Thursday, 15 October 2015

THURSDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2015

THURSDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Timor-Leste—Delegation, Parliament

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome a parliamentary delegation from Timor-Leste, led by Adriano do Nascimento, First Vice President of the National Parliament, who are present in the gallery.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 20 October, the Government will look to advance a number of second readings and Committee stages on the Order Paper, including the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill. Dr Russel Norman will make his valedictory statement on Thursday, 22 October, at 5.40 p.m.

Points of Order

Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties Bill

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the High Court ruling on Mr Groser’s unlawful actions with regard to the—

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

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the International Transparent Treaties Bill to be set down for first reading immediately—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.

Speaker’s Rulings

Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) was drawn from the member’s ballot today. The bill has the purpose of ensuring that every rental home meets the minimum standards of heating and insulation. It requires the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to set the standards, and requires the landlords to meet them.

On further study, the purpose and effect of the bill are the same in substance as the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill, which was defeated at its first reading on 18 March 2015. Standing Order 264 provides that a bill that is the same in substance as a bill that received or was defeated on its first, second, or third reading may not be proposed. In my opinion, this bill should never have been accepted for the ballot.

Now that the bill has been drawn, I need to find a way forward. The point at which a bill is proposed to the House is when the member in charge moves its first reading. If the first reading of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) is reached in the current calendar year, I will then rule the bill out of order. However, if it is reached later than that, it will not trigger the prohibition in Standing Order 264, and will be in order.

I have asked the Clerk to ensure that bills proposed to go in the ballot are scrutinised more carefully for compliance with Standing Order 264. In future, bills that are the same in substance as ones read or defeated in the same calendar year will not be permitted into the ballot.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, I apologise for not getting up immediately, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that ruling. One of the questions that we on this side of the House would have is around what is a “substantive difference”. I do not propose to take the House’s time now to explore that with you, because you have ruled, but we do believe that there was a substantive difference in terms of the different departments that were managing the process, but that, perhaps, is something that can be taken up at a later date with you.

Mr SPEAKER: I am happy to make further comment for the benefit of the member. The interpretation of “substantive” will not be defined exactly; it will depend on particular legislation. It will be a discussion that I have with the Clerk at the time. In this particular case, the original proposal was scrutinised by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, as I understand it. The new bill proposed is scrutinised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. I do not believe that that is a significant difference and enough to warrant it having been included in the ballot on this occasion.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Finance, Minister—Return to Surplus and Earthquake Commission

1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister with respect to achieving surplus, “Yeah, for a few hundred million we could go and slash you know, fundamentally, health, education and welfare. They’re the only big areas where you could take money. I think most New Zealanders would say that’s a bit short-sighted”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do agree with that statement by the Prime Minister. Not only has the Government moderately increased spending in those areas, it has focused on getting much better results, particularly for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. We have taken a considered approach to understanding the drivers of spending, not just the spending.

Grant Robertson: Why was $444 million of funding for earthquake claims reassessed as a negative insurance expense in the Crown accounts yesterday?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: You would have to address that question directly to the accountants and the Auditor-General, who signed off the accounts. If you go through the accounts, you will find any number of accrual accounting adjustments, all of which add up, fortunately, on top of the Government’s good managing of spending, to a surplus of $400 million.

Grant Robertson: Is the Minister of Finance telling the House that he does not know why $444 million dollars’ worth of funding for earthquake claims was reassessed as a negative insurance expense, especially given that that amount is larger than the surplus that he announced yesterday?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I am telling the House that. Across a $70 billion Budget there are an enormous number of adjustments; each one of them is checked by the Auditor-General. These are the audited accounts of the New Zealand Government. If the member is suggesting that there is something dodgy about those accounts, he should take it up with the Auditor-General.

Jami-Lee Ross: In successfully meeting its target of returning to surplus in 2014-15, what has been the Government’s overall approach to managing its finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s overall approach has been to manage our finances by doing a better job—that is, a better job of new capital investment, a better job of managing our existing $250 billion of assets, and a better job of providing services to 4 million New Zealanders. We have found that what works for the community works for the Government’s books.

Grant Robertson: Is he really comfortable with cutting $444 million out of the Budget for Earthquake Commission repairs, given that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment audits have revealed that thousands of Canterbury houses have dodgy repairs that will need to be redone, and work on increased flooding risk claims has barely begun?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be surprised to know that accounting adjustments are not a matter of political pushing and shoving. It is possible they were under the previous Labour Government, but, actually, under this Government any accounting adjustment has to meet the criteria laid out in the rules and overseen by the Auditor-General. And whatever that adjustment is, I can be almost absolutely sure that it meets the criteria, because the accounts have been signed off by the Auditor-General.

Jami-Lee Ross: How does the achievement of surplus in the latest year compare with the fiscal situation inherited by the National-led Government in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fiscal situation in 2008 was driven mainly by a very rapid increase in public expenditure of around 50 percent in the 5 years leading up to 2008-09, and then the global financial crisis and the earthquakes exacerbated the problem with drops in revenue. So the Government has slowed considerably the growth of Government spending, its tax reforms have helped underpin an increase in revenue, along with a growing economy, and that is how we have got to surplus.

Grant Robertson: Does the removal of more than $400 million from the Earthquake Commission claims budget mean that insurance repairs in Christchurch are finished?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to speculate on the connection between that adjustment in the accounts and the services provided in Christchurch, but people to whom the Earthquake Commission is liable to pay insurance and ensure that their repairs are done will get the service that the Earthquake Commission is obliged to provide to them.

Grant Robertson: When John Key was giving him a high-five for achieving a $414 million surplus, did he tell him that it would not have happened if he had not cut $444 million from the projection for Canterbury Earthquake Commission payouts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because the member is just wrong. I mean, he can go on an Easter egg hunt, where he finds every accounting adjustment that exists that is around $400 million, but it will just make him look like a little bunny.

Grant Robertson: Does he think the people of Canterbury will be wanting to give him a high-five when they hear that he got his surplus by cutting money from the already inadequate budget for Earthquake Commission earthquake repairs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think they probably intuitively grasp the way the Government’s finances work a bit better than the member does. Actually, people all over Christchurch high-five the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery because he is overseeing 400,000 insurance claims, the rebuilding of thousands of new homes, and the planning and the revival of the central business district. Many people in Christchurch are pretty pleased with the Government’s $15 billion contribution to the rebuilding of their city.

Government Financial Position—International Comparisons and Fiscal Strategy

2. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s fiscal position compare to other advanced economies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The slim surplus yesterday of $414 million as an operating balance, excluding gains and losses, means that New Zealand is one of seven advanced countries—out of 35—that achieved surplus in 2015 on that measure. The operating balance, including gains and losses, was a surplus of $5.8 billion, but that includes a lot of re-estimates of values of assets. We choose the more conservative measure.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the Crown’s net debt as a percentage of GDP, and how does this compare with other OECD countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Treasury’s measure of net debt is 25 percent of GDP—

Hon Member: How much?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: 25.2 percent, which compares well with other countries. If you use the IMF international comparisons, which include Crown-owned financial assets that are excluded from Treasury’s conservative measure, New Zealand’s net debt would be the sixth lowest among advanced economies. Either way, we are in a pretty strong financial position, and the importance of that is that people do not have to worry about the Government’s finances so much, and they know that if they are dependent on our services or on income from the Government, then that will be sustainable.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What are the next steps in the Government’s fiscal strategy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The next steps are not to change too much, because it is working pretty well. We now need to generate ongoing surpluses in order to reduce debt levels. We need to continue, though, to focus particularly on improving the effectiveness of our spending, because when the Government does a good job of changing people’s lives with health and education services, corrections services—when that is done well, we almost always save money by avoiding costs in the future.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reports has the Minister seen on alternative approaches to fiscal policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some confusing alternative approaches, which on the one hand accuse the Government of running up too much debt one day, and then on the other accuse us of cutting spending too much. Both of those reports come from the Opposition spokesman on finance.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Reduction Targets and Environmental Impact

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he take a more ambitious climate target to Paris than the current target, in light of new evidence showing “only the most ambitious effort to curb emissions will stop Antarctica’s ice shelves from collapsing”?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): No, we will not, because there are going to be 5 years of negotiations after Paris to determine the detailed rules, which are extremely important to New Zealand. We will not be changing our intended nationally determined contribution and converting it into a nationally determined contribution until we know what the deal is.

James Shaw: Does the Minister accept that if every other country matched New Zealand’s emissions reduction target, the result would be 3 to 4 degrees of warming?

Hon TIM GROSER: Another example of throwing numbers around without context. The reality is this: given that 80 percent of the emissions in the upper troposphere are carbon dioxide, and given that they are by far the most lethally dangerous—they stay around in the atmosphere for hundreds of years—and since they are derived overwhelmingly from the production of energy, if the rest of the world adopted New Zealand’s renewable electricity figure of 80 percent, the problem would be solved on a global level.

James Shaw: So, given that somewhat obfuscatory answer, is the Minister saying—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I invite the member to continue his question.

James Shaw: —that he is prepared to freeload on other countries’ emissions reductions, even though New Zealand has also agreed not to allow more than 2 degrees of warming?

Hon TIM GROSER: I am not absolutely sure that I understand the question, but we will take a position in Paris that is absolutely fair and reasonable, and contribute to the conference in many other ways than just a number on a piece of paper.

James Shaw: Given that the combined pledges of the world’s Governments currently lock the planet into 3 degrees of warming, at which point Antarctica’s ice shelves will collapse, why will the Minister not show some real leadership and increase New Zealand’s target?

Hon TIM GROSER: We have been watching the Green Party in recent days on this Antarctic issue. What has happened is that a New Zealand climate change scientist has come out with a study that my science advisers tell me is consistent with the one of the working party of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the institution that provides the collective science for the world. There is no inconsistency in this report. I can elaborate further on this issue, but what strikes me as extraordinary is that it takes this finding, which says that it is likely that sea levels will rise between 28 centimetres and 98 centimetres, and then adds on the top of this a headline saying that the Government plans to melt Antarctica. When you think about the idiot’s position that the Green Party has just put itself into over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, you have to ask yourself whether it ever worries—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is now wandering from the answer.

James Shaw: So is the Minister aware, given how closely he has been watching the Green Party in recent days, that the Science magazine report states that losing the Antarctic ice shelves could mean that in 30 years New Zealanders will every fortnight experience floods as devastating as those that hit Wellington and Whanganui earlier this year?

Hon TIM GROSER: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists tell us, including their predictions of what will happen on the Antarctic ice sheets, that the sea level will rise between 28 centimetres, roughly what happened in the previous 100 years, and 98 centimetres. They say that if more dramatic action occurred on the Antarctic ice shelf, it could have the effect of increasing that by a few tenths of a metre. Well, a tenth of a metre is 10 centimetres, so a few—I do not know what they mean precisely—is presumably less than 50 centimetres, so it could be between 48 centimetres and 1.2 metres. That is the basis of the science. There is nothing new in this whatsoever.

James Shaw: So is the Minister therefore saying that the report in Science magazine, underpinned, as he said, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, says that although the sea level rise itself may be a mere 10 centimetres, that does not mean that we will see flash flooding and extreme weather events?

Hon TIM GROSER: No, that is not my view. My view is actually consistent with the substance of the member’s question. New Zealand does need to prepare better for a higher number of extreme weather events, so in that sense the answer is that I agree with the underlying point the member is making.

James Shaw: So to recap, does the Minister agree that if every country had a target for emissions reductions as low as ours, then not only could we lose Antarctica but also the Pacific Islands, New Zealand’s coastal communities, global food supplies, and more?

Hon TIM GROSER: No, I do not agree.

Benefits—Cancer Patients and Long-term Medical Conditions

4. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: What percentage of cancer patients receiving benefits have been found to not really have cancer due to the requirement that they submit regular medical certificates to Work and Income New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I regret I am unable to answer this as the ministry advises that this information is held within individual client files. However, I can say that I am unaware of any case where a patient has been found to not have cancer after they have provided an additional medical certificate to Work and Income. Medical certificates have been a requirement since 1972. The purpose of providing them to Work and Income is to ascertain the client’s ability to work, not whether they have cancer, which is a decision for their medical practitioner. This Government is committed to making sure that those who are unable to work are granted an exemption from looking for work while they undergo treatment.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does the woman who spoke to Radio New Zealand, who had to get the hospital to fax through evidence of her breast cancer surgery on the day of her surgery, deserve special consideration?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: All people who are eligible and receiving support through a benefit, who are on a job seeker health condition and disability benefit, have to provide medical certificates, as they have done since 1972. It is unfortunate when that occurs on the same day as their treatment. I have met with the Cancer Society of New Zealand, and I have guaranteed it that the Ministry of Social Development will work to make sure that this process is handled as sensitively and carefully as it can be.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does Robyn Kilpatrick, who is currently undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy and will be having two surgeries, deserve special consideration given that she is planning to return to work in January, all going well?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think all of us would accept that people undergoing such a difficult treatment process need special consideration. However, as I say, medical certificates have been required since 1972. What I have asked of the ministry is that it makes sure that these people are treated with sensitivity and that the system is made as easy as possible for them.

Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table a letter to Robyn Kilpatrick dated 2 October 2015 from Work and Income requiring her to go in for a meeting to discuss how she is preparing for work.

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

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

Carmel Sepuloni: Does a person with aggressive ovarian cancer deserve special consideration or should they also make themselves available for work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If they are on a job seeker health condition and disability benefit, they are not required to be looking for work. If the member has any examples, as I have said to the Cancer Society yesterday, if there are any examples where that is happening, please let my office know and we will make sure that it finishes as quickly as possible.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why does this Government not show some compassion and common sense and expand the supported living payment to people with a serious illness?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, the supported living payment is for people with a serious illness that means that for more than 2 years they will be ill. It is a specific benefit that is focused on those who have long-term illnesses, long-term disabilities, or a terminal illness, and it is based on medical advice. So they are required to provide proof of that illness at 2 years, 5 years, or never, depending on the advice from their medical practitioner.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Levies

5. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for ACC: What recent announcements have been made on ACC levies?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): The ACC board has announced its levy consultation, which proposes to reduce ACC levies by $450 million in 2016-17. I have also announced a number of issues that I will be consulting on as Minister, including a potential reduction in the motorcycle safety levy. On top of this, I am consulting on a long-term funding policy. It is about ensuring that we can withstand economic shocks, while not over-collecting levies. The proposals include potential reductions across all three levied accounts and another potential dramatic reduction in the average motor vehicle levy from $190 to $130. The indicative reductions, if confirmed, will take total levy cuts since 2012 to around $2 billion. These reductions are possible only because of good financial management. This is great news for New Zealand.

Andrew Bayly: Why is the Government able to deliver significant ACC levy reductions?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The Government and the ACC board have, through a series of measures, improved the performance of the scheme, from a $4.8 billion hole in the accounts in 2008 to being fully funded. These measures include improvements in rehabilitation rates, sensible changes to entitlements, improvements in investments and assets, better management of claims, improved injury prevention, and the appointment of an excellent people and leadership position such as the outstanding chair Paula Rebstock. The ACC board has been very successful in growing—

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On several occasions New Zealand First members have been asked to sit down due to the length of their questions. I understand that under the Standing Orders, answers should be somewhat concise also. These are patsy questions from the Government to its own Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thought the member was present yesterday when I gave a very clear ruling that it is my job to adjudicate on the length of answers, and I will do so. The member may, at some time in the political future, have the opportunity to occupy this Chair, at which stage she will be the adjudicator. The Hon Nikki Kaye—has the answer been finished?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: No.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to give a very clear ruling to the member. If he wants to relitigate that ruling in any way, I will take a very dim view of it.

Ron Mark: In those rulings and in the advice that you gave us yesterday, you referred to our needing some training. It would help. We have booked in some training—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is—

Ron Mark: It would help to have available for that training the criteria upon which you make your assessments, if you could do that, please.

Mr SPEAKER: I look forward to the opportunity. I was unaware that the member is booked in for training. I look forward to the results of that training being very fruitful to the way that this House runs. [Interruption] Order! No, the member is only wasting time, and he will be leaving the Chamber in a minute. Does the Minister wish to complete her answer? [Interruption] If the Minister could complete her answer quickly.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The ACC board has been very successful in growing the scheme’s assets from around $10 billion in 2008-09 to around $31 billion now. That is because of a good National Government.

Andrew Bayly: What is different about the levy consultation this year?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: This year’s levy consultation is notable in that ACC’s proposed levy rates factor in the removal of residual levies. The combined effect of removing the residual levy and the proposed work levy reductions could see around 75 percent of businesses paying fewer levies. This year’s levy consultation also features a website for the first time—www.shapeyouracc.co.nz—where people can submit their own ideas and discuss ideas put forward by others.

Sue Moroney: If she fixes, through this consultation process, the many problems and errors with her new motor vehicle levy risk rating system, will she refund the overcharging of the errors made in levies charged this year as a result of those errors?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I disagree with the statements she made in that question.

Overseas Investment Office—Good-character Test

6. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he intend to issue a new directive letter to the Overseas Investment Office; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No, because there is no reason to.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister aware that we have sold two farms a week to foreign investors in the last 8 months of this year alone—41,000 hectares?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whatever sales there have been will have complied with the Overseas Investment Act. As the member is aware, whether or not they comply can be reviewed judicially.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Would a company engaged in corruption and bribery meet the Overseas Information Office’s good-character test?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If it was the case that a company was involved in that behaviour, I would suspect it would not meet the criteria. If the Overseas Investment Office mistakenly indicated that a company had passed that test, that could be reviewed in the courts.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister aware that Hunan Dakang, which faces allegations of corruption and bribery, was an approved buyer of the Crafar farms, Synlait farms, and, potentially, Lochinver Station; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: In responding to the answer, I do not want any mention of the last farm mentioned, because I understand that is now before the courts. I will invite the Minister to comment on the rest.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware that that is the usual standard of New Zealand First—making allegations about things it does not like, but any applicant is tested under the Overseas Investment Act. It is a very transparent and robust process.

Stuart Nash: Will the Minister direct the Overseas Investment Office to start collating the benefits of overseas investment in our farmland; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is part of its function under the Overseas Investment Act.

Veterans—Repatriation of Remains

7. Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: Will the Government support families who want to repatriate the remains of family members buried in Malaysia who died while on deployment between 1956 and 1969; if not, why not?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I respect the views of those families, but, no, this Government is continuing the policy of previous Governments, most recently reconfirmed by that member’s Government in 2007.

Hon Phil Goff: What considerations does the Government think should take precedence over the wishes of those families whose husbands, brothers, and sons died while serving their country in Viet Nam and in Malaysia who want their remains brought home?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am sure those matters are the same as those that the previous Government considered when it recently reviewed this policy and reconfirmed the policy that this Government has picked up. There are many issues in and around this matter. There are many complex matters that I am sure that member is aware of.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about what considerations should take precedence. I think the Minister is bound to give more than: “Oh, the same ones that somebody else did.” I think he should be more specific.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: The member asked about, as he said, the considerations. The Minister then went on to outline the same considerations as the previous Government. That in itself was a full answer, but he then went on to also talk about a range of complex factors.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank both members. I agree with the points made by the Minister in this case. I think that the question has been addressed.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Australian Government has offered to repatriate the remains of Australian soldiers who died in Malaysia and Viet Nam and who are buried in Terendak in Malaysia, why is it not possible or appropriate for the New Zealand Government to do the same thing for Kiwi soldiers buried there whose families desperately want them home?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Yes, I became aware of the Australia initiative in—I do not know—March this year. The Australians are absolutely able to do what they choose to do in their affairs. They did not recently review the matter themselves, as far as I understand it, as New Zealand recently reviewed the matter in 2007.

Hon Phil Goff: Given that the position of the RSA, which represents the interests of veterans, has changed since the Government last considered this issue in 2007, and that it is now calling for a change of policy and a full review of the repatriation of those—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the question, please?

Hon Phil Goff: —who are buried overseas, why will he not back the RSA’s call for that review and for a change?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am aware that when that member was interested in this issue and took papers to Cabinet in 2007, which were picked up by the Hon Rick Barker, the points around the RSA point of view at the time were for the status quo. I am not aware of any official change in the RSA’s position, although I am aware that some members are considering it.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table two emails. One is from the RSA setting out its change in policy, and the second is from the Minister’s own department asking for a copy of the RSA’s change of policy. How he does not know—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table those two emails. Is there any objection? There is not. They can be tabled.

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

Hon Phil Goff: Does he accept that if the Government rejects the wishes of the families who want their loved ones brought home, its claims to honour the fallen veterans and their families on whom the burden of their loss fell most heavily will sound rather hollow to those families?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I take offence at that, actually. I carry out my role, and I carry the burden of this office and the respect of veterans and their families, and the values that they stood and fought for for this country, very, very seriously.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Horticulture Industry

8. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will benefit New Zealand horticulture?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The horticulture industry is worth around $7 billion, and it is a very important part of the overall New Zealand economy. The good news is that all tariffs will be eliminated on New Zealand’s horticultural exports once the Trans-Pacific Partnership is fully implemented. This will save our growers around $26 million a year in tariffs once fully implemented, and indeed I agree with Horticulture New Zealand, which says that this is a very significant trade agreement and a new era of trade for New Zealand’s horticulture industry.

Todd Muller: Which parts of our horticulture industry will benefit the most from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?

Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very important question from the local member. One good example is the removal of kiwifruit tariffs, which will save the industry around $15 million a year, equating to an average of around $6,000 for each grower per year. For the wider industry, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will have a positive impact for growers of crops like apples, capsicums, squash, onions, and virtually all other horticultural exports. This improved market access will be a key part of the industry’s goal to achieve its $10 billion industry growth target by 2020.

Women—Representation in Cabinet

9. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied with the number of women who hold Cabinet positions in the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, but he is even more satisfied with the outstanding performance of all the women who hold Cabinet positions.

Jan Logie: Of the 1.8 million working-aged women in New Zealand, are there 10 who are qualified to be Cabinet Ministers under this National Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of the 1.8 million working-aged women, I think there would be literally thousands who could carry out the functions of a Cabinet Minister. However, many of them choose to exercise those capacities in running their own businesses, in studying, and in looking after families, and some of them, fortunately, enter politics and end up in the Cabinet of a National-led Government.

Jan Logie: Does Judith Collin’s comment “So don’t tell me that it’s easy being a woman in the National Party.” indicate to the Minister that there needs to be more than 16 women in National’s caucus and more than six women in National’s Cabinet?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is actually the National Party and the voters who decide who is in the National Party caucus. But the Prime Minister is very impressed with the calibre and quality of women who join the National Party. In fact, I would say that one of the distinctive advantages that the National Party has over other political parties is the breadth of experience, the competence, and the achievement of our women politicians.

Jan Logie: In sharing that esteem for your female colleagues, will he commit to making 50 percent of National’s Cabinet female in the next reshuffle?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I hope the member does share the Prime Minister’s esteem for the female members of our Cabinet, which would be quite a change for the Greens, who are generally pretty nasty about most people in the National Cabinet, including the women. And no, we will not be committing to a quota. The Prime Minister, as I understand it, selects Ministers on merit, and that is reflected in the excellent teamwork and performance of the current Cabinet.

Superannuation Fund—Government Contributions and Returns

10. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What is the current value of the New Zealand Super Fund?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As at 31 August 2015 the value of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is $28.8 billion.

Fletcher Tabuteau: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have information prepared by the Parliamentary Library that contradicts—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member now—[Interruption] If the member seeks leave to table it, I will consider it.

Fletcher Tabuteau: I seek leave to table information prepared by the Parliamentary Library—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion, I will allow the member to table the information. Are there further supplementary questions? [Interruption] Oh, sorry. Yes, leave was sought. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Fletcher Tabuteau: Is he aware that if he had continued capital contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, it would now be worth $47.8 billion—$18.2 billion more than it is now?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In retrospect, that is possible. It is also possible that if we had trebled the contributions, it would be worth over $100 billion. If we could have trebled them, why could we not have borrowed 10 times the required contribution, and then it may have been worth over $1,000 billion. I mean, there is just no end to that calculation, and we do not waste our time on it.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister not ashamed that of the $14.5 billion of capital contributions made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the National Government is responsible for less than 2 percent of that; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the member’s first question, no. The reason is simply this: the New Zealand Superannuation Fund was set up with the intention that surplus cash—of which there was quite a lot in the mid-2000s, actually—would be paid into it; in that case, mainly to protect it from the Labour Party caucus. But, actually, we do not have surplus cash. Even the $400 million surplus announced yesterday does not actually give us surplus cash to put into the fund.

Fletcher Tabuteau: What does he believe is better for the country: potentially borrowing to pay for $1.5 billion worth of tax cuts in an election year or putting that money into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which would return $100 million in interest by 2020?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax package was fiscally neutral; in fact, it was probably fiscally positive, actually. In respect of the second issue, I mean, this Government simply does not believe that it is prudent to borrow money to invest in overseas share markets. Households do not do it, very few businesses do it, except under particular circumstances, and we do not intend to do it. It is easy to say that looking back when the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has made very high returns, but the likelihood is that over its lifetime, half the time it is going to make very low or negative returns. In that case, the member would be asking a different question: why did the Government borrow money and invest it in the crazy casino of offshore equity markets full of corrupt Chinese? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member wants to ask a supplementary question; I ask that Ron Mark control himself. [Interruption] Order! I will not be calling for order again. I am asking Fletcher Tabuteau to ask his supplementary question. I will not put up with the level of interjection coming from my left.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Would the Minister prefer to generate a surplus to: a, pay down our very high nominal net debt; b, restart contributions to the neglected Superannuation Fund; or, c, pay $1.5 billion for an election-year bribe?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am pleased to see that the member understands two of our fiscal objectives, and those are to pay down debt and to start contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The Government has allowed for the opportunity for moderate tax reductions, and we remain fixed to that policy.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Small Businesses

11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Small Business: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement benefit New Zealand small business?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will enable New Zealand’s 6,000 exporting small businesses to sell more products and services to the world, creating more jobs and higher incomes for all New Zealanders. Of course, it will also benefit the thousands of small businesses that are servicing those same exporting businesses. Small businesses across New Zealand will benefit from being able to have better and fairer access to almost 40 percent of the global economy and over 800 million customers. This is especially important in areas such as Southland, Tasman, Marlborough, and Hawke’s Bay, where around 40 percent of all jobs in those regions are related directly to the export sector.

Brett Hudson: What reports has he seen from small business organisations supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen many reports from those in the small business sector supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. John Milford, Chief Executive of the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, said: “This is one of the most significant trade deals New Zealand has ever signed and we must see it for exactly what it is—free access for many of our products to growing markets”. Phil Gregan, Chief Executive of New Zealand Winegrowers, says: “This is an excellent outcome for the New Zealand wine industry”. They are but some of the many comments.

Brett Hudson: How can we ensure that small businesses are able to enjoy the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: New Zealand small businesses can have confidence that this Government will adhere to the agreement, because of the benefits I have outlined previously and many others. This is in contrast to a report that I have seen that a “Government will make laws without regard to the … Trans-Pacific Partnership and if necessary face the consequences”. That is the position of Labour’s—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Early Childhood Education—Funding

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Why has early childhood education funding on a per-place basis failed to keep up with inflation in Budget 2015 when early childhood education costs for parents have increased by more than 7½ times the rate of inflation in the past year?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Acting Minister of Education): I do not agree with the member’s assertion that the Budget cost adjustments for early childhood education are not keeping up with early childhood education costs being funded by parents. Furthermore, the Government does not automatically provide an annual cost adjustment to early childhood education funding rates. The Government provides a substantial subsidy towards the cost of early childhood education provisions. Funding for early childhood education, even in a constrained fiscal environment, has nearly doubled since 2008. The total now stands at over $1.6 billion. The most recent survey of costs that providers pay shows that for every $1 that families pay for early childhood education this Government provides $4.80, compared with 2011, which showed that for every $1 a parent was spending on early childhood education the Government was spending $3.45. What is more, early childhood education is 32 percent more affordable than it was in 2007, and the level of affordability has been maintained—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is miles too long.

Chris Hipkins: Why did the National Government cut funding to centres that only employ fully qualified teachers, leading to yesterday’s announcement by kindergartens in Wellington that after years of underfunding they are asking teachers to either work part-time or face redundancy?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I make two points. Firstly, what I say is that although we have made changes and we have put needs-based funding in other places, there have been increases in terms of the salaries of kindergarten teachers this year. I think there has been a 0.56 percent adjustment, so there have been increases this year.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all respect, that did not address my question, which was: “Why did the Government cut funding for centres that only employed qualified staff?”.

Mr SPEAKER: Because funding was moved to other places was the answer that was given.

Chris Hipkins: Did the National Government cut funding for centres that employ only fully qualified teachers; if so, why?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: As I said before, we did make changes in terms of funding, and we did reduce funding in some areas because we have chosen, for instance, in this Budget to spend $100 million. That additional money is going to some of our most disadvantaged kids. We believe firmly in those 41,000 children who actually need that funding.

Chris Hipkins: Is she concerned that a recent survey of early childhood teachers found that a quarter of them would not be happy to have their own child enrolled where they are working, with many saying the conditions are like “factory-farming children”; if not, what will it take for her to be concerned?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Again, if it is the survey that I believe that the member is referring to, it was a survey sample size of about 600 people out of 25,000 teachers. My understanding was that the answers that they gave—

Carmel Sepuloni: 600 is pretty big.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: This is a very important point—this is a very important point. In the quarter figure that he quotes, some of those people said that the reason they did not want their children to be in those centres was that they wanted to look after them at home, which is actually their choice.

Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the comment from Amanda Coulston, from Whānau Manaaki Kindergartens, that they are being forced to cut teachers and that “We wouldn’t put 80 per cent professional rugby players out in the World Cup and have the other 20 percent as big fans and think we’re going to get the same result as if we had 100 percent professional players.”; if so, why will she not properly fund the early childhood sector so it can have fully qualified teachers?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have not seen the exact quote, but I have seen various media reports, and I make these points. The first thing is that we have doubled early childhood funding to $1.6 billion. The second point that I would make is that in terms of kindergarten funding, as I said, there has been an increase this year. The third point that I would make is that this Government believes firmly that it is not only about funding; it is actually about quality and participation, and meeting some of our most disadvantaged students’ needs, and that is what we are doing.

Points of Order

Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of question time you made a ruling on the member’s bill introduced by Andrew Little, the Healthy Homes Guarantee (No 2) Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, can I have the point of order please.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I had to tell you what it was about. I have had the opportunity to read that ruling carefully, and it is an unprecedented ruling. We could not find any example of where a member’s bill has been deemed out of order after it had been introduced. I want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 115/1. In that particular Speaker’s ruling it deals with the issue of where two member’s bills are lodged in the ballot with basically the same content, similar content, or content that could be deemed to be similar. In that particular instance, it establishes very clearly the precedent that the issue should be resolved before a ballot is taken. So in this case there would have to be a pre-ballot if two bills were drawn out of the ballot with the same content. Therefore, it establishes a fairly clear expectation by members that if there is an issue—a problem with the content of the bill—it will be resolved before a ballot is taken.

I draw your further attention to Standing Order 278(3), which says that it is possible for a member to have only one bill in the ballot at any given time. Therefore, if there is a problem with a bill that a member has in the ballot—and this bill has been in the ballot and published on the website for 4 months—it is incumbent, and I think there is a reasonable expectation on the part of the member, that this would be resolved before a ballot is conducted.

I have been further advised that the office of the Leader of the Opposition sought advice from the Clerk’s Office and was assured that, in fact, this bill met the Standing Orders. The members of this House must be able to have confidence that the advice they receive from the Clerk’s Office is, in fact, accurate. I, therefore, ask that you withdraw the ruling pending further consideration of the matter by either the Standing Orders Committee or the Business Committee.

TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): It seems to me that the difficulty with the particular Speaker’s ruling that the chief Opposition whip, Chris Hipkins, is relying upon is that that essentially refers to two bills that are drawn out of the ballot at the same time, whereas your ruling relates to one where a bill has already been defeated in the same calendar year. So I want to suggest that the two are not the same. I accept the fact that there is a significant issue for you to look at, but I just make the point that I do not believe that the two situations are the same.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I need no further assistance. The member has had plenty of opportunity to explain his position. I have given considerable thought to this matter, and I think I have charted a very fair way forward on this case. The member’s very first point is right—this is the first time that this has ever happened. The member may well have read the ruling. I think I added a little more to the ruling when I delivered it, but I made the point that in my mind this bill should never have been accepted. If advice was given that it was acceptable, I do not accept that that advice was right. Mistakes do happen. I, therefore, needed to chart a way forward subsequent to the bill being drawn out of the ballot, and I think I have found a very fair mechanism for that to move forward. But I stated at the very end of the ruling that I expect far more scrutiny to take place from the Clerk and his staff before bills are accepted into the ballot in the first place. I think we are creating history here; I hope we do not have an opportunity to see it repeated. But I think I have given a very fair way forward for this particular case, and I do not intend to review the decision at all.

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

Mr SPEAKER: This is a fresh point of order, I take it?

Hon David Parker: Yes it is.

Mr SPEAKER: I certainly hope we are not relitigating.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): No, no I am not. My point of order relates to what is meant by a difference of substance. If, for example, the Labour Party was to present a bill to say that income tax rates should go up or down by 1 percent and it failed, and then another party was to present a member’s bill that said tax rates should go up by 2 percent or down by 2 percent, that would be a difference in substance. I do not think it has to be a different subject matter for it to be a difference of substance. I think that we get on a slippery slope if you, as Speaker, try to interpret what a difference in substance is in such a narrow and particular way.

Mr SPEAKER: And, again, this point I have covered quite adequately earlier in response to a point of order raised by the member’s colleague Grant Robertson. You cannot define the difference in substance exactly at this stage; it will depend on the circumstances. In the particular case I am dealing with, in one bill the only change that has been identified to me was that the previous bill had the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority as the monitor of the situation. This one changes it to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, but, of course, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority actually comes under its auspices. So in this case I am quite satisfied that the change was minimal, and so minimal that we are dealing with the same situation, but I accept the point the member has made around tax rates, where what looks like a relatively minor nominal value could be quite a significant impact. That will be a discussion that will occur at the time between the Clerk and the Speaker of the day. [Interruption] Is there a further fresh point of order? Because I do not intend to litigate this any further, but I am happy if it is a fresh point of order.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Well, I am seeking clarification, because how can the Speaker know the basis upon which members cast a vote for legislation? Members could say: “Well, actually, I did not like that legislation because I did not think it should be the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; it should be the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.” You cannot know that—

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! We have now got to the situation where we are just relitigating a decision I have given. In this particular case the rules are quite clear with regard to the Standing Orders. A bill that has been defeated cannot be brought back almost exactly the same in a calendar year. In my opinion, that is what has happened. I have found a way forward by which I have not ruled it out of order at this stage. If it was to come forward in this calendar year, I would do so, and I have clearly made that statement to the House. If the member bothers to look at the Order Paper, the chances of that happening are indeed very, very slim, so I think we have found a way forward. But the point made by Chris Hipkins is that this is the first time it has ever happened. It is a precedent. I hope it never happens again. I am not prepared to enter—

Chris Hipkins: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: We are now wasting a lot of time. If it is a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it, but it is to have nothing to do with the ruling I gave earlier.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply ask you to reconsider the last part of my point of order, which was to take the matter to the Business Committee or the Standing Orders Committee, because the effect of the ruling that you have just made is that members can have no confidence in the advice they receive from the Office of the Clerk, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a fair statement at all. I gave this considerable thought. I sought counsel before I made this decision and—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wants to leave the Chamber by interjecting while I am on my feet, he is going the right way about it. I gave considerable thought to this issue. As I said, I think I have charted a very fair path forward, and I do not intend to relitigate the matter.

Bills

Passports Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. This bill makes a number of important policy amendments to the Passports Act 1992. The most significant change, and the one that has attracted the most public attention and been welcomed by all sides of this House, is, of course, the increase in the adult passport validity period from 5 years to 10 years. That longer validity period will benefit adult New Zealand travellers, who will need to renew their passports less often. Also, the fee for one 10-year passport will be substantially less than the fee for two 5-year passports. This change alone has made the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) a very popular bill.

I also believe that the increase in the validity period of the refugee travel document from 2 years to 5 years is a change that will benefit a small but important group of New Zealand residents, and I am pleased that this change was also welcomed by other members of the House during earlier stages of the passage of this bill.

This bill was introduced into the House on 15 June this year and was referred to the Government Administration Committee on 18 June. The committee reported back to the House on 24 August, and the bill has proceeded swiftly through its remaining stages. The commencement clause in the bill, which was amended by the committee, brings the changes to the validity periods into effect on 30 November 2015. This is only a short time away, and individuals will soon start to benefit from these changes.

The members of this House who have contributed to debates on this bill, including the members of the Government Administration Committee, have quite rightly noted that the passport validity period was reduced to 5 years in 2005 for security reasons. I therefore want to reiterate that considerations around security were foremost in my mind before making the decision to increase the passport validity period. Security is also one of the reasons why I do not believe that the passport should have a longer period than 10 years, which some submitters suggested to the Government Administration Committee. Ten years is the longest validity period recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organization, and there is good reason why New Zealand should not stray from these internationally agreed guidelines.

Security is also why I established an independent review of New Zealand’s passport security settings last year. I wanted to be reassured that possible additional security risks from a longer validity period will be appropriately managed. The review showed that New Zealand’s passport security features have improved immensely since the current 5-year validity period was introduced in 2005. Our current passport is respected as a technically sophisticated and secure document by experts based outside New Zealand. However, security features will continue to be reviewed, and the document will continue to be enhanced at appropriate points during the future. Security risks, after all, continue to change, but these same risks are managed by many other countries, and I have been assured by the Department of Internal Affairs that they can be managed by New Zealand.

Some members have also raised a concern about changes in the bill that provide that passports do not need to be returned to the department in order to be cancelled when a replacement passport is applied for. It was suggested that this could lead to fraudulent activity through misuse of a seemingly unexpired passport. However, this matter is addressed by some of the apparently more mundane and technical amendments in the bill, which, as others have noted, brings the Passports Act into the digital age. These amendments reflect the fact that the management of travel documents is carried out electronically.

So once a passport is cancelled on the New Zealand travel document database, it cannot be used for travel from New Zealand as this information is shared with border authorities. This will help to provide more effective measures to prevent individuals from leaving the country when there are court orders or conditions that require them to remain in New Zealand—a point that does have some topicality. Additionally, these amendments help prevent the fraudulent use of travel documents. For example, if someone tries to use a cancelled passport to open a bank account or to support a financial transaction, checks made with the Department of Internal Affairs through its identity confirmation service will now show that the passport is no longer valid.

So, to conclude, I would like to acknowledge those individuals who took time to make submissions on the bill, and also the members of the Government Administration Committee for their efforts in considering the bill in a very short period of time and for the decisions that they reached. The passing of this bill will make the Passports Act more fit for purpose in an age when individuals wish to travel frequently and easily and when travel through borders needs to be managed quickly and effectively. These changes will do so in a way that does not threaten the international reputation of our existing and trusted passport but that extends the convenience of its life to New Zealanders who enjoy the privilege of travelling. So I commend the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure for me also to stand in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to start off, as well, by acknowledging the Government Administration Committee and the work that we did on this piece of legislation. As the Minister of Internal Affairs said, it is a very popular bill, and we were abundantly aware as a committee that it would be a good idea to get this bill through its different stages of the parliamentary process so that New Zealanders could apply for a new 10-year passport before the end of the year. I think it is a really great thing that we have come to this day in October in well enough time for that to happen. I want to acknowledge the Minister, as well, for getting this bill into the House.

I also acknowledge my own team, my Labour colleagues—in particular the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Trevor Mallard, who led a campaign to see the validity of passports change from 5 years to 10 years. Indeed, that was Labour Party policy at the last election, so we are very pleased to support that particular change. As I said, that is a very popular thing to do, but there are some technical things within the bill as well. They were widely canvassed within the process through from first reading, and in particular at the select committee stage, and the Minister has already spoken about the reasons why.

I would summarise all of those changes under the heading of “latest technology that allows that to happen”. So the reason for changing the validity to 5 years, of course, was the issues around security after 9/11. It was deemed that it would be best to have a 5-year period, and now that is brought back up to 10. In respect of the technology changes, I am no IT expert, but I certainly understand how these provisions can now be given effect to—for example, the electronic cancellation of travel documents without having the actual documents. That is now able to be done under this legislation. This bill also authorises the Minister to be able to put an electronic record against those travel documents. That is now available to the Minister through this piece of legislation.

The Minister talked about the cost of applying for a new passport. The cost will be set, as I understand it, at $180. Currently, it is $135 for 5 years. That is a significantly different pricing regime over the 10-year period. I am aware that the actual cost, though, of processing applications and issuing a new passport is actually $400—a $220 difference. I want to talk a little bit about that because we will get to the stage where it is no longer sustainable at that level, and then the Government at that time will need to make a decision around the actual cost. What I am really saying is that this is a short-term pricing regime unless there is money set aside in the future to sustain this level. So it is $180 for now, but, of course, we do not know what the future price of that is going to be.

I would advocate that having a passport is not only about travel but also about appropriate identification. Some organisations and some agencies require a passport as identification, so having a passport is also of community benefit. So I would advocate that, and I congratulate the Minister on convincing Cabinet to set the price at $180 rather than the actual cost of $400. That will, as I said, become an issue further on into the future.

As I said the overall effect of these three things—the security issues, the pricing, and the period of validity—are all the things that I think everyday, ordinary Kiwis will be happy to have as part of their application for a passport and for obtaining a passport. A lot of New Zealanders—and, indeed, I myself—consider that it is a real privilege to be carrying a New Zealand passport into other countries to identify themselves as being New Zealanders. I want to again acknowledge the Minister for his work on this bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very pleased to take a short call on this Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to support the comments of Adrian Rurawhe, the previous speaker, in relation to the Minister of Internal Affairs and his officials bringing this bill to the House. It is a very popular bill, and I have to say that it is one of those bills that had unanimous support in terms of making sure that the select committee was as quick and as efficient as we could be in getting the bill back to the House. It is amazing how many Kiwis are standing by and waiting—I see that Nanaia Mahuta is one of them—in terms of delaying their passport renewal because they are waiting to be able to actually go for the 10-year passport. The good news is that they should be able to do that in November of this year, in time for the Christmas holidays and their Christmas travel.

I want to acknowledge the chair of the Government Administration Committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and the deputy chair, Sarah Dowie, who are not in the House today—

Chris Bishop: Did a great job. Sarah did a great job.

MARK MITCHELL: She did. Sarah Dowie did an outstanding job in making sure that this bill went smoothly through the select committee process and back to the House for this third reading.

Kiwis love to travel—77 percent of us travel. We have got a long history of doing our OE, which of course has transitioned into a lot of Kiwis being mobile and travelling around the world on holiday, or choosing to work and taking their families and living overseas for a period. It was understandable that after 11 September 2001 there was a greater focus on security and, therefore, a lot of countries did make the change to a 5-year passport. But most of those countries are now starting to transition back to 10-year passports, primarily because the investment that most countries have made into passport security has been significant. We can all see just how efficient and how good our own systems are at our own border when we come back and we are able to access systems such as SmartGate.

The other thing that I did want to mention very quickly—which the Minister referred to, and that I agree is important—is the validity period of refugee travel documents. Although they are a small part of our community here in New Zealand, they are an important part, and it was actually really important to get that aligned from a 2-year period to the 5-year period.

So I am very happy to take a call and see this bill back in the House for its third reading. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of this bill, the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). It is good to be able to speak in support of legislation that is very much welcomed by Kiwis up and down the country. Before I give some acknowledgment to the Government Administration Committee, I would like to acknowledge two of my esteemed senior colleagues, the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Trevor Mallard, who strongly advocated for a return to the 10-year period for passports. I know that a lot of their work has helped to bring about the swift passage of this bill, which is now in its third reading today. So I do mihi to my mātua, my senior colleagues, for their input into this important process.

Can I also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee and the Minister of Internal Affairs. From 15 June through to today’s date, that is a pretty well-oiled machine that the Government Administration Committee is—it probably does not rival the Māori Affairs Committee, but I must acknowledge—

Chris Bishop: Nothing does!

RINO TIRIKATENE: We deal with a mountain of very, very complex legislation, but we are able to deal with it very, very thoughtfully and respectfully to all of the subject matter iwi groups that are concerned. But I digress. The Government Administration Committee did a fine job in considering this bill, and I understand it has made some very sensible amendments.

I am very excited, really, to be able to renew my passport, which I think is soon to be expired—if it has not already. I am keen on that 30 November date. I will be waiting until that date before I reapply—if I need to—to be able to go for an extended 10-year passport. I do not know whether anyone would want to be renewing it at the moment in anticipation of the fact that they can get a “double bang” for the duration of their passport.

So this is a very sensible piece of legislation. We do support it. I do know of one DJ, actually, who was a traveller. He went overseas on his passport, and I think he used it only once, and he actually had to pay for it urgently—so he had to pay double, or even more. So the 5-year duration is, as we call it in Māori, a bit of a hōhā—it was a bit annoying. The fact that it can be now returned to the 10-year duration I think is very sensible.

Of course, we note that the period for, I think, children under 16 is still 5 years—5-year renewals, obviously, for growing children. I was actually just at my son’s basketball tournament the other day. It was an under-13s tournament but, boy, there was quite a variation between under-13-year-olds, from some boys who were what we would call very, very big boys, to boys who were within that 2 to 3 year period, from about 10 to 13 years—[Interruption]

Hon Member: They looked like you, Todd.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes. The hormones were yet to kick in for some of these little lads, so they were kind of outmatched. Even though it is like a 2 or 3 year age gap, the growth of these young lads was quite a sight to behold on certain teams. So it is sensible that we do retain a 5-year renewal period for children under 16.

Of course, we know that the 5-year duration was not really 5 years because—and this happened to me once—if your travel was taking place within 3 months of the expiry of your passport, you actually had to apply for a new passport. So therefore it was really only maybe 4 years and 9 months—the period that it was actually valid for. So, again, stretching out the validity period to 10 years is a sensible move, and I am sure there will be a lot of folks queuing up as we are entering the busy summer season. A lot of Kiwis, obviously, love to travel, especially due to our isolation here in the South Pacific. We do like to get out and about and venture abroad. So I am sure that there will be a lot of processing of these new passports with the new, longer validity period.

I also want to add that the security measures that have been installed—we know that in the aftermath of 9/11 that was a major reason why the validity period was halved to 5 years. But I think that in the 14 years since then and with the introduction of added technology to the passport documents and the central database, which is a lot more geared up to deal with faster flows of information around travellers, that has satisfied the Minister and the committee and this Parliament that a return to the 10-year validity period is a sensible move.

Of course, we know that as travellers everyone requires their passport to cross over our borders. Just to complement that, as I look after the customs area, I was intrigued to learn that the detector dog force at the Queenstown Airport has been doubled. It has been doubled from one dog, Zeta, to two dogs. It has been doubled to two. Those travellers who are coming in as tourists or are returning travellers to the mighty Central Otago area, which is part of the beautiful Queenstown Lakes District, will be able to not only go through what may be SmartGate technology, if they have been to Australia, but also they will be greeted by at least a double beagle detector dog force, which will be able to sniff out any nasties that may impact on our wonderful Central Otago horticulture, which is very important. It is very important for our trade and prosperity.

So the border control, border flow, travel documents—it all flows into this. And big boys, small boys, high posts, low posts—it is good to know that Kiwis out there will be able to have the reassurance and the confidence that for an investment of $180, they will be able to get their 10-year passport, and have that security of knowing that they can have a good 10 years of travel ahead of them, for them to enjoy. They will be able to venture across the globe, and back to our wonderful Aotearoa. All that remains for me to do now is to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Peace in our time—peace in our time. It does feel like peace has broken out in this place today. Pretty soon we will be sitting round a campfire, singing “Kumbaya”. But I would note that New Zealand First members have not actually spoken on this bill yet, and those words could prove as short-lived as they were when Neville Chamberlain first raised them decades ago. But it is a pleasure to stand in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). The principal change here, to restore a 10-year validity period for our passports, is something that Kiwis are very welcoming of. I too would like to reiterate our appreciation to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the members of the Government Administration Committee, which I am fortunate to sit on.

The committee did one thing, I think, that it is fair to say all of New Zealand would endorse strongly. So efficient and effective were we in our consideration of this bill, the greatest amendment we made was to bring forward the introduction date by a full month so people, like Nanaia Mahuta, who are waiting to renew their passports can get a 10-year passport 1 month earlier than was originally proposed.

It is fair to point out that the New Zealand passport is not only treasured by New Zealanders but is actually the eighth-most desirable passport in the world, according to the Arton Capital group, which created a passport power rank index. We have the eighth-most desirable passport in the world, ahead of Australia, not that that would surprise many people. But with that, it is fair to say that not only does it make it a very trusted passport around the world—and that is evidenced by the fact that around 170 countries permit us to enter their borders without a visa—but it actually makes it a bit of a target for counterfeiters. After 9/11, with the terrorism threat in particular being what it was, we had to take steps to ensure that it would remain a well-trusted and secure passport. One of the risks we faced was actually losing our visa waiver status with the US. I think Parliament at the time made the consideration that that would have been a greater inconvenience to travellers than shifting to a 5-year validity period. But it is a wonderful thing to be able to stand here now, and hopefully within a few short minutes we will be restoring the 10-year validity to Kiwi passports.

I will make just a couple of points before I finish up, to help speed this through. I am delighted to also see that we are making a change to increase the validity of refugee travel documents from 2 years to 5 years, because that aligns with the residency period for them to then seek permanent residency or citizenship. So that is good to see. It is also good to see that we are introducing the offence of false representation being applied extraterritorially. We had this odd situation that it was not an offence to make a false representation outside New Zealand.

So, all in all, the bill is making some very sensible changes, and the primary one, restoring 10-year validity, is one that will be welcomed across New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): It is my pleasure to rise to take a call for the Greens on this, the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). We are of course supporting this bill, like all the other parties in the House, basically because it is a sensible bill to extend the life and validity of passports from 5 years to 10 years. Having that reintroduced is a very popular move, and something that lots of people in the community have actually been lobbying for, for some time now. I also note that with this bill we modernise the Passports Act of 1992 and we bring it into line with many of our neighbouring countries and our friends overseas.

Other speakers have talked about the fact that Kiwis love to travel. There is no doubt about that. I guess if we are extending the validity of our passports back to 10 years, it gives us a longer period of time in which to collect those wonderful visa stamps that you can collect along the way. Five years for me was not enough, really, to get enough in there to make it feel like it was worthwhile.

I think we should reflect on the fact that Kiwis who do travel and are protected by those passports are protected by having New Zealand citizenship as well. That gives me pause to reflect, essentially, on those New Zealanders, those citizens of New Zealand, who have New Zealand passports who are currently being detained in Australia illegally. Their human rights are basically being breached because they are being detained in places like Christmas Island, and essentially are about to be deported, but are being detained without legal rights because they are going to be deported because of that country’s regulations around deportation. I think in New Zealand we would have learnt from the mistakes, and our Government really—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to come back to the bill.

DENISE ROCHE: OK—certainly. There were passports in there a little bit.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, just not enough. Carry on.

DENISE ROCHE: Not enough passports—OK then. So back to this bill. We are satisfied that the security issues—[Interruption] Rino Tirikatene got away with it. Anyway, back to the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I take your point.

We are satisfied, and I am pretty sure the rest of the Government Administration Committee was satisfied, that the security issues that were raised as a potential flag were addressed. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Internal Affairs, in his opening speech for this reading, saying that security will be reviewed from time to time. That is very reassuring. We were also pleased to see that the costs of the passports have been kept down as much as we possibly could. That was a concern that was raised by the few people who did submit on the bill. But we are extending the time frame—the validity of the passport—from 5 years to 10 years, so it is obvious that there will be an increased cost for that. We in the Greens are also pleased to see that within this bill it standardises the refugee papers, which will be extended from 2 years to 5 years, which is around the same amount of time that refugees have for seeking residency, and so it reduces that anomaly as well.

I want to also congratulate the Government Administration Committee. I sat in on that committee because I am the immigration spokesperson for the Greens. Our usual person is Mojo Mathers. I want to thank the permanent committee members for the detail and care that they took in scrutinising this bill and considering it. We will, of course, be supporting it. We commend it to the House.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call. I think I will be struggling to do as fantastic a job as Rino Tirikatene did before. I thought that was a fantastic example of how to filibuster and fill up 10 minutes. Labour members were clearly getting the “speak for 10 minutes” call—fantastic. I would also like to recognise Mr Brett Hudson for his contribution as well. I think that as a National Party member, he is certainly a well-balanced member. Of course, having a chip on both shoulders does help.

We will, of course, be supporting this—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mentioning the bill would be a good start.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Absolutely—I will get there right now. I had to get that out of the way nice and quickly. We will be supporting this bill today in the House. Just for the reference of Mr Hudson, on Tuesday night, for example, I was sitting in the House, and out of the four bills that were read out that day, New Zealand First actually supported three of them. That is a 75 percent support rate. Let us just see how we get on today.

Look, there is not a lot that has already been said that I can re-say, but New Zealand First does support the bill because it does make sense. Back in 2001, of course, we had the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in the USA. That was the catalyst for the Labour Government to bring in these reduced passports. I think it was a quick reaction. I think it was a reaction that probably, in hindsight, was unnecessary, but it was an action that was taken none the less. New Zealand First did not support the reduction from 10 years to 5 years for passports back in those days and has on a number of occasions spoken about bringing back those 10-year passports.

We are somewhat disappointed that it has taken 7 years for this Government to actually bring this bill to the House. Now that it has been brought to the House it has actually been moving along quite quickly and certainly in a positive fashion. At the end of today’s deliberation—the final, third reading of this bill—we are going to see this Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) enacted and making some positive changes to the Passports Act 1992. The Act, of course, is—first and foremost; first cab off the ranks—going to bring a lot of happiness and joy to people back home, particularly those who are getting passports and those travellers, those New Zealanders, who get around a bit, because they will have a 10-year passport application available from 30 November.

Of course, this bill would not have got there without the input from the Government Administration Committee. I just want to commend committee members’ input on this bill. I think they have worked diligently. There were about 20 submitters. Nobody came in to give an oral submission, but they certainly were in favour of these passports being expanded out to 10 years. Of course, Peter Dunne has, I think, done a good job of working with Cabinet and the National Government to ensure that the pricing of this passport did not blow out to the $404 that was initially expected. He has actually brought that into a more palatable fee of $180-odd.

New Zealand First thinks that that price could come down. We think that $180, albeit over a 10-year period, is about a $90 deduction on what you would be paying over the $135 you would be paying twice for the same period with 5-year passports. It is actually only a 9½ year passport. If you understand the ideology as New Zealand First does and think that every dollar is a prisoner, then we can make some small but significant changes—in the size of the passport, for example, and how many pages are within it—that might actually help reduce some of those costs. We are talking about potentially, from 2021, getting an extra $200 million - odd from Treasury to actually enable that.

I skimmed over it before, but I just want to also bring the attention back to 2001, when the Labour Government brought in 5-year passports. It was a little bit quick. The vast majority of countries around the world stuck with their 10-year passports—Australia being one of them, and Canada. The United States of America even kept its 10-year passports. Many of the OECD countries realised that their passports were actually OK at 10 years. So it was a bit of a shame that we reacted so quickly, in hindsight, but it is good to see that we are making some headway now.

As far as the security of the new passports goes, I think it is a much better way of operation that they can be cancelled via the computer—you do not need to send them in to cancel them, cut them in half, or do whatever they do. That is certainly going to make things a lot easier for the Department of Internal Affairs with people coming or going. It is a reminder to those people who are planning on travelling to make sure that all their fines are paid up and there are no warrants for arrests or anything like that, because, of course, it is all done over the computer, and you might find yourself inadvertently getting to the departure lounge and being turned away at the gates because you might have a fine that has not been paid.

I will not go on any further. We do support this bill. New Zealand First strongly supports this bill going through the House. We look forward to hearing from some of the other speakers this afternoon. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): Fakaalofa atu ki a mutolu oti. I just want to acknowledge that it is nearly the end of Niue Language Week. How that relates to the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) is that Niue is one of the nations of the Realm of New Zealand. It is one of the three nations of the Realm of New Zealand that actually use a New Zealand passport as well. So I just want to acknowledge that it is Niue Language Week.

Passports have become very important because they allow us to travel. I just want to acknowledge that just recently I, with the New Zealand Parliamentary Rugby Team and my colleague and friend over there Kris Faafoi and nine other members of Parliament, went over there to represent the New Zealand Parliament.

Carmel Sepuloni: What happened to the cup?

ALFRED NGARO: Yes, well, if it were like it was for the netball girls where we had two games and we won, we actually would have come back with a cup. Unfortunately, we had a situation where the rules were set against us—the rules were set against us. I am sure that my colleague, friend, and playing colleague Kris Faafoi would agree that we put our bodies on the line. We did everything that we could to make people proud of us, and at every border that we went through—Los Angeles—it was an honour to pull out our New Zealand passports and then be able to enter into London and over there.

Just in regards to this bill in its third reading, I am proud to take a short call. I acknowledge the work of the Government Administration Committee and of the Minister, in this intent. I just want to make some comments about the previous speaker and the previous Government in 2001. There was some sense that it had overreacted in reducing the validity period of the passports from 10 years to 5 years. I think that that actually was the right thing to do. Obviously, evidence and experience has shown that other countries—in fact, Canada was one of those countries that did reduce its validity period from 10 years to 5 years as well. Canada has now increased it along with the Netherlands, so, I think, actually, that the New Zealand Government has shown that as now it is felt that there are issues around security and integrity around border control with these passports, it is time to increase that validity period from 5 years to 10 years.

I just have a couple of comments to make to add to the debate in this third and final reading. I think that what is also important is that the bill also reduces the maximum validity period of certificates of identity. In other words, these are non - New Zealand citizens who may be within New Zealand borders and therefore need a certificate to be able to allow for them to travel outside New Zealand. So we grant them a certificate—the period at this time is 4 years. What the select committee has come up with—international convention is 1 year; we have now secured that at 2 years. We think that that is important and it is in line with international conventions.

The other thing that I think has also been important is that we have seen since 2012 that the online renewal of passports has increased. In fact, 40 percent of adults are now renewing online, so that upgrade to technology is important, as many have talked about. Being able to be chipped in your passports and going through SmartGates has also made the ability for people to transfer into New Zealand and other countries much more easy as well.

I have just a couple of last comments that I want to make. The other thing I think—just for those in the public—is that we have talked about a 10-year validity period. This is only for adults, so that is for people aged 16 years and up, but children will still have to have a 5-year validity period. I think those are some things that are important.

Many have talked about our passport. It is a passport that is recognised overseas as being world class. We know that 170 countries acknowledge our passport and, therefore, do not require us to have visas, and that shows that our passports have both the credibility and integrity that is important internationally as well.

This is a bill that is a very simple bill, really. It makes some changes. It upgrades into the latest technology as well, and I think that is important. But, at the same time, it makes sure that passports are affordable and accessible. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call David Clendon—a 5-minute call.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a brief call just to reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill. As we all know, New Zealanders tend to be great travellers. We are descended—be they Māori or European—from people who made some of the longest voyages ever in human history, and I think that that gene, that tendency, has somehow stayed with us. We do like to see the world, and this change to the passport regulations will make a small contribution to making that more affordable and more convenient.

Having said that, as the Green Party spokesperson on tourism and a great advocate for the domestic tourism industry, it would be remiss of me not to remind people of the importance of not leaving home until you have seen the country. Perhaps as a resident of the Bay of Islands I am more motivated than others to stay home, as I have less need to escape than those who are less fortunate and live in other parts of the country. But certainly we are travellers, and this bill is a useful step towards facilitating that.

The key change in the bill, of course, is to extend the term of a passport from 5 years to 10 years for a person over the age of 16. Younger people will still need to renew their passports every 5 years, which is appropriate given the rapid changes in appearance and so on of people of that age. The point has been made that the 5-year passport was, in fact, only a 4½ year passport given that many countries require at least a 6-month buffer before they will issue a visa to enter that country, which is not unreasonable, but cost $140-odd every 5 years or 4½ years, assuming you are a New Zealander living in New Zealand. But, for example, if you are a person who lives in the UK and you needed to quickly renew your passport, the cost actually got quite serious. Many hundreds of dollars could be involved in a straightforward renewal if somebody was under some time pressure to visit a relative, or whatever it might be, so it is appropriate that we should extend that time out.

I am reliably informed by my colleague Mojo Mathers, who sits on the Government Administration Committee, that this change was in large part motivated or triggered by a petition from one Kyle Lockwood and 15,000 New Zealanders who saw fit to sign that petition to call for a change to what they saw as an unreasonably short and, indeed, an unfair requirement to renew a passport every 5 years—so good on them. By all accounts, the background for the petition was well researched, it was evidence-based, and the Government Administration Committee responded appropriately and did make a very good decision to bring this bill to the House for the support that it be passed.

We were significantly out of step with a 5-year term. Some of our major partners in terms of tourism—Australia, the US, the UK, and, indeed, China—have 10-year terms on their passports. New Zealand is one of a number of countries on the international intergovernmental group that looks at developing best practice for passports. Again, we are on that group alongside Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US, and of that best-practice group we are, again, the only country that persisted with a 5-year passport. It made us something of an outlier, and, certainly, it would be very difficult to sustain an argument that a 5-year term would, in fact, be best practice in this modern age given the changes in technology and the availability of quick withdrawals.

One would hope that amongst the changes that are being made as a response to this bill would be the assurance that the rather unfortunate situation that emerged not very long ago, when a gentleman went on a South American holiday who ought not have been able to do that—one hopes that some of those loopholes will be plugged in terms of ensuring that Government departments talk to each other a little more before passports are issued. I do believe those changes are in train, and I hope they proceed promptly. So, with those few words, I will simply reiterate that the Greens do support this bill. We look forward to it being swiftly implemented. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Meka Whaitiri—a 5-minute call.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E ngā mema o te Whare nei. Tēnā tātou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to make a small contribution to this third reading of this important piece of legislation—and I think everyone is here to express this—which makes complete sense. So I join with all members in endorsing it, but I also want to acknowledge, following on from the grand contributions from colleagues on this side of the House—Adrian Rurawhe and another colleague here, Rino Tirikatene—that Labour definitely stands in support of, like I said, a piece of legislation that makes sense.

I just want to make a couple of comments on the main provisions of the bill to assure members that I have actually read it. In terms of the comments around the extension of the life of the passports, I think everyone acknowledges that extending it from 5 years to 10 years makes complete sense. As an electorate MP, many of the inquiries that come through my office that pertain to passport issues are generally from my constituents who, often, are living in Australia, their passports have lapsed, and there has been a tragic event back home. I have often got a call to say: “We need a passport and can we get it done urgently?”. So I see huge benefits for those particular constituents who have recently travelled to Australia to benefit from the extension to 10 years. Having made that point, I also just want to acknowledge the many of my constituents from two whānau who are currently detained on Christmas Island. I look forward to the Prime Minister going in to bat to do something for our people over there.

I will come back to the bill. Like I said, over 16s and under 16s—so the under 16s, clearly, will remain on 5 years. As a mother of two teenage boys, one who is 18 and one who is 17, I am thankful that they make that cut, especially as the 18-year-old is in Scotland. So on a personal level it makes sense. When we look at the warnings on New Zealand travel documents, the electronic record, again, provides the ability, I guess, for the Department of Internal Affairs to provide warnings electronically through the bill and the main provisions that apply there. I notice the electronic cancellation, again, using technology to its best advantage to protect not only our borders but all of our Kiwi citizens, wherever they are. That needs to be acknowledged.

I also want to make a comment on the amendment regarding the offence of false representation. As I read it, I guess it is an offence. The terms of the offence are up to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $15,000, and the extension means it is not only an offence through a written or oral statement but, as the reclassification allows, through any statement. We all have memories of filling out passport application forms and the identification. If only we could make those little stickers a little bit bigger. Perhaps that may help people with failing eyesight.

I want to mention the cost and say the reduction down to $180 is absolutely welcome for many people. We are renowned travellers, and we want to make travelling not only within New Zealand but outside it accessible to many of our people. So that is going to go a long way. There was mention by a previous speaker in the House about SmartGate. On a recent trip to Taiwan, when coming back into New Zealand the lane that did not have the smart gate actually moved a lot faster than the lanes that had the smart gates.

Sue Moroney: It was a slow gate.

MEKA WHAITIRI: It was very slow. In fact, actually, it was not working. So although we absolutely support technology, actually, some of the basic things that are supposed to make our lives more efficient sometimes fall over. So with those few remarks, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. In speaking to this Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) in this third reading debate I want to congratulate the Government and the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Peter Dunne, for bringing in an incredibly sensible piece of legislation. It has been a long time coming, and New Zealanders are going to benefit significantly from reduced costs and reduced inconvenience in their passport applications and using New Zealand passports overseas.

I am probably the only member in this House, actually, who has ever issued a New Zealand passport. On the occasions when I did produce emergency travel documents for New Zealanders who were stranded overseas in the Middle East, it was often to do with the validity period. Sometimes people lose their passports, but often the 5-year validity period slips by very quickly and people find themselves stranded in an alien environment without a current passport. So this is a welcome measure. It is very sensible.

We have had a lot of quality contributions from members of the House. I particularly enjoyed David Clendon’s contribution on this, where he sounded somewhat like Murray, the deputy cultural attaché for New Zealand in Flight of the Conchords, in that he was promoting that we should visit New Zealand and see New Zealand before we go overseas. It sounds like a tourism slogan from the 1970s. But, in any case, this is a very sensible measure from a very sensible Government, and it does take a National Government to get this sort of thing sorted out. It is a wonderful measure. I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I thank the “deputy cultural attaché” who has just resumed his seat, Paul Foster-Bell. I would like to do something somewhat unusual, not—[Interruption] Do not get your hopes up too far. Not to indicate the Opposition’s support for this Government bill—because we have been doing that on a number of measures lately, based on the idea that when it is good we will support it, and when it is not we will call it. On this one, we think it is good, and we call it.

What I do want to do is something that I have not done for a while—and the honourable Minister Peter Dunne will echo this—I want to compliment him personally on the role that he has played in this. Not only is it a sensible outcome, Minister, but I want to personally congratulate you on the role that you have played in keeping the cost of the 10-year passport under control. For those who are not aware, the Minister Peter Dunne actually overrode—or, shall we say, leaned against—Treasury and audit advice that would have set it at a much higher level. I think New Zealanders have Peter Dunne to thank for that. Beyond that, this is a shared enterprise. It was actually Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard who brought the idea to me, when I was leader of the Labour Party, that we would put in our manifesto a commitment to the 10-year passport, and we did. So this is a bipartisan commitment to something that is citizen-friendly, taxpayer-friendly, and a heck of a lot easier to use.

Why, then, was the passport changed from 10 to 5 years? The answer is because in the immediate aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11 it was decided that, based on the technology at the time, it was more secure for New Zealanders both travelling and at home that a 5-year passport be introduced, because it was easier to control and its renewability meant that that could be future-proofed. That is why it was done, even though it was always going to be a little more costly for the citizen.

It was a reasonable justification at the time, but as members opposite have said—and we concur—the technology has moved on. Those concerns about fraud—and I concur with the member Mr Hudson, that this is an issue—New Zealand passports are highly sought after on the black market because New Zealand is a country highly regarded for its integrity and the integrity of its systems. Therefore, it was right to protect the 5-year passport until the technology had advanced to the point where collectively we could be confident that a 10-year period was safe. It is common ground across the House that that time has now come. The time has come to reverse the change from 10 years to 5 years, and to put it back from 5 years to 10 years. I think New Zealanders will welcome that. It makes travelling life a lot easier and simpler, and, in the end—again, I want to commend Peter Dunne for this—less costly, less costly.

If I can, can I note that the Department of Internal Affairs will be making plans to redeploy staff in the period after 2020 as demand drops, because it stands to reason that if the passports are not being issued so often, not so many will be issued. Therefore, fewer people will be involved in issuing them, even though they are a higher-grade document. We accept that there will be some managerial changes at the Department of Internal Affairs to accommodate that change.

The Government Administration Committee has not made a lot of changes to this bill. There are a number of very minor technical amendments. I actually mean it this time. There is a phrase often in the jargon, when officials come and tell the Minister that there are a few minor, technical amendments to the bill, and that usually means they have completely rewritten it. But in this case, no, it actually means what it says. The amendments are minor, and they are technical.

I think that in the context of the debates of the last weeks, and given that this is an international matter, it would not be outside the scope of this third reading speech to say that we on the Labour benches would welcome it if the Government would be equally transparent about other international matters that it is currently progressing as it is with this international matter. If we had the same level of transparency on the costs and benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no way.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —that we have on the costing of a 10-year passport, the entire public—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are stretching the limits here. Just stay on the bill.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The very analysis that the Hon Peter Dunne, as Minister, had to enter into, which is documented in the regulatory impact statement and official advice, where he quantified the upsides and downsides of all of the options and where he modelled out both the static and the dynamic effects, and then made a judgment that was not necessarily in line with the recommendation but was the right call and done on a transparent and objective basis—would that the same process could be applied to other matters that I will not mention. Would that the same process of quantifying both the upsides and the downsides of what can be quantified, and exposing the difference between that which is science and that which is judgment in a transparent way, and, following the Minister’s practice here, if the effects today, the static effects and the effects over time, the dynamic effects—in this case, the impact on the Department of Internal Affairs staff levels and processing systems—and if the same methodology could be brought to bear on other international matters, well, what a pleasant change that would be. What a great public debate that would engender.

But on some important international matters, of course, that opportunity is not being afforded to the public—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Come back—we are not talking about other agreements. We are coming into this one.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Far be it from me to now mention other agreements. But we do want transparency. We do want good judgment. We do want to expose the difference between static and dynamic, between objective and judgmental calls. I do not think that that is too much to ask.

Let me summarise and conclude: Labour supports this bill. Labour thinks that 10-year passports are a good idea. They were in our manifesto last year, and we are very happy to credit the current Minister, the Hon Peter Dunne, with a job well done in not only getting this through the Government but also getting it through at a cost that is reasonable to the taxpayer. We commend the bill. We are happy to see it on its way, and it is one of many things that we would be doing, too, to ensure that New Zealanders get the services of Her Majesty’s Government at a cost they can afford, with an intent that supports the public and the citizen interests. Thank you.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to speak in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. I would just like to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne, Minister of Internal Affairs, for your sense of work and efforts on this piece of legislation. I can assure you from the feedback that I have had—and it has been considerable from my electorate—that this piece of legislation is going down incredibly well. It has been highly welcomed in a number of quarters in my electorate.

I would also like to acknowledge the Government Administration Committee—in particular, the chairperson, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and the deputy chairperson, Sarah Dowie, for their joint dynamic leadership and comprehensive scrutiny of this bill. It is a tough committee sometimes, given that the Government does not have a majority on the legislation. But through the cooperation and intense relationship-building that has taken place between all members of the committee, it has managed to get this piece of important legislation through incredibly quickly.

We are a transparent and collaborative Government, and that is why we welcome the extension of the validity period of New Zealand passports from 5 to 10 years, as we know, for citizens aged 16 years and over. The reasons behind those people under the age of 16 not being included in the extension period have been well canvassed throughout the debate, so I will not touch on them again.

As has already been pointed out, we are considerable travellers, with around 77 percent of New Zealanders owning a passport. In Queenstown, in my electorate of Clutha-Southland, we have seen an incredible increase in the number of flights between the east coast of Australia and New Zealand, contributing both to New Zealand’s tourism number increases and also to the level of New Zealanders travelling back to Australia. In the ski season there are about 56 or 58 direct flights a week from the east coast of Australia to Queenstown. That is bringing thousands of Australians over to New Zealand, but it is also facilitating thousands more Kiwis from the southern part of the South Island travelling overseas, particularly to Australia. So this legislation, whether it be for business or for personal and family leisure travellers, increases their ability to do that by reducing the cost quite considerably. To that end, I am proud to support this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)

Third Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. This is a small bill but it makes a number of important policy amendments to the Gambling Act 2003. These changes are predominantly for gaming machines outside of casinos. This sector, which we call the class 4 sector, is heavily regulated under the Gaming Duties Act. It involves high risks because there is a considerable amount of cash involved.

The background to this bill is actually the member’s bill that was sponsored by the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, which became the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill 2013. The “Flavell Bill”, as it was colloquially known, attracted a very large number of submitters, who raised a wide range of issues with the current framework for gambling operations in pubs and clubs. Views were expressed that parts of the framework for controlling this type of gambling were not perceived to be working particularly well. So this bill responds to some of those concerns, and also simplifies some aspects of regulating the sector.

I want to expand briefly on the concerns and how the bill addresses these. One of the concerns was a lack of transparency. A sector like this one, where there is a considerable amount of cash being spent, can raise suspicions. People are worried about whether the money is being used effectively. I have been pleased to see that there has been overwhelming support for the changes to improve transparency in the sector. The bill will create an environment where much more light is cast on the use of gaming machine funds. That is in terms of both the societies’ operating costs and also grant distribution.

The bill also responds to the current lack of oversight over management companies that are paid by societies to carry out specific gambling-related functions. This bill will ensure that these companies are covered by the Gambling Act, and that they can be audited and monitored the same way that societies are. Another change seeks to further minimise the potential for any conflicts of interest to arise between those involved in providing the gambling. People who are actually key decision makers in managing a trust or a venue will be captured by the conflicts of interest provisions in this new legislation. The changes also result in these individuals being considered during the licence period application and renewal process.

I am aware that some submitters objected to the changes that will allow the Secretary for Internal Affairs the discretion to issue longer licences for societies and venue operators. The question that has been raised is why we would consider giving longer licences when recent performances by venues in the department’s mystery shopper exercise were not up to the mark. That is a fair question. But in response I would emphasise that the underlying intention of this change is to give the department the ability to offer an incentive for operators who show that they do consistently fulfil their obligations. That is simply expanding the options that the department currently has in its regulatory tool box alongside its ability to take enforcement action—so it is a little bit of carrot to go alongside the stick. The department will look very carefully at the circumstances under which a longer licence could be provided.

The other aspect that I want to emphasise is that the obligations on societies and venue operators will not be diluted by the length of the licence. For example, the obligation on societies to ensure that the risk of problem gambling is minimised at their venues will be ongoing. If serious breaches of any of the obligations at any point in time are found, the action of licence suspension or even cancellation remains available to the department in the usual way.

The bill contains amendments to change the way that class 4 venues are paid for their operating costs. These amendments will change the venue payment system from the complicated cost recovery process that we have at present to a payments model that will be prescribed in regulations. Final decisions on that model have yet to be made, but discussions with the sector are under way. It is potentially possible that this new payment system could be commission-based. I know that this was the most contentious aspect of the bill. Pub owners are operating a business, but they also have a responsibility to ensure that they provide a safe gambling environment, and submissions on the bill have made it clear that people do not want to see a new system that could provide venue operators with an incentive to override their primary responsibilities. I agree with that, and I have got no desire at all to see that type of outcome. The department is very aware of the concern, and it has been a priority when planning the development of the new regulations. The Government will be interested in getting all views on how we get that balance right. The system at the moment is far too complex, but I have no desire either to create a new system with negative incentives that cause harm.

Can I acknowledge all those who took the time to make submissions, and the members of the Government Administration Committee once more for their efforts in thoroughly considering the bill. They did a very good job in working their way through the range of views and presenting us with a workable piece of legislation. And I think as a consequence we have a bill that responds to a number of the concerns that were being expressed—we do have a more transparent environment, we certainly have some greater controls, and we also have a piece of legislation that is consistent with the primary objectives of the Gambling Act.

This is one more in a series of reforms. We had the infamous, long-drawn-out Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), and now this bill—which has had a much more rapid passage—to make the original Gambling Act more fit for purpose. Although I was not the Minister at the time that both these bills were conceived, I certainly endorse the intent behind them. After all, class 4 gambling generates millions of dollars every year, and we need to make sure, and have as our overriding priority, that the money intended for the community goes back to the community—that is the principle on which all of this operates. But, at the same time, we need to be looking at wider gambling behaviour and what it is going to mean in terms of ensuring there are sustainable levels of grant funding to communities in the future. That is why I have recently announced work on a wider review of the class 4 sector, within the broader context of the overall gambling sector. The first stage of this review will be to seek to understand current trends in the sector, and in the wider gambling environment, and what they mean for the current class 4 regime and for future levels of community funding.

The Gambling Act has been in place for over 10 years now, and it is time to assess what it has achieved and what changes are needed to ensure that New Zealand’s gambling regulatory system remains sustainable, relevant to the needs of the time, and fit for purpose. The work around the review is at an early stage, but once some preliminary advice has been received, the Government will decide early next year what further steps are required. My interest in conducting this work reflects my concern about the long-term impact on community funding from the ongoing costs of the current regulatory model for class 4 gambling. It is complex and it is costly, and what I want to know is: are there ways of stripping out some of those costs of regulation for operators, for venues, and for the Government as the regulator of the sector? And that, in turn, should free up more money to be invested in the community. I want to see a sustainable funding system for good causes that is delivered by trusted and reputable operators, and I also want an Act that is fit for the future and that is flexible enough to meet the challenges that will lie ahead.

We need to be looking closely at the uptake of online offshore gambling in New Zealand. We know that the availability of more and more gambling products online is challenging—it is challenging the way that gambling is consumed and regulated around the world. So questions come to my mind about what changes are needed to ensure the continued vitality and integrity of our system in the years ahead. The answers to those questions will no doubt prompt a whole range of strong views, because gambling issues tend to do that. But this is a conversation I think we need to have about the best way of ensuring the sustainability of what is currently a unique national community gaming model. In the meantime the changes in this bill go some way towards ensuring that the Gambling Act remains fit for purpose, as well as ensuring that the money we raise from gambling benefits the community. On that basis I am delighted, therefore, to commend this Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise to take a call in the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). Can I summarise Labour’s position on this bill. In the first reading there were some things that we had great concern about and there were things that we fully supported. I think the passage of this legislation—and we genuinely sat on the Government Administration Committee through that process to try to make this bill the best that it can be. On balance, we came to the conclusion that there was more good in this bill than our other concerns, and so I stand here to support this bill in its third reading.

I want to acknowledge the Minister of Internal Affairs for bringing this all together. I also want to acknowledge him because the key, major issue that we had with this bill was about removing the prohibition on commission-based payments for venues. There were a number of submitters on that particular issue, and we heard very clearly what their concerns were. I want to thank the Minister because during the Committee stage he made it quite clear that the model that they will end up with under the regulation that this bill sets out to put in place will not incentivise gambling. We will closely monitor that, but I want to thank the Minister for making that statement in the House. Also, it kind of reinforces that by reviewing class 4 gambling, so I do want to acknowledge that as well.

The commission-based payments—as I said, we did have concerns about that. It could actually incentivise gambling in those venues.

For a moment, too, I want to talk about two particular submitters. I will not give their names, but they shared their journey through addiction—addiction to gambling—and it was very humbling to hear them tell their story and also for them to share that information with us. I think it helped us not only to understand their situation but to keep that in our minds while we were making decisions and recommendations for changes to this bill.

The transparency issue was another issue that members of the public talked about, along with people within the gambling sector. They were very concerned about one particular area around conflict of interest and what that actually meant. From a number of submitters’ views, they highlighted the fact that if this particular clause were to stay unchanged then, basically, all of their workers would not be able to be paid. I think we in the select committee came up with a very good solution to that. It seems to have satisfied everyone, so I am very pleased that that particular clause has been able to be included into that and is no longer an issue.

I want to go back to the original intent of the principal Act, the Gambling Act 2003, at the time it was passed by the Labour Government. The reason why there was a prohibition on commission payment and why it would be on a cost recovery basis was that the true benefit of class 4 gambling was that profits would be distributed to communities. That was the basis of having cost recovery rather than commission payment.

As we all know, there have been a number of issues along the way around both the distribution of funds. For example, as was highlighted by one of my colleagues, Jenny Salesa, in her electorate in South Auckland, Manukau East, there are a number of gambling venues, but when you see where the funds are distributed, they are not distributed totally within her community. So this bill brings greater transparency around the distribution of those funds so that they stay within the community that they are collected from. That is a good thing because that was the original intent of the principal Act.

I go back to joining up the issue around the original intent of the bill to make certain that as many funds as possible can be distributed into the communities. This bill—and I have seen the modelling—potentially means that an additional approximately $10 million will be distributed to communities, and that is a really good thing. That is another reason why we are supporting this bill.

If I can summarise our position, notwithstanding that our concerns, I think, have been greatly addressed since the Committee stage, we will still be watching very closely to see what the venue payment model ends up being. I think it is important also to note that a number of submitters were disappointed that more harm minimisation was not included in this particular bill, and there were a number of submitters, whom I have mentioned in earlier readings, who promoted the idea of a pre-commitment system for gambling. We certainly hope that that becomes part of the Minister’s review into class 4 gambling because I think that is a very important issue—that we ensure that we put every possible mechanism in place to ensure that the harm caused by gambling can be minimised. This seems to me to be the most effective way of doing that for class 4 gambling—that gamblers have to pre-commit to a maximum amount of money that they are willing to use or to spend on class 4 gambling, which is loaded on to the card, and a maximum amount of time. The technology, as I understand it, already exists for that to happen, and so we would be hoping that in future review any legislation that comes from that review would include those sorts of measures.

So, as I said, I am pleased to take this call in the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very pleased to take a call on this, the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), and I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Internal Affairs and his officials for the hard work that they have put into this bill. It is actually a really important bill because it is around transparency. It is about reducing compliance and red tape. It is about making sure, actually, that the money and the funds find their way back to the community through the sports groups, the community groups. Actually, removing the debate around pokie machines, that money and that funding is actually really important to them. I am talking about groups like Surf Life Saving clubs, sports clubs, and clubs that are delivering services in our communities. So it is actually a really important bill. It is a very good bill.

In terms of trying to get transparency around the management fees, to me—and I have spoken about it before in the House—this is fundamentally a really important part of this bill. In my own experience—certainly overseas and having seen some NGOs’ work—when you actually do a breakdown and when you actually look at every dollar that is donated, sometimes you see as little as 5 or 10 percent of that money actually finding its way back to the community. The rest of it is absorbed in management fees. So the fact that this bill addresses those types of issues is actually really important. We want to see as much money as we can going back to the communities in which those pokies reside.

I just want to acknowledge the fact that I think was raised earlier by the previous speaker, Adrian Rurawhe, around harm minimisation. We did hear a fair bit of evidence on the committee around harm minimisation, and I think actually we are moving in the right direction on that. There are some very good technologies that are becoming available, like facial recognition technology, which removes the necessity for the actual workers inside the licensed premises to have to monitor that and sometimes put themselves in a position of conflict or confrontation. These technologies are becoming available, and as they become more cost-effective they are going to reduce a lot of those issues. I would just like to confirm again and acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. It is an important bill and I am very happy to support it in its third reading. Thank you very much.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): As my colleague Adrian Rurawhe has already outlined, Labour continues to support this legislation, although we do have some reservations about the commission-based payments.

We certainly support the increased transparency and the increased focus, I suppose, on ensuring that, as Mark Mitchell said, the money gets back to the community organisations that so heavily rely on the money that is raised through gambling. I say this most times I talk about gambling, and I do not mind saying it again: I think it is a bit odd that so many of our community organisations do rely on money that is raised through gambling. It is essentially a tax in some cases on some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society in order to fund organisations that are doing good work in our community. You know, it is not the only way we could fund it. There are a variety of other ways that we could fund those NGOs, those organisations that are doing such wonderful work. Over time it has become normalised in our society that we fund them through gambling, but it does not have to be that way, although, in saying that, I am no prohibitionist. Gambling is like a lot of other things that can be a lot of fun. It can actually provide a lot of entertainment but it does come with harm, so we have just got to acknowledge that gambling does cause harm in our society, and when we are trying to figure out the legislation and the regulations that go with it there is a bit of a balancing act there.

We think, on the whole, that this Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) gets the balance about right, but we have got some concerns around the use of commission payments to fund venues that have particularly pokie machines, and we have rehearsed some of these arguments before. A lot of submitters who went to the Government Administration Committee—quite rightly, I think—suggested that if the more that gambling occurs in your venue the more money you get, that possibly creates an incentive to encourage a greater level of gambling and to have more machines. We do not disagree that the system of payments to venue owners had to change. There is an incentive, in fact, under the current system to inflate your costs—to inflate your apparent costs—in order to get the highest payment possible out of the machines.

So we certainly applaud the moves away from that type of regime but there are concerns about the commission-based payments. Obviously, exactly how the commission-based payments are going to work is actually left to regulations and the Minister of Internal Affairs has indicated that he is going to carry out a review of class 4 gambling in general, and, of course, those regulations will be open for consultation. We will be looking very closely at how those regulations are formed and we are sure that the public and interested parties will be looking closely at this as well.

One option that is available to the Minister when he is considering what those regulations look like is to have some sort of cap on the commission-based payments. You could have a percentage commission but that may then have a dollar-value cap. So you can take a commission up to a certain dollar value and then if you have a greater volume of gambling that would take you past that dollar value on the commission basis there is nothing to be gained from doing that. That could be one way of disincentivising an aggressive approach of increasing the volume of gambling that happens in the venue.

So there is still plenty of opportunity for consideration of these matters, there is still plenty of opportunity for consultation, and we will be looking closely. We look forward to the opportunity, in fact, to work closely with the Minister on getting those regulations right so that we can get a win-win situation where we move away from the negatives of the current system, but we do not venture into some negatives and some unintended consequences of the potential new system.

There is something missing from this legislation, and many submitters pointed this out. We certainly continued to promote the idea that we should introduce a pre-commitment system, which means that gamblers can set their own limits on duration, on frequency, and on the amount that they are prepared to lose from their gambling. We understand that the technology is well and truly available for this to happen already. Again, gambling can be something that is quite a lot of fun. It can be something that people go into with the best of intentions of not getting carried away and of not getting out of control. They may start off with a certain amount of money in their back pocket and they think “I can lose that.”, but then when they get into the roll of things—there are the lights, there is the sound, there is the whole thing that is actually designed to make you keep coming back—it is off to the EFTPOS machine to get a little bit more. Just one more hit, one more hit, one more hit, and people end up spending a lot more than they had anticipated. That can often be the grocery bill, it can be the rent, it can be the power bill—it can have quite a significant impact on their family, on their loved ones.

The pre-commitment system seems to be a good strategy, which a lot of submitters came to the committee and suggested that we should have. So we think it is a disappointment that it is not in this legislation. It is a missed opportunity and it would have fitted well in this legislation to introduce a pre-commitment system, but again we are interested in working with the Minister to see if there might be a future opportunity to bring such a pre-commitment system into place.

Many submitters articulated their concern about the lack of measures in general to address the harm caused by class 4 gambling in particular and gambling in general. And we do think that we need a greater focus on harm minimisation than what has been achieved in this legislation. We certainly applaud the greater transparency, we applaud the fact that there is a focus on ensuring that that money does get back to those NGOs, but the truth is that gambling does cause a large amount of harm in our society and it causes financial harm often to those families who can least afford to be put under any more financial pressure than what they already are.

We think there is plenty of work that still needs to be done, and we applaud the steps that the Minister has taken thus far, but, as I say, we do think there is more that could be done so we support this legislation with some reservations but a certain amount of hope that there is more action that we will see in the future.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). It was a challenging bill to work on—I sit on the Government Administration Committee. It is actually a three-way balance, because we have the reality that many Kiwis enjoy gambling and do not suffer any harm from it. There is about $700 million a year expended on class 4 machines, but, then again, there is a small group of people who have gambling problems, and who clearly do experience harm as a result of their problems with gambling. But the third arm, if you will, in this balance is in actual fact the good that is returned to the community through class 4 gambling. The amount in 2013 was $246 million returned to local communities for sports and community groups—so for public good within those communities.

As a committee, we had to balance the idea that there is the entertainment aspect, there is the community good, and there is the potential for real harm. The data shows us, which, again, is a challenge in itself, that the percentage of people with genuine problem gambling is about 0.7 of 1 percent. So as a percentage it is not a large group of people, but the reality for that group of people is that the problem is extraordinarily serious and quite wide ranging in its impact not only on them but on their families. The committee worked together to work out how we could bring a bill back to the House that would deliver the things we want it to deliver, particularly around increasing transparency of grant making—sunlight is the best disinfectant—so that we can avoid rorting and distortions. But actually within that, another great part of that is that there are elements in the bill that will ensure that the maximum amount of funds possible will be returned to the local community where the gambling took place. I think that is a fantastic change.

Along with that, we are making sure that we are reducing potential conflict of interest situations with the societies, the venues, and the grant recipients, improving transparency around management companies—that was an area where it was felt that, not to put too fine a point on it, some cost rorting could have been undertaken—and also simplifying compliance and reducing costs.

Here is what I wish to just talk about—this commission payment thing. The Minister has pointed out that this is an area that we want the Department of Internal Affairs to give advice on. But the evidence is that the rates of problem gambling are similar in Australia to what they are here, and yet Australia does permit large amounts of profit, actually, to be made from this sort of gambling. And there are similar rates in places like Britain, Canada, and Sweden. Similarly, Lotto is a commission payment - based system, and there were no reports through our process that that commission-based system was creating any perverse incentives or bad incentives for Lotto operators to seek to extract more money out of gamblers.

Also, because I encouraged them to take an evidence-based approach to their thinking, Professor Bill Abbott, pro vice-chancellor and dean at the Auckland University of Technology, who in his submission said he did not favour a commission-based system, did acknowledge that there is no evidence that provides any causal sort of proof or evidence that a commission system will result in negative incentives. So I do encourage the department to take that into its thinking. But, in the end, what I would say is that I think we have returned a very good bill, a very sensible set of changes to the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call for the Greens on the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). Unfortunately, we will not be supporting this bill. In the first reading of this bill, when it came to the House, we did support this bill to the Government Administration Committee. We supported it to the select committee because without a doubt there are some good things within the bill itself. However, since then there has been no movement from the Government to try to reduce some of the issues or mitigate some of the issues that we raised, and that submitters raised as well, during the select committee process around how this bill and the provisions in it could actually contribute to problem gambling and problem gambling incidences. So for that reason it is impossible for the Greens to support this bill in its final reading.

At the Government Administration Committee we had compelling evidence and compelling submissions from people who were talking about the potential for some of the changes in this bill to create more gambling harm than there currently is. Despite that evidence and despite arguing for changes to the bill during the deliberations in the select committee, and despite me putting up Supplementary Order Papers that would remove that particular provision in the bill—despite all that, we come to the House for the third reading and it is a bill that we cannot support.

We agree with many of the parts of this bill that others have already spoken about. For example, we agree with the aim to increase transparency around grant-making. That is great. We agree with reducing potential conflicts of interest. We think that is also reasonable. We also agree with improving transparency surrounding management companies that provide societies with services—things like grant-making and grant applications. We agree with that. We agree that we should be ensuring that there are efficiencies around the appeal process, and that it is not undermined. These are all parts of the aims of this bill, and we agree with all that. We even agree, to some extent, with the aim that was stipulated in this bill of simplifying compliance and reducing costs for societies and venue operators in some areas.

But this is where the deal-breaker is. Previous speakers—and I refer to my previous speeches—have referred to the fact that this bill amends the Gambling Act of 2003. If we look at what that principal Act is designed to do, and I have spoken about this before, its intentions, its aims, include preventing and minimising harm from gambling, including problem gambling, and also facilitating responsible gambling. But we believe that with this bill, with the removal of the prohibition of commission payments to be paid to venue operators, that cuts right across the aims of the original and principal 2003 Act.

What we have had in the Act since 2003, for all this time, actually, has been that the compensation for venue operators should be based on actual and reasonable costs. That is fair enough. My understanding is that the reason for this is that class 4 gambling in pubs should not be the sole reason for pubs to be open. They are a venue in themselves. They are an entertainment in themselves. The costs that are associated with hosting gambling machines on their premises should be reasonably minimal. I agree that it is fairly complicated—the whole situation of how you assess what is “actual and reasonable costs”. However, the Department of Internal Affairs and the gambling compliance unit have been working for years with the industry, with venue operators, and with gambling societies themselves to attempt to try to simplify and educate the venue operators on ensuring that they are getting paid the right amount for actual and reasonable costs.

If we remove the prohibition on commission-based payments for venue operators, we are changing the focus to potentially a position where it could change the focus for venue operators so that they are more profit-driven around the money that is lost on gambling machines on their premises. There would be an incentive, and I think others have talked about this, for venue operators to not intervene, to not undertake their host responsibility for gamblers who may be experiencing limited control over their gambling at those machines. It makes sense, I guess. If there is an incentive for the venue operators, because they are going to get more money as a result of the profits from the machines, then they will want people to keep gambling, regardless of the state they are in. That cuts right across the Gambling Act of 2003 and the requirements in there for venue operators to be really good hosts—to be able to identify problem gamblers on their site, and to intervene and do something about it.

We already know that many venue operators have got a very poor record around their host responsibility. We know this, and it was talked about a lot during the select committee process. We know this because a year or so ago—a year ago—the Department of Internal Affairs gambling compliance unit undertook a mystery shopper experiment. They visited 102 venues and tested the host responsibility programmes at each of these venues. Essentially, what they did was they had a person play the machines in these venues, and that person would start to exhibit the classic symptoms, the classic traits, of a person who is experiencing problems with their gambling. That was things like the person saying “I really should go home, but I need to win some money back.”, or that person would bang the machine in frustration. So there were 102 venues tested, which is a decent sample. Only one venue passed the test of host responsibility.

There are other provisions in this bill that say we should be rewarding good behaviour by extending licences for venue operators and societies as well. But actually the evidence that we have seen is that the behaviour has not been terribly good so far. Why? I have never got an answer to this. Why would you relax the rules when you have not seen the good behaviour so far? Surely we should be regulating so that people lift their standard of behaviour to where we want it to be before we offer rewards.

This is a lost opportunity, and we are deeply regretful about this. This is a lost opportunity for this Government to have actually put in place some mechanisms in the legislation that would deal to the harmful products that gambling machines are. We have heard previous speakers say that is actually only 0.7 percent of 1 percent of the population who have problems with their gambling. Well, that is actually true of the general population, but the percentage is much, much higher if those people are regular gamblers. We have lost an opportunity to put in some decent legislation to prevent problem-gambling harm. We could have introduced pre-commitment cards and player tracking. We have not done that. What we have done is ensure that more gamblers are harmed.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Sorry, Mr Williamson, I think you might have jumped the queue here a little. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). We are in a position where we want to make it very clear to the people listening and help them understand what our position is. We do not condone any form of liberalisation of gambling. We need to make sure that we have done everything that we can possibly do to tighten up and regulate this sector, this industry, particularly. We cannot actually support this bill as it sits on the Table at the moment, although there are some very amiable qualities within this bill that New Zealand First supports. Listening to some of the speakers and what they have got to say, there have been some very good contributions today and certainly some well-planned discussions on it. We have gone through many of these before.

This bill particularly, though, has come a long way from the first chance that I had to speak on it in the second reading to where it is now. So coming out of the select committee in the second reading and then going through the Committee of the whole House to as it sits on the Table, it is a completely different bill from what we first looked at. Although we still are not supporting this bill, I would like to talk about the main reason why we cannot support it and also to talk about some of the positive things that this bill has in it.

Before I get to that, I think we need to address some of the things that have been brought up in the House about harm minimisation. It is very important to note the trajectory, the way in which we are travelling and tracking downwards in this country in respect of the number of gamblers who are suffering from gambling issues and that harm that we are starting to move into a much more reduced space on. The statistics of the actual gambling community—if that is the right term—show that 0.03 percent of gamblers have a problem with gambling. There is nothing that breaks down what that constitutes—how much of it is actually involved with class 4 gambling, how much of it is involved with the casino, how much is involved with TAB. The elephant in the room now, of course, is online gambling, and then, of course, you have got Lotto and very many other forms of gambling. So to throw stones at an industry that I think is strongly tracking in the right direction is the wrong thing to do.

Nothing—not a single thing—in this piece of legislation, the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), does anything to help problem gamblers, not only with class 4 gambling but least of all to put conditions around the Skycity Casino, which is basically a law unto itself. It has been given an opportunity to print copious amounts of money. There is no openness and no transparency—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): We’re not on casinos.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. To me, that is very hypocritical when we are coming down so hard on class 4 gambling. Every cloud has a silver lining. The silver lining to class 4 gambling in this particular instance is the fact of what it does for our communities in so far as the help that it actually commits—$250 million - odd. That number is coming down—the amount of money that is being given to communities, sporting clubs, cultural clubs, schools, arts clubs, and the plethora of other community groups and organisations and events that use that money to help get those events under way. I do not believe that that is a tax—as was said by Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—on the poor people. The vast majority of people—as we have already outlined and agreed on, on both sides of the floor—actually gamble willingly and have it under control. The position that we hold is that we as a society need to be doing absolutely everything possible as a Government to ensure that we capture and help those people who need the help—which, again, this bill does not particularly address, and I think that is a larger issue—the helplines etc. where somebody can go to actually help themselves get through it.

We have heard of facial recognition technology and pre-commit cards. They have tried player information display systems and PODs in certain outlets to see whether having breaks in between gambling is going to help. The reality is that this will actually help drive the people who like to gamble into those large casinos. This is not going to do anything but shut down some of these small operations. We have heard from the Greens saying that these bars operate with the basis of their business being gambling. Well, that has been long outlawed. That stopped in the early 2000s. If your primary business in a licensed premises was to have gaming machines and secondary was food and alcohol, then, of course, those licences were revoked. Your primary business in licensed premises, whether it be an on-licence or a club, is entertainment, social engagement—having a beer, watching the rugby, catching up with your friends, having a meal, or whatever. Subsequent to that, obviously some of those facilities allow themselves to have a gaming machine room. Of course, that is putting as much money back into our communities for those community groups that need that money the most.

The reason why we cannot support this bill—we put in an amendment at the Committee of the whole House stage, adding section 30A to the bill through Supplementary Order Paper 95. We would like to say that it was close, but we were the only party that actually voted for it. But it was close in so far as there have been some changes already around allowing commission-based payments to licensed premises as being a way of funding it. “Reasonable, actual, and necessary” is an absolutely antiquated, clunky, and ambiguous way of trying to determine how much we are going to pay as a site rental for those premises that choose to have them. The reality is that payments do need to be made. There are costs involved in hosting those machines. There is good that comes out of parts of this sector of the market of class 4 gambling. So we cannot support it because, of course, the ability to charge 1.5 percent of the gross turnover, which is in line with other areas in the gambling sector—TAB and Lotto, for example; it is in line with that—was shot down in the House. So we will not be putting our support into this.

I would like to now just get to a couple of things that New Zealand First does commend within the bill, which I think are very commendable aspects of it, and one of them is openness and transparency. Nobody wants to see behind-door deals with societies and with bar owners or operators or licensed premises and those community groups that are seeking funding. Over the decades, because there has been about 20 years of this going on, there has been a small group of people who have taken advantage of this silver lining in the cloud, if you like, and taken it for their own personal gain, as opposed to what it was designed for. And they have given the industry, in my view, at times a bad name. It has come up a few times and I can certainly give you some specifics. But I am not here to go into those specifics. Most largely, this industry is acting well and truly within the confines of the law and the intent that it was designed to do.

But having it open and transparent, understanding how those grants are allocated, and making sure that there is no degree of separation or any—what is the term that they use—conflicts of interest when those grants have been made I think is a very commendable thing, and certainly well supported by New Zealand First. The simplification in compliance I think is very important, and over the years what I have seen with some of those Department of Internal Affairs inspectors is that the laws have been open to interpretation. And those Department of Internal Affairs officers and inspectors who have come into licensed premises to inspect them have had completely conflicting and differences of opinion from one operator to another and from one Department of Internal Affairs officer to another. So tightening that up, certainly, and simplifying that aspect is going to be a great help to the people who could certainly be affected.

Finally, I will finish by saying that having the improvement in the efficiency for appeals more open and transparent is certainly going to help things as well, and will make this industry more streamlined moving forward into the future. We are very sad to say that we cannot support it. We made our position very, very clear at the start, with regards to the 1.5 percent commission payments for site operators. That was certainly not an over-the-top figure but one that we thought was balanced and certainly was easy to figure out. But in saying that, our support does not go with this bill. We support a majority of what is in it. Thank you.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): Can I start by first of all thanking our whips for giving me another slot in the drive time audience show, because people will be listening quite intently. I can tell them that all is flowing well on the south-eastern arterial and the Pakuranga Highway and you will be home within another half an hour to an hour. I feel a little bit like Selena off Breakfast on TV. I have got the iPad in my hand and I am giving them traffic updates—but back to the bill.

I am not going to take a long time on the bill because it seems like it is a pretty sensible bill. It seems like it is something that was overdue to be sorted out to improve transparency. I will just explain to the drive time audience what this is about. It is about class 4 gambling. If you check on 10 people at random down on Lambton Quay, they will not know what that means. It is just to do with the pokie machines in pubs and clubs. We give them that fancy name of “class 4”. It is about the fact that there is money earned from those machines and then how it gets back to be distributed to community groups and organisations. I guess that every one of us could imagine just how murky and even how corrupt that process could get if there were not some really good sets of rules around it.

So the Government has got a really important primary focus in any of the gambling legislation, which is to make sure that the Gambling Act is working properly for both operators and for the benefit of the community and that we are minimising any harm to people in terms of the problem-gambling side of it. So what this bill does is it increases the transparency that is in the regime that will be there. So as money is collected from these machines and then redistributed back through to the community, it will be a very, very transparent process, and anyone who wants to—including enforcement agencies—can go and check on those numbers and see what is happening. It should reduce the potential of conflicts of interest situations between class 4 gambling operators—which are the societies, as we call them—and the venues and the grant recipients. Again, you want to make sure that there is not someone who has got that conflict of interest and who benefits substantially by also being the provider of the gambling outlets. It improves transparency surrounding management companies that provide societies with services. It simplifies compliance and reduces costs for those societies and the venue operators—and that could only be good, if we make it as simple as we can make it—and it ensures that the efficiency of the appeals process is not undermined. I think that is all I want to say about the bill. I think it is a damned good bill and I commend it to the House.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): In 1996, I think it was—it could have been 1997—I was working as an independent consultant, and I was commissioned by the Northern Regional Health Authority on behalf of the national Committee on Problem Gambling Management to undertake some qualitative research as to what health services would be required for the health sector to be able to deal with problem gambling. Responsibility at that time was shifting to the health sector. So the health sector reasonably wanted to know what it was going to cost and what it needed to do. I spoke to the providers of gaming services, as they call themselves—“gambling services”, I would say. I spoke to regulators and the Department of Internal Affairs. I vividly recall opening the lift door on to an open-plan office, where the Department of Internal Affairs inspectors were all housed. On every single computer screen that I could see, someone was playing solitaire—literally 20 or 30 of them.

I spoke to the people who provided treatment services for people with problem gambling addiction, and I spoke to those people themselves and to their families, and I recorded what was pretty much a miserable tale of devastation in people’s lives. The Committee on Problem Gambling Management, interestingly, was not very happy with my report, because I suggested that the cost of providing those services—the services those people needed—would be very considerable.

The problem of problem gambling is now better quantified than it was then. So we know, for example, that category 4 was not really a problem back in 1996, but in the year to September last year people lost in excess of $800 million on pokie machines. I used to run a district health board. The budget for my district health board was $120 million. So the budgets of five or six district health boards were lost on pokie machines. That is extraordinary. We also know from the estimates made by treatment providers and public health experts that something like 40 percent of those losses are from people with very little control over their gambling behaviour—so the budgets, as I say, of a couple of district health boards.

The pokie machines—category 4 gambling—are designed to exploit that weakness. They are designed to exploit the weakness of people with little or no control over their gambling behaviour. Pokie machines are designed to provide that intermittent reinforcement and to give the sense of something mechanical actually happening when, of course, it is not. The operators of those machines have designed a science, in fact, of encouraging problem gambling behaviour and maximising the losses that those people will sustain. We know what to do about it. We know that pre-commitment cards, for example, would make a difference. We know that real-time player tracking would make a difference. We know that adequately funding effective short-term intervention treatment services would make a difference. And yet, time and again, when the opportunity has arisen in this House to make a difference to improve the lives of those people afflicted by problem gambling and to actually do something that would make a difference, this House has chosen not to do it. It seems extraordinary to me that that is the decision that we have made, but we have.

In the first reading debate we said that we would not support this bill at subsequent stages if it continued to revoke the prohibition on paying venue operators by commission. That provision is still in the bill, and, despite the Government’s bluster, the fact is that commission will provide incentives to increase problem-gambling behaviour. This bill makes problem gambling worse, not better. We will not support it.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Fakauelahi. Fakalofa atu ki a mutolu oti. Kia ora tātau katoa, ka noho ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori, ko te take o tēnā, ko te hiahia ki roto i a au nei ki te whakahihiko i tēnā, i tēnā, o koutou e whakarongo mai ana. Nō reira, ka noho ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori me te hiahia kia kōrero ki tēnei pire e pā ana ki te mahi petipeti. Anā ko te mahi petipeti, kua kōrero nei te Whare mō ngā tino mate kai roto i tēnei mahi. Kua kōrero mai te mema mō te Rōpū Kākāriki i tēnei take. He nui ngā painga kei roto, he nui ngā hara kei roto.

I āianei nā ka tiro atu ahau ki te pire, ka mihi atu ahau ki te Minita me tōna hiahia ki te whakatika i tēnei tū āhuatanga. Ka tautoko ahau i ngā kōrero o tōku hoa nei, ā, me te mahi i oti i a ia ki runga i te rōpū whiriwhiri i tēnei take. Ko tēnei take, he take ka pāngia ki roto i tōku rohe nei o Tāmaki Makaurau, ā, ki roto i ngā kōrero o tōku kāinga, anā ka tau ki roto i Te Tonga o Tāmaki. Nō reira, he take tino nui tēnei.

Anā ka whakaaro ake ahau mō ētahi o ngā kōrero. Ka tautoko ahau i te kōrero e mea atu ana: “Ka kōataata ngā mahi o tēnei pire.” Ko te tikanga o tērā kōrero, ko te hiahia kua kōrero nei te Whare mō te rahi o te pūtea ka whakapaua ki runga i tēnei momo mahi, arā, te mahi petipeti. Ko te hiahia kia kōataata te titiro atu o te hunga o Aotearoa nei ki ngā mahi pūtea ka uru atu ki roto i ngā mahi petipeti, ka mutu, ka tohaina atu ki ngā rohe, ka tohaina atu ki ngā hapori me ngā kaupapa pai kei roto i te hapori. Nō reira, e tika ana ka mihi atu ki tēnei wāhanga ki roto i te pire kia kōataata nei te tirotiro ki ngā take.

Anā ka huri te whakaaro ki ngā mahi tohaina e mea nei te pire, ko ngā mahi tohaina i te pūtea ki ngā hapori, ki ngā kaupapa o te hapori. Kua kōrero mai te Whare mō ētahi o ngā take e pā ana ki tērā, wētahi i roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. Ka mea mai wētahi, anā, ko te nuinga o te kōnae pūtea ka tomohia ki roto i Te Tonga o Tāmaki ēngari, ko ōna pūtea kei roto ka toahina atu ki wāhi kē. He tino raruraru tērā! Nō reira, i āianei nā ka tiro atu ahau ki roto i te pire, ka whakatikatika i tērā atu āhuatanga. He mea pai tēnā, ā, kia hoki atu te pūtea ki ngā hapori. Koinā te mea pai o tēnei pire. Nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā tū āhuatanga.

Anā, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki wētahi o ngā āwangawanga kei roto i a mātau o te Rōpū Reipa ahakoa tō mātau tautoko i tēnei pire. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki wētahi o ngā āwangawanga kei a mātau. Ko tētahi nā, kua kōrero mai te Whare nei mō te rāhui mō ngā tāngata kei a rātau wēnei mīhini petipeti nei. He tino take tērā ki a mātau! Ēngari, ka tautoko ahau i te whakatau o te Minita e mea atu ana āianei ka tino aro haehae i ngā mahi petipeti whānui, nē, kia tiro atu ki te pikitia whānui nei. Ā, nō reira, ka mihi atu ahau ki tērā āhuatanga ēngari, kei roto tonu te āwangawanga i a mātau. Nō reira, i roto i te roanga ake o tēnei kaupapa, ka āta tirotiro, ka aro haehae mātou i taua take. Me tā matau tono atu ki te Minita, anei hoki te Rōpū Reipa me te hiahia kia āwhina atu i a ia i tōna mahi aro haehae i tēnei take.

Hai whakakapi ake, ka mihi atu ahau ki te rōpū whiriwhiri, nā rātau te kiko o tēnei pire i whakarite, ā, ka whakaaro ake ahau mō te pūtake o tēnei pire nā mātau nā te Rōpū Reipa i whakarite i te tau 2003, nō reira i āianei ka whakatikatika i wētahi o ngā tū āhuatanga. Ka whakaae mātau, tēnā koe.

[Greetings to us all. I will remain speaking in the Māori language, the reason being that I really want to energise each and every one of you listening in. And so, I will remain speaking in Māori, as I want to address this bill relating to gambling. Now, as far as gambling is concerned, the House has commented on the real problems in this practice. The member for the Green Party has spoken to us about this matter. There are many benefits and faults in it.

And now I look at the bill and commend the Minister of Internal Affairs for his desire to amend this type of situation. I endorse the sentiments by my colleague here and what he accomplished on the Government Administration Committee, which considered this matter. This issue impacts upon this Tāmaki Makaurau electorate of mine and the conversations in my home and the discourse in South Auckland. Therefore, this is a serious issue.

So I reflect on some of the contributions. I endorse the discourse that states: “Practices of this bill will be transparent.” The meaning of that reflects the desire that this House commented on about the size of the funding spent on this kind of activity—gambling. There is a desire that those here in New Zealand be transparent when examining funding practices that are entered into in terms of gambling activities, and, furthermore, when distributed to regions, communities, and worthy projects in the community. Therefore, it is apt that I commend this part in the bill, in that the examination of issues is transparent.

The thinking turns now to distribution practices advocated by the bill—to those related to distributing funds to communities and to community projects. The House has spoken about issues related to that in years gone by. Some told us of other issues concerning the funding package loaned out in South Auckland but where the funding in it was distributed elsewhere. That is a very contentious issue! So I examine the bill right now, to amend that kind of situation. That is a good thing; it enables funding to go back to communities. That is one of the advantages of this bill. And so, I commend that sort of situation.

I reflect now on some of the concerns within us, the Labour Party, despite our support of this bill. I give due thought to some concerns of ours. One such is a restriction that this House related to us that will affect individuals who own betting machines. That is an issue of most concern to us. But I support the ruling of the Minister, which states that general betting practices will be critically discerned forthwith, when looking at this bigger picture—right? And so, I commend that kind of situation, but the concern still remains within us. Therefore, as this policy extends further, we will carefully examine and critically discern that matter. And we will request and say to the Minister that here is the Labour Party with its desire to assist him in his critical discernment of this matter.

In conclusion, I pay a tribute to the select committee that considered the content of this bill. I spare a thought for the origins of this bill, which we, the Labour Party, considered in the year 2003, so, in the meantime, some aspects will be amended. We are in favour. Thank you.]

JONO NAYLOR (National): If I can pick up very briefly on where my colleague Maurice Williamson left off giving the traffic update, only to say that in Palmerston North rush hour is always seen as a positive thing, because you actually get to hear the end of the song that you were listening to on the radio before you get home. That is not something that you usually manage to do when commuting in Palmerston North. But I will just come back to the bill, of course, because I am sure that if I do not do so quickly, you will bring me back on track very quickly, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Over the years, in terms of my dealings—whether it be through local government or in this realm—where there has been talk about class 4 gambling or pokies or otherwise, there have been three things in particular that people have brought to my attention. The first one has been issues around problem gambling, and that has been talked about a little bit this afternoon as well. The two other things that people really talk to me about are their concerns about whether or not the funds that are being spent locally on pokie machines are going back locally, in terms of the returns back to the community and community organisations, and whether or not operators are in fact skimming, if you like, more off the profits or profiteering in some way from these machines when in fact they are only ever supposed to get a cost recovery regime through the process of operating these machines in their venues.

I think this bill does some good work in ensuring this and giving some confidence and transparency to communities that where money has been spent on gaming machines in their locality, the returns from that will go back to those communities. I think that is a really critical factor. One of the big criticisms of this source of funding in the past is that it has been brought together in one lump and then sent into different communities. As other speakers have said, often the money has been taken from communities that cannot necessarily afford it or otherwise, so it is appropriate that the money and the proceeds from these gaming machines do go back into those communities. So I commend the Minister of Internal Affairs, Peter Dunne, and the Government Administration Committee for ensuring that that happens through this process.

Of course, the other concern is about having a greater level of transparency and accountability for the operators to ensure that they are not using this as a form of income for themselves. I do recognise that for some people it is an entertainment that they engage in while they are in a licensed premise, but the purpose of these machines is not for operators to make significant profits. The increased accountability and transparency in this bill around class 4 gambling is, I think, going to be a positive thing going forward. I am happy to support this bill at its third reading. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is my pleasure to speak on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) in this, its third reading. I would firstly like to acknowledge my colleagues who sat on the Government Administration Committee, Adrian Rurawhe and the Hon Ruth Dyson, and other members on that committee, who seem to have progressed through the passage of this legislation in a really constructive manner. So I want to acknowledge the select committee. I also want to acknowledge members of the public who took the opportunity to make submissions on this piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that actually is incredibly emotional, because some of the consequences to families and communities from gambling are not very nice.

With my colleague Su’a William Sio in the House, I also want to acknowledge that for Manukau we have led the way in terms of responding to the consequences of gambling, through sinking-lid policies that our council implemented in 2004. We know, and have known, that in South Auckland, since pokie machines arrived here in 1991, actually the consequences on some of our communities specifically were felt disproportionately.

What I would like to share, actually, is an average spend in terms of some of our ethnic communities. This is quite startling. On average, per annum, a Pasifika person spends $13,468 on gambling, a Pākehā New Zealander spends $1,761, and a Māori New Zealander spends $2,829. So as a representative of Manurewa, as a representative of South Auckland, I just want to acknowledge the detrimental impact of gambling on our Pasifika community. I also want to acknowledge the work that our Pasifika communities are undertaking to combat some of those consequences. It has been quite interesting for me to read through some of the information related to the impact of gambling, because our Pasifika refuges have actually highlighted that it is one of the main reasons that women are entering refuges—because they are coming from homes where the stress associated with gambling is forcing them to have to flee those homes and seek help.

Our position on this legislation is that we support it, and we support it because, at the end of the day, gambling has been around since 2300 BC. It actually originated—from what I have been able to read—from China. In fact, it involved dice and cards, but, fundamentally, people have engaged in gambling pursuits because they find it fun—it is entertaining. I guess, as a society, what we are always having to balance is the entertainment of gambling versus the disease and addiction that gambling actually is. Whether we like it or not, there are some people who gamble who actually end up having a disease that is incredibly hard to control.

In New Zealand, gambling is a $2 billion - plus industry. There are four types of gambling that we have in New Zealand: racing, lotteries, gambling machines—which are these class 4 gambling or pokie machines that this bill is trying to address—and casinos. What I want to say about the context of our class 4 sector is that it is not-for-profit. A lot of money that is reinvested back into the community from trusts like the Trillian Trust—I will use an example from my community—actually comes through pokie revenue.

So I also want to acknowledge that what this bill is hoping to do is to ensure that the gambling moneys that come out of specific communities are reinvested back into those specific communities. I guess the basic principle is that people are going to gamble—we cannot stop them—and if they are going to gamble, we want to make sure that money that is taken out of that community is reinvested back into those specific communities. We think there is an opportunity through this piece of legislation for that to occur, and that is one of the reasons that we are supporting it.

I would like to highlight, however, and in consultation with my colleague Adrian Rurawhe, that there was a proposition that there should be a pre-commitment system whereby players can set their own limits on duration, frequency, and losses from gambling, so that people can take some responsibility for trying to moderate how they engage in this issue. I think that the reasons people gamble actually can be quite complicated because they are to do with how people get behaviourally conditioned. There is an emotional response to gambling, and so some people gamble to escape their lives. They gamble because it is an opportunity for them to make themselves feel better about their circumstances. So gambling is associated with, I guess, depression, with mental health, and with a whole lot of other issues. I think my colleague Kevin Hague really highlighted that in his contribution—that that is the biggest challenge.

So what we know in New Zealand is that, of the problem gamblers, 80 percent of them are actually problem gamblers because they use pokie machines. So it is incredibly relevant that we do focus also on harm minimisation and the options and opportunities that this piece of legislation also balances—balancing the right of individuals and communities to have access to this entertainment but also acknowledging that, through access, there actually are consequences, and it is society’s responsibility to provide those individuals with the help that they need, if they are addicts. Because it is a disease—gambling is a disease; it is a medical condition. I think that people fail to recognise that. They just think that people choose to be gamblers, but if it is a disease, actually you do not choose it.

So some of the information that I have managed to find out is that in terms of the addiction research—and any research into gambling is framed around addition—that 50 percent of gambling addiction is predisposed and the other 50 percent is people who have poor coping skills. If you have got poor coping skills—if you do not feel good about yourself—and then you gamble to make yourself feel better, what it really means, underlying all of this, is that we as a society have to help people who have that disposition, because they have a disease.

So I do not think that this bill has adequately addressed the issue of gambling as a disease. But, in saying that, I think our balance in terms of deciding to support this legislation was that the changes that this legislation is going to enable do contribute to ensuring that communities are not adversely affected as much as they have been in the past, through the lack of specific reinvestment back into those communities from the moneys that have been taken out. I think that there is more to do in this area, and I know that my colleague Adrian Rurawhe is particularly interested in it.

I think that we can do more as a society to help gamblers who have a disease and who are addicted to gambling. I think that we have got some particular challenges in this space. Essentially, there is advertising—the Government is also a contributor to gambling because we have a Lotteries Commission that promotes gambling through the purchasing of Lotto tickets. So we do have an environment that encourages gambling as a norm. So, because we do that, as I said earlier, I think it is also incumbent on us to make sure that anybody who needs help has access to that help. Kia ora.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). I am not on the select committee that considered this bill, the Government Administration Committee, so it is a great opportunity for me to be able to speak on its third reading. For some, gambling is fine—it is a leisure activity, as we heard—but for others, it becomes a problem that leads to numerous negative consequences. The services for problem gambling are funded through a levy collected from various gambling operators. This levy is collected from the profit of the four main gambling operators, which are machines and pokie machines in bars and pubs, casinos, the New Zealand Racing Board, and the New Zealand Lotteries Commission. This bill is to mainly bring changes around machines and pokie machines in bars and pubs.

We know that gambling leads to devastating effects, and this National Government is really keen on reducing the harm that is caused by gambling. Harm minimisation is one of the priorities of this National Government. This bill has additional harm minimisation regulation-making powers that may offer the opportunity to introduce additional well-targeted interventions in the future. This National Government is also very keen to see that the Gambling Act is properly enforced—that is, for the money that is raised through gambling to be put back into the community, because the policy framework of the Gambling Act is that the money raised through gambling should be put back into the community.

This bill is to bring changes around class 4 gambling, and this bill is also to simplify the way societies pay pubs and bars for hosting gambling machines, and also to ensure that, as far as possible, the maximum amount of money raised is put back into the local community where gaming occurs. It is a great bill, I support this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 91

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 30; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 28

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

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 93, Noes 28.

Bills

Standards and Accreditation Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 13 October.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): New Zealand First supported this bill through its first reading. It was described to us so eloquently, as a lot of these recent bills from the National Government are. Its description was wonderful; its intent was very positive. Apparently, there were some issues to tidy up. The reality is—and, unfortunately, I seem to be saying this quite often now—that what you get told and what is actually in a bill seem to be two very different things. Sometimes these bills do not quite reach that wonderful objective, and at other times they are actually completely contradictory. And I think, when we speak about the Standards and Accreditation Bill, we see an almost contradictory intent with regard to the content of the legislation itself.

So, firstly, it is highly important to note today that, at the time that this bill was brought to the House, obviously the Government went into consultation. It went to its ministry, and the ministry came back and said that its findings showed that the infrastructure relating to standards and accreditation was basically sound. And, further, the discussion document released by the ministry had no actual submissions. It did not speak about the governance arrangements, which were, apparently, such an issue for the Government at the time, and the two Crown entities in charge of the standards and accreditation communicated well and got on with the business in front of them in a good and timely fashion. The Government asked the question, and silence was their answer. Silence is golden, but there was nothing wrong with the legislation, so the Government needed to take that on board. But, no, after a resounding snub to the discussion document, this Government, yet again, decided to fix the proverbial out of something that was not broken.

What New Zealand First hopes for when we support legislation through to a select committee, as was the case in this instance, is that experts and those concerned citizens of New Zealand can make an informed contribution to the discussion so that the Government and the members opposite can take heed and learn from the experts. Unfortunately, that was most definitively not the case. This Government did not listen to the experts. It did not listen to prudent counsel. So—I said it in my second reading speech, and I will say it again—this feels like a waste of the House’s time. It does not achieve what it said it would, and, in consultation with experts who told the Government it would not achieve what it said it would, then it just—well, it is unfortunate; that is a very nice way of putting it.

What was highlighted very quickly in the submissions process was that many submitters spoke about the lack of sufficient detail provided in the consultation process, so that they were not actually able to make truly informed decisions. They suggested this lack of detail would undermine the confidence that they and our trading partners need in order to undertake business in a sound and reasonable fashion. So what they were saying to the committee was that, actually, what you are doing is undermining existing standards and accreditation. You are confusing the issue—you are mixing it up—and you are actually taking a backwards step in terms of confidence in our system. National speaks about being the party of business in New Zealand, but business has told National that that lack of confidence will undermine that process.

We even had feedback from our Australian counterpart, and they said: “Don’t do this. It will confuse the issue, and you will create that level of confusion.” When you are talking about standards and accreditation, consistency and clarity and easy access to the information are absolutely essential, and this, New Zealand First asserts—and we do so in consultation with experts—is, again, a backwards step.

Another upsetting precedent is that more and more submissions are made on the basis and presumption that the Government will pass the legislation anyway. What we found and what we saw were submitters coming to the Commerce Committee literally saying: “Look, don’t do this—but we think you’re going to do it anyway, so because we think you’re going to do it anyway, this is what we think you should do to mitigate the mess that you’re creating.” It is just unreasonable, it is unfair, and it makes a mockery of the process. It is supposed to be consultative. We are supposed to be listening to the people of New Zealand, and our advisers and members opposite, and the Ministers, are supposed to be taking this information on board, but the cynicism with which people came forward was, to be honest, disappointing and disheartening.

So earnest people in organisations made submissions to the select committee on the Standards and Accreditation Bill knowing full well that the Government would ignore what they had to say. So we have come to this stage. I repeat: New Zealand First supported this bill through the first reading, but we have come to this stage and we have learnt without doubt, without issue, of the facts that the experts were not listened to, and no good information that was passed on to the committee was taken on board. I acknowledge that someone from the Labour Party did acknowledge that there were a few issues acknowledged by the committee, and an attempt was made to fix the issues identified, but the reality is that the committee fell very well short of the mark.

So I have had time to touch on only a few of New Zealand First’s concerns about the issues raised by submitters. This Government is undermining and compromising what to date has been an internationally recognised standards and accreditation process. The Government is taking New Zealand backwards. Further, we continue to be concerned about statements made within the regulatory impact statement that if these new bodies sat within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, then we would be cost saving, apparently. It has been spoken about a few times. Yet again, lyrics on a song sheet—it sounds good, but the reality is Mr Joyce’s superministry has not really achieved any of the synergies that were promised in terms of cost savings and efficiencies.

So there is no upside to this legislation, and, in fact, it takes New Zealand backwards in a very—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Two senior members behave themselves. Just behave yourselves.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: And in a timely fashion, that is my contribution for this evening. Thank you very much.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): With apologies to the House for stepping out at a very injudicious moment, I seek leave to correct the number of votes cast on behalf of the Labour Party on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) to 30 votes in favour.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave is sought to that effect. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That will be done. So I will just redeclare the result: the result is now Ayes 91, Noes 28. Thank you very much. It will be read a third time still, and it has already been, so we will not do that again.

Bills

Standards and Accreditation Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you so much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Gosh, I worked hard for that—we do not want to give it away, do we? This bill is actually a really good bill. I sat on the select committee that dealt with the Standards and Accreditation Bill, the Commerce Committee, and I must say I thought “Oh, dear. This is going to be deathly dull.”, but it was not; it was really interesting.

This year I have actually looked at quite a lot of the standards around building and all sorts of other things—around gases and things—for my university work, and I would say to that member who has just resumed his seat, Fletcher Tabuteau, that standards are actually not easy to access. You have got to be able to pay for them. They are quite hard to access, and one of the big problems we have got at the moment is that quite a lot of the work for standards is behind the times.

So what we know, for instance, is that testing in a laboratory accredited by the Testing Laboratory Registration Council is now a requirement for more than $20 billion of New Zealand’s exports. We have a tremendous requirement for our exporters to be able to get the accreditations that they need as quickly as possible, because they are in a market that can move very fast and can move away from another product. It is not easy. Standards New Zealand at the moment is too slow. It does a great job, but we need to give it some help, and this is what this bill is really designed to do. Thank you.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): As you have heard, Labour opposes this bill, but let me outline the reasons why I am not a big fan of this bill at all. The main reason is that New Zealand has developed what I believe is an enviable global reputation for quality—for standards. It is what we go out to the world with, and we actually saw what happened when New Zealand’s reputation was tarnished, and the potential impact it had, when there was an issue with Fonterra. We heard that there might have been contamination, and, in fact, at that point in time, if you had read the media, you could have believed that, in China at least, the chief executive officer of Fonterra was actually more important or more powerful than the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

The Prime Minister of New Zealand went over there and he tried to allay the fears and say that New Zealand has good quality standards, that we are doing what we need to do well, and that we hold ourselves up to global benchmarks. The chief executive officer of Fonterra went over there and he actually was responsible for putting out the fires that could have cost this country literally billions of dollars. This is why I say that the way we implement standards in this country, or our standards regime, is absolutely vital to maintaining our global competitive advantage around our “clean, green” and “100% Pure” brands. What I would say is that this is all about perception, and when we have a standards authority that is not perceived to be independent, we run the risk of tarnishing that reputation, because overseas investors or overseas markets will look at our country and say: “Goodness me. We cannot necessarily trust the fact that a lack of independence is going to deliver the sorts of outcomes that our market needs to see.”

I am not saying by any stretch of the imagination that the people who will be in charge of the standards regime are going to be incompetent, at all. In fact, they will probably be highly competent. But the fact that they are actually appointed by the Minister and come under the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment umbrella just sends the wrong signal. You know, when you are a member of Parliament what you have to do in areas where you do not have a level of competency is you have to take advice from people who do. This is why the select committee process is so valuable, because we get a number of experts who come along and they voice their opinion, and they say: “This is what is wrong, this is what is right, and this is how to make legislation better.”

The thing that concerns me is that it appears that the select committee listened to a whole raft of experts who said independence is vital to maintain our international credibility and our international integrity, but the select committee did not do anything that put this into effect. This is why I have real concerns about this, and it is why the Labour Party continues to have reservations about this bill in its current form. We already have a great reputation in terms of our global standards, but it did need updating. I do not think there was any debate about that, but we could have done it in a way that maintained our international credibility because if we lose that, if we lose our international credibility and our integrity is slowly chipped away, then what we become is simply another small economy selling commodities into a shrinking global market. We begin to lose the value or the premium that our products currently get, and that is a really, really dangerous road that might be taken.

I am not saying by any stretch of the imagination that this will in effect do that overnight. All I am saying is that when we go out to global markets with our New Zealand brand, there are a whole lot of brand attributes underneath the big New Zealand “clean, green” and “100% Pure” brands that we take to the market. One of those brands is that we know what we are doing, we have independence, and you can trust our products. If it has “New Zealand” on the can, if it has “New Zealand” on the packet, then it will be 100 percent right. [Bell rung] Is that my 5 minutes up, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is your 1-minute to go bell—it is a 10-minute speech, normally—and you get a bell at 4 minutes.

STUART NASH: The thing that concerns me is that we need that brand to maintain that brand integrity, and one of those brand attributes is the fact that we have world-class standards, that we benchmark ourselves, and that you can trust us and trust our brand. You erode that trust and all it does is it just takes the shine off the brand just a little bit, and I think that is what this piece of legislation does. Taking this within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, by removing that perception of independence, I just do not think is the way forward in the 21st century. This is why we oppose this bill, and this is why we have major reservations about this piece of legislation. Thank you very much.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to support this bill. I sat on the Commerce Committee as we considered this. Although I understand the reservations being put forward by the Opposition, I think that for me they are more rhetoric than real. I think other speakers before me have well articulated the issues from the Government’s side in terms of why we support it, and I look forward to it passing its third reading this evening. Thank you very much.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I am pleased to take a call in the dead of the afternoon for the end of this third reading on the Standards and Accreditation Bill to say that Labour utterly and completely opposes it. This bill is a walking, talking oxymoron of a piece of legislation. The reason for this is that it does precisely the opposite of what good standards legislation should do, because what is required in the field of standards is that the standards are both high—and seen to be high—and trusted because of an independent external validator. What this ridiculous piece of legislation does—and it really is a joke, and I will come on to more about why—is it takes an independent, external body and it collapses it within Steven Joyce’s fiefdom. It puts it under direct ministerial control within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. What a ridiculous backwards step.

Does it matter? Firstly, it matters because the world will not trust it—I think Mr Nash has well expressed that. Secondly, it cannot hope to be independent, because we all know the Minister concerned is a recidivist micro-manager—a recidivist micro-manager. Nothing that he turns his gaze to escapes his attention, except for the fact that he does not do strategy, and that is obvious. But standards will not be independent within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, full stop.

Now let us take a fiscal quasi-example, because the material that this will be considering will not be strictly fiscal in nature, but just suppose they were called upon to validate Budget numbers, and a Budget came forward that purported to show a surplus somewhat smaller than the transfer of funds out of an earthquake fund.

Simon O’Connor: What’s this got to do with the bill?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: My point is that if it is the pet of the Minister, the ministry will not call the rort—and that has happened today. We find out that the Government’s fiscal surplus is a surplus in name only; it is actually a transfer back out of an earthquake fund—shame. And it is lovely to see the Minister concerned paying such close attention in the House, because everyone knows his day in the sun was short-lived. [Interruption] Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, I take the point.

The second reason that this bill is a joke is that it has taken since 2008 to get it here.

Su’a William Sio: How long?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Since 2008. We are so very lucky that it is still 10 to 6 on a Thursday afternoon, just before the House rises, because it might just sneak through. I cannot imagine a Government giving a lower priority to any piece of legislation than the National “lost in the maze” Government has given to this piece of standards-setting legislation. It is not only flawed in its absolute foundation, it is not only badly written, but it is an absolute piece of collateral damage on the Government’s road to perdition. It has just snuck under the bar. I do not know what is worse: the fact that it is such bad law or the fact that it has only just got round to it in 7 long years. It has taken the Government as long to pass this bill as it has taken it to find a way to concoct a fiscal surplus. This is no more credible than the so-called surplus the Government unveiled yesterday.

It is not credible to have a standards setting and validating organisation that is not independent of the Minister whose regulations it is supposed to be scrutinising. Sensitive to that fatal flaw, the Government has written the word “independent” over the statutory officer. The word is there; the deed cannot be there, because it is located within a Government department, not its own protected Crown entity, which is how it was.

As if it does not add insult to injury, New Zealand’s standards system has been regarded as an international benchmark. Thus this oxymoronic law fails Murphy’s third test. Mr Assistant Speaker, you are an expert on the Standing Orders and I am sure Murphy’s Law has not escaped you: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This was not broke in the first place, so this Government has wrecked New Zealand’s standards system. It is the slowest motion legislative train wreck this House has seen in—well, at least a week. It has taken the Government 7 years to get a bill to the House that ruins the standards system. It is unbelievable. Members opposite all—I cannot name the number—are hanging their heads in shame. They are hanging their heads in shame, other than the apprentice junior whip, who is holding hers up because she is paid to.

Other than that, they know what we all know—that this is a very sad state. The once-promising National Government—remember Building a Brighter Future? It has come to this. After 7 years it has come to the third reading of the oxymoronic Standards and Accreditation Bill. The only reason we are debating this is that they had to fill up the Order Paper with something. You can imagine them sitting around in Bill English’s office in the morning, because he chairs procedures—setting the standards.

Goodness me—the Minister of Corrections looks about as excited about this as attending a cocktail party at Serco. Right? He is about as excited about this as serving another term as Minister of Corrections. But do not worry, Sam. It is not going to happen. It is a one-off. Imagine if Serco had been put through an independent standards body before it got to run Mt Eden prison—otherwise known as the jungle. Do you know why it is called the jungle, Minister? It is because it has animals in it. Do you know what the prison guards do when prisoners are naughty? They send the naughty ones into the jungle, so they can get beaten to a pulp by the animals, also known as the Headhunters. That is how that place works.

But I will come back to the bill that you are picking up, Mr Assistant Speaker. Entertaining as that story is, you have to admit it is a breach of the most fundamental standards, and well it is that the Minister is hanging his head in shame—shame, shame. Shame on him, shame on National—shame on National, above all. At 5 to 6 on a dead Thursday, shame on National for occupying the Government benches. They are a party out of ideas. This is it—probably the very last idea. It has taken the Government 7 years to pass this Standards and Accreditation Bill that wrecks the standards system. We must be in the bottom drawer of this purgatory that we call the National Government. [Bell rung] I have 2 minutes to underline the fundamental problem with this bill. It is nonsense. We had a world-leading standards system that other countries held up as a model of best practice, and that the Australian standards body was happy to align with. There is a real risk that Australia will not deal with New Zealand now, because of this fundamentally ruined piece of law.

Su’a William Sio: The Minister of Corrections is smiling. He agrees with you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: He does. This bill may be right up there with the other things that are going to sour the sauerkraut and the smoked salmon when John Key meets Malcolm Turnbull. Right? This will sour the sauerkraut because this is a little irritant. The Australian standards setting body was hand in glove with the New Zealand body until this turned up.

The question is: why? This is actually quite a perplexing mystery. Why would the National Government waste the House’s time, waste the public’s time, with something that makes the standards system worse, and that is annoying our nearest neighbour so much that it is throwing New Zealanders into Gulags? Sad, but true. What an outrage that is, for the record. What an outrage that Australia is doing that to New Zealanders, tempting as it is. What kind of standards authority does it put that law through? One can only wonder where the Anzac tradition has gone—into the toilet.

For 7 long years the National Party has been dredging up the most ridiculous, most boring, most failed law it can find—

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

JONO NAYLOR (National): That is 10 minutes we will never get back, is it not? But anyway, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Standards and Accreditation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 30; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.