, I do not need assistance on this occasion. The member is quite wrong. They are out of order, and the member has only got to look at Standing Order 380 to see that they are definitely out of order. As I said at the very start of this session today, I have been inclined to leave those inferences and ironical expressions in a question, and they do give a lot of licence to a Minister, but I also have to be mindful that when they are repeated time and time again there is potential for them to lead to disorder. But on the point raised by the Hon David Parker, he is categorically wrong. If I adhered strictly to the Standing Orders, as written, many supplementary questions today would actually be ruled out of order. I invite the Minister to answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I have read the report that the member refers to, and actually it does inform a significant amount of the work that we are doing to encourage investment across all of our regions. He may not be aware that, for example, in recent times New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has launched a regional investment attraction programme, which was announced last year and is encouraging investment by new industries in different regions of the country. We have the regional business partners programme, which works with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and Callaghan Innovation funds to encourage the growth of regional businesses. For example, we focus on the sorts of reforms that will encourage regional business growth. Most of our regions are based in the resource sector, as we know—in the primary sector—and that is one of the reasons why we are so passionate about advancing reforms to the Resource Management Act. We, of course, have made very significant—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now we have an answer that is going on for too long.

Dr David Clark: How many ministerial limousine trips are planned to Northland for the coming 6 weeks, how does that compare with the past 6 weeks, and is that a sign that the Government’s focus on the region’s economic development is scaling up or down?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Ministers travel in all sorts of ways, but if the member wants to focus on the amount of ministerial travel to Northland I can inform him that there are very, very significant and ongoing visits to Northland by Ministers. I look at the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, who is very active in the region. I look at the Minister Nick Smith, who is very active in the region. Behind me is Minister Guy, who is very active in the region. I look across at Minister Bennett, who is very active in the region—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate the Minister could do quite a lot of looking across the benches. The question has been answered.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister accept that years of neglect by his Government in terms of regional development in Northland, such as through inadequate roading, broadband, rail services, and a lack of good job opportunities contributed to the Government’s humiliating defeat in the Northland by-election?

Mr SPEAKER: It is a marginal question on ministerial responsibility.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I just do not know why they got David to ask that question. It seems a strange one for Mr Cunliffe to ask, but there you go. The member raises some interesting questions about Northland infrastructure. My view on it is we actually have invested significantly more. In fact, the numbers bear that out. For example, in transport it is around 40 percent more than the previous Government did over a similar period. Broadband, of course, is a very significant investment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Rubbish!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is actually true. You can just go and look at the numbers and they will tell you that. But I also accept, as I have earlier this week, that Northland has impatience for more investment, and that is what this Government is working on. It is what we announced during the by-election campaign. We have remained committed to doing so, and will remain so.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that he has recently asked Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials for urgent advice on regional development, given that the by-election result shows that the people of Northland considered his random acts of pork-barrel politics just a bridge too far?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce—the first part of that question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have forgotten how much I have missed David Cunliffe. Actually, the Government has had a big focus on Northland regional economic development for some time. The member may or may not be aware of the Northland regional growth study, which was released on 4 February this year. It is the most comprehensive assessment of Northland’s economy and opportunities that I think has ever been done, but certainly in the last 30 or 40 years. The Government is acting on that, and will continue to act on that for the people of Northland.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the promises of hundreds of jobs for Northlanders from the mining industry deliver the same empty future as that faced by hundreds of former West Coast miners from the National Government’s incompetent oversight of Solid Energy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, it is a little ironic coming from that member. The reality is that the Northland economy actually has the highest number of jobs right now than it has had since December 2007, I believe.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Totally false.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, it is correct actually, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Stop making a fool of yourself.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Who is making a fool of himself?

Dairy Farming—Intensification

7. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Will he stop any further work on dairy conversions by Landcorp, in light of the drop in the dairy price yesterday and concerns about the impact that those conversions will have on water quality; if not, why not?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): The answer is no. Dairy is an important industry for New Zealand and the National Government believes there is further opportunity to expand the farming industry. We will continue to support the sector to grow, which should not halt investment based on hysteria from the Greens.

Catherine Delahunty: Can he confirm that by the end of the Landcorp conversions there will be up to 50,000 additional cows in the Upper Waikato catchment area, resulting in up to 1,000 additional tonnes of nitrogen seeping into the river every day; if not, how many additional cows will there be?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, I cannot confirm that, but what I can confirm is that Landcorp is aware of its obligations under the Resource Management Act and regional council requirements, and takes all necessary steps to comply with the environmental rules. I have met with the board and I have expressed to it the view of the Government that, in running its business well, we expect it to be profitable, to not be risky for the taxpayer, and that it should also be considerate of the environment. I expect Landcorp to comply with all of its environmental obligations.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree with Waikato farmers that the Government has a responsibility not to overload the Waikato River through the Landcorp conversions because of both the threat to the river and the threat to their farms, as they are forced to bear the cost of over-intensification?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Look, as the Minister for Primary Industries said, it is not for the Government to make those decisions. But I would say to the member that she should not misleadingly use statements made by Federated Farmers. It has not said that in the Waikato, it has not asked for a moratorium on dairy conversions, and Federated Farmers actually supports the dairy industry and the farming industry in New Zealand, and she should too.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he guarantee that there will be no additional limits on nutrient production imposed on existing dairy farmers in the Lower Waikato catchment area and that the river quality will not degrade further as a direct result of further dairy intensification caused by Landcorp’s additional cows?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The member is asking the Government to go and tell the regional council in the Waikato what to do. We put in place rules, they work very, very well, and she should support local government and give it the consideration that it deserves so that it can manage these issues well.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question had nothing to do with the regional council—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question, if you think about it, asked for a guarantee from the Minister, which he was never going to give. The member is now wanting to design the answer to her question, and she needs to refer to Speaker’s ruling 167/6, and I think that could help her with further supplementary questions.

Wine Industry—Exports

8. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Trade: What recent steps has the Government taken to promote and support New Zealand exporters?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): Well, a large number of measures, but, most recently this week Minister Goldsmith and I announced that the Government is ready to implement the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act to protect and promote the premium value of New Zealand’s wines on the international stage. For members who may not be familiar with the concept, this geographical indication is a label one can attach to a product, in this case our wonderful wines, to indicate the qualities and reputation of the region concerned.

Mark Mitchell: Why is it important that the Government implement this Act?

Hon TIM GROSER: The industry’s position on this has evolved, but I think it is a reflection of the enormous maturity of our wine industry that it is now ready to stand up and protect its intellectual property. It will be very important to the future growth of this outstanding industry, which has grown at an annual average rate of nearly 25 percent in every year over the last 20 years, to now have the intellectual property that it needs around its excellent product.

Mark Mitchell: What else has the Government done to improve access into markets for the New Zealand wine industry?

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, now that New Zealand wine is already our sixth-largest export item—up from, I think, 18th or 19th only 10 years ago—a great deal. In the last two agreements that this Government has overseen, we eliminated the tariff of 15 percent on wine in the Korea free-trade agreement, assuming that this House will pass the implementing legislation, and we eliminated tariffs on wine, ranging up to 20 percent, on the arrangement we have with Taiwan, which has led to a spectacular 60 percent increase in New Zealand wine exports to Taiwan since that came into effect on 1 December last year.

GCSB—World Trade Organization Director-General Role

9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Trade: What monetary and other assistance was provided by the New Zealand Government in support of his bid for appointment as Director-General of the World Trade Organization?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): As the Prime Minister announced to your colleague in the House just the other day, exactly the same type of assistance as we provided to other candidates in the past, including, most recently, Helen Clark.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister know whether the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) hacked or monitored emails of his rivals, either itself directly or through other agencies?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Tim Groser.

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, making the point that, of course, this question should be directed to the Minister responsible for the GCSB, I can quite happily answer the question—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not who directed it or whether it was appropriate to direct it; I asked him whether he knew whether—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the member is very lucky that the question has actually been allowed to stay in. I invited the Minister to answer in regard to his own ministerial responsibility. Of course, he is not the Minister responsible for the GCSB, but I—[Interruption] Order! I have not ruled the question out. I would like to hear the answer from the Minister.

Hon TIM GROSER: As this House knows, although we accept that there is a foreign intelligence-gathering agency, which does the surprising thing of gathering foreign intelligence, we do not comment on specific operations.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. The first is to clarify whether the Minister is claiming that there is a public interest in not answering the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The way to do that is a further supplementary question. I invite the member—

Hon David Parker: No, point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: What point of order is the member making?

Hon David Parker: I do not know whether the question is being addressed. He is either declining—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The way forward is to ask exactly the supplementary question that the member is now asking as a point of order. It is not my job to answer on behalf of the Minister. It is the member’s job to ask questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, the Minister is being asked whether he had personal knowledge. That is not a question that he can evade. His answer has got to be “Yes, I did.” or “I didn’t.” He cannot dodge around on the basis that some other Minister should tell this House whether he personally as Minister had personal knowledge. It is a clean question; make him answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! But in my opinion the Minister did answer it. He addressed the question. [Interruption] Order! The way forward now is to ask additional supplementary questions, and I will grant the member an additional supplementary question.

Hon David Parker: Is he claiming a public interest in not answering the question as to whether or not he knew that the GCSB hacked or monitored emails of his rivals?

Hon TIM GROSER: My answer is fully consistent with longstanding policy not only of this Government but of the Government of which he was a member and of which I was an official adviser. To answer it any other way would break longstanding Government policy.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I still do not know whether the Minister is claiming a public interest in not answering—and that was my question.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to ask a supplementary question. I accept the point the member is making. I could interpret the answer, but that is not my job. It is the member’s job, so I will grant him another question.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister claiming a public interest in not answering the question as to whether he knew whether the GCSB hacked or monitored emails of his rivals?

Hon TIM GROSER: Let me put it another way to the member. We accept that the member has not yet had—he may have in the future—any political responsibility for an externally facing portfolio. But he has the great advantage of having members in his caucus who have, so I suggest he ask them, discreetly, what the answers to the further questions might be.

Hon David Parker: How does he reconcile the Prime Minister’s statement that South Korea “wouldn’t give a monkey’s” about spying on his South Korean rival with the Brazilian Government having subsequently called on the New Zealand authorities to explain this same outrage?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We all appreciate that as questions move along the focus of the questions may change. But it cannot move so far from this Minister’s responsibility to stand as a question that can be directed to this Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to allow the question to stand. It simply starts “How does he reconcile” those two statements. The Minister then has the ability to answer it, and if he does not consider it is within his ministerial responsibility, that is the answer a Minister can give, and I would find that that has addressed the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect to your ruling, there are set ministerial responsibilities. The question asked by Mr Parker does not go to the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Trade. Whether or not he can reconcile the Prime Minister’s statements with those of foreign leaders is not something in his purview, and it should not stand.

Mr SPEAKER: I could have ruled that way, but I have decided not to. In light of the very first question that was asked, the first supplementary question, again, moved it away from a trade issue. I invited the Minister to answer. I used the words “in as far as it relates to ministerial responsibility”. In the answer then given, I think the Minister has now allowed a further breadth to the question that has been asked. A question has been asked; it is not a difficult one for the Minister to answer, and I would like him to do so.

Hon TIM GROSER: I can reconcile the question very easily. We have had discussions with the Brazilian Government at ambassadorial level. We are ready to clarify our operations with any friendly Government that seeks our attention, and that offer remains open. It was not taken up by the Korean Government.

Hon David Parker: Why did his Government let the GCSB put our trade and diplomatic relationship with Indonesia at risk by spying on his Indonesian rival for the World Trade Organisation (WTO) job, given Australia’s recent hacking of communications of the Indonesian Government caused such a public deterioration of their relationship?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion it is a question now that relates entirely to the operation of the GCSB. If the member can rephrase his question and link it to a ministerial responsibility, I will allow it.

Hon David Parker: Why did the Government put our trade and diplomatic relationship with Indonesia at risk by spying on his Indonesian rival for the WTO job, given that Australia’s hacking of communications of the Indonesian Government caused such a public deterioration of their relationship?

Hon TIM GROSER: As the trade negotiator who came in from the cold, I would answer that I have not done any spying on anyone, and we are in a very interesting situation right now with Indonesia. If the member continues in this, he can ask a thousand supplementary questions and he will get the same response phrased in different ways, which is that this Government—as well as his previous Government—does not comment on operational matters.

Hon David Parker: Does he think spying on our friends to help his job application at the WTO was proper use of GCSB powers?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister considers there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Tim Groser.

Hon TIM GROSER: The same answer as I have given on previous occasions.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to—and I have obtained this, including the translation of the Portuguese—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! You are seeking leave to table something—

Hon David Parker: I am seeking leave to table the release from the Brazilian Government, which is in Portuguese, and the Google translation that has been provided by the public library—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any further assistance from the member or any further description. If it may inform the House, it will be the House’s decision. Leave is sought to table this particular document. Is there any objection? Yes.

Better Public Services—Better for Business Programme

10. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country) to the Minister for Small Business: How are small businesses benefiting from the Better for Business - Result 9 Programme?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): This week the Government introduced the New Zealand Business Number Bill, a key part of the Better for Business - Result 9 programme. This bill enables certain entities, including small and medium sized enterprises, to obtain or be allocated a New Zealand Business Number and to be registered on the New Zealand Business Number register. The New Zealand Business Number means that small and medium businesses will be able to update their details in one place in order to automatically update that same information across other Government agencies. New Zealand small businesses are spending less time on administration and more time on what they do best: business.

Barbara Kuriger: How else are small and medium businesses benefiting from the Better for Business - Result 9 programme?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Through the website business.govt.nz small and medium businesses are able to access the Government-related advice and support they need to set up, operate, and grow. The business.govt.nz site also offers tools such as the Compliance Matters tool. The Compliance Matters tool makes managing Government compliance easy, with seven Government agencies now contributing to that tool, which can save valuable time for small and medium businesses. Tools such as these mean that small and medium businesses can focus more on their business and less on compliance.

Barbara Kuriger: What other tools are available through business.govt.nz to support small and medium businesses?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Through business.govt.nz small and medium businesses can learn about starting a business and managing and growing a business; calculate the cost for hiring new employees; and use the one-check search for a company name, domain, and trademark—all in one place. Small and medium businesses are benefiting—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Would you like me to start again, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I certainly would not like you to start again. I would be very grateful if you would finish the answer quickly.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Small and medium businesses are benefiting from these initiatives. They make it easier to interact with the Government agencies and are being supported through the various tools available through business.govt.nz.

Canterbury, Recovery—Emergency Housing

11. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Social Housing: Why are Christchurch’s social housing organisations facing increased homelessness four years after the last major earthquake?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): In reality, the number of people in insecure accommodation in Christchurch has actually fallen in the last 12 months, but, of course, housing remains an issue. What we are finding still is that demand for rentals for rebuild workers and people seeking temporary accommodation while their homes were fixed had forced some of the most vulnerable down the accommodation list, as in yesterday’s report in the paper. We certainly acknowledge that. That is why we have contracted two community organisations to provide short-term housing for those in need.

Poto Williams: Is it acceptable to her as Minister that 4 years after the earthquakes, social agencies say that young people are living in sheds, families are living in cars, and pregnant women are couch surfing because they have nowhere to go?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Reasons for homelessness are complex in many cases. They are not always just about the house itself but about other issues, and homelessness has been an issue for decades, quite frankly. What we have seen in the repair is that Housing New Zealand is three-quarters of the way done in its work and, in fact, is well ahead of track of where it had to be, repairing 5,000 earthquake-damaged properties. Three and a half thousand have been repaired so far. What we have also got is 159 new homes being built, another 424. What we also see is that the number of builds and the number of houses now are above the number that it was prior to the earthquakes. So some of that complex work is being done with those who are homeless, and we are very committed to it.

Poto Williams: Why has she not provided more emergency housing in Canterbury, given that the latest figures from the council show—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member please start the question again. I am having trouble hearing it.

Poto Williams: Why has she not provided more emergency housing in Canterbury, given that the latest figures from the council show that about 100 more people are on the social housing waiting list than last year, and Christchurch’s newest short-term emergency housing for families is at 100 percent capacity after only 2 weeks?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The council has a role to do, actually, in preparing the homes that it has, and that would obviously bring down the list that we have. But we are not ignoring it. We have more places for those who need short-term help, and we have just recently made some announcements and seen people being housed who needed to be.

Poto Williams: Will the Minister commit to increasing the level of emergency housing should her latest measures prove inadequate?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly.

Marama Fox: Can she explain what efforts the Government is taking to decrease unforeseen levels of homelessness in the regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We see that there are people throughout New Zealand who are actually struggling with some housing. What we have announced in the last round also was an increase in housing for young people in youth services. So what we are looking at is more supported teen flatting, with that being a more regional, localised solution where we can actually see, particularly, some of those young people who have come out of Child, Youth and Family being in supported environments, and we have committed more money to that.

Corrections Facilities—Safety

12. MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his answers given to the House on 1 April 2015?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Yes, including the answer that our Government has rolled out stab-resistant body armour, spit-hoods, batons, pepper spray, and extensive training on de-escalation techniques to front-line officers. These resources were not available under the previous Labour - New Zealand First Government and, for the benefit of Mr Mark, that was foolish.

Mahesh Bindra: Does he stand by his answer that “Over the last few years the Government has introduced stab-resistant body armour, spit-hoods, batons, and pepper spray progressively from 2010.”?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: For the benefit of the member again, yes.

Mahesh Bindra: Was it an April Fool’s Day joke that batons have been introduced to New Zealand’s corrections facilities since 2010; if not, which prisons have them and where are they stored, apart from in the prison museum? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Did the Minister not hear the question correctly?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I did not hear about half of that.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member to repeat the question. It is very hard to hear the member. Could he repeat the question, and could I have a little less noise from my right-hand side.

Mahesh Bindra: Was it an April Fool’s Day joke that batons have been introduced to New Zealand’s corrections facilities since 2010; if not, which prisons have them and where are they stored, apart from in the prison museum?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Sorry, I beg your forbearance, Mr Speaker. Could he please repeat that again? This is genuine. I—

Mr SPEAKER: All he wants to know is which prisons use batons—I think that is the essence of the question. I will allow the member, for the last time, to read the question. If the Minister has not heard it then, we are going to have to move forward.

Mahesh Bindra: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I hope this is clearer this time.

Mr SPEAKER: So do I.

Mahesh Bindra: Was it an April Fool’s Day joke that batons have been introduced to New Zealand’s corrections facilities since 2010; if not, which prisons have them and where are they stored, apart from in the prison museum?

Mr SPEAKER: There are three questions. The Minister has the ability to answer any one of those.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well, this sounds like an April Fool’s Day question. The answer to the first part is no.

Mahesh Bindra: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that the privately run Mt Eden Corrections Facility is “one of the highest performing prisons in New Zealand”; if so, did he mean that out of all the prisons in New Zealand, it has the highest proportion of prisoner-on-staff assaults in both the serious and non-serious categories?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga—either of those two questions.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Look, the answer to the first part is yes. As I said yesterday to the member, and I will repeat it again, it is the top prison performer on the prison performance table, which measures core security, internal procedures, and rehabilitation. Thank you.

Points of Order

Report—Referral to Select Committee

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the report Fault lines: Human Rights in New Zealand by Margaret Wilson to be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration and report back to Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that particular report to be referred to the select committee. Is there any objection? There is.

Bills

Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 31 March.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): This legislation amends the Social Security Act 1964. The proposed amendments confirm policy intent in several areas by addressing ambiguities and technical errors. Our welfare system delivers assistance to over 1 million New Zealanders each year. It is important that people are treated consistently and as we intended.

There is a major and deliberate difference between the support provided to students in tertiary education and the support provided to low and middle income families through the accommodation supplement. The accommodation supplement recognises the housing needs of low to middle income people and assists them with accommodation costs when they are not getting other Government assistance such as income-related rent or student support. The Government provides tertiary students with a package of support for their costs through substantially subsidised fees, the student allowance, accommodation benefit, and access to student loans.

A loophole in the Act has meant that some students can get a higher level of accommodation assistance by accessing the accommodation supplement. That is not right. Students should get the assistance designed for them. The adequacy of New Zealand’s student support is completely beyond the scope of this bill. New Zealand students are well provided for. That is right and proper. Having highly educated, skilled people is a benefit to the whole country, but there is also an individual advantage accruing from tertiary education in terms of the income a person can earn over their lifetime. This is why student support in New Zealand is shared between taxpayers, individual students, and their families. This bill closes the loophole so that students must use the assistance designed for them and cannot claim the accommodation supplement.

It is important that people receiving weekly compensation are treated the same in the welfare system regardless of who pays the compensation. The Social Security Appeal Authority has said that the current wording in the Act does not cover weekly compensation paid under the Accredited Employers Programme. It would be unfair if the benefit system treated an injured worker differently just because the weekly compensation payments were made by an accredited employer rather than ACC. This is not what was intended. Work and Income has always treated all weekly compensation payments in exactly the same manner: a dollar for dollar deduction from benefits.

The amendments ensure that payments of weekly compensation continue to be treated the same whether paid by ACC or by an accredited employer or, for that matter, by someone else acting on behalf of ACC or an employer. The change will be backdated to take effect from the July 1999 practice, when the wording was first changed to mention ACC as the payer, to validate previous practice.

The income threshold at which the accommodation supplement starts reducing for non-beneficiary sole parents was raised in the legislation unintentionally, as a result of the recent welfare reform changes. The bill resets the income threshold to align the legislation with what was intended, and it is backdated to take effect from 15 July 2013 to validate previous practice.

Through the welfare reforms, the personal earnings exemption intended for people receiving the supported living payment because they are permanently and severely sick, injured, or disabled has been extended to all supported living payment recipients. The bill returns the personal earnings exemption to those it was intended for and is backdated to take effect from 15 July 2013 to validate previous practice.

New Zealand superannuation and main benefits have a residency qualification, which requires a person to have lived in New Zealand for a certain period. A person employed overseas but paying New Zealand income tax on their overseas earnings can be considered resident in New Zealand during this period for benefit purposes. This will not change. However, the Social Security Appeal Authority has said that the Act allows people to be considered resident and present for benefit purposes during periods of overseas employment, even if they did not pay the New Zealand income tax they were liable for on their overseas earnings. The bill clarifies that a person can be considered resident and present for periods of overseas employment only where a person has actually had tax deducted or withheld under New Zealand’s PAYE rules. The change is backdated to take effect from 23 June 1987 to validate previous practice.

The changes in this bill will ensure that the welfare system treats people consistently and as intended by the Government. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to speak to the third reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). The Greens are opposing this legislation because ultimately it is about making things harder for people who are trying to get ahead through study, people on ACC who are also on a benefit, and people who are caring for family members who otherwise might be in care. It is also, I think, another example from this Government of the double-speak attack on the vulnerable, where we are presented with a piece of legislation and told that this is purely administrative; it is just a matter of fixing up some unintended consequences and delivering on what the Government intended. Yet, when we look into the detail of the legislation, we see small but actually very significant changes that in everyday people’s lives will make their lives harder. It is just a reality, it seems, of this political game that things are played in that way and that the impact of legislation on everyday people is not considered and is not put at the front of this process, sadly.

This seems also to be another example of the Government prioritising its own budgets over the well-being of the country as a whole. As this is possibly my last contribution before the Christian holiday of Easter, I would suggest to the Government that it reflects on the messages of Easter. I do not think you have to be a Christian, either, to consider these messages valuable. At its heart, the Easter story is a story of sacrifice and a story of love for the people. This piece of legislation asks people who really do not have many financial resources to sacrifice a bit more. It takes away their options and asks them to sacrifice more for the sake of this Government’s budget. I do not think that is consistent with the Easter message. This piece of legislation, I would suggest, shows no love for the people. I would again suggest to this Government that it goes back and reflects on the message of Easter, and to those members on that side of the House who will be going to church over the Easter period to reflect on those messages, think on this legislation, and ask yourselves whether it lives up to those values and that love of the people, because I do not believe it does.

We are told that this legislation closes a loophole for students who are currently eligible for a student allowance but who choose not to apply for it because the accommodation supplement will offer them a higher income. This legislation removes that option and prevents these students from applying for the accommodation supplement. In real terms, it prevents them from accessing a higher income. The Green Party wants a well-educated and well-paid society. To get this, we know we have to offer enough financial support to students who do not have other means to be able to complete their studies. This is essential support for social mobility. If we are serious about addressing inequality, we need to be doing more—not less—to support people on lower incomes to get through tertiary education, to get higher qualifications, and to be able to get ahead in life.

The New Zealand University Students’ Association estimates that as many as one in six students would be better off turning down the student allowance and applying for the accommodation supplement instead. If you live in Auckland, are on a low income, and pay the average student rent of $220 a week, then you would be entitled to a $118 per week accommodation supplement. Almost one-quarter of all students getting an allowance in Auckland receive less than that in total. We are told it is just fixing things up and making the legislation consistent, but in real terms it is taking away an option for financial support from students and from families without much in the way of money to be able to support themselves. We do not support that.

Another element of this misnamed Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) is the changes that will result in someone who has been on a benefit while working part-time suddenly having their benefit reduced to zero after having an injury that entitles them to access ACC. I am sure people in this House get letters from people struggling between Work and Income and ACC and the difficulty of that situation. This legislation is just about to make that harder. You are going to get more letters, and it is because people are going to be struggling more because of this legislation, named the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3).

Another aspect of this bill is, supposedly, to clarify that the $20 personal earnings exemption, which is currently accessible for people caring full time for people who would probably otherwise be in care, will no longer be accessible to them. How extraordinary is it that on the eve of Easter, when so many people are focusing on the story of love for the people and sacrifice, this Government would pass a bill that takes away a $20 personal earnings exemption from people who have, pretty much, given up their opportunities to work full time, who have subjected themselves, pretty much assuredly, to a low income because they want to care for a family member who is incapacitated? To me, that is just mean—and I have been saying this too often in this House. This change has been brought in as a Supplementary Order Paper, so it has not been through consultation, it has not been to a select committee, and those families have not been able to tell this House or Parliament or the country what they think about this change. This is after this House under urgency, in response to the Budget, took away the rights of people caring for family members to be able to be paid a minimum wage after the courts had ruled that they were entitled to be paid.

We are starting to see a pattern here, and it is a pattern of taking people for granted—of exploiting them, I would say. Here we are again, on the eve of Easter, a Christian holiday of love and sacrifice, just embedding the exploitation of people who are caring for the most vulnerable in our country. I think it is a sad day to be in this House. The Green Party does not support this misnamed bill.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to once again oppose this bill. We actually share the same sentiments as the Green Party in so far as we understand that this bill is designed to sort out some loopholes, but it is the ramifications and downstream effects of those loopholes that we are concerned about. What is ultimately concerning as well is the fact that the National Government is ignoring the fact that those ramifications and downstream effects are actually having real effects on people. In this particular case, the clause I am talking about will affect students in particular.

I have been in this seat for only about 6 months, but this bill has surprised me on a number of levels. Firstly, there is the fact that its first reading came through in 2011, and it has taken this long to get through to the third reading. But the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading took only a couple of weeks. Not only that, but the Supplementary Order Papers that were put in were very recent. In fact, the Supplementary Order Papers were larger than the bill itself. Logic dictates that with such large Supplementary Order Papers affecting the original bill, the bill should have gone back to the Social Services Committee, but it did not.

We heard on Tuesday, when this was being rushed through by the Government, that the first speaker, who was the Minister for Social Development, took 45 seconds in the first speech. That reeks to me of trying to push this bill through very quickly with little or no fuss and with total ignorance of the effects downstream. That is what New Zealand First cares about, and it is why we are opposing this bill.

What is also surprising and interesting to me is the fact that Labour is supporting this bill too. In fact, during every speech that Labour members make when they stand up they say the exact same things on that same clause that New Zealand First members say, but they are deciding to support this bill. We have got submissions from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association, which is opposing this bill. It is very surprising to me that Labour wants to support it. However, like I said, we agree that the principal legislation does need to have the loopholes tied—that is the intent of this bill—but if we are looking at the student allowance and the accommodation clause, there are real concerns for New Zealand First.

The Minister, during the first speech in the second reading, used the word “equitable”—as have National backbenchers in every speech since. Being equitable is definitely a matter of perspective. I have an analogy that I want to use here for the benefit of the National Party. If we have got 100 people in the deep Pacific, right in the middle of the Pacific, who are keeping their heads above water, and only a few of them have life jackets, it would be equitable for all of those 100 people if we took those life jackets away from the few. That would be equitable, but is that the right thing to do? Is that fair? What the Government is doing at the moment is proposing—and it looks like it will go through—to take away the life jackets of students who are just keeping their heads above water, trying to survive, and trying to get the basic necessities in life. That is why New Zealand First is not happy with the effects downstream, and that is why we are not going to support this bill.

I would like to remind the House that there were only two submissions. Both of them were against the specific clause I am talking about. These are the words of those students who are keeping their heads above water. This is a submission from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association, and might I remind the House that it represents 14 universities and polytechnics, including Auckland, Massey, and Otago. This is the very first sentence that it has in its submission, in its general statement: “NZUSA is opposed to the changes proposed to students’ access to accommodation costs support in the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3).” That is the very first sentence that it has.

It goes on to say: “These days student rents are high and rising, student employment is much scarcer, and particularly in the larger cities where many tertiary institutions are situated.” This submission was put forward in 2011. You can imagine what it is now. It also says: “[the] NZUSA rejects the assertion in the Regulatory Impact Statement that implies that students are not low to middle income earners.”—whereas, in fact, they are.

This is the most disappointing part of the submission that the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association put forward: “It is disappointing to note the Ministry of Social Development undertook no consultation with either students or student representatives and advocates when exploring this proposal. This appears to be driven by cost-saving measures, rather than a genuine concern for quality engagement with stakeholders or in upholding the principles of consistency and fairness.” So the Government is standing up there with all its rhetoric about equitability and fairness for all students, and here are the students themselves—the ones who are being affected by the legislation that the Government is putting through—saying that is it not equitable; it is not fair. They are getting the raw deal.

Bringing this into real terms is an article in the New Zealand Herald dated Monday, 30 March—just this Monday. It says that renters are paying up to $60 more a week—this is in Auckland. Areas of Auckland are up 13 percent. Some areas are up 10 percent for a two-bedroom house—costing $531 a week. Across Auckland City costs are growing by an average of between 3 and 6 percent. People are finding it hard to get homes, and the next option is to look for somewhere else to rent. So what this article is saying is that—especially in Auckland, where we have got one of the largest universities—we are making it harder for students to afford to rent.

Here is the kicker. The New Zealand Union of Students’ Association put out a poster on 1 April. It stated that on 1 April students received a 90c—90c—increase to their weekly loan or allowance payment. Average rents are skyrocketing—in Auckland by over $8, in Hamilton by over $3, in Wellington by over $11, and elsewhere by similar figures. So where is the fairness in that? Where is the equitability in that? Where is the brighter future for these students that this Government has promised them for the last 6 or 7 years?

Bringing it back specifically to the bill, I want to look at the regulatory impact statement. In Part B, paragraph 38, it states: “The government provides assistance for full-time students through allowances and loans. Underpinning the design of this assistance is the fact that returns from tertiary education accrue to both the individual and the nation,”. So the allowance that students are currently getting already accommodates for the accommodation allowance. What this is pointing out is that, first of all, rents are skyrocketing, but students are getting a 90c increase per week for their accommodation allowance. So where is the fair share from the Government? This legislation is changing the ability for these students to be able to afford to study and to better their futures.

Lastly, what I would like to say is that there is nothing wrong with expecting students to work part-time and supplement their allowances and their income—to work their way through university. I had to do it, a lot of people in here had to do it, and a lot of students are doing it currently. New Zealand First considers students to be the future of our country. We need to ensure that we invest in our students and not see them as an expense. They are, quite literally, low-income earners. We need to give them the most support possible and not ensure that they get the least amount available. That is why New Zealand First opposes this bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this third reading debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). I do note that Labour does support this legislation, and we do so because the bill has two primary purposes, the first of which is to ensure that those receiving ACC payments from their employer are treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself, and we believe in equal treatment.

I do have some questions, however, around the second aim of the bill, which is to correct, and I quote from the Bills Digest, “an inconsistency between policy and legislation as set out in Section 61EA of the Social Security Act 1964 which has the unintended effect of giving access to Accommodation Supplement to some full-time students, when the policy intent is that financial assistance for students is provided under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 and the Student Loan Scheme.” The interesting thing about section 61EA, which is entitled “Accommodation supplement”, is that subsection 4 says: “No person shall be granted an accommodation supplement if that person (a) is receiving a basic grant or an independent circumstances grant under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998;”. So, essentially, it is saying that if you are receiving a student allowance, you cannot additionally receive an accommodation supplement. But it does not say that you do not have the right to choose—that, as a low-income person, you do not have the right to choose whether or not you want a student allowance or want to receive the accommodation supplement as a low-income person. So fair enough that you cannot get both, but, actually, what is the issue about choosing the one that best suits your circumstances?

The regulatory impact statement highlighted that this whole legislation was designed because there was a loophole, and it was inequitable for the loophole to be left and for different payment levels to be available. Well, the definition of “inequitable” is that it is unfair and unjust. I actually cannot see what is so unfair and unjust about a person deciding whether they want to apply to Work and Income as a low-income citizen of our country or as a student citizen of our country.

I want to highlight, also, the research that the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations did. On 10 September 2014 it highlighted that one in six students would actually be better off not receiving student allowances. They would be better off being a low-income person and receiving an accommodation supplement. That totals about 13,500 students, because we have approximately 82,000 students receiving student allowances in our country. So the relevance, from their point of view, is that, if they are living in Auckland, for 23.1 percent of the students receiving a student allowance it would be better if they did not. It would be better if they got a low-income accommodation supplement. If you are a student in Wellington, for 16.2 percent of you, again, rather than getting a student allowance, it would be better if you were a low-income person and you received an accommodation allowance. If you were in Hamilton or Christchurch, 14.3 percent of you would be better off to receive an accommodation supplement. So if we look at the principles that this piece of legislation is built on—those of what is equal, what is equitable, what is fair, what is just—actually, it seems pretty unjust that students do not get to choose based on their circumstances.

What I also want to highlight is that the Social Services Committee made a very interesting, I believe, comment in its report. What it acknowledges is that the two submissions that it did receive, which were about student allowances, said that allowances were inequitable and they were inadequate—but, to quote from its report, the committee felt that “this bill would not be an appropriate vehicle to make significant changes to the assistance levels provided to students.” I think it is incredibly profound of the select committee to actually put that in its report, because I believe there is an acknowledgement from the members of that select committee that our students are actually being hard-done-by, and that something has to change. I guess my challenge to the Minister for Social Development is: if it is not this bill, if this bill is only going to correct that anomaly, then what is the bill that is going to meet the needs of our students to make sure that they are studying in a supported environment? Students who are having to work 30 to 40 hours a week in order to continue to pass their courses and actually achieve the qualifications that we need, as a country, to move forward—what is the National Government going to do to address that situation? Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.

Ayes 95

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

Noes 25

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.

Bill read a third time.

Third Readings

Third Readings

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That 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 be now read a third time. This legislation addresses an appalling issue that confronts societies around the globe. The creation and dissemination of objectionable material is a revolting scourge on our society. It is an evil that abuses and revictimises some of the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us. Advances in technology mean that offenders can now access almost infinite quantities of objectionable material with ease. Although for the most part the ability to access and share information online is a positive thing, it also enables child exploitation material offenders to view, store, and share images depicting the sexual abuse of children in numbers and at speeds inconceivable even just a decade ago.

In 2009 the United Nations estimated that internationally 200 new images are put into circulation every day, and the FBI has estimated that there are more than half a million paedophiles online at any time. There is also evidence that the content of publications is getting worse and the children involved are getting younger. When offenders store and distribute this material it fuels the market, encouraging those who create the material to produce more of it, which in turn results in more children being abused. This is a cycle we are aiming to disrupt by increasing the penalties for the possession, production, and distribution of child exploitation material. Once an image exists it can be distributed to a wide audience at the click of a button. These images are being replicated and distributed further with ease, enduring long beyond the life of the victim.

This legislation sends a clear message that that is a repugnant series of conduct that encourages the abuse of children, for which New Zealand has zero tolerance. I have great confidence in New Zealand’s law enforcement agencies, which have a history of successful prosecutions against the scum who trade in, make, or possess child exploitation material. However, the law in this area is outdated and no longer reflects the ease with which offenders can obtain and share these images. Furthermore, social networking sites, online chat programmes, and other communications tools such as texts and picture messaging, have made it easier for adults to communicate with children. The legislation seeks to address this increased connectivity by criminalising indecent communications with children and ensuring that those who possess or trade in child exploitation material receive a sentence that reflects the very grave nature of the offending.

To achieve that purpose, the legislation makes several core changes. Firstly, it increases the maximum penalties for possession, importation, and export of an objectionable publication from 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for supply, distribution, and the making of objectionable publications increases from 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment. These increased penalties better reflect the seriousness of this offending and the ease with which offenders can obtain and share these images. Although the legislation will increase the penalties for all objectionable publication offences, the extent to which a publication exploits children will continue to be an aggravating factor that the courts must take into account at sentencing. Possessing and trading in images depicting the sexual exploitation of children is grave offending that, in my view, warrants stronger penalties than other types of objectionable publications. This is why the legislation also provides for a presumption of imprisonment for persons convicted of offences involving child exploitation material for a second or subsequent time. This presumption will apply unless the court is satisfied that the offender should not be so sentenced, having regard to the particular circumstances of the offender or the offence.

A further technical amendment introduced by way of a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage of the legislation will ensure that the presumption of imprisonment for child exploitation material offenders applies only when a person has both committed and been convicted of a previous offence, which reflects the current situation under common law. Several factors suggest that the prospect of a prison sentence could be a strong deterrent to such offenders. Although there are low rates of recidivism amongst those who trade in child exploitation material, investigations show that those who do reoffend often do so with a higher level of premeditation and go to great lengths to avoid detection, through the use of sophisticated encryption, pass phrases, and coded communications. Law enforcement agencies have indicated that they are the most desperate to avoid prison.

The new sentencing regime better reflects the range of offending in this area, and both the increased penalties and the presumption of imprisonment for repeat offenders will provide the court with a broader range of penalties that it can tailor to the seriousness of the offending. The legislation also addresses changes in technology by clarifying that possession of objectionable electronic publications includes intentionally viewing the material without consciously downloading it or saving it. The amendments simply affirm in legislation the approach already taken by the courts and ensure that offenders with the particular technical expertise are not able to escape liability by viewing electronic objectionable publications without also saving them.

Lastly, the legislation creates a new Crimes Act offence of indecent communication with a young person. The new offence will apply whenever anyone over the age of 16 indecently communicates with someone under 16. The offence addresses a gap in the law that exists between objectionable publications offences, which require a record of the communication, and the sexual grooming offence, which applies only when the offender takes steps to physically meet with the young person. As with sexual grooming, the new offence will also apply where the person charged communicates indecently with a police constable, believing that police constable to be a young person. The new offence will be punishable by a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment. Advances in technology mean that offenders with exploitative intent can now communicate with children with ease. These indecent communications with young people can occur in a variety of old and new media including text and picture messaging, internet chat, and telephone, and a specific offence is needed to ensure that this damaging behaviour is criminalised regardless of how it occurs.

At the Committee of the whole House stage I introduced Supplementary Order Paper 67 to the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill, which makes further amendments. The first amends the Accident Compensation Act to ensure that cover is provided for mental injury caused by the new offence of indecent communication and the existing sexual grooming offence in the Crimes Act. In addition, the bill now amends the Vulnerable Children Act to ensure that anyone convicted of indecent communication with a young person will have restrictions placed on their employment in core children’s workforce roles.

A final amendment addresses a gap in the law to ensure that New Zealanders who assist foreigners to commit sexual acts against children overseas can be held liable as parties or accessories to the offence under New Zealand law. This will ensure that there are no inconsistencies between the culpability of New Zealanders who assist other New Zealanders to commit certain crimes overseas, and New Zealanders who assist foreigners to commit those same types of offences. The measures in this legislation send a clear message that possession of, and trade in, child exploitation material are abhorrent acts that encourage the abuse of children, and that indecently communicating with children is serious conduct prohibited by law. Can I note that I have welcomed the bipartisanship the House has displayed in supporting this legislation, and I commend it to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Well, there is no doubt that the material that this legislation addresses is certainly objectionable and that there do need to be strong measures in place to deal with the perpetrators. Therefore, Labour is supporting this legislation.

I will make a broad comment in my comments in the final reading of these bills, though, and that is to echo the comments that Labour members have made right throughout the discussion on this legislation that the amendments to five pieces of legislation have a broader effect than simply on objectionable material as it relates to children. What we are doing today is a talking about a measure in the legislation that increases penalties and is trying to bring other legislation into line with the online environment, but its impact goes wider. But this legislation does not—and this is, I guess, our main problem with it—fit into an overall strategy for dealing with objectionable material generally; that is, child exploitation, cyber-bullying and abuse, particularly online, which is affecting and also perpetrated by children. So there are a whole lot of wider issues within which this particular piece of legislation sits, but the legislation does not fit within a strategy because there is no overarching strategy.

I think that is our plea—that is our plea. A strategy includes legislation—we have another bill before the House called the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, which Labour has significant problems with because the discrepancies that lie within it, between the online and physical environments, are such that we think it needs substantial amendment before it can get our support. A wider strategy also has to include education measures and awareness-raising—education measures that are wide throughout the community and that actually give some certainty and reassurance to the community generally that the Government is trying to address behaviours that can, down the track, lead to worse outcomes, where we end up with people who are being prosecuted for these sorts of crimes. Why is this not fitting within a wider strategy? That is my question to this Government and to the Minister Amy Adams. Why is she, as the Minister of Justice, not working with the Minister of Education and the Minister for Social Development, etc., in a cluster group to look at a wider strategy for behaviours that lead to harmful behaviours online and to do with child abuse and measures that particularly have an impact on children?

The other part of the wider strategy that is needed is for these measures to be proportional in the online environment with the physical environment. By “proportional”, I certainly do not mean exactly the same; I mean proportional—really proportional—and consistent across the different issues. I am going to address that in a minute when I talk about the penalties imposed in this legislation and also about the impact on age in this legislation. We do not think there is consistency, and we think there are a whole lot of questions that arise around this.

The final thing around strategy is that we should not be out of step with other jurisdictions—other countries with which we closely identify. I do not think that this particular legislation has major issues with that, but the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, which is another bill on the Order Paper that is coming back to the House, certainly does. Therefore, with all of these pieces of legislation, there needs to be a wider look at how they fit within a wider strategy.

I just want to turn to the penalties and the discrepancies that Labour members and, I think, other members have pointed out during the discussion on this legislation. There are two reasons for this—the first is the actual increase in penalties. There are two particular penalties that have been increased substantially in this legislation. One is for the possession of an objectionable publication, where the penalty has gone from 5 years’ imprisonment and has doubled, so it is now at 10 years. The second is the penalty for the making of an objectionable publication, which is a worse crime. That has gone from 10 years to 14 years, which is a significant penalty. These are objectionable publications penalties. I am not going to comment on the actual penalty, but what I do want to do is draw a parallel with physical offences.

In the physical environment, sexual connection with a young person under 16 and an indecent act on a child under 12 carries a penalty of 10 years, and sexual connection with a child under 12 carries a penalty of 14 years. So juxtapose that with the making of an objectionable publication and the actual sexual connection with a child under 12—both penalties are at 14 years. I believe that we are going to be hearing from the judiciary, from the Law Society, and from the general justice sector around the proportionality. There is a proportionality issue here, and I think that needs to be noted in this reading.

Also, with regard to penalties, it was pointed out by several submitters, plus in the regulatory impact statement, that increasing penalties for objectionable publication offences risks distorting relativities with physical offences, which is what I have just said, and that the effect of increasing the maximum penalty is difficult to predict. So although judges will view an increase in penalty as a signal from Parliament that this type of offending is considered serious, the maximum penalty for the offence is only one of many factors that a sentencing judge considers, and there is no evidence—there is no real evidence—that increasing these penalties is actually going to have the impact. This goes to my point about the wider strategy and the education awareness—dealing with the behaviours that lead to these sorts of crimes—which is where we should be turning our attention.

I just want to quickly touch on the age issue. My colleague Jacinda Ardern actually raised this several times during the Committee stage. New section 132B, inserted by clause 7 in Part 1 of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill before it was divided by the Committee, is where it states the exceptions to offenders being sentenced. One of the exceptions in particular circumstances is if the offender is under 20, so there is room there for an exception for being under 20. This is an exception. We do not have an issue with that. What we do raise the question about is where the age of 20 came from. Why is it under 20?

Then new section 124A(1), in clause 13 of the bill before it was divided, states that a person over the age of 16 years is liable to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years if he or she intentionally exposes a person under the age of 16. Jacinda Ardern went and looked at the Crimes Act and questioned why it was 16, because the Crimes Act talks about 17 as being the differentiating age. The other discrepancy in here is that when you look at the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, the criminalisation level is at 14, so you can actually be hauled up before a judge and can end up in jail for up to 2 years from 14 onwards. So the point is that there is a discrepancy between the ages here. What is the logic? There does not appear to be a great deal of logic, and I am sure we are going to be having further debate on this.

Overall, this bill is meant to address some legislative gaps—some significant legislative gaps. We think that by and large it goes to address those gaps, but we do have some bigger questions about this legislation. I hope that those questions are listened to, that they are being taken seriously, and that the Government will start to look at a wider strategy around this whole area of abuse and the impact on children.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare ngenge. I am saying “tired House” because I feel we are all a bit tired. I would like to take a short call. The Greens are supporting the legislation arising from the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. We have some reservations about it, but we are supporting it. Actually, the internet is the Wild West. The internet is as the Wild West once was before the sheriff came into town. I think this legislation is an attempt to bring the sheriff into town, which is why we are supporting it. We think it needs to happen. As a previous speaker said, there is a need for a more consistent and relative approach to a lot of aspects of internet control, but we think it is important to start addressing those, and it would be good to do them consistently.

However, the harder question is why now that we have the internet do we have this enormous proliferation of people who want to watch hideous images of exploitation of children. We can individualise that and say that these people are sick, which no doubt is a very good argument, but it is more than individual. There is a culture across the planet that regards children, and to some extent women, as objects for the kind of sad gratification that is based on the idea of power over an objectification of the vulnerable. This legislation is going to deal with some of that—that is why we are supporting it—but it cannot address the fundamental outpouring of sickness that we have around our sexuality. We do not want to talk about that often, but actually this legislation does bring it up.

The number that the Minister of Justice has quite rightly named of people who are guilty of this kind of behaviour tells you we have got a problem. It is not about being moralistic; it is about a deeper question. It is not about being righteous and sanctimonious; it is about asking how we got here. How did we get here and how did the internet, that supposed bastion of greater democracy and freedom, become a bastion of abuse? You can be damn sure that our children are not benefiting, whether they are victims of the actual abuse or whether they are unsupervised and get to see it in the objectification of their childhood. So something is very wrong not only in the state of Denmark, as Hamlet said, but in society when we see this kind of abuse.

This legislation will address some of that. We do have some reservations. We are supporting it all the way, but we have reservations around the sentencing. Given the depth of the sickness across the society, actually giving more prison sentences will not solve the problem. The floodgate is open, and without a transformative, educational, rehabilitative, intense process for the people who are going to be locked up, we are not going to make change. Locking them up for longer is not going to change the illness in their consciousness. So we do not want to be under any illusions about how locking people up for a long time will fix the problem and stop other people who are flooding in to join this particular sick trade or this sick process of so-called recreation.

It asks us deeper questions. We would not support the increase in sentences. We do not believe in going from 10 to 14 years’ imprisonment—not only for the arguments for consistency with non-internet criminal offences but also because we just do not think it is going to work. If there is one thing we should try to test legislation against in Parliament, it is whether it is actually going to work. Just doing things for the sake of rhetoric, and so that we feel we are doing something about these terrible people, is not good law and will not work. I am passionate about changing the way we protect our children from abuse, including on the internet. I am supportive of that 100 percent, when in a way that might work. So, yes, we need to deal with the education rehabilitation programmes that must be available to people who are locked up for this but we must also look at ourselves in the mirror.

What is going on? Why is it people we know—and they are people whom we all know, statistically—who indulge in this? What is driving it? I would argue that the marketing of the sexualisation of children is something that goes on across our society. You only have to see the clothing for young girls under the age of 10. You only have to look at the children’s beauty contests. It is much worse in the United States than it is here because we have actually resisted some of this, but we need to resist it. We need to stop promoting an idea of beauty that is actually sexualising children. OK, we have got good boundaries but not everybody has.

Carmel Sepuloni: But the Minister of women’s affairs thinks they’re a good idea—pageants.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Well, the pageant is part of the problem, and it always was. We actually need to do something about protecting children right across society so that we do not feed the sickness—that children are objects for the gratification of adults—in any way whatsoever. So although we support the provisions of the legislation, we cannot see these provisions addressing the underlying problems. We do not support increasing sentences because there is no evidence that that would actually stop people from reoffending—and one thing that would be great is evidence. We also believe that there is a societal context that sometimes the punishment pretends to address but fails to address. Punishment is not going to stop this, but a deep, hard look at our own attitudes in this society, and what we market to our children and what we use the internet for, is required.

However, we will be supporting the bill. We do think it is important that we do something about this, and we recognise that it is a genuine attempt, even though we feel that it will not substantially change the sickness in a society that objectifies women and children and makes them vulnerable to predators. We have to ask ourselves in what way does our infrastructures, social structures, and businesses collude with the predators, rather than just say: “Lock up the predator. Throw away the key. Block them from the internet. Everything will be fine.” It is not fine. It is sad and it is sick. We are part of it, and we can be part of changing it. Therefore, we will support the bill, but we would like to see a far less punitive but more substantial approach. Yes, these crimes should be named as crimes, but let us look at where the crimes actually come from. Kia ora tātou.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a short contribution to the debate on this legislation. New Zealand First will be supporting these bills. At the second reading of the original bill, however, my colleague Denis O’Rourke quite clearly outlined our reservations and our concerns. Interestingly enough, although I admire Catherine Delahunty as a hard-working member of this House, the reasons articulated by Mr O’Rourke were the complete opposite of hers.

Mr O’Rourke articulated New Zealand First’s belief that there is a need for severe, if not more severe, punishments inside this sort of legislation. We base that upon the concept of the invisible man. It is a concept that has been talked about since the internet has been around. If human beings believe they are invisible and will not get caught, then there are some very strange things that they will do, there are some very strange places that they will go to, and there are some behaviours that they will perform that they would never perform if they thought they were going to be seen—e.g. the invisible part—or if they thought they were going to get caught. And then, in terms of getting caught, they have to weigh up in their own minds whether getting caught, and the punishment, is worth taking this chance.

So for us in New Zealand First this issue is about the invisible man theory, and it is about updating several pieces of legislation to address what the Minister quite clearly articulated as issues that have risen in magnitude since the invention and widespread use of the internet. So New Zealand First will be supporting the legislation. We would like it to go further in certain places. I want to acknowledge the Minister’s explanation of her Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage, for two reasons.

One is the ability for recognition with the ACC in respect of mental injury. I think that if the Roast Busters case highlighted one area where we have got some issues it is that although those young ladies suffered trauma they could not access trauma support—special access to counselling had to be provided. Because no actual crime was committed and no case was brought, they could not, under current pathways, access ACC or access trauma support. In a way, that Supplementary Order Paper recognises mental injury, from child grooming and other situations that take place that are objectionable, through this medium. The second thing that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper did was close this loophole about New Zealanders who assist foreigners to perform such acts, or take part in such acts overseas. That Supplementary Order Paper is a lot to put in a piece of legislation at the Committee stage, so I certainly appreciated the Minister standing and speaking on those things.

At the time of the Committee stage I also mentioned—as did my Labour colleague Clare Curran—the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. We are updating, modernising, and amending several pieces of legislation with that bill, and we do need to make sure that there is a coordinated line in how we are going to treat this across all pieces of legislation. I hope to have further discussion with the Minister Amy Adams around the Harmful Digital Communications Bill before it returns to the House, in terms of whether these changes actually provide the sentencing mechanism required inside these other pieces of legislation so that, perhaps, in the Harmful Digital Communications Bill we can set in place the Approved Agency and we can set in place the requirements of the service providers—the take-down notices and those other things.

But possibly we do not need to create another sentencing regime, because they can be covered under these bills. That is a conversation I would very much like to have with the Minister, going forward. However, we believe this is legislation that must be here, and New Zealand First will support it. We would have liked to see it go further, but we will support it as we go on. Kia ora.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Far be it from me to stand between the hard-working members of this House and their Easter adjournment, so, with your indulgence, I will keep my call on this legislation arising from the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill relatively brief and around four key themes.

As far as I can see, the major implication of this legislation is around ensuring that child protection remains paramount to this House and in writing legislation. I think this legislation does address some key points. There are some things that many on this side of the House had some reservations about during the passage of the legislation. One of them was around the sentencing presumptions and the issue around sentencing to curb reoffending. There are provisions within the legislation to deal with penalties for the manufacture and the distribution of the objectionable material that potentially are inconsistent with the penalties with which an offender will be liable for undertaking the actual abuse itself. I understand—well, I hope—that at some point our legislation will start to deal seriously with the issue of child abuse in terms of the penalties that are imposed upon offenders of that.

I believe that some of the work that some of the Justice and Electoral Committee looked at goes some way to addressing that, in terms of the repeated child exploitation. The committee agreed that providing judges with a sentencing regime to reflect the seriousness of the reoffending would send a strong message to potential offenders around the exploitation and abuse of children. There was also a concern expressed about sentencing presumptions within legislation with these bills and within others, and I think it was right to raise that as a concern, although in this case the members of the committee were satisfied that the seriousness of the offending should warrant that.

Secondly, there was some discussion around the definitions of “objectionable” and “indecent”. There was a bit of discussion around those terms. In recent times the term “objectionable” can mean something quite different from in previous years. We live in a modern world where many things transpire, and we are open much more now to images and publications than we were in previous times. So what we might tolerate, what might be objectionable and not objectionable, is a difficult thing to define. We do trust in our judiciary to actually hold some standards for that and to make calls based on the specifics of the cases before it.

Thirdly, I want to talk about the submitters. There was a view, a concern, around images that might be held on an electronic site that were not necessarily provided by a particular internet provider. The provider is just a portal through which people can view the images. The submitters were concerned that providers may then be liable and may have some penalties imposed upon them. But this was well traversed during the passage of the legislation, and assurances were given that that would not be the case.

Finally, I want to refer to clause 13, which does provide a new offence under the Crimes Act. It raised some issues in the committee and with submitters about the potential for entrapment, but the committee, after some deliberation, was satisfied that the law enforcement agencies are fully aware of, and experienced with, the issues of entrapment, and that the judges have the discretion to exclude evidence that they believe was improperly or unfairly obtained. So I feel satisfied and we on this side of the House feel satisfied that those issues have been traversed. We do support the legislation.

On that note I would like to wish members of this House a very enjoyable Easter adjournment. There are some significant things that are happening over this time, including Anzac Day, which is a significant day—100 years since Gallipoli. So, on that note, I wish you all a very happy Easter and a reflective time over Anzac Day. Thank you.

Bills read a third time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, in accordance with leave given yesterday, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 April 2015. Enjoy the adjournment break. Good afternoon.

The House adjourned at 4.14 p.m.