Wednesday, 16 September 2015

WEDNESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2015

WEDNESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to increase the number of options for alternative flags to five, and to add a question to the first flag referendum under the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015, asking whether New Zealanders want to change the flag at all, and for the bill to be set down for first reading before private and local orders of the day No. 1. I also seek leave for the bill to progress through all stages today.

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

Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard Prosser

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to restructure New Zealand’s red meat industry cooperatives and keep them in New Zealand ownership using capital drawn from the Future Investment Fund, to be set down for first reading today, ahead of members’ order of the day No. 1.

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

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Employment and Income Tax

1. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: How is New Zealand’s labour market supporting resilience and delivering higher incomes for families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Our economic resilience depends in part on a well-functioning labour market. The current participation rate, at 69.3 percent, is the third-highest on record. New Zealand’s employment rate—that is, the share of the working-age population in employment—is among the highest in the OECD, at 65.2 percent. Our labour market is also delivering higher take-home pay for New Zealand families. Average wages rose 3.2 percent in the year to June, well above the inflation rate of 0.4 percent.

David Bennett: What reports has he received showing how the Government’s tax reforms are supporting more jobs and higher incomes from work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Last week Treasury released a working paper looking at the effects of the Government’s 2010 tax package, which reduced income tax and increased GST. Treasury referred to a number of effects—first, that the package increased labour market participation and increased the average hours of work a week; secondly, higher labour supply reduced the annual cost of income tax reduction to welfare spending by up to $230 million. The working paper also found that the tax package was approximately distributionally neutral, as measured by the Gini coefficient.

David Bennett: Who benefits most from the 2010 tax package through better labour market outcomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury found that the net effect of the tax package was a moderate improvement in labour market participation and a lift in working hours by all groups that were examined. The strongest improvements were for single women and, in particular, sole parents, whose participation rate increased by nearly 1 percent as a result of the tax reform, according to the Treasury study.

David Bennett: What additional steps is the Government taking to support more jobs and higher wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We intend to stay on track with our existing policy, and in particular to refresh the Business Growth Agenda, which has proven to be a very successful way of consistently interacting with businesses over what is going to build their confidence to invest another dollar and employ another person. We have already issued a couple of refreshers of the Business Growth Agenda, and we will be issuing more over the coming months.

Grant Robertson: Was per capita GDP negative in the last quarter?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member has pointed out before that it probably was negative in the last quarter. But, of course, this Government does not focus on quarter-to-quarter numbers, because we cannot influence them. We take a longer-term view about lifting the productivity of New Zealand businesses and the resilience of our economy.

Grant Robertson: If the Minister does not focus on quarterly figures, can he confirm that the Reserve Bank slashed a third of its forecast growth in its report last week for an annual figure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank did reduce the forecast of growth because the signs are that the economy will grow more slowly. It did reduce those forecasts from pretty high levels, and it is showing 2 to 2.5 percent growth over the next 12 months, which is moderate. But in the context of rapidly dropping dairy prices, actually it is not a bad result for this economy, if that is what is achieved, because other parts of the economy are growing—for instance, the manufacturing sector is in its 36th month of continuous expansion.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next question—[Interruption] Order! Before I call the next question, would Mr Seymour please remove that visual aid from his desk.

Unemployment—Forecasts

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Prime Minister and asks: why did he say—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection—particularly from the far-left corner but not only from the far-left corner—again goes back to the territory we were in last week. After my specific ruling yesterday, members, be warned that I will not be that patient.

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Why did he say in July last year that “We think unemployment will be down to 4.5 percent in the very foreseeable future”, given unemployment has risen in each successive quarter, and now stands at 5.9 percent?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Because the best information at the time, which was the Treasury 2014 Budget forecast, showed unemployment dropping to 4.5 percent over the forecast period.

Andrew Little: Can he confirm that he predicted a 4.5 percent unemployment rate, which did not happen, but failed to predict the economic slow-down that is happening right now?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I can predict that Treasury did that.

Andrew Little: Does the fact that there are 13,000 more people out of work today than a year ago suggest that a new economic plan is needed; if so, is he now working on plan B, or is that Treasury’s job, too?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member’s ability to analyse the data is not that good. There are 68,000 more people who have been employed over the last 12 months.

Andrew Little: Does he think that business owners in the ANZ confidence survey are wrong when they say that unemployment will rise in the next year; if so, what does he know about their businesses that they do not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: They may be right or they may be wrong—I mean, they are simply having a forecast. Interestingly enough, if you look at the ANZ Business Outlook survey, when it comes to its own business it is a lot more confident, actually, about its own level of activity than others’. Interestingly enough, I think it was about 6 weeks ago that we came into this House and the Labour Party was doing its very, very best to talk dairy prices down to zero, but, by the way, the prices are up 56 percent in 6 weeks.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is actually not relevant to the question that was asked.

Andrew Little: Putting aside his repeated claims that it is the Labour Party that is responsible for everything, and given that the Reserve Bank forecasts a further 5,000 Kiwis will be unemployed by March next year on top of the 50,000 more people unemployed since he came to power, what new plans does he have to get Kiwis back into work?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member’s data is wrong. There are hundreds of thousands more New Zealanders in employment now than when this Government came into office. But here is a suggestion: if the Labour Party wants to see more people in work, support the Trans-Pacific Partnership and stop trying to reverse the 90-day probationary period.

Andrew Little: Does he understand that while he buries his head in the sand and promises jam tomorrow, real Kiwi families are struggling with rising unemployment and the fear of losing their jobs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I will take those as crocodile tears from the Leader of the Opposition, because this Government is a Government that has gone out there and cut ACC levies.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is a Government that has gone out there and extended ultra-fast broadband—well, yes, that is right. We would have laughed too at the state the Labour Government left ACC in, but it was such a disgrace we had to clean it up for them.

Andrew Little: As he enters his 8th year in Government, when is he going to stop blaming an old Government and take responsibility for his own actions?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Given the damage that was done in the 9 long years under Helen Clark, it has taken a while to tidy things up. There is a reasonable case to be made that when people come to Parliament in Opposition screaming their lungs out after 9 years of Government that completely and utterly failed this country, they are held to account. By the way, that will probably carry on for many more years to come.

Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance and Financial Penalties

3. DAVID CLENDON (Green) to the Minister of Corrections: What was the reason for issuing each of the seven performance notices to Serco, which were then withdrawn; and what was the dollar amount for each of those notices?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, my office has been advised this answer may be longer than normal.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Performance notices can be issued for many different reasons by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections under the contract to hold Serco to account for its performance at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. Since the start of the contract, 55 notices have been issued for that reason. The seven notices that were issued and then withdrawn were for the following reasons: unlawful detention of a prisoner, $25,000; adherence to search plans, $50,000; incident and contingency protocols, $50,000; compliance with programme delivery plan, $50,000; compliance with Parole Board reports, $50,000; rate of serious assaults, $50,000; and compliance with initial health screening, $0. There are serious issues, but I am advised that five of the notices were withdrawn because clause 25 of the contract allows Serco to address the issues raised, improve its performance, and provide mitigating circumstances for the Department of Correction’s consideration. It is then for the chief executive to make a decision on the final outcome of each notice. Five notices were withdrawn as the required improvements had been made, one notice was withdrawn as it was an error of the court, not Serco, and one was withdrawn as it was a duplicate of a previous notice.

David Clendon: Does the fact that the Minister, when questioned in the House yesterday, was not aware of a $100,000 penalty that had been withdrawn indicate a dysfunctional relationship between the Minister and the Department of Corrections?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: To the contrary, actually, because the member is confusing two different issues: that is, notices that were issued and withdrawn, which I have just alluded to, and notices that were upheld but no specific deduction was made. “Written notices” means that Serco provided mitigation information and evidence considered to be robust to support the withdrawal of the notice. The notices that Mr Clendon refers to—the $100,000—are performance notices that have been upheld by the department where Serco has been held to account and has rectified the issues and put in place a regime that met the department’s expectations. The two are very separate.

David Clendon: Does the Minister, then, express his support for decisions being made by the Department of Corrections to withdraw financial penalties issued to Serco, even where breaches are being upheld; if so, why?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said, the contract provides for Serco to mitigate certain circumstances and situations, for it to present evidence that is contrary to the breach notice. That is under the contract. I do not, as the Minister, stipulate what is in that contract. It is there for both parties to meet the terms of that contract.

David Clendon: Given that 14 of the 55 performance notices issued have been issued in the last year, six of which were upheld, how many more breaches does Serco have to be guilty of before a final warning is issued?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said time and time again, in terms of final notices and terminations, it is prudent to wait for the investigation that is currently being undertaken by the chief inspectorate.

David Clendon: Given that Serco is running Mt Eden prison in order to make a profit, why are very serious contract breaches nevertheless being excused and financial penalties withdrawn?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That is done on a case by case basis by the chief executive. He makes that call. In terms of the contract, they must follow clause 25 of the contract, and I say to that member that he should go and read clause 25, because clearly he misunderstands it.

David Clendon: In light of recent events, does the Minister agree with former Minister of Corrections Judith Collins, who said in 2010, when Serco won the contract: “I’m confident that the company will bring the high standards of professionalism, safety, rehabilitation, and security expected by the Government to Mt Eden.”?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I, like all Ministers of the Crown, have high expectations around contractors that provide services to the Government.

David Clendon: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am still unsure from the Minister’s answer whether he agrees with the sentiments expressed in that quotation.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I thought the answer addressed the question.

David Clendon: Does the Minister believe that his performance in managing the many problems at Mt Eden will give the public confidence that our prisons are being managed safely and efficiently?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes. I wish to table a performance notice summary of Mt Eden’s corrections performance notices, for all the notices that have been issued.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it something that is available to members on the internet?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, it is not; it is—

Mr SPEAKER: Then I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Tertiary Education—Graduate Employment Data

4. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government helping students make more informed tertiary study decisions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): On Monday I announced that from 2017 all universities, wānanga, and polytechnics will be required to publish information about the employment status and earnings of their graduates, broken down by specific degrees and diplomas. The employment status and earnings data is taken from Statistics New Zealand and is gathered by matching information, on a confidential basis, from the Inland Revenue Department with tertiary qualifications. Students and their families consider many things when deciding what to study and where, but we know that most students expect that their tertiary study will get them a job and improve their career prospects. As New Zealand continues to become more highly skilled it is more important than ever for students to consider carefully their tertiary study options.

Melissa Lee: How will the information help students make better decisions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Students have been able to compare earnings by qualification and field of study at a national level since 2013. From 2017 they will be able to compare graduates’ employment status and earnings by provider as well. This will let students see whether employers prefer graduates from particular providers, and let them compare what and where to study in order to improve their employment prospects. That information helps ensure that the skills people develop in tertiary education are matched to the labour market needs. Tertiary education providers are increasingly working with industry to ensure that this happens, and this information will help them do that.

Melissa Lee: What other initiatives are under way to improve the information that is available for students?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have taken a number of steps to provide students with more and better information to help them with their study decisions. Students can now compare earnings by qualification and field of study on the Careers New Zealand website, and download the occupational outlook app, which gives them an easy-to-use overview of job demand, their likely income levels, and training requirements. Next year we also intend to introduce Rate My Qualification, which will let employers provide direct feedback to tertiary providers and students about the qualifications that they value. These initiatives, taken together, will ensure that students make the most of their very significant investment in tertiary education—for the time and the money they invest in their programmes.

Overseas Investment—Silver Fern Farms

5. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Fletcher Tabuteau: If the Prime Minister believes that it is good that a Chinese State-owned enterprise is buying half of Silver Fern Farms, how does he respond to Alliance Group chairman Murray Taggart, who said that it was important for New Zealand farmers to retain ownership of their industry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: With the greatest respect, he is a competitor, and in the private sector we tend to listen to the shareholders of the company, not the competitors of the company, about whether something is good or bad for them.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How does the Prime Minister respond to concerns that this company has such deep pockets it will outbid New Zealand companies for livestock and very quickly force New Zealand meat processors out of business?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would take all of that with a grain of salt. I did watch the news last night and I think—yes, if you look at Television One’s coverage of the issue, they interviewed what seemed to be an eminently sensible farmer down south, who said she looked forward, actually, to the roadshows and to hearing the good things that might happen, and this was a company that had gone from being massively indebted to potentially having cash in the bank and being ready to invest in New Zealand. I would have thought that is good for New Zealand—jobs and opportunities for our farmers.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Who is correct here: is it the Prime Minister saying that the Government was never approached by Silver Fern Farms, or his Minister of Finance, who avoided meeting them for a year on potential investment questions? That sounds like the Government was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think—I never said that. I think the member asked me the question yesterday, and I said that I have not been approached by them on this particular issue—other Ministers maybe have been but I do not run the diary of every Minister in Cabinet, otherwise I would be very, very busy.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would speculate on whether higher competition for stock in New Zealand leads to higher prices for New Zealand farmers.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, can I say that that is the best question I have had in the House all—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer it.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I will answer. The answer, in a word, is yes. I could hold up a sign that would say that, but the expert at holding up signs is in London at the moment—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do believe that it is against the Standing Orders to refer to the absence of a member.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, unfortunately for that member, the member who is being spoken of is actually considered to be in the precincts of Parliament during this 2-week period, while in fact he is in London swanning around as the media—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]. The question is actually—

Fletcher Tabuteau: If the Chinese Government, through this company, owns half of Silver Fern Farms, can the Prime Minister assure Kiwi meatworkers that they will not simply be replaced by Chinese workers under the Chinese free-trade agreement temporary employment entry criteria?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have thought that was highly unlikely in the same way that when Bright Dairy and Food came into New Zealand and bought a big chunk of, I think, Synlait, it did not replace New Zealand workers. The last time I looked, actually, under the same free-trade agreement that he is talking about, given that Fonterra has bought a big chunk of Beingmate, I did not notice a fast track of New Zealand workers going over to work in China. We have had foreign investment in this country for decades. For the most part it has been highly successful in transforming New Zealand and allowing us to have businesses with stronger capital bases. In the end it is for the owners of Silver Fern Farms to decide whether they want this, not the Government. We do not own Silver Fern Farms, although we accept that if New Zealand First had its way, we would own everything in New Zealand. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]. Order! That is the sort of interchange we are not going to see happening in this House.

Housing Market, Auckland—Building Consents and Legislative Reform

6. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Can he confirm that the 1,116 building consents issued in July in Auckland, and the 8,567 for the latest year, are the highest in 10 years, and what further steps is he taking to ensure the new build rate of houses in Auckland continues to grow?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes, building is at a faster rate than for a decade, and the initiatives that the Government has taken with the housing accord and special housing areas are bearing fruit. The house build rate in Auckland has grown by rates of 29 percent, 31 percent, and 20 percent over the last 3 years, making it the longest and strongest building boom in Auckland’s history. The next hurdle is that the fast-track zoning powers of the special housing area law expire in October next year. It is crucial that we support Auckland in completing the unitary plan by then. That is why today I have announced further legislation to streamline that process and give the Auckland Council the tools to complete the new plan this council term.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What are the specific problems the Auckland Council and the independent hearings panel are incurring that require a law change to see this process completed in a timely way?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The hearing panel is doing a sterling job in preparing the biggest resource management plan covering one-third of New Zealand’s population in the fastest time ever. It has worked through thousands of submissions on the general planning policies but now has over 5,000 separate requests to be heard on site-specific property issues. The bill that I have announced will enable a lesser quorum of two panel members, and extra panel members are to be appointed, it will enable multiple hearings to occur simultaneously, and it will also enable the panel to progressively report the plan to the council for its adoption, to ensure that it is completed next year.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What reports does the Minister have that indicate that the house build rate will continue to grow in Auckland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The National Construction Pipeline report prepared by the Building Research Association of New Zealand and Pacifecon is projecting a massive investment in new housing over the next 6 years. It projects 80,000 new homes being built in Auckland over that period, as compared with 30,000 over the past 6 years. I am particularly encouraged by the fact that this year’s report predicts a growth rate 26 percent faster than in its report of just 1 year ago. The challenge for the Government and the council is in streamlining the planning, resource, and building consent processes so that we also ensure the new communities and homes that are being built are of good quality.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that at the current build rate of only 8,567 consents per year in Auckland, based on the Productivity Commission’s analysis, the housing shortfall will grow from 32,000 last year to nearly 59,000 by 2020—and that is from the Productivity Commission.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. No, I do not accept that, and I do not accept the member’s analysis of the build rate. It is interesting to note that when Labour released its housing policy at the last election, it said that it would take it 5 years to grow the build rate to as fast as what we have achieved—i.e., the results that this Government has achieved over the last year. A 20 percent increase in build rate is significantly faster than what Labour’s own policy said that it could achieve.

Building Materials—Tariffs and Auckland Housing Market

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: How much does the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment estimate has been saved on building materials for a standard home by the Government’s suspensions of tariffs and anti-dumping duties on building products, and, since its commencement in July 2014, by how many dollars has the price of the average Auckland home increased?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The ministry stands by its estimate that the removal of tariffs and duties on building materials will save $3,500 on an average new home construction. The full benefits of this will take time to flow through because it takes time to set up new supply lines, it takes time to change New Zealand standards, and it takes time to become familiar with alternatives in the design of houses. It is simplistic and flawed to link the cost of building materials for new homes to the Quotable Value valuations for all homes, as 98 percent of them were actually built before the change was made. It is no more correct to blame the 20 percent increase in Auckland house prices that has occurred since July 2014 on the National Government than it is to blame the Labour Government for the 29 percent increase in house prices that occurred when Labour was in Government.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has advised that the savings from his scheme may be as low as $582 per house and that in general they have made “no discernible impact on prices”, while the average Auckland house price has gone up by over $150,000 in the same period, according to Quotable Value?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not accept the member’s claims. I would note that house prices doubled during the period of the previous Government, and it did not take a single step. The house build rate collapsed during Labour’s period to just 200 houses in a month. We have got over 1,100 homes built in the last month that has been reported.

Phil Twyford: Is he surprised that the consumer has seen none of the estimated savings of $2,500 on plasterboard despite falls in import prices; if so, why is he surprised, given that his own officials warned him that in an overheated market like Auckland’s, builders and developers would simply pocket those savings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that since the Government made the changes, the import of plasterboard from Thailand has more than doubled. Secondly, I note that if we look at the Consumers Price Index around building materials, they grew by an average of 5 percent per year under the previous Government and they have grown by an average of 2 percent per year under this Government, showing that we have been far more successful in keeping building materials costs under control compared with the previous administration.

Phil Twyford: Why did he say: “I don’t have information that builders are being induced to buy a particular product.” when the Commerce Commission found that the Fletcher’s subsidiary Winstone Wallboards has agreements with all the major merchants that include kickback payments and one agreement that outright prevents the largest retailers stocking alternative brands?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Commerce Commission undertook a comprehensive investigation into those allegations. It came to the conclusion that there was no breach of the law. The member’s comments have about as much hot air as similar claims that were made by the Opposition on supermarkets, which also came to naught.

Phil Twyford: Why has he been talking a big game on the high cost of building supplies for the last 3 years, while his main policy has resulted in zero savings for consumers, and meanwhile he has been ignoring the bigger issue, which is anti-competitive rorts in the building supplies market?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We should judge by results. Under the previous Labour Government, building materials increased by 5 percent per year. Since we have been the Government, building materials have increased by half that rate. That is what counts.

Phil Twyford: Your policy was a failure.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says that the policy is not working. Actually, we are building a faster rate of house build—double since I became Minister—and at a faster rate that has been going for more than 10 years.

Electricity Generation—Solar Energy and Regional Regulations

8. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he agree with the Treasury that solar electricity generation is one of the opportunities with the “most potential” to “reduce our carbon dioxide emissions in the medium-to-long-term”; if so, does he think the current rules are working to give Kiwis going solar a fair go?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes, I generally agree with Treasury’s full statement that technological advances in electric vehicles, biofuels and fuel switching, and renewable energy—e.g., solar—offer the most potential. I also, in answer to the second part of the question, think the rules are fair. That is why solar photovoltaic rates have skyrocketed since I have been Minister.

Gareth Hughes: So why does a country of only 4 million people have 29 different regional rules, forms, fees, and resource consent processes for someone to just put up a solar panel on their roof?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would have to check those facts. I think, actually, what we have got is an incredibly successful electricity market, with an Electricity Authority and a piece of legislation that are very simple. I appreciate the member wants to wreck that, but I do not accept that is a good thing to do.

Gareth Hughes: Why is it the case that a household that wants to go solar in Auckland likely faces no charges whatsoever to connect to the grid, while only an hour and a half’s drive down the road to Cambridge it can face $850 to do exactly the same thing?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I find that hard to believe. In fact, as I say, it is a very competitive market. In relation to solar, for example, what we know is that there is a range of retailers offering quite a number of buy-back schemes in relation to excess generation. Actually, a number of them are above the wholesale price, and in one case in Auckland it is over double. So I think it is a very competitive market delivering what is required, and, as I say, solar is going up exponentially.

Gareth Hughes: For a Minister who was just recently claiming credit for solar growth in New Zealand and cannot seem to answer particularly many questions, can he answer the question: does the country need a standard, nationwide framework for solar connections to simplify the process and to cut the red tape; and will the Minister respond to my invitation to sit down and talk about the “Fair Go for Solar Bill”?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions, the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am stung by that personal attack, but can I say that we have an excellent system for solar. That is why people are voting with their wallets and investing much more in it. That is why, actually, quite a number of companies are offering buy-back schemes above the wholesale price. I think it is an excellent system that we should not meddle with.

Child Poverty—Measurement and Reduction Targets

9. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: If reducing child poverty is a priority for her Government, why has the number of children living in poverty, based on the Household Incomes in New Zealand report, increased from 260,000 in 2013, to 305,000 in 2014?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, as I call the Minister, I have been advised that this answer will be longer than normal.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): The member is misrepresenting the Household Incomes in New Zealand report, which uses multiple measures of poverty and hardship. I refer the member to page 131 on the household incomes report, which states that making the sort of claim that the member has just made in her question is not correct and “is misleadingly matter-of-fact.” and “breaches the reports’ multi-level approach to monitoring.” For the benefit of the member, the household incomes report shows that the median household income increased significantly last year, while the earnings of those on the lowest incomes have remained stable. That has increased the number of children living in households with incomes of less than 60 percent of the median income after housing costs, despite their incomes remaining the same. Using that member’s logic of relying on a single measure, we would have reduced child poverty if the median income had fallen. This is obviously nonsensical and shows the importance of using a number of measures to assess long-term trends in poverty and hardship.

Jacinda Ardern: Is child poverty too high in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have just outlined in my answer to the primary question, it is very difficult to use one measure to determine poverty and hardship. However, this Government is determined to address the most severe hardship for our children, which is why in Budget 2015 we increased the benefit rate by $25 a week for the first time in 43 years, and we increased Working for Families for those low-income working families. Again, huge measures have been put in place to address the hardship that the lowest-income families in New Zealand have.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I deliberately asked a very short question: is child poverty too high in New Zealand? That was off the back of the Minister’s first answer, which I listened to. I asked for her determination. She did not give me an answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In fact, three of her colleagues interjected through the answer “Answer it—yes or no.” I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 187/4, which states that you cannot demand a yes or no answer, no matter how clear the question is. [Interruption] Order! I am still ruling. On this occasion the best way forward, I suggest, is that I will give an additional supplementary question to the member Jacinda Ardern.

Jacinda Ardern: Is child poverty too high in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am unable to answer that question. As the household incomes report points out, there is no way on one measure to actually answer that question. I refer the member to the annex to section H, which brings together all the measures relating to low-income and material hardship findings for children, which draws on both the incomes report and the companion report that goes with it. That is what we should be using to determine severe hardship and hardship in New Zealand families.

Jacinda Ardern: If child poverty is a priority, will she use Social Justice Week to set targets to reduce it like the UK has done; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said again in a previous answer, this Government is determined to address severe hardship for New Zealand families. That is why in Budget 2015 we brought in a package worth $790 million addressed to those families receiving the very lowest incomes. That is about actions that we take, not having special weeks to recognise it.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister specifically about whether or not she would set targets. I still did not feel like that question was addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member also referred to whether child poverty is a priority for the Government, and, without a doubt in my mind, the question was addressed on this occasion.

Jacinda Ardern: Why has the Minister set targets to reduce child abuse but will not set targets to reduce child poverty?

Grant Robertson: What a good question.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, it is an excellent question, actually. And the answer to the member is that it is very easy to measure the number of assaults on children. That is a very easy thing to measure. However, as the report points out—and, again, I direct the member’s attention to the annex to section H in the report that she is quoting from in the primary question, which brings together a range of measures that is needed to give a true picture of what is happening in those low-income New Zealand families.

Jacinda Ardern: Which elements of Labour’s child poverty bill, which sets five targets for reducing child poverty across five measures, does she disagree with; if she cannot name them, will she support the bill?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have the bill in front of me.

Avocado Industry—Performance and Government Initiatives to Support

10. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in the avocado industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recent reports show that the avocado industry has experienced record volumes, with 7.9 million trays produced this year. This is up from 4.9 million trays in the previous year. I am sure that New Zealand’s growth will be a topic of conversation at the World Avocado Congress in Peru this week. Also, 90,000 new Kiwi households are now purchasing avocados and record volumes are being exported to priority Asian markets. Average orchard gate returns for growers are now almost $25,000 per hectare, up from $20,700 last year.

Todd Muller: How is the Government supporting this growth in the avocado industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. The Government has partnered with the avocado industry in the 5-year, $8.5 million Avocados Go Global Primary Growth Partnership programme. This will transform our avocado industry into a globally competitive, high-value, sustainable export industry, alongside a growing domestic market. The programme will help support the industry to triple productivity to 12 tonnes per hectare and quadruple industry returns from $70 million to $280 million by 2023. Also, the Korean free-trade agreement is hugely positive for the avocado industry.

Pest Control—1080 Poison Use in Coromandel

11. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she have confidence in all aspects of her department’s use of compound 1080 poison?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Yes I do because 1080 remains the most effective method of controlling predator numbers in difficult hill country, and I strongly support its continued use in conservation efforts. The success of the Battle for our Birds shows how important 1080 really is in protecting our native creatures.

Richard Prosser: If she is satisfied that the department did the right thing with its unusual step of not closing tracks or restricting public access to the Coromandel Forest Park during last Sunday’s 1080 poison drop because it “did not see the bait as a safety risk”, why is she satisfied?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There was no need to close the tracks, because there was sufficient warning given to everybody who would be likely to be in that area that there were poison drops. The notification process has been exhaustive—490 landowners have been informed, 53 schools, 12 concessionaries, 12 permitted fur trappers, and three apiarists were consulted by phone 48 hours prior to the drop. And just in case anybody missed that, there were 180 signs of this size all around the main entrance points that were taken along the roads in Coromandel.

Richard Prosser: Is she satisfied that the department met all conditions of resource consent No. 122295, and that the manufacturer’s guidelines on the use of 1080, which, according to Animal Control Products is a deadly poison and ecotoxic, were followed?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Yes.

Richard Prosser: How does she reconcile that answer with the fact that the bait-processing area was within 100 metres of a perennial waterway, that bait was dropped into a registered drinking-water supply, and that the park was not closed?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The park did not need to be closed, and that was the view of the medical officer who deemed that public safety was not at risk. Ultimately, the resource consents are decided through the councils and the public health safety issues are decided by the medical officers of health. They were both satisfied with the arrangements.

Richard Prosser: Is she satisfied with the fact that members of the public, including three busloads of young Limited Service Volunteers who entered the area at the time, were not informed about the drop and thus denied the choice as to whether they were exposed to deadly poison being dropped on them from the air?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I draw the member’s attention to the answer I gave earlier and the signage that was present. If you say that nobody read the 180 signs in the areas around that area—they could easily have seen that, so they needed to have looked at the signs. There were also notices in the newspaper, as well as all of the affected individuals whom I listed earlier being told. In addition to that, there are very strict controls around 80 metre buffer zones as to where these drops can be taken. They were dropped in the appropriate quantities of around 2 kilograms per hectare, and the conditions were met. There have been no complaints from members of the public, either to the regional council or to the health authorities.

Tertiary Institutes—Monitoring and Investigations into Funding

12. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he stand by all his statements to the House last week in respect of tertiary education organisations?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement regarding funding requirements on tertiary organisations that oversight agencies are “entitled to expect that the governors and operators meet those requirements and make representations to the Tertiary Education Commission that are correct.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I do.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is he aware that a sitting National MP was a member of that board and oversaw this systemic rorting; if so, has he asked Barbara Kuriger MP why rorting at Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre went on for so long under her watch and what she did about it?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is being deliberately nasty, and—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In relation to Taratahi, there are some issues, as the member knows. I would point out that there is an investigation, from the Tertiary Education Commission and from other agencies. I think we should let those other agencies complete their investigations.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Respectfully, I do not believe that the Minister has addressed the specific question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was quite long. There were two parts to the question—was he aware that this particular National member was on the board, and the second part was whether he had spoken to her—

Hon David Cunliffe: Had he asked her, yes, and—

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce, if he could address either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why was no action taken by the Tai Poutini Polytechnic council in relation to a Protected Disclosures Act investigation, requested by a quality assurance manager in 2013 because of a “failure to maintain an auditable standard of enrolment and credit, and because of health and safety concerns.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member would like to provide the information that he claims to be the case, then I would be more than happy to have a look at it for him. I have looked at the information that he has provided through the media last week in relation to some suggested matters with Tai Poutini Polytechnic and so far have not been able to discern anything that has not already been previously addressed. But, if he has an issue he would like to raise, I am more than happy for him to supply that information and I will address it.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a document showing that allegations of systemic rorting were raised with the Tai Poutini Polytechnic council on 20 December 2013—it being a letter from a then quality assurance manager, dated 20 December 2013, to a then council member.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a letter to myself from that quality assurance manager—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: —and I refer to the fact that the letter is not publicly available—and it asks why the Tertiary Education Commission would investigate and say that the figures for the courses were accurate, when evidence—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The letter has now been described. It does not need to be further described. Leave is sought to table that particular letter to the honourable member. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify that, was there objection—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ruled that there was objection. I heard objection.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can the public have confidence in the National Government’s oversight of tertiary institutions when more examples of tertiary rorting are coming to light every week, and now a member of its own caucus is implicated in this scandal?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part of the question is out of order. I will allow the very first part; the last part is completely out of order.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: “Detective Sherlock” over there has so far released some information into the public domain—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been called.

Chris Hipkins: You have been much more rigid in your application of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings this week, and one of the most basic Standing Orders is that members have to be referred to by their appropriate names or titles.

Mr SPEAKER: I actually did not hear the interjection. I do acknowledge that if there was an interjection, I did not hear it. If the Minister would start his answer again—he was simply asked how New Zealanders could have confidence in tertiary education. [Interruption] No, I do not need any assistance from the member. The member has asked the question, and it has not yet been answered.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member raised some information in the public domain in the last few days, all of which has been raised previously with the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and thoroughly investigated at the time. From what I can see, the member has got completely the wrong end of the stick, but if he has new information, I repeat my invitation to him. Rather than grandstanding about it, I am happy to read it and see whether it needs acting on.

Points of Order

Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design Options

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw to your attention that the Hon Maggie Barry is currently wearing a lapel badge of one of the flag design options in the—[Interruption] Silence!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we have the point of order, please.

RON MARK: The point of order is that I would like to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 18/1 regarding advertising. I have a second point of order. Am I entitled to have this heard in silence?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, if the member would come with a point of order and get to it quickly, I would listen to it. Otherwise we are wasting the House’s time. Can I have the point of order.

RON MARK: The point of order is regarding advertising in the House and regarding being in breach of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act passed through this House, and the appropriateness of a person wearing an advertising lapel pin of one of the flag designs, which should not be worn.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The choice of lapel badge by any member of Parliament is in fact their own choice. It can well be considered to be a piece of jewellery. I just notice that one of the members on that member’s side is wearing a silver fern, which could equally—no, no, the member is not; he has got his SAS badge on. But the other members have a silver fern on and that could equally be considered advertising, as, of course, could the various boxes sitting over there. They could be considered advertising for New Zealand First. I think we have got to be very, very careful that we do not get too precious about this. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not need any further assistance. I do not consider for one moment that the wearing of a lapel badge or a fern like I often wear is in any way advertising and breaching the rules of this House.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today it is almost 1 year since the National Party won the 2014 election and went on to form another strong, stable Government with our coalition partners, whose role in that I want to acknowledge, as well as the way that they have underpinned a stable Government for New Zealand. It is not quite 1 year; it is 4 days off, which is more days than the number of policies the Labour Party has announced. In fact, that is 3 more days, because it has announced one.

Hon Steven Joyce: Oh, what was that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the economy has been softening lately and there has been a bit of concern in the public about what is maintaining its growth. The Reserve Bank made the observation last week that one thing maintaining growth in the New Zealand economy when dairy prices are down is migration, which we know to be, actually, at record highs in total. The Labour Party has announced one policy—it has been a busy year for Grant Robertson—and the one policy is: reduce migration. It is one of the things that is holding up the economy and helping it grow, and the one policy the Labour Party has decided to announce is to reduce it.

Well, there have been one or two other sort-of polices. The other one is: if you have a Chinese name, you are not allowed to bid at a house auction in Auckland.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Brownlee.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Brownlee is out. Well, we could go through it all. It does not seem to have worked, though, because all those thousands of New Zealanders who have Chinese names—some of them are turning up to the auctions and still bidding. So there we have it—one policy and one sort-of half policy.

Well, as someone said to me on the way in to the House, the definition of “red peak” is Labour polling 30 percent. Well, actually, the fifth leader is polling almost as well as Phil Goff—five leaders ago—when he lost.

Hon Steven Joyce: Progress.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, that is progress. In the world of the Labour Party, that is progress.

Let us compare that with the John Key - led Government. Let us compare that. I have got only 3 minutes left to go through the things that we have implemented in that 1 year, but I will just mention one or two: free doctors visits for under-13s and the first increase in benefits for family households in 43 years. We have tripled the internet speeds—tripled the internet speeds. We are on a path back to surplus, that is for sure. We have had the largest, longest, best-organised infrastructure spend that the country has ever seen.

There is a further long list of achievements, but the good news is that there is more to come. This is only year 1—only year 1—and that is what the Labour Party has not quite figured out. It is in year 8 of being a stale, irrelevant Opposition; we are in year 1 of being a focused, energetic, creative Government. That is how it is. Out ahead of us is a continuous building of innovation in New Zealand business, for instance. We have really only just got started after 8 very successful years.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The sole mantra of the National Party over its years in Government has been this: “Sell it off, sell it off.” At every point, with every issue, with every need that New Zealanders have had, the single response from the National Government has been to sell it off—sell it off.

The Green Party is here to deliver on the hopes of New Zealanders for a better, a cleaner, and a greener future. We give a voice to the growing number of New Zealanders who are making changes in their own lives to build a better future for themselves and their families, and, for more and more of those people, that future is one where our core public services, to which we are all entitled as citizens of this country—like health services, like education services, and like the justice services—are run for the benefit of the community as a whole and not for some of the National Party’s friends who want to derive a profit from it.

Under National, we have seen a rapid decline in public services and an absolutely massive increase in privatisation and a shift of wealth from the public sphere to the private sphere. For every review and every assessment of critical services, the same solution arises out of the National Government, and that is to sell it off—a sell-off of the public wealth and of the history of this country.

There is a housing crisis, with thousands of New Zealand families in this country desperate for a warm, safe, secure, and affordable home—totally desperate—and they look to the values of the past, when housing was treated as a basic right of every New Zealand family. Every New Zealand family and every citizen was entitled to decent housing. What has happened to that basic right under the National Government? It has been demolished by National bulldozers. That is what we have seen. Where are those homes for the thousands of New Zealand families who desperately need them? Sold off—that is what is happening with those homes. They are being sold off in the towns and the cities where people love to live, where they want to build a community.

In critical services for children, for the most vulnerable children—whether it is Child, Youth and Family or welfare, we know that decades of neglect by Governments means that children’s lives are at risk. State care has been the most dangerous place for children in this country. Families are being driven into the ground for want of a basic, but decent, income so that they can provide for their kids. We all know that the solution to poverty is to fix incomes, but what is the National Government’s solution? Privatise the welfare system, sell off the welfare system, and take children’s well-being out of the hands of families and communities and place it instead in the hands of corporates and profiteers. That is the sole National solution rolled out in this country.

National has lost touch with the real lives of New Zealanders and is failing to show the leadership on the issues that so many families care about—feeding our kids in schools, for example. It is a basic, core issue New Zealanders believe in and love, and National has said no.

The classic example of the debacle of the privatisation agenda of this Government is our prisons. We told Governments years ago that privatising prisons would lead to failure, that it would be expensive, and that it would not work, and it turns out, of course, that we were right, as everyone said at the time. Time after time we have seen Serco exposed for its failures and the Minister of Corrections exposed for his complete inability to handle that portfolio. He really needs to go. He either knew that all of these things were going on with Serco and did nothing about it, or he did not know because he has neglected that portfolio. Either way, the Minister needs to go. He is a complete failure as a Minister of a critical, core public service that needs to be kept in the hands of the public, and thousands of New Zealanders believe that. Thousands of New Zealanders, even National voters, want the prisons to go back into public ownership and public management.

Families should be able to have what they need to live a good life and to care for their families: high-quality education, accessible health care, and respect for the amazing work that is parenting. The Green Party is the only party with the new ideas that will build this better future for New Zealanders. We have the experience and the track record, and we will deliver. We will protect and return to public ownership and public management those services that the National Government has been so committed to selling off. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): One year on from the 2014 general election I need a basic question answered: what on earth does the Labour Party actually stand for? I have never witnessed in 25 years a Labour Party that is so rudderless, so uncertain as to what it believes in and in what it stands for, and so leaderless. It is all over the paddock on the issues that matter. Week after week we hear the Labour Party members speaking out of both sides of their mouths and engaged in doublespeak. Let us just look at the last week. Andrew Little said yesterday that Governments must not run deficits. He criticised the Prime Minister for some of the deficits that we ran post the global financial crisis. Yet on Sunday we had Grant Robertson saying: “I think the Government should run some more deficits.” So can Labour members tell me: are you for deficits, or are you against deficits?

Then we come to the issue of immigration. Andrew Little for the last 2 weeks has been saying that New Zealand needs to take more migrants, and I thought that was a genuinely held view from the Labour Opposition. Then Grant Robertson turns up—he forgot to tell Andrew Little—on Sunday morning, on Q+A, saying that Labour’s policy is to reduce the number of migrants. I would love to know Labour’s position.

Just after the general election Andrew Little said that Labour is opposed to a capital gains tax. Then why is it that in every single debate I have with Phil Twyford on housing, he says we need to address supply and we need a capital gains tax? Can Labour members say where they stand on that issue?

Then I come to the issue of housing, and on housing I have heard Mr Phil Twyford say that interest rates going up is bad. Then, when interest rates go down, he says it is bad. When we increase housing supply he says it is bad. Again, they are all over the paddock.

Then we come to education. We have the issue of charter schools, and we hear Labour saying repeatedly in this House that charter schools are bad. Then we have Labour members hopping off to raise funds for charter schools in Whangarei and saying that they are good.

Then, this week, we had something even more extraordinary. I thought that Labour was opposed to the private provision of social services. That is what I have heard in this House. Then I turned on the radio on Monday morning and I heard a Labour MP decrying the Minister of Education for closing the Pacific Christian School for non-performance and saying we should be keeping it open. Again, I have to say I am confused.

But the one thing I thought that Labour always stood for is inclusiveness. If there was any party in this Parliament that I thought stood up for people not being treated on the basis of race it was the Labour Party. I thought it was right at its core that it would not be playing racial games with issues. Yet then we had the leader and Phil Twyford running their campaign of blaming the housing issue on people with Chinese-sounding names. It was so bad we had Winston Peters blushing. You see, Labour’s problem is that it has ripped up its core values.

I come finally to the issue of the new flag. At the election Labour said, and I read this out word for word: “The time has come for change.” Labour members said there should be a referendum on a new flag. Well, I say to Mr Little, why is it that voters cannot trust you? It is because only 1 year ago you went to voters with a policy, and you are reversing on it. And in respect of the Red Peak flag I have to say that the Prime Minister has been very generous. He said that if Labour wants to honour its policy and support the referendum, well, he will go the extra mile and will include the Red Peak flag on the referendum, but all Labour has to do is stand for what it stood for just 12 months ago. And so my plea is: can someone, anyone, anywhere, please tell me what Labour does stand for.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I wish I had brought my handkerchief down to the House, so that I could wipe the saliva off my face from the member, Nick Smith, who was frothing at the mouth as he made that speech.

Many members of this House realise that this is Social Justice Week. It is the week when the Catholic bishops of New Zealand set aside time to highlight how they see New Zealand families faring. This year they have called the week “What does it take for all families to flourish?”, and they are looking particularly at family poverty.

I have to say that I really do admire the forthright way they go about highlighting the issues, without fear or favour, on behalf of New Zealanders. Caritas, their NGO that does most of the work, has a vision of working for a world free of poverty and injustice. So I was very disappointed to hear the Minister for Social Development sneer at Social Justice Week. It probably sums it up: that is how the National Party treats those who go out there and stand up on behalf of New Zealand. It made me think about how hard it is for organisations like Caritas to achieve their goals and their visions, when they have got a Government that at best distorts the facts and at worst indulges in malicious fabrications—because there is one word that cannot be said in this House by that Government.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What is it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That word is “poverty”. They will not mention the word. It is the word that cannot be said. It does not exist. They think there are other words you should use such as “vulnerable people”. Today it was “those in hardship”, or as the Minister said “very low-income”. But never say “poverty”, because if you say it, then it might exist. It might actually exist in New Zealand.

You see, I can see a pattern from this Government, and it is a pattern of cover-ups. It is a pattern of covering up the evidence and the information, denying reality. You got it from the Prime Minister today. You got it from many Ministers. Black is white, even if it is not, as they deny the realities of what is happening in New Zealand. Then they blame everybody else. Going into the eighth year, and they are crowing today that it is 1 year since they became the Government. It is 8 years they have been in now, since they became the Government, and it is still everybody else’s fault. So they blame the beneficiaries. Well, of course, they crow about how they gave beneficiaries the first increase in 40 years—

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s right, that’s right.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, for the cabin boy, I will tell him that National was the first Government in 40 years to cut the benefit. Bill English, who crowed about it today, was in that very Government. None of us have forgotten the Budget of 1991, when they slashed the benefit. They did not even restore it to what it was, and this is some great win! So they blame the beneficiaries, and then they blame the protesters.

We are a country that has always allowed people to get out there and say what they think. So what do they call protestors? They are “rent-a-crowd”. Well, of course, the Prime Minister has never protested over anything. He cannot even remember what side he was on during the Springbok Tour. So you would never have seen him on a protest.

Then they blame the unions. They call the unions our political enemies. Well, it is the unions that got off their chuffs and got out there and fought for health and safety for workers in New Zealand, not this Government. They wanted to say that workers working in dangerous workplaces were OK, but if you worked in a worm farm or a butterfly farm, that was very dangerous. It is the unions that have stood up for New Zealanders. Then they have to blame everybody else: the lefties, the loonies, anybody else they can put in there.

Then they create total new histories, a whole rewrite of entire histories of what has happened in New Zealand. Most of us cannot believe it. We are told the economy was left in a very bad state by the very Minister of Finance who said in December 2008 that the previous Government had left this country ready for the rainy day that had come. So how come, after 8 years of rewriting history, the previous Government was the worst Government, which had no Government debt, which had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, and that had left this country in a far better position than it is in today?

There we have, I have to say, the hallmarks of a Government that you could not trust. You could not trust a Government that goes on making up political targets, goes on making up its truth, and fooling New Zealanders. Where have we got to?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): This weekend we are 1 year on from election 2014. [Interruption] In 4 days, Annette King, we are 1 year on from the greatest National Party victory, perhaps, actually, ever. What has happened in a year? Well, let me tell you. As Bill English has said, we have got free doctors visits for under-13s, something Annette King in all her time in Government over many years could not achieve. We have got benefit increases—the biggest in some 40 years. We have got the biggest and the best infrastructural investment plan this country has ever seen, and my portfolio is—

Hon Annette King: “Team Bridges”

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: “Team Bridges”—that is not the half of it, Annette King. Nine of them are in Tauranga on the Tauranga Eastern Link, and several of them are in Huntly, on the Huntly section being opened. In energy, 14,000 homes are being insulated. In electricity, renewables are going through the roof. We have a record already, 1 year into our third term, of achievement, of strength, and of stability. But it is also a year of contrasts. The Prime Minister has given us 7 years of stable, strong leadership.

What about the countries we compare ourselves with? Well, in the US, of course, we have got a situation where, through general dissatisfaction, the leadership contest for the presidency is absolutely wide open. In the United Kingdom, Jeremy Corbyn has come through—a guy who voted against his party some 500 times, and senior colleagues will not work with him.

Hon Annette King: What happened to Tony Abbott?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes, let us come to Australia. We have got a country that has changed its leader almost as many times as Andrew Little has changed his position on the flag—probably not that many, but quite a number. There have been four Prime Ministers, I think it is, in the time that John Key has led New Zealand. But to be fair, that is not as many leaders as the Labour Party has had in that time. That is not as many leaders at the Labour—

Hon Annette King: Oh, hang on a minute: Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, Bill English. I can go through the National Party.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I wonder whether Annette King can actually name all of those Labour Party leaders. Let me give her a clue: they are still in Parliament—they are actually still in Parliament. None of them has left, and they sit there like those old guys on The Muppet Show, and they talk at weekends. So Labour is on to its fifth leader. When, Jacinda Ardern, will it have its sixth?

Despite the revolts by Jeremy Corbyn, and despite the fact that he will not sing the national anthem—actually, what is it about Labour Opposition leaders and the national anthem? But despite those things, Jeremy Corbyn is still more popular than Andrew Little. So, Jacinda Ardern, when will it be six leaders for the Labour Party, under John Key’s tenure? That is the other contrast between strong, stable leadership from this Government and an Opposition in absolute disarray.

Labour has had 7 years to work out some policy in Opposition—7 years. Its policies are—wait for it—on its website. They are—I think this is right—under review. It has been 7 years, and its policies are under review. Actually, that is a bit unkind to Grant Robertson, who on Q+A said that Labour is discussing its economic plan. It is good to know that it is discussing it, because—

Hon Annette King: You’ll only steal our policies.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, the member does have a policy. Basically, it is talking down the economy, and, actually, to be fair, we think that that is a winning strategy for the National Party. That is a winning strategy for National, because it seems that every time Labour says there is a crisis, the problem starts getting better. We have seen it with manufacturing. Grant Robertson said there was crisis, and the numbers went up. It was the same with unemployment—the numbers went up. Actually, the latest example of that was in dairy, I think. As soon as Grant Robertson started talking about a crisis, the global dairy trade numbers started to get better. That is what I call the reverse Midas touch.

The contrasts do not just stop there—between strong, stable leadership on this side of the House and what is happening internationally; and between strong, stable leadership for this country on this side of the House and the disarray in the Opposition. Actually, there are also disagreements and contrasts within the Labour Party. Grant Robertson wants deficits; Andrew Little, not so much. Clare Curran is excited by Jeremy Corbyn; David Shearer—I know—not so much. In terms of charter schools, Kelvin Davis loves them; Andrew Little, not so much. In terms of regional skilled immigration, Stuart Nash loves it; Andrew Little, not so much. In terms of farmers and health and safety, well, Andrew Little wants more of that; Damien O’Connor does not.

I am proud to be in the party that is providing strong, stable leadership while everyone else is contrasting with that. The good news is that there are at least 2 more years to go to make this country better and better.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, let us talk about 1 year on—let us talk about 1 year on. It is 1 year on and what are we looking at? One year on in 8 years of Government and we are seeing headlines like this one in the paper today. New Zealand First wants to start by congratulating the people of Hawke’s Bay—congratulating them on kicking into touch this Government’s ludicrous amalgamation plans and on sending a loud, clear message to the Local Government Commission that they did not want a bar of its flawed plans. It is interesting because we asked this question in the House earlier on last year, and in response to a question I put about how the people in the Wairarapa and people in the Wellington area did not want to have a bar of the super-city plans, the Minister said: “Not everyone agrees with that member.” Well, it would appear that the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in Northland, who live in Hawke’s Bay, and who live in Wellington and the Wairarapa do agree with New Zealand First. In fact, it is the other way round: New Zealand First agrees with them, and New Zealand First is still standing up for people and listening to the people of New Zealand. That is why we are in touch with what is going on, and that is why we predicted three strikes and you would be out, National.

It is really interesting, because one of the people who has written a great deal on this—get a copy of this; it makes wonderful reading—is a former ACT MP and a former National Party candidate, and, actually, still a National Party member: Stephen Franks. This dissertation on the flaws and the fundamental buffoonery and incompetence of the Local Government Commission really is worth a read and I recommend it. I recommend that the senior whip of the National Party gets a hold of Stephen Franks’ document, has a read, and learns some lessons as to why these amalgamation projects are being booted into touch—congratulations there.

What else do we see? We see an all-out attack on the New Zealand flag, and even worse than that, on nationalism, and in pursuit of what? This Government’s underlying desire to become a republic. This Government wants to disconnect the Union Jack from the flag, disconnect this country from the monarchy, and lead us into republicanism. We actually understand the National Party and where it is coming from. We know that it got rid of some pure nationalists in its party because of its drive towards republicanism—you know, good people like Shane Ardern, Colin King, and a few others, and poor Chester Borrows; he’s on his way out soon, we know that.

But we do not understand the Labour Party, which seems to be quite befuddled and bemuddled about wanting to change the flag but not wanting to change the flag, and now wanting to promote this thing—this thing. They call it the Red Peak flag, and Labour has got the ACT Party and everybody else in behind it. It actually belongs to an engineering and design company in the United States. How the heck people are going to get over the copyright and trademarking of that, someone is yet to explain to us. New Zealand First stands firmly—firmly—on the side of nationalism and on the side of this flag, on the connection to the Crown, and on the monarchy, and we will not deviate from that—not one inch. What we will say to this Government is to listen up to the people in New Zealand—listen up to them, because overwhelmingly they do not want this Government’s referendum. If there was to be any referendum, it should have been: “Do you want a flag change—yes or no?”. The Government would have got a resounding “No” and we could have moved on and saved millions and millions and millions of dollars.

By the way, New Zealand First is still waiting for this Government to give the full cost of a flag change, because no one has talked yet about the coat of arms. We know that the coat of arms at the Supreme Court cost $30,000. Well, start thinking: medals, documents, badges, parapets of buildings, and windows of the Reserve Bank and of all the other ministries all over the country and all over the world. What is the full cost of a flag change, National? Because once that figure is made clear to the public of New Zealand, they will reject that referendum, just as Hawke’s Bay rejected the super-city proposal from this Government and its lackey the Local Government Commission. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): We have nearly finished the first year of this Government’s third term and I am really proud to be part of this National Government. It is a privilege and an honour to be in Government, and what has really resonated with people is the Government’s policies for helping families to thrive and helping children to get the best possible start to their lives so that they can go on and become leaders in their communities.

Under this National Government, under the strong, stable, and caring leadership of the Rt Hon John Key—yes, the strong, stable, and caring leadership of the Rt Hon John Key. It is the leadership that understands the aspirations of all communities—yes, all communities, including migrant communities. Migrant communities include Chinese, Indians, and all ethnic-sounding surnames. Lydia Ko, according to the Labour Party, would be a foreigner. Danny Lee, according to the Labour Party, would be a foreigner. But, for us, they are very much Kiwis, and we are very proud of their achievements.

We do not care about people’s last names. We do not see their last names. What we care about and what we focus on is that children are achieving in school. We are focused on making sure that we are tackling crime. We are focused on making sure that patients are being treated effectively and rapidly in our health care system.

Hon Annette King: Oh! Tell that to the ones missing out.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes. We are a much more resilient country than we were 7 years ago. We are in a much better position than we were in 7 years ago to face global challenges, and our long-term prospects remain strong.

We are building strong international trade and investment connections, and that is helping us diversify our economy and create more and higher-paying jobs. My background in science and business reflects my passion for learning and innovation, and I am really proud of the work that the Prime Minister and the Hon Steven Joyce are doing in the field of science and innovation. I am really proud that this National Government understands that science and innovation is vital to drive productivity, to increase output, to create more and higher-paying jobs, and to build strong and sustained economic growth. That is why, despite the tight financial times, this National Government is continuously investing in science and research. Yes, our investment in science and research has gone up by 70 percent since 2007-08.

Andrew Bayly: How much?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: 70 percent.

Andrew Bayly: 70 percent.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes, it is a significant increase compared with the previous Labour Government, and this is because we understand the dynamics of science-based innovation and its importance to industrial research and development management.

We are keen to stimulate research to get new insights into the exciting and multifaceted field of science-based innovation. We understand the importance of nanotechnology in water purification, in the pharmaceutical industry, and in disease diagnosis. We also understand the importance of biotechnology in human and animal health, in fisheries management, in reducing biodiversity loss, and in reducing the spread of infectious diseases. We also understand the utility of biotechnology in agriculture, and that is why this year we have invested $7.3 million in an agricultural research partnership. This is for an industry-led project to improve the performance of livestock farming in order to improve the profitability, productivity, and environmental sustainability of New Zealand’s farming system.

This is just an example of the kind of work that this National Government has been doing. But on the other side, the Labour Party and the Green Party want to abolish those grants. Those members want to bring in a number of taxes. They want to put up the personal tax rate. They want to increase the carbon tax rate to five times—

Hon Annette King: Rubbish!

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes, they want to bring in a new water tax, and they also want to bring in a capital gains tax, depending on their new leader.

But this side will continue to invest in our innovative Kiwi businesses and our scientists to help them get their ideas out from their labs and into the market. We will continue to support our innovative Kiwi businesses to start up new companies. We will keep supporting them to launch and grow. That, in turn, will help us grow our export revenue and will also create more and higher-paying jobs. I am really proud to be part of this National Government. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Amongst all of the other distractions this week, members may be forgiven for having missed that it is, in fact, as my colleague Annette King pointed out, Social Justice Week, and I think that is an opportunity for us to discuss and debate as a Parliament how far we have progressed or, potentially, how little progression we have made in that space in recent years. In fact, it is disappointing, and it should be disappointing to every single member of this House, that there has not been even one media report, for instance—that I have seen—on the fact that just a month ago we saw figures come out that showed our child poverty statistics in New Zealand have jumped from 260,000 children to 305,000 children. That is a jump of 45,000 children in just a year. That is based on the Ministry of Social Development’s own data. As much as the Minister for Social Development stood up in question time and tried to claim that I was disingenuous for using those figures, they are the figures that even Unicef has used. If you analyse the data going back to 1991, you will find that that was the last time we saw a jump as significant as this one in terms of child poverty figures.

It is hard, of course, to rival the 1991 figures. That was, of course, the time that National produced the black Budget and slashed benefits, and now, of course, it is crowing about having been the Government that is now putting in place a minor—a minor—boost to benefits of $25 a week.

Hon Anne Tolley: Ha, ha!

JACINDA ARDERN: Anne Tolley laughs, but this is the reason that I call it minor. It is because Labour introduced the family tax credit, which significantly boosted benefit numbers—that is something that the National Government ignores.

The second reason that I am pushing back on that, Minister, is that Labour produced the Best Start policy.

Hon Anne Tolley: They can’t take it. They hate it.

JACINDA ARDERN: It was a benefit that increased by $60 a week per child and it went to children on benefits too, Ms Tolley. That would have made a significant difference.

Hon Anne Tolley: The Labour Party just hates it.

JACINDA ARDERN: And, Ms Tolley, I am going to correct you. Labour does not hate the increase you have introduced. We hate that it was disingenuous, we hate that you did not introduce it right away, we hate that it was not per child, and we hate that it was political, because if you were not being political, then why will you not introduce a child poverty target? Why is it that a Government that can measure unemployment rates, child abuse rates, and rheumatic fever rates, can measure how many people have moved on to benefits and off benefits, and can measure how many people have moved overseas and have come back from overseas—it measures almost everything—refuses to accept measurements on child poverty? And why does this continue to be a frustration for the Labour Party? Because what gets measured gets done. Sure, sometimes some of those targets get manipulated. We have seen that when it comes to justice. But what gets measured gets done, and this Government will not accept official measures on child poverty.

As much as the Government argues—and I have heard Anne Tolley use the same argument that Bill English and Paula Bennett have used all the way through. Their argument has been that there are too many measures. Do you know what, Ms Tolley? We agree—we agree. In fact, internationally, it has been accepted that there are roughly five, and the Children’s Commissioner has agreed that there are five. He has even conducted his own set of measures because we have a lack of them currently accepted by the Government. So we have agreed on five measures. We have even drafted a bill on what it would look like to put them in place so we can finally start targeting child poverty, because it matters. The Government continues to refuse. In fact, I tried to remove any questions of numbers today, and I just asked the Minister a simple question: is poverty too high? What did we get? “I can’t answer.” Minister, I would hope that, having seen children die because of cold houses in this country, having seen children go to school hungry, having seen infectious skin diseases and preventable hospitalisations, regardless of the politics, you would admit that child poverty is too high. So, Ms Tolley, if you want something I hate, I hate that you cannot even acknowledge that.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to stand up here with 4 days to go until the anniversary of the election, as Mr English said before. It has been a very, very productive year for the National Government, and I think that the biggest thing that I have come out of this year with, with heart, is that this is a Government that really has heart for provincial New Zealand. When I came in here, one of the things that I wondered was how much of what goes on out there is really, really well understood in Wellington, and I have to say I am going back to my electorate the whole time and saying to people: “Actually, this is a Government that does understand provincial New Zealand.”

There are two things that I went into this year thinking I was just going to do a deeper dive with, because they were things out there in the community that were concerning me. One of them was the area of family violence, and the other one was rural mental health. Just recently under the National Government, through Minister Amy Adams, a consultation document has been launched, and I have been really impressed with the process around this consultation document. What the Minister of Justice did is she actually sent us out to consult with some of our groups. I have been working very, very closely with the Maniapoto Family Violence Intervention Network in Te Kūiti, which is also doing some work in Ōtorohanga, and it actually had its opportunity to provide feedback to the Minister in the process of putting this consultation document together.

So, from that, the consultation document is now out. It was a real pleasure to go and sit with the network recently and say to its people “Here’s the document. You’ve had some input into preparing this document, and now you can actually have some feedback and we will get this in the right place.”, because my belief is that 80 to 90 percent of the good ideas actually come out of our communities; they do not come out of Wellington. I am really pleased that our National Government is listening to the communities.

The other thing—on the mental health side—it is just so rewarding to see another half a million dollars going into rural mental health, getting people trained up to go out there, to understand, to find people who are not feeling great, and to try methods and ways of helping them. All the support services are out there; it is just that people do not stand up and ask to be helped. Often in those situations they feel a bit embarrassed or they feel that there is a stigma around that. So I am really pleased to see that there are troops on the ground now, working on mental health. I am also very pleased to see, in a year that has been a bit dark for the dairy industry, that we have now had three auctions that have gone up. So there is just a shout-out for my industry.

On the Health Committee, which is one that I enjoy very much, we work very collegially together. We have some well-documented gains under health. We now have free GP visits for children under 13, which is really appreciated by families in the community. We are delivering more elective surgeries, and they have increased by an average of 4,000 elective surgeries a year. I think this is really commendable from the Government. When this Government took over, women were going to Australia to have their breast cancer treatments. So I think this is great.

The other thing is that we are opening up legislation around nurse practitioners, and that is a really good move. We are opening up the legislation so that nurse practitioners who have the training and education and skills to carry out certain tasks will now, after the legislation goes through, under the law be able to carry out those certain tasks. More money has also gone in to train more nurse practitioners, because that is going to be a way to get more services out into our provincial communities. I have also had the pleasure of being on the Mobile Surgical Unit bus. It is a great bus. The Minister of Health has now committed to more funding for that, going forward.

So some of it is about people; some of it is also about our conservation projects. It is really great to see that we are doing some great work there in terms of the Battle for our Birds. Some of the rat and stoat numbers in some of our communities have dropped down very close to undetectable numbers in some areas where we have been working very hard on that one. So all in all I am very proud to be standing here and looking back on a first year where there has been a huge amount of work done. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Social Justice Week is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to reflect on the type of society that we should have. Is it fair and decent? Is it a society where there is a greater equality of outcomes? Is it a society where our democratic principles are upheld at every point of the decision-making process? I listened very carefully to this debate, and you could be forgiven for thinking that we are talking about two types of New Zealand here: one where everybody gets a fair go and the other where those who are most successful will get a shot at it.

Social Justice Week is also an opportunity to highlight some really significant issues, and it is about people. Do we think it is acceptable in New Zealand to have greater levels of homelessness, for it to be harder for families to buy a home, whether they are in provincial New Zealand or in urban settings, or for the elderly to be feeling insecure in communities that they once thrived in? No, it is not. Something is happening in New Zealand. Is it acceptable that there are greater levels of low-income households unable to support their family because of insecure work, a change in employment conditions, and the minimum wage, and expecting families to live on that? No, it is not. Things have been tough in the last 8 years. Is it acceptable that young children are raised in cold, damp houses—whether it is in provincial New Zealand or in the city—and paying higher rentals? No, it is not. Eight years of this Government’s rule have actually made it harder for families and children.

Is it acceptable that higher numbers of children are moved from school to school to school because families cannot afford to live in the homes in their area, so they go and take their families to live in garages and on couches until they find something stable, because the Government has sold off State houses? No, it is not. That is what has happened in the last 8 years. Social Justice Week is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to ask: is this the type of society that provides opportunity for all New Zealanders? Sadly, it is not.

I want to know what happened to Aroha. You know Aroha. Remember Aroha from McGehan Close, where the Prime Minister held her hand and gave her hope and the promise of a better New Zealand for all? Where is Aroha? She is in Australia, with hundreds and thousands of other New Zealanders who did not see any hope and opportunity here in New Zealand because times have got tough—times have got tough. There are more families living in poverty. There are lower household incomes, unable to support the needs of families who just want a leg up. They want hope and opportunity, all right. They are in provincial New Zealand. They are also in the cities of New Zealand. They are working harder to make ends meet, and they want to work, but there is not enough work around. Under this Government it has been really difficult.

The erosion of workers’ rights, health and safety legislation that does not give the full protection that it should, charter schools setting up a two-type education system—those who are in the public system get funded at a lower rate than those who are in charter schools. How can that be fair—how can that be fair? Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru comes to mind. The Government would like to create a two-tier education system under its proposal that that is better for all New Zealanders. I cannot see the benefit.

Privatised prisons—look at the shambles that is happening there under Serco. Can that be right, in terms of justifying both taxpayers’ money and what is happening there? Heck, we have even heard that the Government might be going down the track of privatised social services—who knows? But what I find fundamentally difficult to believe, in the last 8 years, is the total impact that the sell-off of State houses has had on every family that I certainly represent, how hard it has got for people to get a good home, and what the private rental market is doing to those who are most vulnerable and at the lower-income end of the street.

Here is the thing. I know a mother with two children in a caravan park who was paying $340—living in a caravan park with two children, paying $340 a week. Is that fair? I do not think so, and under the last 8 years of this Government those types of things have popped up. Then let us talk about democracy. It is OK to have a say on the flag but not on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. How can that be democracy in terms of a New Zealand that wants to be informed about the things that are impacting on people’s lives? If it is about economic opportunity, greater productivity, and a chance for people to really flourish in New Zealand, then let people know what is happening under that. The Government is not. This Government—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak today on the 1-year anniversary of the general election and talk about the superb progress this Government has made. It is also a privilege to be part of a Government that has brought forward the gains from the past and refreshed them with some knowledge going forward. There are so many things to highlight. This time last year the majority of children under 13 were paying full general practice fees, and today they are not. I am hearing from my colleagues and from constituents that this has been very well received. This time last year people were paying higher ACC motor vehicle levies, and today they are saving up to $130 a year. Paid parental leave increased from 14 to 16 weeks and eventually it will increase to 18 weeks, and hospices are receiving $20 million in additional funding compared with last year. This has certainly been noticed in my region and my electorate in Whangarei and Northland.

Whangarei and the Northland electorate are seeing the benefits this year of a John Key Government. The latest ANZ Regional Trends report shows that economic activity had the strongest increase in the Northland region for the past quarter. If we look over the past year, Whangarei and Northland had the third-highest annual growth rate behind Auckland and the Bay of Plenty. Northland also posted the strongest employment growth of all the regions in that quarter.

I have heard the noise from New Zealand First members today and I have heard the noise from them before. In fact about 6 months ago, probably on 9 March at about 11.45 a.m., actually, I was on my way into the mall in Whangarei and I heard a similar noise. In fact, I was quite worried by it; I thought someone had been hurt. So I sped up a little bit—I was going to buy lunch; supporting local businesses—because I thought maybe someone had been in the mall walking their pets or something. And I was right: it was Winston and the boys. You see, it was the by-election time, and in the middle of the mall is this boom box and out of this boom box is coming the New Zealand First anthem: “Help is on its Way”. It is an excellent song, written in 1977 by Glenn Shorrock, the founder of Little River Band.

I have written a few songs myself for my own pleasure. They are nowhere near as good as this song—nowhere near as good as this song. This is an excellent song. What I have learnt, though, as an amateur composer, is that the final version is never what you started with initially. One starts with a song name and at each point it captures the mood and the moment and then the song progresses and the name changes also. So I was interested whether this song “Help is on its Way”, the New Zealand First anthem, had other names that captured the essence of New Zealand First. So what I did was I contacted the composer, Glenn Shorrock. I called him in Australia, I spoke with his management team, and I asked him that exact question. I asked “What other names has ‘Help is on its Way’ been known by?”, because I am thinking that every name change and each version of the song is a version of New Zealand First.

It may be that the first title represented a New Zealand First leader’s statement but, unfortunately, Michael Jackson had taken “Man in the Mirror”, so we needed to keep on moving. Maybe the next version had a song title that is the New Zealand First leader’s assessment of the party position—maybe something like “It’s My Party and I’ll”—

Hon Members: —“Cry if I Want To.”

Dr SHANE RETI: Intuitive—I did not even need to say it. We all got it. And maybe the penultimate title is the leader’s strategy for his deputy—“To Do Ron Ron”.

This New Zealand First anthem, interestingly, is also the soundtrack to a movie. Who would have thought—a Seth Rogen 2009 movie called Observe and Report, which is about an egocentric gentleman and a collection of people who bumble their way through life. At 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 8 seconds into this movie the New Zealand First anthem plays. But I have figured this out: it is actually a cunning plan from New Zealand First, and I want to commend those members for it. Their choice of song and their choice of movie is actually a cunning way to save the taxpayer money. How this works is that they will be able to save on public relations costs on the rating brochures and mail-outs because the movie reviewers of New Zealand First: The Movie will do it for them. That is their cunning plan. The movie reviewers will write the New Zealand First story.

So let us have a look at what they wrote about this New Zealand First movie Observe and Report. One of the biggest movie reviewing sites said this: “it has a mean streak, and does not cater to all tastes,”. Who would have thought? The Sydney Morning Herald review really captures New Zealand First with this: “Much of the movie is just plain vicious. At best, it’s sad and grotesque, rather than hilarious.” But really you have got to give it to the Guardian. You have got to give it to the English, because this is what they said about it: “this charmless, heavy-handed, and cynical comedy is an uncomfortable experience.” It is an uncomfortable experience for New Zealanders as well. This Government has done well, this Government is supporting Northland and Whangarei, and I am pleased to be a part of this Government.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora e te Whare. Last week the Government participated in the Pacific Islands Forum, and it was a dismal and unprincipled failure in terms of our country’s leadership in the Pacific. We are a small colonised nation of considerable wealth at the bottom of the world in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. Not only did our Government fail to support the Pacific nations on climate targets, which is incredibly serious at the front line of sea level rise, but it also failed to support the fact-finding mission to West Papua. The fact-finding mission to West Papua was a call of the indigenous people of Papua. It was also a call of a number of Pacific Island nations and leaders, because this is a growing issue right across the Pacific.

So let us have a look at New Zealand’s response at the Government delegation level at the forum, where many people were waiting for leadership. Mr McCully, first of all, kicked things off with his “I know my place.” quip. Is he either a doormat or a doorstop for the Indonesian Government? That is what we would like to know, because, in fact, Mr McCully is not taking responsibility for the human rights abuses, let alone the independence and freedom abuses, that are documented—and there is a new report out today on this. There is torture documentation regularly, there are human rights issues, there are political prisoners, and there are a number of calls for a high-level fact-finding mission, which culminated at the Pacific Islands Forum this very year. So Murray McCully “knows his place”. That is not the statement of a statesman; it is the statement of a doormat.

Then we have the Prime Minister’s comments. The Prime Minister followed up Mr McCully’s statements by saying that Indonesia did not think that we should be meddling in its political issues. Mr Key is now the spokesperson for Indonesia. Does he not recall the fact-finding missions to East Timor that we participated in with pride in the 1990s? East Timor and West Papua—there are severe parallels between these two countries, but instead of supporting a fact-finding mission as we did in the 1990s several times to East Timor, our Government is the doormat and will not meddle because the Indonesians do not like it. Instead of speaking proudly as a Pacific nation alongside other Pacific nations at the Pacific Islands Forum, Mr McCully and Mr Key have let down the people of West Papua.

It was very disturbing to also hear Mr Key say that this is a matter of a bilateral issue between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. So he has abandoned our responsibility to speak out, although we are more powerful and less vulnerable than Papua New Guinea, which faces the Indonesian army on its border and which has refugee camps for those from West Papua on its border. Oh no, New Zealand will back away from its responsibilities and be a doormat for Indonesia. It is very disturbing as, in fact, the Melanesian Spearhead Group has welcomed West Papua this year to be an observer member. It is a big breakthrough for the campaign, but not because of leadership from this part of the world. Instead, this part of the world is abrogating its responsibilities.

The Government of the Solomon Islands was particularly clear and brave in speaking up at the Pacific Islands Forum—as well as the Melanesian Spearhead Group—about the importance of addressing the abuses. There was fulsome support across the Pacific nations, apart from New Zealand and Australia, for a high-level fact-finding mission. In fact, Peter O’Neill, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, will be going to Jakarta to discuss the importance of a fact-finding mission. However, New Zealand and Australia will not support it.

New Zealand is a doormat to Indonesian foreign policy because of trade—because of the advantages of trade. We will sacrifice people, ethics, human rights, and our commitment to other Pacific nations in the name of solidarity with Indonesian trade and Indonesian colonial violence against West Papua. So for the people who protested and who rallied in support of West Papua, right across the Pacific and outside the Pacific Islands Forum in Papua New Guinea, it was a good day because they are going forward with a fact-finding mission, but it is no thanks to our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Prime Minister. With a heavy heart, I have to say: “Well done, Pacific nations—except for this one.” Shame on us. Kia ora tātou.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee

Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege regarding the use of social media to report on parliamentary proceedings. Let me first outline to the House how this issue arose. Last year a very senior member of the House, as I recall it, was tweeting certain comments about the Speaker. They did not give rise to a particular reference to the Privileges Committee, but the Speaker referred to the Privileges Committee as a general matter of privilege the implications for Parliament of MPs and other people using social media to report on parliamentary proceedings and to reflect on members of Parliament, including the Speaker.

The Privileges Committee looked at this most interesting issue over a number of months, and so that we could look at it in a careful and methodical way we set ourselves some terms of reference. Essentially, there were three issues that we wanted to look at: first, whether there should be some restrictions or guidelines applying to members’ use of handheld electronic devices in the Chamber and committees—and I will come back to the committees in a minute—and that included, obviously, accessing social media to comment on the proceedings; secondly, whether Parliament’s rules require modernising to reflect the reality, the challenges, and the opportunities provided by social media, especially where the House and committees are using social media to disseminate information and to facilitate participation; and, thirdly, whether in this new era of social media the current rules relating to reflections on the Speaker or other presiding officers or members could amount to a contempt.

Can I immediately acknowledge all the assistance that we received from the various witnesses. Both the former and the present Clerk of the House were extremely helpful in the information they provided to the committee. As is our practice, we wrote to, as it were, brother and sister jurisdictions in the Commonwealth to gain some guidance from them, and I acknowledge the reports that we received from Westminster and Canada. I also want to acknowledge that this is not a novel issue in parliaments around the Commonwealth. The Victorian Parliament has been looking at this very issue.

As one would expect from a report of the Privileges Committee, it is short, it is concise, and it makes a number of very practical comments and recommendations. The first one, which will be of great relief to everyone here, is that members of the Privileges Committee are not Luddites. We recognise the reality of social media and that to stand King Canute - like and try to stop the tide coming in would be an exercise in uselessness. I am pleased to see Dr Kennedy Graham in the House this afternoon. Even he agreed with that proposition. Even Mr Peters agreed with it, and I do acknowledge Mr Peters’ profound contribution to the discussion.

We actually see the use of social media as a very positive development, and the committee had no intention of questioning whether members and others could use it to report on parliamentary procedures. We recognise that the use of social media has facilitated much more diverse communication and much better conversations about Parliament, and that is all very much for the betterment of our democracy.

But it is important to note that the committee has taken the time to remind members of a couple of very important points. First, all members of Parliament should be aware that anything said on social media may not—not “will not”; may not—be protected by parliamentary privilege and could be potentially actionable in the court. I refer honourable members to section 7 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which sets out the purpose of parliamentary privilege, and I also refer honourable members to section 10 of the same Act, which defines what exactly a proceeding in Parliament is. It is “all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of the House or of a committee.” If one is sitting in the House merrily tweeting away, it will not necessarily be part of the proceedings of the House, and so the best advice that can be offered is: “Watch it.”

The second thing is that members need to be careful not to disclose confidential select committee proceedings or reports through social media. Perish the thought! I am sure it would never happen, but members need to be advised that Standing Order 410(q) could get them into hot water if they go about tweeting the contents of a report. It is potentially a contempt to divulge the proceedings or the report of a select committee or subcommittee contrary to the Standing Orders.

The committee has proposed a particular approach to members using electronic devices to film or take photographs from the floor, and it is a matter on which there are currently no rules. So there was concern about improper use of photography and filming by members, especially where a member has taken a photo of another member in the House without permission and used it for political advantage. A number of examples were given to us. I regret to say that I thought it reflected very poorly on those who had taken those photographs. I am thinking of a photograph taken of the Green co-leader at about 10 to 10 at night, when she was busily studying some report. It was offensive, it should not have happened, and it was a very poor reflection on the member who did it—who has now left the House—but I hope that sort of thing is not going to happen in the future. I am not going to name names because—

Chris Hipkins: Because he’s on your side.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —he was on our side. Ha, ha! Anyway, he has gone now.

At the same time, the committee recognised that special events in the House including swearings-in, maiden and valedictory speeches, and waiata after Treaty settlement bills are appropriate occasions for members to photograph or to film from the floor of the House. There was a very interesting question, which I am sure Mr Parker is going to address—the issue of selfies, and whether or not selfies are appropriate. So I will leave the whole issue of selfies to the MP for Rimutaka or to Mr Parker. Suffice it to say, on balance, I think we thought that selfies were inappropriate.

To assist members the committee has recommended that Mr Speaker issue guidance based on existing rules of the House to all MPs and the press gallery on the appropriate use of social media to report on parliamentary proceedings, and there are some very useful guidelines set out as Appendix C to the report.

Finally, there are some comments made on reflections on MPs. Let us take this example—and I am sure it is a purely hypothetical example. If a member of the House yelled out in the House—and this is hypothetical—that the Speaker was a jerk or did not know what he was doing or was useless, clearly that would be a contempt and the person would be hauled before the Privileges Committee quicker than one could say “contempt of the House”.

But the issue that can arise is, what happens when someone tweets those kinds of comments? All I can say is that the best advice I can give is to be very careful because that same tweeting could result in a member being called before the committee, and the deputy leader of New Zealand First—I can see from his nodding—would utterly endorse such a reference.

Can I also say something, finally, about official television coverage. Both the Clerk and the chair of the press gallery propose removing the prohibition on the use of official television coverage to satire, ridicule, or denigrate, and there has been a bit of comment on that in the paper in the last few days. I think the overwhelming majority of the committee thought that it was time for that rule to go. In fact, it is itself fatuous and makes us look a bit silly. It seems that we are out of touch and wary of criticism. I do not think it has ever been used before. That is the sort of rule that might apply in North Korea or Stalinist Russia, but not in New Zealand. We have to be big enough and tough enough to take a bit of satire from time to time.

So that is the report. I want to thank the officials. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, especially the deputy chair. I want to thank the witnesses. As I say, it is a concise report. It tries to cut to the chase and provide you, Mr Speaker, with some guidance on the guidelines as to how one can deal with tweeters and people who bring your great office and you yourself into disrepute.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to speak in support of the recommendations in this report. I think it is very important that Parliament moves with the times and that we modernise our practices. But it is also important that in doing so we uphold the standards of the House, and the dignity of this place as well. Social media certainly provides some fantastic opportunities for wider public engagement and understanding of the business of the House and the topics of debate in the House, but it also creates some interesting challenges for us as well. I think that we have worked very hard as a committee to try to get the balance right. There are three real issues that I want to talk about.

The first is that I see social media as a fantastic opportunity to actually open up the House to greater public involvement. There is opportunity to involve the public more in having their say on debates in the House through social media. For example, we are using social media more to get select committee feedback, to invite submissions, to promote submissions, and those sorts of things, and I think those are welcome developments.

I also think, and some people will not always agree with me, that opening up through social media some of the interchange that we have across the Chamber and allowing others to take part in that can also be quite good for the Parliament. We can do so in a way that respects all of the things that the Attorney-General has just mentioned. We do need to be mindful that comments we make in this House are covered by privilege, but comments that we make outside the House are not necessarily covered by privilege, and therefore the comments that we make in the House that appear on social media fit more into the latter category rather than the former category. There are, of course, the odd exemptions here and there, so the hard and fast rules do not necessarily apply. But I guess that caution should always prevail would be the main message that would come out of the report of the Privileges Committee, and that is certainly one that I agree with.

When it came to reflections on members and reflections on the Speaker, there was significant debate around that particular topic. I think there are a couple of points that I want to make here, the first of which is that there is a need to draw a distinction between conduct that is disorderly and comments that are disorderly, and comments that are contemptuous. They are not necessarily one and the same. There is a severity test here, and it is that members will say things across the Chamber to one another that are certainly disorderly and may result in the Speaker saying, you know, “I require the member to withdraw and apologise.” That does not necessarily mean they are contemptuous. It does not mean that the member is suddenly in contempt of Parliament, but it does mean that they have been disorderly. I think that we need to adopt a similar kind of an approach to comments on social media. Members will make comments about one another and to one another on social media that sometimes, if they were made in the House, would be disorderly. That does not necessarily mean that they are in contempt, and I think we need to be mindful of that.

We looked very carefully at the rules that currently exist around contempt and reflections on the Speaker, for example. The committee, I think, was relatively satisfied that those rules have not been abused. There have been very few cases in recent history where someone has found themselves before the Privileges Committee for making such comments. I think that that suggests there is, in fact, a severity test already in place. That is appropriate because the Parliament is a place of robust debate and should continue to be so.

The Attorney-General raised the issue of selfies. This was also something that there was significant debate about in the committee. I would make a couple of points on that. The first is that I think social media can humanise the political process and humanise parliamentarians, and that is something that I think should be welcomed. But it can also be abused, as the Attorney-General mentioned. We have seen examples of members taking photos in the Chamber in inappropriate circumstances and using them to denigrate other members, and that is very regrettable. I would point out that social media and the emergence of new technologies means that members of Parliament—and, in fact, any member of the public; any high-profile figure—are much more open to denigration and so on in any number of settings than they would have been previously. Whether it be sitting on a train or in a plane or even in a taxi—in any kind of public space—members of Parliament are much more open to criticism and ridicule than they would have been in the past. That is simply a modern reality now, and we all face that on a day-to-day basis.

So should a different standard apply to the House? I would contend that, yes, it should, but with some reservations. The reason it should is that I think the House should hold itself to a higher standard than simply any other public place. I think that the committee has worked very carefully to ensure that we have maintained that balance and got that balance right. As I said, there should be a higher standard. Therefore, reserving the selfie, if you like, for special occasions I think is appropriate.

There is probably one area where I do not necessarily agree with the majority and that is something that is simply a selfie—simply a member taking a photograph of themselves. I am not necessarily sure that they should be restricted in their ability to do that. I certainly think there should be restrictions around their ability to take photographs of other members, but I am not convinced about the restriction on their taking photographs of themselves.

Hon David Parker: Great loss of liberty.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I am sure that my colleague David Parker, who has a different view from me on these matters, will also raise those.

Hon Anne Tolley: He doesn’t want to see photos of you.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, one of the reasons why I do not take very many selfies is that it does not allow sufficient time for the photoshopping that is required, so I am not a huge fan of them. But I do think that they are a reality, that they are happening more and more, and that they can, as I say, humanise parliamentarians. I think that is actually a welcome thing because I think members of the public sometimes lose track of the fact that MPs are human beings as well.

David Shearer: Toughen up!

CHRIS HIPKINS: Toughen up—David Shearer is telling me to toughen up. But I think the fact that we open ourselves out a little bit more is a good thing and that should be encouraged. By and large I think this report gets the balance about right. There will still be debate ongoing about some of the issues in it, but I think the recommendations are very sound ones.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): It is a pleasure to stand today and take a call on the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege regarding the use of social media to report parliamentary proceedings. I want to start by referring to an article in the newspaper this morning about Shona Robb. She has worked here in Parliament for the Labour Party for 39 years. She is finally calling it quits and is retiring, and we wish her all the best. She represents a large number of people who give enormous duty here. I was very interested in some of what she said in her farewell speech. She started work in the Opposition’s typing pool in September 1976. She said: “Faxes weren’t invented and MPs didn’t have computers.” She said: “Technology, for a start, has changed things hugely. [Then it was] typewriters and carbon paper. You ran round the building with a duplicate copy to give to MPs. Now it’s done by the press of a button.” She said: “The House runs exactly as it has always run. It’s how we do things that’s changed.” That resonated with me in relation to the discussion we are having today. It was part of the discussions that we had at the committee.

The House does run as it has done. We do serious work here. We are elected here to represent New Zealanders. We are here to pass legislation. We are here to build a healthy, safe, and prosperous community for all those people whom we represent. We might disagree at times about how we do that, but it is serious business that takes place in this House. But over the years the way that that is done has changed dramatically. I remember, not too long ago, a Young Nat talking to me about carbon paper. You know, he said: “What is carbon paper? I’ve never seen carbon paper.”

I think that where the committee got to was, as the Attorney-General said, that we are not Luddites. Technology is changing the way that we work and we should acknowledge that and accept that. We should have rules for the way that we comport ourselves that actually allows for that. But at the heart of it, what we do in this House is serious business, and, therefore, there have to be some rules that allow us to do that serious business.

I remember making the point that this is a place of work. We work long hours. We work long into the night, and there have been occasions when people have yawned. Some people have even fallen asleep in the House, and it is not right then that there should be the ability to make political capital out of that. We are, as Chris Hipkins has said, human beings and we have the same frailties as people out in the communities. We might have slightly bigger egos than people out in the communities, but we do have those same frailties.

The other thing that we discussed that has come through in our recommendations is that, actually, we do need to maintain the public’s confidence in this place. Question time is robust and some of the general debates are robust. We do disagree with one another and sometimes we do say things to one another across the House that maybe we might regret later when we see it on the television. It is a House of robust debate, and so it should be—if we all agreed, there would be something dramatically wrong—but we do need to maintain the public’s confidence in the way that this House works. So it is a balance, then, between allowing the use of technology and bringing the public into the work that we do, on a far greater scale than it was done in the days before television and when carbon paper was the norm. That is to be supported and that is to be welcomed. At the same time, we need to maintain the gravitas of this place, in order to keep that confidence of the public. That is a balance, and I think that the report that we have presented produces that. It does well to maintain that balance.

Then, finally, I would say that we do need to make sure that we protect one another. So there are warnings in here that you need to think very carefully about what is parliamentary business when you are using that modern technology that is instant. Once it is gone, once you press that button, it is actually out there and you cannot take it back. Members these days, with a much more litigious public, need to be aware that they could put themselves at serious risk of being sued for defamation and also could get themselves into serious trouble within this House for issues of contempt. It is a sensible report, as the Attorney-General said. It is a short and concise report. It has been a very interesting process to work on it and I commend it to the House.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): This is arguably the most updated, or at least the most technologically updated, issue that the New Zealand Privileges Committee has ever had to deal with. The use of social media is not old; it is still in its formative years, and it is changing at a rapid pace and in unpredictable ways. So when it bumps up against an august body such as this, whose traditional ways stretch back a century and a half, there are bound to be wobbles in the steering. Given all that, the Privileges Committee did, in my view, a good job in getting apprised of the challenge posed to the New Zealand Parliament by the onset of social media.

The essential task is to explore the implications for privilege of people reporting on Parliament through social media, including reflections on members, including the Speaker. Some MPs have tweeted reflections on the Speaker, while others have surreptitiously taken—as has been pointed out—unflattering photographs of colleagues and have used them for what they took to be political advantage. Setting aside the personal ethics of these actions, the questions that arise are whether they bring disorder to the House or might even constitute a contempt. These are serious issues, so the Privileges Committee was bound to have to address them at some stage, and that became sooner rather than later.

The fact is that no rules are in place governing photography by members inside the Chamber, so there is clearly a need for some. In short, the committee developed the view that photographs should be confined to special occasions such as a swearing-in, a maiden speech, a valedictory, or a waiata. There was an argument advanced that there should be complete freedom of photography for members, but the general view was that there is a need to minimise the potential for disorder, and that view prevailed. But the main issue was whether the use of social media from inside the Chamber would enjoy parliamentary immunity. On this we were entirely clear. Any such commentary is neither part of parliamentary proceedings, nor published under the authority of the House. Therefore, it may not be covered by parliamentary privilege and is potentially actionable in court.

These were the main issues that needed clarification, and the committee has clarified them. That clarification will take the form of a set of guidelines issued by the Speaker, if he so chooses. Those guidelines were advanced in the context of a general welcoming of the rise of social media as a new form of communication between the public and their parliamentary representatives. There are 105 MPs using social media—I am one, and I suspect that the Attorney-General is another. So, no doubt, that number will grow to 120, there being one member who is unlikely to move as long as he remains in this House. There is no presumption that members should not use social media in their work; it is quite the reverse. It is just that it needs to be made compatible with the normal functioning of our Parliament. This, I think, the committee has done and has done well, and I commend the report to the House.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call, acknowledging that it was the Rt Hon Winston Peters who represented New Zealand First throughout these hearings and deliberations by the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege regarding the use of social media to report parliamentary proceedings. Going through the report, as I have been doing over the last few moments, it is hard to find any reason why the Privileges Committee members would not have come to the conclusions that they came to and the recommendations, which we support.

I guess there are some realities about life today. If I cast my mind back with regard to the use of social media—in fact, if we consider, just briefly, where information and communications technology was when I left the House in 2008 and where it is at in Parliament today, parliamentary staff need to be applauded for the amount of work that they have done. I guess that you would, as the Hon Chris Finlayson said, look something like King Canute if you were to try to ignore what has happened and the transformation that has occurred within communications, not just within New Zealand but throughout the world. That clearly brings us to the point where we are now, where we are considering whether or not social media and the use of it requires further constraints around it, or whether we just need to accept the reality that it is there and just simply review our rules of privilege in order to ascertain whether or not we need to make any changes to them.

Reading from page 7 of the report of the Privileges Committee, the statement in the first paragraph says: “We consider the growth in the use of social media to communicate about Parliament in recent years to be a positive development.” New Zealand First agrees 100 percent. In fact, it is interesting because we would argue that social media in many, many ways is levelling up a very unbalanced political environment, or communications environment. In fact, I will probably remember for a very long, long time the victory speech given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters up in Northland, when he stormed to victory and humiliated the National Party. He did say that New Zealand First is a movement that is on the march and that rural, provincial New Zealand had taken that opportunity to send a message. Much of that victory came down to the use of social media and the ability to get one’s message out, despite the fact that the mainstream media had a particular way of portraying the messages that one tried to get out.

So what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said at that time was that, going forward, New Zealand First had a message to deliver—this is in brief, not word for word—and that we would do that with or without mainstream media. He said that we will go around them, over them, under them, and straight through them, and we will be able to do that—and what he was talking about was the use of social media and the use of the ability for people to, within the constraints, use that alternative means of communication. So it is only natural that that alternative means of communication should emerge within the House and within the parliamentary precinct and that there should be questions about the appropriateness of it and, particularly around contempt, and particularly when comments are made that may be interpreted as being contemptuous of the Speaker when, in fact, they may well have been guidance to the Speaker or guidance to someone else in the House as to what not to be, as opposed to what to be. I guess that is why it is going to be a useful exercise to rewrite a part of the Standing Orders so that it fits more appropriately.

I think there is another point that was raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I guess New Zealand First has to take the opportunity to give this message right now. Despite the fact that we have heard speeches saying that out there on the hustings we are well used to the fact and we need to accept that we will come under close scrutiny—that is a given—and that things may be said that we do not particularly like or enjoy, and that media or other people like entertainers may use satire, ridicule, or denigration, New Zealand First would say: “Yeah, that’s a given. Get used to it.” Someone over here used the words “harden up”.

Hon Simon Bridges: I think it was over here.

RON MARK: Get used to it—that is part of the job. But the question is—oh, that was over there. That was the ACT Party. Thank you, Mr Simon Bridges, for the guidance there. It was the ACT MP who said that. But the question that New Zealand First would like to put on the floor now and the concern we have is best summed up in this saying “We reap what we sow”. The question is whether the House really wants to reduce itself to satire, ridicule, and denigration in the House by allowing the film clips to be used in that way.

I can say that we have moved and we have transitioned from a time when there were very tight rules around the use of media. In fact, I can remember when this House first proposed this, and the Parliamentary Service Commission and the Standing Orders Committee looked at the issue of installing cameras in this House to cover the proceedings. I was here at that time when the media were up in arms, and delegations from the media in the gallery stormed on the Speaker to stop what they considered to be an appalling abuse of Parliament’s rules and the Speaker’s office to constrain and contain how the House was portrayed.

Now we stand here and there is something like—what is it—eight cameras in the Chamber itself, and more above. I look up into the gallery, and there is not one mainstream camera present, quite unlike the old days when Television One, TV3, Prime Television, and Sky television would all have their cameras up there through question time. Now they have come to understand that what Parliament did and the Speaker of the day approved and the Parliamentary Service Commission and the Standing Orders Committee approved has actually advantaged them. It has given them the wonderful ability to download, free, all the footage they want to use as they want, within the constraints laid down in the Standing Orders and according to privilege. That was a positive step forward. Do I hear one of those journalists standing up and saying: “We were wrong.” and that, actually, members of Parliament were right and that the Speaker was right? Not one. But I will not hold my breath waiting for it either.

This report just reflects evolution in communications. It simply reflects the times that we are moving into. What has happened is there has been a timely review through the Privileges Committee as to where we stand today, where we may go in the future, and what rules, if any, need to be amended going forward. New Zealand First simply reiterates what we said with a view to opening up and broadening the way in which the video footage may be used “Be careful what you wish for”—

Jono Naylor: Be careful what you say.

RON MARK: —be careful what one wishes for. Well, if I was to say to that member “Don’t be a jerk.”, that is not implying that he is a jerk, that is warning him that—

Hon Members: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I was on my feet before the member, so that member will sit down and that member will sit down. I think that issue and the use of that word have been pretty well canvassed over the last 24 hours, and it will not be used in either a negative or a positive sense towards a member.

RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Just to conclude, I would like to say that New Zealand First does support this report. Without being prissy, we just caution about the widening of the rules around the use of video footage because, in the long run, the question as to whether that enhances the reputation of the House or denigrates it will be something that will be learnt only after the fact. We would say walk cautiously in that area. In respect of the rest of the recommendation and summaries, we concur and we support them. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I will try not to jerk any members from their slumber—[Interruption]—and I think that is in order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Absolutely.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The only other observation that I would make in respect of the cameras is that the older I am, the more I wish the cameras would take shots from a lower angle so that the follicly challenged amongst us are not so exposed.

I concur with the comments that have been made by the Attorney-General and other speakers after him. I think that this report is practical. It is true that in the age of the internet and modern methods of communication, some of the more traditional methods of communication between members of Parliament and the public have dwindled. It is absolutely clear that the circulation of newspapers is down. The number of people who get information about what happens in Parliament from the traditional news media has decreased; the number of people who get it from new forms of communication via the internet has increased. Telecommunications platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and other forms of social media are on the increase, and that is a good thing.

The Privileges Committee has recognised this and has said that we ought not to try to unduly control it in Parliament. We should try to encourage it, but we should do so cognisant of a couple of facts. One, we should not be so insulting or contemptuous in the language that we use that we bring each other and this institution into disrepute. There are a number of reasons for this. In the end, as Anne Tolley has said, this is a place where we do serious business, and I think it is incumbent upon us to try to maintain public confidence in this institution by not denigrating others unduly or by bringing this House into disrepute. This is a balance that I think we should strive to get right and that requires us to maintain some minimum standards of conduct. If we do not do that, I fear that we will bring this institution into disrepute, which, in turn, will undermine public confidence in democracy. And given that we are all here in pursuit of democracy because we believe in it, that would be a step too far. So we are trying to get that balance right through this report by allowing social media, but not by allowing it to be used from the floor of this House in a way that crosses a boundary that would not be permitted if we were saying these things in a presentation, as I am doing now.

In terms of the point that was made about whether this is protected by parliamentary privilege, the comments that we make in social media are most clearly not protected by parliamentary privilege. They might be protected because they are fair comment on what has been said in Parliament in a way that is protected by parliamentary privilege, but they are not of themselves comments that are protected by parliamentary privilege. So members should not think that just because they are sitting in Parliament when they are tweeting, they are protected in the same way I would be protected if, for example, I was to say something at the moment that was defamatory of someone inside or outside this House. I would be absolutely protected against defamation risks because the comments that I make in this Parliament are protected by the doctrine of parliamentary privilege. It is not for my protection; it is actually to protect democracy, so that if I want to make an allegation against someone who is wealthy or influential in society and whom I believe has done wrong, I can do so without fear that I will be sued for defamation. That is one of the ways that democracy keeps itself clean and free from corruption and how society improves itself and maintains its standards. That is the reason for this privilege, as I have articulated, but that reason does not need to be extended to social media or tweets by members in this House, and neither should it be.

Just before I sit down, I want to deal with a couple of matters relating to photographs. The decision of a prior Parliament, through the Standing Orders, to restrict the use by the press gallery of photographic images for satirical purposes was, I think, born of its time, but it was wrong. We do need to be thick-skinned as parliamentarians, and satire is an appropriate way in which we can have stupid decisions ridiculed and brought to the public’s attention. Indeed, humour is actually a really good way of doing that, such as the Spitting Image programmes that so pilloried some of our forebears in this place. I think that they were absolutely appropriate. I do not care whether comedians use footage from cameras rather than puppets. They do take a risk if they misrepresent what has happened in Parliament, because satire can go beyond satire, and the Privileges Committee could hold in contempt a publication that misrepresents what has happened in Parliament, as opposed to being satirical of it. But those are things that have to be resolved on the day. The general prohibition on the use of images for satirical purposes was wrong, and so the committee recommends to the Speaker that that prohibition be lifted, and I think that is a good change.

In respect of the use of social media to publish photographs taken of one member by another, I am one of those who favoured the majority decision in the report. I know that Clare Curran expressed a contrary view, and I am sure that she will express that view when she speaks. I recognise that there is room for both sides of that argument to be expressed. The reason that I do not think it is appropriate is that I think we could diminish each other in a way that is unnecessary. Like most formal places of debate, we have rules in order to depersonalise slightly the contests that we have, so that we can maintain a degree of civility and friendship across the sides of this House and so that we can maintain some humanity and kindness towards each other. I quite like these formal rules that we have, be they in courts or be they the traditions maintained by our media, who are guardians of some of these standards themselves through the rules that they adopt. We have a responsibility to do this for ourselves and to respect the rules that we apply here.

I did not like the fact that we had unrestricted rights—or no rules, really—around what we could or could not do to each other using photographs that might be taken when someone is tired. Sometimes it could be taken at 2 o’clock in the morning when we are here in this place, and we could all be caught with a poor facial expression or yawning and have those things mischaracterised in a way that is pretty much irrelevant to the business that we do here and that is not representative of how hard people here work. I think that if we allow ourselves to go to that point, we would have to be on our guard the whole time. Because of that, you would find that we would have fewer people sitting in the Chamber when they actually do not have to be there on duty, and I think this place is better when it has more people here participating in debates. I do not want fewer people to be here when we are here late at night, and I do not want the people who are here working hard to be denigrated unnecessarily.

Of course, if we say stupid things or we do outrageous things, those things are going to be reported anyway, but I think that we have got the balance right by saying that we should not be able to take photographs of each other. We are, effectively, applying the same rules to each other as apply to the media. There is no double standard there. The media are restricted in the images they can use that are from these cameras, and I do not see why we should have privileges over and above the media when it comes to reporting on what happens on the floor of this House. With those comments, I endorse the recommendations of the Privileges Committee.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): As a new member I often used to rise and say: “It is a privilege to speak on this bill.”, and in a sense it was just a filler to fill in time, but I can say genuinely that it is a privilege this term to be on the Privileges Committee, where we discuss and have, I suppose, the luxury, really, of looking at important matters that go to the heart of our democracy. In this case, it is really a question, as Kennedy Graham said, of the role of technology in our democracy and how we treat that and deal with that as members of Parliament in this place—Parliament—and, to a lesser extent, how this affects the press gallery, which is our fourth estate and watches us on behalf of the public.

It seems to me that at the heart of this report and the helpful guidance that is in it—and I will come back to its recommendations of guidance for the Speaker—is a balance. It is a balance between, on the one hand, moving with the times and capturing all of the benefits and the positives that social media absolutely and undoubtedly has for the most part, whilst also, in a sense, not diminishing—to use David Parker’s word—this place and not detracting from the gravitas of this place. Look, let us be honest, it does not always have it, but at its best it does, and we should be aiming for that. It should have that as the heart of our New Zealand democracy. But, as I said, we want to move with the times, and we found that the parliamentary rules actually are fundamentally fit for purpose, but some guidance will be helpful.

As I said, fundamentally, social media is a very positive thing. I agree with Ron Mark’s comments in relation to what I think he said were the reported words of the Rt Hon Winston Peters in the Northland by-election. You know, it allows you to get over—or was it under or straight through—

Ron Mark: Around and straight through.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —around and straight through. It is a bit like those bridges I am giving Northland, Mr Mark, but that is another topic.

Ron Mark: And we’re waiting to see them.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, they are being delivered—do not worry about that. But it is true that when one, as an MP, perceives a slight or an injustice or a sense that his or her message is not getting out, social media can become a very powerful platform. Many members here—not me, so much, but many members here—have very large followings through which they are able to get their message out and create news, if you like. That is positive. It is a very good thing. But, as I said, we do not want to take away from the gravitas of this place.

The way I put it to the committee was that we are not tourists on vacation in here, and we should not be acting like it, either. I think that it has come through in a number of the contributions, but the question of taking photographs in the House on our mobile devices, which now, as we know, can actually take better photos than most, cameras—at least when you have got the skill set, or the lack of skills, that someone like myself has, that is true—and although you could have complete freedom, I, like David Parker and like the majority on that committee, do not think that that would have been the right outcome. I do not think, actually, that anyone is served—as we have heard—by those late-night photos of the person yawning, and the like.

I was not able to attend all of the committee meetings, but my contribution was to pose the question of whether we really should be filming or be allowed to take photos of other members, or whether we should generally not be able to take photographs or be able to film on the floor of the Chamber. My question really was, well, do we allow selfies in this place? In a sense, you could argue that, well, yes, that is OK, because what we are trying to get away from, with the denigration and the mockery—and, actually, sometimes just the plainly vitriolic stuff about other members who in urgency, perhaps, are tired, and the like. But, actually, in the end, I think we came down in the right place, which is that we do not want this place being, as I say, a kind of a touristic place where you are taking photos and selfies when you are, for the most part, concentrating on your role as a member of Parliament. Photographs are reserved for those special occasions listed in the report: the swearing-in of members, the maiden speeches, the valedictory speeches, waiata, and the like.

I think the second point here is that this is a very valuable report for the Speaker and for this Parliament in terms of clarifying and giving guidance to us as MPs. It does that in a couple of ways. There is the general guidance, based on the existing rules of the House, which are, as I said, fit for purpose, but need a sense of overlay over them to be helpful. Then there is that issue of Appendix D of the Standing Orders and the recommendation to review the satire, ridicule, denigration part. I absolutely agree that that was, in hindsight—I was not in Parliament at the time—not the right thing to do. We do not need it. We have got, I think, thicker skins as a Parliament, individually and collectively, than that. Of course there is the proviso—I forget the exact words—that the media in their reportage will, of course, have to have accuracy in how they report. I think that is a valuable thing and place that we have arrived at.

I come back to that clarification and guidance point. It seems to me that it is very important. Some of us in this House are, or have been, lawyers—the Hon David Parker, me, Kennedy Graham, and a number of others. A few of us—me included—are actually bush lawyers from time to time, and that is there as well. But actually, for the most part, we are not lawyers, and we are not expected to be legally trained or to look at these things through some sort of potential litigation lens. We are the House of Representatives. We should be representative of a cross-section of society, and, really, all I am saying there is that we should come to this House without fear or favour. We should be able on occasion to courageously take a position without fear of being bankrupted or ruined, or of going through the financial wringer.

So although this report, in a sense, is not about the absolute parliamentary privilege that we have in the Parliament—I just want to reiterate that. Parliamentary privilege is, it should be, and it must be absolute, not for irresponsible misuse, but, as I say, to allow us on occasions, without fear or favour, to take on causes that ultimately, as David Parker said, keep us clean. But what is also true is that given that we are not all lawyers, and given that we are not all going to rush out and hire a Queen’s Counsel before we do things, we need that parliamentary privilege, and we also need to know what the position is with regard to social media.

So this report is, I think, incredibly helpful and very well put for members. Social media is not covered. Also, with issues such as—again, you might think it is obvious—confidential select committees, those proceedings also are not covered. Were you to tweet on those, you would potentially be in trouble, and those proceedings are not covered.

It is a balanced report. It moves with the times but also ensures that we do not diminish this place. It provides, I think, very helpful, simple to read, and simple to digest clarification and guidance for members of Parliament on social media and, ultimately, on technological use that should futureproof this place for some time to come.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to rise to touch on the last point raised by the last speaker, Simon Bridges, which was on those satire provisions in Appendix D of the Standing Orders.

I think that when an MP comes to this House and confesses to burning music on to CDs during the middle of a copyright debate and they do not get the irony, and when a member comes to this House and likens the internet to the evil computer from the movie The Terminator, they deserve to be satirised. Whenever a politician in this House holds up a snapper, minces down a catwalk, planks live on TV, or says that the French love their coq—rooster—we deserve to be satirised. When I asked an adviser, live on television—the now-infamous “Hey, Clint”—for media advice in front of a TV camera, I deserved to be satirised.

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

GARETH HUGHES: I did not run those lines past Clint. But we deserve to be satirised. The public deserves the right to do that, and for 8 years this House has hidden behind a ridiculous rule to try to stop it. It was Juvenal who nearly 2,000 years ago said: “In times like these, it’s difficult not to write satire.” For anyone who thinks that satire is dead, or that it can be banned, I would also like to quote someone else. Robin Williams said—to paraphrase—satire is alive and well; it is kicking in our Parliament.

I rise to support this report, which urges a review of the ridiculous rule that is Appendix D of the Standing Orders, which prohibits people from using the publicly available Parliament TV footage for satire, ridicule, and denigration. This was something both the former Clerk and the head of the parliamentary press gallery proposed, and it is good that we are finally making this step.

It is important to not forget that this is not some ancient relic of the dawn of the television age in New Zealand in the late 1960s. This is something that is only 8 years old, in the middle of the internet age. This rule was implemented back in 2007, and Vernon Small said at the time: “It seemed to be aimed to protect MPs from themselves.” The Green Party tried to vote down this provision. We lost the vote by a tally of 111 to 6. Although this Appendix D has never actually been formally invoked—no one has been pulled in front the Speaker for contempt—the media has reported that two people have been invited into the Speaker’s office for a chat about it. I can testify that it has had a chilling impact in terms of political parties using the footage in this House to make a political point, to contribute to robust political debate. I believe that we should be accountable for what we say and what we do in this House. We are here on behalf of the taxpayer.

But, on the other hand, although it has not been used, we have also seen the public still uploading their videos, making their memes, and promoting messages about MPs. Although I believe they should be protected by robust parliamentary rules and a proper bill of rights Act, all those people who have taken the mickey out of us, satirised us, ridiculed us, denigrated us—all they have had to defend themselves with is what is known as the Barbara Streisand effect. We have got to remember that we are not just talking about taking the piss or making a joke; we are talking about something that has an honourable tradition. From Aesop to Aristophanes, from Ovid to Orwell, and from Voltaire to Vonnegut it has played an important role in our culture, in our democracy, and in our history—particularly in this place, in this Parliament, where our decisions impact on real people. It is crucial that people can comment on those decisions and that they can use our own words and our actions in this House. So it is a good step that Parliament is making this recommendation.

I would also point out that the report states that the reasoning for the recommendation is “the current rule risks making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism.” I absolutely agree. I believe this rule in particular does make Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism. My longstanding opposition to this provision is not because of how it makes us look; my opposition is because it is not the right thing to do. I believe in freedom of expression. I believe in the public’s right to satirise us in a position of power. I believe they have that right. As the Clerk of the House told us, perhaps we just need to grow up.

Secondly, I note that the report recommends the Standing Orders Committee to only review the rule, but I challenge all parties in this House on that committee to commit to removing this ridiculous rule. Although Parliament has an opportunity to fix our internal rules and to lead when it comes to the freedom of expression and information, we also need to reflect that the public in New Zealand do not have this right as well. What we have seen is the lack of satire protections actually being used by the rich and powerful to stifle dissidents and stifle criticism. We have seen it from the former Telecom chief executive officer Theresa Gattung, who got the Telecon video removed. We saw it at the last election with the Darren Watson “Planet Key” video. We saw it with politicians tabling legal papers when it came to the Civilian website. It highlights the lack of satire or parody protection we have in New Zealand law. It is something that the Green Party has drafted legislation to amend.

Something we should also reflect on is that this is what we talked about earlier this year when we saw the tragic consequences of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, when we saw some noble and fine words said in this House around the importance of freedom of speech and expression. Let us not just make them words. Let us act to clean up our own House and to clean up our own rules, but let us also give those same protections to the citizens of New Zealand. After all, this is what citizens in Australia have and what citizens in America have, and if the Government is going to sign us up to copyright term extensions under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, then surely we can have some of the same protections and exemptions that are the norm amongst those other countries, which is fair use.

So I would like to congratulate and acknowledge the members of the committee. I think this is a very positive step. We have not got there yet. We need to make sure the Standing Orders Committee actually removes the ridiculous rule—Appendix D of the Standing Orders—because ultimately this is not about how it makes us look; it is about the public and their rights and their freedoms. Kia ora.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It is a privilege to be the final speaker in this debate on the Privileges Committee report. I was part of what is now is being known as the Twitter debate. I was the interloper on the Privileges Committee, and I am very proud to have had the opportunity to do that. I probably would describe myself as being on the more radical end of the spectrum amongst my colleagues with my views around the use of social media, but certainly not radical when it comes to the wider public and the wider public’s use of social media. I will expound upon that a little bit during my contribution tonight.

I do not think there is too much point in going over too much of the detail, because that has been well canvassed by other erudite speakers. Basically, the conclusion of this report was that you should use your common sense when tweeting, facebooking, instagramming, or whatever else you are doing on social media, and you should not forget that you are an MP and can be held accountable. Also, it says that rights to free speech will be upheld, but just do not take pictures in the House unless you are in the gallery and you have permission, and use your good judgment. Thankfully, parody and satire are now OK again.

This inquiry came about because of this thing called Twitter. It is called an inquiry into social media, but, actually, in my contention, it is about Twitter because of the particular nature of that social media interface. I will just bring everyone back to the reason for this debate. The reason, actually, was that a tweet from my Labour colleague Trevor Mallard criticised a decision by the Speaker in May last year. I will not read out the tweet but the tweet was sufficient to draw the attention of the Leader of the House. It was not the first time, I think, that there had been a discussion about the character of particular tweets. I know that certain numbers of my own tweets have been called into question by members across the House.

There was a certain inevitability to the fact that there would eventually be some kind of inquiry. It is certainly not a precedent; there have been inquiries in other jurisdictions. The Privileges Committee took advantage of that and sought the advice from these other jurisdictions and ultimately came to the right conclusion in the main, in my contention.

I just want to touch on how important this social media thing is and just have a look at the use of social media amongst members of the House. I think that one of speakers in the debate actually referred to there being 105 members who use Twitter. I am reliably informed today by that recorder of political minutiae, Phil Lyth, that 106 have Twitter accounts, that in most months there would be around 90 members actually actively tweeting, and that there are 15 members who do not have accounts at all. In terms of Facebook, another watcher of political activity, Ashley Murchison, has recorded that 117 out of 121 of us are listed on Facebook.

I think that what that tells us is that social media, and the use of social media, is not a fad. If you look at the New Zealand statistics from last year, 89 percent of New Zealanders are online; 55 percent of us use Facebook, which is about 2.2 million; and more than 370,000 of us are on Twitter. So I think that this debate and this report have to be taken in that context—that New Zealanders use social media a lot, it is particular tool of communication, and it is important, therefore, that Parliament takes that seriously.

Just in relation to the report, I think that we were aided very admirably by the submissions—there were 14 submissions—and particularly by the submission made by the former Clerk of the House Mary Harris, who gave very good guidance to the committee. Very briefly, she said: “My submission is based on the view that the use of social media has not changed the essential nature of the issues that the rules of the House have evolved to deal with; and that advances in technology offer a huge opportunity to engage New Zealanders with Parliament as never before. For both these reasons, my general response to the questions that the committee has asked submitters to address is that restriction or regulation should be avoided. Transgressions of rules and conventions made via social media are no different to those made in any other way. They should be dealt with by recourse to the existing rules of the House.” She went on to say that “Parliaments that have persisted in a restrictive approach have placed themselves at risk of appearing to be out-of-touch with the modern world.” I absolutely concur with that view, and in my humble opinion we should have taken that to include the use of photographs as well. I will talk a little bit about that in a second.

Ultimately, the conclusion of the inquiry was—and it was the right conclusion—that we already have rules in the House. We have got Standing Order 410(o), which is the Standing Order that applies; it is just that the mediums we are using are different. So the rules are right and they have withstood the test of time, and they will continue to withstand the test of time. I think that shows the robustness of our parliamentary processes, our rules, and the thought that has gone into them. It does not matter what comes next in terms of technology, because those rules should be adhered to. So I think, basically, that the committee worked that out quite quickly.

Where we did have the debate was around the role of the media and their rights, and around relaxing that rule on satire. I agree with what Gareth Hughes said about that, which was that it was an out-of-date rule and that anything that actually penalises satire and parody is not the mark of a good democracy. I think that is pretty important.

Where I do differ is on the use of photographs. I believe that a sensible approach to this would have been to allow a more minimalist use of taking photographs where people give their permission, and I believe that, just as is demonstrated out there in the community, people do have the capacity to moderate their behaviour online when it is clearly not appropriate—there are rules that are in place—and I think that at some point we will revise the decision that has been made on that.

I am pleased that we have, as I said, relaxed the rules on satire. I think we have clarified the ability for the press gallery to take photos and to film, and, again, I would like to commend the submission that the chair of the press gallery, Claire Trevett, made, which was a very useful contribution. But, ultimately, saying that the use of photographs is not acceptable is, I think, to stick your finger in the dyke, and I believe that we will at some point come back and revise that decision if we are to be a truly modern Parliament and if we are to reflect the use of technology at its most beneficial and effective.

The public want to see MPs and they want to engage with them more directly. I refer to a group of parliamentarians called the Parliamentary Internet Forum—me, Gareth Hughes, Nikki Kaye, and Tracey Martin—which was kicked off in 2010 and really did try to provide a way of having more open government and more accessibility to Parliament by using social media and technology.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Wellington Town Belt Bill

First Reading

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the Wellington Town Belt Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. It is my very great honour to be moving the first reading of this bill today on behalf of the Wellington City Council and in my position as the MP for Wellington Central. I want at the outset to thank the mayor, councillors, and officials of the Wellington City Council for their hard work in getting it to this point today.

They say that good things take time. If so, then there is no doubt that this bill is a very, very good thing. I first encountered a proposal for legislation about the town belt some 14 years ago, when I returned to Wellington to work for the then MP for Wellington Central, Marian Hobbs. Some 7 years later, as the newly minted MP, I talked in my maiden speech about my desire to see the town belt fully recognised and protected in law. Some 7 years after that, we have a bill and a first reading. The man from Mainland cheese has nothing on us when it comes to patience and perseverance.

The Wellington town belt is a horseshoe-shaped green and open space that runs along the border of the Wellington Central and Rongotai electorates, across Mount Victoria, around to Te Ahumairangi in the west, and across to Wadestown and the border with the Ōhariu electorate. Today it comprises nearly 400 hectares. It is of unique significance to Wellington and Wellingtonians, and this bill will ensure that this remarkable asset remains a part of Wellington for many generations to come.

It is important to acknowledge at the outset the connection of a number of iwi with the land that we know as the town belt. I am particularly pleased that this connection is spelt out in the preamble to the legislation so that it will form part of the statute when this bill passes.

In 1839, when the New Zealand Company sought to establish a settlement at Wellington, the iwi groups with take raupatu over the harbour and its surrounding area were Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Ruanui, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama—collectively known today as Taranaki Whānui—and also Ngāti Toa Rangatira. The Treaty settlement processes for both Taranaki Whānui and Ngāti Toa have recognised the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to Crown acquisition of lands within the Wellington Harbour and surrounding areas, and I want to acknowledge those breaches again today.

In early consultation on this legislation, the importance of not only the land to mana whenua but also the protection provided to it by the town belt was recognised. I am very pleased to note that in clause 4(1) of the bill—the principles—it is clearly stated that “the Wellington Town Belt should be managed in partnership with mana whenua:”. Such an arrangement serves only to strengthen the protection and enhancement of the town belt for future generations.

You will hear some Wellingtonians talk about the original town belt. What they mean is that in the New Zealand Company’s original plans there was a public reserve of some 1,562 acres—approximately 632 hectares—including what is now the Wellington Botanic Garden. The company’s secretary, John Ward, instructed that this land be “public property on condition that no buildings be ever erected upon it”. What, in fact, occurred was that the Governor of the time indicated in 1841 that the reserves were required by the Crown for public purposes. This was not the last time such a thing would happen.

Over following decades some land was reserved for the people of Wellington, most particularly through the Wellington City Reserves Act of 1871, which, in turn, led the Superintendent of the Province of Wellington to execute the Town Belt Deed in 1873. By this point the town belt had been whittled down to 1,061 acres, 1 rood, and 2 perches—more or less—as a result of the re-appropriation of land for Government projects. Although these projects saw the construction of Government House, hospitals, signal stations, and educational facilities, this purpose did fall outside the intention of why the town belt was set aside: for the recreation and enjoyment of Wellingtonians.

In addition to vesting the land in the hands of the Wellington City Corporation, the 1873 Town Belt Deed stated that the land should “be for ever hereafter used and appropriated as a public Recreation ground for the inhabitants of the City of Wellington”. The size of the town belt continued to decrease over time as allocations of land were made for roading projects and more and more land was opened up, leaving us with the 400 hectares that we have today.

It is important to outline the purpose of this legislation and what problems we are attempting to solve with it. The core purposes of the bill are, first, to provide a transparent statutory basis for the council’s trusteeship and management of the town belt on behalf of the inhabitants of Wellington. In addition to the trust deed, there are a number of pieces of legislation that, in effect, govern the town belt, including the Reserves Act, the Wellington City Exhibition Grounds Act, and the Wellington (City) Town Belt Reserves Act. This legislation brings the powers of all those instruments together into one place. The second purpose is to impose on the council responsibilities and powers to protect, manage, and enhance the town belt.

The trust deed continues to be the founding and lasting form of guidance for how the town belt should be managed. However, over the last 140-odd years, there has been a lack of clarity over core aspects of how the role given to the council under the deed should be interpreted. Clause 8 of this bill provides a clear description of the legal status of the town belt. The key elements of this are that “The Council holds the Wellington Town Belt on behalf of the inhabitants of Wellington as trustee of the trust created by the Town Belt Deed.”

Importantly, the bill states that the only term of the trust is to for ever use the town belt as a public recreation ground, and it also provides a definition of “public recreation ground”. This has been a contentious subject over the years as various parties have sought to have an expansive definition to suit particular projects. This bill defines a “public recreation ground” as “an area provided for—(a) recreation, sporting activities and the enjoyment of the public, with an emphasis on the retention of public access, open spaces and outdoor activities; and (b) the protection of the natural environment and historic heritage.”

This purpose also highlights one of the great virtues of having town belt legislation. At this point in time it is not possible to add land to the town belt. It is locked in time as if it were 1873—minus the various bits of land taken by the Crown. This bill gives the ability, under Part 3, to add land to the town belt. The immediate effect of passing this legislation will be the addition of more than 120 hectares of land, largely what was known as the old Telecom land. Polhill Gully, the former chest hospital, and Vice Regal Park, part of Government House, will be added to the town belt. Over time I would like to think that both the land previously taken that is no longer required by the Crown and other green space could be added to the town belt and get the protections that entails.

The bill also makes absolutely clear that the council cannot sell, exchange, or use as security any part of the Wellington town belt. The bill does allow for a series of small, one-off technical boundary adjustments where land inside the town belt is already a road or a driveway and should no longer be considered to be formally part of the town belt.

The third purpose of this legislation is to recognise the history of the original town belt and its significance to the mana whenua and the inhabitants of Wellington. As I noted earlier, placing this within the legislation is an important statement.

The legislation has been the subject of long and detailed consultation. Fifty written submissions were received and 20 submitters made oral submissions. A number of changes were made to the legislation along the way, and I am sure there will be more suggestions for them during the select committee process. I want to pay tribute to the Friends of the Wellington Town Belt and others, who have played a significant role in getting the legislation to this point.

In the process of drafting there have been issues and concerns raised. Perhaps the most significant has been around the application of the Public Works Act to the town belt. Over the 140 years of its existence, the Crown from time to time has taken land for public purposes—for example, the site of Te Aro School. The council has accepted that the Public Works Act will apply to the town belt, but this legislation has been drafted so that it would not allow the council to agree to acquisition under the Public Works Act, and it sets out the process for objection to, and compensation for, acquisition. I understand that since the drafting of the bill, the council and Land Information New Zealand have had further discussions about these clauses, and in submissions to the select committee will propose some agreed changes.

Many submissions focused on commercial activities in the town belt. The bill has taken up their suggestions. All business activities will require an authorisation and can be approved only if the activity is temporary and any effect is no more than minor. Essentially, this allows for buildings such as changing rooms, coaching facilities, and coffee carts; it does not allow for new buildings or for cafes or shops within them, or even for wacky ideas such as driving ranges and gondolas, which have been suggested in the past.

The Wellington Town Belt Bill is a significant step in protecting and enhancing one of the things that makes our capital so special. At its heart it is not just about providing green and open space; it is also about whom the city is for. Providing a public recreation ground that cannot be built out and that is held open for all the people of our city is just the kind of inclusive and progressive ideal Wellington is known for. I commend this bill to the House.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I rise as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee to speak in this first reading debate on the Wellington Town Belt Bill, a local bill being sponsored by the local member for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, and being promoted by the Wellington City Council.

I am not a resident of Wellington, but I have had the privilege over the years of visiting Wellington frequently and, of course, in my role as an MP I now get to fly in and out of the city on a very regular basis. One of the great joys of arriving by air into Wellington is the sight of what is clearly and obviously to all a very magnificent green strip of what looks to the naked eye to be forested area. It is a wonderful vision for visitors arriving to Wellington, to see this town belt strip, and the fact that the belt exists is, I guess, a credit to those who have gone past and created such a vision that enabled a belt such as exists today to have been created. They had great vision and great foresight to do that.

So it is right and proper that this bill attempts to modernise and bring into today’s language a set of governance rules and structures that will see the town belt protected and loved, as it is by Wellingtonians today, well into the future for future generations. I am very much looking forward to the select committee process, where we will, I am sure, hear from a wide range of submitters who will want to make the point about how much this town belt is loved, respected, and appreciated by Wellingtonians and visitors alike. I am pleased to confirm in this speech that the National Party will support this bill through to select committee, and we will be watching with a very keen interest as it goes through the House and through to select committee.

The history of this bill and this wonderful piece of natural heritage for Wellington and Wellingtonians has been, I think, quite well set out by Grant Robertson. The town belt is a very large area of land. As one who comes from a rural and provincial electorate in the Coromandel, I am very used to seeing large areas of native bush and flora and fauna in their natural environments, but for those people who live in urban environments such a setting is a little less familiar. It is a credit to those who have gone in the past and those who have served on Wellington councils in the past that this belt has been protected as well and as carefully as it has been over the years, to enable it to still be in a state where it is a very large area of some 400 hectares. It stretches from Mount Victoria in the north-east to Berhampore at its southern end, and then north-west between Wadestown and Thorndon. That is an area of land that I think many urban cities around the world would be very envious of—having that kind of facility, that kind of resource so close to the urban centre.

The stated aim of this bill is to both protect the town belt and modernise the governance of it, and it does this by, effectively, removing the current status of recreational reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and giving it a separate legal status that will become consolidated under the bill. The bill aims to restrict the disposal of town belt land and increase the ease with which land may be added, and, of course, it is a tantalising prospect that this already large area of 400 hectares, which admittedly has been diminished over the years by the taking of some parts of it for public works, could in the future be actually now extended. I would think that that would be something that the committee will want to explore with keenness.

The other aspect that the bill seeks to do is to close all the paper roads that cross the town belt land. In my electorate of the Coromandel I am grappling at the moment with what will, I think, eventually turn into a local bill that exactly seeks to solve a similar issue in the Coromandel. Roads were surveyed, in some cases more than 100 years ago, they were never actually developed, and now they still exist in a legal way. The way to fix that is to actually bring a local bill to this House and resolve it in the way that Grant Robertson is attempting to do here, with the support of the council.

Grant Robertson, in his opening comments, made note of the fact that the bill seeks to exempt the town belt land from sections of the Public Works Act. That is, I suspect, something that will be of some interest and concern to some submitters. I notice that in public comments there have been some concerns already expressed by a number of organisations and individuals. For instance, the New Zealand Transport Agency and Land Information New Zealand have already raised concerns regarding the application of the Public Works Act 1981. The Transport Agency has, in fact, indicated that the bill is likely to impact planned developments, in particular the proposed second tunnel through Mount Victoria.

So I suspect that, as we hear submissions on this bill at select committee, we will be wanting to hear from submitters who seek to somehow straddle the demands and needs of a modern urban environment with the practicalities of maintaining a green town belt of the sort that we currently have. That is a delicate balance in any kind of discussion and debate on these sorts of matters. It is a discussion that occurs in other parts of the country. I am confident, however, that as a committee and as a House we will be able to grapple with those issues and that we will find what I hope will be a worthwhile and meaningful middle ground and a pathway through some of those things.

For over 170 years the town belt has been a reserve for the public of Wellington to enjoy. One of the things that I enjoy when I do visit Wellington is I quite enjoy the prospect, when it is possible, of getting out into the Wellington area and going for a walk. I have got to say that, as a visitor, I am incredibly impressed by the facility that the green town belt provides for people who want to enjoy a natural environment that is close to a city. For 170 years Wellingtonians and visitors to the city have been able to do just that. Parks and reserves and vegetated slopes visible from the central city dominate the town belt. The continuous and interesting shape of the belt of undeveloped hills around the city and suburbs has been a feature that has marked this city out as special for all of those 170 years. The belt also provides for a wide range of sporting and recreational activities to take place, and those are also worthy attributes of the belt and the facilities that it provides.

The council is proposing, by virtue of this bill, to strengthen the protection of the town belt, and to do this it has actually, I think, gone to a significant amount of trouble to draft this local bill. I want to acknowledge at the outset the work that the council has done in terms of bringing what looks to me, at first glance anyway, to be a very well-prepared, thoroughly researched, and good document for us to get our teeth into—so a pat on the back for the council for getting it to this stage. The council has already gone through—it is my understanding—a fairly significant and full public comment and submission process, and that is also to its credit, in terms of bringing a bill of this nature to the House.

What is not going to change is this: the bill is not going to change much of the history and the heritage that the belt has created. This is a bill that I think covers exactly the sorts of things that should be covered in a local bill, and I think that—on this side of the House, anyway—we will be very keen to do it justice. We are looking forward to getting involved in it and we are looking forward to working towards the creation of a new piece of legislation that, hopefully, will stand the Wellington town belt in good stead as it has been for the last 170 years—with a piece of legislation that will be enduring and durable for the next 170 years and there beyond. So I commend this bill to the House for its first reading.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): This is a red-letter day for Wellington, for Wellington City Council, and for Grant Robertson in particular, because over many years there has been dogged determination—eventually desperation—to get this bill before the House and passed. So I want to begin by congratulating a number of people. I must start with my friend and colleague Grant Robertson because, as he pointed out in his contribution, he started working on this issue many years ago when he was a humble servant of a member of Parliament. Today he is the member for Wellington Central and the person who is proudly putting through this bill. You see, it is a proud day and a red-letter day because we are so blessed here in Wellington to have the town belt. There are very few places in the world that have the sort of green space around the city—the horseshoe-shaped green space around the city—that we have here in Wellington. It is something to be protected, something to care for, and this bill, as has just been said by Scott Simpson, who has just sat down, is putting protection in place, hopefully, for the next 170 years and beyond.

I want to also congratulate Wellington City Council staff and councillors who have worked hard on this bill. I particularly want to thank the parks and reserves people. You know, they are the people who keep the town belt looking so good, making it open and available. They are unsung heroes of the Wellington City Council, and I want to commend them. There are two people from my own electorate who are very dear friends and have worked for years to protect the town belt, and they are Cynthia Wainwright and Joan Quinn. I would like to acknowledge Joan, who is sitting in the gallery today. This will also be a red-letter day for the Friends of the Wellington Town Belt—the people who have kept an eagle eye on whatever happens on that town belt. For any encroachment or anything that was not appropriate, they certainly made their voices heard.

This is a very special day for Wellington. That town belt—it will be repeated many times—has for over 170 years been the reserve that the public has been able to enjoy, and it is a scenic backdrop to this city. Many of us have walked on that town belt. We see cyclists in places. We see kids and dogs and all sorts of outdoor activity. When people say “You wouldn’t live in Wellington—terrible weather.”, I can tell them that there is so much good weather in Wellington that we get to enjoy the town belt, and it has become very much part of how many people live in this electorate.

What I really like about this bill, apart from the protection that it is going to give, is the ability to be able to add to the town belt. That is something that the Friends of the Wellington Town Belt have wanted for years—to be able to add to it. This bill allows that to happen so that there can be more green space. Watts Peninsula on the Miramar peninsula is in the part of Wellington that used to be called Motu Kairangi—it was an island and it was called Motu Kairangi. That became a peninsula when there was an earthquake and it all joined up, and that part of it has the area called Watts Peninsula. It is about 76 hectares, and it has been decided that it will be a public reserve. I would like to see that added to the town belt.

In the short time that I have left, let me say that I think that Rongotai and the Wellington electorates are very, very lucky to have this asset but also to have a member and a council who are prepared to do the work over many years to preserve it. Finally, in response to Scott Simpson about the second tunnel at Mount Victoria—something that is felt very strongly about on my side of Wellington—this bill is irrelevant to it, because the Government can take that part of the town belt it might like down Ruahine Street under the Public Works Act. What the bill does do is talk about compensation, and I hope that compensation ends up as other land that can go into the town belt. This bill deals with the compensation of taking something like the Ruahine Street land. So this is a very good day and I congratulate all those involved.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. It is a pleasure to take a call in this first reading debate on the Wellington Town Belt Bill, and I would like to congratulate my colleague and opponent Grant Robertson on presenting this bill to the House. It is important that after so many years the trusts and deeds that form the original foundation of this taonga, this asset, which is important to our city, are modernised and brought up to date.

This bill revokes the Wellington (City) Town Belt Reserves Act 1908 and the Wellington City Exhibition Grounds Act 1959 and puts into place a more coherent and consistent basis for the foundation of the town belt, which so many Wellington residents enjoy. I would like to acknowledge the work of the others who have contributed to bringing this piece of legislation to the House: the Wellington city councillors, in particular Councillor Helene Ritchie; Councillor Andy Foster, whom I noticed was taking an interest in this as well; and also the officials who have contributed to drafting what is a good basis for this bill, which will be obviously closely scrutinised by the Local Government and Environment Committee, so ably chaired by my respected colleague the honourable member for the Coromandel, Scott Simpson. He is a very hard-working MP and a very conciliatory chair of that committee, who works well across the House to make sure that the other parties are well consulted and that there is collaboration so that we get the very best possible result.

But I do need to respond to a couple of things that have been said so far in this first reading debate. I would like to comment on the remarks made by the member for Rongotai, the Hon Annette King, that the Public Works Act would be available to the Government should certain essential pieces of infrastructure such as the duplication of the Mount Victoria Tunnel, the drilling through of a second tunnel, need to be undertaken for the greater good of all Wellingtonians and, in fact, for the greater economic benefit of the country.

There were some comments made, prior to the introduction of this bill, by the chamber of commerce, which raised serious concerns that clause 23 of this bill in particular and also clause 6(b) could affect such vital projects as the Mount Victoria duplication, and also the deployment of the rapid transit bus routes around Wellington, not just because of the consultation that would be required but the fact that the original drafting of the Act, section 18 of the Public Works Act, did not apply in its entirety.

I understand that there has been some discussion and that the city council has agreed that there could be some changes and amendments usefully made in the select committee process of the consideration of this bill. Leaving the bill as it is would put a handbrake on potentially vital work, particularly around the transport improvements that we do require to be able to go ahead as a city.

Too often over the past few years we have seen essential projects either stopped or significantly impeded. We have seen the implementation of a more efficient route through the Basin Reserve impeded over the last couple of years, and that is something that we desperately need, given that that road link is at over 100 percent of its current capacity. We do not want to compound that further by introducing in this piece of legislation further handbrakes to that necessary development.

Similarly, I understand that there are arguments being made at the other extreme of the spectrum, from David Lee for instance—and I do not mean Councillor Lee; this is another David Lee—who has concerns that this bill goes too far in allowing the continuation of certain commercial activities on town belt land.

So, clearly, there are a variety of views. As a select committee we will be listening to those. I welcome the fact that the bill increases the ease of adding land and makes it harder to remove land from the town belt, but let us see how we go in the committee. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is not every day in this place that you get to rise and speak on a bill that traces its heritage to the age of sailing vessels and the settlement of this great city all the way back in 1839, so I would like to acknowledge the tremendous history involved with this. I rise to support the Wellington Town Belt Bill, a bill in the name of local MP Grant Robertson. This bill, quite simply, aims to simplify and make more transparent the basis on which the Wellington City Council manages and holds the town belt. It recognises the importance of the town belt as an asset, as a taonga, to the people of Wellington. I have lived in this great city for some 15-odd years, and the town belt is incredibly important to Wellingtonians. One of my favourite pastimes is walking up Te Ahumairangi Hill behind this House. It is a bit of a walk. I used to live on Mount Victoria, where we backed up near the top of the hill near the belt. For a few years there were actually reports of people biting people in the forests of Mount Victoria, and it led to a whole rash of newspaper headlines around vampires on Mount Victoria. I wonder whether that is where Taika Waititi got his inspiration for the great Wellington film What We Do in the Shadows—from the news of what was happening in our town belt. We know that the town belt is important to Wellingtonians. It is much loved. It is a treasure given by our forefathers and foremothers all those years and decades ago.

I would like to acknowledge the people who have put in considerable work to get this legislation to this floor today. I understand this legislation has been developed since 2010. There were more than 250 submissions, and I would like to thank all the people involved, including the local member Grant Robertson, council officials, councillors—and I know we have got some in the Chamber today—and parliamentary counsel as well. In a nutshell, this bill simply addresses the legal uncertainty flowing from those various old statutes and the nature of the deed dating from the 1870s. It provides strong protections around the uses of the town belt for recreational activities; safeguards against new buildings and commercial activities; and, I think, crucially, this bill prevents the council from selling any part of the town belt. So it gives a legislative protection to this point and the guiding principles and guarantees of public access, which is fantastic, and the Green Party absolutely supports it. It recognises the history of mana whenua, and I understand that the co-management regime is a positive step forward. We are seeing the ability of the council to add land not subtract land, and it is great to see another 120 hectares slated to be added to this beautiful area. So there are a lot of positives with this legislation. It is quite simple common sense to try to rationalise and simplify.

But I want to touch on something from the last speaker, Paul Foster-Bell, because he picked up on the big motorway vison that we are seeing from the current Government, and this is one of the controversial threats facing this taonga of the Wellington region. This is quite specifically the roads of national significance and the dream of a second tunnel, the dream of a motorway from Levin to the airport at a time when we do see traffic stable and declining, and the relationship with the Public Works Act. What we see is a debate in the city around what the provisions should be. I know that a controversial point in earlier drafts was the standing given to citizens. This town belt belongs to all of Wellington. I note that the council has a management role, a historical role, a leadership role, but I also question that, and that is something we will be looking at in the select committee. We also need to discuss the issue of compensation and the time lines around that, and I welcome the opportunity to hear submissions on this. I know that Wellingtonians will be very keen to have their say, and I look forward to working with members on the select committee, the council staff, and the local member of Parliament Grant Robertson, because, ultimately, what we are doing is trying to protect an area of Wellington that we love. We do want to see it protected. Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is very exciting to be able to stand and speak to the Wellington Town Belt Bill. It is a bit of a red-letter day, as an honourable member mentioned before. For me, there are a couple of reasons for this.

Firstly, I think that this may well be the only time in my political career when I stand shoulder to shoulder on a bill with a man with whom I used to be a student union president. So I acknowledge you, Grant, and—

Grant Robertson: That’s right. You’ll come around again, Todd—don’t worry.

TODD MULLER: —one or two times, it may be—your commitment to this legislation. I also acknowledge the Friends of the Wellington Town Belt. It is great to see that you are here to see the fruits of your collective effort coming in front of us today.

Secondly, it is good to be talking about something other than avocados. I am sure that it was a very enjoyable conversation earlier.

Thirdly, I am someone who is passionate about history, and, actually, I am passionate about wide open spaces. So, for me, there is a convergence here of two things that I am actually quite interested in—and I am seriously interested in this. If you go to Hagley Park in Christchurch, or if you go to Maungakiekie, Cornwall Park, or One Tree Hill, you will see examples of our forefathers’ vision in terms of how we create the best place for people to live and of how we get that convergence, if you like, between places for us to live, work, and play. I am sure that they used different terminology back then. The Wellington town belt is very much in that same tradition as the vision of those people all those years ago, holding a view of what this great city could look like into the future.

As we have heard already this afternoon, in 1839 those visionaries drafted the initial settlement plan for Port Nicholson. That is an interesting name. Perhaps they should have stayed with it; it sounds slightly more romantic than Wellington. But, anyway, it did change over time, and, of course, it is now Wellington City. That initial plan to have the town belt hectarage as public property on the condition that no buildings could ever be erected on it was visionary for its time.

If you think back to 1839 in England, where most, if not all, of our directions came from back then, the idea of a town belt was a novelty. Yes, there were parklands in Britain, but they were where the wealthy went to cavort on Saturday or Sunday afternoons. Those who lived in the more intense industrial areas of town had no such places. So the vision was to create some green space where people could go, regardless of their socio-economic status, and enjoy that space. These spaces were called the “lungs” of the city. That was the vision that informed the New Zealand Company all those years ago, and it is what we are talking about here in order to ensure that we enshrine it in legislation that is relevant and effective for 2015 but that stays true to that initial vision.

As we have heard, that initial settlement deed was passed over at 1,061 acres by 1873. I need to get this right, Mr Robertson, so that it is on the record that I am endorsing and supporting you on this issue only. One road—1,061 acres; 1 rood and 2 perches. I think I have got that right. It was granted to the city in 1873 as a public recreation ground. Now, of course, the town belt is 400 hectares and it stretches from Mount Victoria to Te Ahumairangi Hill. But, of course, that deed, when established in 1873, provided the council with its authority to hold and manage the Wellington town belt. Obviously, it had certain rules and regulations to underpin it, but what we have found through this process—and, obviously, we will talk through this more specifically when we are in the select committee—is that the old town belt was difficult to interpret. Obviously, there are a range of statutes that are now not aligned with other particular bills and Acts, which we need to get some congruence around.

In particular, this bill will provide certainty because it becomes the principal source of the council’s powers for protecting, managing, and enhancing the Wellington town belt. The bill is in four parts, and no doubt we will have time to talk about that in the future. I am pleased to see that in Part 2, not only are the powers listed there but so are the responsibilities that lie with the council in respect of being very overt within a management plan, and that, of course, will get discussed regularly. I would love to carry on, but I shall sit down now and look forward to the select committee discussions.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Once again, we get to this point in the debate and you wonder how much more you can add to that which has already been said. But I will start by saying congratulations to the Wellington City Council, to the mayor and the councillors, and to all the staff involved in getting this piece of legislation on to the floor of the House. Most definitely congratulations also to the local MP Grant Robertson, who has been more than studious in advocating for this bill and getting around the House, around the parties, to garner the level of support required. It is not that I think it took a whole heap of arm-twisting, Mr Robertson, because it is difficult to disagree with or to object to this piece of legislation.

There is something that stands out as quite striking for me, at this point, if I could look for a point of difference in the kōrero thus far. It is the fact that the Government supports this legislation—the principles, the purpose, and the intent. Why I say I am astonished and pleased that the Government is doing this is that green belts, town belts, reserves, public reserves, and Crown reserves are all there—they all exist within communities, for the same purpose. They are there to promote the well-being of the people who reside in that locale—their well-being.

There used to be a time when local government was guided, directed, through the Local Government Act by well-beings and the need to focus on the well-being of the community, be it social, cultural, economic, or indeed, might I add, spiritual. It seems strange that on the one hand the Government should say that we no longer need to have well-beings mentioned in the Local Government Act, but here, today, it stands and recognises that the Wellington town belt is fundamental to the well-being, to the character, to the spirit, and, indeed, to the economic well-being of Wellington City. It would be nice to think that this epiphany, this realisation, this coming back to reality might actually permeate a little deeper into the thinking of National Party MPs as we passage this bill together, as a complete House—unanimously—through to its final reading, and that they might wish to reflect on those changes that they inflicted, imposed, and dictatorially handed out to the public of New Zealand through their amendments—

Alastair Scott: Democracy.

RON MARK: There was no democracy about it at all—no democracy about it at all. The weight of numbers dictated against the overwhelming objection of Local Government New Zealand and all the National Party mayors and deputy mayors and councillors throughout New Zealand who actually objected to it.

This piece of legislation probably stands as an example of why we need to focus on the well-being of communities. It is good to see that we are recognising that. It is also good to see that in the “Purpose” clause of this bill there is not a thing we can disagree with. The principles—I will home in on a couple in clause 4: “(i) the Wellington Town Belt should be managed in partnership with mana whenua:”. Being Ātiawa myself and being very aware of the manner in which the land was obtained in the first place, it stands to reason that this is the just and right thing to do. Clause 4(1)(b)(ii) states: “the landscape character of the Wellington Town Belt should be protected and enhanced, including by recognising that it was the New Zealand Company’s intention that the original Town Belt not be built on:”. But this also recognises that there will be times when there will need to be adjustments, for the betterment of Wellington, in terms of allowing building. The fact that this legislation makes it possible for more land to be added to the town belt is eminently sensible and in fact fundamental, because it allows Wellington City to grow its town belt as the opportunity arises.

For the record, New Zealand First will support the passage of this bill and looks forward to working in the Local Government and Environment Committee alongside our other colleagues—cross party. We look forward to seeing the day when Mr Robertson will get to see his bill read for a third time. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a privilege to rise on this, the Wellington Town Belt Bill, a bill that the National Party will be supporting through to the select committee hearings. I would just like to acknowledge the efforts of Grant Robertson across the years that it has taken to bring this bill to the House. The member mentioned that he made note of what he would like to see done with the town belt in his maiden speech. Should this bill make it through the select committee and through to enactment, I am sure that my colleague Paul Foster-Bell will be more than happy to accept Grant Robertson’s speech in the third reading of this bill as his valedictory. I would also like to note the hard work of the council and councillors, particularly Councillor Helene Ritchie, who is here to see the first reading of a bill that she sponsored within the council, and also the work of the councillors themselves.

As has been canvassed, the town belt is something that not only is immediately identifiable as people fly into this great city, the greatest city in our country, but also really helps to define some of the stuff that is so wonderful about the liveability of this city. Not only is the town belt used for recreation, such as walks and for its natural beauty, but it is actually used as a recreational facility in other ways. This bill will, in fact, protect those sorts of uses into the future. On an uncustomary cold winter’s day in Wellington I often join my daughter Micaela at the Wellington netball courts in the town belt, on Mount Victoria, where she plays that game, as many, many other young women and women in Wellington do. The town belt is also used for rugby. It has been used for cycling. It is used for running. It is used for many, many purposes. The top of Mount Victoria is a tourist attraction for the city. There probably are not too many tourists who spend any length of time in Wellington who do not go up there to have a good look at the city.

Hon Member: Park up in the back seat.

BRETT HUDSON: There are also those uses, as well.

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

BRETT HUDSON: I was talking about the town belt around Mount Victoria. Effectively, it rings the inner harbour around to Te Ahumairangi, which, as Mr Robertson pointed out, is on the border of the Ōhariu electorate. There has a bit of parochialism on this debate tonight about Wellington Central, Rongotai, and the town belt, but I would just like to remind members that this is a Wellington City - promoted bill. In Wellington City the council boundaries extend both north and west. They take in the entire population of the electorate of Ōhariu, and the city is all the better for it.

Simon O’Connor: Tell us about the list member for Ōhariu.

BRETT HUDSON: I could talk for a while about him.

It is very, very good to stand here in support of a bill going to select committee that is going to protect the town belt for generations to come. It is with some regret, though, which other speakers have noted and I will reiterate, that the bill is being introduced in not quite the perfect form we may have wanted. It does currently contain carve-out provisions from the Public Works Act that some would say are completely unnecessary but are certainly under contention. I think what does concern me somewhat is that through talking to people who have raised concerns and talking to people within the council I have been advised that the parties actually got together and nutted out these issues around these carve-outs in particular, and also around the areas of permitting any inhabitant of the Wellington region or the Wellington City Council area to lodge objections, and they actually worked through the issues. They sought and found solutions. They actually found the drafting that would address the issue.

So it is quite regrettable, having done all that work and reached a final point, that the bill has been introduced into the House with the original provisions—in particular, I am talking around the likes of clause 23—still in place. There was the opportunity. The bill could have arrived amended from what it currently is and we could, in fact, be debating in this first reading the provisions that we know that the people who have raised concerns, such as the New Zealand Transport Agency, Land Information New Zealand, and the council, have already thrashed out and already agreed on. We will now, instead, be having to discuss these during the select committee deliberations. I certainly would encourage the members on the select committee to pay very, very close attention to those areas. They are very serious concerns. They are things that need to be addressed, but I am very hopeful that at the end of that process we will see a bill that will go through a successful second and third reading to be enacted. I support this reading of the Wellington Town Belt Bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on the Wellington Town Belt Bill, which is a local bill that has been introduced by Wellington MP Grant Robertson. I commend him for what I understand has been a very long journey working with the council and interested Wellingtonians to get this bill to the House. I would also, as Grant Robertson did, like to start by specifically acknowledging mana whenua of Wellington and the fact that this bill provides recognition of their historical loss and grievance, and sets up co-governance, and to specifically acknowledge Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Ruanui, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Toa Rangatira, who all had land taken from them for the town belt in the original settlement of Wellington. I think it is progress, certainly, that this bill recognises that history and sets up co-governance of the space of the town belt, which is precious to mana whenua and more recent Wellingtonians alike.

Green spaces in our cities are precious, and there are strong feelings about preserving these spaces because of how much they contribute to our enjoyment of this space and in our daily lives. There are also, and have always been, strong development pressures to erode that same green space. This bill, I understand, was initially largely initiated as an attempt by Wellingtonians to ensure the protection of this pretty amazing town belt, even though it is only around a third of the size of what it was initially intended to be, and to stop the ongoing incursions that were threatening it. I understand that this bill will enable, for the first time, the town belt to actually grow in the future, and that absolutely is a win.

The Green Party, though, will be looking very carefully through the select committee process at the provisions in the bill that relate to the Public Works Act. We do register our concern that in the process of this bill the involvement of the New Zealand Transport Agency was to pressure the council to change the bill away from what the council’s original intent was. I understand that there were certainly a significant number of people who wanted to see the town belt exempt from pressures of the Public Works Act, as Hagley Park in Christchurch is protected from incursions and from parts of the park being taken through the Public Works Act, but the New Zealand Transport Agency applied very heavy pressure on the council to change this bill. Through the public consultation, the agency put pressure on the council to change its wording around the land taken under the Public Works Act.

The council did not agree, because part of the intent of this bill and the reason for it to come to this House was about the amount of land that had been taken under the Public Works Act. So part of the initial intent was to protect it from that very piece of legislation. My understanding is that the New Zealand Transport Agency managed to persuade the Government that the compromise that the council had reached was not supportable and that the Government said that it would even refuse for the bill to go through its first reading unless the council agreed to some changes that had been put forward by the New Zealand Transport Agency. Thus, we have this bill in front of us, which I believe, due to that pressure by the New Zealand Transport Agency and this Government working alongside it on that, has actually compromised the local democratic process.

The point of local bills is to represent the desires of a local community. If the Government has concerns, the appropriate place for that to be debated would be in the select committee, not beforehand, and not by threatening the ability to progress a bill to the select committee before it came to this House. That is a subversion and an arrogant domination of central government over local government and local communities’ intent. That is disgraceful, to be honest. I absolutely give credit to Grant Robertson for getting this bill here, but the Government should be called out on its undemocratic behaviour.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to support the Wellington Town Belt Bill sponsored by the member Grant Robertson. I say congratulations to you, Grant, for having it come through after such a long time there in the Bills Office. Timutimu pāria, rākau pāria, whānui te ara i a tāna—ward off post and weapon so that the expansive path of mankind is opened up. This is the whakataukī uttered by Te Wharepōuri Te Kakapi-o-Te Rangi during the arrival of the colonial ships within the Wellington Harbour and upon the foreshores of Pētone in the 1830s. The words he uttered show foresight on his part and on the part of his whānau, his hapū, and his iwi and signalled that the world that they were currently living in was going to change and it was going to change for ever. However, I am sure that back then the process for acquiring lands for the town belt from the Crown left a lot of unanswered questions. I am sure that the iwi of Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Ruanui, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, together with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and Ngāti Toa, were a little bit shocked to find out that this was all happening to their lands. But as time has gone by things have changed.

Yet, none the less, the land acquisition went ahead, and the New Zealand Land Company’s initial settlement plan provided 1,562 acres for public reserves for the original town belt around the Port Nicholson area, or Wellington City, as it stands today. On 16 October 1841 the Governor of New Zealand notified that the reserves provided for in the company’s plans were reserved by the Crown for public purposes, without consulting at the time or compensating iwi.

On 3 June 1861 the Crown conveyed to the superintendent of the Wellington province, in trust, the lands for the purposes of public utility to the town and its residents. The Wellington City Reserves Act 1871 instructed the superintendent to convey parts of the town belt to the mayor and councillors of Wellington City, which he did. Then, in 1873, the superintendent implemented the Town Belt Deed, which conveyed three parcels of land, which have been discussed in the House so far, on trust to the council’s predecessor, which included the town belt, the Canal Reserve, and the Basin Reserve.

As I said at the start of my speech, iwi have not been consulted, let alone compensated for the actions the Crown took at the time, so they carried grievances on these actions for a very long time. It was not until August of 2008 that these grievances were heard and the claims came through this House for the settlement for Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and then, in December 2012, for Ngāti Toa Rangatira.

In closing, there has been some uncertainty about the legal status of the Wellington town belt, the extent to which the Wellington town belt is protected for future generations, and council powers to protect, manage, and enhance the town belt, but what this bill does is it gives that certainty. It now brings it all together for the council and for the people of Wellington by becoming a principal source of the council’s power for protecting, managing, and enhancing the Wellington town belt by providing a transparent statutory basis for the council’s trusteeship and management of the town belt and, most important, by providing a mechanism for land to become part of the town belt.

Again, I say congratulations to Grant Robertson. I look forward to this bill coming through the Local Government and Environment Committee. I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five minutes in reply—Grant Robertson.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to thank all the speakers who have spoken during this debate, and all parties for their indications of support for this legislation. It is welcomed very much by me and by the Wellington City Council. While I am on the subject of thanking people, it is timely to thank the Wellington city councillors who have helped drive this project. I particularly want to acknowledge Helene Ritchie and Iona Pannett, in most recent times, and other councillors before them, who have been the driving force to get this legislation through the process that the Wellington City Council has. It has not been easy. We have gone through a couple of trienniums, but we have got there, and I am very grateful for the support that those councillors have given. Behind the scenes, council officials have worked overtime to get this legislation into good shape.

I want to particularly acknowledge Paul Andrews, and especially Michael Oates, who has lived and breathed this with me for many years. Michael has done a terrific job in pulling together all of the threads that make up this legislation. Michael, you deserve all the congratulations for that. The Wellington City Council officials have been helped by a team of lawyers. We have been at this for so long that the law firm has changed its name about four times while we have been doing the bill, but to Adam Holloway and Nick Chapman, thank you very much too for your excellent work in getting the bill to this point.

My colleague Annette King has already mentioned the advocacy of the groups in the Wellington community that do truly love and live the town belt, in particular the Friends of the Wellington Town Belt group. It has worked hard on this legislation for a very long time. Annette King mentioned Joan Quinn, who is in the public gallery today. Joan has a lifetime attachment to the Wellington town belt, and she epitomises the way Wellingtonians feel about it. Joan, I hope you will be pleased today to see the legislation finally find its way into this House.

There were a number of matters raised in speeches that I do want to refer to just briefly. The first of those is the issue around the Public Works Act. I did say in my comments that this has been an issue of debate. The Wellington City Council itself has never formally proposed that the town belt be exempted from the Public Works Act. What is in the legislation is an attempt by the council and officials to come up with a formulation that protects the councillors in their roles as trustees of the trust deed. As councillors, they are not allowed to do anything that would dispose of the town belt, so that is protected.

What was then suggested in this legislation was a process that would give standing to councillors and other Wellingtonians in any attempt to acquire the town belt land under the Public Works Act and an outline of a process for compensation should that occur. There have been discussions between Land Information New Zealand, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and council officials and, as I said in my opening remarks, that has led to some proposals that the Wellington City Council will bring to the select committee. To correct Mr Hudson, that is the process the Minister for Land Information agreed to—specifically, that those amendments would come to the select committee. That is the correct way to deal with an issue like this when a bill has gone through the Wellington City Council’s processes. This is a local bill. It comes to us from a decision of the Wellington City Council. It has made its decision; that is the bill we have in front of us, but it has acknowledged that it will propose changes in this area at the select committee.

The other area I want to mention, just briefly in the couple of minutes remaining to me, is around the other concerns that were raised in early consultation on this bill. That is the question of commercial activities, and I want to be very clear with anyone who is listening. Commercial activities are limited by this legislation. This bill is about protecting the purpose of the town belt as a public recreation ground. Under this bill, no more than 8 hectares of land in total at any one time can be leased, and those leases cannot be granted for more than 20 years, including any renewals, with exceptions for the chest hospital site and Wellington Zoo.

I am proud to bring this bill to the House. It is the product of a lot of work, and it does speak for the city of Wellington, a city that values its green and open space, but also a city that values that every Wellingtonian deserves to be able to enjoy this. This bill upholds those principles and it provides certainty, clarity, and confidence that the town belt will be there for many generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill

First Reading

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. Superannuation is a matter of great concern for all New Zealanders, especially those looking forward to retirement. The current pay-as-you-go scheme is entrenched in the Kiwi psyche, and this bill will have no effect on the great majority of people who have resided here for all or most of their lives. It would not alter the age of eligibility from 65 years, its freedom from means testing, or the universal entitlement, but it does seek to alter the amount of the entitlement based exclusively on residence between the ages of 20 and 65 years. It would abolish the much-reviled section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964.

Superannuation must never again become a political football. New Zealand First wishes to participate in a debate to attempt to achieve consensus with other parties so that people can plan ahead for their retirement with a high degree of certainty. Many young people are already saying that they do not expect New Zealand superannuation to be around when they retire, so it is high time that the debate took place. This bill is New Zealand First’s contribution to that debate, and this bill is a platform upon which the debate can be had. I ask all parties to see it in that light and, therefore, to vote for it, at least at its first reading, so that the debate can then take place through the select committee process.

I want to make one thing very clear. This bill is not about New Zealand First policy; it is about superannuation in the long term. It is about certainty for future retirees. It is about fiscal responsibility, and, mostly, it is about fairness—fairness to retirees who have lived here all their lives, to immigrants, to returning expatriates, and to present and future taxpayers. No one has all the answers to the many problems with the current system and, of course, its costs. So, in this bill, it is entirely negotiable as to whether pro rata entitlement is the best way forward, and, if so, it is still entirely negotiable as to its detail. Every party can promote its views on the future of New Zealand superannuation if they vote for the bill to go to the select committee.

A bill of this importance is not a matter just for political parties. There are over 70,000 people affected by the hated section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964. There are academics who have been pressing for change for many years. The Retirement Commissioner has long been seeking to have the issues debated, and there are many others asking for a chance to be heard at the select committee.

I turn to the bill itself. The pro rata system is not complex. It is already used by the Government to calculate the amount of New Zealand superannuation for a recipient who goes overseas to live. They get New Zealand superannuation pro rata for their period of residence in New Zealand. So pro rata is already in the Government system. New Zealand superannuation does need change, not because there is anything wrong with eligibility at age 65 years, not because there is any problem with universality, and not because there is anything wrong with having no means testing, but because of three major factors that are priming a time bomb for the future.

The first one is high levels of net migration. This bill is not about discouraging that—it is not about discouraging that—but it is a big factor in the cost of future superannuation. In the last 15 years there were 79,000 immigrants over 50 years of age. These people qualify for New Zealand superannuation after only 10 years’ residence—the same as people who have lived in New Zealand all their lives. This is by far the most generous pension system for immigrants anywhere on earth. This is neither necessary nor fair, considering that a person who reaches the age of 65 then has a life expectancy of 20 years, representing $450,000 in superannuation payments per person.

Another factor is the distinct possibility of a tsunami of returning expatriates coming home to retire—and they are welcome home, but on fair terms for superannuation. A person can leave New Zealand at age 25, work overseas for, say, 35 years, return at 60, and retire on 100 percent New Zealand superannuation at age 65, probably after having paid taxes to an overseas economy and having almost certainly earned an overseas pension or some form of retirement savings. There are about 600,000 Kiwis in Australia and another 600,000 in the UK, Europe, and North America. That is the size of the issue. As overseas Governments raise their retirement age and generally restrict access to pensions, a tsunami can be expected to build and build, with huge implications for the New Zealand economy.

The third issue is the direct deduction policy of overseas pensions from the New Zealand superannuation scheme under section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964, and associated with that are the outdated reciprocal pension agreements that New Zealand has with some, but not many, overseas countries. There are many anomalies with the direct deduction policy, and there are many cases of gross unfairness resulting from it. One is that a spouse’s overseas pension will be deducted from the superannuation of a Kiwi who has lived here all of their life. There are also huge issues around which overseas pensions are deductible and which are not. The scope for avoidance and for fraud is huge. The Government spends tens of millions of dollars trying to catch and prosecute these people. This bill would end all of that by abolishing the awful section 70. What people earn overseas for retirement is no business of the New Zealand Government, but abolition means a new residence-based regime is needed so that people with overseas pensions also do not get full New Zealand superannuation. That would be double-dipping. This bill provides a fair alternative.

Pro rata entitlement means that every resident would get New Zealand superannuation on reaching age 65, just as they do now, but the amount would be based entirely on their period of residence between the ages of 20 and 65, a period of 45 years or 540 months. A number of months of residence is used to calculate the amount of New Zealand superannuation on a pro rata basis. Periods of absence of up to 2 months per year would be disregarded, allowing for an overseas holiday and such like—and, in addition, an aggregate of up to 5 years would be exempt allowing for a young person on their big OE, postgraduate study, or whatever without affecting New Zealand superannuation retirement.

So the real question, then, is not so much whether this bill is the best solution to current and potential problems with New Zealand superannuation but whether we together—political parties and others—are now willing to get together to solve them. Now is the time.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): This is one of the most tragic bills that has come before this House. It is an attempt by a party that has no sense of any moral compass with regard to immigration. It is an attempt by a party to differentiate between New Zealanders. It is an attempt by a party to not accept and understand the power and success of people who are over 65 years of age. This is a bill that is really the disgust of the New Zealand First Party coming out in legislation again.

Let us go through some of the parts of this bill. Basically if somebody is not—

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have listened to the speaker for a few moments, and I actually can see no relevance to or any reflection upon the bill that Mr O’Rourke has put before the House. I wonder whether you could direct the member to speak to the bill rather than to the party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I will not at this stage. I look forward to hearing his very relevant speech.

DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is common practice by Opposition members when they do not like a speech to raise points of order, and there will be a few other points of order, I am sure, during this speech because they will not be able to handle the heat in the kitchen. They can give it out but they cannot take it over there in that party.

So this is what happens. Under this bill if somebody is not born in New Zealand, they are treated differently from other New Zealanders. This bill treats people born outside New Zealand differently from other New Zealanders. That is the disgust of this bill. New Zealand First members are saying that if you are not born in New Zealand, you are not a true New Zealander. That is what this bill says. I say to members of that party that half of them probably were not born in New Zealand, so half of them should not be getting New Zealand superannuation—and how are they going to work that through?

It is a disgrace for this Parliament to even have to debate this bill. Why should we be differentiating between our citizens on the basis of where they were born? If somebody is a New Zealand citizen, they are a New Zealand citizen. They should get superannuation. Their right to superannuation should not be removed. What is next? What about health care for non - New Zealand - born residents? Do they deserve health care in this country? I want to see the New Zealand First Party bringing in legislation around that! What about education? Are non - New Zealand - born citizens not entitled to education in this country? That is what the New Zealand First Party should be doing if it actually believes what is in this legislation.

The New Zealand First Party is a disgrace to this Parliament. It is a disgrace to the modern world—

Ron Mark: Point of order—

DAVID BENNETT: Oh, again, we get another point of order, from the man who cannot even handle—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been very conscious that we have a young audience, and they have to endure this, but I would really like it if the speaker would talk about the part of the bill that he thinks actually makes us a disgrace as a party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance—[Interruption] Sit! I am on my feet. I am surprised that the member who took the point of order could actually hear what the speaker was saying, because his own members were making so much noise that I had difficulty hearing. I am conscious of people in the gallery; I am pleased that they have an opportunity to see the full colour of the Chamber.

DAVID BENNETT: To those young people up there: all New Zealanders are the same. We are all the same people. It does not matter if we are born somewhere else. We are not like that party. They want to go back to the 1950s. If you are not born—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member—[Interruption] Order! The member does not speak to people in the gallery. The member addresses the bill that he is supposed to be debating.

DAVID BENNETT: Let us address the bill, if you want to talk like that. The New Zealand First Party starts off with a line stating “no effect on most people”—no effect on most people. The New Zealand First Party is quite clearly open to the prospect of treating differently the different people who are resident in New Zealand. The New Zealand First Party does not believe we are all equal. It does not believe that everybody has the right to superannuation.

The New Zealand First Party says that this is not about superannuation in the long term. But I say to everybody out there who is in the superannuation camp, or will be, to remember New Zealand First. Those members are the ones who have brought legislation to this House to take away the universality of superannuation. What is next? What is next for those poor superannuitants out there?

New Zealand First has shown its true colours. It will attack superannuitants; it will go and do that. What is next? Is it going to means test superannuitants? Is it going to say that superannuitants who do not live in certain areas or do not pay a fee to the New Zealand First Party do not get any support?

Clayton Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It had better be good.

Clayton Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He is talking about nothing of relevance to the bill whatsoever. He is just throwing stones at New Zealand First. It is just his speculation of what this bill is about—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. The member can sit down. He has been here long enough to know the rules, and the rules are that the Chair is the determinant of relevance. I certainly do not need any further help in respect of that issue, which has now been raised by New Zealand First members three times. I did not come down in the last shower, and I am not going to be taught how to suck eggs by you.

DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There will be more, though, because a previous speaker said that the time bomb for the future is high net migration. I say to tell the people of New Zealand who came from other countries, who work in our hospitals, who work in our schools, that they are the time bomb for the future of this country. They are not. They are genuine New Zealanders who should be treated the same, and should not be treated in the way that that disgusting party does.

Another thing in that legislation is that if you are a New Zealand resident, if you are born in New Zealand, and you go overseas and work, then you are going to come back and your superannuation will be reduced by the number of years you have been overseas. They are even saying to New Zealand - born people that if you go overseas and earn an income and work, you do not get the same rights as other New Zealand - born residents. What is it about that? What about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? The Attorney-General says that is discrimination.

The other bit in this legislation is—and this is a party that will go around at election time, go to every rest home, that will go and say: “We look after the people who are over 65.” Under this bill, if somebody is over 65, they do not count. Their contribution to New Zealand does not matter. If a person is over 65, that does not count as making sure that you can be equated to having superannuation. I say that may be true for that party. Everybody in that party is over 65, and none of them have contributed anything to this Parliament in the entire time they have been here, especially the leader of that party, Winston Peters, who is gallivanting around the world at this time, when he should be here.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you know of the Standing Order that says that you are not allowed to refer to the absence of a member in this Parliament. I ask you to uphold those Standing Orders. I have finished—I am asking you to uphold the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! When you have finished—thank you. When you have finished, normally you sit down. Yes, it is a rule that a member’s absence is not referred to. The member knows that. Obviously, within the passion of the debate, it momentarily slipped his mind. I am sure it will not happen again.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a point of fact, the Business Committee has actually agreed that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is on the premises, for all intents and purposes, during this period.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need any more assistance—[Interruption] No, I do not need any more assistance in respect of this matter. The member should not have referred to the leader of New Zealand First in that regard. He should carry on with his speech—the time for which is rapidly evaporating.

DAVID BENNETT: Another thing: the New Zealand First Party has gone out there and asked to increase the refugee quota. Under the refugee quota—so, they want to have 1,000 refugees come in, but the refugees would not be entitled to superannuation. What is going to happen to the refugees coming in? And all New Zealanders would have to go through a process to evaluate whether they had been overseas for a certain period of time, and that would mean a huge increase in costs to the system.

So, in summary, this is a bill that treats people who are not born in New Zealand but are New Zealand citizens, who could have given 40 or 50 years of their life and probably saved some of New Zealand First members’ lives in hospital—they have the inability to get superannuation, and that is unfair. The second thing: even if you were born in New Zealand, they are going to means test you. They are going to means test you on the ability for you to have stayed in New Zealand, and they will reduce your superannuation by the number of years you have been away.

I say to all those people who are looking at retirement: do not trust them. Do not trust them, because this bill shows their true intention. They want to reduce universal superannuation. They have shown it through legislation. What more can you do than show that through rising in this House? They want to say to superannuitants: “If you are over 65, whatever contribution you make to this country does not matter.” That is what the New Zealand First Party is signalling, and it is a disgrace to this Parliament. It is a bigoted party that should not be in this House.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you heard that word that was used. It is unparliamentary, and I would ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise. It was thoroughly offensive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear what the word was—

Ron Mark: He said we were bigoted—he said we were bigoted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. If the member has taken offence, then the speaker should withdraw and apologise. I will remind the member taking the point of order that many of us who have been here for a long time have borne witness to a number of members using a number of words that are unparliamentary, and have declined to take umbrage. If the member has taken offence, then Mr Bennett should stand, withdraw, and apologise.

DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw and apologise.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): There is only one disgraceful person in this House tonight, and that is David Bennett. Mr Bennett, that was an appalling contribution. There was nothing in that speech about an incredibly important topic to the future of New Zealand. Members on this side of the House in the Labour Party might not support every bit of this piece of legislation, but at least Denis O’Rourke has come to this House to address the issue of how we make superannuation sustainable in this country. All you have got to offer are insults and nonsense, Mr Bennett. You are a disgrace.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you heard that the member just brought the Speaker into the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I just want to make a couple of points here. I realise that this is a robust debate, but I make the same point that I made to New Zealand First earlier on. Relevancy and whether or not someone brings the Speaker into the debate is a matter for the Speaker. You may note that with the various presiding officers there are various amounts of latitude, but they are very narrow. If a member brings me into the debate I do not need to be reminded of the fact. I have been around long enough to be able to handle that all by myself, thank you very much.

GRANT ROBERTSON: The National Party does not want to have a conversation with New Zealanders about one of the most important parts of our social welfare system—that is, whether or not there is universal superannuation. Can we make superannuation sustainable for the future? John Key and Bill English have built their Government around putting their heads in the sand on this issue. Bill English said that this was a conversation for another Government to have. That is recklessly irresponsible. If we want to make sure that there is superannuation available for generations of New Zealanders to come, then as a country we have got to have a conversation. Denis O’Rourke has brought a bill to this House that we can send to a select committee to see what we can do.

There has been no leadership from the National Party on this issue, and that is a disgrace. This Government is so out of touch and arrogant that it is refusing to listen to New Zealanders who want dignity in retirement and who want to make sure that superannuation is there for future generations. This Government will not talk about it, and it is completely irresponsible.

What this legislation does is raise up the question of section 70 of the Social Security Act. There is not a member of Parliament who does their job properly in their electorate or in representing their area as a list member who has not had someone come to them about section 70 of the Social Security Act. That is because it does create inequities. It does create situations, as Denis O’Rourke said in his opening speech, where the spouse of somebody who has earned superannuation overseas suddenly ends up with their entitlement as a New Zealander being taken off them. I had a constituency case of a woman who was a teacher and had taught in New Zealand for 30 or 40 years. She was married to someone from overseas, and somehow or other she lost her entitlement, which she had paid taxes for for her whole life, because of section 70 of this Act.

The solution being proposed by Denis O’Rourke may not be perfect, and we do have some concerns, which we want to air at the select committee, about whether or not we have got the definition right. We do have concerns that the concept of universality is, for the first time, being called into question by this bill through the pro rata system. That is a very serious step to take and one that the New Zealand Labour Party is not confident that this bill will achieve in a way that we would want to vote for at the end of the road, but we want to see the issue debated.

There are serious issues about the sustainability of superannuation. The New Zealand National Party might have its head in the sand but we will vote for this bill—imperfect as it is—to go to select committee because we believe that Zealanders deserve the right to have a discussion about this important topic.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I do want to just start out by politely saying thank you to New Zealand First for bringing an issue to the Parliament for debate. Respectfully, the New Zealand National Party will not be supporting this bill, and there are very good reasons why we are doing that.

I just want to say to Mr Robertson that we have had a conversation with New Zealanders about New Zealand superannuation. It was called the 2008 general election, the 2011 general election, and the 2014 general election. At each of those general elections the Prime Minister of New Zealand has been to the country and said: “We will maintain New Zealand superannuation entitlement at the age of 65. We will also maintain New Zealand superannuation entitlement at 66 percent of the average wage.”

That is a commitment we have made to New Zealanders after having a conversation with them three times during general election campaigns. We intend to stick to that commitment to New Zealanders because we are a Government that sticks to what we say, we are a Government that delivers on what we say, and we have delivered that for New Zealanders.

The reason why we will not be supporting this bill, on top of the fact that we have made commitments to New Zealanders, is that we believe in fairness and we believe in simplicity. We are not a party that believes we should be attacking those who come to this country or attacking those New Zealanders who were born here who wish to go overseas, make their way in the world, and then eventually come back to reside here and contribute back to their country. Because a bill like this does that.

A bill like this does attack and make it harder for those wanting to bring skills to this country and those who want to bring capital to this country. It also makes it harder for those New Zealanders who want to go overseas and have an overseas experience working for a number for years, or who may go overseas to get involved in business and then bring those skills back to New Zealand, because they are penalised for doing that.

The New Zealand First Party is basically saying to New Zealanders that if you want to go overseas, you are allowed to go overseas for only 2 months a year, because that is what this bill allows, or, it is also saying, you can go overseas for 5 years only between the ages of 20 and 65. The New Zealand First Party wants this Parliament to dictate to New Zealanders that they are allowed only 5 years overseas between the ages of 20 and 65, otherwise they are penalised for that. We do not believe that is fair, we do not believe that is right, and we do not believe that is just for New Zealanders.

I can see that New Zealand First is looking at ways to try to reduce the cost for New Zealand superannuation. We have budgeted the cost for New Zealand superannuation for the foreseeable future. We have included it in all of our calculations, and it is affordable at the rate that we are keeping it at.

We are a country that for many, many years—decades, hundreds of years—has welcomed people to this land. We have welcomed them to this land and through our immigration policies as a country. We welcome migrants to this country because they bring essential skills to the country, they bring capital to this country, or they are marrying a New Zealander. Under the bill that is in front of us, any person who comes to New Zealand and is not able to spend the requisite time that the bill dictates that they spend to be able to get full entitlement to New Zealand superannuation—and I say full entitlement to New Zealand superannuation—is penalised for that.

That is an awful message to be sending people from overseas who want to come here. That is a terrible message. We should be more welcoming as a country. We should also ensure that we keep the New Zealand superannuation system simple. It is very simple right now. The rules are very simple, and every person—every New Zealand citizen—is treated equally under the current superannuation rules. That is a policy that this Parliament should maintain, that is a policy that this Government wishes to maintain, and we will be voting that way tonight.

I just want to conclude by saying that the solution to New Zealand superannuation and the cost of New Zealand superannuation is not to try to cut some people out of the pie. The solution is to continue to grow our economy, continue to grow jobs, and continue to grow wages in this country. That means New Zealanders have a greater entitlement and they have a greater ability to be able to afford their retirement.

As a country, the more we grow, the more we can afford to support New Zealanders with dignity at the end of their life when they are in those final years of their lives after the age of 65 and are wanting to retire. That is what we should be doing: simplicity, dignity, and fairness for all. That is the way we are voting tonight.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill, which is being brought to this House by Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First. The Green Party does not support this bill as it is written. We have some very deep problems with it. But we will support it going to the select committee to enable a discussion and parliamentary consideration, particularly of section 70 of the Social Security Act.

But I do firstly want to outline some of our concerns with this bill and what it does. The bill proposes a pro rata entitlement for New Zealand superannuation, so it will erode the universality of New Zealand superannuation based on how long a person has been in this country between the ages of 20 and 65. Currently the requirement to receive New Zealand superannuation is that a person has been present and resident in New Zealand for at least 10 years since attaining the age of 20, including 5 years after the age of 50. This bill replaces that requirement that a person be present for 10 years between the ages of 20 and 65. The pro rata entitlement will then be calculated on the number of qualifying months that a person has spent in New Zealand during that time. One is allowed, according to this bill, to have short absences of 2 months or less during a calendar year. There is an exemption of 5 years for New Zealand - born residents to—I think the member himself described it—perhaps go on a well-earned extended world cruise. But if you moved here when you were 5 and have lived here your whole life, well, no cruise for you.

This bill has a number of gaping holes, including how qualifying months are calculated. What about all those New Zealand residents who travel for more than 2 months a year for work? There is a significant number of them, and then there are people like me, who have lived outside this country for more than 5 years. Also, there are no exceptions for people like refugees, who, in most cases, come here after the age of 20. It creates a blanket rule, and this disadvantages many people. And, although not the tone or the detail of the first speaker’s bill, I understand that it would be possible to interpret some of the provisions in this bill as borderline racist.

I would like to be very clear that the Green Party does not support these aspects of the bill. However, we do support having a conversation about superannuation, and this bill enables that to happen. I note that the Retirement Policy and Research Centre has also indicated that although it does not support the content of this bill, it does support its referral to a select committee to open up the opportunity for dialogue in this country.

I particularly do note the fact that this bill gives us the opportunity to address section 70 of the Social Security Act. I worked for a member of Parliament who was the Greens’ spokesperson on superannuation 8 or 9 years ago, and I remember back then getting the letters from people who were not able to get New Zealand superannuation because they had—out of their own pay, overseas—paid into a foreign pension scheme, and now that money was just taken out of New Zealand superannuation so they were not able to access New Zealand superannuation, or else they had a New Zealand partner who was now no longer able to access New Zealand superannuation because they had paid out of their own wages into a voluntary scheme overseas. That is patently unjust, and it does create very strange anomalies in our system. I understand that approximately 70,000 pensions are affected by this provision, and, on top of that, it can also affect Kiwis who have worked overseas, and even the partners of anyone who is affected, who do not even show up in that figure.

The Green Party policy is to restrict the dollar for dollar abatement regime on overseas pensions so that it applies only if an overseas pension is paid from an overseas Government scheme funded through taxation, similar to the New Zealand benefit, and to treat income from contributory income schemes—like our KiwiSaver superannuation saving scheme—no differently from other income for benefit abatement purposes. Therefore, we support this bill’s referral to a select committee, to give this House the opportunity to redress that injustice.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on this bill tonight, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill. I find this an interesting bill, which has been put forward by Denis O’Rourke, a member from New Zealand First, and it is really a refinement of our current superannuation arrangements here in New Zealand.

I believe that it is based on the French model. Interestingly, I have got a lady working with me who has had firsthand experience of that system, which does apply a pro rata arrangement. The interesting thing in the French arrangement is that the contributions made by members to the scheme are absolutely significant. The application of the pro rata arrangement does provide some form of recompense to people, but it is a difficult scheme to administer. Therefore, on many grounds, I do not think it actually works that well. So I was sitting here trying to work out what the benefits of trying to refine our New Zealand superannuation scheme were and, to be honest, I am struggling to understand what the merits of this bill might be.

If I were to look at some of the issues that it does raise, I think the first one is that there is a maximum allowance for someone who is a New Zealander to legitimately travel overseas for 5 years between the ages of 20 and 65. I think that many New Zealand people do travel overseas—as we are all aware; many of us have—and this stipulation around the 5-year requirement is, I think, actually quite constraining and counter-productive not only to the personal interests of New Zealanders who legitimately want to do that but also to the interests of New Zealand as a whole, in terms of allowing people to go overseas and get the valuable skills that they may want to achieve while they are working there.

Secondly, this bill actually makes it very difficult for returning New Zealanders, and, in many ways, it actually puts in a disincentive for New Zealanders to return to their homeland. I actually believe that that is a bit of a mistake. I think those Kiwis returning to New Zealand who may have worked overseas for many years and who want to come home—and to be penalised for doing so under a bill like this is actually fundamentally flawed.

The third issue I have with this bill is that if you strictly apply the rates. If you return at any time after the age of 55—i.e., within that last 10-year period—you are actually quite disadvantaged financially. Again, it is putting in place a mechanism that actually reduces the superannuation that New Zealanders or other people returning to New Zealand are actually entitled to.

Fourthly, the bill actually is absolutely anti-migrants, and that is an issue I really have an issue with. If we accept people into New Zealand as migrants and they go through the strict process of immigrating to New Zealand with all the assessment that goes on, under the present arrangements they are entitled to a full pension after a certain period of time. This bill would cut across that, and I think that that is a very poor commercial issue as well as a, sort of, fundamental rights issue that New Zealand First is raising with this bill.

The fifth thing about this is that even for those returning with a foreign-based superannuation scheme that would be part of the remuneration that they would be able to draw on, together with a part-share of the New Zealand superannuation scheme, that creates a whole lot of problems for those individuals. It creates problems not only in terms of what that means in terms of assessing what returns they might get, subject to foreign exchange differentials that go on from time to time, and the management of that—and any of you who have actually tried to bring back a foreign pension scheme, it is not without its difficulties. In fact, it is an administrative nightmare. So, on that basis also, I cannot support the bill.

Then what the bill does not do is it does not actually respect older people coming back to New Zealand. You know, I was at a bowling club on Saturday and I met this very nice English gentleman who had been in the Royal Air Force for many, many years. He had worked in France and then he came to New Zealand. He had been through that superannuation and immigration process, and, you know, he was loving living in New Zealand. He had a lot to contribute to New Zealand. But, under this bill, I suspect that that gentleman would not have come to New Zealand, and I think, again, that that would have been a significant pity.

Finally, New Zealand already has in place good reciprocal arrangements with nine countries around the world. Where we have these arrangements set up, it is absolutely clear what superannuation entitlements people are entitled to. I think that on those grounds I would have to say I do not support this bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Can I just begin by congratulating the member in whose name this bill is—Denis O’Rourke, a fellow Cantabrian who lives just down the road from me in the best part of the universe. I think it is a bill with parts of which I agree and parts of which I disagree. It raises the issue about the structure of superannuation and the sustainability of it. Those are serious, big issues for New Zealand, and we should have this bill at a select committee so that we can have the debate. I know that there will be parts of it that other members will feel strongly about—we have heard Jan Logie say similar comments—but we should be brave enough to have the debate, and that is where National misses the boat.

Those members are going to put their heads in the sand and say: “No, there’s no issue with superannuation. We don’t want to talk about it.” I am sure that not a single member there could honestly say that they have not been approached by somebody who had concerns about section 70 of the Social Security Act. I cannot believe that they are so disconnected from the planet that they have never heard anybody raise concerns about this.

Dr David Clark: Oh, they’re out of touch.

Hon RUTH DYSON: They are certainly out of touch, and this bill provides the opportunity for that debate.

Just briefly, the concerns I have are about the long-held tradition that once somebody meets the criteria they have universal superannuation, and that this chips away at that. New Zealand First will be the last party after Labour to want to erode New Zealand superannuation, in my view, but I would not want to open the door for that party opposite to erode New Zealand superannuation, and this has the potential to do that. So that is a concern that I have. I wholeheartedly support the proposal to treat people who are exposed to section 70 provisions in a fairer way, and this bill provides a really good opportunity to do that.

I want to conclude my contribution before the bell rings because I am very keen to get on to the next bill on the Order Paper. It is a fantastic bill. I am very pleased to be putting my vote behind this bill going to the select committee. Well done, Denis O’Rourke.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. At first blush you might have thought it would be at least a topic worth supporting, because there are some serious issues, and I have to disagree with Jami-Lee Ross; the sustainability of New Zealand superannuation, although it may be a politically popular thing to trumpet, is not a fiscal reality. You only have to ask Treasury to give you a copy of its statement on New Zealand’s long-term fiscal outlook to understand that. I can also concur with what Grant Robertson said: anybody who has a regular presence in their electorate office—and that is not everybody, as we know—will understand that section 70 of the Social Security Act is a real issue for a great many people. There are people who find that they have, perhaps, as Mr Robertson said, a pension entitlement to New Zealand superannuation. They may have a spouse whose entitlement from an overseas pension scheme is greater than that pension entitlement, and they find that the excess is actually deducted from their New Zealand superannuation entitlement. I can understand why people find that very, very annoying. I have dealt with some of them, and often it is actually very saddening.

Let us have a few observations—let us have a few realities about this bill. This bill is unworkable. Where was Denis O’Rourke in 1977? Who knows? And you would have to multiply that. You would have to ask everybody where they were during that period and whether it was more than 2 months that they were away. The fact is that it is unworkable and impossible, but where it becomes very easy to tell is if you are like Julie Anne Genter. We know that she was not in New Zealand in 1977 because we know that she grew up in another country, and that might be why the Attorney-General has given a report showing that this violates the Human Rights Act: because it treats different groups of people differently. This New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill will never be enforceable. For recent immigrants it will be almost impossible to get a fair hearing. They will be treated differently. The problem with New Zealand First in general is that you might say “Oh, but their intentions with this bill were, at least, sound in this particular case.”, but they do it so often that you come back to what it was that I think it was Stephen Covey who once said: “I can’t hear what you’re saying, because what you are screams so loudly.” Once again in this bill we see the New Zealand First trend of being at the very least, I think, as one member said, borderline racist.

But then we come to the section 70 issues—those that all of us who have sat in our electorate offices would like to help with. There is Sarah Dowie. We know she was born in Invercargill, so it will not affect her, because you will never be able to prove where she was in 1977. Nevertheless, we would like to help people affected by section 70. But just take the example that Mr Robertson brought up earlier of the woman who has taught in New Zealand for 30 or 40 years. She has a full entitlement to New Zealand superannuation, and yet she finds herself, by the sound of it, with a husband who has a fairly generous pension from overseas—at least twice as much as the New Zealand superannuation entitlement—and she finds that she does not get any New Zealand superannuation, so they miss out. The reality is that under this bill of pro rata entitlement he would miss out anyway. They would still be out by one pension because he, by the sounds of it, has spent so much time overseas accumulating a pension. You will find that even though it is a lovely idea to at least go forward to select committee and debate section 70, the reason it is so fraught is that there are so many pension schemes that it is simply very, very hard to reconcile the many schemes that there are around the world. With that in mind, I say that this is a bill that is insincere in its commitment. It will not have the effects that we hope for, and for that reason it would not be a good use of the select committee or the House’s time to continue debating this bill through any further stages. Thank you.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to support this bill going to the select committee. We are concerned that New Zealand has a debate about the sustainability of New Zealand superannuation. This is a Government that is not being straight with New Zealanders; we know that. Bill English has said he does not want to have a conversation about the sustainability of superannuation. He said in his own words that that is a task he wants to leave to a future Government.

The Government is out of touch with New Zealanders, because the New Zealanders I speak to do want to have a conversation about superannuation. People my age, young people, know that when they get old the current settings will not deliver them New Zealand superannuation. They know that under the current settings they cannot be sure that they will get superannuation as it is provided today. It is simply not sustainable. We need to have a conversation as a society about how we can get to a sustainable place so that everybody can have fair and equal access to superannuation.

We do have concerns, of course, about the bill. This is the first time that the principle of universal superannuation has been brought into question once criteria are met, and this notion of a pro rata payment based on residence and presence is something that we think would need to be teased out and discussed in select committee. It is not something that we are comfortable with on the surface, but we do congratulate New Zealand First and Denis O’Rourke on bringing this discussion to the House. It is something that this Government has refused to lead on. It is a Government with its head in the sand, which is refusing to have the conversation. The Prime Minister has ruled out a conversation on it; Bill English has ruled out a conversation on it. Nobody wants to deal with the issue, and that is not serving the interests of future New Zealanders. We will have a concern ongoing about this issue—whether or not this bill succeeds in the House.

We know that this Government stopped contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—the Cullen fund—and has foregone $5 billion in dividends alone. We know that it stopped the KiwiSaver kick-start contribution—$1000 per family. We know KiwiSaver enrolment rates have dropped off. We know the Government does not have the long-term interests of New Zealand at heart. It is interested in the short term. That is bad for New Zealand, and that is why we will continue to be critical of its position on superannuation.

We will be supporting this bill to select committee because we want to have this debate. We are not afraid of it. We think this Government should support it, too, and actually have the discussion.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Reservations have been alluded to from the Labour Party around the pro rata basis of the calculation, so the challenge is, therefore, why not vote against it? Then we have the Green Party members talking about this bill being racist, and they are absolutely right—it is racist. So, therefore, why do they not vote against it?

We will be voting against this bill because it is unfair. It is unjust. It is based on the fear of immigrants. It is based around a philosophy of building a fence around New Zealand to keep migrants out. It is based on anti-Asian sentiment. Maybe Mr Phil Twyford should be here, because he would certainly vote for it, given that he does not want anyone with a Chinese-sounding name joining in the economy of New Zealand. [Interruption] You should take note of Mr Lees-Galloway. He is trying to tell you guys to quieten down, because you are only making fools of yourselves by protesting.

At the end of the day this bill is a poor bill. The current legislation is good and fair. It treats people with respect and with equality. It does not prejudice refugees. That is why we oppose this bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Denis O’Rourke—right of reply.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This is a debate that needs to be had in much more detail than has been possible tonight. It is a debate about superannuation, which has many problems, as every member in this House knows, and which needs desperately to be addressed, but the National Party will not do it and the ACT Party will not do it—not just because they do not understand it, but, actually, because they do not care about it and they do not care about the people who are badly affected by it. If they think that there are not people who are adversely affected by it, then I invite them to go and talk to the 70,000 people who are adversely affected by section 70 of the Social Security Act. Then they will get an earful that they cannot bear, because for years on end the rest of us have dealt with these people in our offices, and we know that there is a problem there that must be addressed.

I want to refer to David Bennett’s awful speech. First of all, he is entirely wrong about the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill being anti-immigrant, because this bill treats everybody exactly the same whether they be Kiwi expatriates returning to New Zealand or whether they be immigrants or anybody else. This bill treats everybody exactly the same, and it would not matter at all whether they were an immigrant or a Kiwi, so he is entirely wrong about that. He is also entirely wrong about the bill having any impact on means testing. It does not even refer to that, so that member cannot possibly have read the bill—or, if he has, he has not understood it.

This bill is only about fairness, really, and it is in no way discriminatory. New Zealand political parties need to front up about New Zealand superannuation, they need to front up about its problems, and they need to solve those problems. We all know that it has massive problems, but Jami-Lee Ross is wrong about the pro rata system discouraging Kiwis from working overseas and then returning to New Zealand. The opposite is actually the case, and the reason for that is that they will earn an overseas pension while they are overseas, because the countries where they work are the countries that require that to be done, and they will also earn other overseas savings. Those are the pensions and the savings that will be deducted under section 70 of the Social Security Act when they return to New Zealand, and that is the reason they will currently not return—because of that section; that section, which this bill actually abolishes.

I did want to refer also to the Greens’ concerns, which are rational and understandable at least. However, I would have to disagree with them that this bill erodes universality. It does not erode universality. It alters only the amount of New Zealand superannuation, not the entitlement, which would still be universal. I agree, however, that there may be a problem with the words “born in New Zealand”. As I have said, this bill is negotiable. If those words are a problem, New Zealand First is more than happy to negotiate about that and, if necessary, to remove those words—and, indeed, any other detail that may be said to be problematic.

There are already many exemptions for some of the people listed by Ms Logie, and that is already the case in the current superannuation system. Those sorts of exemptions could easily still be built into and apply to a pro rata system as well. Also, I would have to disagree with the Greens over the words “borderline racist”. Nobody in this House has yet made a speech that shows how this bill could be racist in any possible way. There is actually no justification whatsoever for that claim. It has got nothing to do with that. It has got to do only with a fair system for the New Zealand taxpayer in respect not just of immigrants but also of returning Kiwi expatriates.

Mr Bayly said that pro rata would be difficult to administer and that he was struggling with the merits of it. Well, he struggles with just about everything, but this bill is not difficult—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

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

First Reading

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. Just over 3 years ago on 25 July 2012 I began my first reading speech on a bill similar to this with the same powerful proverb, and 3 years later it still remains the driving force for this bill. What is most important of all? It is people, it is people, it is people. Being of Irish heritage I find myself honouring the superstition of wearing the same jacket I wore 3 years ago—that is a bit of a triumph in itself—in the hope that it will act as a good omen and bring about the same result of this bill being supported to select committee.

Although my motivation for the bill has not changed, some things have changed since we were last debating this issue. Because of my previous bill, paid parental leave has already been extended from 14 weeks to 18 weeks by April 2016. That result demonstrates Labour leading a positive and future-focused initiative that gained the support of the Green Party, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, United Future, and Mana, when it was in this Parliament. We have maintained that support for this important initiative during the most testing of economic times, and I thank all of those parties for their loyalty to the families and the children of this great country of ours.

Even though we achieved those improvements, the argument that extending paid parental leave to all for the first 6 months of life is a wise investment in New Zealand’s future is as powerful as ever. It is the strongly held belief and strongly held view of the New Zealand Labour Party that early investment and intervention is a much better option than having to spend more taxpayer money on the bad outcomes of getting it wrong. We do prefer to spend a bit of money supporting bonding between parent and baby during those important 6 months of brain development than to spend ever-increasing amounts on remedial education, unemployment benefits, mental health services, and even prisons.

The Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, had this to say on the subject: “The early years of life have a unique and formative impact on child health, development and relationships throughout life. Secure mother-infant attachment is an important predictor of resilience in later life, including high self-esteem, reduced anxiety and reduced hormonal responses to stress.” He went on to say: “Social investment in New Zealand should take more account of the growing evidence that prevention and intervention strategies applied early in life are more effective in altering outcomes and reap more economic returns over the life course than do … strategies applied later. This will require long-term commitment to appropriate policies and programmes.”

Well, we do not hear much from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor these days. His appointment seems to have been somewhat of a gimmick rather than a serious attempt to have research and evidence-driven policy development. But it is true that Labour also prefers to spend some money supporting the establishment and maintenance of 6 months’ exclusive breastfeeding, as recommended by the World Health Organization, than to spend an ever-increasing amount of money on the hospitalisation of children and adults with preventable respiratory and other related diseases. I am still dismayed that our own Ministry of Health refused to recognise the strong link between paid parental leave and improving breastfeeding rates during consideration of this proposal last year. Data gathered by Plunket clearly shows a surge in breastfeeding rates immediately after Labour introduced paid parental leave in 2002. I hope that the ministry will take a more enlightened approach in this new consideration under its new Minister. It is a no-brainer. That is why 99.6 percent of the almost 4,000 submissions on the bill last time around supported the proposal to extend paid parental leave to 6 months.

This proposal has always been about choice for families, and this new bill introduces more flexibility by allowing a parent on paid parental leave to return to work for short periods throughout their period of leave, in order to maintain contact with their workplace, without losing their entitlement to paid parental leave. Under this bill they could return to their workplace for up to 156 hours over a 12-month maternity leave period and still retain 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

I acknowledge that a Government bill, recently introduced in the House, does something a little similar. However, there is one big difference. I will support amendments that the Government is proposing on paid parental leave. The Government, however, seems determined not to support mine. In an arrogant display of putting policies before people, Government members will even support proposals that I have proposed just as long as it is not done in my name or in the name of the Labour Party. Not only is this petty and churlish but, sadly, it is stopping families from getting the support they desperately need, in a timely manner. I will not put politics ahead of the needs of these families, and I strongly urge the National members to put their ideology aside for the sake of families. They have pulled every mean trick in the book to stop families from getting this support. National has exaggerated the cost. Government members have used delaying tactics at the select committee. They have broken promises they made to me as the member in charge of the bill. They have denied voting rights to an MP who attended the birth of his own grandchild. They have cast proxy votes for another party, which then had to be corrected the following day. They have filibustered, and they have even voted against the version of the bill that would have cost just $8 million. All of this to deny families—

Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The allegation that a whip has cast a vote incorrectly is a very serious one. In this instance, it is quite wrong and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. I remember the case quite well, and it was corrected. I think I was in the House at the time.

SUE MORONEY: The Government has used all of these measures to deny families the support that the majority of Parliament believes in.

Government members thought they had won when the modified bill was defeated 60 votes to 60, but they did not count on losing Northland. Within days of National losing and Winston Peters winning Northland, I submitted the bill we are debating tonight back into the ballot. And they did not count on the ballot gods—or is the ballot goddess? The ballot goddess has smiled on Kiwi babies and the bill was drawn out of the ballot just a few months after it was defeated by the narrowest of margins in a diminished Parliament. Some call it good luck, but I like to think that it is a sign that some things are just meant to be.

Shortly, we will hear Government members say that they agree with my bill in principle but they cannot afford it. When I hear that excuse, I am reminded of the powerful submission Zonta made on my previous bill on this subject when the then international president, New Zealander Lynn McKenzie, told the Government that we cannot afford not to do it. The Government’s excuse lacks credibility when it is prepared to spend $26 million on a flag referendum and $11 million on its shady Saudi sheep deal. But those expenditure follies pale into insignificance compared with the billions of dollars National has given away in tax cuts to the 10 percent highest earners since it has been in office. My bill will cost an additional $45 million next year, and there is cross-party agreement that it will save at least $28 million just in short-term savings alone, like reduced Government subsidies for babies to be placed in early childhood education centres. Well, Labour would much rather that money was spent on supporting mum or dad to stay at home with baby than paying for a baby under the age of 6 months to go to day care. All the evidence says it is better for baby and, as a mum myself I instinctively know that families choosing what works best for them will have the best outcome.

My previous bill on paid parental leave was structured in such a way that it would not reach full implementation until the Government had promised to have its books in surplus. That promise was made for the current financial year that we are in, and there is still no sign of surplus. This new bill also staggers the implementation of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave by increasing it to 22 weeks on 1 April next year and reaching 26 weeks in April 2018. This time I have full confidence that the Government books will indeed be in surplus by then, with an incoming Labour Government that has a track record of running strong fiscal surpluses. The last Labour Government ran nine surpluses in a row.

In my maiden speech I said my priority in this Parliament would be addressing issues of work-life balance. I am proud that this bill does that in truckloads. What better work-life balance to have than the sort of work-life balance that sets your children up for a happy, healthy, productive life? I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill 2015. It is quite a lengthy title but I think it is one that goes, obviously, to the heart of the bill. Although I do rise in opposition to this bill, I am not ungracious and want to acknowledge the work of Ms Sue Moroney in championing this topic. It is a very valid topic to bring to the House and I think it is a worthwhile debate.

Paid parental leave is a concept that has been part of our system and our law books only since 1987. It started with humble beginnings, with a simple mechanism to ensure that working parents were protected with 12 months’ employment in their jobs. Of course, there was not paid parental leave at that stage. It was simply a protection for their employment. In fact, we need to acknowledge the history of this topic in that it was a long row to hoe, and it was not until 2002 that 12 weeks’ parental leave was brought into our law. That was after, of course, a lengthy campaign led by a number of different bodies, but, of course, won with the establishment of the Ministry of Woman’s Affairs, as it was called back then, which led some research on paid parental leave and the benefits of that. So, as I say, it was a long row to hoe, but we are fortunate enough now to have paid parental leave in our books.

But in my mind it goes to a wider issue, and that is about also enabling equal opportunities for women in balance with what is best for baby. There are several published and documented outcomes on the benefits of paid parental leave. Of course, some of those include increased breastfeeding opportunities and all the health benefits that are associated with that. As we are aware, breastmilk is a perfect food source for baby. It is made up of the correct compound of vitamins and proteins, and because of that extra time bonding it is easily digestible for baby and helps prevent infections from bacteria and viruses. That is one of the benefits of paid parental leave.

I touched on it before—this time gives parents and mums that valued quality time to bond with baby. In some cultures they even exclude visitors. They basically keep that time, those initial few months, for immediate family members so that there is quality bonding. The family unit is seen as having the utmost importance, so they exclude visitors.

But one of the great things about paid parental leave, and certainly one that I experienced as a mother, is that it gives parents the time to connect into the community and to connect into different community groups such as support clubs and community activities. This promotes camaraderie and that community spirit, especially if somebody is isolated and away from their immediate family members.

In my case, one of the things that I got involved in was through the Playcentre Federation. There was a programme called SPACE. Albeit the first year as a first-time mum with my baby was quite a blur and I probably could have been called spaced out, SPACE does not mean that. It is an acronym that stands for Supporting Parents Alongside Children’s Education. It was designed for first-time mums. A group of about 14 of us would come along weekly, with children aged between zero and 4 months. We were all first-time mums. As those children were going through the same developmental phases in their lives, we were able to learn about that. We were able to share information and support each other through those changes, and build that camaraderie. I am really pleased that the women in that group are still part of my life today. That support network is invaluable as we move forward as mothers, and now as working mothers in our careers. Part of being able to stay in touch is, of course, the use of electronic media, which was debated earlier in the House. So I certainly support that.

But the other thing that is great about paid parental leave is that, of course, it reduces financial stress on families. That, of course, is a real help when you suddenly find yourself with a new baby. You have finished work for a time. Babies are expensive, and every little bit helps families. All of this is a great foundation to springboard the improved well-being of children as they develop into the future and achieve their hopes and dreams.

One last point about paid parental leave that I will mention is that it has been found to reduce the risk of post-natal depression in women. I just say to people out there that that is a very real illness, it is a very serious illness, and it can have devastating effects on families.

As I mentioned also, though, paid parental leave goes to a wider issue, in that it protects employment opportunities as well. It enables a person to have their position safeguarded, and, hopefully, to have their career progression safeguarded as well. Mums or dads in that case, who take parental leave and go away to raise their child and bond with them in those initial first few months, do not have to worry about the employment side of things. But also, when people go back to work after having a child, it is really good for our businesses and for our country.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s speech is particularly interesting, but I want to invite her, in the last 3 minutes, to actually address the bill. Thank you.

SARAH DOWIE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

It maintains diversity. This bill goes to paid parental leave, which is a concept that basically maintains diversity in the workplace. It is better all round for our country because it promotes better decision-making and better solutions.

In respect of Budget 2014, we extended paid parental leave in this country from 16 weeks from April this year to 18 weeks from April 2016. That extension, as opposed to this bill, was brought in after considerable consideration of finances and the costs of other competing priorities and services that this Government has to provide for New Zealanders. Notwithstanding this, as the member opposite, Sue Moroney, mentioned, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has now worked with interested parties to extend the eligibility requirements for paid parental leave in his recent Employment Standards Legislation Bill. I note that the member opposite, Sue Moroney, is a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I know that she will contribute to that debate well. I look forward to that also. I know that we can have a really positive outcome for New Zealand that is fully costed as well.

In respect of this bill, there is mentioned in this bill the concept of “keeping in touch” hours, but that is something that the Employment Standards Legislation Bill also introduces. As it is detailed there, it is about enabling employees to go back to work for 40 hours during the period of receiving parental leave payments. That is really important when you do have a career. Specifically in my case, as a solicitor, you can lose your confidence when you are at home raising your baby, and you are out of the profession. So I think that is a really great initiative, to allow women to go back to work to stay in touch, albeit not in those first 4 weeks because that is a really crucial time for bonding. But it enables people to stay in touch with their work, and maintain their confidence in that respect. So, look, the intent of this bill and the spirit of this bill are good, I acknowledge that, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret to interrupt the member. Her time has expired.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): We have essentially heard from Sarah Dowie that this is a good bill, and that not only is it well intentioned, but it has a strong evidence base behind it. We heard a number of reasons from Sarah Dowie why paid parental leave is important and why extending it is a good idea. And somewhere in there were just a couple of words—something about priorities. This is not a priority to the current Government, and that is, essentially, what this comes down to.

Where do our priorities lie? On the other side of the House this Government has found billions of dollars for tax cuts for the very, very wealthy, the very few at the top. It has found $30 million to prop up Rio Tinto. It has found money to support Warner Bros and the Skycity deal. It has found $11 million to pay to a Saudi sheep farmer. But the Government cannot find the money for paid parental leave—to extend paid parental leave by just 8 more weeks, which actually would barely bring New Zealand into line with those who are in the middle of the pack in the OECD. Italy already has 26 weeks, Germany has over a year, the UK has 39 weeks, Belgium has 32 weeks, Ireland has 26 weeks, Portugal has 30 weeks, and Japan has 58 weeks. We are not actually talking about putting New Zealand way out the front. We are not talking about doing anything at all radical. We are talking about bringing New Zealand back to the middle of the pack.

But National has never prioritised families. It has never prioritised paid parental leave. It was a Labour Government that introduced the changes in 1987. It was a Labour Government that introduced actual paid parental leave in 2002. It was a Labour Government that extended paid parental leave twice after it was initially introduced. And on every single one of those occasions National voted against it. Tonight, despite hearing Sarah Dowie extoll the virtues of this legislation, National is going to vote against it again because its priority is not working families, and that is a shame.

I am proud to be a member of the Labour Party, which has always been consistent on paid parental leave. We will continue to be consistent on paid parental leave tonight. I congratulate Sue Moroney on keeping this issue alive and in front of the Parliament. This is something that is core to the Labour Party. This is in our DNA, and it is one of the fundamental differences between National and Labour. I support this bill and I encourage other members around the House to find their hearts, to prioritise children, and to vote with us tonight.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in opposition to this bill, but before I canvass the reasons why we will oppose the bill I would like to reiterate some comments that my colleague Sarah Dowie made. I would like to acknowledge Sue Moroney, the member sponsoring the bill. Her position on this issue is very, very clear, absolutely honest, and fundamentally based in integrity. This is the second iteration of her bill. We can argue that semantically it is not the same as the bill that was recently defeated, but it none the less is still canvassing very much the same sorts of areas. I think it shows that Ms Moroney absolutely believes that there is a need and absolutely believes that we need to address it.

The main thrust of my contribution is not that as a basic proposition the idea of additional parental leave is a bad thing. It is about how much, in what form, and who gets it. Sue’s bill is all about 22 to 26 weeks for parents, which can actually be shared between the two parents of the child, but National is going a lot broader than that. We are looking at the different sorts of childcare arrangements that families might use today or might choose to use in the future. It could be argued that although no one would try to say that we are offering 26 weeks, we are offering additional flexibility and additional weeks in a different way. What we saw as of 1 April this year was an increase of 2 weeks to 16 weeks a year. As of 1 April of next year that will increase to 18 weeks.

I will acknowledge the leader and strong whip of the ACT caucus David Seymour for his very timely and well-thought-out contributions. I acknowledge some amendments he has made to the bill that is passing through the House that will see additional paid parental leave for preterm births, which is something that I know was dear to Ms Moroney in the first iteration of her bill. I think that is still relevant to the concerns that she is looking to address now. Mr Seymour’s changes, which we have adopted, will mean that for every week ahead of the 37 weeks of gestation that a baby is born, an additional week of paid parental leave will be added to whatever the paid parental leave allowance is. I think that is a very good and pragmatic change to make.

I will just hark back to a point that Mr Seymour made when he advocated for those changes. He did point out that although families choose to have children, they certainly do not choose to have children who are born premature, so they are faced with a situation they cannot plan for, and perhaps cannot address, so it is quite right that the State might look to provide some additional assistance.

In terms of what the National Party is doing, outside of just looking at extra weeks on their own, we are looking to extend Home for Life entitlements to whāngai parents, grandparents, and permanent guardians. That is something that is not addressed by Ms Moroney’s bill. We are extending paid parental leave to more workers, casual workers, seasonal workers, and workers who have more than one employer, working arrangements that are not captured in existing provisions of paid parental leave. We have already extended the parental tax credit from $150 a week to $220 a week and extended the validity period from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. We are basically instituting and looking to institute additional measures that are giving parents more choices about what is important to them.

There are some parents who actually choose to return to work earlier, and the move we have made with the parental tax credit is helping the parents who are looking to make that choice. So when I think of what we are doing, it is not about a gain or a battle between the number of weeks of paid parental leave. It is about looking holistically at the different family arrangements, the different care arrangements, and the different situations. Although Ms Moroney is proposing one thing, what this Government has done, and is doing, is different. But it is still having a very tangible and positive effect on families and their choices in raising their young families. We will oppose this bill, but I do commend Ms Moroney for her obviously deeply held views on this matter. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call for the Greens on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill, and it is my privilege to do so. We supported the previous iteration of this bill and we will be supporting this bill again. I would like to extend my congratulations to Sue Moroney for her luck of the gods or goddesses on getting her member’s bill drawn yet again. I would also like to congratulate her on the fact that her previous bill resulted in many of the shifts that were outlined by the National Party speaker who has just sat down. They are significant shifts and improvements in paid parental leave as it stands at the moment, but they did come from the fact that there was a previous member’s bill in your name.

We believe in family. We believe in the importance of allowing parents to spend as much time as they can with their kids. We know from the evidence that the first year of a child’s life is the most important in terms of the emotional and physical development and bonding with their parents. The World Health Organization has recommended 6 months’ breastfeeding as a way of improving and enhancing the physical and emotional health of children. We know that children with a parent at home in their first year have better cognition skills and fewer behavioural problems as they grow up.

That is why we are supporting this policy, because it is compatible with the Green Party policy, which is for 13 months’ paid parental leave. Although this bill does not get there, it is another step towards it. We would like to see paid parental leave for that amount of time to ensure that our kids are valued and our families are able to get by.

We have heard the members from the Government benches and how they often boast about this investment approach to welfare, but what could be more important than investing in children and their future? There are economic arguments for this. We know from the work of Nobel Laureate James Heckman that financial returns are greatest for the ages 0 years to 3 years. We know from the work done by the reliability, availability, and maintainability study that the economic net benefits, the return to investment spending on our young children, and the pay-offs per dollar invested go from between $1.80 to $17.07 per dollar investment. That is amazing.

The Harvard University Center on the Developing Child has stated that investment will “generate substantial future returns through increased taxes paid by more productive adults and significant reductions in public expenditure on special education, welfare assistance, and incarceration further down the track.” This is significant because we know that the more we invest now, the better our society will be now and in the future.

We have a chronic under-investment in children and children’s education in this country. We acknowledge the recent initiatives, but New Zealand spends roughly only more than 50 percent of the OECD average on kids. In terms of the OECD figures on paid parental leave we are well behind countries like Britain with 39 weeks’ paid parental leave, Sweden with 16 months, and Estonia and the Czech Republic, which actually have 3 years’ paid parental leave. In fact, we are behind virtually every other OECD country. We are 24th out of 25.

Of the presentations that were given to the select committee last year on the previous bill, there was something like over 3,000 submissions, and 99.6 percent of them were in favour of the bill. Twenty-six weeks is enough to support a struggling family who are dealing with the shocks that happen when a new arrival happens to them. It is that financial investment that they require in order to see them through that first crucial 6 months of a child’s life. We need to invest in those young people and in our families. We will certainly be supporting this bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to speak to this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I think for many of us there is a sense of déjà vu, if you will, that we are debating this again in the House. For me, once again, I oppose this bill. Its sentiments may be noble, but I do not believe them to be correct for three reasons. One would be, I would term, practical, one prudent, and the third one philosophical.

The first reason is practical, and that is really in relation to what Governments have already done. We have had paid parental leave at 16 weeks, and in the recent Budget of the Government we have extended this out a further 2 weeks to 18 weeks of paid parental leave, which is beginning from 1 April next year. So, practically speaking, the Government is making steps and continues to make steps in this regard. We have also heard from others around how this Government reflects a National Party philosophy of not just doing a broad brushstroke for the sake of symbolic semblance and niceties but actually trying to target this more appropriately. We were very pleased in some of our changes to look at how we provide this paid parental leave, not just to the birth parents but, where situations require it—let me get the terms right here—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —to those who are Home for Life carers, whāngai parents, and grandparents, importantly. I know in my own electorate that a number of grandparents are looking after children, and there are those who are permanent guardians. I think it is important, and it has been important practically, to put those supports in place. Others have mentioned it too—I think it is very prudent around extending or providing an extension of paid parental leave for those whose babies are premature, so those born under the date of 37 weeks. I think it is a small but practicable step. It is one that certainly sits logically in my mind, and I will touch on that a little bit when I talk around the philosophical concerns that I have in and around all of this.

The second issue I raised or hinted at was around the prudency of this. A Government’s responsibility is to all its citizens—young, old, middle aged—and I think it is prudent of the Government to approach this carefully, because every new idea, no matter whether it has merit or not, has costs, and we have to figure that out. The best cost that I have been given—and excuse me having to read this, I cannot recall all the numbers—is that it is going to cost something like $378 million over the next 4 years, with an ongoing cost of about $126 million. In terms of the Government’s books, that is not a huge amount of money when one weighs it up, but at the same time it is all about trying to make the balances and the choices that are required. It is very easy for members to come to the House and say: “Oh, it’s just going to cost this much. It’s just going to cost that much.” We have to work that out, again, as a Government to be prudent. I think we have heard from Government Ministers, in particular, in other discussions that, of course, we will look to see whether we can extend this as time and prudency allows. I can see there has been a hashtag going around of the likes of “8 more weeks” and so forth, and that is fine. One can argue that point but, of course, with the debates—or how we have heard the debate structured from the other side—there will always be a call for 8 more weeks.

Finally, for me I have got some, I suppose, philosophical concerns with this. I know that time is now short. One part of it is that having a child is generally not an accident or a mistake, and so forth. It is something that is fairly normal. I am sure that there are plenty of exceptions that may just prove the rule, but by and large a social, responsible State steps in in those unusual circumstances. The other, too, is that we often hear—and it is from all sides of the House—that it is all about community. We hear that on this point—you know, that it takes a community to raise a child. It seems that that is pulled out as an excuse when money is required, but it is funny that in so many areas when the community wants to set its standards and ideals for how to raise a child, we hear “Keep out of my life. Don’t bother me.” So I see a bit of inconsistency of thinking here: if it is truly a community raising a child, then we as a community have a responsibility for more than just money to our children.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Simon O’Connor’s final contribution just threw me there for a minute, actually, because I think part of the problem with the conversation that we are having around this bill is that there are too many men like Mr O’Connor inside of it. The last statement that Mr O’Connor made with regard to this bill, which is about actually supporting babies and babies and babies, was that if you cannot afford to have babies, then do not have them and do not ask the State for help. That was the last contribution Mr O’Connor made to this debate. It just blew me away that he, on a taxpayers salary, had the audacity to stand up in this House, paid for by taxpayers, and say that “If you can’t afford to have babies, don’t come and ask me to help you out with it.”

David Seymour: You can’t oppose any taxpayer spending in this House.

TRACEY MARTIN: To get back to what I was going to start with—and the gentleman who is calling from one side is the gentleman who denied babies this amount of money the last time we were sitting at a debate on this bill. He sits there with the audacity to take credit for the work that Sue Moroney did when he sold off his vote to the National Government for a bill that it has now introduced, which was actually in Ms Moroney’s amended bill when this Government voted it down. Mr Seymour will stand at some stage and he will laud it about the place about how he will not support this bill because he has arranged to actually get some kudos from this Government for a bill that Ms Moroney actually put in this place, which the Government tricked her out of. That is what happened the last time this bill was in the House.

I wanted to actually start with where I was going to start with, which was commending Sue Moroney for her tenacity, because, at the end of the day, we will get there—“we” being the women and the men in this House who actually value babies and the relationship between them and their parents. I worry about the constant, perhaps, over-accentuation of mothers, with regard to this bill. I have some massive concerns about the fact that fathers seem to be left out of the dialogue, and I would really love for this bill to go to the select committee and to have an opportunity to talk about how we can better support fathers to be able to participate in the early years and the early months of their babies’ lives—their children’s lives. I truly, truly believe that when we get equality in the home we will finally get equality in the workplace. When men feel that they are 100 percent equal to women in the raising of their children and that they are not stigmatised in any way, shape, or form by taking parental leave to stay at home, then, actually, women will be advanced inside the workplace. So I would very much—

David Seymour: Oh, maybe if people weren’t so sexist in Parliament!

TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Seymour, if you ever have children, then maybe we would have a dialogue, but not right now.

I want to give credit to Ms Moroney. I want to give thanks to the goddess, because not only did Ms Moroney get two member’s bills drawn in a very close space of time but she got the same member’s bill drawn in a very close space of time. Therefore, it should be recognised that, perhaps, it is in the gods that this bill should go through. New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee.

Before I close and before I sit I want to remind the House of the contribution by someone who is a Minister of the National Government at the moment—her final contribution at one of the first readings of this bill, which Ms Moroney brought through last time. It was the contribution by Maggie Barry. She said: “I am very, very glad indeed … that we are not supporting this rubbish.” That was the contribution by Maggie Barry. This is the continued contribution. It has got harder for the National Government to stand against it, because we can hear it from Ms Dowie. Ms Dowie must have swallowed the largest rat she has had to swallow so far in her political career by being forced by the National Government to stand up and take the 10-minute call at the beginning of this bill. Ms Dowie almost sold the whole thing, and yet the National Government made her stand up and take the 10-minute call in opposition. So well done, Ms Dowie—you did the job that National asked you to do. None of us believe that you want to vote against this bill, and none of us believe that this was something that you chose to do, but you took a rat for the National Party. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Once again, a contribution from Tracey Martin that is a bit like one of those multi-directional lawn watering machines: in every single direction, with very little coherency. First she was belittling men for even being involved in the debate, then she was welcoming me to fatherhood. You never quite know what you are going to get from moment to moment.

I oppose the bill, but I do want to pay tribute to Sue Moroney, who came to see me earlier this year and made the case for good public policy. I agreed with her and I did what I could to advance that, bearing in mind that at that point she had run out of options due to an impending veto by the Minister of Finance. So we return to the topic tonight with some mutual respect and understanding, I hope, but the fact is that in contrast to those initiatives that made paid parental leave proportional to need, and proportional in particular to unexpected need, this bill simply does not stack up.

The rhetoric behind it is, first of all, that paid parental leave derives great benefits—that is No. 1—and No. 2 is that State assistance is necessary in order that those benefits be derived. But you only have to ask yourself two questions: how many babies are born in New Zealand each year, and how many parents take up paid parental leave? The numbers are 60,000 and 26,000. More than half of babies born in New Zealand are not brought up under paid parental leave.

Then you have to ask yourself about the World Health Organization and breastfeeding. My mum happened to be a La Leche League consultant, so I am pretty well versed in the benefits of breastfeeding. Nevertheless, many women, either by choice or by necessity, do not breastfeed their children. So as soon as you start to understand that the benefits of this bill can be derived without the need for State assistance, or sometimes not at all, the case for it becomes so much less urgent.

Then you have to consider the fact that the State assistance, even if it were to be extended to 6 months, is not addressing the overall challenge that people face in parenthood. Parenthood today is an 18-plus year proposition. As many parents will tell you, it can go well beyond that, into the twenties, and the idea that you are going to make a substantial difference simply by adding a few more weeks to paid parental leave does not stack up.

On the other hand, you might make the case that there is a certain amount of political cynicism, or even opportunism, behind this bill, and you only have to look at the way—and the Labour members have caught themselves out here; they did not mean it to come out, but it came out—they said they would introduce such a bill when it became fiscally sustainable. Jacinda Ardern is listening in the Chamber. She was standing up and saying: “We introduced paid parental leave back in 2002, and we extended it in 2004”—in an election year when Labour took a major hit in the polls—“and we did that because it was fiscally sustainable because we were running huge surpluses.” Sue Moroney then introduced a bill in 2012 when the Government was $9 billion a year in the hole. So the idea that there is some sort of fiscal probity or caution around the introduction of this policy simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Labour uses the fiscal caution argument when it suits and then ignores it just as well when it suits.

I would finish on the challenge that has been made—the audacious challenge, apparently—that people should have children when they can afford it. We get the full outrage, as though that is the most extraordinary and audacious thing that a person could ever possibly utter in this House or anywhere. I just want to remind the House and put on record that if you go out and talk to New Zealanders, you will find that that is not only what most New Zealanders believe—that you should have children as you can afford to do so—but it is what the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do. With that, I would like to conclude my remarks in my opposition to this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on Sue Moroney’s bill on paid parental leave. It is a great pleasure to be able to stand up again and talk to this issue, an issue that is dear to my heart.

I was in the community working for the Young Women’s Christian Association of Aotearoa back in 2001 in the campaign to get 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. We worked very closely with the then Minister of Women’s Affairs, Laila Harré in the battle to get this through. Believe me, it was a protracted battle to get that basic provision when New Zealand was so far behind in global terms.

Sadly, 13 years on we are still so far behind in global terms, and it is appalling to be having to make the same basic arguments about the value of extended paid parental leave in 2015, particularly when last term this House went through the debate and we had well over 3,000 submissions from the public of New Zealand. Of them, 99.6 percent, I think, told this House that for them 6 months was a priority, that they had their own experience about what would work, and that 6 months was that benchmark for them.

We heard that from women, we heard that from their partners, and we also heard that from employers. Employers were telling us that 6 months was much easier to manage because when you have got a shorter time period, you actually get to that point of going “Will I find somebody to fill in when it is 3 months, or not? Will I just kind of try to juggle and get extra people to work longer or do the extra jobs to cover that time?”, and, for most of them, that is what they have been doing.

They said that if it was 6 months, it would be that benchmark to enable them to say: “OK, actually, we’ll advertise this position and get somebody else in for this time period.” That would be easier for them to manage, and that would also help people in our community get extra work and work experience to fill in in that time. Of course, most crucially—or one aspect that is crucial—it would enable the women who are going on paid parental leave to keep their job.

We heard from so many women about going into the workforce once their paid parental leave was up and actually still breastfeeding, still being up right through the night, not being able to manage, and actually leaving their jobs. That has a very long-term consequence for our economy as well as for the economy of those households, let alone the well-being of the babies, which, of course, is at the heart of the point of this bill.

We know that attachment in those first 6 months is critical. We know that the health and the development and the cognitive abilities of babies are strengthened from 6 months of breastfeeding. It is very hard to work full time and breastfeed a baby. That is just a practical reality of life.

I certainly would like to see us have much more provision in terms of supporting fathers or partners to be able to be there in that early time of life, but we also have to recognise the importance of the attachment between that primary parent and breastfeeding. That is a core part of what this bill is about, and why it is so critical that we have 6 months and nothing less.

Obviously, the Green Party policy is 13 months’ paid parental leave, and that is about enabling that time for the family and their establishment. It is not unreasonable in international terms, because it is an investment and it pays off. At the heart of our society, everything is about our people and our environment, and this is one of the small things that we could do in this House to recognise the importance of people in this country.

So the Greens are very proud to be supporting this bill yet again, and I have a skerrick of hope that this time the will of the country will triumph.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill in the name of Sue Moroney, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. I want to first acknowledge that it is really good to see that Sue Moroney’s member’s bill was drawn from the ballot so soon after her earlier bill, so I congratulate Sue Moroney on that. But I am taking this call to oppose this bill.

As a working mother I understand the importance of paid parental leave, and there is a wide consensus that paid parental leave is important. That is why this National Government is already investing in paid parental leave. As we have heard, that investment in paid parental leave is required. We are already investing in paid parental leave, as we have already announced changes to the paid parental leave provisions in our last year’s Budget—that is, Budget 2014.

We have increased paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 16 weeks, from 1 April 2015, and we have announced that paid parental leave will be increased to 18 weeks from next year—that is, April 2016. Also, for babies born on and after 1 April 2015, the parental tax credit has gone up from $150 to $220, and the payment period has been extended from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. The Employment Standards Legislation Bill, which is before the House, is also going to make the paid parental leave provision more effective and also flexible.

The Employment Standards Legislation Bill is going to extend paid parental leave to other workers—to casual workers, to seasonal workers, and also to those who have just recently changed their jobs. This shows that we value working people, and we want to support them when they want to go away to have their babies. They should be supported with reasonable paid parental leave.

We are also wanting to make the paid parental leave provisions more flexible, so employees working for more than one employer will be able to combine their income to maximise their paid parental leave payment to the maximum cap. Also, the paid parental leave provision is going to be extended to primary carers. Primary carers are going to be not biological parents and not formally adoptive parents but other carers, those who are available to take care of a newborn. But to become a primary carer, those people should be in employment to qualify to get paid parental leave.

As a woman I am conscious that we should not underestimate women’s place in the labour market. I do not want to see any changes coming through that will damage the prospects of women in the labour market. Paid parental leave is a work-related entitlement. It is a work-related entitlement, and I do not want to see any discrimination against women because of women’s child-bearing responsibilities.

It is important that families have access to paid parental leave, that they can look after themselves and the newborn, and that there is enough time for bonding. As I said, our goal is to make the paid parental leave more effective, efficient, flexible, and also make it affordable. What this National Government is already doing is actually providing that optimal balance, to provide family-life balance and also to make it affordable.

The National Government is known for working hard for families and children, and we are also delivering for taxpayers. We are already doing what is needed, so I oppose this bill. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Can I begin by thanking all the parties that have indicated that they are supporting this bill going through to the select committee. This debate has been all about priorities. It is all about exposing where the parties sit and whether they actually put their money where their mouths are in prioritising families and children. It is very clear to see that in the first instance the Labour Party is prepared absolutely to do that, and the Green Party, New Zealand First, and the Māori Party. I hope to also be thanking Peter Dunne at the end of this debate as well, because I am hoping that his vote will be the one that carries this bill through to the select committee.

I want to put this bill into a little bit of a wider context. This is part of a much broader policy platform that the Labour Party is bringing forward that will actually put children at the heart of our policy development process. It is part of what we call our Best Start policy that involves, yes, extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks but also ensuring all those families that Mr Seymour made reference to—the 60,000 babies that are born each year—get access to better financial support. That was contained in our Best Start policy, and this is one leg of that. So it is part of a broader policy agenda from the Labour Party to ensure that we actually do get that brighter future that the current Government used to once talk about but we do not hear them talk about much anymore. This type of investment will truly do that.

I do want to bat away the criticisms that the opposite side has made about the cost, because the truth is that it is what my grandmother would have called throwing good money after bad. What the current Government seems content to do is to keep spending taxpayer money on the bad outcomes of not getting it right in those early months, rather than spending a little bit on investing early and reaping the benefits as a society. That is a substantial difference between this side of the House and the current National Government members, who really cannot see beyond the end of their noses when it comes to investing in a brighter future for this country.

We all benefit when we get this right because it is not just about those families and those children and how they benefit; it is about the sort of society that we want to have and that we wish to have. As taxpayers, when we get this right, we all get to save money. That is what the select committee found when it last had a look at this bill, and I am sure that we will find that again.

This time round this bill is even more affordable than it was the last time I brought it before Parliament. Then I was asking for 12 weeks more; now the proposal is to simply add 8 weeks more. Yes, #8moreweeks—that is what we are after with this bill. It has become more affordable at a time when we have moved into a period of economic growth, albeit small economic growth—that is where we are.

I do want to let this House know that in terms of the international comparisons, yes, in Ireland, a similar-sized country to us—one could say, actually, that it is in a worse financial situation than we are—it actually already has 6 months’ paid parental leave, and guess what it is doing next? It has already said that it is going to extend it by a further 6 months over the course of the next decade. That is what the Irish are doing, and that is the sort of thing that this country should be doing if it is absolutely prepared to invest in children and put them at the heart of this country, as they should be.

I want to commend organisations like Plunket, Barnados, Every Child Counts, and the many other organisations that are part of the 26 for Babies coalition, because they know that this is the right thing to do. The Government, when it opposes this bill, is opposing those organisations and what they believe in. I commend this bill. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I seek leave to table a document. It is an open letter to the Hon Peter Dunne asking him to support the bill that has just been passed. It is in the name of myself and 14,463 other signatories.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member wishes to table a letter from herself and 14,000 others to the Hon Peter Dunne. Is there any objection to that happening?

Tim Macindoe: Does she have the member’s permission?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, it is a letter from her so it is not a question of permission. The member can object if he wants. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Bills

Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I move, That the Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Science Committee to consider the bill. This bill is about ensuring that every one of our children has access to a full, broad, and balanced curriculum. It is the requirement at the moment of every publicly funded school—every State and integrated school—that those schools follow The New Zealand Curriculum. But this Government, for ideological reasons, has made one exception to that, and that exception is for charter schools that receive 100 percent of their funding from the public sector. In fact, on a per student basis, charter schools are getting up to five times as much funding per student as the other publicly funded schools.

This ideology of not requiring charter schools to follow the curriculum has been a proven failure. It was a proven failure in a country that introduced charter schools many years ago—the United Kingdom—because in 2007 it changed its policy to now require charter schools in the United Kingdom to follow the same broad curriculum as every other school in that education system.

What this country does not need is some children in our schooling system to be subject to a narrow curriculum. For example, it could be imposed by a business, for-profit, commercial enterprise to train children to a particular ideology or, even more likely, a narrow sectoral group in our community decides that their kids are going to learn something different from every other kid. It might be: “Evolution is wrong and we believe in creationism.” That is the sort of thing that the current legislation allows to have happen, and it is what this bill will prohibit.

Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, The New Zealand Curriculum, as you know well, is not a controversial document. It has received universal support across New Zealand. It is about ensuring that every child gets the learning competencies they need to achieve their full potential. In fact, our society—the very integrity and the unity of our society—relies on all of our kids having access to the common values that The New Zealand Curriculum promotes.

I would like to ask Mr Seymour why it is that values in The New Zealand Curriculum such as excellence, innovation, inquiry and curiosity, diversity, equity, community participation, ecological sustainability, integrity, and respect ought not to have a place in charter schools, as they have a place in every other publicly funded school in New Zealand.

The bill now before the House ensures that charter schools will meet the national education guidelines set out in section 60A of the Education Act 1989. These guidelines were considered essential—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I just want to briefly interrupt the member and ask Mr Seymour to stop addressing the Chair in those terms. I am not embarrassing myself and he should not say that I am.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I hope you are not going to refer to the ruling I have just made.

David Seymour: Ah, no, I guess not.

Hon PHIL GOFF: There is a man with the courage of his convictions. What the national education guidelines—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh, Mr Goff will now withdraw that comment.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, I withdraw. What the national education guidelines set out is what schools should achieve, the teaching, learning, and assessment policies that are followed in schools, the areas of knowledge and understanding and skills that students need, and codes of conduct and principles governing the administration of those schools. Almost every New Zealander would regard those sorts of guidelines as being essential for a properly functioning education system.

I want to address in this bill a key deficiency that the charter schools legislation currently allows, but I have to say that this bill addresses only one of the serious problems involved in charter schools. Even Treasury said that it was a nonsense that charter schools be allowed to employ teaching staff who were not qualified. It said that the registration of teachers is absolutely essential to the quality of learning, and it opposed the ideological, ACT-driven policy of not having either a curriculum or properly qualified and registered teachers.

I was Minister of Education when Tomorrow’s Schools came in, and one of the fundamental principles of that, which came through from a very progressive businessman, Brian Picot, was that schools should be run encouraging the participation of the students, the teachers, the parents, and the community. Yet charter schools are allowed to operate without participation or accountability to any of those groups. This is turning the clock back to Victorian-style education. Charter schools—

David Seymour: This is very embarrassing.

Hon PHIL GOFF: There is the ACT Party, which believes in openness and transparency. Why is it, then, that charter schools are not held accountable under the provisions of the Official Information Act? Is it because they are so appallingly run, and the money is being diverted to purposes other than quality teaching, that the Government wants to cover up what is happening in those schools?

David Seymour: Sit down and I’ll tell you.

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are clear examples of the failures of many of the charter schools. There is the Whangaruru school, Te Pūmanawa o te Wairua. Maybe Mr Seymour could tell us whether it is satisfactory that only one out of 49 students gained a formal qualification last year at that school—one out of 49. I want to know whether Mr Seymour and the National Party regard the widespread truancy, the bullying, the drug use, and the breakdown of staff and management relationships as being satisfactory at that school. The Ministry of Education has stated officially that the school is not capable of remedy and it should be closed. It is not teaching to the curriculum. It is not teaching in any way in a quality sense that is good for those children.

When charter schools were introduced we were promised that when they failed they would be closed. What was the reaction of the Minister of Education to Whangaruru? Did she close it? No. She poured buckets more money into that school. I would like to know from Mr Seymour whether, when that school is finally closed, as it must be, the assets funded out of public money will come back to the taxpayer, or whether they will be taken over and expropriated by the proprietors of that failed school. He knows the answer. The answer is the latter. This is State welfare to failed educational institutions. [Bell rung]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry. The member’s time has not expired, but I would like him, please, to focus on his bill for the last 2 minutes.

Hon PHIL GOFF: As I said before, this bill addresses one fundamental flaw in the charter school system, which is the lack of requirement that charter schools follow the New Zealand curriculum. The New Zealand Curriculum sets out the guidelines of how these schools should be governed. Because charter schools have no such guidelines, schools like the Whangaruru school have failed—have failed—and have been found by the Ministry of Education to have failed. Likewise, Middle School West Auckland. The parents there have complained about a lack of effective teaching practice. That is because there is no national curriculum and no guidelines about what effective teaching practice should be.

The Ministry of Education has warned the Minister three times about the failings of that school. The Education Review Office has warned the Minister about the failings of that school—and what does the Minister do? The Minister does nothing. There is no accountability. There are no standards that it has to work to. This is an abuse of taxpayers’ money, but worse than that, this lets down the children of our country.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member’s time has now expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to, but this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is—[Interruption] It is lucky the member is not suspended. The House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for an extended sitting.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Wednesday, 16 SEPTEMBER 2015

(continued on Thursday, 17 September 2015)

Appointments

Ombudsman and Chief Ombudsman

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That, pursuant to sections 3(1), 3(4) and 5(1) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, Peter Francis Boshier be appointed as an Ombudsman for a term of 5 years, with effect from 10 December 2015, and upon taking up the office of Ombudsman, he be appointed as Chief Ombudsman with effect from the date that the incumbent Chief Ombudsman vacates the position. Today I rise to move a motion that recommends the appointment of Judge Peter Boshier to replace Dame Beverley Wakem as an Ombudsman. Dame Beverley has served this country as Ombudsman since 23 November 2007. I would like to place on record our thanks for her many years of service in this important role.

The Office of the Ombudsmen is not only an important organ of State; it is also an advocate for the protections that New Zealanders expect inside our democracy. It is an organisation that is able to conduct, free of charge, examinations into all manner of requests from the public that relate to the activities of governance in this country. It is also the organisation that has the greatest influence on the application of the Official Information Act. The organisation therefore has to have people of the highest calibre and highest integrity working within its office. Judge Boshier is well-qualified to become an Ombudsman. He holds an LLB (Hons) from Victoria University of Wellington and has practised in Wellington since 1975. In 1988 he was appointed a District Court judge. In 2004 Judge Boshier was appointed Principal Family Court Judge, and he was in that role until December 2012. He is currently a law commissioner.

The position of Ombudsman was widely advertised throughout New Zealand, and the Officers of Parliament Committee has acknowledged the high calibre of applicants for the position. Judge Boshier was unanimously supported by the committee members. I want to thank them for their work and wish Judge Boshier all the best for his term as Ombudsman.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I rise to place on record Labour’s support for this appointment. I do want to very briefly pay tribute to Dame Beverley Wakem, not only for the time she spent as Chief Ombudsman but also for a career of many, many years in the broader State sector. She has made an enormous contribution.

I have known Judge Boshier since he was a law student. Our paths have crossed on a number of occasions—but not to the extent of my having appeared. Peter Boshier is a man of quiet integrity. He is someone who has shown an ability to lead a team. I think it is fair to say that herding Family Court judges is something that is not particularly easy, and he managed to work some reforms and do some improvements over a period of years, which showed tact and discretion but also a bit of steady leadership when that was necessary. He is currently a law commissioner. He is widely respected in the Pacific and has done work there. I am sure that he is very, very suitable to do this job. As the Minister moving the motion for Mr Brownlee, the Hon Jo Goodhew, indicated, it was a decision that in the end the Officers of Parliament Committee came to relatively easily.

But I think it is also fair to say and to place on record that any of the applicants who were shortlisted and interviewed could have been appointed, and in a different field they may well have been appointed. This was a position that was sought by people with a range of experience and people of very good standing in our community. I am pleased that the Office of the Ombudsmen still holds an attraction for people of that sort of integrity. I think it bodes well for the future.

There is one point I will disagree with the Government on, and that is whether it is the Office of the Ombudsmen that has the most influence over the workings of the Official Information Act. That is just not correct. It is the leadership of the Government that is most important in that, and I think that that is something that would be good for the new Chief Ombudsman and both this Government and the next Government to reflect on. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to give our support for this Government motion appointing Peter Boshier to the position of Chief Ombudsman. Like Trevor Mallard said before me, I have had some dealings with him and have found him to be excellent. I believe he will be a superb appointment to this role. I also want to place on record our party’s thanks for the work that Dame Beverley Wakem has carried out in this role until now. The role of ombudsmen is a crucial one in democracies such as ours. It is a Swedish idea. It comes from the sense that citizens need some kind of backstop protection against potential excesses of the executive arm of Government.

In her contribution, Jo Goodhew mentioned the role of the ombudsmen in relation to the Official Information Act. It is no secret that the Green Party has been concerned that the use of that Act has become more problematic as, to our mind, Government departments and arms of the executive part of Government have frustrated the use of that Act by declining Official Information Act requests. There has been a suspicion that that underperformance in relation to the responsibilities of the Official Information Act has been assisted by an underfunding of the Office of the Ombudsmen, leaving the ombudsmen with less capacity to respond to those problems.

Like Trevor Mallard said before me, I think that when Peter Boshier assumes his new role as the Chief Ombudsman his scrutiny on that matter may be useful, but, equally, it may be that that is not the only reason for delays in responding to complaints to the Office of the Ombudsmen. The Green Party certainly would appreciate the opportunity for some kind of independent review of not only those funding matters but also the operation of the Office of the Ombudsmen. Is everything being done that should be done to ensure that the ombudsmen’s functions are able to be carried out with the least impediment possible? We would advocate that cause to the incoming Chief Ombudsman.

So, with those remarks, I echo my earlier expression of support for the Government’s motion and congratulate Peter Boshier on his appointment.

Motion agreed to.

Deputy Controller and Auditor-General

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That, pursuant to section 11(2) and clause 2 of Schedule 3 of the Public Audit Act 2001, the House recommend to the Governor-General that Greg Mark Schollum of Wellington be appointed as the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General for a term not exceeding 5 years with effect from 28 September 2015. This motion recommends Mr Greg Schollum replace Phillippa Smith as the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General, a role she has held since 2005. After 10 years she has decided not to seek reappointment. I would like to place on record our thanks for her service in this role.

The work of the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General cannot be understated in its importance. Indeed, work undertaken by the office must give Parliament, public entities, and the public independent assurance that some 4,000 public entities are operating and accounting for their performance in keeping with Parliament’s intentions. Mr Schollum is well-qualified for this appointment, having joined the Office of the Auditor-General in September 2004.

He has held responsibility for the accounting and auditing policy group, which encompasses auditor appointments, quality assurance, auditing policy, and accounting policy across all sectors within the Auditor-General’s audit mandate. Mr Schollum was a member of the Financial Reporting Standards Board of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants for 8 years and has served on numerous working groups and committees of the institute. Since 1 July 2011 he has served on the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board.

He is a fellow of the institute and gained his business management studies qualification from the University of Waikato. Before being in the Office of the Auditor-General, Mr Schollum was the chief financial officer for the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and prior to that an audit director with Audit New Zealand. I want to thank the Officers of Parliament Committee for its work, and I wish Mr Schollum all the best for his term as Deputy Controller and Auditor-General.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Again, I would like to place on record the support of the Labour Party for this appointment, and also I want to make a few brief comments about Phillippa Smith before I sit down. Unlike the appointment we debated previously, there was not quite the even balance and strength, other than Mr Schollum, in the applicants for this appointment. It is a little bit hard to tell why—whether the position is not that attractive or, as may be the case, people saw that Mr Schollum was an applicant and thought as a result of that, because he had the history and the background, he was almost certain to be appointed. If that is the case, that is fine.

What became clear to the committee was that the new Deputy Auditor-General will not be a pushover for anyone. He is someone who stands up for what he believes in—something that, on occasions, has not always made him popular inside and outside the office. He has the ability, which I think is necessary for someone in this sort of position, to put on the black hat, to take a contrary point of view, and to debate issues. I think that is valuable, because in an office like that of the Auditor-General, having groupthink is something that is not useful. It is better to have views tested. I am sure Mr Schollum will be able to do that.

I do want to acknowledge the role that Phillippa Smith has played in the Public Service. I think I first came across her when she worked in the Audit Office previously, before she went to the State Services Commission. She is a public servant of incredible integrity and intelligence. I was Minister of State Services during the majority of the time she was at the State Services Commission. She was fearless in her legal advice and warnings, both verbally and occasionally in writing, to Ministers of the day. I think that was something that I found particularly valuable and, on occasions, chilling. That, again, was something important.

I am not sure if we are meant to say this, but I would have thought that Phillippa Smith is not yet at the point where it is appropriate for her skills to be lost to the State sector generally. She is, I think, someone whom Governments should look to in the future for roles that are temporary or part-time because her abilities are something that is so valuable that it is vital that they are retained and used in order to keep working on the integrity of the Public Service and the State sector generally. If she is going into part-time retirement, I wish her well. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): On behalf of the Green Party, I rise to support the Government motion, to congratulate Mr Schollum on his appointment, and also to thank Phillippa Smith for her contribution. I echo the remarks that Trevor Mallard has just made. The Office of the Auditor-General is an incredibly important one for our democracy and for our work in this Parliament. When I consider the work, for example, that we all undertake on select committees, the advice that we have from the Office of the Auditor-General is extraordinarily important and valuable in forming the scrutiny that we are able to place the institutions of Government under. So we could not perform our role on select committees if we did not have that support from the Office of the Auditor-General.

That means, of course, that the office has a very heavy workload indeed, and that, I think, has made it from time to time difficult for it to strike the best balance between that programme of regular work and the functions that it also has to conduct investigations from time to time into, for example, probity in Government departments. Certainly, our party has often called on the Auditor-General to conduct such investigations when we have encountered conflicts of interest, for example, or other situations where the rules do not appear to have been followed. Sometimes the Office of the Auditor-General has been in a position to respond to those requests; sometimes it has not. But our point, I think, would be that it ought not require complaints from members of Parliament to trigger such investigations. One of the developments that, certainly, our party would like to see in the future is a more proactive stance from the Office of the Auditor-General, and maybe this appointment will create the catalyst for that to occur so that there is greater horizon-scanning for the issues that arise from time to time that could require the skills and expertise of the Auditor-General’s office to investigate.

So a more proactive stance towards investigation without needing complaints from members of Parliament or members of the public is what we would like to see. In conclusion, congratulations again to Mr Schollum, and we hope that his appointment and his tenure in the office will be very successful.

Motion agreed to.

Independent Police Conduct Authority

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That, pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General reappoints Dianne Mary Macaskill and appoints Simon Murdoch CNZM each as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, for terms of 3 years. I moved that pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommends to His Excellency the Governor-General the reappointment of Ms Dianne Macaskill and appoints Simon Murdoch CNZM as part-time members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, each for a term of 3 years. The authority is chaired by Judge Sir David Carruthers. The other two current members, Ms Angela Hauk-Willis and Ms Macaskill, both completed their first term with the authority in August 2013 and remain in office under carry-over provisions. There is also an unfilled vacancy on the authority following the departure of Mr Richard Woods in early 2013. Given that Ms Hauk-Willis and Ms Macaskill have now each served on the authority for 5 years, the Government favours making one reappointment to retain experience and maintain continuity, and appointing a new part-time member. This provides an opportunity to enhance the authority’s strategic planning capabilities. I would at this point like to acknowledge the contribution that Ms Hauk-Willis has made throughout her time with the authority.

Ms Macaskill is an independent contractor at D.M. Macaskill. She is the vice-president of the Pacific regional branch of the International Council on Archives, an audit committee member at the International Council on Archives, and a member of the internal audit committee at the Ministry of Education. Ms Macaskill is the former chief executive and chief archivist at Archives New Zealand from 2001-08, and a former Deputy Government Statistician at Statistics New Zealand from 1996-2001.

Mr Murdoch joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1972 and served in postings to Canberra and Washington. He became Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in 1991 and was appointed as Chief Executive and Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2002. Since retirement in 2009 he has undertaken a range of public sector reviews and consulting roles. With these appointments, the authority will have the range of management and governance experience required by a Crown entity board.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Labour supports the reappointment of Dianne Macaskill and the appointment of Simon Murdoch as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The Independent Police Conduct Authority is an important body. It is Parliament’s and the public’s watchdog over the police to ensure that the police always meet the standards that we properly expect of them. The role of the body is to receive complaints against the police. It investigates incidents involving death and serious bodily harm as a result of police actions, and it monitors the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees in police custody.

The word “independent” has been deliberately written into the title of the authority. In fact, that was happening at the point that I was Minister of Justice between 1999 and 2005. It is important to emphasise the independence of this authority both from the Government and from the New Zealand Police. It provides assurance both to the police and to the general public. Its members, therefore, are accountable to this Parliament for the use of taxpayer funding, and the appointments to this body are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of Parliament, rather than the executive wing of Government.

The conditions governing the operation of the authority and the quality of the membership of the authority are really important to ensure that public trust and confidence in the police is ongoing. I need to say that I think that we are very fortunate in New Zealand to have a police force that, by and large, maintains the qualities of integrity and professionalism that we expect of the police in this country. This is a country that respects the rule of law and the upholding of individual rights.

The chair of the authority is always a judicial figure, and the chair since, I think, about 2012 has been Sir David Carruthers as a judge of the District Court. He is a man whom I have worked with for many years and a person whom I have total confidence in, a person who is widely respected.

Equally, the two members whose appointments we are now considering before the House are high-quality nominees. Dianne Macaskill was the Deputy Government Statistician from 1996 to 2001. She then went on to be chief executive of Archives New Zealand from 2001 to 2009. She is a specialist in strategic leadership and in general and information management. She has also been a member of the audit and assurance committee for the Ministry of Education. She is recommended for reappointment for a further 3 years, and Labour supports that appointment.

The new member recommended for appointment is Simon Murdoch. Both as an MP and as a Minister, I have worked with Simon Murdoch for many years in a range of capacities in which he has acted. I first knew him as the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under a National Government, and that was a role that I think he carried out with extraordinary competence. He then went on to be New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Australia—again, a role that he performed with distinction—and for much of the time that I was Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, he was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, through from I think about 2002 to 2009. Working with him, I found him to be highly professional and a dedicated civil servant, who performed competently and with integrity. He was respected by both those who worked for him and those whom he worked for. On behalf of the Labour Party I have no hesitation in supporting the recommendation that he should be appointed as an Independent Police Conduct Authority member.

In conclusion, these nominees are people whom I believe can be relied upon to provide the independent oversight to ensure we have a disciplined, accountable, non-corrupt, and non-politicised police force that maintains public trust and confidence. I support the recommendations.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Greens in support of this motion to reappoint one person and appoint a new person to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The question of who will guard the guards themselves—who watches the watchmen—is one that has echoed down through many centuries, and it is a serious and important question to ask.

The police force does have extraordinary powers. It has coercive powers. We entrust it with authority far beyond that which the normal citizen—I was going to say “enjoys”, but “possesses” is perhaps a better word. It is important for that reason that we do have an oversight body, and, critically, an oversight body that is independent, that reports directly to Parliament, and that is not in any way compromised in the way that some other oversight organisations may be.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority, I think, has a good history. It has done a good job, for the most part. I think we take for granted in New Zealand that we are largely free of corruption in the Public Service in this country, and I think in the police force, of all entities and State agencies, keeping corruption out of that arena is absolutely critical. Clearly, the Independent Police Conduct Authority does have a role in that, as well as the functions described by Mr Goff.

In cases where there have been shootings or deaths involving police action or intervention, it is critical we have that independent oversight to ensure that the right thing has been done and to ensure that where things have gone wrong, we take lessons from that and ensure that there is no repeat of those things.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority also has an important role as part of the national preventative mechanism—that is to say, involved in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. It has a very important role there in ensuring that our places of detention are managed in a humane and proper fashion and that people’s rights are respected while they are in detention, and I know that the Independent Police Conduct Authority takes that part of its brief very seriously and actively engages in that.

I think we are very fortunate in the leadership of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. Judge Sir David Carruthers—I think I have got the honorifics in the right order—is not only a highly skilled and effective judicial officer, but he also brings some personal quality to the role. He is an extremely engaging person. He is genuinely a leader, and I think we are fortunate to have him in that role.

I am pleased to see the reappointment of Dianne Macaskill. She has, again, a varied and impressive CV as an archivist, a statistician, and an expert in strategic management. She has that role on the basis of her quality, of her experience, and of her capacity.

I also point to the fact that I think it is important we also have at least one woman—that we have gender balance, to the extent we can, on that body. The Greens exercise that in our leadership roles, and I think it is important that we have that representation at the senior levels of all of these public agencies that have roles as guardians and as oversight bodies for the various functions of Government.

The new appointment, Simon Murdoch, again has a very impressive CV as a diplomat and as a public servant in many roles. We do wish him well in this new appointment and, as I said, we are pleased to support the nomination.

Motion agreed to.

Abortion Supervisory Committee

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That, pursuant to section 10 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General reappoints Dame Linda Holloway as Chair, reappoints Dr Tangimoana Habib as a member and appoints Ms Carolyn McIlraith as a member of the Abortion Supervisory Committee each for terms of 3 years. The terms of appointment of all three members expired in April 2014, and they have continued in office under the rollover provisions of the Act. Dame Linda and Dr Habib both indicated their availability for reappointment. The third current member, Rev. Patricia Allan, indicated her wish to stand down once a replacement could be appointed.

Dame Linda has served as the chairperson of the supervisory committee since June 2007, after retiring from a distinguished career in medicine. She was dean of the Wellington school of medicine and health sciences, then became pro-vice-chancellor of the division of health sciences at Otago University. She is a highly respected anatomical pathologist who served on the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, and was one of the advisers to Dame Silvia Cartwright during the inquiry into the treatment for cervical cancer at the National Women’s Hospital.

Dr Habib is a Hamilton-based doctor and has been a member of the supervisory committee since April 2011. She was awarded fellowship of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners—the royal college—in 2003, and currently works as a general practitioner for Te Kohao Health in Hamilton. Dr Habib has been involved in Te Ohu Rata o Aotearoa (Te ORA) Māori doctors association since 2000, and has been a member of Te Akoranga a Māui, the Māori general practitioner faculty, since its inception in 2002. She served on the council of the royal college in 2005 and 2006, and is the continuing medical education provider for Te ORA. She is of Ngāti Tūwharetoa descent.

The proposed new member is Ms Carolyn McIlraith. She is currently employed with Capital and Coast District Health Board and has been counselling for 10 years, specialising in the areas of youth, post-natal depression, grief and loss, sex, psychological first aid, and pregnancy counselling. Prior to retraining as a counsellor she worked in a variety of positions, including customer services, fixed assets, and human resources.

Retaining the experience of Dame Linda and Dr Habib should ensure the stability of the supervisory committee. Ms McIlraith has worked extensively with women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. She will bring a perspective from her social work and counselling background that will meet what the supervisory committee itself has advised is a key input it seeks.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I stand for the Labour Opposition to support the appointment of Dame Linda Holloway and Dr Habib and the new appointment of Carolyn McIlraith—three very good appointments. The two reappointments and Carolyn McIlraith, who works here at Capital and Coast District Health Board as a very, very experienced counsellor, make up, I think, a very strong group of three for what is a pretty difficult job to undertake.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee is one that operates under the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act and its function is to keep under review all the provision of New Zealand’s abortion laws and operations and the effect of those provisions. That also includes the licensing of institutions to perform abortions. So it is an area where there are often very strong views, and they are often very strongly presented, and so those who take on this job are people—and have been women—over the years who have been able to bridge the gap between those views to a great extent.

Dame Linda Holloway is very well-known to me from the time before I was a Minister of Health, but particularly during my time as Minister of Health. She has been a long-time advocate for women. She has been a long-time advocate for contraception for women, access to contraception, and access to legal abortion in New Zealand. In fact, she was the person who introduced RU486 to New Zealand—a medical abortion, as opposed to a surgical abortion—and she advocated for many years for another safe way for legal abortion.

Dr Habib is a GP, as you have heard from the Minister. The Act does require that there be two medical practitioners, and so that requirement has been fulfilled and, as I said, Miss Carolyn McIlraith is a counsellor, so I think they are three good very appointments. I think they can take some credit and strength from the latest statistics where you look and see that in December 2014 New Zealand had the lowest number of abortions since 1994. In fact, in its report—the latest report to this House—the committee said that it believes that one of the reasons for that is because of the funding of long-acting subcutaneous implant contraception from August 2010. It has seen an overall decline in abortion rates and notes a dramatic drop in abortion rates for 15 to 19-year-olds, and believes that this could be partially attributed to the introduction of this form of long-term contraception. The committee believes that this downward trend for this age cohort will continue. I think it is that sort of data and information provided by this committee that is really important, in order to be able to see what is happening in the area of abortion.

The committee does, however, say in its recent report that it continues to be very worried about harassment—harassment of women—where you must recognise the right to freedom of expression for people who have strong views on abortion and also the right of women to choose. It is concerned about verbal abuse, distribution of offensive material to people entering hospital—and people go into hospital for many reasons. Women could be there for dozens of reasons. They ought not to be subjected to coercion or humiliation, and I absolutely support the committee on that.

The committee also points out that we now have better access to services in the provincial areas of New Zealand, and that has been an issue in some parts of New Zealand in the past where there was not local access. This meant that women were required to travel long distances to obtain a legal abortion.

So we do support the appointment of these three women to the committee and wish them well in their work continuing their strong advocacy on behalf of those who seek counselling, advice, and legal abortion in New Zealand.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to add the Green Party’s support to the nomination of Dame Linda Holloway as chair, the reappointment of Dr Tangimoana Habib, and the new appointment of Ms Carolyn McIlraith to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. These are women, particularly Dame Linda Holloway and Dr Tangimoana Habib, with a proven track record of strong oversight and advocacy in care for the well-being of women in this country. We certainly welcome the experience of Ms Carolyn McIlraith as a counsellor and as somebody who is currently working at the Capital Coast District Health Board in this area. That expertise, I think, will add a lot to the committee, and we welcome that.

Of course, I am not going to stand in this House and talk about the Abortion Supervisory Committee without mentioning the fact that we believe the law that it is constituted under is well outdated. It is a 1977 law that is built on a fundamental mistrust of women and a belief that we cannot trust women to make decisions about their own bodies and their own health, and that needs changing. The fact that this committee is set up to give operation to a law that criminalises women’s basic, fundamental human right is unjust and needs changing, and although we can trust these women to operate within the constraints that this House has put them under, those constraints are fundamentally wrong and need changing.

The fact that so much of the committee’s work is done in certifying the appointment of certifying consultants—any woman in this country who is seeking a termination has to see two certifying consultants, which may mean that she ends up seeing up to five doctors, and potentially five different appointments in five different places, to be able to access health care. The cost that goes into that for her personally, let alone the cost to our health budget of certifying these consultants—who are paid to basically tick off a system of saying “Yes, this will be mentally injurious to you to have this pregnancy.”, which is a demonstration, again, of that mistrust—is ridiculous.

It is 2015. Most people in this country actually believe that abortion is decriminalised already. The fact that we are all unwilling to address that or even properly have that conversation, to me, is a sign of our fundamental failing, and we hope that that will change in the future. However, that is the place we are at and these women will do the job well, so we support them.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill

Third Reading

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I move, That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to see this bill pass through its final stage in the House after thorough consultation and debate in the Primary Production Committee and a successful second reading that tidied up a number of issues raised after the bill was reported back to the House. In particular, I thank the House for agreeing that clauses 34A to 34C of the bill, as inserted by the select committee, should be omitted from the bill. Although I believe the select committee acted with good intentions, the clauses challenge the integrity of parliamentary processes, and I am pleased that the House has agreed to their removal.

The bill is consistent with the intent of Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills, as set out in Standing Order 262(1)(e), in that it addresses land status issues that cannot be easily dealt with under other legislation. The benefits of this legislation will be evident to many New Zealanders as the clauses in the bill change the status of iconic and important land across the country, ranging from Kahurangi National Park, Paparoa National Park, and Westland National Park through to a much loved bowling club in Port Chalmers.

The Government is committed to clarifying and simplifying issues regarding land status. This bill removes unnecessary, costly, and time-consuming administrative and technical difficulties associated with land use on both public and private property. The changes effected by the bill will help to ensure that public and private land is managed responsibly and effectively. Obstacles to the effective use and management of land in the future are being removed, and past mistakes are being put right. The bill also enables the resolution of conflict over the status of parcels of land, so that all parties with an interest in the land understand what forms of use are permissible. Community interest is at the heart of the entire process.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Primary Production Committee. Select committees play an integral role in the parliamentary process and contribute to the development of quality legislation, so I want to thank the committee and the officials from the Office of the Clerk for supporting this bill.

The committee felt that this particular bill challenged its understanding of the purpose of “ROLD” bills. There is a convention that “ROLD” bills deal with non-controversial land matters, and this convention was intended to ensure that changes effected by the bill remained technical. However, the complicating factor for the committee when considering this bill was that although many of the changes effected by the bill are not controversial in and of themselves, they may well be associated with issues or processes that are controversial.

The clauses relating to the Auckland Art Gallery development in Albert Park are a good example of this issue. Most of the concerns raised by submitters are more relevant to the change in reserve classification for part of Albert Park and the resource consent process than they are to the “ROLD” bill. The change in reserve classification was undertaken by the Auckland City Council in 2006, in accordance with all the relevant requirements of the Reserves Act. The resource consent process governing the design and construction of the new art gallery ended up being approved by the Environment Court in 2008. The clauses in the “ROLD” bill have not enabled the gallery extension. Rather, they will simplify the future administration of the land by ensuring the gallery is contained on one piece of land held under one legislative framework, rather than on two pieces of land and under two legislative frameworks.

The key issue, therefore, is not whether the applications included in the “ROLD” bill deal with controversial matters. It is likely that future “ROLD” bills will. The important thing is that the changes themselves remain technical. The questions asked by the Primary Production Committee were important questions to ask, as it is important that the integrity of the legislative process is maintained. I am satisfied that all of the changes in the bill are necessary technical changes to the status of the land and will be beneficial not just for the applicants but for the wider communities that are affected by the changes in this bill. I would like to thank the officials from Land Information New Zealand, the Department of Conservation, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who have all worked hard on this bill before, during, and after the consideration of the bill by the Primary Production Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): There are children at school who were not born when this bill was first introduced into the House. I know that because I was Minister for Land Information at the time, in 2008, when the bill was introduced. It is now 7 years ago—7 or 8 years ago—since this bill was introduced. I feel a bit older myself, actually. I have had to go back through the records to remember some of the detail of it. Some of the details I do remember, and the reasons why the Labour Party is supporting this bill, but it does have to be pointed out that delays over this number of years serve no one’s interests. They increase the costs of these processes, because everyone looks at it and looks at it again and again. Parliament ends up having a number of goes at it. People who are interested in the issues that are at large, underneath the bill, are dragged back into their archives, year after year, thinking: “Where’s that happening?”. I know in respect of one of the matters affected by this bill, which relates to Taieri Airport, that every time I run into Julian Smith, who is one of the owners of the Otago Daily Times, he asks me: “Where’s that provision in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill that’s meant to be clarifying the status of Taieri Airport?”. That is important to them because they are worried that their status is uncertain and that they could actually lose their rights to run the airport. That is one example that has caused inconvenience to people.

Another one that is more serious is down my way, where the losses, which amount to millions of dollars, have actually been caused to one of the district councils and actually relate to an issue in Jacqui Dean’s electorate in Ōāmaru. In the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill it was clarified that the land that overlooks the town, which is called Lookout Point in the original version of this legislation and was perhaps a misnaming, was originally given to the predecessor of the Waitaki District Council as endowment land, but at some point in the process, way back when, it was described as reserve land. Therefore, there was controversy as to whether the council could sell that land and realise its worth. The council wanted—and indeed needed—to sell that land because it wanted to realise the money from that land to pay for other important works by the district council, including the building or the rebuilding of the opera house in Ōāmaru, which cost some millions of dollars. It entered into contracts for the sale of sections on this piece of land—Forrester Heights I think is the proper name—and those contracts were all subject to the legal clarification of this point, which was necessary in order for them to complete the subdivision. Because Parliament has delayed so long in this, all of those contracts reached the expiration date, by which time property prices in Ōāmaru had dropped and none of those contracts were confirmed—they all fell over—and the Waitaki District Council, as a consequence, lost millions of dollars.

That is the consequence of this sort of delay in what seems somewhat mundane legislation. I think that is probably the worst instance here. In fact, it was so bad that Jacqui Dean, at the request of her council, sponsored a local bill to give effect to this provision that was in the original Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, and this Parliament passed the separate bill—the local bill. That, again, caused waste. It cost money because a local bill costs a council money to promote, not just its own legal fees but it has actually got to pay a fee to Parliament to introduce a local bill. Then the time of this House was set aside for considering that local bill instead of other matters. None of that would have been necessary if this bill had just been advanced perhaps half a decade earlier. It might seem unreasonable that this bill could—sorry, I should not say that. It was an entirely reasonable expectation on the part of the people around New Zealand whose interests were affected by this bill that it was dealt with promptly, but, unfortunately, it has not been. The matter relating to the Auckland Art Gallery—I thank Minister Lotu-Iiga for that description—was a little bit controversial for some who saw the expansion of the art gallery as some improper extension into the adjacent Albert Park in Auckland. Again, as the Minister has clarified, the contention around this bill was misplaced, as evidenced by the fact that it could be done even without this bill being passed—so sometimes people claim controversy when they disagree with something even when legally it is not controversial.

The matters in this bill that are being addressed are not legally controversial. They often fix mis-descriptions of property that have occurred in parts of New Zealand over a period of time, and, as a consequence, it is common every 5 years or so for a reserves and other lands disposal bill to be introduced into this House. The Primary Production Committee did remove provisions that it did not think were appropriately timed in respect of Auckland volcanic cones. I am sure my colleague Phil Goff will mention that in his contribution. Otherwise this bill is relatively non-controversial.

I have one final thing to say in respect of Taieri Airport. I recently raised with the then Minister of Land Information why it was that in order to get this clarification as to the status of the Taieri Airport land it was necessary for the Crown to say that in the event that that land is ever sold, they get half of the proceeds of sale. I have never understood the theory for that. The Minister was going to look into it. I have not heard where that has ended and I am afraid, therefore, that the provisions as they stand in the bill will not fix that defect. Having said that, those at Taieri Airport, although they would have preferred otherwise, more important, want the legislation to go through even if it has that provision, which is not to their ideal liking. I recommend this bill to be passed by the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): This “ROLD” bill, as it has been pointed out, has been waiting some time to come through, but, actually, some of the issues it fixes go back a long, long way. In particular, one I would like to talk about is in the Picton area, which is within my electorate. It dates back to 1903, when the land was illegally transferred to the Picton Borough Council, as it turns out. This bill actually deals with that under clauses 24 to 27. The reason it was done illegally is because the last trustee had died and so it was transferred in haste, unfortunately. So although this is a busy Government, we cannot be blamed for going back to that length of time, unfortunately.

The other issue in my electorate that I would like to talk about is the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. There is land set aside in the French Pass area for a district nurses’ facility, and, unfortunately, it has just been sitting there and is not on the books of the district health board. It needs to be sorted out. That area, of course, was quite remote. It is still a 2½ hour drive from Blenheim and Wairau Hospital out to French Pass, but nowadays, of course, we do not need district nurses’ facilities in those areas, so that has been tidied up.

Also, there is the Braemar Campus at Wairau Hospital. Wairau Hospital has undergone a reconfiguration on the site and that needs to be tidied up, and it is being tidied up under this bill. So this is a bill that fixes a lot of previous anomalies in the legislation that need to be tidied up, and it is great to have those things set aside for those owners of the land to go forward in a proper manner. Although it has taken some time to get here, it is here and, you know, hang on—help is on its way. This is a good Government, but it takes a long time sometimes to get these things worked through.

I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): May I begin with an apology to the generation of children born since this bill was first introduced—

Richard Prosser: Stop apologising, David. Stop apologising.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —and by acknowledging the work of the—I did not apologise for “Wogistan”. I would like to acknowledge the work of the former Minister for Land Information, David Parker, in bringing this, essentially, tidy-up set of remedial changes to reserves and other lands.

It is, I think, instructive to reflect on the old saying about army life, which is the ethos of “hurry up and wait”. Members of the public will wonder why Parliament is in an extended sitting this morning to debate a bill that has been waiting since hundreds of thousands of children were born—or 2008. I think it is indicative of the management of the House by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that when we were sitting in our procedures meeting this morning we got handed, essentially, an email from the Leader of the House with what he thought the business of the House would be today. It is about as shambolic as it gets, and, unfortunately, it is indicative of the state of the Government that we are in extra time hearing a bill that is 8 years old, and with late notice, at that.

Let me now turn to the substance of the bill. This bill is designed to clarify and to codify a number of issues with reserve lands throughout the country—about a dozen of them. The bill was handled by Richard Worth in the good old days when he was a Minister before he visited the pyramids, and it lapsed after he left Parliament, probably, it could be said, under something of a cloud. It has languished on the Government’s Order Paper for those 7 long years, or 6½ long years since 2009.

It was open for public submissions. It has a number of issues that did excite, believe it or not, quite a bit of public attention. One of them was to change the boundaries of Albert Park in Auckland, and to include the Auckland Art Gallery within its confines. It is a marvellous facility, the Auckland Art Gallery, but it was controversial, with a majority of submissions opposing that inclusion on the grounds that the park itself is a public space and a green space, and it was cleaner to have a consistent definition. However, despite a wave of opinion and the difficult and perhaps less than democratic process that the then mayor John Banks followed to get it to that point, we do not believe that it is sufficiently concerning to pick and choose from the various proposals contained in the bill, and we are therefore going to support the change.

Another issue that is addressed in the bill is the treatment of Auckland’s volcanic cones. There were a number of submitters who were opposed to the change contained here, in that instead of the Governor-General’s signature being required to excavate on a volcanic cone, now it is the Minister for the Environment’s signature that is required. We are relaxed about that, because in effect it was the Minister for the Environment who made the recommendation to the Governor-General, so we do not believe that there is a substantive weakening of protections here.

May I turn to one issue that affects my local area of west Auckland, in regard to Waikumete Cemetery, and I turn the attention of colleagues to clauses 47, 48, and 49 in Part 2 of the bill. Clause 48 states: “Waikumete cemetery land is a part of Waikumete Cemetery.” It is Crown land, classified as a local purpose reserve, a site for a cemetery. It is one of the largest—I think it is, perhaps, the largest—cemetery sites in the Southern Hemisphere, certainly in New Zealand. It is a massive and very poignant place, and it hosts every year some now 20,000 to 30,000 people who come on Anzac Day to remember our dead. It has a very large Auckland RSA presence, and it is a very important place for west Auckland.

However, in 1995 the then Waitakere City Council, without clear lawful authority, disposed of the Waikumete cemetery land to a local authority trading enterprise. The local authority trading enterprise in turn subdivided the cemetery land and sold it to private owners—some of it—as fee simple titles. Most of that land around the edges is now developed, with residential buildings upon it. The clause states: “because the titles to the Waikumete cemetery land were created by an invalid process, and contrary to section 112 of the Reserves Act 1977, the land retains its reserve status and remains subject to that Act.” Therefore this bill revokes the reserve status on the Waikumete cemetery land. Can I say that it is with some sadness that we support that change—not because it is unnecessary, as it is clearly necessary now, but because we certainly would regret any further diminution of the reserve space at Waikumete Cemetery.

The Primary Production Committee made a number of recommendations when it worked on this bill. There were several Supplementary Order Papers that included new items in it. Supplementary Order Paper 206 provisions relate to Lookout Point in the Waitaki district, and also Māhinepua Bay as a Māori reservation. There was comment by the select committee, as I alluded to earlier, about the Auckland volcanic cones issues, and there was amendment in respect of the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area, where the committee recommended deletion of clauses 42, 43, and 44 from the bill to allow further consultation with affected parties.

The list of reserves that are affected beyond the Auckland Art Gallery and volcanic cones include the good old Dunedin Octagon, Kahurangi National Park land, Lookout Point, Māhinepua Bay, certain areas within Marlborough District Council’s Picton office area, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board land, Paparoa National Park, Port Chalmers Recreation Reserve, Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area, good old Taieri Airport, Waikumete Cemetery, as I mentioned, Waipā District Council land, some areas of Westland National Park, and, of all things, Winton Racecourse—

Todd Barclay: Yes.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —a matter dear to the heart of the member for Clutha-Southland, who may still have been at school, I venture, when this bill was first brought to the House. However, it is good to see that the Government has moved with such alacrity that he is now of age and able to participate in its passage.

It is with those few comments that I record that Labour does support the bill. It has been a long time coming. The fact that we are here in extra time to pass a bill that has languished on the Order Paper for some 7 years, I think, tells us something about the state of organisation of the Government. But we will not let that get in the way of a bill that is essentially a worthy tidy-up exercise. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Todd Barclay, I will ask members to refer to the bar 3 version of the bill, which is the one that is currently before the House.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. To touch on Mr Cunliffe’s last point, I think, given the importance of the Winton aspect of this bill, that it was a deliberate strategy of the Government to await my arrival into the House. It has taken a long time to report the bill back to this House—that is true—but we are a busy Government with a large legislative agenda, and we wanted to take time on this particular piece of legislation to ensure that the consultation was robust and sufficient. Although these changes are non-controversial and are supported by most communities, we cannot take the risk of making changes that may have an adverse impact on people.

I just want to touch on the Winton Racecourse and to draw the attention of members to clauses 56 to 58, which will provide community and independent input into the management of Winton Racecourse in Southland. Under this change, the Minister of Conservation will be able to appoint up to five trustees for the racecourse at any one time and to limit each appointment to a 3-year period. Currently, three trustees are appointed for life by the Minister of Conservation, and the responsibility for their replacement still lies with the Minister of Conservation. The Winton Racecourse, for those who are not aware, is a 1,600 metre course and it tends to favour horses that can race up to the pace. It is a very important aspect of the Southland community, and the fastest horse always wins on that course.

So just on behalf of my constituents, I would like to thank the House for considering this piece of legislation. I hope that all other members will support its passage through as well. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think the name of our country, New Zealand and Aotearoa—the land of the long white cloud—reflects the sense of place that New Zealanders have and their connection with our land. I think we have heard that today in the House with the special connection that members individually have referred to—areas of land that the bill deals with that are in their constituencies, that they have dealt with, or that they have a particular affinity with.

Although it is a bill that tidies up the law—it deals with land that does not justify a particular bill in its own right, but tidies up the status of reserves where there have been roads widened through Westland National Park, Westland Tai Poutini National Park, Paparoa National Park, Kahurangi National Park, and the land that was part of the national park but now becomes part of the road reserve. So they are small changes like that. But the bill is also significant for the way that it has been changed in its progress through this House.

The Green Party has been particularly interested in the Walls Bay Esplanade Reserve in Northland. We congratulate the former Minister for Land Information Maurice Williamson and the current Minister for the Supplementary Order Paper that removed clauses 34A, 34B, and 34C from the bill, because those clauses were inserted by the Primary Production Committee in response to submissions. Effectively, they overrode the provisions of the Reserves Act and sought to grant a particular benefit to an individual, in contravention with normal practice.

There has been quite a lot of concern in Northland, because this Walls Bay Esplanade Reserve is, as I understand it, the only esplanade reserve in the Ōpua area. It is part of the Bay of Islands walkway. It is an important area for mana whenua. It is the subject of a Treaty claim, and it is very close to the pouwhenua that were planted at Ōpua by the Ngāpuhi leader Sir James Hēnare.

On this particular bit of esplanade reserve Doug Schmuck has a boat yard, and although the Department of Conservation has been prepared to grant him the right to take boats out of the sea and take them to his boat yard, he was also seeking the right to use the reserve for cleaning boats, for scraping them down, and that compromised the use of the reserve by the public for picnicking and other uses, and just completely changed the amenity value.

The changes that the Primary Production Committee made to, effectively, privatise the reserve, and which the Supplementary Order Paper that we dealt with in the Committee stages has now taken out—those amendments—preserves the integrity of the Walls Bay Esplanade Reserve. So we congratulate the Minister for doing that, because otherwise we would have a situation where bills are going out for comment, some members of the public make submissions, others are not aware of the issue, and Parliament could, potentially, have changed the law without affected parties being able to comment.

The changes were controversial, too, because it was the Northland MP at the time, John Carter, who had assisted in the advocacy around them. I guess the concern now, when Parliament was dealing with this through a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage—I now understand that locals are concerned by the Far North District Council’s attempts to do the same thing through changes to the Walls Bay management plan. But because those provisions around Ōpua and the esplanade reserve were removed, the Green Party is supporting this bill, because all of the other changes are uncontroversial.

I endorse the comments made by the Hon David Parker, having been on the Local Government and Environment Committee when we dealt with Jacqui Deans’ Act in terms of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Act, because that was seeking to catch up and overtake this bill, which it duly did, in resolving the status of Lookout Point Reserve and Cape Wanbrow. So I commend the bill, and thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased—actually, relieved—to be standing to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, my final call in the debate on this bill. I am relieved because at the end of this process, a bit like the pulling of a tooth, it will at long last be over—sort of. In fact, it will not really be over at all, because, as I have said throughout the various stages of this bill, we are destined to revisit it again almost immediately. We are destined, or doomed, if you prefer, to do that because, as others have said, this is a bill of a type that does come before this House with rather regular monotony.

This House has passed, in fact, no fewer than 66 bills bearing the name “Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill”—that is 66 based on my count from the listings available on the New Zealand Legislation website. They date back to 1926, and the latest one to go through that I have been able to find was the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 2003. And if we add to those Acts the Acts from this House bearing the title “Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act”, then there are another 19 pieces of legislation of the very same type in the statutes of this country, and they date back to 1901. That was 6 years before New Zealand even became a country, before we gained self-government—6 years prior to becoming a country we were already disposing of reserves. So we have had a total of 85 bills of this type in the annals of this Parliament, going back 114 years, at an average of roughly one every year and 4 months.

So we are, in fact, overdue for another one. In fact, if it were not for the fact that this particular bill has languished on the back-burner of the Government’s priority stove for 6 years—two entire terms of Parliament—we might, in fact, be due for another two. That was my point in the second reading and again during the Committee of the whole House: this bill is now so outdated, and so much of what it started out with is now so superseded and irrelevant, that I genuinely believe that it should be scrapped in its entirety, or sent back to select committee where a fresh set of eyes can go over it. Then it can be brought back to the House in a form that can include all the new cases that will inevitably have popped to the surface since the initiation of this bill 6 years ago.

During the Committee of the whole House I did note that of this bill’s original 17 items and 58 original clauses, something like 11 of those items and 21 of the clauses have now been dealt with, or superseded or amended or done away with altogether by other legislation in the 7 years since this bill was drafted. There will be more. There will be more that have not been noted, there will be more that come to the surface, and there will be others that will need to be included in the next bill, which, as I say, will have to immediately follow this one through the House.

We will pass this bill, obviously. The House has indicated that and the Government obviously has the numbers, so we are going to pass this bill—it is going to happen. I have registered my disappointment and my party’s disappointment about that, in the sense that Government members themselves have admitted that there are people out there whose lives have been affected and continue to be affected by the matters that this bill seeks to address, and the fact that they have had to wait so long for some sort of redress is, frankly, unacceptable.

I do not intend to take up any more than is absolutely necessary of the valuable time of the House in revisiting yet again everything that is wrong with that part of the process. I have said time and again that Government members do have the option of either scrapping this bill or sending it back to the select committee for a complete overhaul. We know that they will do neither. We also know that we will be back here debating yet another one of these in some ways banal pieces of legislation, which will be the 87th after this one since 1901, possibly before the year is out, but certainly before the term of this Parliament is out. For that reason, New Zealand First does not support this bill. We believe that is the only sane position that any party can take on it. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to take a short call on the third reading of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. The bill was sponsored by Minister Louise Upston. As part of the parliamentary process and also the work that central government does with local government and communities, there comes a time when there needs to be some legislation of this kind of nature that really just enables the local communities to use properties, especially reserves and other lands, in the manner in which they need to and to address any anomalies that there may be in the system. Bills like this do come along. I know that in Hamilton we had the Parana Park bill many years ago, which dealt with a very similar situation. My good colleague from Hamilton West, Tim Macindoe, will remember that as well. So these things do happen, and this is one of the cases where the Government just needs to assist local communities, and we are doing that through this bill. There are a number of different projects that will be assisted through this bill, and so we commend it to the House and thank you for the support of this bill.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this particular bill. It is a bill that Labour supports. It is an omnibus bill; it deals with authorisations, transfers, and the validation of matters relating to reserve lands, Crown land, and other lands that are being held for public or private purposes.

The critical question that has to be asked, even at this late stage of the debate, is why this bill has taken 7 years—the entire length of this Government’s tenure in office—to pass through the House. The Minister who introduced this bill is the gentleman sitting to my right, the Hon David Parker. He was 7 years younger—although he has aged particularly well—and he pointed out that there are children in my electorate who have been at school for several years who were not born at the time that this bill was introduced. So, at the very least, the next National speaker, instead of mumbling some inanities like David Bennett did, should at least explain to the House—or the Minister should have explained to the House—why there has been the delay in this bill.

This bill is, for the most part, non-controversial. There were two clauses in relation to volcanic cones that have been dropped, which I applaud. Largely, the bill was non-controversial, but it was important to certain communities. David Parker talks about the area known as Forrester Heights in the Ōāmaru region. This bill was necessary so that the Waitaki District Council could go ahead with the sale of land that it had entered into contracts with buyers for, not knowing that an incompetent Government would take 7 years to pass this legislation. The result of that was twofold. Firstly, the contracts were voided, and I understand from my colleague that that cost to the Waitaki District Council was some millions of dollars. So this Government is responsible for loading the cost of its incompetence on to a small local authority. Then the measures were finally passed by the local member bringing in a local bill. The time and the money that it cost to pass that local bill could have been invested in getting this bill through, but this Government, which has no money to meet some of the pressing social needs of this country, was prepared to squander it on its own incompetence in failing to get legislation through in a timely manner.

There are a number of things here where the bill passes legislative changes that are of benefit to local communities. Given that is the case, again, you have to ask why the Government did not organise its legislative programme so that these non-controversial measures could have been passed through into law. Why, for example, has the Government made the Dunedin City Council wait 7 years to regularise a long-term lease for the use of reserve land by the Port Chalmers Bowling Club? It has prolonged by that period of time the uncertainty that that club faces by not having the ability to have that land passed to it. Why has it delayed allowing the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board to make more effective use of five blocks of land, for which it held the title, at the expense of being able to provide health and disability services utilising that land? It is another cost to another small community caused by one thing: the incompetence of successive Ministers and this National Government in getting the legislation through in a timely way.

Why did it delay passing to the trustees of a Māori reservation adjoining reserve land in the Māhinepua Bay in Northland—why was that Māori trust forced to wait for 7 years to have the land passed to it when everybody in the community supported that land being passed to it? Generally, Reserves and Other Lands Disposal bills deal with only non-controversial matters, but there were some issues that excited a degree of controversy. One of them was in relation to land in Albert Park. As a former student at Auckland University, I have a particular affection for Albert Park.

Hon David Parker: Oh, too much information.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes—I am not going to go into details of that. It is a beautiful—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Hon PHIL GOFF: Ha, ha! The member in the Chair knows well from his own experience. But, I have got to say, it is a truly beautiful piece of land. It is in the heart of Auckland City. It is extensively utilised by Auckland University, and also now by the Auckland University of Technology, and, generally, I would be absolutely opposed to passing across the title of part of such an important park for another purpose. Most of the submissions to the Primary Production Committee—and we are now talking about, I think, July 2009 when the committee heard these submissions; some of the submitters will no longer be on this earth—were against that, but I have got to say that there are exceptional circumstances here.

I do not think that the process followed by the then council was as good as it needed to be, but the fact is that the land that was passed across was a very small piece of land on the fringe of the reserve and it was passed across to the Auckland Art Gallery. One of the most beautiful buildings in Auckland—and, indeed, in New Zealand—is the Auckland Art Gallery, dating back to the 19th century. I have got to give credit to those who designed an extension to that art gallery. It is a new, modern wing to the art gallery, but it is as aesthetically pleasing, in a very modern form, as the heritage building was in the form that it was created, based on a French chateau.

Hon David Parker: International awards.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It has won international awards, as my colleague says. It is something that we as Aucklanders are incredibly proud of. It has not detracted from the effective utilisation of Albert Park. In fact, the nature of the building, sited on the edge of the park, is probably something that enhances the value of the park and, certainly, the public amenity. So I support the recommendations of the committee. In fact, the building is in place—it has been in place for many years—so it is simply acknowledging a fait accompli. I sympathise with those submitters who, perhaps as a matter of principle, said that we ought to be extraordinarily cautious about utilising our parkland—particularly a park like Albert Park—for other purposes, but, in this case, I think that the use is warranted.

Finally, I want to touch upon the volcanic cones. The bill, as it was introduced in the House and went to the select committee, proposed amending the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act so that decision-making powers in relation to excavations on private land adjoining or abutting public reserves containing Auckland’s volcanic cones would be dealt with by the Minister of Conservation rather than by Order in Council through the Governor-General. The rationale for this was that it was inefficient for the Governor-General to be required to make minor amendments, but the select committee, quite rightly, I think, rejected clauses 10 and 11 of this bill and said that the status quo should remain. It said that the present system was preferable to giving sole power to the department or to the Minister and that the status quo should be maintained until a review seeking means of protecting the cones in perpetuity could be carried out.

I have got to say I have a particular affection for the maunga—the volcanic cones—in the Auckland area. They are historically important, they are important to the tangata whenua, they are important aesthetically, and they are important as areas of recreation. I was brought up in the Three Kings area, and I have my electorate office there. Two of those “kings” have been decapitated—absolutely decapitated. We would not do that again. They were used for quarrying purposes. More recently the New Zealand Transport Authority, in its wisdom, was going to carve out the side of Puketāpapa—Mount Roskill—to put State Highway 20 through. Fortunately, the Auckland Volcanic Cones Society, the local board, and the local people stopped that happening, but this emphasises the wisdom of the select committee’s decision. We should delete those clauses—and we have deleted those clauses—but we need to focus on the need to provide protection for an incredibly important part of Auckland’s heritage.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I just want to give a split call to pick up seamlessly from where the Hon Phil Goff left off, and reaffirm that the Green Party will be supporting this bill, for the reasons, essentially, outlined by my colleague Eugenie Sage.

The only critical issue here is the process by which the bill has worked its tortuous way through the New Zealand Parliament to its third reading today. It has taken a very long time indeed. Our Labour colleague David Cunliffe said that it was 7 years, I think. New Zealand First seemed to think it was 6 years. I can add value to this debate by having checked, and can say that it was introduced on the Order Paper in July 2008—[Interruption] Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Yes, I can confirm what you are conveying with such grace and eloquence to the New Zealand public—I can confirm that it is 7 years and 2 months since it has been on the Order Paper.

So now that we have cleared that up, we can acknowledge that all parties, I think, are supporting it, with one exception, and that is New Zealand First. I tried to fathom the reason why it would be opposing it and I gather that the reason is that the bill is “old and irrelevant” and that, therefore, the only sane approach would be to oppose it. So picking up on sanity as being the principle criterion on whether to oppose or not oppose a bill—it is not a bad criterion to use, I suppose—we would question whether, in fact, if a bill is very old, that is a sane reason to oppose it.

On that, we find that one of the principal reasons why it was deferred is the difficulties that arose with regard to the way in which the legislation would apply to the land issue in Ōpua, as Eugenie Sage has said. And that, apparently, seems to have been the misfortune of a Minister at the time in seeking to essentially privatise a particular aspect of a public land. I think that that particular issue is best summed up by my colleague David Clendon, who is worth quoting. He said: “The extraordinary thing is that it took so long for the minister to see that the proposed ‘easement’ would have effectively privatised part of a public reserve. While it’s a small area, the precedent it set could have created real difficulties for protecting larger sites in the public domain”. I think, as he said, sanity finally prevailed and those clauses were withdrawn.

Those are the kinds of reasons why bills are held up unnecessarily. But that is not a sufficient reason to oppose it, and, of course, there are other clauses in the bill applying to other areas of land as well. If it is irrelevant, that would be a reason to oppose, but it is very clear, listening to Government explanation of the bill and Labour’s comments on it, that it is not irrelevant. It is highly relevant. It is necessary, and so, therefore, the Green Party is very happy to support it. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I am delighted to follow Dr Graham after that learned and considered oration, but I just want to return to the speech of the previous speaker, Mr Goff, which was certainly one of sound and fury, signifying nothing. But methinks that member does protest too much on this occasion. Mr Goff, of course, has two stock speeches that he delivers in this House whenever he needs to fill in a little bit of time. One is the speech of mock outrage about an arrogant, unprincipled Government that is rushing legislation through at breakneck speed and trampling over the democratic rights of the people. The other speech is the one about this unbelievably lazy and incompetent Government that cannot sort out its own legislative programme and takes years and years to deliver. Of course, the fact is that neither of these two actually applies.

This is simply a case, as he quite rightly noted, of a bill that is largely uncontroversial. It is obviously going to be supported by people over there. Nevertheless, the reason it has taken some time is that there are many communities throughout the length and breadth of the country—we have heard from people from the north right down to the very sage and rapidly ageing new member for Clutha-Southland, who spoke of the dramatic impact of this bill in the fine metropolis of Winton. The point is—and it is a serious point—that all of those communities had a legitimate interest. They did need to be consulted. The Government has, therefore, taken the time to do that job properly. And, of course, this is not one of those bills that have to be pushed through at breakneck speed.

We are a very busy Government with a very full legislative agenda. We have been focusing on issues that matter. That is why we have these extended sitting opportunities—in order to be able to get through some of these other non-controversial measures, and I am very pleased that we are doing just that. I thank all members for supporting it.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a short call. There have been some really useful contributions on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, and I do want to make the point that this is a bill that will tidy up a whole lot of issues in local communities.

I really want to make only two particular arguments in this final debate on this bill, and one is about community consultation. The previous speaker, Tim Macindoe, talked about the length of time it has taken for communities to have input into this piece of legislation. I think 7 years is an extraordinary amount of time to require communities to contribute to this piece of legislation, and I think it is a little disingenuous of that member to suggest that that is why it has taken so long to pass this bill through the House.

When Minister Lotu-Iiga introduced the third reading he made three statements that I think are very relevant. He said that this bill determines land use of both public and private property; he said that it meant that obstacles are being removed; and he said that the community interest is at the heart of this process. I want to say that this bill is absolutely about, and it should be about, community consultation processes and how local and central government can work together to ensure that community interests are, indeed, at the heart of the process.

This is where I want to make my second point in this discussion. I want to perhaps pass a cautionary note for when this type of legislation may come to the House in the future with regard to what will happen around the residential red zone in the Canterbury area, in particular the 80 or 90 percent of residential red zone in Christchurch that resides within the Christchurch East electorate. What will happen at that time will be some very difficult conversations about the future use of that land.

Why it is relevant in the context of this bill is that the council and the Government are talking about swaps of land that may be used to ensure that the public have facilities that are useful for future use. It may mean swaps from what is currently council land to what will become public land in the ownership of the Crown. It is important to recognise that at the time that those consultations happen the public, the people of Christchurch East in particular, and the people of the wider Christchurch and Canterbury region need to have a fulsome opportunity to discuss the use of that land so that we are not bound up in legislation at a future time to unpick the difficulties and the issues that may come about because of that.

I am not going to speak any more on this. This bill has taken a long time to traverse its passage through the House, and I commend it. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserve and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Building (Pools) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Housing: I move, That the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. The Fencing of Swimming Pools Bill was introduced as a member’s bill in 1986, in the wake of the report on the fencing of private swimming pools by the Local Bills Committee in 1983. The report highlighted that an average of 10 children under 5 were drowning in private pools every year. In fact, this was the leading cause of accidental death for young children and second only to traffic accidents at the time. The report found that local authorities with pool fencing bylaws had far fewer drownings than districts that had no such bylaws. The committee’s conclusions ring as true today as they did 30 years ago: “(a) [Swimming pools] are a significant childhood water hazard; (b) Pool fencing is the most effective means of preventing drownings of pre-school children in private swimming pools; (c) It is totally impossible for parents to supervise their children every minute of the day;”.

Since the Act was first enacted it has been successful in reducing the number of fatalities of children under 5 years old in residential swimming pools, from about 10 per year to three per year. However, the Act is cumbersome for pool owners and councils. There is a lack of consistency in the way in which various councils across the country administer the Act, and the level of compliance is often mixed. In short, the Act has been a source of frustration for many councils and pool owners.

The Government agreed to go to the public to seek their views on how best to strike the right balance when it came to child safety and reducing the compliance costs for pool owners and councils. To that end a consultation document was released, Making pool safety easier: Proposed changes to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, containing proposals to reduce compliance costs while maintaining child safety. There were 392 submissions received from pool owners, the pool industry, safety groups, councils, professionals involved in pool safety, and others. The proposals received strong support, with almost all the proposals supported by over 80 percent of submitters. At this stage I would like to acknowledge and thank all those organisations and people who took the time and energy to submit on the proposals. It is really encouraging to see that so many people care so much about the safety of our young New Zealanders in and around swimming pools. The input provided by these submitters has been instrumental in getting the current bill in front of the House.

This bill introduces a more consistent and practical approach to protecting young children from drowning in residential swimming pools and will replace the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 with a new subpart in the Building Act 2004 dedicated to pool safety requirements. A pragmatic decision was made to incorporate the requirements in the Building Act 2004 because all the requirements relating to making pools safe are in fact contained in the building code, a code that has its genesis in the Building Act.

Although the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has been effective in preventing drownings of young children in swimming pools, the current law is excessively prescriptive, with inconsistent and cumbersome requirements that contribute little to young children’s safety. Specific issues include: some councils granting fencing exemptions for spa pools while some others do not; some councils inspect pools every 3 years while other councils have no regular inspections at all; garden pools and stormwater retention ponds have sometimes been interpreted as requiring fencing under the Act; and conflicting requirements for pool barriers as set out in the Act as well as the building code—under the Act the only type of barrier allowed is a fence. Councils have no enforcement powers other than to take costly and ineffectual prosecutions for breaches of requirements under the Act. Any exemptions to the fencing requirements must be granted by elected councillors, which is both costly and inefficient, and pool owners cannot appeal these decisions.

This bill will reduce the bureaucracy and compliance costs of the current regime, while also saving more lives by ensuring more consistent compliance across the country. Spa pool owners will benefit significantly from the proposed new legislation. Currently the rules around restricting access to spa pools and hot tubs are inconsistent and confused. Some councils will grant fencing exemptions for spa pools that have child-resistant covers, while other councils will insist on having a spa pool fenced. Few spa pools are fenced in practice, yet the rate of drowning is very low because spa pools generally come with a safety cover. Under this bill, spa pools and hot tubs with child-resistant covers will not have to be separately fenced any more. This is going to save owners of these kinds of pools a significant amount of money and hassle, and, importantly, it is not expected to affect the risk of young children drowning.

Another important change in the bill is that councils will be required to inspect pools 5-yearly. Currently there are no rules around the frequency of inspections. Some councils inspect 3-yearly, where other councils do not inspect pools at all. The 5-yearly inspections will mean that pool owners across the country will be subject to the same inspection regime. More important, this inspection regime will ensure that pool barriers of all swimming pools across New Zealand will continue to comply with pool safety requirements and thus help save the lives of young Kiwi children.

There are a number of other changes designed to reduce compliance costs, while making pool safety legislation more workable. Retailers and manufacturers will be required to inform buyers of their pools of their legal obligation to ensure that young children’s access is restricted. Pool safety requirements will not apply to water hazards such as garden ponds and stormwater retention ponds associated with homes. This change ensures that pool safety rules will be focused on residential swimming pools, which pose the greatest risk to young children. This change will end the frustration and expense for owners of these types of water hazards. Under the bill, any pool barrier will be permitted that meets the performance base standards of the building code. This means that owners of pools will no longer be restricted to fences as the only means to restrict access.

Finally, notices to fix and infringement notices will be the preferred tools for gaining compliance, with court prosecutions following only in the case of serious breaches of the requirements of the Act. These changes are expected to improve pool safety and are estimated to result in six fewer drownings per decade. These changes will also result in reducing compliance costs by an estimated $17 million. This bill will improve child safety around residential swimming pools. It will reduce compliance costs for pool owners. It will result in clearer, more consistent, flexible, and workable pool safety rules. I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I rise to take this call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. Labour supports this bill going to the select committee. New Zealand is an island nation. We are surrounded by water, and yet every year an unfortunate number of our people, especially our children, drown. Many of us cannot swim. We are very pleased to be debating this bill today. It has taken a number of years for this bill to be discussed, and Labour is very happy to be in support of this bill going to the select committee.

New Zealand’s half-year drowning statistics were recently released by Water Safety New Zealand. Sixty-one people drowned to 30 June of this year, 2015. This is one-third up on the number for the same period last year, which was 46. January’s drownings, at 21, were more than double the number for January 2014, and Auckland’s drownings of 13 were more than triple the number of drownings in Auckland last year. It is absolutely crucial that as a country we, collectively as people, do everything that we can to protect especially our children from preventable dangers such as drownings. We owe this duty to our children and we owe it to the future of New Zealand. We must also observe our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to take appropriate measures to diminish child and infant mortality.

The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 was designed to increase the safety of young children by requiring pool owners to fence certain swimming pools. Proper fencing puts a physical barrier between young children and the pool. Fencing successfully safeguards our children from drowning where human error can often put children at risk. The wandering attention of those who are supervising our children near pools or forgetting to close doors leading to pools can be fatal.

Since the Act came into force 30 years ago, the number of young children drowning in home pools has gone down by two-thirds, from more than a hundred in the decade between 1972 and 1982 down to 30 in the decade to 2012, which is a great result. In the last 20 years 56 children have drowned outside homes, though, while at home here in New Zealand. Two-thirds of these children drowned in swimming pools while others drowned in spa pools, portable pools, or garden ponds. The current bill that is being proposed is in order to reduce this number of child deaths due to drowning in domestic pools by six every 10 years. It is a shame that the Government has not given the same attention it has given to the hazards posed by pools to New Zealand’s most vulnerable children to address the stock of damp, mouldy State houses.

This Government bill proposes to repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 as well as to amend the Building Act of 2004. The changes are said to strike a better balance between protecting our children from drowning in home pools and making the legislation more workable for pool owners as well as the local councils. It is intended to reduce the compliance burden on pool owners as well as our territorial authorities in relation to residential pools. The changes could, it is said, result in cost savings in compliance costs in the order of $17 million if the spa pools with child-resistant covers no longer need to be fenced separately on the property. This bill should establish some certainty, especially for councils, about their obligations to inspect pools and to do this regularly every 5 years.

The existing Act has given rise to a lot of confusion. The very definition of “swimming pool” in the current Act is unclear. The requirements for restricting access to pools are confusing and inflexible. In addition, there is no national consistency in the way that councils check pools to ensure that they comply with the Act. The proposed bill would clarify that councils should be inspecting the pools every 5 years. I welcome the attempts to clarify for property owners exactly what their obligations are and, to me, it also seems sensible to put an onus on the sellers and manufacturers of spa pools, hot tubs, and portable pools to fully inform buyers of their obligations to encourage compliance.

Labour supports this bill to the select committee. This approach will give the general public the opportunity to have their say on the proposed changes. There has been consultation on the issues we are dealing with here as far back as 2008. Consultation on the policy to which this bill would give effect involved water safety groups, industry, and water safety representatives, and Auckland Council amongst others, but the general public who own the estimated 60,000 swimming pools under discussion, and who are the parents of the children we are at pains to protect, should also have an opportunity to be heard on this issue. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I do not think that there would be any New Zealanders, either pool owners or non - pool owners, who would consider for one minute that the original legislation that was set up nearly 30 years ago was not well intentioned. At the time the statistics for young New Zealanders who were drowning were truly appalling and something needed to be done to remedy them. But, as is often the case with good intentions, sometimes the road to the ultimate result can be paved with all kinds of fraught difficulties and potholes and problems along the way. So it became very obvious, relatively quickly after the passing of the original legislation in 1987, that there were some frustrating inconsistencies with the legislation.

As someone who over the years has owned a couple of houses that have had swimming pools, when I had young children who were using those swimming pools, I became completely frustrated with the process and inconsistency that occurred in terms of compliance with a very good, well-intentioned piece of legislation. When you have a problem that is trying to be solved by legislation that is well intentioned, but the net result is one of frustration and inconsistency for the people who are trying to make that legislation work—the pool owners who understand the risks for young children, young neighbours, and people like that, who maybe are not able to be watched by their parents or caregivers every second of every minute of every hour of every day—then there are enormous difficulties in making that piece of legislation work. So this piece of sensible, pragmatic law that is being proposed in the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill I think comes as keenly awaited by many thousands of swimming pool owners across the country.

The bill is a sensible, pragmatic solution to what has been a frustrating and inconsistent piece of legislation for nearly 30 years—frustrating and inconsistent, but not poorly intentioned, as I said. The aim of this piece of legislation is to repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, and, I would say, not before time. To then include this in building legislation also makes perfect sense, as far as I can see. At the moment the current rules are confused, they are inconsistent, and they are treated differently in different parts of the country. One local council will do checks more regularly than another local council. There will be inconsistencies in how the closure rates of gates are measured, their height, and all those sorts of things. There are also inconsistencies to do with the types of fencing or barriers required. So I am delighted that this piece of legislation will provide a greater degree of certainty and consistency across the country and, as I said, that is not before time.

The practical approach to spa pools and hot tubs I think is also something that will be welcomed by the people who own them. One of the annoying and frustrating aspects in the area of spa pools and hot tubs, for people who have them, is that they have been required to get separate consents for them. I understand that in this legislation the intention is to remove the requirement for consents for the installation and use of hot tubs and spa pools. That will come as a welcome measure on behalf of the people who own them. But more so will be the requirement that having lockable and permanent lids or covers for hot tubs and spa pools will now be the method by which the legislative requirements can be met and provided for. That is also a sensible and pragmatic approach.

This bill will reduce compliance costs across the country by many millions of dollars, I suspect, over the course of its duration. The associated costs for swimming pool owners and spa pool owners over the years have been quite enormous. We understand, obviously, the gains that have been made in terms of saving lives from drowning have been very, very good, but they come at a high level of frustration and cost. So to have those frustrations removed and the costs minimised, I think will be very, very welcome.

I am sure we are going to get an awful lot of submissions at the select committee, notwithstanding that this is, I hope, something that will be treated across the House in a non-controversial way. I think there will be a large number of both organisations and individuals who own swimming pools and spa pools who will want to make the point that they have found this existing legislation to be frustrating and difficult to work with. I am very much looking forward to chairing the committee as we go through this process in the House. I think that this bill is, as I say, keenly awaited by the many thousands of people who own and operate swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas. It is a timely and useful piece of legislation that I think will relieve the frustrations of a great number of people, whilst at the same time not removing in any way the obligations on those people to ensure that swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas are safe and that our young children, in particular, are protected from the risks of drowning in unnecessary circumstances. I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to it progressing through the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I am really pleased to take a call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. We have been talking a lot about protecting children, and at the core of this bill is the protection of people’s safety around swimming pools and spa pools. I distinctly remember in 1987, leading up to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, there being a spate of fatalities from drowning in swimming pools. There was a real campaign about addressing that issue. That piece of legislation went through the House and it was passed. It has done what it set out to do. The number of fatalities from drowning has reduced significantly from that time. When we consider our population, which has risen over the last 30 years, that is a significant issue. So I want, first of all, to acknowledge that the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has actually done its job. We on this side of the House, the Labour Party, will support this bill to go to the select committee. The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act will be repealed by this amendment bill. We want to make certain that the safety of our children and our families is at the core of these changes. We need to be satisfied that everything that can be done will be done, as part of this amendment.

I also remember being part of a school board of trustees. I know that every time the Education Review Office review came round, that was one of the key features—the school swimming pool. Although we are talking about private swimming pools, I want to talk about schools and the role that schools play around water safety. I think they play a significant role, and I will link that to this amendment bill by saying that in a lot of our communities our people do not actually have swimming pools and they do not have private spa pools at home, but they do visit places where there are swimming pools and there are spa pools. So it is really critically important that schools play a role in ensuring that children, in particular, know the rules around safety and that they operate under good practice at those schools, so that that knowledge can be transferred to when those children are in a situation where they are, perhaps, visiting a property with a private pool. I know that children can be hugely influential with their parents as well, so having a set of guidelines for them will be very good for their parents who may or may not own swimming pools. I think it is a good idea for councils to regularly inspect private swimming pools to ensure that they are compliant. That is a very good thing.

I thought I might mention the role of young parents or new parents and parents with young babies. Last night we talked about extending paid parental leave. I think that an additional 8 weeks might be quite helpful for parents to be able to be with their child on safety issues around pools.

I think that although it is important to clarify the law and ensure pool owners have those options, I do not think the bill should be allowed to put aesthetics above safety. I do not know what the statistics are around drownings concerning spa pools, but I would suggest that the change around spa pools, in particular, is probably more to do with the aesthetics of not having to close off those swimming pools into a defined area by fencing them. That is something I would encourage and that I am sure the select committee will look at.

I refer again to the councils’ role in this bill. I would certainly be looking forward to hearing what their contribution to the select committee process will be and how they see this operating, and whether there will be significant cost for compliance. I read that 5 percent of young children who drown do so in temporary paddling pools. That is something that probably will not be covered by this bill, but it is certainly something that the select committee ought to look at, to make sure that it considers all options around the fencing of swimming pools. Also, as my colleague Jenny Salesa mentioned, a lot of our people who go swimming do not go swimming in private swimming pools. They go to the beach and they go to rivers, and that is a whole other area. I think that we need to look really closely at that as well. As I said, we will support this bill to select committee, and that is my contribution. Kia ora.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. Essentially, I guess we have the question here around what good policy is—the balance between public safety, on the one hand, and the efficient administration of that policy, on the other. What is the right landing point with regard to that question?

One thing that really underpins this bill, as we read it for the first time, is that rules need to be effectively applied proportional to the risk at hand, and, of course, consistently applied as opposed to this sporadic application that has clearly been the case of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act since 1987. But, to be fair, we are not approaching this from a blank sheet of paper. We have an established piece of legislation—that Act that was passed in 1987.

We do have to acknowledge that that is an underpinning piece of legislation. It has been successful. It has kept young children safer than they otherwise would have been. The rate of drownings, as we have already heard from my esteemed colleague to my left Scott Simpson, has dropped from 100 young children in the 10 years to 1987 to 30 young children in the 10 years to 2012. These are young children being saved by this piece of legislation, so it is not surprising that the evidence shows that if we fence swimming pools, then we obviously reduce the risk of drownings. In fact, most, if not all—not quite all—drownings occur in pools with non-compliant barriers.

But as we have heard, there are some challenges with regard to the current law that this bill addresses. As early as 1989, 2 years after the initial Act came into place, feedback from the community was that it was difficult to work with. The rules were duplicated under two Acts. Initially, the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and, more latterly, the Building Act 2004 were particularly inconsistently applied and cumbersome. I think that that is probably the key message that the community has sent to us over the last few years.

There are wide variations in inspections—some are every 3 years and other councils have no planned inspections at all. Also, the view around needing a permanent barrier in respect of spa pools is, clearly, onerous when you look at the nature of spa pools today and the heaviness of the secure lid. That was disproportional to the risk at hand.

This bill, I think quite sensibly, seeks to bring together all those community concerns over the lack of consistency of reviewing the potential and particular barriers that are up there. There is a real focus on spa pools and how to more effectively manage those. The bill has a list of areas that we are going to step through and we are also going to be consistent in respect of the 5-year requirement for all councils to view that you have actually got a compliant swimming pool set-up, which I think will be very good. It will also then be giving the council a consistent approach in terms of response to enforcement—a notice of infringement first, and following up with the ultimate $500 or even $5,000 fine if it unnecessarily has to go to that level.

I am very supportive. I think this is good public policy. I am pleased to hear that we have got, from what it sounds like, pretty broad support from the House. I do look forward to the select committee processes Mr Simpson has outlined. I think we will get a lot of people from the community, and I will wait with interest to hear their views on what we have put forward, and I look forward to the process. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. The bill repeals the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and brings all pool fencing regulation under the Building Act 2004, as well as making some substantive changes to the existing rules. We hope that this will streamline the processes, reduce red tape, and make councils’ jobs easier for once. We hope it will reduce some of the costs on councils, rather than placing more costs on councils, which tends to be the wont of this House.

Specifically, under this bill, spa pools and hot tubs—and there are about 100,000 of those in New Zealand, apparently—will no longer need to be fenced in the same way that pools are. They will still need to have childproof covers, though, which are accepted as being very effective in preventing drownings, which is the core purpose, I would suspect, of any legislation in this area. Various councils currently allow spa pools to go unfenced, whereas others require fences. It would be good to resolve that inconsistency. On that principle—and I am seeing members of the Government nodding their head in response to that—I hope that they will be supporting my colleague Gareth Hughes’ solar power bill, which seeks to do the same thing in relation to solar power around the country. Obviously, that is something that is consistent with the National Party philosophy, so I am looking forward to that in the future. It is great to get that visual support today.

Another thing that the bill will do is ensure that all councils will inspect pools for access compliance every 5 years. Currently, again, it is a mixed bag—something that we want to change—with some councils inspecting every 3 years and others less frequently. The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment estimates that standardised 5-yearly testing will prevent—and this is possibly the most crucial part of this bill—up to six drownings over 10 years, and that, obviously, is something we would all want to support, I am sure.

Another aspect of the bill is that all retailers and manufacturers of spas, hot tubs, and portable pools will be required to inform buyers about their fencing obligations under the legislation, so that when you buy a spa pool you are told what kind of cover you need. It seems pretty straightforward and sensible policy-making. The prosecutions for not fencing a pool adequately will occur in only the most serious cases. Infringement notices and fines will be the most common punishment and will, hopefully and surely, ensure the same result—a behaviour change. The legislation will not apply for pools with less than 400 millimetres of water. Those types of pools, such as paddling or portable pools, are seen to be easy to empty and so will be empty for long periods of time, and, therefore, they should not require a fence or a designated cover. Again, it seems pretty sensible and clear-cut, and something we are happy to support.

I would like to note, though, that from 1993 to 2012 nine children drowned in spa pools in this country, and four drowned in portable pools, which also did include paddling pools, though I suspect, not knowing the details of that, that that may have had more to do with issues of supervision than the covers of the paddling pools. It was not clear in the evidence that we have whether those spas were fenced or fitted with covers.

We are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, and we are looking forward to hearing from Water Safety New Zealand and other experts in the area on what the real-world implications of this bill may be. The Government is saying that this bill will remove red tape and cut costs for pool owners and councils, and it is estimating that it will save $17 million, mostly from spa owners not having to fence their spas any more, and through the prescribed 5-year inspections rather than more regular inspections, and that this will save lives as well. So I guess the select committee will test those assertions, and we look forward to that discussion. Anything to reduce red tape for city councils and homeowners, with the goal of improving safety, is something the Greens are very happy to support.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. There are a couple of things that we noted in our discussion in caucus about this bill. It is fair to say that at the outset, when the notion was first put up that the Government was contemplating relaxing the rules around fencing, there was a little bit of consternation, but as we got into the bill and had a good read we could see where the Government’s intentions seem to be focused, anyway.

Reducing the compliance burden imposed on pool owners and territorial authorities or councils gets a tick from the start point. It is a good thing if we can remove compliance. It is interesting that central government, Parliament, has a habit of passing legislation and then passing the problem of enacting, regulating, and managing that legislation on to local government, without any thought or consideration whatsoever as to the compliance costs it is foisting upon those local authorities and thereby upon the ratepayers. It is also a bit galling when the same Government runs around and criticises the councils for raising rates, without recognising the component that it contributes to it by burdening those councils with heavy compliance costs. So this move gets a tick right at the start.

I guess, of course, the key is maintaining child safety, and that is the area where New Zealand First will work with other colleagues at the Local Government and Environment Committee, with Scott Simpson as the chair. That is an area that we will be scrutinising.

With regard to the enactment of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, it was interesting to read the paper that said that the Act had contributed well to reducing the number of drownings of children aged zero to 4, from 100 in the 10 years before the Act was enacted, to 30 in the 10 years prior to 2012. I say it is interesting because that is, I would assume, against a backdrop of a vastly increased population and an increase in the number of swimming pools in homes.

I just put on the record that that figure, although it looks good—reducing from 100 to 30 over two 10-year snapshots; prior to enactment and post enactment—one needs to also consider the increase in the population from 1987 to 2012, which is quite substantial, and also look at the increase in the number of privately owned swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs.

We know that in certain electorates that support the National Party there are probably truckloads of those things. These guys have got money to burn and they enjoy a very luxurious lifestyle. But for the average New Zealander, maybe in places like—well, I will not name places. But in other suburbs around New Zealand you probably will not see a lot of hot tubs and spa pools around the back, beside the Mercedes or the BMW. But if one looks at the increase in the number of those tubs and swimming pools, we can see that that Act is actually an outstandingly successful piece of legislation, one would have to say.

Again, the focus will be on making these changes, sensible changes, without in any way degrading the standards of safety. Anything that addresses duplication, inconsistencies in legislation, and legislation that is cumbersome and onerous to manage has got to be a good thing and gets New Zealand First’s tick of approval at that point. So, again, we will work constructively to reduce duplication, inconsistency, and any cumbersome parts of the legislation, or the two pieces of legislation that have up until now been conflicting. Again, we will be focusing on the safety aspects, but we would say to the House that we will look to commit ourselves to working constructively on that committee in order to achieve those things.

Addressing outdated legislation that does not cater to changes in technology, to changes in manufacturing techniques, and to what has become the standard and the norm in the market sounds perfectly sensible to us. In terms of the safety design of covers these days, as relates to hot tubs and spa baths in Remuera, and so on, I guess, technology has moved on. Manufacturers have a different view these days. Child safety is paramount, we assume, in the eyes of companies that want their brands to be recognised as good brands, safe brands, and safe items to have for their families—hot tubs and pools that will not kill their children. As the design has advanced in some ways it clearly has made the legislation a little bit outdated. So tidying that up seems eminently sensible to us.

Looking through the other factors that the Government is saying we need to address, one is “clarifying that councils should inspect swimming pools 5-yearly …”. That is interesting. Let us see what Local Government New Zealand has to say about that. I am anticipating that it will give a nod of approval because, again, it reduces compliance costs. “Replacing the current offence provisions involving court proceedings with a more cost-effective graduated enforcement regime that includes prosecutable offences” seems worth considering as far as New Zealand First is concerned. “Relying on performance-based standards in the Building Code to specify the requirements for restricting access to pools, rather than the current duplicate and inconsistent requirements” again seems sensible to us. “Requiring retailers and manufacturers to inform buyers about their obligations under the Act when they buy spa pools, hot tubs, and portable pools, so as to encourage voluntary compliance …”—and so it goes on—is interesting.

It will be interesting to see the views of retailers and manufacturers. It is interesting that this Government in particular wants to push that responsibility back to the retailer, back to the business people, back to the manufacturer. So we will listen with interest to what those people have to say. I guess, on the other hand, in balancing that, I am anticipating that this will please Local Government New Zealand. So at the select committee we will no doubt have a bit of a conversation about the balancing act, about moving the compliance from Local Government New Zealand across to Business New Zealand. I have no doubt that Phil O’Reilly will turn up and say it is a bad thing and that the Government is passing on red tape and compliance to Business New Zealand.

We think this is a sensible conversation to have, and at the end of the day one could be forgiven for saying that if a manufacturer produces an item, it is its responsibility to ensure not only that the item, the hot tub, spa bath, or pool, is safe for consumers to use but that it is safe for them to sell and that they do carry some responsibility to advise the prospective buyer of their responsibilities as well.

So all in all we will support the legislation to go to the select committee. We will have that conversation at the select committee. It does appear to us that it does reduce compliance costs for councils, which is something that I am quite happy to support. Let us see where we go from there. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. In taking a brief call on first reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill, I would like to say that this is a very sensible bill. It brings in some much-needed reforms in reducing bureaucracy and in increasing consistency and the implementation of a regime that provides for the safety of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. But, in doing so, it does not compromise the provision of that safety.

This bill is not a silver bullet for the issue of water safety for young people. We know that of children in New Zealand who, tragically, drown, 80 percent are below the age of 2. So by keeping young people away from the source of this risk, we can do much to further increase the safety levels and to reduce the risk of that accidental drowning.

But I would like to acknowledge that there is a wider issue of water safety in New Zealand, and I would like to also acknowledge my colleague the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, who has done so much to advocate for life jackets and water safety, particularly among his people in the Auckland region. But I would also like to acknowledge John Morrison, the former Wellington city councillor, who is on the board of Water Safety New Zealand and has done an enormous amount to raise money for Wellington ocean sports and for better safety training for people who go out boating casually through to those who may fish off rocks, for instance, or use our coastline for recreational purposes. So there is a wider piece, but this is an important and significant component of the wider water safety issue.

Just to give an example I know of, I used to work in the New Zealand embassy in Tehran, where the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, believe it or not, applied, or at least we sought to make sure that we adhered to New Zealand safety levels. We had a fence with razor wire round the embassy, but for the purposes of that piece of legislation, the swimming pool itself, which was also our water reservoir for emergency earthquake use, was not deemed to be properly fenced. Clearly, that was illogical, and so under this piece of legislation, where a barrier complies with the Building Act, it will be deemed to be sufficient to keep children out from the swimming pool area. That is very logical.

There are currently highly illogical cases where something certainly acts to keep children away from a swimming pool but does not meet the definition of a fence, so this modernisation is necessary. The original legislation dates from 1987. There are very few members of this House remaining here who were around in 1987, so this piece of legislation needs serious updating, and for that reason I am commending it for further consideration by the excellent Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Eugenie Sage—a 5-minute call.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Mana e te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te mema o te Whare Pāremata. I am pleased to take a short call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Jan Logie noted, the Green Party will be supporting this going to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I could not believe it when I read in the regulatory impact statement that in the 10 years between 1972 and 1982, 100 children had died in home pools. It was obviously necessary to introduce the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, which this bill is replacing. As the regulatory impact statement also says, overall the Act is working well to reduce the risk of drowning. The number of children who, tragically, have drowned in pools in the 10 years from 2002 to 2012 was 30. That is obviously far too many, but is a substantial reduction in what it was before the legislation was introduced.

Although Scott Simpson, a speaker from the National Party, talked about the current Act as being frustrating and inconsistent, and called the bill sensible and pragmatic, the key test is where the balance is drawn between the vital need to protect our young children from drowning and compliance costs. The regulatory impact statement also says that compliance costs for councils are $3.5 million annually. Yes, we want effective legislation that is easy to administer, but protecting our children from the very real threat that home swimming pools provide is vitally important.

That is why the Green Party is supporting this bill going to the select committee, because we are very interested in the submissions from people like Water Safety New Zealand, from swimming pool owners, from Plunket, from Starship, and from others about what the impact of some of these changes will be. Because with things like hot tubs and spa pools—certainly, in other jurisdictions overseas, they exempt spa pools from fencing if they have got child-resistant covers. There was certainly strong support in the public submissions on the discussion documents for these to be exempt from fencing, but organisations like Water Safety New Zealand want spa pools and hot tubs to be subject to monitoring by councils, and that is because when the council officers go out to do an inspection, they engage with the homeowner. They are able to remind them of the risk that these hot tubs can provide when the covers are off. So that is why we are supporting the bill going to select committee. I think there will be quite a number of submissions around this issue of hot tubs and spa pools and whether they should be subject to an inspection regime.

Other parts of the bill, in terms of making it clear that the fencing requirements do not apply to things like stormwater hazards or where you have got swale drains to garden ponds, I think will be an improvement. In Rolleston, for example, where there is an effort to improve stormwater quality, so there are large swale ponds that are used to help filter stormwater—they are immediately adjacent to houses. The council was wondering whether they should be fenced. And so I will be very interested in submissions from councils, presumably in support of the clarification of the law around these swale drains and garden ponds.

But it is a question of making sure that, in the Government’s drive to reduce compliance costs for councils and swimming pool owners, we are not undermining the very important and effective provisions in the current legislation that have significantly reduced the number of child drownings. I think 92 percent of the children who have drowned in a pool have drowned at home or in the pool of someone whose place they have been invited to. Of those drownings, 65 percent have occurred while their caregivers have been inside, and 80 percent of the drownings were of children who were 2 years old or younger. It is often in a momentary lapse in supervision that those drowning have occurred.

There are important provisions in this bill in terms of where doors are located and whether they are to be self-closing—the changes there, which we will look at very closely because they contribute, at the moment, to reducing drownings. So it is the balance between compliance costs but, overall, ensuring the safety of our youngest citizens. Thank you.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I too would like to join both my colleagues the honourable Ron Mark and Eugenie Sage and emphasise a point that I think is very significant in this particular debate. Although the Labour Party will be supporting this bill for select committee consideration, I think it is important for this House to take on board that we need to have a responsible discussion about this. Therefore, I would just caution some of the members of the Government who seem to take a gung-ho attitude, and think that somehow amending the 1987 legislation is going to save lives. I would just caution that, yes, legislation does play a part, but, ultimately, if we are wanting to ensure the safety of children, it is about people and the decisions that they make, and being vigilant about how the legislation is implemented.

I say that because the purpose of the legislation is twofold: one, it is aimed at reducing compliance costs and, two, it is about ensuring child safety. When you consider those two aims, it almost seems like you have got to have one or the other, because the question is: what is the nice-to-have and what is the must-have? The suggestion by some speakers from the Government is that somehow the old legislation did not provide for child safety, and yet my colleagues who have spoken before me have identified that safety was achieved by the old legislation. So let us just be quite clear that the old legislation did work—it did save lives.

Therefore, we have got to ask ourselves how the new legislation is going to ensure the safety of children. That has got to be paramount, because if we are asking what is a nice-to-have and what is a must-have, I would say that a nice-to-have is the reduction of compliance costs, but a must-have is child safety. That is first and foremost. The other thing I want to raise is that although the bill outlines some significant aims to be achieved, such as the provision that child-resistant covers will be deemed an adequate means of restricting access to spa pools, I think that we have we have got to have a responsible discussion about that. The Government, I know, loves to put up the argument that legislative change has to be evidence-based. Well, let us look at what evidence there is that will support the argument that child-resistant covers do save lives.

The bill says that councils will be required to inspect pools every 5 years. Again, we have been told that inspection on a regular, 5-yearly basis is important and is going to save lives. Let us have a look at that in the select committee. We are told also that retailers and manufacturers will be required to inform buyers about their obligations. I am not sure whether this legislation actually compels retailers. I think the regulatory impact statement suggests that it is merely encouraging that voluntary compliance. Again, we have got to look at whether that is going to save lives. The performance-based standards in the building code will be used to specify fencing requirements. Let us look at that to see whether it will save lives. The final one is that non-residential pools, such as public school pools and hospital pools, will be exempt from the new legislation. Let us consider how that is going to save lives.

I do want to also make another point, and that is that in points that have been outlined that the legislation covers, the one area that I think the legislation ought to cover but does not is the supervision of children by parents. I will tell you why. My youngest son learnt to swim at 4 years of age, and by 5 he was quite adventurous. One time he dove into the deeper end of a pool and because he was such a short person he used his feet to push himself once he got to the bottom, but he was not strong enough to push himself all the way to the top. Luckily, we were there by the pool watching him and cheering him on, until we realised that he could not come up on his own, so we dove in. So I often observe in public arenas and also in private arenas that it is important that if children are around water, there has to be parental supervision.

I also want to make the point about safety. Many of us do not realise how important safety is, and just how real it is that a child can drown in a puddle, and I have been advised so. But the final point just to emphasise the safety issue is that not too long ago, I think earlier this week, there was a news item about an elderly couple—and my condolences go to the family—who had both drowned in a bath-tub. I raise this only to emphasise that we often do not realise what will happen around water, but if we are going to be talking about safety then that has to be paramount, rather than the reduction of compliance costs. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call David Shearer.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I was actually anticipating another National Party person speaking—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So was I.

DAVID SHEARER: —but I just wanted to say a few words on this bill because I think it raises some issues that have been addressed by our colleagues there and those are around the actual bill. I want to mention a few of those things, but I also want to mention some of the broader context of what is happening in New Zealand as well.

First of all, as has been said up to now, the original legislation has had a profound effect on the number of people who have drowned in swimming pools—it was about 10 per year, and is now down to about three per year—and, as has been pointed out, at the same time there has been an increase in our population and an increase in the number of pools that are available. So, in a sense, it has had a very good impact on safety for small children, and this bill will certainly decrease the compliance costs at the same time as not affecting the safety requirements that we all expect.

It will also mean that we will be looking at pools and the fencing of pools as to their performance and the way that they are able to protect kids, as well as ensuring that there are regular checks by councils. So it reduces compliance costs, it helps councils to make sure that those pools are fenced properly, and, at the same time, it does not diminish any safety procedures.

But there is a bigger issue, and I think that this debate falls in it as well, and it is that as we move into spring and into summer and we are looking forward to spending more time at the beach, we should reflect on our appalling drowning record in New Zealand. We have one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of drownings in the Western World.

Perhaps some people might say: “Well, that’s understandable.” We have got a very long coastline—11,000 kilometres of coastline—we have got 500,000 kilometres of rivers, and we have got more than 4,000 lakes. That is a lot of water, and a lot of people recreating around that water as well. But surely that means we have a responsibility as a society and as a community to make sure that our kids know how to swim well.

Last year we had 105 drownings in New Zealand—as I said, one of the worst rates in the Western World—and this year already we have had 18 people drown in January, which was double what it was in January of the previous year. There were 18 drownings in January—double what it was in January of the previous year—and already, in the first 6 months of this year, 61 people have drowned, which is a 30 percent increase on what it was the year before. So the trends are all bad. The trends for drowning in New Zealand are all bad, and that is likely to get worse.

I want to put forward one of the reasons why they are likely to get worse. When I grew up as a kid, our local school had a swimming pool, and we all went to swimming lessons 3 days a week. Sometimes it was cold, but we had to have an excuse note if we were not going to swim that day—some medical reason, or whatever. There was a huge push for all schools to teach swimming in schools, and that is now going backwards. We are ending up going in the opposite direction.

In the last few years since 2008, 156 schools that we know of—and there may well be more—have closed their swimming pools. That is an extraordinary indictment on where our emphasis is on teaching good water safety. Water Safety New Zealand reports that another 130 schools, in addition to that 156, have got in contact with it to ask whether there is any way that it is possible to keep their schools’ pools open. Add those two figures together, and it is close to 300 schools in just the last 6 or 7 years that have had to close, are about to close, or have threatened to close their swimming pools.

What that means is that a generation of New Zealanders are growing up in New Zealand without the fundamental water safety that we—and, certainly, I—took for granted when we were growing up in New Zealand, and that is because the Government is not putting in the resources and it is not paying the proper regard to water safety that it should. It is focusing on national standards and on reading and arithmetic, and anything else that it considers important—nobody is denying that—but what that has meant is that schools do not have the resources to make sure that their school pool stays open.

Right now, schools get about $700 a year in order to make sure that their school pools are up to standard. That does not even pay for the chemicals, let alone the general maintenance. Many of these pools are getting older and, as a result, they do need maintenance, and schools are unable to ensure that those pools stay open.

So next week, as I understand it, Jonathan Coleman, the Minister for Sport and Recreation, is going to be announcing a water safety campaign. If it does not address the issue of schools losing their pools and an entire generation of New Zealanders not being able to do the basic swimming strokes and being able to survive in the water, it will be a failure. So I certainly hope that next week we get to hear from this Government that it is serious about water safety, it is serious about teaching our kids to swim, it recognises that schools have an important role, and it gets in behind schools and makes sure that they have the pools and they have got the backing to ensure that they can run an effective school swimming programme, as they should, and as we have done for a number of generations. We have always put a priority—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

DAVID SHEARER: —on children’s swimming safety, and that is what we need to be doing right now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was not closing the member down, just reminding him that there is a bill to speak to. So if he would like to confine his last 2 minutes to that, that would be appreciated.

DAVID SHEARER: I will come back to the bill because the bill says that it wants to reduce the number of people who are drowning, and we have to see that in the broader context of the increased number of people who are drowning in New Zealand. We have made some inroads in fencing off pools, but we are missing the bigger picture, which is that kids and a whole generation is out there unable to swim because of the negligence of this Government.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

The House adjourned at 11.45 a.m. (Thursday)