Thursday, 30 April 2015

THURSDAY, 30 APRIL 2015

THURSDAY, 30 APRIL 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on 5 May it is the Government’s intention to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper, including the New Zealand Business Number Bill, the Environmental Reporting Bill, and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Health, Minister—Statements

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, within the context in which they were made.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that “this Government has always made funding health its top spending priority”; if so, why has the number of people refused a first specialist appointment—particularly orthopaedic appointments—increased in some district health boards over the past 3 years under this Government?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I do.

Hon Annette King: If health funding is a top spending priority, why has the number of people refused a first specialist assessment for orthopaedics in the Bay of Plenty increased by 396 percent over the last 3 years under this Government?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is not actually correct. The reality is that that data has not been collected. This Government is the first Government ever to collect that data, and that will be available sometime in mid-2016. But I can tell you that the Labour Government never paid any attention—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request I have received from the Bay of Plenty District Health Board, pointing out—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. You do not need to say what it says. I am happy to put the leave on that basis. It is an Official Information Act request received from a particular district health board. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: If health funding is a top spending priority, why has the number of people from the West Coast who have been refused a first specialist assessment for orthopaedics increased from 11 to 200 over the past 3 years?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would like to see that document because that information has never been collected. So there is a very incomplete picture, which this Government is building up. We are the first Government ever to do it.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request from the West Coast District Health Board, pointing out the increase—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The document has been described. I will put the leave. It is an Official Information Act request obtained from the West Coast District Health Board. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is not.

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

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that the chair of the Tairāwhiti District Health Board did not say “We have used all the fat in the system. We are really stretched. We can’t sustain this pressure”, in light of the email I have now received that confirms that the chair actually checked the report prior to its publication?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have spoken to Mr Scott today, and his point, actually—and he is very annoyed about it—is that he was quoted out of context yesterday. His words were: “Annette King is way out of line.”

Hon Annette King: Point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Hon Annette King and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an email from the Gisborne Herald that points out that the chair—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! On the basis that the statement has been disputed in the answers given, I will put the leave. It will be for the House to decide whether that particular email would give further information to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Annette King: “Who cares?” says the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: There was objection. [Interruption] Order! Just ask the supplementary question. There was an objection. [Interruption] Order! I heard an objection coming from my right-hand side. The easiest way forward is I will put the leave again. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is objection. Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! Every member has a right, when leave is put, to object. It does not need to take a chorus from my left-hand side to note it.

Hon Annette King: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the supplementary question when the member’s own colleagues settle down.

Hon Annette King: Has he seen the report in the Gisborne Herald today about the Tairāwhiti District Health Board’s financial position, which is now reporting a $2.1 million deficit, which is worse than budgeted; if so, why is it having these problems if it has got sufficient funding?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not seen that report. The report I have seen is the one from January where the chair of the board said that, actually, the funding is adequate.

Hon Annette King: Why should New Zealanders believe or trust this Minister when he told this House on 22 October last year that New Zealand had four isopods to safely transport Ebola patients to high-level isolation, when the Ministry of Health advised Barbara Stewart, Kevin Hague, and me on 30 October that it was still waiting for them to arrive in New Zealand?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I think is very interesting about that is that the member was given a briefing in good faith and she said that she would accept it in good faith and that what happened in the briefing would stay in the briefing. She has clearly broken it. She is impugning my integrity. I think that, actually, it reflects much worse on her. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We had complaints yesterday about the level of noise coming from some on my left. I will have no choice today but to be asking a member to leave if that sort of level of interjection continues.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Outcomes and Release of Information

2. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Trade: Can he explain why he is “reasonably confident of getting the numbers in the vote” given the growth in international opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Acting Minister of Trade): That is not actually what the Minister said. What Minister Groser actually said was: “I assume the professional political managers [in the US] would never have introduced this legislation unless they were reasonably confident of getting the numbers in the vote.” That seems to me to be a clear statement. New Zealand welcomes the progress made on trade promotion authority in the US. Its passage will be an important step in opening the door to the endgame for the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, but, of course, the passage of trade promotion authority is obviously a matter for the US Congress.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister deny that under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement foreign corporates will gain a privileged position compared with New Zealand companies, such as the right to sue outside of New Zealand law?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Successive New Zealand Governments have concluded free-trade agreements with balanced investor-State dispute settlement provisions. They protect New Zealand investors abroad while safeguarding our ability to regulate for legislative policy proposals in New Zealand. We are taking the same balanced approach with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The member should note that a fair and balanced investor-State dispute settlement provision provides certainty to New Zealand businesses that invest in other countries.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister explain how New Zealand will cope with the multimillion-dollar and even multibillion-dollar law suits, given the growing trend by large corporates in very recent times to take advantage of these investor-State dispute settlement clauses in other free-trade agreements around the world?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand will deal with that extremely well, but I would note that there has not been a single case like he has mentioned ever in the history of New Zealand. Of course, this is a provision that could well be negotiated in a trade agreement that is no different from other trade agreements that New Zealand has negotiated. Indeed, the process is the same with this agreement as it was with the China free-trade agreement, an agreement that was negotiated at a time that New Zealand First was propping up—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer has gone quite far enough.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Given the Minister’s assurance and confidence, would he be willing to bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiations in front of the whole Parliament before it is signed by a select few Government members?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, this will not be signed by a select few Government members; this will be signed by a select group of countries, which will put the interests of their citizens first. We have always been clear when it comes to negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership that it will be signed by a New Zealand Government only when it is a high-quality agreement and it is in the interests of New Zealand, firstly. Secondly, the process being followed with this is the same process that was followed with the China agreement, with one exception. The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been widely consulted on—one additional time than was the case when the China agreement was being negotiated, an agreement that was negotiated by the Labour Government at the time it was being propped up by New Zealand First.

Better Public Services—Progress

3. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to deliver better public services, and how is this benefiting the Government’s books?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Three years ago the Prime Minister set 10 challenging targets for the Public Service. These included improving health and education outcomes, reducing crime, lowering welfare dependence, and increasing online connectivity. The framework has contributed to some significant improvements—for instance, there has been a 38 percent reduction in youth crime since 2011. The number of teenage solo parents on a benefit has dropped by 40 percent since 2011. The Government recently revised its workforce skills target due to better-than-expected results. We believe better public services that help more people back into independence sooner helps to manage long-term costs. What works for communities works for the Government’s books.

Melissa Lee: How is the Government’s focus on getting better results for vulnerable New Zealanders changing the way it delivers public services?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we are doing is building a system that allows Governments to invest today in tailored interventions for the child, for the individual, and for the family, to track the results of that investment, and to do more of what works. We are already seeing results through the investment approach to welfare. Last year we reduced the expected cost of supporting current beneficiaries over their lifetimes by $7.5 billion, mostly by getting more sole parents back into work. The number of sole parents on benefits is the lowest it has been since 1986. This Government is willing to pay a bit more upfront to secure long-term results for New Zealanders.

Darroch Ball: Will the Minister justify the confidence in the robustness of the Better Public Services target results by having them independently scrutinised by the Office of the Auditor-General; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We do better than that; we get them scrutinised by the New Zealand public. We transparently put them out for them to be analysed by New Zealanders. We actually do more transparency-wise than anyone else does. If the member would like to get those results and have them audited in any which way he likes, then he can. We are actually more than happy for them to be analysed in any which way you like.

Melissa Lee: What alternative models of public service delivery were proposed in the draft Productivity Commission report released yesterday?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Productivity Commission’s draft report considered seven models of social services delivery. Among those were in-house delivery of public agencies, contracting out, and voucher systems. The commission noted the current widespread use of vouchers in the education sector, including in early childhood education, and their role in delivering choice to households, but the commission also made it clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. As I have said, we are focused on results and making things better for those New Zealanders in most need. That means more educational achievement, better health outcomes, less recidivism, and higher employment.

Melissa Lee: What reports on alternative approaches to addressing social dysfunction has the Minister seen?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Paula Bennett, as far as there is ministerial responsibility.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report from February 2008, about 9 months before the National-led Government was elected. It noted that social spending in the 5 years to 2008 had increased 70 percent, from $23 billion to $39 billion, yet all that spending had “contributed very little to our social progress”. At that time, more of our children appeared to be at risk of harm, more of our young people were engaged in petty crime, there was more violent crime, and more people were in jail, despite billions of dollars of new spending. That is why this Government is focused on getting results for our most vulnerable people and families, not on how much is spent.

State and Social Housing—Tāmaki Redevelopment Company

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Does he stand by his statement: “The Government owns 1 in 16 houses in Auckland and we need to do a better job with them for the sake of tenants and aspiring homeowners, as well as for the neighbourhoods they live in and the wider city”; if so, what experience does the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company have that will allow them to do a better job for tenants than Housing New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing) on behalf of the Minister responsible for HNZC: Yes, we need to address the 1 in 16 homes owned by the Government in Auckland, particularly those close to the city, where the homes are old and cold, the wrong size, and on big sections that can be better utilised. The job at Tāmaki can be better done by the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company for three reasons. Firstly, the company is in partnership with Auckland Council, and the redevelopment involves changes to roads, to reserves, to recreational facilities, and to infrastructure. Secondly, it is better connected to the Tāmaki community through extensive consultation over the last 2 years. Thirdly, the tenancies of existing houses need to be carefully managed during the redevelopment, and it makes sense to have one agency doing the whole job. The people leading the company, like Brian Donnelly and John Holyoake, have the extensive experience to deliver the goods.

Phil Twyford: How will forcing the fledgling Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, which has no experience of being a landlord, to become one of the biggest landlords in the country help it to deliver on a large and complex urban renewal project to get aspiring homeowners into their first home?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think anybody in this House who has met Brian Donnelly, the chair of the New Zealand Housing Foundation, would have huge confidence in him, his board, and its new chief executive, John Holyoake, who has extensive housing development experience. But here is the real point: does it make sense to have one organisation doing the redevelopment and another managing the tenancies in a complex project involving the redevelopment of existing houses? The key driver for the Government is that you need to have one agency both doing the redevelopment and managing the tenants as they move from those older houses into the newer, warmer, drier, and more intensive housing that we are building.

Phil Twyford: What is the market value of the 2,800 Housing New Zealand properties he is transferring to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, and does he think it is risky to hand over a massive taxpayer-owned asset like this to an embryonic organisation with a budget of $4 million and fewer than 20 staff?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Nick Smith can answer either of those questions.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The book value of the assets is $1.2 billion. The member in his comments this morning was out by more than twofold. Do we have confidence in people like Brian Donnelly and the board to be able to manage those assets? Absolutely we do, and I would challenge the member on this: what happened to the houses, these same houses in Tāmaki, for the 9 years of the last Labour Government? They were left uninsulated, unmaintained, and in a disgrace, and I have got far more confidence in the Brian Donnellys and the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company to look after these houses properly and to redevelop them.

Joanne Hayes: What is the latest data on housing in Auckland, particularly the new build data, and how does it compare with when National first became Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The building consent data for March, which has come out today, shows new consents for Auckland of 756 homes, the best for the month of March in 10 years. This is more than treble the number of 209 that were issued in Auckland in the last month of the previous Government. The annual data is equally positive, with 7,940 homes consented in Auckland in the last year compared with 4,400 before we had the Auckland accord. The national data shows that over 25,000 new homes are being built, the best data in 8 years, showing the progress this Government is making.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the Minister for Building and Housing that today’s building consent figures—7,900 in Auckland in the last year—are encouraging, given that Auckland needs 13,000 per year just to keep up with population growth as well as the 20,000 shortfall built up under his watch?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would remind the member that during the course of the previous Government new house builds in Auckland dropped to just 200 a month—just 200 a month—and the figures for the last month are not 200 but 756 homes in the last month. Since we have had the housing accord, building consents in Auckland have gone from 4,000 a year to 8,000 a year. It is true that with the vast numbers of New Zealanders not leaving for Aussie we need still more, and that is why we have announced initiatives like the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, which, like every other positive initiative, members opposite oppose.

Phil Twyford: Is he aware that BNZ economist Tony Alexander calculates that if the level of household overcrowding in Auckland is to be reduced to the level found in the rest of the country, the city would need to build an additional 76,000 houses on top of the 13,000 needed just to keep up with population growth, when the current build rate on the Minister’s 6-year watch is only a pathetic 7,900 a year; and how many of his 100,000 homes shortfall will his latest scheme in Tāmaki provide?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, any one of those numerous questions—the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not accept the analysis. Let me tell you very simply why. We have quite low occupancy of houses in, for instance, some parts of provincial New Zealand, like Invercargill and like the West Coast. That is because house prices in those areas are quite low and people have quite low numbers of occupancy of bedrooms. That is perfectly logical in those areas. What Mr Alexander does is say that if we have the same occupancy rate as those areas, then you need those massive numbers.

Phil Twyford: So it’s OK for Auckland to be overcrowded? That’s OK?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, actually, the truth shows that there are a large number of vacant bedrooms in many of those communities, and that is quite reasonable in those communities. If the member opposite is saying that he thinks there is a deficit of that size, I simply think his analysis is flawed.

Phil Twyford: Why is he transferring 2,800 houses to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company when it never asked for them and has not expressed any desire to become a landlord in its annual report, its constitution, any of its documents on its website, or when it appeared before the Local Government and Environment Committee last month; and is he concerned that being one of the country’s largest landlords will distract it from the challenging task of leading the Tāmaki redevelopment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is absolutely professional for the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company to not disclose at the select committee or in other documents the Government’s announcement today. That is how we do it on this side of the House. We do it professionally. We do it as a team. The team at the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company is excited about the fact that it is very difficult for it to do the redevelopment when it does not ask for the property.

Phil Twyford: They never asked for it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I simply challenge—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough of the answer, and I would be grateful if we did not have that level of interjection.

Transport, Auckland—Funding

5. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that “Auckland must have a transport system that meets the demands of its growing population and we are committed to working with the Auckland Council to help make sure Auckland succeeds”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Yes.

Denise Roche: Why will he not invest in a congestion-free network in Auckland, one that costs less than his current plan and one that will save Aucklanders from rate and levy hikes?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would love to see such a plan.

Denise Roche: Does he agree that if the Government adjusted its transport-funding priorities in Auckland, the new transport levies on households and businesses announced today would not be necessary?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not responsible for the transport levies. I think what is important from the Government’s perspective is that Auckland has a strong transport strategy in place, and that is certainly the case before we can start to think about how we will fund that.

Denise Roche: Why is he proposing to wait two more elections before committing to build the City Rail Link, the most critical missing piece of Auckland’s transport infrastructure?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: In fact, we have brought that project forward by a decade—2020. We have committed to a business case of it in 2017 and then to getting on with preparation and planning for making it happen. I think it is worth noting that we spend $1 billion a year on transport in Auckland. We have spent $1.6 billion on the metropolitan rail and the electrification of that. That is $1.6 billion more spent on public transport than the Green Party ever has. We have done a host of projects in Auckland because we back that city. We will continue to do so.

Denise Roche: Will he commit to providing new funding in this year’s Budget to build the City Rail Link, given the latest rail patronage statistics showing growth so strong that it will reach his own patronage target 3 years ahead of schedule in 2017?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is not for me to preannounce the Budget and decisions in that. What I certainly can say is that we are always interested in ways to reduce congestion in Auckland and ways to improve public transport. In fact, what we have seen so far in terms of Mayor Brown’s preferred plan in Auckland does not do that sufficiently in the 2030s and 2040s. We want to work with him, with the council, and with Auckland to make a better, more optimal plan that does deal better with congestion and public transport.

Denise Roche: Does it make sense to fast track the expensive Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway, a motorway with declining traffic volumes, at the cost of not investing in Auckland rail when nearly twice as many people use Auckland’s rail network as use the State highway between Pūhoi and Wellsford last year?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: These things are not either/or. In fact, that highway is and will be a very significant and important economic game-changer for the Northland region. It is important that it is a connected area to Auckland. I think it will also be good for Aucklanders to have that. I think we can do that and we can also fund excellent public transport. As I say, I am committed to working with Auckland to make sure that happens.

Denise Roche: Will he support the Green Party plan for Auckland transport that could meet the city’s transport needs without new levies simply by redirecting its transport budget away from wasteful spending on motorways towards a congestion-free network?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Given that the National Government has spent more on public transport in terms of electrification of rail and metropolitan rail than the Green Party ever has, and given that we have the most transformative urban cycleway package ever in the history of this country, I think it is highly unlikely that we would back a Green Party plan.

Denise Roche: Is it fair to say that his Government is out of touch with the vast majority of Aucklanders who consistently say they want alternatives to motorways to escape congestion, while he consistently spends the vast majority of their taxes on motorways? How long will he leave Aucklanders waiting for the train?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Simon Bridges—either of those two questions.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the member has a very simplistic view of life. This is a Government that, yes, does spend money on roads, because that is still where 99 percent of commuters commute from. But we also have spent more than any other Government on metropolitan rail in our largest centres—indeed, the same is true in relation to urban cycleways. We are delivering a game-changing package in that area for Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.

Denise Roche: I seek leave to table a Generation Zero report, Fix Our City, which shows that you cannot fix Auckland’s—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a Generation Zero report. What is the date of it, and then I will put the leave?

Denise Roche: March 2015.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it may not be easy for members to get I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular report. Is there any particular objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any modelling within the Congestion Free Network by Generation Zero, and adopted by the Green Party, of the effects it would have on trip times for trips that Aucklanders actually make in everyday life?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, but I think we know the answer to that, though. Indeed, the same can be said of the mayor’s preferred plan that, despite the investment in public transport, it does not really make any difference in terms of congestion into the 2020s, 30s, and 40s. That is why I am committed to working with the mayor and the council to see a better plan that does deal with congestion and that does see a mode shift to public transport in a sensible, orderly, and value-for-money way.

David Seymour: Will the Minister consider allowing Auckland Council to use time-sensitive congestion pricing on the motorway network to help raise revenue and ease congestion there?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think they are all interesting issues—demand management and pricing, broadly. They are not ones for today and, indeed, I think that a primary reason for that is we do not yet have a strategy with the right projects and the projects prioritised in the right way to justify such funding tools.

State and Social Housing—Tāmaki Redevelopment Company

6. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Building and Housing: How will today’s announcement of transferring 2,800 Housing New Zealand properties to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company and a $200 million loan facility contribute to increasing the supply and quality of housing in Auckland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The Tāmaki redevelopment will increase Auckland’s housing supply by 5,000 homes, by redeveloping 2,500 older properties on large sections. The new homes will be more intensive, better sized for demand, drier and healthier, and will involve a mix of social housing as well as privately owned homes. The key change today is that it is very difficult for the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company to redevelop those homes when it does not actually own them. By transferring the ownership, we are able to facilitate the tenancy arrangements and the redevelopment of those properties to be able to move this project forward faster.

Simon O’Connor: What reassurance is the Government able to give to social housing tenants in Tāmaki that they will be able to stay living in the area when their home is subject to redevelopment and intensification?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government and the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company are reassuring tenants in Tāmaki that they will retain all of the same conditions as their current tenancy, including the important income-related rent subsidies. The project is also underpinned by the Tāmaki commitment that all eligible social housing tenants will have the opportunity to stay in Tāmaki, if that is their wish. We are also intending to transfer Housing New Zealand’s local tenancy management staff over to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company to ensure that the people-to-people contacts are also maintained.

Simon O’Connor: What complementary facilities and community improvements has the Government made with the Auckland Council for improving the Tāmaki area?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: An important part of the Tāmaki redevelopment is that it is more than just housing. The Tāmaki Redevelopment Company has facilitated its opening of a new early childhood centre that opened last week and now has 27 children engaged in education, of which at least 80 percent were not previously engaged in any education. The project has also involved the redevelopment of the old Department of Conservation - owned scout hall as a community facility, and that is an added asset for the community. There has also been the linkage of high school students interested in doing apprenticeships actually being involved in this work, and I think that too is important for the employment nature of Tāmaki. It is actually this integrated approach to New Zealand’s largest urban redevelopment project that will be essential to its success.

Partnership Schools—Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru

7. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “If those partnership schools don’t succeed the Government will be just as quick to close them down as we have been to establish them”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her own statement of December last year with regard to the Whangaruru charter school that “Whangaruru had challenges, which were not unexpected” and “the readiness review indicated that they were dealing with those challenges”; if so, on what basis did she make the claim that those challenges were being addressed?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: On the basis of reporting from Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru and analysis by the Ministry of Education.

Chris Hipkins: Did the readiness review that she released in February, upon which she gave Whangaruru a formal performance notice, identify concerns with the quality of teaching and learning, quality of school management, disengaged students, and the recruitment of suitable staff; if so, was that the same report that she had earlier claimed found that Whangaruru was “dealing with those challenges”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: By definition they were not the same reports, and the performance notice that I issued was about engagement and truancy.

Chris Hipkins: Did she claim, in answers to oral questions in December last year, that the Education Review Office readiness review identified that Whangaruru was “dealing with those challenges”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not recall making claims, and I do not have in front of me the specific answer to the specific question that the member is pressing on.

Chris Hipkins: The answer’s yes.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, the member is telling me what my answer is. If he knows the answer, then he need not have wasted the House’s time asking the question.

Chris Hipkins: Has she received an indication that Whangaruru has met the performance criteria she set for it, given it is now over 2 months since she gave it 1 month to shape up; if not, when does she expect to receive that assurance?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The process that was set in train by the issuing of the performance notice was that the school would have 28 days to identify whether or not it could deal with the challenges, and that I would commission a specialist audit, which was done and has been carried out by Deloitte and by the Education Review Office. That report would be provided to the Ministry of Education. It would analyse the report and work through the governance, legal, and contractual matters—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can’t the Minister read?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —I am sorry that I am boring the Opposition with the facts of due process—and then I would receive the analysis, upon which time I would discuss it with the trust. Then I would be in a position to make a final decision.

Chris Hipkins: What has been the total cost to the taxpayer of the Whangaruru charter school, including all of the funding that it was given for its establishment and all of the subsequent expenditure on remediation of the problems that it has encountered?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot give a total cost because we are not at the end of the process. But what I can tell the Opposition is that—and this is publicly available, and all of the partnership papers are on the website, so the member is free—

Tracey Martin: The report’s not there.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Actually, it is. The members are free to look it up for themselves. So the answer is that the establishment grant was $1.7 million through 2013, and the operational funding for 2014 was $1.5 million. I cannot tell the member what the cost incurred for this period of 2015 is, because we have not yet got the final outcome of the audit because it has only just been completed earlier this week.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 8, Mahesh Bindra. [Interruption] Order! Can I ask Tracey Martin, please, to show some respect to her own colleague, when I have called him for his question.

Spring Hill Corrections Facility—Management

8. MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: Is he satisfied with all aspects of the running of Spring Hill Corrections Facility?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Yes. As that member will know, as a former employee of the Department of Corrections, prisons are difficult environments with some of the most challenging individuals in society. Our corrections staff do an important and critical role in changing the lives of offenders and in protecting the public of New Zealand.

Mahesh Bindra: Is the Minister convinced that the staffing levels are adequate at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes. I am advised that at Spring Hill Corrections Facility the staffing levels are adequate. In fact, corrections officer turnover is currently at 9.2 percent. The Public Service turnover rate for staff in 2013 was 10.5 percent.

Mahesh Bindra: Is the Minister aware that at Spring Hill Corrections Facility prisoners are being locked in their cells for 19 hours a day, creating a volatile environment?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, I am not aware of that, and that is patently untrue. I have been advised that prisoners are given their normal hours of being unlocked and being locked within Spring Hill Corrections Facility. So I refute the claim made by that member.

Mahesh Bindra: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter that I received yesterday, which is signed by a group of prisoners from Spring Hill Corrections Facility. It expresses their concern—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! You do not need to read out the letter. The difficulty the member will have is that if I allow the leave to be put and the letter is tabled—and it is signed by these prisoners—that could potentially be breaching their privacy. The member needs to think of that before he asks me to put the leave. Does the member still wish for me to put the leave?

Mahesh Bindra: It is a letter that has come through the Howard League and I am not aware of whether those prisoners are or are not willing to—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has got a right to seek leave, but I think he would be ill-advised to proceed to ask for that leave if he has not done the courtesy of asking those prisoners whether they are happy for their letter to become public information.

Mahesh Bindra: In that case I will withhold it now.

Mr SPEAKER: Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Mahesh Bindra: Yes. Given the Minister’s answers and his confidence in the management of Spring Hill Corrections Facility, will he resign if there is a riot within the next 5 weeks?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, because I do not know what is going to happen in the next 5 weeks and nor does that member.

Early Childhood Education—Māori and Pasifika Children

9. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Education: How is the Government ensuring that Māori and Pasifika children are engaged in education from an early age?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): This morning I was pleased to announce an increase in the proportion of Māori and Pasifika children participating in early childhood education before starting school. In the 3 years to March 2015, Māori participation increased by 3.5 percentage points and Pasifika by 4.8 percentage points. So that means that the Māori participation rate now stands at 93.8 percent and the Pasifika rate at 91 percent. Although we know there is more to do, this means that more of our earliest learners are getting a stronger start on educational success.

Alfred Ngaro: How does this increase in early childhood education participation rates help young New Zealanders achieve educational success?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is clear that those children who start behind too often stay behind. That is why our Government has set a Better Public Services target that 98 percent of children starting school in 2016 will have participated in quality early childhood education. Regular participation in quality early childhood education significantly increases a child’s chance of future educational success, particularly for children from vulnerable families. Since 2007-08, this Government’s spending on early childhood education has almost doubled to $1.6 billion. We know that there is still more work to be done, and we will continue to do it, especially with vulnerable communities, to ensure that their children get the best start in life.

Catherine Delahunty: Will she guarantee that as a result of her attendance targets no Māori or Pasifika child from a “vulnerable community” will be recruited for a low-quality early childhood education service?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: As the member may know, the Government’s role in the provision of early childhood education resources is to license centres and to provide the subsidy to parents. Parents then have the option of taking their children to a teacher-led, centre-based or home-led, parent-based early childhood education provider. Māori and Pasifika parents should not be denied the opportunity of that choice either.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response from December 2014 by Ministry of Education officials, warning that 36,000—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. The document has been described. There is no need to then read out the contents of the document. I will put the leave. It is the answer to an Official Information Act request. Is there any objection to it being tabled?

Catherine Delahunty: Supplementary—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no objection. It can be tabled.

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

Catherine Delahunty: Given concerns raised by her ministry, the Education Review Office, and two task forces that low-quality early childhood education is more harmful than good for vulnerable children, will she stop targeting children from vulnerable communities until she is certain that services are up to scratch?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member makes an assumption that there are low-quality services all around New Zealand. In the 2 years to February 2015, the Education Review Office conducted, I think, 1,539 reviews of early childhood centres, of which it found just 12 not meeting the requirement—less than 1 percent—and for every one of those 12, the ministry has intervened.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request showing that officials believe that vulnerable—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am not even prepared to put the leave. I have just corrected the member, telling her that she describes the document and to not start to read out the content.

Export Sector—Performance

10. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: Is he still committed to the Government’s goal of lifting exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP by 2025?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: If the House would bear with me, it is quite a detailed answer, which I think is important. The Government is committed to lifting the performance of the export sector. The target of lifting the ratio of real exports to real GDP from 30 percent to 40 percent by 2025 was set in 2012, when the GDP figures were on the 1996 year. In December 2014 Statistics New Zealand made an unusually large number of historical revisions to some of our national accounts data as a result of adopting new international standards and updating the base year for GDP calculations. This meant a significant revision of the New Zealand ratio of real exports to GDP and a reduction to the order of 3 to 4 percent each and every year since 1998, affecting all the years that Labour was in office as well as the current National Government. To conclude—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer now is quite long enough.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the last bit was the best bit—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer was long enough.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a question on notice and asked a very simple question: “Is he committed to the Government’s goal?”. The answer I think he was about to give—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I am comfortable that that question has been addressed. Does the member have a supplementary question?

Dr David Clark: Certainly. Will he rule out lowering the target?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We are, therefore, currently evaluating whether to make a technical adjustment to the target to reflect the revised Statistics New Zealand change in historical series. Any change would be no more than a level of the adjustment to the actual figures by Statistics New Zealand.

Dr David Clark: He is not prepared to rule it out. Can the Minister confirm that an export growth rate of between 5.5 percent and 7.5 percent is now required to meet the Government’s goal of exports reaching 40 percent of GDP by 2025—more than twice the rate of growth expected in the wider economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Given the answer to the primary question, the member would need to go and check those figures. However, what I would say is that since 2008 we have seen strong growth. New Zealand’s goods exports have increased by 21 percent—14 percent for goods and services—and are now valued at more than $51 billion. When services like tourism, film production, which would not be possible if the members opposite—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I cannot see that we are getting anywhere near close to answering the question. I am going to invite Dr Clark to ask that question again.

Dr David Clark: Can the Minister confirm that an export growth rate of between 5.5 percent and 7.5 percent is now required to meet the Government’s goal of exports reaching 40 percent of GDP by 2025—more than twice the rate of growth expected in the wider economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No. Based upon the answer to the primary question, those statistics or figures would need to be checked. But what I can confirm, however, is that New Zealand exports stand at $68 billion today—a significant growth since 2008, when we—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not getting any further. I will allow—[Interruption] Order! Would the member like to continue with his supplementary questions, and he now has an extra supplementary question.

Dr David Clark: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is shifting the official measure of the Government’s export failure from value to volume in New Zealand’s long-term interests?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Business Growth Agenda export markets work stream has always referred to the ratio of real exports to real GDP. The Minister is currently evaluating whether to make a technical adjustment to the target to reflect the revised Statistics New Zealand figures, as the original target was set based on the previously high series. Any change would be no more than a level of adjustment to the actual figures by Statistics New Zealand. No other change to the target would be planned.

Dr David Clark: Not achieving the target but moving goalposts.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the supplementary question.

Dr David Clark: Is the Government’s plan to turn the economy round the same Business Growth Agenda that has seen exports actually decrease as a percentage of GDP?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, that is an extremely misleading comment. In 2008, when we came to Government, there was $59 billion worth of exports. In 2014 there was $67 billion worth of exports. Businesses up and down New Zealand that have been involved in this increase in exports and the people they employ are grateful for the hard work the Government has put into the importance of exporting for New Zealand.

Dr David Clark: Is the Minister concerned that figures released yesterday show that in the year to March 2015 his Government has overseen the largest annual trade deficit since the recession ended in 2009; if so, when will he admit that his tired Government is out of ideas and has failed to deliver on its promises?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The member needs to be careful not to read too much into short-term fluctuations in statistics. Indeed, the change in trade volumes that was announced yesterday reflects changes in downward pressure of some commodity prices and that the economic cycle for Australia and China are in a different place. I repeat an answer to an earlier question. We have seen strong growth in exports since 2008 in both goods and services. Last year $68 billion worth was exported. In 2008 there was only $51 billion. That is an increase of $17 billion over that period of time.

Point of Order—Seeking of Leave to Table Documents

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just ask whether you could return to the House at some point with some ruling around how we should describe documents that we seek leave to table. You have been consistent in saying that we need to identify the source and the date, which members do. You have also previously asked us to briefly describe the documents so members know what they may be agreeing to or not. But you have today, twice now, ruled that no content can be described. That does not seem to be consistent and makes it impossible for us to decide whether or not to grant leave.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give some consideration to the point made, because I think it is a reasonable point. If you look carefully at, particularly, Speakers’ rulings, we require immediately the source of the document—and on the occasion yesterday it took quite some time to find out the source of the document—and we require the date, and I will determine how much description of content we then need. What I do object to is members taking the opportunity to describe the content in their own version in order to make a political point. The tabling of a document is not the opportunity for any member to make a political point; it is about providing further information to the House that may not be readily available to members. But I will give further consideration.

Cycling—Urban Cycleways Programme

11. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he received recently on the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Earlier this week I was delighted to announce that applications have been flooding in for the $90 million remaining in the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme. Fifty-nine new applications have been received from almost all of the main urban areas across the country, and I expect to announce the successful applicants by the middle of the year. This strong response shows that cycling is becoming a clear priority for urban councils, and that the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme has successfully incentivised local councils to accelerate their own urban cycleway plans.

Jonathan Young: So what progress has been made on the Urban Cycleways Programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: A lot of progress has been made. Design and construction is well under way on the first set of 13 projects that I announced earlier this year. Construction is progressing well in Palmerston North, with the Longburn cycle path due to be complete in June. Construction has also begun on the Nelson Street off-ramp bridge in the Central Park Drive cycleway in Auckland, the Lincoln to Rolleston cycleway in Christchurch, and the Wainuiōmata summit ridge in Wellington. Work is set to start on further projects in Hamilton, Dunedin, Christchurch, and Auckland later this year. This is the beginning of a programme that will change the face of urban cycleways in New Zealand.

Civil Defence, Disaster Preparedness—ShakeOut Exercise

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What plans has the Government put in place to ensure as many New Zealanders as possible participate in the national earthquake drill ShakeOut?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Civil Defence): This week I launched the New Zealand ShakeOut campaign. ShakeOut is our national earthquake-preparedness drill that encourages everyone in New Zealand to practise the right actions to take during an earthquake. This year New Zealand ShakeOut will be held at 9.15 a.m. on 15 October. The campaign involves the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management working closely with organisations such as local authorities, Government agencies, businesses, and, very importantly, New Zealand schools. This year our aim is to have 1.5 million Kiwis taking part. ShakeOut will be promoted through a number of communication channels, including TV, radio, social media, and local events.

Brett Hudson: What reports has she seen of how New Zealand rates against other countries in participating in this national earthquake drill?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have seen several positive reports about New Zealand’s participation in ShakeOut. ShakeOut started in the United States but has now spread to other countries such as Canada, Japan, and New Zealand. I am pleased to inform the House that New Zealand leads the world with the highest participation rate in 2012, with 1.34 million New Zealanders taking part. This year we will aim to beat that, with a goal of 1.5 million Kiwis taking part.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2014/15 financial year in respect of Vote Ombudsmen and the appropriations and information for the 2015/16 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment be adopted. This motion endorses the appropriations recommended by the Officers of Parliament Committee for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and commends those appropriations to the Governor-General for inclusion as votes in upcoming supplementary and main appropriation bills.

The Offices of Parliament are important bodies that play a critical role in supporting the work of this House and the general public. In order to maintain their independence, the Officers of Parliament are subject to a special process for the pre-Budget approval of the appropriations for their offices. It is the Officers of Parliament Committee, chaired, of course, by you, Mr Speaker, that is responsible for this process. The Officers of Parliament Committee in its report to the House recommended modest alterations to the 2014/15 appropriations.

For the 2015/16 appropriations the Officers of Parliament Committee has recommended a number of changes. For Vote Audit the committee’s recommendations include additional funding of $400,000 to improve the delivery of the Auditor-General’s inquiry function and additional funding of $180,000 to provide enhanced analysis capability. Inquiries carried out by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General can have a high degree of complexity. The Auditor-General intends to make better use of information from its regular public sector audits through improved analysis for its inquiries and to report on a more timely basis.

For Vote Ombudsmen the committee’s recommendations include capital injections and additional funding for 2015-16 and out-years of $166,000 for proactive advice, training, and guidance; $390,000 to enhance investigative capacity for inspections and monitoring under the Crimes of Torture Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; $360,000 to provide the corporate services necessary to ensure the efficient running of the Ombudsmen’s investigation and monitoring role; $113,000 to improve the security of the office’s staff and information; and $340,000 to provide additional investigative capability and address complaints and improve responsiveness.

For Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the committee makes no recommendations for additional funding. It does, however, note in its report that it intends to review the commissioner’s baseline funding next year. This follows increases last year to cover the commissioner’s new review and commentary responsibilities under the Environmental Reporting Bill.

I endorse, and hope this House will too, the recommendations of the Officers of Parliament Committee for appropriations set out in its report to the House, and commend them to the Governor-General for inclusion as votes in appropriation bills.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): It is a great pleasure to speak on this particular topic. I certainly want to endorse the additional funding that is being provided for the Office of the Auditor-General and for the Office of the Ombudsmen. We certainly see the important constitutional role that those bodies play. Of course, we see the important role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as well, although there is no additional funding in this particular allocation going to that body.

I want to talk particularly about the additional funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen, and I want to express some concern about the pressure that that office has been under and the fact that the additional appropriation being granted to it today is not going to deal with that issue. It is significantly less, I understand, than it asked for, and it is going to continue to fall further behind. Page 14 of the report of the Officers of Parliament Committee indicates that an additional $340,000 has been allocated to the Ombudsman for its complaints and investigations. That simply is not enough. There are months and months and months’ worth of delays for the investigation of complaints by the Ombudsman. A large chunk of those relate to the application of the Official Information Act. There is a significant body of complaints regarding the situation in Christchurch following the earthquakes. These complaints all deserve to be thoroughly investigated, and they will not be thoroughly investigated unless the appropriation for the Office of the Ombudsmen is increased significantly more than this particular recommendation.

The Ombudsman’s role is so important. It is the watchdog for public accountability in New Zealand, and if it is not adequately resourced to do that job, then there really is nowhere else to turn. The Official Information Act in New Zealand is a constitutional instrument. It is at the very heart of the notion of open government, and it is the Office of the Ombudsmen that can investigate the flouting of legislation.

It is no wonder, given the massive backlog of complaints regarding the Official Information Act that the Office of the Ombudsmen is currently dealing with, that there are Ministers in the Government, including the Prime Minister, who simply openly admit they do not comply with the law; they do not comply with the Official Information Act. One of the reasons they are so happy to openly admit that is that they know there is no way they are going to be held to account for it. The Ombudsman simply does not have the resources at its disposal to adequately investigate all of the complaints. By the time those complaints are investigated, months if not years may have gone by, and there is simply no scope for justice to be done.

When the Prime Minister stands up and says “Well, we release information under the OIA when it’s convenient to us.”, that may be a year after someone has asked for it. If the Office of the Ombudsmen does not have the power to step in and do something about that—well, it does have the power to step in and do something about it, but if it does not have the resources to step in and do something about it, then there is never going to be any accountability. The Government will never be held to account for that abuse of power, and that is an abuse of the powerful position it holds.

We have an Official Information Act and an Office of the Ombudsmen to prevent the abuse of ministerial power, and if one is not being applied and the other is not being resourced, then we may as well not have them. I am certainly not advocating that we not have them; I think they are very important. I want to give some examples of what this means in context. This Government has simply locked down the flow of all information when it comes to Government activity. We have a variety of ways, as members of Parliament, to seek information. We can seek information through the parliamentary process, through written questions.

I will give an example of an issue that I have just recently encountered. I asked for information in a written question. The Minister replied to the written question saying that the answer is on some website somewhere. I went to that website, and there was information that was similar but it was not the information I had asked for. The only course of action I have once I have exhausted the ability to go through the parliamentary process is to lodge an Official Information Act request.

The reality of that under this Government is that we are looking at 6 months to a year before I even get a decent reply to it. So I get a reply back from the Government, a reply that probably does not answer the question, I then complain to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman then rings up and says: “It’s in the pile, and we’ll get to it when we possibly can.” But the reality is that it simply does not have the resources to do that. It could be months if not years before it finally does. Then, at the end of all that, if it upholds my request and says that, yes, I should have been given that information under the Official Information Act in the first place, quite often—more often than not—it is too late. The issue has well passed, and the information is nowhere near as useful as it would have been. That is why resourcing the Ombudsman is so vitally important.

I say to the members opposite that what goes around comes around. Labour members have sat over there on the Government side, and many of those Government members have sat over here and been on the receiving end of it. I have to say that one day—and I hope it will be in 2017—what goes around will come around, and they will find themselves here. If the Ombudsman has not been adequately resourced, they will encounter the same issues. It is not good for the democratic process. It is simply not good for the democratic process for the Government to be so locked down and so withholding of information that it does not allow the effective functioning of the democratic process and the accountability that the Government should be subject to. The Office of the Ombudsmen is being choked. The watchdog is being choked, and our democratic system is in peril because of that. This may sound all very lofty and worthy and so on, but it is important. It is vitally important.

Let me give you a very specific and practical example. In the case of Hutt Valley High School, almost every education agency that investigated it failed to address what was a significant bullying issue amongst the student population there. It was when parents complained to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman investigated that something finally happened and something was finally done. It took the Ombudsman, who is not in any way connected to the education system, to investigate the matter, to bring it out in the open, and to finally get it dealt with. It was an absolute scandal, but it has been dealt with. The Ombudsman deserves an absolute pat on the back for that, because it was a vitally important service.

Let us take, for example, the issue of charter schools. We debated that when the bill promoting charter schools was before the House. Charter schools are specifically excluded from the coverage of the Ombudsman, but the one thing the Ombudsman can do is ensure that the information held by the Government on the operation of those charter schools is being released. It can ensure that there is at least some public accountability, by ensuring that the Official Information Act is being adhered to. The reality is that it is not. The Government knows that it can simply sit on that information and not release it, and it knows there is not going to be a sanction, because by the time the Ombudsman gets around to it—because of lack of resourcing—any issues will have passed.

We have got a situation with one charter school, and I referred to it in question time today. The school has been in operation for nearly a year and a half now—we are well through term 2—and there are massive concerns about it. Yet reports that the Minister has received on it are not being released under the Official Information Act despite the fact that people have asked for them. The Government is wilfully flouting the law. There is no accountability. There is no ability to hold the Government to account for the decisions it has made, and there is no sanction, because the Ombudsman does not have the resourcing to cover that.

The Office of the Auditor-General performs a very similar role and, from what I understand, is being resourced sufficiently to do the job it is asked to. The Office of the Auditor-General looks particularly at the expenditure of public funding. I think it is an indictment on us that we ensure that an office is sufficiently resourced when it is dealing with money while the Office of the Ombudsman, dealing with people, is not sufficiently resourced. We should place just as much emphasis on the roles of the Ombudsmen, who deal predominantly with people and the actions of people and Government entities, as we do when it comes to the role of the Office of the Auditor-General and holding the Government to account for the expenditure of taxpayer funding.

So those are, I think, very important issues that I would like to see this House address. They are not going to be addressed in this appropriation. We do, as I said, welcome the additional funding that is being allocated, but we will be pushing over the next year to ensure that the Office of the Ombudsmen is well resourced so that when National members find themselves sitting over here in 2017 they actually have an Office of the Ombudsmen that can perform its role in a democratic society, as it should. It cannot at the moment, and the fact that the current Government is content to let that situation rest is an indictment on the level to which it has become comfortable with the power that it currently holds and the level of arrogance, quite frankly, that it has in not allowing the Office of the Ombudsmen to do its job properly.

These guys over there think that they are entitled to be there and that they should not have to answer to anybody for the decisions they make. They should. That is what democracy is about. They are absolutely, I guess, flipping the bird to the democratic process when they ensure that the Office of the Ombudsmen is so starved of resources that it cannot do its job properly.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call for the Green Party on the alterations to the 2014-15 appropriations for the three Offices of Parliament and the budgets for 2015-16. Similarly to the previous speaker, Chris Hipkins, I would like to comment on the Office of the Ombudsmen and, in particular, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I pay tribute to the extraordinary work of the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem, and the work that she has done in defending our democracy and in defending open government in very trying circumstances, given the ongoing under-resourcing of the Office of the Ombudsmen. It is that office, which is a defence against the excessive use of executive power, and, as the Chief Ombudsman herself has said, it is the last line of defence against costly maladministration in the State sector and potentially corrupt practices. It has been recognised by the courts as having constitutional importance, and it is important because it is a check on the power of the executive.

Mr Hipkins has explained some of the frustrations that Opposition members experience in trying to get information out of the Government. I have always found that when the Office of the Ombudsmen is asked to review a complaint, we get regular reporting on the progress of the investigation. Office staff try their utmost to get the information out in a timely manner. It is Government agencies and Ministers, in particular, that stall and undermine our democracy and open government. The Office of the Ombudsmen asked for significantly more funding, and it is very disappointing that the Officers of Parliament Committee and the Government did not agree to make that available, because in March the office had 107 complaints for investigation that it could not yet allocate, and it advised that it was not keeping up with complaints, despite a very considerable effort to reduce the backlog and to keep current complaints moving.

Certainly, there have been improvements there, but when you have a Government that goes ahead with policies that ignore public opinion, you create waves of applications for official information. We are seeing that in decisions like the Minister of Education’s decisions to close Christchurch schools. The most recent one is Redcliffs School, where the school community wants to go back to their site, where they are ready to go back, where it can be saved, and yet the Minister is ignoring that. So we then get a raft of Official Information Act requests. David Fisher, in a very seminal article in the New Zealand Herald, highlighted the change over the last two decades or so, the blocks that Ministers now put on the release of information, and the difficulty in getting public servants just to answer simple questions on the end of the phone—the fact that requests are pushed out to the maximum 20-working-day period before any information is provided, and it is often months after that. There should have been more funding provided. The importance of the Office of the Ombudsmen and the need for it to have good resources to actually provide one of the foundations of our democracy and open government should be recognised.

I would also like to comment on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—the public’s and Parliament’s independent environmental watchdog. It does an amazing amount of work, in terms of the substantial investigations that it undertakes and the reports that it provides to Parliament—the update reports, one of which was tabled today. They are very high-quality investigations. They provide good quality independent advice on a range of matters that affect the quality of the environment. The major problem there is that the Government is not listening to a lot of the recommendations because, of course, the office does not have the power to command the implementation of its recommendations; it leaves that up to Ministers and agencies to take those on board.

Today we tabled in the House an update to a substantial report on the future of conservation, in particular of stewardship land. That has been a much-neglected problem in the Department of Conservation since it was established, which successive Governments have failed to respond to adequately. Of course, stewardship land makes up a third of the Department of Conservation estate. It has got the weakest form of legal protection, and the Parliamentary Commissioner recommended that it be reviewed. Certainly, the Minister has set in train a review, but there has been very little progress in actually changing the status of stewardship land—only one area, a small area of 12,000 hectares on Great Barrier. So we have stupid situations arising like the dinosaur proposal for a Haast-Hollyford road in South Westland. That area is part of the South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. It has been recognised internationally as having outstanding biological, ecological, geological, and evolutionary value, and yet it is only stewardship land. The Haast-Hollyford road proposal threatens to become a formal proposal because the status of the land has not been reviewed. Part of it deserves to be national park, and yet the Government has not taken any significant action to have the New Zealand Conservation Authority undertake a national park investigation there.

Another one of the significant investigations that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is doing is around sea-level rise. There will be a report later this year—and this appropriation will help fund the work for that—looking at the potential extent of sea-level rise. It is ridiculous that an office like that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, with a staff of only 20 and a budget of only $3.2 million—the smallest of the Offices of Parliament—is having to do the first nationwide mapping of the potential extent of sea-level rise. We have got a Ministry for the Environment that has failed, since 2008, to update its advice to local authorities on sea-level rise. So the small office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is having to do the work that the ministry should be doing.

One of the other major investigations that the office has done is into land use and water quality, to try to get MPs, the Parliament, and the public to understand better the science of land use and water quality and the impacts of nutrient losses. What is the Government doing? That report showed that no matter how good the management practice was, in terms of land use, we would have significantly declining water quality because of the scale of intensification. The Government has certainly responded with a national policy statement, but that is too weak to make a difference. When Federated Farmers in the Waikato called for a moratorium on intensification, that was just poo-pooed by the Minister.

If we have Offices of Parliament that take all of this time to do these substantive investigations and that come out with cogent recommendations, then the Government needs to listen. It is the same with long-finned eel. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s investigation there highlighted that long-fins were on a slow pathway to extinction. There is now only 20 percent of the breeding population of long-fins that there was in the 1930s. International best practice is that as a breeding population there should be at least 30 percent of the original biomass. Yet has the Minister implemented the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recommendation to impose a moratorium on commercial fishing? No. The recommendations in the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s reports need to be listened to and read with a lot more thoroughness than they have been to date.

Finally, just on the Office of the Auditor-General, we thank it for its work—for its commentaries and analysis of the estimates and of the annual reviews that the select committees do, which provides very much-appreciated assistance. Its reviews of public sector agencies, like local councils, its identification of potential challenges—like the big infrastructure gap that it has identified in local authorities, with the difference between what local authorities’ budgets are providing for the renewal of Three Waters infrastructure and roading infrastructure, and the gap that potentially exists there—assist in providing the baseline information for some of these major funding challenges to be addressed.

We are grateful that the select committee has decided to increase the funding for the Office of the Auditor-General and for the small increase for the Office of the Ombudsmen, but if we are going to have a strong democracy, our Office of the Ombudsmen needs to have many more resources so that it can follow up on those Official Information Act investigations. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to endorse the good work done by these officers. The country is particularly well served by the quality of the individuals who are involved in these offices and we are pleased to see, and endorse, the increase in funding for the Office of the Auditor-General. Every one of us who sits on a select committee will recognise the incredibly valuable work that the Office of the Auditor-General does by making sure that all members of this Parliament are well informed and are given reasonable, logical recommendations. It also highlights areas for us that we should concentrate on when we go through checking the many different facets of the Government departments, Crown research institutes, and so forth that serve the New Zealand public, with their money. New Zealand First certainly has nothing but the highest regard for these officers.

We also want to compliment the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. One could certainly not say that this commissioner does not earn her keep when it comes to the amount of output that she provides for the New Zealand people and for this Parliament. We endorse many of the comments around the workload and the output of this very small agency, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The reports—although we may not agree with all of them—are well founded, well fleshed-out, and presented in a strong way. The commissioner always makes herself available—that is the other thing—to caucuses should they require her. She is more than happy to come and sit down, have a conversation about her reports, and go through any concerns that we might have.

So it is disappointing to see that with the amount of work that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment releases, she was unable to gain any more funding to support her and her team in this financial year. However, we acknowledge the comment by the Minister who opened, Simon Bridges, that there is an indication that it will possibly happen in the next Budget.

I would like to spend the majority of my contribution, though, concentrating on the Office of the Ombudsmen. The importance of this office has been reiterated again and again by other speakers. I think it is worthwhile noting that the workload for the Office of the Ombudsmen has doubled since this Government has come into office. I think that is a very telling thing. The workload has doubled over the majority of the last 10 years, which has been since this Government has been in place, and 11,000 complaints were received in the 2013-14 year. So it is good to see that its funding has been increased and it has been recognised that its workload has increased and it requires more operational money to be able to deliver what is a vital overview of our democracy.

It is unfortunate that all Opposition parties have to report that it is very, very difficult—and getting more difficult—to actually gain answers through the appropriate channels from the Government. It is very unfortunate that when a question is put down in writing—here is an example. Recently New Zealand First asked, quite appropriately, for a report from the Ministry of Education. A written response came from the Ministry of Education that said that it declined to release the report to New Zealand First because at some stage in the future it will be made public—at some stage in the future it will be made public.

Todd Barclay: Fair enough.

TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Barclay says: “Fair enough.” I ask the New Zealand public to just acknowledge that Mr Barclay believes that that is an appropriate answer. When members of this House, who are here to represent the New Zealand public, request information about things that are being done to, or are happening with, the New Zealand public at some stage in the future—Mr Barclay could well be dead by the time that the Ministry of Education then releases under the Minister’s instruction this report about things that are happening with New Zealanders’ money and to New Zealanders. But Mr Barclay thinks that that is appropriate. Well, there you go—just tick that one away.

The other thing too is I want to acknowledge Mr Hipkins’ contribution around charter schools, because I know that there was a lot of conversation. Mr Hipkins is correct. Charter schools are not open to the Official Information Act and, again, Mr Hipkins articulated that the reason given at that time was that Official Information Act requests could be sent to the ministry and therefore that information would be open, and then the Office of the Ombudsmen, if you could not get it that way, could go and follow up with the ministry. However, I do want to make sure that it is on the record that the Ombudsman’s workload increased when charter schools were opened, because at the select committee New Zealand First was able to put into that legislation the provision that, under the discipline processes in a charter school, the Ombudsman is still the final port of call.

I do not know how many members of the New Zealand public, or even how many members of this Parliament, understand that under the discipline processes in the Education Act 1989 charter schools are still open to the overview of the Ombudsman. So anybody who has been refused entry to a charter school, anybody who has been pushed out the back door of a charter school, anybody with a special need who has not been catered for in a charter school can, and should, complain to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman can then pursue that complaint with that charter school, with the sponsor of that charter school, directly.

So that legislation did create more work downstream, in one little piece of that legislation, for the Ombudsman. It would be interesting to get answers to those questions, if one could get answers to those questions, about the number of complaints that were actually put forward, but you might be waiting until Mr Barclay has passed away before you get that out of the Minister’s office.

The other reason that indicates how important the office is is that when the Chief Ombudsman actually identified how many complaints they were getting about certain Government departments and said that she was going to undertake a formal investigation, suddenly the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment undertook its own review of itself. It was particularly around the processing of temporary visa partnership applications by Immigration New Zealand. So rather than have the Ombudsman go and do a full investigation, the ministry decided to review itself, and the result of its internal review was that of 1,155 affected complainants and other potentially affected people, 258 had their applications approved, but 676 applications got a refund. So this is how important the Office of the Ombudsmen is and why its funding must continue and must be maintained at a level where the office can adequately do its work.

The Green Party member Eugenie Sage mentioned that 176 cases were unable to be pursued because of the previous level of funding. It had been even worse than that. The Chief Ombudsman mentioned 300 cases that she had been seriously unable to investigate because she did not have the funding, she did not have the resources, to do so. All New Zealand First can say is that we, like the Labour Party and the Green Party, endorse the incredibly important work of the office. We are saddened that at this stage we have still not been able to put an appropriation in place at the level that the Chief Ombudsman says she requires to truly deliver in what we believe is an important role.

Before I sit down, I will give just another indication of the incredible workload of the Ombudsman and how it affects this Parliament. New Zealand First lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsmen last year, and the last letter we received about that complaint from last year was dated 18 June 2014. We know that the Chief Ombudsman takes her role very seriously and her officers do not just let things lie, because there is no political value in that. They are there to make sure that we all do our jobs properly. So we can assume only that we have not received any further communication around this complaint because the office is overloaded.

Again, we certainly endorse the work done by the people and the officers that are there. We endorse the small increments that have been given to their funding, but we would implore the Government: rather than avoiding passing out information and creating more workload for the Office of the Ombudsmen, in order that the office would not need any more money to do the work, let us just answer questions, let us just try to be professional as we move forward, shall we? And then perhaps we would not need to fight for more funding next time. Kia ora.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is also my pleasure to take a call in this debate and to endorse the additional funding that has been given to our Offices of Parliament. I would like to join with the previous speakers and acknowledge the very fine work and the very fine individuals who carry out these very important constitutional tasks within our Parliament. I would also like to echo some of the words of the previous speakers around how some of the appropriations are simply not enough. I too am going to refer to the Office of the Ombudsmen, and I want to specifically talk about the work that the Ombudsman has been doing in the case of Christchurch, because the Office of the Ombudsmen, and in particular the Chief Ombudsman, has been a very important voice in holding the Government to account in how it is that the recovery of Christchurch is being managed.

Just to give an indication of the kind of level of work that the Ombudsman has been doing in regard to, in particular, the Earthquake Commission and the payout that the individuals are getting through the Earthquake Commission, in 2012 the Ombudsman received 785 complaints regarding the Earthquake Commission. The year before that it received an additional 737. In all, by 2012 the Earthquake Commission had received more than 6,500 Official Information Act requests. This is how desperate people in Canterbury were to receive information about how their claim was progressing through the Earthquake Commission. When that did not go well the recourse that these people had was to go to the Ombudsman and say that they had not been well served. As I mentioned, the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem, has been an incredibly important voice in joining with community leaders and joining with advocates in Christchurch and saying that the Earthquake Commission has to treat its customers better.

In terms of the stress—and the Human Rights Commissioner has addressed this—that has been put on people in not knowing what is happening with the repair of their house, which is something pretty fundamental about where they live, this has been a particularly difficult aspect of the rebuild, and it has been an incredibly important voice from Dame Beverley that has been voiced here, and I would like to acknowledge that. Just this year, in February, when an independent report found major failings in the way that the Earthquake Commission handled its customers, Dame Beverley strongly advised the Earthquake Commission to release that report publicly, expressed that she was very disappointed at the very low-key launch that was around that report, and urged the Earthquake Commission to do more. Because, of course, it was the Office of the Ombudsmen that produced a very important piece of work along with the Privacy Commissioner, back in November 2013, which was Information fault lines: Accessing EQC information in Canterbury. It found that Official Information Act requests and processes were overly complicated, risk-adverse, and adding to the stress that was there. As members of my party and this House have previously urged, we need to be adequately resourcing this officer of our Parliament.

I would also like to address another important role that is covered off in these reports on the Officers of Parliament, and that is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The commissioner has a very, very specific role within our Parliament, and that is to maintain and improve New Zealand’s environment by influencing decision-makers through well-reasoned and independent advice. I would like to acknowledge the work of Dr Jan Wright and her office—the high quality of work that is produced by that office—and the fact that we, as parliamentarians, all benefit from what is well-reasoned and independent advice. I think that the moniker that Dr Wright is often labelled with in the media, that of “the voice of reason”, is something that many of us within this Parliament would concur with, and many of us would see that Dr Wright’s contributions are of a high standard and beneficial to us.

One of the things that is incredibly important is resourcing. If we have a look at what it is that Dr Wright and her team have managed to produce just this year for the edification of not only the public but also us as parliamentarians, we see an impressive list of reports. There are reports on drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand and the environment oversight and regulation that is required for that; mining on conservation estates; hydroelectricity on wild rivers; climate change and rising seas; the long-finned eel; the first commentary on the 2015-year domain report, of course; and, just today, a report on stewardship land was tabled. So we see that a huge breadth and a huge complexity of areas are covered by Dr Wright and her team, whose reports I am sure that we, as members of this Parliament, all eagerly await the arrival of in our offices and devour when they do arrive.

Dr Wright not only produces reports, but she often submits on legislation. This is a very important submission when it arrives; it is always well-reasoned and contains a great deal of sense. Dr Wright is also moved to sometimes comment on various environmental reforms that are going through, and only just a month or so ago Dr Wright said the Resource Management Act was no place for us to be having balance between the environment and the economy and warned us that the Resource Management Act, in fact, is the legislation that is our fundamental environmental protection in this country, and needs to be respected thus. So we have very wise words.

But, of course, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and her office is about to receive a new statutory function, under the Environmental Reporting Bill, which is to be reported back to this House next week and undergo a further stage towards its passage. Under this bill the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment will have a very important statutory function in terms of commentary. We saw the first of these commentaries coming out even before the bill was introduced, in the Air domain report, but there will actually be a requirement for the parliamentary commissioner and her team to produce these commentaries on the domain reports as they are produced. This increased function is obviously going to result in increased work for the office and for the commissioner and her team.

This is something that there is some discussion about in the report that we have before us today. It talks about the Environmental Reporting Bill proposing to establish a new system, and says that additional funding has been given. An increase of $450,000 was given to Dr Wright and her team to initially set up what is required in order to fulfil the statutory functions. This was given for the 2014-15 financial year, and for the following years an increase of $300,000 has been given—so $300,000 in the 2016-17 years. And in subsequent years that funding will be reassessed as required. What we did hear, when Dr Wright came to our select committee and we asked about this, was that further assessment and reassessment of the workload is required, and Dr Wright made it very clear the drop in funding could put a pressure on the office that could possibly result in staff lay-offs.

This very important constitutional function the Parliamentary Commissioner fulfils in keeping us and the public more informed on very complex, often very complicated and very technical topics is something that we simply cannot afford to lose as a Parliament. It is incredibly important that we have this level of independent and technical input, so that our decision making in important areas can be better. I would not like to see the decisions that we make in this House suffer because we are not getting the same standard of technical and independent advice that we have grown accustomed to from the Parliamentary Commissioner.

I would like to see the fact that this committee would look very closely at the future requirements of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and her team. We have seen that these Officers of Parliament are incredibly important for the proper functioning of our democracy. They are incredibly important for how we can do our jobs as parliamentarians. It is not good enough that we underfund these institutions and these officers. As my colleague Chris Hipkins said in his speech, this needs to be recognised by both sides of the House, because in 2017 members on the Government benches will be on this side of the House, and they will appreciate the oversight of the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Office of the Auditor-General, and the advice from the Parliamentary Commissioner in informing them as parliamentarians. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to endorse everything that has been said by Megan Woods. I just acknowledge those working for the Offices of Parliament. I think across the House we all agree that they do a very hard job and that they are stretched. The office in particular that I want to talk about, which we all know has been stretched really beyond capacity, is the Office of the Ombudsmen.

Just a few moments ago I recalled a friend of mine who works in the media, and as we were having this discussion—I was listening to the other speakers—I was wondering whether or not he had finally had his Official Information Act request responded to. I just want to relay this person’s request for information. He made his Official Information Act request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in May 2012. The ministry asked for an extension, and then another, and then it stopped replying to that person’s emails. That person then complained to the Ombudsman in July 2012. Since then he has had a few letters of apology from the Ombudsman’s office, with regard to the time it has taken. The last letter was in December last year. It said that he would have regular progress updates. It is nearly May and he has not heard anything. The last letter said: “We sincerely regret the delays you have experienced, which have been a result of a high caseload and resourcing constraints.” Three years on and there is no response to an Official Information Act request. That should be of concern to all of us, particularly as I know what the Official Information Act request was for, and there are health and safety implications for citizens, with regard to it. This is the problem. It is not just about seeking information and a response; there are repercussions for citizens when we do not get the information that we seek. This is a real issue.

I want to note that there has been a slight increase in funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen, but there was considerable dispute in the Officers of Parliament Committee over the level of funding that should be given. Every single one of us here in Opposition has experienced difficulties with getting the information that we require. The office is under pressure because there has been a huge increase in Official Information Act requests. I want to say that, from our perspective, much of that is due to the fact that we are not getting responses to our written questions that we are putting through to the Ministers, or we are getting fobbed off by the Ministers when we put questions through. So when we do not get the information through a written question, then we have no choice but to seek that information through Official Information Act requests. It is time-consuming and it is resource-consuming. But we as the Opposition have a responsibility to hold the Government to account, as would National if it was in Opposition, and we need to live up to the expectations of the public in doing that.

Out of curiosity, I went through media reports from the last year to look at the extent of this problem, to see where there have been articles in the paper outlining the issues around getting official information under this National Government. I am going to read some of the headlines because it really paints a picture of the state that things are in at the moment. We have got: “EQC tries to conceal report on its failings.”, and “Health ministry under spotlight in ombudsman’s OIA review.” We have got an editorial about how information is critical and we are not receiving it. We have got from December 2014: “Information Act overdue for overhaul.” We have got from the New Zealand Herald from December 2014: “OIA review must get stuck in.” We have got: “PR staff numbers up despite promises.” We have got: “Heads should roll if information is withheld.” I think that is a really interesting headline—“Heads should roll if information is withheld.” I want to say that that Government is responsible—no one else but that Government.

We have got another headline here: “Abuse of OIA disgraceful.” We have got from The Daily Post: “Don’t you dare release anything.”, which is what its experience has been with that Government. We have even got a headline from the Bay of Plenty Times that says: “Slater got papers denied to reporters.” It just goes on and on. There are so many more here. It paints a picture about the fact that despite the fact that we are a democratic nation, we are not being given the information, or the transparency, or the access to information that we should be given in a democratic country. It is not just about us, in terms of being in Opposition, having access to that information; it is actually about members of the general public and any of the other agencies out there seeking information, like our journalists, all of whom are having difficulties with this.

I do want to note, because I do sit on the committee, that there actually has been a discussion—it is alluded to in the report—about there needing to be an external review of the Office of the Ombudsmen and what is required there in terms of resourcing. That is something we should all support. I think that is something that will be supported across the House, including by the National Government, because the number of complaints that are coming through have got to the point where it is just completely unmanageable. When you have got a journalist who puts through an Official Information Act request in 2012 and is still waiting 3 years later in 2015, when there are possible health and safety implications for citizens in respect of the information that he is after, then there are real concerns.

Over the past few years we note that there have been more resources put into the Office of the Ombudsmen, but the level of resourcing has not been adequate. That inquiry is going to be essential for finding out what level of resourcing is required and where we can do things better so that we do not have 3-year waiting periods for information from Official Information Act requests. I will leave it at that. Thank you.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.

Bills

Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. Immigration has always been vital to the growth and well-being of New Zealand and this bill includes a number of amendments that will ensure our immigration system remains fit for purpose, supports the economic aims of New Zealand, and better protects our borders. At the heart of this bill are the amendments to protect migrant workers from exploitation by cracking down on employers who exploit their migrant workers. New Zealand has an obligation to the migrants it brings here—the migrants who are contributing to our economic growth and who are helping us rebuild Canterbury.

Unfortunately, over the past few months we have heard many stories about migrant workers being exploited. We have heard stories from the Christchurch construction industry, the Queenstown tourism industry, and the Hamilton restaurant industry, just to name a few. These migrant workers are not working unlawfully. They are here in New Zealand on work visas, including working holiday and student visas with work rights.

The amendments in this bill aim to stamp out the exploitation of migrant workers who are in New Zealand on temporary visas. Under the Immigration Act it is already an offence to exploit migrant workers who are not entitled to work and this bill will extend that offence to temporary visa holders who are entitled to work.

This Government is sending a strong message to those unscrupulous employers who exploit workers and undercut their competitors. These employers could face up to 7 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $100,000. The Government is sending a message to these unprincipled employers that this is not OK.

It is important that New Zealand has absolute control over who enters and stays in New Zealand, especially in this era of heightened security risks. This bill contains a number of amendments that will strengthen our ability to protect our borders and ensure the integrity of our immigration system.

The bill introduces changes to the Immigration Act that will accommodate a new model for the way passenger name record information is provided. It will improve the identification of travellers who may pose a risk or require further intervention. Changes to the way biometric information is collected will enable faster identification of individuals and improve the ministry’s ability to manage risks. These amendments will enable biometric information to be collected from persons already known to be liable for deportation or turn-round. It will enable a compulsion order to be sought, on application from the District Court, to require a person to allow their biometric information to be taken, where that person is liable for deportation and has refused to allow biometric information to be collected from them. Where a compulsion order is made it will enable police to use reasonable force to take the biometric information under certain circumstances. This will help ensure a firm, fast, and fair deportation process for people who do not have the right to remain in New Zealand, and it will enable biometric information to be collected from non-citizens arriving in New Zealand either before or after they have been granted entry permission and while they are still within the immigration control area.

I want to summarise the amendments that are intended to improve the integrity of the immigration system. The bill will enable residence class visa holders to be liable for deportation where it is established that any of the information provided in relation to their application for a visa, entry permission, or any other visa was fraudulent, false, or misleading, or relevant information was withheld. The system needs to be based on a true and accurate disclosure by its participants, as cases that involve false or inaccurate disclosure erode the integrity of the system. This amendment creates a strong incentive for people to tell the truth in their application for a visa. It also extends the search powers of immigration officers. That will better enable them to do their job, including their job of investigating migrant exploitation.

One of the search powers that this bill will allow is the ability for trained and specialised immigration officers to search employers’ premises and interview employees in order to ascertain whether the employer and the employee are complying with the Immigration Act. Yes, the search power is warrantless, and yes, the search power will allow immigration officers to search dwelling houses.

I want to take a moment to point out a couple of details of these particular features, as they have been the subject of criticism. Firstly, the reason that the search power does not require a warrant is that immigration officers, prior to visiting premises to investigate an employer who they believe is committing an offence under the Act, will not know that workers may be hiding in part of the property. It does not make sense in these cases for the immigration officer to turn round and go to obtain a warrant, as the workers will have vanished by the time the immigration officer returns. Secondly, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the search of a dwelling house. It should be pointed out that in the context of this amendment an immigration officer needs to believe on reasonable grounds that the premises are owned, occupied, or used by the employer where it is believed that work is being done. So it is not just an ordinary residential home, and we are talking only about searching for people.

In addition to the search of an employer’s premises, the bill contains three other search powers that will mean that immigration officers have the powers they need to effectively enforce the Immigration Act. Authorised and trained immigration officers will be able to apply for and execute a search warrant using the provisions of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Until the transitional powers set out in that Act expired in June 2014 immigration officers could only apply for a search warrant. The amendment reinstates that power and adds the ability for the immigration officer to execute that warrant. They will be able to undertake a personal search and a search of baggage in the immediate control of the person at the border for the person’s passport or identity document, where the officer has reasonable cause to suspect the passenger is concealing these documents. That power applies only to non - New Zealand citizens.

I must once again put on record my disappointment in the lack of support for exploited migrants shown by Opposition parties by their failure to vote in favour of this bill. New Zealand First, I can understand. They are now firmly established as New Zealand’s anti-immigration party. Mr Peters’ scurrilous description recently of migrants as “absolute crap” and his attack on the New Zealand resident recently killed in the Middle East are ample example of that. They do not pretend to be in favour of migrants or to be the champion of the migrant community, but Labour and the Greens do. Their failure to support this bill past its first reading highlights that pretence.

The bill’s primary purpose is to prevent and prosecute exploitative employers. So far, the reasons given by Labour and the Greens for not supporting migrant workers include, from Labour, that the search powers are given to immigration officers and labour inspectors—well, so what; that the immigration levy looks like a tax; that they thought a regulatory power that was taken out at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee remained; and that there are not enough labour inspectors.

The Greens, who prefaced their comments by describing the worst excesses of employers as “almost keeping slaves”, thought it more appropriate to allow visa applicants to commit fraud on their applications without consequence and allow overstayers to thumb their noses at officials’ attempts to deport them by refusing access to travel documents. They said it was more important—more important—than preventing and prosecuting the exploitation of migrant workers.

Many of those concerns were absolutely without foundation or were fixed by the select committee. Furthermore, the bill comfortably passed its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, the Ministry of Justice supports it, the Council of Trade Unions—for goodness’ sake—supports it, but Labour clearly did not get the memo. Labour and the Greens still have the opportunity to join with the Government. It is not too late for those parties to send a very clear signal that, whatever their misgivings about the rats and mice details of this bill are, they support preventing and prosecuting the exploitation of migrant workers. Their failure to do so says to me and it says to the migrant community that their faux support is just that—that they are more interested in the details than in the power to prevent and prosecute. I call on them to change their minds, even at this last minute.

I want to acknowledge the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, most recently ably led by Jonathan Young, the submitters, and especially the officials, who have worked tirelessly to improve the lot of migrants in this country with the passage of this bill. I commend it to the House; I hope Labour and the Greens can also do so.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): That was an interesting call from the Minister of Immigration. Towards the end of his speech he called on Labour and the Greens to support the legislation in order to demonstrate our support for migrant workers and our desire to prevent their exploitation and to prosecute those employers that do exploit those migrant workers. He said that we should support the legislation simply because those members say it does what they say it does. They say that it will achieve those things—prevent exploitation and prosecute the exploiters. It does not matter whether we think it actually achieves those outcomes or not. This is what the Minister says: “Don’t worry about the details. Don’t actually look at what the legislation does.” It does not matter that the Opposition parties actually considered it in detail at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, listened to what the submitters had to say, and listened to what a lot of migrant worker representatives had to say when they came to the select committee and said: “This legislation will not work.” “No, no, don’t worry about that.”, says the Minister, “Just vote for it because it will look good.”

That is this National Government’s way of doing things, actually. Smoke and mirrors—pass legislation that has the right title and has the right purpose clause, but, actually, when you look at the detail, it does not do any of the things that it says it is going to do. Well, we do not support that approach. We will not support this Government’s window dressing. Sure, we supported this legislation’s referral to a select committee because we agree that we do have a problem in this country of migrant workers being exploited. The Minister is absolutely right that there are a number of places around the country that are extremely reliant on migrant workers. For example, the Christchurch rebuild is utterly reliant on migrant workers, and we thank those migrant workers for coming over to New Zealand and supporting the rebuild. Of course, the fact that we are so reliant on migrant workers is because this Government failed to provide the training and the skill development that New Zealanders needed to be able to participate in the rebuild. We have got loads of New Zealanders still sitting on the unemployment benefit because this Government failed to invest in education and skills development, so, yes, we are reliant on those excellent migrant workers who are coming over here and helping us get the job done, but we need not be. We need not have all those migrants coming and doing that work. We could have New Zealanders doing that work.

In Queenstown, the Government has now introduced an exemption so that Queenstown hospitality employers do not have to go through a labour market check to make sure that there are not New Zealanders who could go and work in Queenstown. They can just bring migrants directly in. Well, the reason why employers in the Queenstown hospitality sector are struggling to recruit and retain workers is the pay and conditions that they offer. If they are having trouble recruiting and retaining staff, then this Government should encourage them to improve the pay and improve the conditions and improve the accommodation that they provide for those workers. That is why we are so reliant on those migrant workers, and that is how this Government has actually created the conditions in which more migrant workers are likely to be exploited. That is why it needs to be seen to be doing something in this legislation, even though the submitters who came to the select committee told the select committee that it would not work.

The Minister mentioned the migrant workers who come here on temporary visas, who are entitled to work in New Zealand, and said that this legislation would protect them. Well, in fact, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, you know very well that there is a group of workers who come to New Zealand on temporary visas whom this legislation will do absolutely nothing for, and that is the group of workers who are employed by foreign companies to come and work in New Zealand. There are workers, as you know, in your electorate at the Hutt workshop—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think even though the member knows I have some interest in this area, it is not appropriate to bring me into the debate while I am in the Chair.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is true, and I apologise. There are workers at the Hutt workshop who have worked in New Zealand for 6 months—that is what I am told. They worked in New Zealand for 6 months, and, yet, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety insists that they do not need to be covered by New Zealand employment law. So they do not get the right to the minimum wage. They do not get the right to sick leave. They do not get the right to bereavement leave. They do not get the right to annual leave. They do not get the right to be covered by health and safety law. They do not get the right to be covered by the Employment Relations Act. And that Minister is comfortable with that. They will not be covered by this legislation, either. That Minister over there is absolutely comfortable with workers coming to New Zealand, working in this country, and not being subject to the minimum standards, not being protected by the minimum standards that New Zealand law provides for.

That is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage that that Government is prepared to allow those workers to be potentially exploited by their employer. Are they being exploited? We do not know, because those workers were not prepared to tell—

Ian McKelvie: Go and ask them.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Ah, Mr McKelvie says: “Go and ask them.” Well, Mr McKelvie, you obviously have not been paying attention, because a labour inspector did go and ask them and, for whatever reason, those workers refused to tell the labour inspector what their wages are. The Minister triumphantly said in the House yesterday that that was absolutely the right thing to do—to tell the labour inspector to butt out because that was a matter, a private matter, between those workers and their employer. Well, if those workers were covered by New Zealand employment law, that would be a matter for the labour inspector because, under the Minimum Wage Act, the labour inspector is absolutely entitled to ask for information relating to the wages those workers receive.

I think, actually, that that legislation should apply. It should be possible for the labour inspector to find out whether those workers working in New Zealand are receiving the basic minimum requirements that any other worker in New Zealand should be allowed to receive. It is a wonder that a labour inspector even got in there in the first place, because we have so few labour inspectors. We have so many examples of the minimum requirements that are expected under New Zealand employment legislation being absolutely flouted by employers because there are so few labour inspectors that it is highly unlikely that they will get caught doing it. This legislation will not make a lot of difference to those most extraordinarily vulnerable migrant workers. Even if it did the job it was supposed to do, even if we felt we could support it, that Minister believes that because it is New Zealand employment law and New Zealand immigration law, it does not apply to those vulnerable migrant workers, and that is an absolute outrage.

Actually, the Minister covered the reasons why we are opposed to this legislation. We do believe that the powers of search and surveillance that are going to be given to immigration officers will actually act as a disincentive for migrants to come forward and report unreasonable, exploitative practices by their employers. We also agree with the Legislation Advisory Committee’s concerns that the proposed immigration levy is too broad and, in fact, actually acts as a tax. That would have been an easy matter to tidy up, but this Government refused to do that. We think that the result of this legislation will not be to make migrant workers feel more secure in the workplace, will not be to encourage them to speak up and alert the authorities to exploitative behaviour, but will, in fact, do the exact opposite and make those workers more vulnerable.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that if Labour wants to look like it is supporting migrant workers, it would vote for this legislation. We are not interested simply in looking like we support migrant workers; we are interested in really supporting migrant workers. That means all migrant workers, whether they are employed by New Zealand companies, New Zealand individuals, or foreign companies. They should all get the same protections and we should be working hard to enhance those protections, not diminish them in the way that that Minister and this Government continue to do.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): The member opposite, Iain Lees-Galloway, started off his speech by riling and railing against the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Minister Michael Woodhouse has sponsored through the House, saying that it was mere window dressing. I was waiting to hear the alternative provisions that the Labour Party believes are going to make a difference. I cannot say that I heard anything that I felt was going to make any difference; all I heard was criticism. I guess that may be the purpose of the Opposition, but I think also the other purpose of the Opposition is to provide credible alternatives. So, to the honourable member opposite, perhaps that is something that you should consider—what are the credible alternatives that you present, in regard to this bill?

We are a migrant nation, without any shadow of a doubt. Every single one of us has come from a migrant background. My older brother, who lives in the United States—obviously, a migrant to that nation—describes the United States as a nation of nations. In a recent trip to London—a private trip—I was amazed at the number of migrants who were there. You would wonder whether London would achieve the phenomenal growth and commerce that it does without the inflow of intellect and capital into that city that comes from migrants. What we understand is that migrants around the world who go to difference places to share their ideas, to make a way and a life for themselves, offer to their host nations incredible opportunities to develop, to grow, and to improve. Because of that, and because we are a migrant nation and we are a world of people who travel and work in different places, it is important to have a good, solid foundation of migration law.

I was fascinated to hear—and alarmed, of course—that in the recent earthquake in Nepal 1,000 climbers were on Mt Everest. At any one time, there are a million travellers in the air. Those are huge numbers, and it just goes to show how important travel is to us as people. Coming back to this point: migration is an incredibly important area of attention that needs to be well thought of and well legislated for in order for nations to take advantage of the migration that happens to them, and also to protect those migrants and to protect the economy of those nations that migrants go to. In this legislation not only are we seeking to protect migrants but also we are wanting to ensure that people who exploit migrants do not do it at the cost of genuine, bona fide, compliant businesses.

You can imagine that if an employer were cutting somebody’s wage and paying them well below the minimum wage—which here in New Zealand is $14.75, which, as a proportion of the average wage, is very high internationally—and paying only $5 an hour, and if they were paying this to a number of employees, at that level of income, not only would it be exploiting the employees, it would mean that their cost of business would be so much lower. The business next door, which might supply the same or a similar service, would now be at a competitive disadvantage. So it is incredibly important, not only to protect the exploited worker but also to protect the bona fide, compliant, legal businesses that are in our nation as well. This bill does that.

In my second reading speech, I alluded to a report in the New Zealand Herald. I would not mind doing that again, if you would give me the leave to be able to read its report.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am sure I will be flexible if you do.

JONATHAN YOUNG: This was a case where an Auckland employer was accused of exploiting migrant workers by refusing pay and by using city offices with no bathroom or kitchen facilities for their accommodation, and failed to pay nearly $40,000 in settlement costs. They then refused to do this. The Employment Relations Authority then published a report on this, showing that the Auckland woman, Norajane Colos, the sole director of E-Advance, E-Jobs, and E-Reuse companies, had agreed to pay, in November, just under $40,000 to six complainants but had failed to do so. The complainants were owed a tremendous amount of money. These were their claims of exploitation: they had to pay a premium, or capital infusion, of up to $15,000 to secure employment in the first instance. That is not the sort of capital investment that we call bona fide and honest; that is extortion. They were not paid any wages. They were pressured to borrow further sums of money to give to the company. Their office in central Auckland was a commercial building turned into accommodation for those who ran out of money for rent. I wonder why they ran out of money. It is quite obvious. The accommodation had no access to a shower or a kitchen, and they survived mainly on fruit and instant noodles. They were subjected to various degrees of humiliation if they did not work full time without pay.

Of course we are horrified at those sorts of conditions and that sort of exploitation. This is what this bill seeks to address and to stop, which is why, despite the nuances and the detail here and there, we would ask parties in this House to support this bill. This is the exploitation that can and does take place in this country, which we want to see come to an end. It is very important for us to understand that we are living in a world of incredible cleverness, where people can find their way around laws and compliances in all sorts of different ways and measures. That is why, when it comes to some of the biometric technologies that are now available, we need to give the Crown the opportunity to utilise them.

About 7 or 8 years ago, I went into the United States. I think the place of entry was Hawaii. I went through customs, and there, for the first time ever, I received fingerprint and iris scans. For a brief few seconds, I think there were millions of calculations and processes taking place that identified that I was not on a terrorist list. That is the sort of technology that is available—and you will be very relieved to hear that, Mr Bayley. That is the sort of technology that is available. Iris scanning is an amazing technology that identifies a person in even more detail and has a greater capacity than fingerprints, and the technology is available to us today. Of course, these are the technologies that we need to use, especially when there is fraudulent activity around identity documents. It is important that we do keep up with the advantages of technology, because those who seek to work around the law will certainly use technology to their benefit as well.

There are many provisions in this bill, which the Minister has ably discussed and presented to the House. I am sure other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will bring those out in the debate today. But I would just like to make some closing comments. This bill addresses the rights and concerns that people have regarding exploitation and seeing those exploitations come to an end. I believe that we have a good and a decent society in New Zealand, and this sort of legislation is being put in place to protect that and to enhance that. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): The Labour Opposition supports the intent of this bill. It supports the prevention, the interdiction, and the punishment of the exploitation of migrant workers. But what it does not support is some charade where the Government itself knows that the measures proposed in this bill are not going to work and, in fact, cannot work. Members opposite have asked the Opposition for two things in this debate. The first is clarity as to why we will not support it, and the second is what we would do instead, and I intend to set out both—set out both. What is important is that this bill is under-resourced. It creates an inappropriate extension of powers. It is full of legal anomalies and unintended consequences. It does not solve the problem that it says it is going to fix. As such, it is yet another triumph of spin over substance and of rhetoric over solutions. It is an example of a Government that has lost its way.

If you ever doubt that, you know it when members opposite, members of the Government sitting on the Treasury benches, make a plaintive plea, as the member who has just resumed his seat, Jonathan Young, has done to the Opposition to come up with the solutions even though they have all the resources of the Government at their disposal. You know you are in a third term—a Government that has lost its way, meandering through side tracks and embarrassments, losing the point, and losing the capability to charter a course to the future for New Zealand.

Firstly, let us look at the context of this bill. There is a growing problem. On that we agree with the Government, and we agree with the officials who have worked very hard on this bill. There is, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has so clearly stated, a lack of skills development in New Zealand, which means that our economy is becoming increasingly reliant on migrant labour to fill the gaps. There is a mismatch between our tertiary education system and our job market. That is made worse by the proliferation of low-quality private training establishments, which are under-regulated. Too many of them are not about higher education; they are about being visa factories. Anybody who has been in Auckland and looked around those knows only too well that students are brought in on lax courses, they are given work rights, and they are often exploited by people—I agree with the Government—who are often from their own communities. They are exploited on low wages. As a former Minister of Immigration for 2 years and as a local MP in west Auckland, I can tell you that I have seen these cases at both ends—from a supervision and overview point of view, and as a local MP reporting cases of alleged exploitation, one of which has finally led to convictions in the court system after many years of chasing.

What we need to see is a law that will work. Here is what needs to happen instead of what we have been served up. Firstly, this bill lacks any kind of whistle-blower protection for the workers who are being exploited. Here is the fundamental problem and why this bill just cannot work. If you are a migrant worker and your temporary visa depends upon the job you have, as it often does, and you report that you are being exploited, you can bet your bottom dollar that you will lose that job because either the employer gets away with it and kicks you out in revenge, or, if the employer goes down, your job may well go down with it. Either way, unless you are protected, you will not report. That is a fundamental problem with this bill that the Government knows about because it was presented in multiple submissions to the select committee, and that it has done nothing to fix.

The second fundamental problem is a very sad one, and I am almost loath to mention the names, but what do Cave Creek, Pike River, and this piece of legislation have in common? They were all disasters waiting to happen. This bill is a disaster waiting to happen because it provides an unfunded, under-resourced mandate. The labour inspectorate has been thrown together in Mr Joyce’s little empire, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, but the labour functions have been run down because the ministry is so set on racing to the bottom of the business barrel that it has under-resourced the labour inspectorate. That is another reason that this bill cannot succeed: it is an under-resourced mandate.

Thirdly, this bill contains what in our view is an inappropriate and unbalanced extension of official powers. They are, in several cases, measures that were tried on the previous Government by some of the same officials in the lead-up to the 2009 review—when I was the Minister—and rejected because they failed New Zealand Bill of Rights Act tests, like warrantless searches of private property and private home dwellings. Of course officials must have the ability to conduct a thorough search; otherwise, they will not get the evidence. But when we start taking away the judicial protections of warranting, as the Government is trying to do in the intelligence and security area and as it is doing in this bill, what we see is a creeping undermining of democracy. Just ask John Campbell. Just ask Mike Hosking. This Government loves power and it loves control, but New Zealanders are getting sick of a Government that is about power for its own sake, not about the people it is here to serve.

Write us a law that will work, and we will vote for it. We support this bill’s intent, but we will not window-dress over New Zealanders’ suffering. We will not window-dress. Another example: absolute discretion decisions—under this law, there is no Privacy Act protection. The officials—and this will be delegated down to a low level—have absolute discretion to make whatever decisions they like, with no legal comeback and not even the ability for an affected party to find out what has been decided and why. You could call it the “Kafka clause” because the Government is exempting itself from the normal processes of a democratic system where a citizen, including a migrant or an employing migrant, should be able to find out why they have been pinged. Do we want to live in a society where the Government can take arbitrary, unsupervised actions by officials—not by the Ministers; by officials—and people cannot even ask what and why? No, that is wrong. That was rejected in the lead-up to the 2009 review, but officials have come back and snuck it past the goalie, and those folks were asleep at the wheel.

There is a bunch of legal issues. It is my privilege to chair the Regulations Review Committee. We raised with the committee that considered this bill the fact that the commencement date was outside the normal processes, and it did act to tighten that up. In this legislation there is a potentially unmandated levy that has come under considerable criticism from migrant communities. It is very, very important that those processes are transparent.

In summary, we support the intent of removing the exploitation of migrant workers. We wanted to support the bill. We supported it to select committee. We made it clear to the Government that we wanted a law we could pass. But we sadly find, once again, that the Government has put spin ahead of substance. The sad part about this is that the Government knows damn well that it is doing it, because it was clear in the submissions. There is no point in passing a law that protects workers if it does not. If a worker comes forward, under this bill, they are down the road because either they get the sack in revenge or their employer goes down and there is no protection for the worker. The bill is an unfunded mandate. There is no resource in the labour inspectorate to carry out the functions written in law. Thirdly, it is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is an inappropriate extension of warrantless searches and exemptions from the Privacy Act. Finally, the bill is beset with legal loopholes and contradictions, which is just bad quality legislation.

In summary, there are many responsible members opposite. The Government has had a worthy intent with this bill. It is not too late for the Government to change its mind and take this bill back and put it through another turn of the legislative spanner to fix these obvious problems. This bill deserves more work. New Zealanders deserve it to have more work. They deserve a Government as intent on substance and fixing the problems as it is on its own power and popularity. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on this third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). Immigration and the people and the systems that monitor and manage it are vitally important to New Zealand. It is crucial that we welcome our migrants, look after them, protect them, and give them the same rights as all New Zealanders. The skills that they bring and the expertise that they offer are very important in terms of helping all of us in New Zealand to grow and prosper here in New Zealand. They contribute directly in terms of not only their skills but often the capital and intellectual properties that they bring. Of course, it is easy to understand why we are having this conversation and dealing with this issue. When you look back, in 2011 we had just on 15,500 immigrants who came into Auckland. This is expected to rise to nearly 48,000 by the end of this year. I do note that these figures do include some New Zealanders returning home to New Zealand.

To bring these figures into life, in my electorate we rely heavily on skilled migrants helping some of the industries. One of the most important industries in my electorate is the horticulture sector. We have got the cropping sector, which employs hundreds of people and generates roughly about $250 million in export sales a year. I have also got the glasshouse growing industry, which, again, generates about $150 million and employs roughly 1,500 people in my electorate. Many of the people involved in assisting those companies, working in those industries, are migrants who come into New Zealand with great skills, particularly with the dexterity to pick a number of the crops, to go up high on lifting equipment, to drive the tractors, and to do all those sorts of things that help to make horticulture in Pukekohe, in particular, a very successful growing industry. Migrants can be very important not only at an industry level but at a particular company level.

One example my predecessor had to deal with was an excellent Indian migrant worker who worked in the glasshouse construction and maintenance sector with a particular company in my electorate. The reason he was so good was not only was he very happy to work at heights and he was physically light, but he was also very good working with metal and glass. His ability to scale and construct those glasshouses—

Hon Simon Bridges: He sounds like spiderman.

ANDREW BAYLY: Very close to it, I am sure. He was pivotal in terms of the development of that company. Unfortunately, by the time we got to hear about him, his visa had expired and he had to return overseas. But with the support of that employer we managed to get that person back, and now that company has grown substantially. It is now not only working in New Zealand but has successful operations in Australia and is now a very successful company. One of the conditions for him to return to New Zealand was that that company had to also employ another person who had the back-up skills to be able to do the same type of work. That is a classic example of where it was very helpful in terms of growing that New Zealand business.

However, it is not always great outcomes that we can talk about, and this bill is obviously about dealing with some of those other outcomes. I want to talk about just two areas: international students, who are often given work visas to work up to 20 hours a week, and also those migrants who come in under the essential skills category. If migrants in either of these groups actually do something that breaches their consent conditions, then they are obviously liable for deportation. At the end of the day, there is an imbalance between those types of migrant workers, working here legitimately, and employers. If there is an employer who wants to take advantage of them, there is a strong imbalance of power. That imbalance of power is often demonstrated because when they come to renew their visa, they need the support of that employer. That imbalance of power is something that this bill is seeking to deal with.

The flip side of dealing with immigration is that the controls and procedures that we put in place under the terms of this immigration legislation must make sure that those migrant workers are protected and given the same rights as all New Zealand workers. At present the Immigration Act offers no protection to migrant workers who work in accordance with their visa status. I just want to say that again. At present the Immigration Act offers no protection to migrant workers who work in accordance with their visa status. At present those employers who exploit unlawful migrant workers face heavy sanctions, but those persons who exploit lawful migrant workers are less severely penalised. It is interesting reading the impact statement to this bill and the case of the two massage therapists who came to New Zealand. What happened was those two ladies came here. The employment agreement under which they were supposedly brought into New Zealand was provided to the Immigration Service. What happened was as soon as they arrived in New Zealand they were made to sign a much more onerous employment agreement that meant that they were working between 6 and 7 days a week, up to 10 hours every day. They were actually forced to stay in the room and sleep on their massage beds, and they were paid a miserly $100 to $200 a week. They were left in that invidious situation, so eventually they left that employer and sought employment elsewhere. Under the current Immigration Act that situation did not meet the criteria for exploitation and this is what this bill is trying to deal with.

This bill deals with the screening and monitoring of foreigners living and working in our country and ensures they are meeting the conditions of their work visas. To protect our migrant workers, severe penalties are introduced in this bill whereby those employers who do operate in a totally inappropriate way can face fines of up to $100,000, or 7 years in jail, or both. It is interesting that migrants who are also employers are now able to be deported if the exploiting occurred within 10 years of their gaining residency here in New Zealand. I note a comment in the labour inspectorate and Immigration New Zealand report that it is common that many of the employers who do exploit migrant workers are themselves former migrants. Of course, this bill is dealing with that. The penalties reflect the seriousness of the exploitation offences and demonstrate the tough action that this Government wants to undertake. We are not prepared to allow the illegal treatment of migrant workers to continue.

The bill provisions will also encourage migrants if they are in invidious situations and are finding that they are being exploited to come forward under a situation where by doing so, and if they collaborate with the immigration department, their current status is not going to be denigrated by coming forward to Immigration New Zealand and letting the department know about these employers who are exploiting other people. We are also extending the power to search not only to deal with exploitation in the workplace and in the home but also to deal with what happens at the airport to make sure that we can get all of the relevant documentation. The proposed amendments also enable technological changes to be made so that our immigration officers can be far more effective in doing their jobs. It is really important, particularly at airports, that we give our immigration officers the power to make sure that arriving passengers are subject to the due tests and that we can test and check the patterns and trends of what is happening with migrant flow, because it will lead to better protection of our national borders. The biometrical measures continue, which I think are a really good idea. One of the things that specifically relates to biometrical measures is that when migrant workers have been deported on reasonable, proper grounds, we can then force them to give us the biometrical data that we need to make sure that they do not return to our shores.

In my view, this is a great bill. It is seeking to deal with a significant problem. We like migrant workers coming into New Zealand but we do want to make sure that they have the same rights as New Zealand workers. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Greens will not be supporting. Basically, this bill takes one step forward and two steps back. We support several things in the bill. We support the intention and we support making the exploitation of migrants on temporary entry visas, with regard to work conditions, an offence. That is a common-sense measure that we should have had in place a long time ago, but we applaud the Government for bringing it in. We support the provisions in the bill that will provide harsher punishments on employers underpaying and exploiting migrant workers. We approve that those unscrupulous employers who exploit migrant workers on temporary entry visas should face up to 7 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $100,000.

The fundamental reason that migrant workers do not report bad employers is that, frankly, they just do not want to be deported. This is something that the Filipino Dairy Workers of New Zealand has told the Embassy of the Philippines. It said there was little it could do because it was difficult for migrant workers to complain because they feared that they would lose their jobs and, consequentially, their visas. This is straight from the workers on the ground who have said what they need. What this bill does not address is the necessary protection to be whistleblowers.

That is why we fundamentally cannot support this bill. It tends to take a top-down approach to fixing the issue rather than listening to the people on the ground who are suffering the problems, and providing bottom-up support so that we can protect migrant workers properly and effectively. The Filipino Dairy Workers of New Zealand is at the coalface of what is happening. It has seen cases of workers working 15 hours a day, day after day, during the calving season. It has seen cases where migrant dairy workers have had to provide their own wet-weather gear and have had no assistance from their employers.

That is consistent with the statistics we are seeing from the labour inspectorate, which conducted 176 investigations in farm-related industries across New Zealand quite recently. It found 67 employment breaches. This means that a shocking one in three of those who were investigated was abusing minimum employment standards. There is an absolute epidemic of migrant worker abuse around the country. This bill that the Government is proposing is a band-aid; it is not a cure. It is not just the Filipino Dairy Workers of New Zealand that has identified the core problem of this bill. The Auckland Latin American community have identified the “lack of effective protection for victims of labour exploitation as a main concern” and have highlighted in point No. 1 in their submission that immigration status and employment rights are intertwined. This is also supported by evidence from the Union Network of Migrants, which has highlighted that stronger protection and incentivisation for whistleblowers is what is needed. We commend the Government for its good intentions about this, which makes the fact that it is not listening to the community, not listening to the people on the ground, not listening to the Filipino Dairy Workers of New Zealand or the Union Network of Migrants—not listening to them—all the more tragic.

The bill has lots of other problematic areas in it. We are uncomfortable with the way the bill extends the search powers of immigration officers into private dwellings, especially without the requirement for a warrant, and I endorse what the previous speaker on this side, Mr Cunliffe, said about that. If the goal is to address labour abuses, then why is the power being given to immigration officers rather than labour inspectors, and why do we not beef up the number of labour inspectors that we need? Putting immigration officers in charge of enforcing the labour standards will lead to further confusion in the migrant sector, and it will create more barriers to reporting breaches and exploitation. Warrantless searches also mean that we are treating migrant workers as less than other New Zealand citizens and other workers. The legacy of the dawn raids of the 1970s casts a long shadow on many Pasifika and migrant communities, and it is not surprising that many people would feel uncomfortable with this.

This bill will enable those with residency to be liable for deportation if any of the information in the original application proved to be false, even if this information was irrelevant to the decision to grant them a visa. They do not even need to be aware that the information was false when they made the application. People make mistakes. This is problematic because even minor errors can lead to deportation, and that creates another disincentive. In some cases, workplaces assist migrant workers in preparing their visa applications. From the abuses that have already happened, it would not be too outrageous to suggest that some of these employers might deliberately introduce errors into the process, creating further disincentives for reporting exploitation.

We know from the points that my colleague Jan Logie raised in the earlier reading that FIRST Union has mentioned employees signing agreements in the Philippines. Yet, when they arrive in New Zealand, that contract, that agreement, has been changed. It knows of workers whose local employer is threatening to send them home if they do not work during the weekend, or make them work for no pay, or they get put in different work from what they originally agreed to do. The task of protecting migrant workers is even more urgent in light of a finding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that it could not even determine whether Chinese engineers working at KiwiRail were being paid the minimum wage. The ministry could not even find that out. When the Minister’s own department cannot determine whether or not someone is getting paid the minimum wage, we have a serious problem. When the Chinese engineers decline to tell the labour inspectors what they are getting, perhaps for fear of getting their contracts cancelled, then we have a very serious problem.

It is a tragic state that our State-owned company cannot even guarantee that contracted migrant workers are getting paid the minimum wage. What sort of message does that send to other employers around the country? The Government should have been investing in places like the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin so that the country has independent industrial capacity, rather than resorting to importing workers it cannot even guarantee are getting paid a minimum wage. It undercuts every other worker in Aotearoa New Zealand.

What would the Greens do? Well, as I have said in an earlier reading, the solution as we see it, frankly, is to improve worker representation. This means that we need to improve the rights of unions and promote their ability to bargain collectively. We need to improve the industrial relations climate as a whole so that workers’ rights are the norm, instead of having the current Government’s moves to deregulate the workplace environment, which actively encourages bad employers to rip off workers. The zero-hour contracts that are prevalent through the hospitality sector are one example of bad employer practice.

In terms of this bill, we need a guarantee that workers who blow the whistle on their employer have their visas protected. We need real protection for migrant workers and a supportive environment so that workers, Kiwi and migrant, can step forward without fear. As I have said, although we thank the Government for making the right noises and taking a step—a tiny step—in the right direction, this bill takes several steps back, so we will not be supporting it.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I am going to try my hardest to keep my level down, because it is a very emotive subject and we have seen a lot of passion in the House so far today from people talking about this very important subject. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not agree that we have a major problem in New Zealand at the moment and, potentially, in the future if something is not done about the issue of temporary migrant workers and the exploitation of workers.

I want to make very, very clear what the Minister of Immigration’s comments were when he opened up his statement. He said that this bill is fit for purpose. I have to ask whose purpose it is fit for, and I have to question some of the patriotism when we talk about the purpose of looking after New Zealand and New Zealanders first and foremost. However, he did come back quite nicely and say that he understands New Zealand First’s point of view—New Zealand First has a very, very strong immigration policy and we have a strong view on immigration. It was a bit tongue in cheek there, because I know he was not saying that in a positive way; he was trying to make it negative. He mentioned Christchurch quite openly, using Christchurch as an example of where we have got the temporary migrant workers we need. This is absolutely 100 percent in line with New Zealand First policy.

New Zealand First’s policy, in our manifesto, says that immigration is about the people we need, not the people who need us. We need those workers who are down there in Christchurch. We need those skilled labourers, those skilled workers, because we do not have enough of the skills that are required to rebuild one of New Zealand’s most important cities. But I challenge the Minister to come up with another area, another location, or another workplace that needs the sorts of numbers of temporary migrant workers who are flooding New Zealand’s workforce. I cannot think of another one. Absolutely Christchurch needs that—[Interruption] Sorry, Mr Bridges?

Hon Simon Bridges: Bay of Plenty.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Bay of Plenty, with our kiwifruit workers? You must be living on a different planet. That does not make any sense whatsoever. It makes no sense at all. When we have 143,000 New Zealanders looking for work we should be doing more to get those people skilled and into our workforce, because the money that is coming in—I am just trying to get my level down, trying to calm down; I was getting to another level, you see. We are getting ourselves into a situation where we are getting these people from overseas, they are working here for a short amount of time, and then they are heading back, taking that money away.

Another member, earlier on, mentioned the temporary migrant worker visa for students. What a great subject that is to bring up, because at the end of the day we are exporting our education system, which is a very sound policy to be doing. We have been doing it for years, encouraging people to come to this great country and get a good education, because they are people we need. They are bringing wealth to our country. It is a zero-sum gain when we then go out and give them—a hundred thousand of them—employment to cover themselves off while they are studying here. Where is the benefit for New Zealand? What about our New Zealand students who are struggling on a daily basis to get ahead and to pay their school fees, which are rocketing? They are borrowing more money to keep themselves afloat and get themselves skilled and get themselves educated. This Government is not doing anything to address that issue by allowing that to happen.

I want to talk about our kiwifruit workers. Why do we not bring in a situation where we are encouraging our unemployed people to get in and be part of the workforce—with a community wage, where you cannot just receive the benefit; you have got to be part of the community and work for that benefit? Now all of a sudden that is a huge incentive.

Hon Simon Bridges: You go talk to the kiwifruit growers. You see whether they like that policy.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Mr Assistant Speaker, I have to say that I think Mr Bridges is trying to be charming, and it is not working.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry, I probably should have interrupted Mr Bridges, not for his interjections generally, because they are fine, but for referring to me repeatedly. Mr Mitchell.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much. Referring back to the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), I would just like to read a couple of points. This bill would, it says here—in the commentary on the bill; the bill as reported from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—“give temporary migrant workers the same protection from exploitation that illegal workers currently have under the Act.” Wow, we actually give illegal migrant workers protection under the Act.

Secondly, it says here that it would “make liable for deportation employers who are residence class visa holders if they are convicted of exploiting migrant workers or knowingly employing migrant workers without work rights,”. If we had an amnesty clause put into that, that might make some sort of sense, but you are asking these exploited migrant workers to go and whistle-blow on their temporary employers and there is no incentive for them to be able remain in their work or relocate to new work. So all of the sudden this is not working. This Government has not listened to the submissions that have been made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and it is not listening to the outcome that we are trying to put forward here.

We would be somewhat supportive of this sort of legislation if it actually addressed the problem at the source. If there was a leak in a dam and it was starting to grow, and then that leak turned into a crack and the crack turned into a major breach, the water would flow down and gouge away the land. Any sane person would agree that you would not start trying to fix the land at the bottom; you would fix the dam at the top and stop the leaking. There is nothing in this legislation that stops the problem at the source.

We are talking about tightening up on our immigration laws. What interests me the most is the fact that these temporary migrant workers are being exploited by their own people. Just recently we read in the newspaper that the Masala restaurant chain was fined for exploiting migrant workers. They were exploiting their own people. The exploitation of skilled migrant workers was also raised as an issue. The people in Christchurch, the skilled migrant labour that we have got down there, are not being exploited. They are being well remunerated and well looked after for the jobs that they are doing. The exploitation is in respect of those unskilled workers—kiwifruit workers, pickers, and packers in our fruit industry. There is exploitation there.

Just recently I got some information sent through to me with regard to the Rena in the Hawkes Bay. Mr Bridges, you will be well aware of the Rena but you might not be well aware of this information, because, of course, you might not be in touch with those people. But the reality is that eight New Zealand workers who have been working on the Rena for up to 3½ to 4 years have all lost their jobs in the last 2 weeks. Eight New Zealanders have lost their jobs in the last 2 weeks, after working on the Rena for 3 to 4 years. Why? Because they have been replaced by temporary migrant workers. That is right. They have been replaced by six people from Indonesia and two people from India. Why? Because those people are being paid sub-conditional wages. They are trying to undercut the value of New Zealand workers.

We do not support increasing employer dependence on cheap migrant labour to the detriment of New Zealand, but that is what is going on. You are not getting to the source of the problem by heading it off at the pass. Anybody would understand that if you want to control your room, you have to control the doorway to your room. This is not being done, and this legislation does not do anything about doing it. Weak labour market testing is also a major problem, and we have also got some serious issues with the black market bypass of the Inland Revenue Department.

A lot of these people are using these temporary migrant visas as a way to cut the loopholes, to not pay their taxes. I can tell members about another case—and, Mr Bridges, you might be interested to know this too. Late last year we had some issues in the Bay of Plenty with those very same exploited temporary workers. It was promised that they would come to the land of milk and honey, New Zealand, and get great work—$15 to $17 an hour—and they were exploited by their own people. This problem is not a new problem. This problem has been going on for a very, very long time. Mr Bridges, you can look as if you are reading something more important and not listening to what we have to say about this, but this issue affects the Bay of Plenty. In fact, it affects all regions of New Zealand. I also saw in a newspaper an article that looked at the problem of Kiwis who lost their jobs over the Cricket World Cup.

Hon Simon Bridges: What should we do about it?

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Oh, you are interested again. The Kiwis who lost their jobs over the debacle—

Hon Simon Bridges: What should we do about it?

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I am getting to the problem—and I have already told you what we need to do. You need to get to the source of the problem.

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s the source?

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Simon Bridges, seriously, as a Minister—the source is where they are entering. Come on! Well, I tell you what; perhaps you could sit down and have a coffee with me. You once denied me that. You said I do not offer you anything. You asked what I could possibly offer you if you sat down with me. Well, how about you have that coffee with me? Maybe you will change your mind, because there is some rational thinking here. You have not thought this problem through, and you are not interested in coming to talk to the people who have got some solutions. I put the challenge to you.

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s the solution?

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Well, I have just given you a solution—stop the problem at the source. And come and have that coffee with me. [Interruption] I will tell you what. We have got all sorts of problems, and the situation is mounting now. A total of 55,000 people immigrated in March, when last year it was 35,000 people. In 2013 we had only 15,000 migrants enter this country. We have got an explosive problem that needs to be fixed. Thank you.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Obviously I rise in support of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). Following on from the excellent contributions of Government members to the annual review debates, I can say that this bill is a pragmatic solution to an issue, by highlighting unacceptable behaviour, putting in place harsh penalties, and putting in place measures that will stamp out, obviously, this abhorrent practice. This issue, of course, is the exploitation of migrant workers.

As my colleague Mr Young alluded to, immigration underpins New Zealand society, and you do not have to look back too far in your own history to see that. With a name like Dowie, I have Scottish ancestry. I do not quite roll my Rs like the Scots do, but, nevertheless, some farmers and people here have told me that I have got a bit of a twang. I am quite proud of that. I am from Southland.

Tim Macindoe: It’s one of your most endearing features.

SARAH DOWIE: Absolutely. And Southland, of course, as we are aware, is one of the better provinces in New Zealand. Migration obviously adds to our diversity. It is going to be interesting for me, now that I have a New Zealand First member in our province, because if it was not for migration to our area, our population would be going backwards. So it is going to be very interesting for our people to have somebody who holds New Zealand First principles in respect of migration. Our migrants come to us sometimes through tourism, and they love the place and then they want to stay. They come through education, especially in Southland with the Southern Institute of Technology, our fantastic polytechnic. That allows us to forge friendships, and it attracts a greater skill base. As I have alluded to already, Southland requires that greater skill base, especially in the primary sector.

But when migrants are taken advantage of, it is just not a good look. It is not a good look for our reputation internationally. We like to think of ourselves as a fair society, and we want to have laws that protect that. It is certainly not good internally either. By exploiting migrants—paying them less, making them work long hours, taking away their holidays—it means that businesses that are operating within the parameters of the law are extremely disadvantaged, and that is not good for production or for our economy. The predominant way to bring attention to this matter is being quite clear and making exploitation an offence. That is what this bill does. Employers who exploit migrant workers will face a jail sentence of up to 7 years or a fine not exceeding $100,000. That is 7 years and/or a fine not exceeding $100,000. That is a tough penalty, and it sends a very, very clear message.

Furthermore, this bill makes resident class visa holders who are exploitative employers—and they are often a group of people who engage in this behaviour—liable for deportation if the offence was committed within 10 years of gaining residence. This sends a message that says now that you are in the country, it is a privilege to be here, and we expect you to comply with our legislation and our practices and uphold our fair society. So we are sending a message that this is just simply inappropriate behaviour.

The exploitation of migrant workers has come to the fore through articles in the New Zealand Herald. My colleague Mr Young read out a report from the New Zealand Herald that highlighted some terrible, terrible situations that some of our migrant people were placed in. There was also an issue that was found in Queenstown, where an audit was carried out by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment late last year. I have got some statistics here. Thirty-five audits were carried out in Queenstown at the end of last year, targeting businesses that in turn target migrants for employment, with 18 of them found to have broken employment laws. Again, that is unacceptable. Workers were missing out on holidays, they had no employment agreements, and they were being paid less than the minimum wage. Those businesses, I am happy to say, are now complying with the law, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment resolved 1,563 complaints made nationally by exploited migrants. More than $2.6 million in arrears was recovered. I think that is a fantastic result for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

It is not great that we had the problem in the first place, but obviously now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and its labour inspectorate are targeting industries. They are monitoring industries to make sure they are complying with the law, where there are migrant workers working in them. Some of those industries are hospitality, horticulture, dairy, construction, fishing, and viticulture. So they need to be monitored. I have already alluded to Southland, obviously. Agriculture has traditionally been a mainstay for us. It is a major source of growth and demand in our province. It is not just labourers whom we require. We require skilled owners, farm managers, and farm workers to help with that industry and to continue our great record in respect of our production and generation of export receipts.

Here are a few statistics about Southland. I said that if it was not for migrants, our population would be going backwards. We now have around 2,000 Filipinos in our community, adding to diversity, interacting with our people, and children in schools. These people are on farms and want a better life for themselves, but we cannot have them exploited, especially when they are located some way out of a city centre and feel somewhat isolated.

In 2000, non-New Zealand citizens made up 36 percent of Southland’s arriving migrants, whereas in 2013 they made up 61 percent. So that is fantastic for us. It really does add to our diversity in the Southland region, and it is much richer for that. It is, again, reflective of the needs of our primary sector and is obviously a reflection of our growing tourism and wonderful education systems that are attracting people, first, to the province, and later they are deciding to stay. It is a fantastic result for us.

Internally, we do not want to see lawful businesses driven out of the market. We certainly want our international reputation to be preserved. As an example, an employer who pays $5 less per hour of a worker’s entitlement for a 40-hour week is saving $20,000 per annum. You can see that that effect would basically mean that a legitimate business just cannot compete. So this bill forms part of a reform package to encourage victims to come forward. This is because there are also changes to the immigration instructions that allow immigration officers to overlook breaches of the terms and conditions of work-related visa conditions if the person cooperates with Immigration New Zealand or the labour inspectorate. That is a positive; I really cannot see the Opposition’s points with respect to that. What I also like about this bill is that it extends the search powers of immigration officials, and that is appropriate. They can now search employers’ premises to talk to the people who have issues, to help build a case, to gather evidence, and to, hopefully, move that through to a successful prosecution.

I want to end by thanking the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its work on this bill, and, of course, the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, for bringing this bill to the House. He is a Minister of Immigration who listens very well to the issues surrounding immigration, especially in Southland, and I look forward to working with him further in respect of Southland’s issues.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call—Jan Logie, 5 minutes.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Greens are very disappointed not to be able to support. As has been previously mentioned by my colleague Denise Roche, we see this as one step forward but also, sadly, as two steps back.

It is critically important that we have provisions in law that protect legal migrant workers from exploitation, and this bill enables that to happen. It is critically important that we have functioning sanctions against employers who are exploiting migrant workers, and this bill provides for up to 7 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $100,000. That is really important, because, as we have heard from the previous speaker from the National Party, Sarah Dowie, some employers may benefit by up to $20,000 a year through the exploitation of migrant workers. So minimal economic sanctions, as is the case in the law at the moment, will not pay off. They are not going to be in balance with the gain that those employers can make from exploiting workers.

So those provisions are really important. However, the basic conditions to enable those sanctions to be put in place are not in this bill. We know that the migrant workers’ union was encouraging the Government to bring in this legislation, and we supported it at its first reading. In fact, the union was saying that we should not have to wait too long, that this was too important, and that the exploitation that was happening was terrible. We have heard across the House tonight some terrible stories of exploitation, and we all know those stories.

So this bill is really important, and we really, really wanted to support it. But as we were going through the legislation, and through the select committee deliberations, we were starting to get more and more concerned at what was being raised. So we went back to the union and said: “OK—this is what’s in this bill. Can you support this? Do you support this? Do you want us to support this?”. Their answer was: “No.” If the union that is representing the workers—the people who have most access to their experience, to be able to inform good lawmaking—is saying that this bill is counter-productive, then this House actually needs to listen to that, because none of us have access to the experience that they do. We need to listen to that. They are telling us that for this to work, there needs to be visa protection for those workers.

I hear that the Government is bringing in directions for Immigration New Zealand to enable it to overlook breaches of visas for workers, to enable them to make complaints. But that is a discretionary provision. If workers cannot be guaranteed that their visas are protected, they are not going to come forward. If they are risking deportation, they are not going to come forward. We know that we do not have enough labour inspectors to actually be able to detect migrant exploitation without the workers coming forward. We do not have a system to be able to do it, so we are reliant on the workers coming forward. This bill disincentivises those workers from coming forward.

So what are we left with then? Actually, we are left with window dressing on the core provision. We have got extended search warrant powers into domestic homes or powers of search without warrants. I want to give credit to ACT for extending and ensuring that there is some accountability around the use of that power, but still, it is without warrant. There are search powers into people’s homes, when we have a history of dawn raids in this country. Those powers are being given to Immigration New Zealand rather than the Labour Group. We are told by the Minister that that is because this is an immigration bill—not to be flippant. That is flippant, when we have a history of immigration officers going into Pasifika people’s homes to deport families in this country and of racist abuse of the immigration system. We need protections against that. This bill actually gives disproportionate power to the Government, and we should be very worried about it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill, and as somebody who believes the history of New Zealand, our country is in fact a history of immigration. I cannot help but respond to some of the comments made earlier by members of New Zealand First that some of this exploitation is being done by their own people. What exactly does that mean? I would love them to give an explanation of that someday, but it seems to give an insight into the way that they think. They seem to believe that immigration is a threat to “our” jobs. Well, I will tell you something. Apart from the offensiveness of the pronouns they use, the fact is that once upon a time New Zealand had no people, no immigration, and no jobs. We have had a thousand years of immigration and now we have lots of jobs. QED: immigration is actually good for jobs.

But I would like to get back to a particularly poignant experience. I had cause over the past week to spend a lot of time in Whangarei Hospital, in honour of my, unfortunately, late grandfather, Joe Faithfull. The ward that he was on was staffed almost entirely by people who are recent immigrants to our country. There is a lesson in that for some of the elderly members of New Zealand First: be very careful what you say about immigrants because it might not be too long before they are giving one of you a sponge bath.

In particular, I want to get back to what Jan Logie was referencing—that is, new sections 277B and 277C in clause 61. I would like to thank the Minister Michael Woodhouse, and I have to say that I find him to be a very hard-working, professional, and listening Minister. He was prepared to take on board concerns about the idea that an immigration officer would be able to go into not only a business but a private residence connected to a business—perhaps a dairy or restaurant in my electorate—and ask any questions that they wanted to ask and search for any documents that they wished to search for, without a warrant. We would not give that power to the police, so I made it clear that ACT’s preference is that we would not have such provisions.

However, it was clear that the Government was determined to have them, so I would like to thank the Minister for being considerate enough to insert the additional new sections so that the search provisions that this bill introduces will actually be subject to greater democratic oversight—that is, there will be periodic reporting of the use of what I regard as extraordinary powers—and that after 3 years, the sections in this legislation that introduced them will be required to face ministerial review.

We are a nation of immigrants. It is not about us and them, and our own people and their own people. This is a country that is great because so many people freely come here to access, first and foremost, due process and the rule of law. I do not believe that this bill is perfect in that regard, but I am pleased to have been able to play a very small role in improving it. So I will commend this bill to the House and we will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. I support the bill. This has been a very interesting debate. Why I say so is that it reveals that the Labour Party does not care about migrant workers’ exploitation, and many contributions from that side will remain in my mind for a very long time because I am so surprised. I do realise that I will not have time to deal with them all, but if I talk about my electorate, Mt Roskill—Mt Roskill is the hub of migrants. In Mt Roskill I have more people born overseas than people born here in New Zealand. If I talk about Auckland—according to our latest census, we know that one in four people in Auckland was born overseas, and the prediction is that in another 15 years it will be one in two—one in two people in Auckland will have been born overseas. So this is a very much - needed bill for New Zealand, especially when it is becoming so diverse.

As I said, I will not have enough time to deal with all the Labour contributions so, to move on—I had a trip just last Sunday down from Auckland to Palmerston North to attend and speak at an Indian function. This was just a day trip, so I was dressed up in my very traditional Indian outfit. As I arrived at the airport and went through the usual process of checking in and getting my boarding pass, I was constantly offered help. Doors were opened for me, people were very kind and very genuine in their greetings, and this continued on the plane, too. I got numerous compliments. I was actually amazed—I never thought that I could be treated so well just while catching a domestic flight. Then it clicked: it could be because of my very traditional Indian outfit. It is quite possible that the people at the airport and on the plane thought that I was a tourist or a visitor. We know, in New Zealand, that we are such a friendly nation, and there is this kind of kindness and care that we do not receive anywhere else in the world.

So when these tourists and visitors come to New Zealand and they experience this care and this courtesy, they are instantly hooked. And if any of these tourists are planning to migrate to another country, New Zealand is No. 1 on their list. But then, when these families migrate to New Zealand, they are no longer tourists; they are migrants. And then they are not always treated with that same care and courtesy when they are looking for jobs. Rather, they are met with migrant exploitation.

So this bill is to ensure that we have fair, firm, and fast processes in place to crack down on migrant worker exploitation. This bill sends out a clear message that migrant workers have the same employment rights and protection as all other workers. I am really grateful to the Minister in charge, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, for bringing in this bill, and I am grateful to the previous Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, chaired by David Bennett, for the work it has done on this bill, because I understand the importance of this bill. It is important that we have legislation, regulations, and rules in place to assure our migrant workers that when it comes to employment, their rights are the same as those of all other workers.

This bill is to protect the rights of new migrant workers going into work. This bill is also about strengthening our ability to protect our borders. And it is sending the message that this National Government is really serious about migrant worker exploitation and that we want to come down hard on those people who exploit migrant workers, as well.

It is also about clarifying our existing Immigration Act and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system. This bill extends the powers of immigration officers so that they are able to check on employers, to see that they are complying with the Act, and also if they have information that there could be some workers who are being exploited at a worksite. This also will enable them to determine that workers are complying with their work visa conditions. This issue of migrant worker exploitation is a very serious one because it takes away the trust of migrant workers in our system. Secondly, these employers—those who employ these people at substandard conditions—are able to provide their services at a much lower cost than compliant businesses, and this can result in compliant businesses closing down and numerous people becoming jobless.

We know that the relationship between migration and the economy is a linear one. Under this National Government our economy is doing well, so there is this huge influx of people coming into New Zealand. So it is really important that we protect migrant workers’ rights, and that we also protect our borders. This bill will make our immigration system more effective, and also, by giving these extended powers to immigration officers to be able to monitor worksites, we are sending the message that we want to make our immigration system a really reliable one.

This issue of the exploitation of migrant workers is a real one. Unfortunately, those employers who exploit migrant workers are often former migrants themselves. I have come across a few cases. One case was where this person was offered a job, which was fine. It was on the minimum wage. He was offered a place to live. When he turned up at work, this place where he was supposed to live was actually a small room in that same commercial building from which the business was being operated. There was no separate toilet or bathroom facility, and he also claimed that he was called in to work on his days off. In another case I heard there were similar claims that they did not have any days off. These people are actually hired on false terms. These are systemic breaches of our employment standards. It is really important that we do take care of those people who are being exploited. There are numerous workers who are being exploited, including migrant workers and also international students.

The penalties in the bill reflect the seriousness of this offence. It is really important that we send the message out that it is a serious offence to exploit migrant workers, and also that this Government is taking tough action to fix this problem that is here, and that this problem is a real problem.

This bill also changes the way biometric information is collected. This is to address gaps in identity management capability for faster identification, and to improve the Government’s ability to manage risk.

Migration is a social fact. Although migration is important to us, it also brings challenges in some areas, which are addressed in this bill. The fact is that migrant workers are being exploited, and it is time that we should act on this because we are becoming a very diverse country day by day. So I commend the bill to the House and I support the bill. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call will be a split call. The Hon Damien O’Connor—5 minutes.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Before I start I would just like to say to the new member Clayton Mitchell over there: do not apologise for getting passionate in this House, because no matter how hard you try, Phil Goff and I will try to make you look like a moderate. This is the place where we should have passion, because the issues we bring here to this House are very important—none more so than that of migration.

Labour supported this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because, in principle, we absolutely support the protection of migrant workers in this country and their conditions. But we have to know that the legislation is going to be effective, and I have not heard so much hypocrisy in this House for a long time. Yesterday in this House the Minister of Immigration refused to stand up and protect Chinese migrant workers who had been brought into this country to take asbestos out of trains. He said: “I’ll fall in behind contract law because they are employed by a company that is not a New Zealand company. Therefore, those migrant workers don’t have to have New Zealand wages and conditions.” That is an outrageous act of slavery endorsed by the Minister in this House yesterday. And then he has the gall to come into the House today and say: “We’re passing legislation to protect migrant workers.” That is why Labour cannot support this, because it is absolute hypocrisy.

We supported the establishment of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, bringing into this country people from the Pacific Islands to help us out. We supported the ongoing utilisation of worker permits for people in the tourism industry. The dairy industry is now hugely reliant on workers who come into this country. In the meat industry we supported them. The core of this economy is supported by migrant workers. There are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, we have not done a very good job at establishing a high-wage economy. New Zealanders have opted to go offshore rather than stay here. In general terms, the jobs that the migrant workers come into are low-paid work—low-paid work. We are reliant upon that. But there is still the unfair and unjust situation that in some of these industries they can rely on migrant workers for up to 5 years, giving them no security—sometimes allowing their families to come in, which is good, so they have some form of normality—and then telling them after 5 years to pack their bags and go home. I think that is as unfair as anything we are trying to address in this piece of legislation, but the Government is not doing anything about that.

As a former Associate Minister of Immigration, I am someone who takes pride—and I know there will be many others on all sides of the House—in trying to do a very fair job in this really difficult area. There are 4,000 to 4,500 individual cases of migrant workers seeking an exemption to the rules because they believe they should be here. I think that is a fair system and I think we do our very best for them. But we have got an economy dependent on migrant workers. This Government is moving to try to protect them, and we applaud the principle of that—in fact, I acknowledge that this Government has brought in legislation to protect foreign workers on foreign-owned fishing boats working in New Zealand. But when the Minister yesterday could not stand up and support the upholding of rights for those Chinese workers, I cannot believe anything the Government says. I cannot believe that the passage of this legislation is about a genuine attempt to bring fairness into the workplace.

There are some terrible rorts going on, and they have been in the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme and across migrant workers. I can tell you that workers who raise issues in the workplace are then threatened that they will go back to their home village and no one will be employed in the next year if they continue to raise these issues. Outrageous—outrageous strong-arm tactics over migrant workers. They are vulnerable, they do need protection, but they need it through legislation that is genuine and is backed by a Government that upholds rights for all migrant workers, not just for those it selects because they are in its chosen industries. When the Minister upholds the rights for those Chinese workers getting asbestos out of trains, I will believe the Government, but until then, this is an act of hypocrisy.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to make this short contribution in the third reading of this bill. This is an important subject matter, immigration. We have heard throughout the debate this afternoon comments around how we are a nation of migrants. We are a migrant nation, and there is a rich history of immigration that makes up our nation of Aotearoa New Zealand. But I would just like to add that over that thousand-year-plus period of immigration—right back to our Polynesian seafaring voyagers of yore—there is recognition of indigenous people here in Aotearoa New Zealand. That is without question. That is because we have protected specific rights based on historical ties and cultural and historical connections and distinctiveness that are unique to our country. I just wanted to state that matter.

Yes, we are a nation, I guess, where we can all say that we come from forebears who roamed and voyaged and travelled the globe, but there is very much a proud indigenous people here in Aotearoa whom we represent and whom I represent in Te Tai Tonga. But this is a very important piece of legislation. I think, to get to the nub of the matter, we are opposing this legislation on this side of the House because it is window dressing. Although the National Government likes to talk tough: “We are going to crack down on exploitative practices by employers on migrant workers.”, it is viewing this whole piece of legislation through the eyes of business, through the eyes of trying to address the competitive advantage that unscrupulous employers have in exploiting migrant workers. Everything that the Government does is from the viewpoint of the employer, the industry participants, but it fails to address the actual rights of workers. So that is the fundamental reason why we are opposing this bill.

We have heard numerous examples this afternoon. Dare I say it, but most of the examples given are actually occurring within my electorate of Te Tai Tonga. If we look at the examples of the Chinese workers in the Hutt Valley, who are working with no protections under New Zealand law—absolute exploitation has been taking place there—and the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme examples that the Hon Damien O’Connor made in terms of Motueka, you can see the contributions that they are making right across the south, right through to Queenstown. In Christchurch, obviously, there are lots of Filipino and Vietnamese workers who have come over on short-term arrangements who have horrific stories. If we go further down the island, into Queenstown, we heard numerous examples there.

So that is the reason why these measures, although having good intentions, fail to really address the issue of protecting the workers. There is no greater example of that than the requirement for workers to actually make a complaint. What this bill does is it imposes an obligation on those highly vulnerable workers, if they are being exploited, to make a complaint to Immigration New Zealand. Obviously, it will defeat the bill’s purpose if many of these vulnerable people are obliged to actually come forward and make a complaint. So, again, it is a big fail on that ground.

Finally, can I just quickly squeeze in, if I can, the issue around giving powers to immigration officers. Of course, any officers, be they police or immigration officers, love more powers being given to them: “Yeah, let’s go in there, and let’s smash into some private dwellings with no warrants required.” Everyone loves more powers being given to them, but it does not work. We need to give those powers to the people with the expertise in those areas, such as the labour inspectorate. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation does not do that, and that is one of numerous reasons we have heard today as to why we oppose this bill. Kia ora.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the passing of Monte Ōhia from Ngāti Pūkenga. He was a man of much mana and a highly respected kaumātua, and his loss will be felt by many in my electorate, Tauranga Moana, and Welcome Bay. Okioki i roto i te rangimārie.

I am very pleased to add my voice to the support on this side for this sensible bill in its third reading this evening. Any efforts to ensure that the immigration regime operates effectively should be encouraged, because immigration is absolutely critical for this country. It helps build a strong economy, creates jobs by encouraging innovation, deepens our links with the international community, and provides skills and capital for growth. I have been absolutely astounded to sit here and listen to the drivel that has come across from the other side of the House from New Zealand First members. Their vision for isolation is pathetic. They have a view that we should be an isolated island. Well, let me tell you that an isolated island is a poor island. An isolated island is poor economically, poor in spirit, and poor in ideas. It echoes its own prejudice, and you are all a great example of that. It is appalling. To listen to what you have said makes me wonder, Mr Mitchell, just what planet you are on, to quote your words back to you.

Immigration is a very, very critical part of the Bay of Plenty economy, which I, Todd McClay, and Simon Bridges effectively represent. The Bay of Plenty is the kiwifruit capital of the world. You will be aware that it has suffered from Psa. It is recovering, and the kiwifruit industry has said very clearly that over the next 3 years it needs another 4,000 jobs—4,000 more jobs. Of course, New Zealanders will be a key part of that, but so will migrant workers. [Interruption] Mr Mitchell, could you please get out of your isolationist bubble and go and have a chat to a kiwifruit orchardist? Go and have a chat to a kiwifruit pack house. Have a chat and listen to what they say. They say: “We need more workers. We need New Zealanders and we need migrants who can fill the gap.” That is why this country and this Government are heading in the right direction with this party. The more you outline that view, the more you will disconnect yourself—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

TODD MULLER: I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Mitchell, you get the point.

Tim Macindoe: The member. You meant the member.

TODD MULLER: I did mean the member. Turning back to the specifics in respect of this bill, it is very, very good to see that there is provision in it for significant consequences for exploitation. I mean, the specifics that have been outlined have been worked through by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in terms of jail sentences for up to 7 years and fines not exceeding $100,000. I mean, these are material consequences for those who are proven to be exploiting migrant workers—who are here legally. The migrant workers are doing everything right, they are following all the right processes, and they must have the same protections under law from exploitation. So this is a very, very good piece of legislation, because it sends the right message to employers around the expectations we hold of them to do the right thing for their community, and their employees in particular.

I am very pleased to see the specific provisions in respect of deportation, particularly around those exploitative employers who have themselves come into this country in the last 10 years and been given residential status. I think that the fact that they can potentially be deported will be another very strong and powerful message to do the right thing. It is natural for migrants who come to this country to then at times look for those who can join them from where they have come from to be part of their own workforce, but, of course, they need to follow at all times the expectations we have of all employers to be good employers. If they are not, then, of course, they need to be exposed to the consequences that are outlined in this particular piece of legislation. Exploitation is not right, and the equity issues, where we have seen those law-abiding employers who are doing the right thing being potentially undercut, are not right.

We have heard some great examples of some of the differences this bill will make, particularly from the various submissions that have come in. I think that the biometric information provisions are good—a great blend of cutting-edge technology to assist us in delivering the right policy and getting information to enable us to protect our borders and our people more effectively into the future.

To conclude, I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Immigration, Michael Woodhouse, and, of course, the members of the select committee and its chair, Jonathan Young, who have worked through this legislation. I am very sure that at the end of this process we will have a better framework to protect our migrants and workers in this country. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am very pleased to speak on the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Animal welfare matters to New Zealanders. It matters because we know that animals are sentient—capable of having feelings, perceptions, and experiences. It matters because our multi-billion dollar primary industries are dependent on the welfare of animals from which our primary products are derived; approximately $25 billion is generated from animal products per year. It matters because two-thirds of New Zealand households own at least one pet, and they are much-loved members of their larger extended families. Most important, animal welfare matters because New Zealand is a fair-minded and decent society, and treating animals properly is a part of our culture. It is very much a part of how we define who we are.

New Zealand already has a strong animal welfare system. In November last year the global charity World Animal Protection ranked New Zealand first equal out of 50 countries for our animal welfare regulatory system, alongside the UK, Austria, and Switzerland. That was fantastic. Our existing Animal Welfare Act is already part of our global success; so are our innovative spirit and our constant pursuit of excellence. Animal welfare matters: New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy, released in 2013, defines New Zealand’s two primary animal welfare objectives as being—the first one is caring for our animals, and the second one is “reputation for integrity”. A review of the Act in 2012 identified several areas where the clarity, enforceability, and transparency of the Act could be improved. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill addresses each of these.

The bill explicitly recognises the sentience of animals, as I have already noted. That means that they can have both positive and negative experiences. It clarifies several areas around live animal exports. Mandatory standards and regulations will strengthen protections for animals exported for breeding purposes. The current prohibition of animal exports for slaughter will continue under the Animal Welfare Act instead of the Customs and Excise Act. The ability to regulate surgical and painful procedures will provide clearer responsibilities for those in charge of animals. Conduct towards wild animals that goes beyond generally accepted hunting or killing practice will be an offence under the Act.

The bill creates a tiered enforcement scheme to address repeat low to mid-level offending where existing sanctions have been ineffective. The bill also allows animal welfare inspectors to be proactive by issuing compliance notices, requiring people to take action before their animals suffer. The bill improves the overall transparency of the Act. The amendments make it explicit that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee must consider the practicality and economic impact where relevant, but this cannot override animal welfare considerations. The bill provides clear time limits and justifications for allowing practices that do not fully meet the requirements of the Act. These transitional regulations allow an industry a maximum of 10 years to implement new compliant practices, with a one-off 5-year renewal in very limited situations.

The use of animals in testing, teaching, and in scientific research is controversial and it must be tightly controlled. Part 6 of the Animal Welfare Act already contains a sound ethical framework. This makes it clear that no living animal may be used in any scientific project unless the benefits of that work to humans, other animals, or the environment outweigh the harm to animals involved. The bill now requires the Animal Ethics Advisory Committee to consider whether sufficient regard has been given to using non-living or non-sentient alternatives when projects involving the use of animals in research, testing, or teaching are being considered. The euthanising of animals to undertake research on their tissues or body parts will now also be included in official statistics, in line with international best practice.

There is considerable public concern about the use of animals to test non-essential products such as cosmetics. To the best of our knowledge, cosmetic testing on animals has never been carried out here in New Zealand. The ethical framework means it is very unlikely that such testing would happen in the future. However, the current Act does not expressly ban cosmetic testing on animals. The bill now explicitly bans the use of animals to test finished cosmetic products and ingredients intended to be exclusively used in a cosmetic. This will guarantee that cosmetic testing on animals will never happen in New Zealand. Important research testing or teaching for purposes such as developing human and animal medicines will not be affected. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Green MP Mojo Mathers on this particular issue. Thank you very much.

The primary benefits of this bill will be realised through a programme of regulations that will set clear and specific rules for the care of and conduct towards animals, for the carrying out of surgical and painful procedures on animals, and also for live animal exports. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will be responsible for maintaining these regulations in conjunction with its role in developing codes of welfare. NAWAC, as it is commonly called, and the Ministry for Primary Industries are already working to develop these regulations. Once the bill has been passed they will consult extensively with all affected parties and the wider public to ensure that these regulations are fair, robust, simple to understand, and effective to enforce.

Both industry and advocacy groups engaged extensively with the development and progress of this bill. I want to acknowledge the wide range of submissions received by the Primary Production Committee. I want to also thank the select committee for its hard work on this bill. It has been a truly collaborative process right through from the select committee, working with different political parties here in the House. The Government looks forward to the ongoing engagement of all of these different groups as the regulations are developed over the next 18 months or so.

I am proud of the record of this Government on animal welfare. In 2010 we allocated an additional $8.2 million to support animal welfare compliance and enforcement. This enabled the Ministry for Primary Industries to more than double the number of its animal welfare inspectors, and to provide funding to the SPCA for its very important enforcement work. Penalties and sentences in the Animal Welfare Act were increased, also in 2010. The penalty for wilful ill-treatment was increased from 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment, with a maximum fine of $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for a body corporate. We have banned the use of animal testing for psychoactive substances, banned shark finning, and banned the use of blunt force trauma to euthanise bobby calves. Dry sow stalls are being banned from December this year, and we are phasing out the use of battery cages for hens. A huge amount of work has happened already and there is more to be done.

As I said, I would like to thank the officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Primary Production Committee members, and also members of the public who have taken time to put their input through submissions into this bill. In closing, I would also like to note again that, although New Zealand is now ranked first equal by the global charity World Animal Protection, the bill currently before the House is evidence that we will never be complacent. Our world-leading animal welfare laws are being made even stronger. I commend the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to thank you for giving me the call and to acknowledge right at the beginning the leadership of Mojo Mathers in this debate and in highlighting the issues of animal welfare to the extent now where it is in the political mainstream and a major party has made considerable progress towards having policies in the area that are realistic. It is a pity that the Government has not—but even I will admit that this bill is much better than the current legislation.

I do also want to apologise to that member for my own poor handwriting, which resulted in me indicating to the House that we would support one of the amendments that we were voting on, the “great apes” amendment. We did not, and that was a mistake. I apologise for my handwriting, which was not good enough for the whips to interpret.

The Minister for Primary Industries still does not really get it, though. He does not understand that it is in the economic interest of this country to have a reputation for animal welfare that is much better than the one we currently deserve. Every 2 or 3 months we have examples of farmers who let the side down. They are not typical farmers, they are not run-of-the-mill farmers, but, as I have said on every occasion when I have addressed it, they let the side down. The Minister’s slackness in resourcing the enforcement from the Ministry for Primary Industries is the main reason that many farmers get away with it for years and years and years, and, as a result of that, our reputation is placed at risk.

The Minister needs to know that world views on animal welfare are changing. They are changing in New Zealand; they are changing especially in Europe. And one of the biggest risks that we have is one of the programmes that has been shown on New Zealand television about our awful treatment of animals—mainly pigs but also chickens and occasionally beef cattle—being shown on television in Europe. If that occurs, then our reputation will take a massive hit, and what will make it worse will be if the Minister is shown once again in his apologist mood towards farmers who are cruel to animals. On just about every occasion when one of the series of abuses has been revealed publicly, the Minister has been interviewed and he has been an apologist for the slack enforcement of his ministry—the slack enforcement of his ministry. He has supported its levels of enforcement. He has said that it does a good job. And the problem, which is obvious to everyone, is that he is conflicted on this issue in his ministerial role. He misunderstands his responsibility as the Minister who is responsible for animal welfare, and he tries to sweep cruel practices under the carpet.

There are some things that we should have done here. For example, we should not let cruel practices continue for another 15 years, and that is what that Minister supported. We should be stopping the puppy milling that is occurring in New Zealand, and that is what that Minister supports. We should be stopping the euthanising of the vast majority of greyhound puppies that are born in New Zealand, but that is what that Minister supports. This Government tries to pretend it cares about animals, but if we see the opportunities that are lost as part of this legislation we see that it does not.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.