Thursday, 19 November 2015

THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2015

THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Next week the House is in a 1-week adjournment, when members will be catching up on select committee work and matters in their constituencies prior to Christmas. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 1 December the Government intends to make progress on the Support for Children in Hardship Bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16, Research and Development, and Remedial Matters) Bill, and other bills in Committee on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

District Health Boards—Funding and Inflation

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What pressures are facing the public health workforce as a result of this Government’s decision to fund core Crown health expenditure to cover “most, but not all, inflationary pressures”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): There is always a wide range of pressures in the health system, which is why we have increased Vote Health by $4.1 billion over our 7 years in Government. One of the pressures facing the public health workforce is the need to constantly fact-check assertions made by a prominent public figure, including the false claim that access to—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a primary question on notice. The Minister has given an answer to it. It is quite clear where he is going with the second part of his answer. It is the same place he went with every answer yesterday, Mr Speaker, and it brings the House into disrepute, as well as encouraging disorder.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member may be right as to where the answer is going. At this stage I cannot tell, but if the Minister is using it to simply attack a member of the Opposition, I will take a very dim view of that answer. An answer can be given, but the opportunity to attack a member of the Opposition is not necessary in the answer. Does the Minister wish to continue his answer?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, one of the pressures is the ongoing need to waste valuable front-line time checking false assertions. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We just need less interjection from both sides.

Hon Annette King: Does it alarm him that by not covering all inflationary pressures, as he has admitted in this House, huge pressure is being put on staff like senior doctors and dentists, with 75 percent of those surveyed, in a study released today, turning up to work with infectious illnesses, so as to not—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Hon Annette King: —burden colleagues or because of a lack of cover?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There are about four questions there, but the key point is that, actually, this year inflation is running at 0.4 percent and we are funding inflation at 0.6 percent, so the funding is actually now ahead of inflation.

Hon Annette King: What was his reaction to the September 2015 Auckland District Health Board staff survey results, showing 69 percent of respondents believe the message they are getting from the organisation is that achieving volumes, targets, and budgets is more important than staff well-being and the quality of the work environment?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: My reaction was to go and check the facts.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the said survey. I point the Minister to page—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need to do that. [Interruption] Order! There is no need to do that part. The member can seek leave to table the survey. I just need the date of it, and I will put the leave.

Hon Annette King: Yes, the date of it is September 2015—Auckland District Health Board Care Capacity Demand Management Programme discovery report, page 10.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. I will put the leave. [Interruption] Order! I need to put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular staff survey. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Marama Fox: Does the Minister understand that amongst New Zealanders aged 50 to 64 years, Māori are approximately five times more likely to die from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and Māori women are apparently the worst in the world; if so, what is the Minister doing about that situation?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is caused by smoking, and that is the reason why we have massively increased the taxes on cigarettes, to try to decrease those rates. Smoking rates have decreased by 25 percent under this Government, but there is still much more progress we need to make, especially amongst Māori women.

Hon Annette King: Is a pattern emerging in health with an overworked and stressed workforce leading to mental health staff in Auckland on strike, medical physicians preparing to strike, affecting cancer services, staff working unpaid hours, and annual leave not being taken—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Hon Annette King: —and doctors and dentists working while unwell, stressed, and fatigued?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, the only pattern emerging is the need to constantly go back and check the facts.

Hon Annette King: Would the Minister like to check this fact: is the president of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, Dr Hein Stander, right or wrong when he said today: “The environment senior doctors and nurses are working in is increasingly toxic.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, that is a press release by the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, which was done in conjunction with Mrs King. I have checked that fact.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot accuse another member of working with anyone, and that is a total lie.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here a long time. She knows how to handle it. I refer her to Standing Order 359.

Hon Annette King: Why would staff feel supported and valued when the lowest paid in district health boards—the cooks at Middlemore—many of whom have worked for more than 40 years not only lost their jobs but their retirement income entitlement because of the Government’s failed Health Benefits Ltd experiment and despite the promises?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, I really have to go and check those facts, but what I can say is that we took very strong and urgent action on Health Benefits Ltd, and that member knows that, actually, there was a need to save $300 million across the health system. Her answer would be to run a deficit. We have actually taken action that makes the health system sustainable. But Grant Robertson would run deficits, and if that is the way he wants to run their fiscal—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the question has now been answered. [Interruption] Order!

Marama Fox: Can the Minister tell us why chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is not a national health target under the current Government?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Because there are six national health targets, but at a sub-target level it is included, I believe, in district-level plans.

Employment—Rate and Business Confidence

2. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the Government is focused “on reinforcing the business confidence needed to invest, create more jobs and increase incomes”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, it was an insightful and coherent statement. The Government does not create jobs; businesses do. What the Government can do is create an environment where businesses have the confidence to invest another dollar and employ another person—for instance, since 2008 there have been 152,000 more jobs in the economy and the average annual wage is up around $10,000 per year. We would expect this kind of progress to continue over the next 4 or 5 years.

Sarah Dowie: How does New Zealand’s employment rate—the proportion of the population in a job—compare with other developed countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, can I say that the unemployment rate is higher than we would like it, but part of the reason is that the proportion of the population participating in the labour force is near record levels and among the highest in the developed world—our employment rate is very high, at 65 percent, which is the sixth-highest employment rate in the OECD. By comparison, in Australia the employment rate is 61 percent, in the UK it is 60 percent, and the OECD average is 56 percent compared with New Zealand’s employment rate of 65 percent. That means that compared with the average for developed countries New Zealand has an additional 9 percent of the population in employment.

Sarah Dowie: How do recent wage increases compare with the changes in the cost of living for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Inflation for the last year was 0.4 percent, which is a record low—very low—and we would expect it to be rising somewhat. Just to keep it in perspective, it means that an average $100 spent at the supermarket last year can now be expected to cost 40c more over $100 of spending. Over the same period the average wage has increased by 3.1 percent, considerably faster than the increase in the cost of living.

Sarah Dowie: What specific steps is the Government taking to reinforce business confidence to invest another dollar and employ another person?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a number of steps we have already taken, which I have referred to in the House before, around 90-day trial periods, changing our income tax system, and of course there is more under way. We are reducing ACC levies, with further cuts on the way. Over the next 10 years, with local government, we will spend $110 billion on infrastructure, including extending ultra-fast broadband and building effective links between education and employment so that young New Zealanders can see clear pathways into a productive workforce.

Veterans—Repatriation of Remains

3. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Ron Mark: Does he stand by his statement that he “thinks it is right to leave people primarily in these graveyards in Malaysia”, when the Australian Government has decided to repatriate 39 deceased soldiers primarily from Malaysia?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would be a bit hesitant to venture further explanation of the Prime Minister’s view on that matter, other than to say that it has been considered, as I understand it, a number of times. One would expect that we are capable of making our own judgment about it. These are our fallen soldiers, not Australia’s.

Ron Mark: Why does the Government now repatriate the remains of soldiers who die overseas?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not exactly sure just where the member is trying to get to.

Hon Member: Just answer the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has already been pointed out, previous Governments have made particular decisions about the extent of repatriation, and the current Government of course does. We are in somewhat different circumstances now than we were in the Malaysian and Vietnamese campaign.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to the Prime Minister was about soldiers being repatriated now, like from Afghanistan. Could I put the question again, to help the Minister?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 191/3 and 191/4. If the member wants specific answers to supplementary questions, then it is difficult to get that when he starts with such a general primary question.

Ron Mark: Why can the Government not bring back the bodies of those soldiers not buried in Commonwealth war graves whose families have requested that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not been party to that particular discussion with those families, and in fairness to them I think it would be better if we were able to answer that question in the full knowledge of what exchanges have been taking place. I would be reluctant to make assertions without the knowledge of those exchanges.

Ron Mark: Given that he has refused to allow those remains to be repatriated, how can the Prime Minister guarantee that a soldier’s grave by a motorway or under an overhead rail bridge will be respected in the future and remain accessible to the family, as they are in the Commonwealth war graves?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, the member seems to be referring to particular circumstances. Out of respect for the families and with the seriousness of the issue for the individuals concerned, I would prefer to answer his question if and when I have a better understanding of what exchanges have gone on about those issues.

Hon Phil Goff: Why should the wishes of the families who have lost their loved ones who are now buried in Malaysia not be regarded as a paramount consideration when, firstly, the RSA supports their case for repatriation if they wish and, secondly, the Australians are in the process of repatriating those bodies next year, and these bodies are not in a Commonwealth war graves cemetery—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course their families’ wishes would be of concern. I imagine that when the member was Minister of Defence and turned down—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: 2007.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —these ideas in 2007, I presume—[Interruption] I assume the member as Minister of Defence took the families’ wishes into account when he “refused to repatriate the bodies”. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest that if Mr Brownlee and Mr Goff wish to continue the conversation, they take it outside the Chamber. Question No. 4, Eugenie Sage. [Interruption] Order! I will not give another warning to Mr Goff.

Local Government—Sea Level Rise

4. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Has he given clear national direction to local authorities to help them protect coastal communities from rising sea levels; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: The Ministry for the Environment has provided guidance within the uncertain bounds of the science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected sea level rises by the end of the century of between 0.28 and 0.98 of a metre. With this range of projections it is not possible to provide a definite sea level rise to plan for. We welcome the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment out today, and we will be proposing changes to the Resource Management Act, the national policy statement, and the guidance to councils in response to her, we think, very sensible report.

Eugenie Sage: Given his Government’s reliance on providing guidance but not clear policy direction to councils, despite their request for such direction, when does he expect the Ministry for the Environment to finish updating its 2008 guidance to councils on sea level rise?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course, there is guidance in effect today, but, as I said in the primary answer, we are committed to updating that and also working through in a careful, considered way the recommendations from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. But let me make very clear that when it comes to climatic issues such as this, region-by-region approaches are required. Simplistic nationalised ones such as those the Green Party advocates are not wise, in our view.

Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question included “when”, and the Minister did not answer that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The question was a very long-winded question, starting with “Given”. When a member asks a question as general as that, it gives the Minister quite a lot of licence with answering. Tighten the question.

Eugenie Sage: Why is the Government happy to propose a national policy statement for plantation forestry despite regional variations in soils, land forms, and erosion-proneness, but not provide councils with a similar level of consistent national guidance to prepare their coastal communities for sea level rise?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I said in the primary answer, in terms of the changes we will be proposing in light of the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, they are to the Resource Management Act and they are in terms of national policy statements and the guidance to councils in response to her sensible report. But I would add that being consistent across the country does not mean being uniform or having, as I have already said, simplistic one-size-fits-all solutions that the Green Party would advocate.

Eugenie Sage: Does he accept that there will be a significant cost to ratepayers and widely differing outcomes for homeowners if every council has to come up with its own approach to tackling the risks of sea level rise to its communities?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, not necessarily. As I say, one size does not fit all. It may be the case—for example in Sumner—that it does not necessarily have to be costly planning restrictions. It may simply be sea wall extensions. There are a variety of responses at a variety of levels.

Eugenie Sage: In working through the parliamentary commissioner’s recommendations, will his Government commit to clarifying the guidance and to providing stronger national direction to local governments to deal with inevitable sea level rise?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I hope I have made very clear, we think improvements are required, and there will be improvements in relation to that guidance because, you know, it is in a sense a living document. We certainly want to review it in light of the sensible report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Eugenie Sage: Will he commit to starting work in this term of Government to consider what financial assistance, if any, should be provided to New Zealanders who find themselves in the unenviable positon of owning a home in an area that is deemed to be at risk of sea level rise; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Firstly, in fact, there is funding that has been made available in relation to adaptation. I accept that primarily that has been in relation to helping our international friends, and primarily in the Pacific. I think the direct answer to the member’s question is no, not necessarily, but we will carefully work our way through the recommendations in this report. We do not think it is the time for knee-jerk responses, and, indeed, in the report Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, also makes clear that that is her view.

Eugenie Sage: Is his Government’s reluctance to commit to a strong, national policy direction on sea level rise another example of this Government wanting to shirk the hard decisions and leave them for future Governments and future generations?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No.

School Buildings—Wellington East Girls’ College

5. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding property investment in schools?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I was pleased to visit Wellington East Girls’ College this morning and announce that this Government will be investing $39 million in redeveloping infrastructure at the school. This is on top of the $9 million already spent on enabling works over the last couple of years. The redevelopment will retain the block’s striking facade, but a completely new building will be built behind, containing 28 teaching spaces. In addition, a second, separate two-storey building will be built to house the school offices and another three learning spaces. Today’s announcement follows recent announcements of major developments at Balmoral School, Takapuna Grammar School, Western Springs College, and Aotea College, totalling $149 million.

Paul Foster-Bell: How will this investment benefit students at Wellington East Girls’ College?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: This is an exciting development. Once the work is complete, almost half of the school’s teaching space will have been upgraded and transformed into flexible, open, and light spaces that can be changed to meet learning and teaching needs. The redevelopment will increase the school’s maximum capacity to 1,250 students. It will also include new spaces for the special education unit and improve access across the site. The modern teaching and learning spaces will ensure students are well supported to thrive in the future.

Grant Robertson: Will she commit today to stage 2 of the Wellington East Girls’ College rebuild, as she and her ministry officials promised the school prior to the last election?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am not sure what the stages and phases are that the member is speaking about, but what I can say is that just under $50 million in the school is a matter for celebration—other than for the unhappy face of that member.

Paul Foster-Bell: How does this announcement reflect the Government’s ongoing commitment to infrastructure investment in education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: This Government commits $450 million of capital funding to supporting the annual maintenance, development, and modernisation of New Zealand’s 2,100 State schools. On top of this we have already committed over a billion dollars in capital funding to rebuilding and repairing schools in Greater Christchurch. In Budget 2015 we committed a total of $373.9 million to improving schools’ infrastructure over the next 4 years. Most notably, seven new schools and kura kaupapa are being built around the country and four existing schools are being expanded at a cost of $332 million. They will together provide space for about 4,600 students. Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing commitment to ensure that New Zealand students have the best possible learning environments.

Truancy—Measures to Address

6. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied the Government has fulfilled its 2008 commitment to tackle truancy; if so, why is the truancy rate now higher than it has ever been?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes, I am satisfied that our Government is continuing to work hard on tackling truancy. As I have said in this House before, one unjustified absence is one too many. We want kids to be in school and learning. The attendance survey for 2014 indicates a slight increase in the truancy rate over the past 2 years, but the total absence rate has been decreasing since 2009. This is compared with a 41 percent increase in the rate of unexplained absences under the previous Labour Government, which was so complacent that it measured truancy only every 2 years.

Chris Hipkins: Did the National Government promise in 2008 to give schools an additional $4 million a year to “crack down on truants”; if so, how much of that money have schools received?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: What the Government has done has been to more than double that amount of money and put $9.7 million into an integrated Attendance Service to support schools with tackling this. That is in addition to the operational grant that schools also have at their discretion to tackle truancy.

Chris Hipkins: Did the National Government promise in 2008 to “Help schools out by providing additional funding ($4 million a year) to ensure they can fight truancy on the front line.”; if so, how much additional money have schools received to combat truancy since 2008?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: To be clear in my answer to this, the decision we have taken was to double the amount of spending on truancy to $9.7 million, instead of the $4 million, and to provide it in an integrated Attendance Service for chronic and persistent truancy, while occasional—

Dr David Clark: Answer the question.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —truancy is dealt with by the school. I am answering the question, if that member would care to listen. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Dr David Clark: I’m listening very carefully. I didn’t hear an answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, you can listen without interjecting as well.

Chris Hipkins: Did the National Government promise in 2008 to crack down on parents of persistent truants by increasing prosecutions; if so, why are fewer parents being prosecuted now than there were under the previous Government?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The numbers of prosecutions are not the measuring stick we use; it is retention in schools. You do not prosecute people if there are not people to prosecute. Fourteen prosecutions have occurred for persistent, chronic truancy. Funding of $75,000 has been made available to schools that are pursuing their own prosecutions. In the meantime we have put $145 million into Positive Behaviour for Learning, which is aimed at attracting, engaging, and keeping kids at schools. We have funded 960 more trades academy places to engage kids and keep them at school. Truancy is not simply a school responsibility; it is the responsibility of parents, family, and whānau, as well as of the children themselves.

Chris Hipkins: Does the Attendance in New Zealand Schools 2014 survey result show that one in every 78 students regularly bunked school in 2013, a 30 percent increase on the number the year before?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: What I can tell you is that there has been an overall increase of 0.7 percent. Yes, young people do bunk school, and it is in our interests, as well as schools’, to try to—

David Shearer: It’s failed. Just face it, you’ve failed.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —provide engaging programmes to keep kids at school. But as I have said—no, no. We have not failed. We have seen achievement going up 23 percent for Māori in the time that we have been in Government. We have seen the participation of kids at early childhood education increase while we have been in Government. We have seen an overall increase of 13 percent. That is not failure in those young people’s vocabulary, nor in ours.

Chris Hipkins: Is she concerned that a recent Programme for International Student Assessment study found New Zealand stood out for having one of the strongest links between skipping school and maths achievement, with those students who skipped school one or two times before their exams being up to 2 years behind those who did not skip a day; if so, why is her Government breaking its promise to increase the amount of support to tackle truancy?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, I am concerned about that. To the second part of the question, how is providing $9.7 million instead of $4 million a decrease?

Flag Referendums—Process

7. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Deputy Prime Minister: What steps is the Government taking to allow New Zealanders to choose our future flag?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): As of tomorrow the papers for the first of two postal referendums will begin to arrive in the mailboxes of New Zealanders who are enrolled to vote. Voting opens from tomorrow and closes on Friday, 11 December. Earlier this year Parliament enacted a law that for the first time ever gives New Zealanders an opportunity to have a say in choosing the flag. This fulfils a promise we made in the election campaign last year. Very few Governments around the world have ever asked their citizens for their views on the design of their national flags, and I would encourage everyone who is eligible to vote to have their say to choose our flag.

Alastair Scott: After the first referendum, what will be the next steps in the process to choose the future flag? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No. Order! I want to hear the answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The purpose of the first referendum is to allow people to rank five alternative flag designs that have been chosen by the independent Flag Consideration Panel following public consultation. After the preferred alternative flag is selected, a second referendum will be held to allow voters to choose between the preferred alternative and the current flag. That referendum will be held in March 2016. It makes sense that people should see the alternative flag at the time when they have the opportunity to choose between that and the current flag.

Denis O’Rourke: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that New Zealanders participating in the first flag referendum can express their preference for none of the five options listed, in favour of the current flag?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They will have the opportunity to not participate, if they do not think they should—although New Zealand First used to trust the people with referendums on everything, and now it does not—and they have the opportunity in the second referendum to vote for the flag of their preference, if it is the current flag.

Denis O’Rourke: If a voter does cast a vote in the first flag referendum and does not choose any of the five options listed, but indicates in some way a preference for the current flag, can the Minister assure such voters that their vote in that way will be counted as a vote against all of the options listed; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that would be an informal vote; and the reason for that is that in the second referendum they have the chance to vote for the current flag or to change it. It is pretty straightforward.

Denis O’Rourke: If the total number of voters who cast votes in the first flag referendum but who do not indicate a preference, plus the total number who spoil or otherwise cast informal votes together exceed the number of votes in which a preference is voted for, will the Government then cancel the second flag referendum and introduce amending legislation to confirm keeping the current flag?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because, unlike New Zealand First, we think New Zealanders are quite capable of following the logic of the referenda and quite capable of clearly expressing their preference through the ballot paper, as they do through general elections and local body elections, and so on. I do not know why the member seems so concerned to prevent them from having a clear choice of the current flag or the new flag.

Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—Auckland Volcanic Cones

8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement of July last year, in respect of Auckland’s volcanic cones, that there “would be no change to public access”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes.

David Seymour: How does the Minister reconcile his two previous answers with the knowledge that from the end of this year people will no longer be able to drive to the tihi of Maungawhau/Mount Eden?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Quite easily, because there will be unrestricted public access, but there are limitations on vehicles going up there for the safety of the environment and the safety of those going up the mountain. So there were some restrictions put in place some years ago in relation to buses, and more recently, as the member has noted in his question, there will be some restrictions on vehicles unless people are physically impaired in some way.

David Seymour: Is the Minister prepared to explain to the disabled, the elderly, and those with small children that it is acceptable for them to be required to drive up to a gate, call a council staffer, and explain their disabilities, and if it satisfies that council staffer, they will be given a gate code to enter—is that what he thinks is acceptable? And has he consulted—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just one supplementary question allowed.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, yes, I am very happy to explain it to those people. These are, of course, decisions for the authority; they are not matters of ministerial responsibility. If anyone is upset about the proposed changes, they could write to the maunga authority, which is made up of equal numbers of iwi representatives and Auckland Council reps, and, I would suggest, also cc it to Mr Goff.

David Seymour: How can the public have confidence in the Minister when he first states there will be no changes, and then attempts to litigate the extent of the changes he has just denied were taking place?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: This makes me nostalgic for Hilary Calvert. Quite easily, actually. These are perfectly acceptable changes and, as I said, they are not matters of ministerial responsibility. If anyone is upset about it, they could—I cannot, of course, give legal advice—seek judicial review.

Crime—Resolution Rate

9. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Police: By what percentage has the crime resolution rate decreased overall since 2008?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): When measured as a percentage of overall crime, the rate has fallen from 46.7 percent in 2008 to 41.5 percent in 2014, but this can be a bit misleading because of the number of recorded victims, which has decreased markedly since then. Although there were 223,000 unresolved offences in 2008, there were only 205,000 unresolved offences last year—in other words, New Zealanders are not only less likely to be victims of crime under this Government but also less likely to be victims of unresolved crime.

Kelvin Davis: Why has the proportion of reported sexual offences that are solved fallen from two-thirds when his Government came to office to less than half today?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The answer to that is quite complex—probably more complex than I can go through in one supplementary answer—but what we can say is that we know that there are a large number of offences from a long period ago that are now being reported thanks to the fact that people are speaking up more confidently, and police are encouraging that with the extra resources that they have deployed into adult sexual assault and child sexual assault, and, therefore, those crimes are much more complex and can take a very long time to resolve.

Kelvin Davis: Why has the number of sexual assaults resolved fallen under his Government even though the number reported has increased by a thousand since 2008?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer to my previous supplementary answer.

Kelvin Davis: Was his Government standing up for the victims of crime when he allowed police funding in real per capita terms to be cut in six of its seven Budgets, and is that why police are solving fewer crimes?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I reject the basis of the question. Under National, the police budget has increased from $1.26 billion to $1.53 billion—more than 20 percent. The number of front-line police in operational roles has gone up, and crime has dropped to its lowest level in 35 years. I stand very strongly by that record.

Kelvin Davis: In light of that answer, saying that the police budget has not been cut, why is it that in the select committee the Auditor-General said the police budget has been cut by $15 million?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I cannot take the statement from the Opposition at face value, given its track record, but I stand categorically by the fact that there are now 600 more officers than there were when National took office—600 more—and crime is going down. In fact, if I were a criminal in this country, I would be voting Labour, because that is when they get away with crimes. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I did not hear the very last part of the answer, but offence has been taken—[Interruption] Order! Would the Minister stand and withdraw the last part of his answer. [Interruption] Order!

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Which part?

Mr SPEAKER: Offence has been taken, would the Minister just stand and withdraw the last part of this answer.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! Stand and withdraw, or leave.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw—something. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The reason I cannot hear is the continual level of interjection from one particular member. It makes it very difficult for me to hear what is being said.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification. There was an incident last week, where members took offence and yet the person making the statement was not required to withdraw. I understood previous to now that if a member takes offence, then whoever has made the statement should withdraw and apologise, but your ruling last week suggested that that needs to happen if it is the House that has taken offence.

Mr SPEAKER: That is the case. It is not actually the particular singular member. I made that quite clear. I should not have to explain it again to Mr Prosser. It is a matter of the context of the remark that is said, the order or disorder of the House at the time, and whether I anticipate that offence has been taken, as I just did. As I said, because of the level of interjection, I did not actually hear the remark, but offence was clearly taken.

Broadband, Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress

10. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Communications: What is the current status of the build programme for Ultra-Fast Broadband and the Rural Broadband Initiative?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today I am releasing updated build statistics that show that we are now almost 56 percent through the ultra-fast broadband programme stage 1 with 13 New Zealand towns and cities complete, and also show that uptake has increased by 26 percent over the last quarter. The Rural Broadband Initiative is on track to completion in the middle of next year, the cell tower programme is 82.5 percent complete, and copper network upgrades are 98 percent complete. We have also finished the build programme to rural hospitals and are at 97 percent of the school build programme.

Brett Hudson: How does the increase in speeds available to New Zealanders compare with when this Government first came into office?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Internet speeds across New Zealand have tripled in the 7 years we have been in Government and look on track to double again by the end of the current build programme. In particular, I am pleased to report that nearly half of rural New Zealanders will see their available broadband speeds increase twentyfold with the upgrade to rural broadband through the Rural Broadband Initiative.

Question No. 11 to Minister

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was originally set down for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I seek leave—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. That is actually creating disorder. The same tactic was used yesterday, and I referred the member then to Speaker’s ruling 169/5 and I asked that member upon the completion of question time to read that carefully. And I do not anticipate such a tactic being used again by the Opposition. It is creating disorder. Does the member want to proceed with her question?

Climate Change—Displacement of Pacific Island Nations

11. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What plans does New Zealand have to help our Pacific Island neighbours given that the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Enele Sopoaga, has recently appealed to New Zealand to “stand with us Pacific Islands countries and increase their commitments”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Acting Minister for Climate Change Issues): We are already committed to assisting Pacific Island countries to develop their responses to climate change. In Tuvalu alone we have invested $10 million filling in borrow pits that were dug to build runways in the Second World War. This has increased Tuvalu’s usable land area by 8 percent and has been designed specifically to account for the projected 100-year sea-level rise. We have also invested $20 million to support Tuvalu’s renewable energy goals and, as a result, Tuvalu’s outer islands will get 90 percent of their electricity from New Zealand - funded solar panels.

Marama Davidson: Given that for small Pacific Island nations the outcome of the upcoming climate talks in Paris is a matter of survival, will he instruct New Zealand delegates at those talks to push for a more comprehensive plan acknowledging that they are the lowest emitters paying the highest price?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think we already have that fair and ambitious intended nationally determined contribution and target heading into Paris—30 percent reductions in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. I think it is ambitious in the sense that it is more than we have done previously. It is comparable with what other countries do and it reflects our national circumstances. As I have already said, I think we also support our Pacific friends with the many programmes we run in the Pacific but, ultimately, I will come back to it, probably the best thing we can do in addition to our own efforts is work hard on an ambitious, binding agreement in Paris, and that is certainly what we are going to try to do.

Marama Davidson: Given that this Government seems to rely solely on aid, does he realise that all the aid in the world will not stop sea-level rise, with the President of Kiribati, Anote Tong, making it quite clear—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Marama Davidson: —“No matter how much aid, we cannot be bought on this one because it is about the future.”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, there is much more than aid. There are the things that we do in New Zealand, the things we take to Paris, and our own intended nationally determined contribution. I would not be, as that member seems to be, dismissive of the very significant work we do in the Pacific, whether it is in water security with several million dollars’ worth of work with low-lying Pacific Island countries, whether it is in renewables with $100 million worth of work, or whether it is in other areas, I think New Zealanders should be very proud of that work. I am sure that our friends in the Pacific, indeed the ones I have talked to, are really appreciative of what we are doing to help them.

Marama Davidson: Will those renewable energy options like solar panels, which you have just referred to and that the Minister is so proud of, still work under water?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No.

HomeStart Roadshow—Spending

12. KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Is he confident that all taxpayers’ money allocated for his HomeStart roadshow is being spent appropriately?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Housing: Yes. The first HomeStart roadshow meeting was held on 15 April in Henderson, and the last on 1 October in Timaru. All 19 meetings were held in locations across the country, some even in Labour electorates.

Kris Faafoi: Is it appropriate for National MP Parmjeet Parmar to host or co-host a roadshow funded by taxpayers for the purpose of raising her “local profile” in Mt Roskill in case of a by-election; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, it would not be, and that is exactly why that did not happen and she did not do that. So to make it really clear, and I think it is only fair that it gets on the record, it is a very short email and, I would like to say, the only email that I have seen that Parmjeet has actually sent. It said: “Hi Jane. Please can you check with Hon Nick Smith’s office re KiwiSaver HomeStart roadshow. I am keen to have one in Mt Roskill and can talk to Maungakiekie and Epsom electorates to come together for this. We will need enough time to prepare and put up hoardings, etc. Thanks. Parmjeet.” That does not say anything about a by-election at all.

Kris Faafoi: If there was nothing wrong with that request made by Parmjeet Parmar, why was the purpose of her request to raise her profile in Mt Roskill blacked out in three out of four occasions in documents released to me under the Official Information Act?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because, quite simply, that is not what the MP requested and that is not what the Minister did. If the member wants to pick on a public servant who has made a mistake, then he can go ahead and do that, because that is what has actually happened here, but he cannot start pointing the finger when it is very clear what the member actually asked for.

Kris Faafoi: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request document that says that Parmjeet Parmar has also expressed a strong interest in hosting a roadshow to lift her local profile.

Mr SPEAKER: In view of the circumstances, I will put the leave, and it will be for the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Kris Faafoi: Does he believe—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member please resume his seat. The interjections now are far too frequent from my immediate right, and they will cease.

Kris Faafoi: Does he believe it appropriate for a ministerial staffer in his office, funded by the taxpayer, to be working with National Party HQ to organise those roadshow meetings to raise the profile of National MPs, as is shown in those Official Information Act documents?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those documents actually do not say that, so let us get it clear: we have got a policy we are proud of, we have held 19 meetings throughout the country, we have an MP who is doing a fantastic job locally, and we can afford to run a by-election. So things are going pretty well for us.

Kris Faafoi: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response to me that is from the Minister’s office and is pointing out instructions to members’ offices—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Kris Faafoi: Why did his department or his office black out the fact that National HQ was working with his office to organise those meetings; or were those meetings just a front for National Party campaigning on the taxpayer dollar?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is OK.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let us get clear on what these meetings actually are about. They are about a HomeStart that offers $435 million over 5 years to help around 90,000 New Zealanders into their first home. Launched on 1 April this HomeStart grant offers up to $20K for new builds and up to $10K for existing properties—a fantastic policy, and a lot of people want to come to meetings. Anyone else who wants to promote it, we would love to hear from you.

Kris Faafoi: I seek leave to table three letters sent from me to the Chief Ombudsman, to the State Services Commission, and to the Office of the Auditor-General asking for them to investigate the nature of those Official Information Act requests and the content of them. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The purpose of tabling documents is to better inform the House. On this occasion such information may be informative to members. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table those particular three letters. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Bills

Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Once again we recap that the purpose of this bill is to provide more flexibility to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel to help ensure that it can deliver its recommendations on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to the Auckland Council by the statutory deadline of 22 July 2016.

The Auckland Unitary Plan is the largest and most complex plan in the country, and it is appropriate that we make sure we do everything in our powers to ensure it is delivered on time. In order to achieve this, the bill has three main components. Firstly, the bill reduces the quorum required for hearing sessions from three members to two members; secondly, it will allow an increase in the possible number of appointed hearings panel members from seven to 10, excluding the chairperson; and, thirdly, the bill will enable the hearings panel to make its recommendations on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in stages, after hearings are completed on a particular topic rather than in one final report.

As previously mentioned in earlier hearings, this bill represents an important opportunity to enable the hearings panel to continue its good progress and make its recommendations to the Auckland Council by the statutory deadline of 22 July 2016. It is also of unprecedented importance in our country’s plan making, and it has the potential to set a high bar for future plan making.

I am grateful for the efforts of all those who have contributed towards the successful package of this bill to date. My thanks go to the officials who have worked on the policy development of this proposal in the bill, and to the drafters who worked on the detail of the legislation. I also want to acknowledge the work of the independent hearings panel in Auckland. Finally, I would like to thank all of you who worked with me in this House to enable this bill to have its third reading here today. I proudly commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Labour has supported the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill because it supports an effective and timely process to progress Auckland City’s unitary plan. What we do not support is the appalling process followed for this legislation. This bill was announced by the Minister for the Environment on 16 September. That is more than 2 months ago. That was plenty of time for this bill to be read a first time in mid-September and to go to a select committee for the public to have a chance to have their voices heard. That was plenty of time for the select committee to scrutinise the bill carefully for any errors or things that did not look likely to make the changes that people thought were necessary, and that was plenty of time for the Parliamentary Counsel Office and for officials to be quizzed on whether the bill will achieve its objective.

Did that happen? No. Why did it not happen? Throughout every stage of this bill, no adequate explanation has been given to the House as to why, instead of proper process and normal process, this bill was introduced at 25 to 11 last night and pushed through its stages. What the Government could have done during the Committee of the whole House was to have the Minister in charge of the bill in the chair and ready to answer questions legitimately put to him by members of that Committee. Did that happen? No, it did not happen. We had Minister after Minister sitting dumbly in the Minister’s chair in the Chamber ignoring the questions. One Minister finally got up and gave a 40-second answer, which was wrong.

Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a well-traversed convention in this House not to refer to the absence of any member at any time.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order, it is not against the Standing Orders to say that the Minister in charge of the bill was not in the chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the matter has been traversed. Of course, the Hon Phil Goff referred to the Minister not being in the chair and not to the Minister not being in the Chamber.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The huge irony over the debate over this bill during the stages it has gone through is that as well as seeking to facilitate an effective process of hearing submissions by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, the bill had a second purpose. The second purpose was to validate legislation that had been rushed through the House previously on this very same issue and to correct the errors and to retrospectively make legal what had been done illegally. I say “irony” because the lesson of that to the Government—there were three instances where we had to validate legislation that was inadequate and where activity was not lawful—was surely that you do not rush legislation through, you give it proper consideration, and then you have a better chance of getting it right. But we, again, at the Government’s insistence, have seen legislation rushed through, and it is bound to come back to the House because it is not adequate. Despite the appalling process, which not one single National member sought to justify, the Labour Party supports the intent of this bill.

The goal of the legislation to bring in the super-city in Auckland was to bring together eight separate councils into one, to cover an area that is, in effect, one city. The next step that is necessary to realise the benefits of that is to replace 13 district and regional plans with a single unitary plan for resource management. That means that we can put behind Auckland a history of complex and fragmented resource management planning, and we can, hopefully, facilitate quicker and more environmentally sustainable development, both rural and urban, and in the marine environment.

In order to make this process happen more quickly there was a decision made, which I support, that instead of a 10-year process under the Resource Management Act, previous legislation set up a system where the council would notify the Auckland Unitary Plan and then the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel would hear submissions on that plan and would recommend back to the council. Well, that independent hearings panel, chaired by Judge David Kirkpatrick, has done a very good job. It has heard about 9,000 submissions. But in the last part of this process we are looking at site-specific issues, and there are 5,000 submitters who want to be heard.

The statutory deadline for the independent hearings panel to report back to the council is 22 July 2016. It did not look like it was going to make that deadline, and it benefits nobody for the bringing into effect of the unitary plan to be further held up. That is why this bill makes three changes that the Labour Opposition supports. It will reduce the quorum; it will increase the pool of panel members that can be drawn upon; it will allow the panel to report back after each issue that it deals with, with its recommendations; and it will allow more than one panel to sit simultaneously.

Those things are good and we support that, and that is why we are supporting the bill. What we were not able to do in the Committee of the whole House, however, was get answers to certain questions that were validly raised. One question was that if you reduce the quorum to two and you have got two members on a hearings panel, what if they disagree? What sort of recommendations are they going to give back to the council? Well, the Minister did take a call on that one, to say it would not be making a recommendation. I am sorry, but the point of the independent hearings panel is to make recommendations to the council, and who would make that recommendation but the people who heard the submissions on it? So the answer was a nonsense, and time and again we could not get answers on whether this bill will do exactly what everybody in this House might want it to do.

The failure of the Government to allow this to go to a select committee also meant that we were not able to challenge the Minister in charge of the bill in terms of the claims that he makes for it. I want to quote him on two claims. First of all, he said that the bill was needed before the expiry of the special housing area legislation. Well, I would have liked to ask the Minister what bad effect that would have. The Minister has set a target of 39,000 new houses over 3 years. When the council was asked last week how many of those houses, 2 years into the 3-year period, had been built in special housing areas, the answer was 102—102 out of the 39,000 target. So, first of all, it is very hard to accept from the Minister that special housing areas have been effective. They have not. They have been a dramatic failure.

The second thing the Minister has said is: “This bill is needed to maintain the momentum of lifting Auckland’s housing supply.” I hope that the new unitary plan will facilitate addressing the crisis in the availability and the affordability of houses in Auckland. The Productivity Commission has said very clearly that the problem with Auckland is that there is going to be a million more people in the next 30 years, and we have got restrictive laws that will not let the city move out and will not let the city move up. If that happens, it said, what is affected by those pressures is price and affordability, and that has impacted on price and affordability. Land is more than half of the cost of a new home.

So we hope that the new unitary plan will allow, properly, the city to expand, balancing out the needs to protect the most valuable rural land, and we hope that it will allow the city to go up, balancing that need with good urban design and plenty of public open space. So to the extent that the unitary plan can help, we support that, but I absolutely challenge the Minister in his claim that this bill is going to resolve Auckland’s housing crisis. I challenge that on the basis of the fact—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a short call in this third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, in the name of the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith.

It is interesting following the member for Mt Roskill, who is on Sunday going to make a significant announcement about his future and his future ambitions, not only for himself but also for Auckland. During the first and second reading debates we heard him go through his lines. He was practising them well into the night last night, and again today he has been running those lines, ready for his campaign launch on Sunday. Indeed he has just updated his Facebook page with a nice superimposed photo of himself standing on what looks like the Devonport foreshore with a nice Sky Tower backdrop. I guess we are going to see an awful lot more of that.

But the member does make a very good point in the support of this bill by the Labour Party. The Labour Party understands, as does the Government, that in order for Auckland to succeed in terms of its new unitary plan, then we have to work through these hearings and get them completed before 22 July next year. It is in nobody’s interests, as Mr Goff said, for that deadline date not to be met. When Auckland succeeds and when Auckland succeeds well, then so too do the regions and the provinces around Auckland and around the rest of the country. So it is in all our best interests for us to do that and get this through.

It has been a very large task so far to complete what has been the largest planning project of any territorial authority in the 24-year history of the Resource Management Act. So far the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel has made excellent progress on its work hearing the submissions, but there are some 5,000 yet to go. That is not going to be possible unless the changes that are going to be implemented in this bill are passed by this House.

I think we have got general consensus across the Parliament that the three main provisions of this bill are good and that they will achieve the results that we are looking for, in terms of speeding up the process, allowing more flexibility in the hearings process, and ensuring that people do get their chance to be heard by the hearings panel.

There are three main points to this bill. The first is that it will reduce the quorum for the hearings sessions. This will reduce from three members to two members. That is a sound, practical, sensible administrative change. The second item that this bill seeks to achieve is to increase the size of the panel. The possible number of appointed hearings panel members will go from seven to 10, and that, again, helps with the flexibility of the hearings process. The third point that this bill seeks to achieve is to enable the panel to make its recommendations in stages. That has not been the case up until now, and so the panel will be able to complete a series of work, make its recommendations, and then move on to another piece of work before having to report it in full.

I think that is the kind of practical, pragmatic flexibility that the hearings panel requires in order to complete its work before 22 July. It is a pleasure to commend this piece of legislation to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): As my colleague Phil Goff has said, Labour is voting for this bill. Why? Well, there are two reasons. The first is that the Auckland Council asked for it, and we think it is appropriate, in the appropriate spirit of partnership between central government and the elected representatives of our largest city, that there should be a relationship of cooperation. If it seems like a good idea and the Auckland Council is asking for it, then it is appropriate that we should be supporting this initiative. The second reason is that the draft Auckland Unitary Plan is vital, and here is one thing on which we do agree with Nick Smith. This unitary plan is vital for reforming the planning rules that are critically important to fixing Auckland’s housing crisis, getting the flow of new housing construction under way, and building a better, more prosperous, and more liveable city. Those are the two reasons.

What is really significant about this bill is that it comes after 7 years of a difficult, problematic relationship that the National Government has had with Auckland. There have been 2 years of imposing the super-city on Auckland, riding roughshod over the desires of Aucklanders, and then, having set up the super-city, 5 years of fighting, white-anting the Auckland Council, and scapegoating the Auckland Council for the many policy failures of this Government, not least in housing. I say again to members opposite: “What took you so long?”. There have been 5 utterly unproductive years of fighting and blaming the Auckland Council for things like the housing crisis, but at last we see in this bill a practical, cooperative measure that will do good and will benefit Auckland and benefit the country.

I think the other really notable thing about this bill is that one of the things that the draft unitary plan will do is it will give us a measure of progress in reforming the planning rules, particularly all of the restrictions and the limits on height and density that are such a barrier to the supply of affordable housing, and a better choice of housing types in places where people actually want to live.

This bill really comes after years of the National Government being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards a more rounded view of the need to reform the planning rules. For so long this problem for Bill English, for Nick Smith, and for others in the National Government was all about sprawl. They were scathing of Auckland’s vision and plan for a compact city.

In a remarkable turn-round we have now got the Prime Minister issuing an edict to Aucklanders, telling the good folk of the leafy suburbs in East Auckland that they have to get used to living in apartments. That is what he said. The memo has gone out. I know Paul Goldsmith is horrified by that—at having to explain this to the people whom he would like to have as his constituents, if he did not have to put up with this terrible, awful, shoddy sort of deal with the ACT Party in Epsom. He would have to explain to them that the National Party says that there is going to be high-rise apartments all the way across Epsom. But that is the reality.

Now the Government is rushing this bill through the Parliament, under urgency. If the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel is successful in doing its business, it will free up the constraints to some degree on density and height, and that will be getting rid of an important impediment to the kind of development that Auckland needs. We have, in the course of this debate, set out a number of our concerns about this bill. I was sorry to see my tabled amendment not get enough support to be adopted; that amendment would have changed the rules for the appointment of members of the hearings panel. Instead of this Government, through the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation, just imposing its choice of panel members on Auckland, it would have allowed the Minister for the Environment and the Mayor of Auckland together to decide who should be on the panel. Surely that would be appropriate—surely that would be appropriate. Normally in Resource Management Act rules it is the councillors, the elected representatives, who ultimately make that choice about who is appointed onto these decision-making panels, so it is an extraordinary thing that the National Government assumed its right to tell Aucklanders who should be making these critical decisions about the plan.

Also Government members did not support my other amendment, which would have limited the scope of the panel to make recommendations in the draft unitary plan only within the scope of the submissions. Again, I think this Government has overreached when it designed the independent hearings panel process by giving it the extraordinary power, really, to make recommendations on whatever it likes, regardless of whether it has received submissions on those issues.

We had no real response through the Committee stage to the questions that we put to the various Ministers in the chair about whether or not it made sense to allow the panel to make recommendations on certain topics through the course of the hearings schedule and not to wait until they had got all the evidence before they then deliberated on the whole, weighing up all the evidence. We think that raises the possibility of some incoherence—a piecemeal approach to dealing with what are complex and interlinked issues.

The other concern that we have, in conclusion, as we draw to the end of this process, and as so many members on this side of the House have said, is the irony of this bill, which is basically about public participation in the planning process and trying to ensure good decisions and that communities are able to have a say in these important decisions. The very bill that is trying to deliver this is subject to a truncated process, being rammed through the House under urgency with no select committee scrutiny, no ability to really tease out the issues, get expert advice, or for the public to have their say. There was no good reason to be in urgency at all, except for the incompetence of the National Government’s management of House business, so it is a very, very poor show in that regard.

We support this bill because we believe that the new rules that the independent hearings panel will, we hope, usher in will deal with things like all of the decisions around zoning, the urban growth boundary, and height and density limits. Improving these rules is vital to Auckland’s future prosperity. It will be very difficult to fix the Auckland housing crisis without improving and reforming these rules. But we have to say that it is not a panacea. For 10 years now senior National Party politicians like Nick Smith and Bill English have routinely blamed Auckland Council for the high cost of housing and blamed the Resource Management Act, as if it was some kind of panacea. Bizarrely, they have been saying that for 10 years but have done nothing about it.

The draft unitary plan that I think we all hope will improve those planning rules for supporting more and better urban development will be the first significant change to town planning rules in Auckland in that entire period that we have had to put up with and to listen to Bill English and Nick Smith scapegoating the Auckland Council and the Resource Management Act for these problems, even though they have done nothing about it. So putting aside the things that the Government chooses not to do and will not do—cracking down on speculators, actively building large numbers of houses—the Government refuses to do the very things that it could do, use the levers that it could pull, to fix the problem. At least now Auckland Council is one step closer to doing what it can do to improve the rules that govern Auckland’s development.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take just a short call in the final reading of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill.

It is always such a joy to take over from Phil Twyford. I would have to say he is one of the most negative people in this House, is he not? It is incredible. It is always raining—it is always raining in Phil Twyford’s world. I mean, fundamentally, Labour supports this bill. It supports it. It says: “It’s vital for reforming Auckland’s planning laws. The Auckland Council supports it, so we support it too.”, but he bemoans it every step of the way. He has got his black suit and black tie and frown on and his arms are folded. Every bit of it he finds frustrating to talk to. But—

Dr Shane Reti: Half empty.

TODD MULLER: Exactly—glass half empty. As I say, it is raining every day in Phil Twyford’s world.

Scott Simpson: He’s worried about Simon Lusk.

TODD MULLER: I suspect you are right.

One thing I do agree with Mr Twyford on is that this is a very critical bill for Auckland. It absolutely underpins enabling it to get its draft unitary plan completed by the end of July. Clearly, that absolutely has to be met, and so we find ourselves with 5,000 submissions still yet to be heard and a Government saying: “Right, we need to have some pragmatic solutions to enable that to happen.” Three solutions we have put on the table, three we have got nearly everybody’s support on.

Firstly, we are reducing the quorum, which is a totally sensible thing to do. Secondly, we are appointing some more hearings panellists to enable the 5,000 to be heard in an effective and efficient way, and, finally, we are ensuring that as the sections are completed they can be reported on, instead of waiting until every single one of those sections is done. It is common sense. It is a Government that saw that we needed to act. We have done. We have done it under urgency, and I know the people of Auckland will thank us for it. I commend this bill to the House.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): It is my privilege to rise to take the first call on this, the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I am very pleased to do so because I am a resident of Auckland and, like all of the speakers on this side of the House, we all have experienced local government in Auckland because we have actually lived there.

As for myself, I have actually been involved in local government in Auckland as well. Like Tracey Martin from New Zealand First, I was a local board member after the amalgamation into the super-city; whereas, from the three speakers that we have had so far from that side of the House, National, we have not yet had anybody from Auckland commenting on it. I guess, for me—

Pita Paraone: Other than to close it—seek closure.

DENISE ROCHE: Other than to seek closure in previous parts of the bill.

I guess, for me, that is sort of like a symbol of how the Government actually responds to Auckland. There is a whole bunch of people who do not necessarily live there and who do not necessarily understand it, but who are attempting to make rules and to control the local government in that area, and the Government has done that consistently since it first came into office in 2008.

There have been 16 pieces of legislation since 2009, all of which have been a direct interference with local government in Auckland. It is because Auckland is the powerhouse of the country that this Government, has—[Interruption] I am sorry if I have offended your sense of your own—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not bring me, from Whanganui, into it.

DENISE ROCHE: Ha, ha! Whanganui is a mighty city indeed; however, this is about Auckland and about 16 pieces of legislation about Auckland.

The interesting thing is that when the amalgamation happened way back in 2010, when it was finalised, there was this discussion about how it was going to be a saving for ratepayers. But actually, if you look at the legislation and just what the legislation costs, it has been a shambles, and it has been a huge cost to taxpayers as well.

This bill that we are currently discussing for its third reading, which has gone through urgency over the last 6 hours—and that is how long it will take, before it is finally through, and that has been a truncated process—has actually cost the taxpayers in New Zealand just under $250,000, and that is because for every hour that the House sits it costs $41,384. So if you times that by, you know, another 15 pieces of legislation, you are starting to get into millions—up to about $2.2 million just to meddle in the local government in Auckland.

We have been opposed to this bill because we see it as another attack on the democratic rights of local government to control its own decision making. We were opposed to the original Act that this bill amends. We were opposed to it because it gave the Government the powers to determine who will be the hearings commissioners to hear the first Auckland Unitary Plan.

We know that we need a unitary plan and we know it is groundbreaking to get a unitary plan for a city that size, but we have also been very concerned at the truncated process that has been allowed for that very important piece of regulation that is being developed up in our biggest city in the country. Essentially, this Government set in place time frames that were not achievable, and it put that in the statutes.

So we have had to come back, under urgency, to pass legislation that not only once more gives the Government the ability and right to appoint more hearings commissioners who will hear the submissions on the plan but also enables them to get through another 5,000 site-specific submissions and report back by July next year. The July next year period is purely arbitrary, and the fact that we went into urgency to do this is also completely unnecessary because, as we have heard from other speakers, there was the opportunity to have a truncated but democratic process to hear submissions on this bill, to hear from the experts, and to hear personally from Auckland Council. We could have done that if we had started the process at the time when the Minister actually announced that this was what was needed in the legislation in order for the recommendations to come back to the council.

We are the only party in the House that is opposing this bill, and we take on board the fact that Auckland Council actually supports it because it wants to get through the unitary plan process too. But there were solutions that we had offered right from the start. The development of the draft plan was a very democratic and consultative process run by Auckland Council. At the time we said, like many others in the House, that if we had adopted the draft plan, then we could have gone on from there and we would have had more time. However, that was rejected by that side of the House.

We have taken a stand to oppose this bill because we are constantly concerned about the way this Government will frequently decide to shortcut democracy in local government. We have seen it time and time again in Auckland, but we have seen it elsewhere across the country. I guess the classic one is the removal of the Environment Canterbury councillors, and that was because they were not playing ball. They were not singing from the same song sheet as the National Government. What did the Government do there? It sacked the democratically elected representatives and it replaced them with its own hand-picked commissioners. We have had elections in Fiji before we have actually had elections for Environment Canterbury representatives. It has been this consistent meddling with local government that really does disturb us.

One of the absolute founding principles for the Greens is around appropriate decision-making. Appropriate decision-making means that decisions get made by the people who are affected by them. In the case of Environment Canterbury, that has not happened.

Basically, the people whom the Government wanted to make the decisions have been dumped, and certainly with the appointment of hearings commissioners, although it says in this bill that when appointing these extra hearings commissioners the Ministers will consult with the statutory Māori board and they will consult with Auckland Council, it is a totally different thing from actually having the ability to make the decision or being part of the decision making about whom the council wants, whom the elected representatives want, and being able to hear the submissions that will be coming through that will be part of the framework and the documents that will set the rules for the development of Auckland for the next 30 years.

We acknowledge the fact that those appointed commissioners have, by all accounts, been working incredibly hard and probably doing a really good job. But the process—we worry about the process. We worry about the fact that the changes in this bill will mean that there will be only two commissioners hearing submitters rather than three. We worry about the mistakes that this bill is actually fixing up, validating stuff that has happened before.

We worry about that because, potentially, we may make similar mistakes because we have been through this urgency process. All in all, we are opposing this bill, and we are the only ones in the House who will be. We are doing it absolutely on a point of principle about democracy for Aucklanders.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is with mixed feelings, actually, that I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I say “with mixed feelings”, because it could have been a sweeter moment had we gone through the process.

Let me be very clear about the position of New Zealand First when it comes to super-cities. New Zealand First is not a supporter of the changes that were enacted in 2010 and the creation of the Auckland super-city. We never ever bought into the argument that by lumping all those city councils in together we would see improvements in efficiency, we would see reductions in staffing levels, we would see reductions in overheads, we would see reductions in rates, we would see reductions in the rate of increases of rates, and we would see greater cohesion. We never bought any of that argument because, for many people, a bit of common sense tells you that the bigger those things are, the more difficult they are to maintain and the further away the governance moves from the people.

There is ample evidence of that internationally. In fact, if one has a look at what is happening in Brisbane right now, where they are de-amalgamating because they have learnt the lessons the hard way, it was already written that the Auckland super-city—which the National Government created, supported by Rodney Hide—was always going to fall short of the claims being made to justify its creation. So it was no surprise, when I got a hold of this bill and started doing a little bit of research, to find, as has already been mentioned here a couple of times, that in 6 years—it is only 6 short years that the Auckland super-city has existed, or since the legislation was passed, anyway—this Parliament has redressed that legislation no fewer than 16 times.

And here is the prediction: we predict that this is not the last Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill that we will see. We predict that there will be more yet to come, as more of the worms start creeping their way to the surface and as Auckland City continues to make it known to the Government that there are flaws that need redressing. This is one such flaw. It is an issue that New Zealand First understands, and we empathise.

What we do not empathise with is the way in which this legislation has been progressed through the House. In fact, we said in the second reading and, I think, during the Committee stage that the huge irony of what has happened here over the last couple of days has been in this simple fact: this legislation seeks to correct faulty hearings processes and seeks to enhance them, but the process by which the Government has chosen to do that—urgency—has actually denied the people of Auckland their opportunity to have a full democratic process through which they would be heard. In short, the Government has knee-capped the hearing process here in Parliament by putting this bill through under urgency. Why? Well, we do not know why.

Normally when the Government brings urgent legislation to the House, it is critical, it is crucial. There is something quite momentous that has happened. Something is sailing on a time line and it has to be corrected very, very quickly, or it is controversial, hugely controversial, and the Government wants to get it done and dusted really quickly to avoid the backlash in the public arena and the political debate. But none of that exists here. In fact, had there been a select committee process, we would have had a rather unique situation where 100 percent of the House voted in favour of the bill.

So I guess we suspect here that there are people sitting behind the scenes—whether it is the Leader of the House, or the Deputy Prime Minister, or senior Cabinet Ministers—scratching their heads, wondering what the heck it was that Nick Smith told them that convinced them that this bill needed to be done through urgency. I have got a sneaking suspicion that people will be asking Nick Smith, when he gets back from down the West Coast, what the issue was. Why could this bill, having been introduced in September, not have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee? You have got a very, very good select committee there. It works in a very collegial manner, chaired very well by Scott Simpson and backed up by Todd Muller very, very well. The committee actually functions exceedingly well—some might even say too well, because it is a joy to go along to that committee.

There is no reason why the Government should have feared referring this bill to the committee and saying to the chairperson, Mr Scott Simpson: “Look, we really need to turn this round. There are some tight time lines, but we actually want to give it the full benefit of a hearings process. Let Auckland people have their say. Let the committee question the Minister, question the department, question Auckland Council, and get a greater feel for what the issues are behind the legislation. Get it reported back to the House and then we can put it through.” I know it would have gone through without any hassle at all. We certainly would have had shorter speeches on this side of the House—there would not have been a lot more to say. Much of the debate here has been about the process, which is the irony of the whole thing. So I have no idea why the bill went through this process, but I am pretty confident in the back of my mind that there are ongoing discussions, comments, and questions being asked on the Government benches as to why the Government used urgency. The truth is that given the way the Local Government and Environment Committee operates we could have done better. I have already covered that.

So what are the changes that this bill makes? The changes have already been canvassed well. There is a change to the quorum—it will be two instead of three—and New Zealand First signalled right at the outset that we had reservations about that. With a quorum of two, if you need to take a pause does that mean the whole hearing has to grind to a halt? Does it have to stop because one member has ducked out of the room, whether it is to go to the bathroom or whether it is to take an urgent phone call from their partner because something disastrous has happened? The beauty of having a quorum of three is that one person can vacate the room and the hearing can continue.

I would love someone to show me a trust deed or an incorporation’s constitution where they actually have a quorum of two. But take the next point: if you have a quorum of two, there is a third person in there who is the chair, and if the chair is not able to be there and only the quorum of two turns up, who becomes the chair? My pick is that they will spend the first part of the meeting having a conversation about who is going to chair it. Of course, everyone loves to be the chair, because they get to sit up there and have the TV cameras on them. They get to call the shots and decide who is going be heard, who is not going to be heard, who is going to be curtailed, and who gets the questions. So those conversations about who will be the chair just seem rather pointless. So we have made that point, but we do not think we got satisfactory answers.

The other issue is around increasing the number of appointed hearings panel members from seven to 10—actually to 11, because it does include the chair. This is sensible given that the aim is to allow concurrent hearings to be held. The other issue is about validating the hearings that have already been held illegally. That is interesting. I do not know where else around the country a local government territorial authority would get away with that, but Auckland seems to have.

The bill validates closing dates for submissions received between 14 January and 28 February. That, again, raises a whole bunch of questions, which were never answered at all, about those people who understood that the closing date was 14 January, thought that was it, and did not get their submissions in, only to now find that, actually, the submissions that were received up until 28 February would have been legal, because on 19 November Parliament made them so.

I think that a number of issues were addressed in the amendments Phil Twyford put forward. New Zealand First supported those. We thought they were sensible. We thought it was right and proper, actually, and a better fit that the mayor and the duly elected representatives of the Auckland people have a say in whom the Minister for the Environment appointed on to that panel. Regretfully, that amendment was rejected, as was Mr Twyford’s other amendment. We in New Zealand First believe that those two amendments would have enhanced the legislation.

Again, had we had a full select committee process we might have been able to convince the Government that those two amendments were not harmful and did actually add to the quality of the bill, and given a bit more time we might have convinced the Minister to go with it. We might have convinced the Minister not to drop the quorum from three to two—to keep it at three. We might have convinced the Minister on Mr Twyford’s other amendment to replace section 144(5), in clause 5, with a hearings panel that—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. I feel it is my duty to assist “Major Mark” with some of the points that he brought up, so I will address those in my comments.

This Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill is very, very simple, and it does a couple of things that actually have direct comparisons we can make in this House. In reducing the quorum from three to two for the hearings it balances very successfully, in my view, taking a pragmatic and practical approach that will allow the Auckland Council to complete unitary plan hearings by the middle of next year with the need to be democratic, transparent, and accountable to Auckland ratepayers.

There is a very similar thing we do. In fact, the Education and Science Committee, on which I sit, has a reduced quorum and a subcommittee now, so that we can hear the many hundreds of people who want to come to submit on the inquiry into special needs and education. They are the parents of disabled children who are going through the educational system in New Zealand. I think it is disgraceful that the Labour Party denied leave for that subcommittee to sit during the period of urgency, thus inconveniencing the families of hundreds of New Zealand children in the educational system who suffer from disabilities and have special educational needs and learning differences. Those members should hang their heads in shame for that. We have a reduced quorum for that meeting, and there is a very simple reason: it is to balance practicality and pragmatism, versus the need to be democratic and as transparent and accountable as possible.

Secondly, on the need for urgency, I think this is also very clear. It is laid out in the bill. There is a statutory deadline of 22 July 2016. Hearings must begin in January next year to successfully complete them by that statutory deadline.

It is a practical and pragmatic bill, and I think it successfully achieves what we need to do to make sure the Auckland Unitary Plan is completed on time. I commend it to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jan Logie—a 5-minute call.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on this, the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. The Green Party, as we have expressed already, is not able to support this bill, as it is passing through under urgency without the proper democratic process—without enabling the people of Auckland to have input into changes to the oversight of a planning process that is absolutely critical to creating the Auckland that every person in Auckland desperately wants and has been waiting for, for a long time.

The detail of this bill is that it reduces the quorum required for hearings sessions from three to two. There have been issues raised with that, in the point of where the decision making will happen if there are locked perspectives when you have got an even number. There have also been issues raised around the increased potential for a narrowing of perspectives to be leading the direction of the plan when you have got only two people rather than three. Other concerns that have been raised around that point are just around the fact that, well, one person may not be paying attention, one person may not be available—then what, in terms of things being able to go forward?

So we think that those are actually genuine points that it would have been useful to have enabled Aucklanders to have input on, around their experience of the process so far and their desire for how they would like this process to look.

This bill also allows for an increase in the number of Government-appointed panel members from seven to 10, and, again, for us, this is a core point of difference between our vision of democracy and what it seems this Government’s is. We believe that in appropriate decision-making, the people closest to that decision and who are most affected by a decision are the ones in the best place to make that decision, not people based here in Wellington who, actually, may not even be able to see the gaps in their understanding of the realities in those communities.

It is particularly galling that this is happening under urgency and, again, taking away the right of the people of Auckland to have input and comment on that. It is not a small thing when the Government has voted down, consciously through the Committee stage of this bill, the opportunity to enable Auckland Council to appoint those people.

So it becomes very clear that this is not about the needs of Auckland; this is about what this Government wants. And then, again, it is imposing its vision, its will, on top of local government, and that is not how our constitutional Government arrangements are supposed to work. Central government has a specific role and local government has another role, and they should be freed up to be able to deliver that for their communities, for those locally elected members to be able to be accountable to the members of their community.

This bill, again, overrides that, and it needs to be pointed out that this is happening under urgency, to amend a piece of legislation that was introduced under urgency, and that there have been 16 separate bills dealing with Auckland local government issues since 2009, since this Government has been in power. This is the fourth Auckland transitional provisions bill since 2009, because the Government put through the initial legislation under urgency, overriding local democracy, and it did not get it right. So many hours and so much money have been wasted in this House fixing up mistakes that would not have happened if there had been good decision-making.

It seems to me that this Government has an idea of efficiency that is all about realising its vision as quickly as possible. It does not seem to understand that efficiency is best served when as many people’s views as possible can be gathered together to produce the best result, in the best time frame to enable that to happen. It is about the quality of decision making and democratic rights, and we have to oppose the bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute in this, the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. As a member of Parliament in the Auckland area, for Manurewa, I just want to note that this process has been created in lieu of having council-appointed commissioners, who would have, in fact, gone through what would be an engagement with the over 13,000 people who chose to participate in the formation of an Auckland Unitary Plan. So I want to acknowledge all the people who took the time—all those Aucklanders; people who live in Tāmaki-makau-rau—and who, through their submissions, identified 93,600 requests, and there were over 1.4 million points registered in the 13,200 submissions.

For me, this bill has to be about local people having and creating an opportunity for their city to have a vision, and for us, it is about Auckland being the most livable city, so any critique of this piece of legislation has to be about ensuring the voice of local people continues to be heard throughout this process. Those local communities have to be Māori, and those local communities and local voices have to be Pacific, they have to be Asian, and they have to be representative of the people who live in Tāmaki-makau-rau.

When I look at this piece of legislation, one of the things that strikes me about it, particularly in Part 1, is the expedited processes but also the additional, I guess, power that this hearings panel has by virtue of this piece of legislation to actually produce recommendations that have not come from submissions. I find that incredibly undermining of a system that is all about local people having a say in their local community—about Aucklanders coming together and developing a vision in a unitary plan for our city that we want to take into the future.

This has been about building a consensus of a vision for Auckland, and what I see in this piece of legislation is actually an opportunity for people on the hearings panel who are appointed by the Government—so, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation—who actually may not have the best interests of Aucklanders in hand. If we had looked at having a traditional process and those commissioners had been appointed by the council, then there would have been a relationship and an expectation that anything that those commissioners did would have at the heart of it what is in the best interests of Auckland and the vision that the governors of Auckland have. So in preparing for my contribution I did speak to councillor Alf Filipaina, and I do want to acknowledge the Auckland councillors who have had many hours of consultation in and with our communities about what they are trying to achieve.

Whether or not this piece of legislation is going to create something that everyone can be unified around, we will see in time. So what I am really interested in is that this process is going to produce a report and some recommendations by 22 July 2016. That is why we were in urgency and why we are now trying to pass this piece of legislation—it is to meet that deadline.

So what I want to be really clear about in the process going forward is that that is not the end of the process. In fact, that report and those recommendations will go to Auckland Council, and then it will be up to Auckland Council and our elected representatives as to whether or not we accept the recommendations that the hearings panel will provide. By September next year it will be the elected representatives of Auckland—it will be the people of Auckland—who actually have the final say about our Auckland Unitary Plan. I think that is really important to put on the record—that there is still an opportunity for local communities and for local people, through their local councils, to ensure that this process actually upholds our voice. Kia ora.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I rise to speak on the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I must say that in the last few weeks I feel like I have risen more to speak about the development of Christchurch and Canterbury, so it is great to rise and speak around the development of another great city, Auckland.

When I look at this bill, three things stick out for me. They are around efficiency, effectiveness, and economics: reducing the quorum from three to two, increasing the hearings panel from seven to 10 members, and making the panel able to report back their recommendations in stages. Overall, this is a great bill, and I commend it to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): That was a pathetic contribution by that member, Matt Doocey. It had no reference whatsoever—no reference whatsoever—to what this is all about. This is about the people of Auckland.

I want to read out an email that I picked up this afternoon from an Aucklander. It says: “I have been listening to the parliamentary debate all morning and I am not happy about this issue being passed under urgency rather than going through a select committee process. Once again, the people and ratepayers of Auckland will have no say, and once again we will have flawed amendments to fix flawed legislation.” That was from one constituent in the Auckland region, Carol-Anne Armitage. But I suspect that that feeling and that mood is shared by many, many people in Auckland. She is absolutely correct: we are fixing flawed legislation that goes back to when this Government came into power.

This is the third and final reading of this piece of legislation. We have been denied the select committee process. We have been denied Parliamentary Counsel Office advice. We have been denied a regulatory impact statement. We have been denied, also, the benefit of receiving the knowledge, the wisdom, and the experience of people from Auckland. That is what we have been denied, as reflected in the letter of Carol-Anne Armitage, which hopefully this House will listen to. I can see the Government members hanging their heads in shame, because in the last contribution about economics and efficiency, Matt Doocey made no reference whatsoever to how this bill impacts on people in Auckland.

The first impact is, again, Aucklanders were denied their opportunity to submit and have a say on how this bill impacts on them. This is not the first time. As the member of the Green Party said, nine pieces of legislation have gone through this House with reference to Auckland. Four of those pieces of legislation have been done in urgency. We are fixing flawed legislation, which was also done in a reduced process in 2010. Altogether there have been 48 pieces of legislation that have gone through this House in urgency, and each time this Government continues to deny the general public their opportunity to have a say. That is wrong—that is wrong. That is a flawed lawmaking process. It is not good practice.

I emphasise that, because some of us in this House have had the opportunity of travelling in the Pacific region, meeting up with parliamentarians from the Pacific, and holding up our select committee process as best practice. What do this lot do? They deny our own people the opportunity of experiencing what democracy is about. This is a pattern that we have seen in the last 7 years of this Government, and it continues to undermine democracy, it continues to deny the opportunities of Aucklanders to have a say.

There are a couple of things that I want to refer to in this legislation because I did not get the opportunity to speak during the Committee of the whole House. I want to make reference to clause 5, which inserts new section 144(4), (5), and (6). What this makes reference to is the scope of recommendations. Subclause (4) says: “The Hearings Panel must make recommendations on any provision included in the proposed plan …”. However, new section 144(5) says “the Hearings Panel—(a) is not limited to making recommendations … within the scope of the submissions …” but “may make recommendations on any other matters relating …”. Because we were denied the opportunity of having the officials’ advice, legal advice, and the advice from the general public, I cannot help but wonder. We have taken the right of Auckland City to appoint independent commissioners. Instead, we are saying that the Minister will appoint the independent members of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

I am going to ask this question, which I doubt the Government members will answer but I am going to ask it anyway. On whose interests will the independent members of the panel base recommendations that are outside the scope of public submission? Whose interests will drive those recommendations that fall outside what the people of Auckland will want? If the Government is appointing these members, I have to say I am suspicious. I am suspicious that instead of the independent members being independent, this Government will attempt, as we have seen in other situations, to influence the decisions that the independent members will make.

I want to make another reference to new section 161(8A), inserted by clause 7. In this new section we see that “The Ministers may appoint an additional member or a replacement member only after consulting the Auckland Council, the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and the chairperson of the Hearings Panel … ”. I want to ask what the meaning of the word “consulting” is when used in this piece of legislation, because we do not have an interpretation clause in this bill. And the reason why I ask is that I want to know whether the Ministers—when it says they are consulting the Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, etc., does that mean that they will go with their recommendation and simply inform them that this is what is going to happen? Do they ask for their view? And if their view is contrary to the Ministers’ view, whose view then dominates? It will be the Ministers’.

But I also want to ask what that would mean in Auckland. Samoan language is the second-most spoken language in the city of Auckland after English. And the word that I would rather see used in this piece of legislation is the Samoan word of “soalaupule”. Soalapule means to share authority. So I am asking again whether any member of this Government is prepared to answer the meaning of “consultation”. Does it mean that they share authority with the Auckland Council and with the Independent Māori Statutory Board? Does that mean that they seek their view and it is generally acknowledged and accepted? Or is this really meaning that the Ministers impose the person that they want on this panel?

As I have said before in earlier statements, I have the greatest respect for people on the independent hearings panel. But this is about Auckland. And, as I said before, there were only two people whom I would recognise as Aucklanders. And, granted, this area is an area of expertise, but community representatives can also get accredited to sit on the hearings panel. The University of Auckland and Auckland University of Technology have done such courses so that elected members and others can be accredited to sit on these hearings panels. I do not see anyone there. In fact, with the greatest respect to the professionalism of people who are on the board, I often wonder, do we not have people in Auckland with the same experience and the same expertise who ought to be on this panel? It almost seems that this Government is so content and so intent on treating Aucklanders with contempt and treating Aucklanders like they are second-class citizens.

I want to come back to a point that Ron Mark made. We have a select committee that is very well and ably chaired by Scott Simpson. I wonder why it is that Minister Nick Smith does not trust the chair or that committee enough to pass this legislation in so it can consider it. I suspect the Minister is afraid that Scott Simpson may be too good and may become the Minister of Local Government. But this is the point. There are two reasons why the Government did not use the select committee process. One is Nick Smith is afraid of Scott Simpson taking his place, and two is to show his sheer contempt for Aucklanders. This is not the first time.

This is a Government, as I have said before, whose rhetoric sounds good, but underneath it all is all this stuff. It has never been straight with Aucklanders. It has been talking about how this bill is somehow going to save Aucklanders. The reality is that this bill has also been about fixing the mistakes that this Government made. Every time it rushes into legislation it makes mistakes. It makes mistakes, and when the pattern has been repeated, it means that this Government is incompetent—incompetent as far as Aucklanders are concerned.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It always great to follow Mr William Sio with fire and brimstone, as he just did previously. It is also an honour to be able to speak in support of this bill.

The situation here, really, is that this is great legislation. It was introduced into the House last night in an incredibly well-thought-out speech by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. On this side of the House, I want to mihi them as well because we got some really important information there from a potential mayoral candidate, a housing spokesman, and a former Mayor of Carterton, and so we have got it all here. We have got it all here. On this side of the House the glass is half full; on that side of the House, mostly it is half empty. But, at the end of the day, in the final speech here, after all that was said and done, there has been more said than done so far, so let us get on with this legislation. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 13

Green Party 13.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 4 November.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. “Papā te whatitiri, hikohiko te uira, ka tanuku ki runga i te maunga o Hikurangi ki Te Tai Rāwhiti o Kahurānaki ki runga o Heretaunga. Ka rere ā-waikamo ki runga i Te Marae o Kohupātiki ki roto i ngā rangi kua pahure ake nei.” Kai tōku pāpā a Wīrangi Wīremu Whaitiri ōku whakaaro i tēnei wā. Ka kotahi ake te wairua o tōku pāpā ki a ia. Ka kotahi ake te wairua o te toa whutupōro a Jonah Lomu ki a rāua, kia kotahi tonu ai te tangi mō rātou kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō, haere, haere, haere!

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātau me tēnei kaupapa kai mua i te aroaro o Te Whare i te rā nei. Ka tautoko ahau i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi a Te Minita ka tae mai tēnei pire ki mua i te aroaro o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori. Kua kōrero mai Te Whare ki roto i te pānuitanga tuatahi, tuarua i ngā mahi e pā ana ki ngā kaiwhakahaere o te wāhi o Waitangi, nō reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki Te Minita, e mihi atu ana ahau ki Te Heamana o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā Take Māori, e Tūtehounuku tēnā koe, mō ngā mahi kua tae mai tātau ki tēnei wā.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. “The thunder crashes, the lightning flashes and crumbles upon Mount Hikurangi, east of Kahurānaki, and upon Hastings. Tears flowed on the marae of Kohupātiki in days just past.” My thoughts at this moment are with my father figure, Wīrangi Wīremu Whaitiri. The spirit of my father will indeed be as one with him, as the spirit of the champion rugby player Jonah Lomu will be with both of them, so that there will be only one mourning period required for them lost to the Void. Go forth, depart, journey on!

I will bring the contents of the presentations and this matter before the House today back to us. I support the statements, and the work, of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage that this bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. The House has expressed its views in the first and second readings in regard to the functions of administrators at Waitangi itself, and so I acknowledge the Minister and the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee. To you, Tūtehounuku, well done in regard to what has been done to bring us here to where we are at this point in time.]

I speak with a very clear and unashamed passion for this part of the country. Waitangi, since I was born, has been a place very close to my heart. I visit Waitangi not only to commemorate at the beginning of February every year. I have long held my connection to Waitangi, and that connection I want draw to the attention of the House.

Although we may speak of the gift of Lord and Lady Bledisloe I want to return, for the record of the House, the conversation to the time of my ancestor Maikuku, from whom I am a direct descendant. Maikuku was resident in the area now known as the Waitangi National Trust estate. In fact, the place right near the waka Ngātokimatawhaorua is known as Te Ana o Maikuku, or the place where Maikuku lived. I want to remind the House of just how deep my roots are, and indeed how deep the roots of this country are, at the place affectionately known as Waitangi.

The heritage of this country is really important to me. I cannot think of a more important place, when I consider the history of our country, than Waitangi. This is the very place where my ancestors and indeed the colonial ancestors of this country debated the merits of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They went on to sign the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and thus we have this august institution and the fine country that we live in today.

I want to just pick up a part of the Hon Nicky Wagner’s contribution to the third reading of this amendment bill. In her contribution she said that over 80 years ago Lord Bledisloe, the Governor-General at the time, and Lady Bledisloe showed enormous foresight when they acquired the Waitangi estate and gifted it to the nation. As with New Zealand Governors-General before 1972, Lord Bledisloe was British. Nicky Wagner went on to say that he lived in New Zealand for only 5 years, yet during his time here he showed an interest in New Zealand’s heritage that would put many native-born New Zealanders to shame.

I want to highlight to the House that at the end of the 1800s several Māori groups came together to try to rally central government to protect the estate known as Waitangi. They could see that the farmland was becoming a marginal farm. It was starting to become run down. They understood and appreciated the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tried to rally central government to ensure that the place was protected. Sadly, their efforts were in vain.

I also want to highlight the efforts of the member Mr Vernon Reed, a former member of the House, who I understand hosted Lord and Lady Bledisloe in the Bay of Islands and shared the rich history of Waitangi with them, which, as far as I am concerned—and what I would like to offer to the House—is what tipped the decision of Lord and Lady Bledisloe to purchase the land and, indeed, make the noble gift of gifting it to the country.

Just as in the spirit of Te Tiriti of Waitangi a partnership was entered into, I believe that in this particular bill a partnership again was reached. Why do I say that? Because for some time now there has been a groundswell of concern amongst the families in te Tai Tokerau in respect of the descendants of the ancestors who were instrumental in the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. Their concern was based around representation on the Waitangi National Trust. They felt that their voices were not being heard. They felt that their tupuna, or ancestor, had as equal mana as other ancestors who were being represented on the Waitangi National Trust.

So I want to congratulate the House on this bill. One of the amendments is to ensure that the voice of Pōmare, the voice of Nene, the voice of Kāwiti, and the voice of Heke will be now heard on the Waitangi National Trust. It is with some pride that as a descendant of all four of those ancestors I am recommending this bill to the House in its third reading, so that those families can gain representation in the spirit of partnership that was entered into in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

This amendment bill also looks to the future of the Waitangi National Trust, and that is a good thing, for as much as we celebrate our heritage and our past, it is important to protect the future of not only the estate but also the conversation, the learnings, and the taonga that come from the Waitangi National Trust.

So it sets out a bit of a pathway forward and I think it does so at a very important time in the nation’s future. I know, and many of the members in this House know, that the Waitangi National Trust has looked to having the actual Te Tiriti o Waitangi to Waitangi returned, where, hopefully, one day it will be displayed for all to see in the beautiful place of Waitangi.

I am really excited about the future of the Waitangi National Trust. It has a plan. Part of that plan is to make sure that the education and the story of Waitangi is told to all young New Zealanders—and I am excited by that—so that that conversation does not end and so that that conversation does evolve.

In conclusion, I want to thank all involved in bringing this bill to this point in time, and, in particular, the Waitangi National Trust. It may interest the House to know that upon the death of my father in May, there was a vacant seat left on the trust board. Recently that was advertised and I was asked to consider applying. I did, and I am proud to say now that very shortly I will be a trustee on the Waitangi National Trust Board.

So in its third reading I want to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tatou katoa.

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnā anō koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E hiahia ana ahau ki te tautoko i te kaikōrero o mua, e Peeni e mihi atu!

[And thank you once again, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to endorse the previous speaker; well done, Peeni!]

It gives me great pleasure and honour to be able to speak to the third reading of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill as a member of this Government and also as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee.

I would like to start by mentioning three milestones. One is that this year we are celebrating the 175th anniversary of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are also looking at the 79th year of the Waitangi National Trust Board Act. We are also looking—this is the third milestone—at the fact that it is 9 years since we started this review of the Act. It has also been a little frustrating because we have been in the House over the last 3 or 4 weeks, waiting for this final reading—the third reading of this bill—and so, finally, we come almost, hopefully, to the end of the journey. But in doing that, it has taken some time, so I would like to take my time here to just reiterate a number of the important parts of this bill and the work that a number of Māori Affairs Committees undertook to get it to this point.

The Waitangi National Trust Board is the body entrusted with caring for one of the most important single locations in our country: the Treaty grounds at Waitangi. The important heritage status of this place, this birthplace of our nation, is recognised in law through the establishment of the trust board to administer and act as guardian of these grounds. The trust is self-funded and maintains the Treaty grounds without cost—without cost—to the people of New Zealand. But a need was identified over 9 years ago to strengthen the financial viability and governance structure of the trust.

What the most significant change in this bill does is it structures the trust. Currently, there is a risk that the perception of a conflict of interest could arise between the constitutional roles of the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister for Māori Development, and their roles as ex officio members of the trust. However, it is also important that the relationship between the Crown and the Waitangi National Trust Board be maintained, and that is a very, very important point.

This bill does a good job of resolving this issue. It removes the ex officio members from the trust board, but it continues their involvement with the trust through the appointment of the Governor-General as patron of the trust and the establishment of a Crown representative group to foster good relations and share information with the board. This is made up of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and the Minister for Māori Development. In addition, there are two members of Parliament who will be appointed as full members of the board: one representing the Government and the other representing the Opposition.

The Māori Affairs Committee saw an opportunity also to make a further correction to that representation on the board. Currently the trust board includes three members to represent three non-Māori families, but only one member to represent four Māori families. Our colleague Pita Paraone is currently the representative for those four Māori families, but as a result of the changes made at the select committee he will be replaced by four representatives when his current term ends. I am sure that Pita will enjoy being able to say he was so valuable he had to be replaced by four people. But, in all seriousness, we feel that this was a change that was very important and that it was important to make that change now, while we had the opportunity, and that is what we have done.

This bill makes a number of other changes to modernise the provisions for the Waitangi National Trust Board, such as providing term limits for representative members, and we also have given the board general powers to do anything a natural person would do. This will allow the board to make better use of its commercial opportunities by doing things like borrowing money or managing forestry on its own land. The trust board takes care of the Treaty grounds at no cost to the taxpayer, as I said before, and these changes will allow it to continue to do so.

I want to acknowledge the members of the Waitangi National Trust Board for the work that they do for the care of one of our most important historic sites. I also acknowledge my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the work that they put in to consider this bill. There was a lot of work that was done. I also want to acknowledge the honourable Minister Maggie Barry and the input that she had, our officials also, and also a former chair, the Hon Tau Henare, because, as I said, this bill has been going for some time.

Finally, I acknowledge the earlier speaker Peeni Henare, as I said at the beginning, but I want to pay tribute once more to his father, the late Ērima Hēnare, who served this country and his people on many other boards and was a tireless advocate for Te Reo Māori. This is a legacy organisation.

My final acknowledgment here is that I sincerely want to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, oti noa e tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu ki a tātau katoa, otirā, kia whakapiri taku mi’i atu ki te mi’i i tukuna mai e taku w’anaunga nei, a Peeni, ki te W’are, otirā, ki a rātau mā i te wāhi ngaro, nō reira, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time my acknowledgments to us all, and to my colleague here, Peeni. I add my tribute to those he accorded to the House and, indeed, to those who have gone to the place lost from the sight of mankind; so salutations to us all.]

It is indeed a pleasure to stand and take a call on this really important bill for our nation. It is as important as Waitangi itself, which is said to be the birthplace of our nation, and I would quickly add that it is the birthplace of our modern nation. I think it is important that we recognise the importance of the place but also continually recognise the importance of the event that took place there and celebrate that. In doing that and in talking to this bill, we need to ensure that we make it the best that it can be.

I want to congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee, which, through its work, actually made some really significant changes to the original bill—the bill that was first introduced into the House on 7 November 2013, so it has been a long time coming to this point—and, in particular, the change and the acknowledgment to the four w’ānau so that they may each have a representative on the trust. I think that was very, very important, and I mihi to the committee and to Nuk Korako, the chair of the committee, who has just resumed his seat. Ā, nō reira, e mihi ana ahau ki ngā w’ānau nei o Hone Heke, ki te w ’ānau o Mai’i Kāwiti, kite w’ānau o Tāmati Waka Nene, ki te w’ānau anō o Pōmare. E tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu ki a rātau.

[And therefore I commend these families of Hone Heke, Mai’i Kāwiti, Tāmati Waka Nene, and Pōmare as well. It is only right that I recognise them.]

I think it is important to do that because they take now their place as individual w’ānau rather than collectively together, and I want to acknowledge that. I want to also acknowledge quite a significant change, which I would characterise as enhancing the partnership between the Crown and ngā iwi o Tai Tokerau, for this particular site. The removal of the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, and the other members who held those memberships in an ex officio capacity—removing them and establishing the Crown Representative Group—to me, takes them out of the trust but also continues the relationship in a more partnership model, and I think that is a good idea.

I also want to acknowledge that there will be a member of Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister and a member of Parliament appointed by the Leader of the Opposition as trustees. So in that way Parliament still gives the recognition to that trust as being very important to Parliament, but the relationship is between the trust and the Crown Representative Group. I think that is a very nice way of maintaining the representation of Parliament but also having the Crown-iwi relationship continuing in that capacity.

I do want to touch on, also, the term of each trustee being changed to a 3-year term, with a maximum of 9 years. During the Committee stage I did say that I agreed with it, and I continue to agree with it, but I do recognise the contribution of other members who spoke to that point. There has been a long tradition, not only for this particular trust but for a number of Māori trusts and organisations, where we do tend to have a long membership continuing on, and I think that is more a reflection of rangatiratanga and leadership within our people. I want to still support the idea of having a 9-year term in this instance, but I think it is really important that we put in place, perhaps, some measures within the trust to ensure that there is continuity and that we do not end up with, after 3 years, all of those representatives being changed at one time. I think that is something for the trust to work on at the appropriate time.

Finally, I just want to recognise that in September of this year Heritage New Zealand gave the status to Waitangi of being a wāhi tupuna. I think it is very important that that happened. I also want to suggest to the House, to the Parliament, and to the Government that we should surely be looking at this special place to us as New Zealanders going through the process of becoming a World Heritage site. I think that Waitangi is not only important to our country but, actually, really important to the whole world. I have had discussions on a personal level with indigenous peoples from around the world, who quite often visit our country on the basis of quite a special Treaty between the Crown and Māori—the Treaty of Waitangi. I think this place is a representation of the Treaty, and that is acknowledged by others around the world, and so I thought I would finish on the point that this place is so important that it ought to be a World Heritage site. Nō reira e tika ana kia tuku mi’i atu ki ngā iwi katoa o te Tai Tokerau, nō reira, tēnā tātau.

[Therefore it is appropriate that I congratulate all the tribes of North Auckland, so well done to us.]

JOANNE HAYES (National): I rise to take a brief call on the third reading of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. Everybody knows that the Waitangi National Trust Board administers the Waitangi Treaty Grounds. It is a self-funded group that maintains the grounds without cost to the people of New Zealand, and that is good.

Being on the Māori Affairs Committee, I can say there were some recommendations. One of those recommendations was about giving the board the power to do anything that a natural person would do. This is about strengthening its financial viability as a trust board. These things that a natural person would do include having the ability to borrow money, and to own, manage, and operate its forestry on the board’s land and its neighbouring Waitangi endowment forestry lands as well. This is all about increasing the commercial viability of those lands and also bringing in some income for the trust board.

My colleague Nuk Korako spoke a little bit about one of our recommendations, which is about the provision of representation from Māori families by increasing those numbers from two to four. Also, our colleague across the way, Adrian Rurawhe, talked about the tenure of the board members, but there was also a little bit extra, in that, once this bill comes into effect, board members who have served for more than 9 years will be given another 3 more years on top of that to complete their tenure.

I am all in favour of changeover of board members. I am in favour of keeping some old heads in there, as well as bringing in some new heads. They bring in new lenses to look at the type of business. They allow for the ability for people with other skill sets to come in and fit within that trust board membership grouping. That can actually grow a business and keep it vibrant and moving along. I, personally, am all for a changing of the guard every now and then, to make sure we keep the toto, I suppose—the blood—of the organisation moving significantly.

This is a very important bill for the Waitangi National Trust Board. As my colleagues have said in the House, it has been a long time coming. I think that haste is of the urgency here, so I have no hesitation and am very proud to be able to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): It is a real pleasure to rise to speak to this third reading of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. It does seem that this bill has been the one that has almost got into the House for its final reading a number of times, so it is good that we will see it off before the end of year and are able to implement the provisions within it. It is a straightforward bill, it is a refreshingly simple bill, but it is also profoundly important in that it does deal with the governance of what I would argue is undoubtedly the single most important heritage site in our country. For that reason the bill is significant.

Waitangi is an important historic site. I think it is also important for our future that as and when we conduct a constitutional discussion, a dialogue in the country, as to our future constitutional arrangements, we return to Waitangi and actually stand on that land and have that conversation as well as having it in other parts of the country. It has long been a significant site for gathering, for dialogue, for decision making—even prior to 1840, of course. I think we should continue to honour that tradition in that place.

I confess that when we first sighted this bill, I think from memory about a year or so ago, or a little over a year perhaps, I was inclined to some suspicion because it appeared to be that the Government was handing back a level of authority or relinquishing a level of control over the Waitangi National Trust. I tend to suspicion when I see Governments appearing to do that. But I must acknowledge Pita Paraone, our matua, who, given his unique perspective on the board, was able to reassure me that it did seem benevolent and actually we were looking for better outcomes, and for that reason, of course, we are very happy to continue to support the bill.

As others have mentioned, I think one of the most important provisions of the legislation is to allow for proper representation of those four chiefly families who formerly have been represented by just the one representative. I am quite sure that Mr Paraone and others who have gone before him did a sterling job in representing, but really there is no substitute for having those descendants of Hone Heke, of Kāwiti, of Tāmati Waka Nene, and of Pōmare properly represented by the descendants of those individuals. They are, of course, fruitful families. There is no shortage of contenders, I think, to represent and represent well those rangatira. I think it is a very good provision that will see richness and depth come to that board in a way that perhaps has not been possible previously.

On that note, I would just like to acknowledge what we heard just earlier about our colleague Mr Henare. I think it is entirely fitting that he should step into that role that was so honourably kept by his late father, and I am sure he will do the role great justice in his time as well. So that is very good news, and I look forward to the official announcement of that. It is equally fair to say, I think, the Crown representation on the trust is now more evenly balanced. There will be MPs representing both the Government and the Opposition on the trust as of right, as well as the Prime Minister and the relevant Ministers in a sort of an ex officio way. I think that does better reflect the status of the body as a representative body, to have that input and those perspectives represented there.

Can I just say in passing that I think as New Zealanders a lot of us wear our heritage quite lightly. Perhaps we take for granted these sites like Waitangi and do not really understand or think enough about their significance and the role they played in making the country that we are fortunate enough to live in today. Waitangi itself, of course, but for the Bledisloe gift, could have been lost to the country. It could have been privatised. It could have been put to some other use. It was, effectively, rescued and at least maintained in public ownership in perpetuity by that gift, and I think we should acknowledge that. I think, equally, of other sites like Te Waimate, which was an important signing, and Māngungu, which was, of course, on 12 February 1840, the site of the single largest signing of Te Tiriti, and yet only in recent years has there been more than a very humble celebration. It is only now starting to get some recognition, as are many of the other historic sites around the country. I think it is important that we do continue to recognise the importance of our history and the heritage sites.

I was at Waitangi on 28 October in a whare rūnanga listening to a very interesting, very engaging lecture from Mānuka Hēnare about the events of 28 October 1835. Again, that is such an important part of our history. Arguably, 28 October is New Zealand’s independence day, because the declaration did not declare the independence of Māori—that was a given—it declared the independence of New Zealand as a nation State, and it was recognised as such in Britain and by the powers of Europe. I think we tend to gloss over that reality, that it was the beginning of the nation State that we now have. Of course, Waitangi and Te Tiriti was the next significant step in that process to full independence.

So I think it is important that we continue to attend to what happens at Waitangi. I do visit there fairly regularly. It is great to see the museum advancing apace and we look forward with real pleasure and expectation to its opening. I do echo the comments made as well that it will be great when we have an adequate facility there to store the original document. It is appropriate for now that it be stored here in Wellington in conditions that will protect it, but it is equally compelling that it should be at that site where it was signed back in the day, and we do look forward to that occurring. I think it is not a cost; it is a real investment in our past and in our future to return the document home.

With those few words, I will be pleased, as I say, to confirm the Greens’ support for this bill. We look forward to its passing, and we wish well the new membership of the board as it reforms in the new year. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ēngari, i mua i te haere tonu o aku kōrero kai te tautoko au i ngā mihi i mihingia e taku tuakana ki ngā whānau o Lomu, a Whaitiri. E tika ana kia mihi kau ki a rāua nā te mea, i tata ake nei i ngaro atu rātau ki te tirohanga kanohi, nā reira, haere, haere, hoki atu! Hoki mai ki a tātau e te hunga ora, tātau i roto i Te Whare nei i tēnei wā tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but before I continue with my assertions I endorse the tributes by my elder kin to the Lomu and Whaitiri families. It is apt that tributes are accorded to those two because they were lost from the sight of mankind just recently, so depart, journey on, leave! I come back to us, the living, in this House at this moment of time; greetings to you collectively.]

Before I continue, I ought to declare a vested interest in this bill over and above being an ordinary citizen of this country. I have had the privilege of being a member of the trust board for some time now and an even greater privilege to be its chair for the last 5 years. Can I say on behalf of the board that we have certainly looked forward to this particular point in time when, in a few minutes, this bill will be passed by this House.

Can I just make the comment that it has been a lengthy gestation for this bill, given that it was introduced back in 2013. It has taken almost 3 years for it to get to this stage. I also want to comment on the speech made by the Minister who commenced the third reading of this bill, the Hon Nicky Wagner, and make reference to the comments that were also referred to by the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, Peeni Henare.

The Minister made reference to the knowledge of Waitangi being more known by people from outside New Zealand. She referred to that as being quite shameful. Can I suggest that there is something more shameful than that. At the time, the Government of the day refused to accept or listen to the representations made by the member for the Bay of Islands, Mr Vernon Reed, who made several submissions to the then Government of the day for it to buy the estate. As a consequence of the Government declining that request, he made submissions to Lord and Lady Bledisloe. In their benevolence, they provided the funding to purchase the estate.

This bill certainly makes amendments to the original Act in relation to the representation of the various families who are listed in the original Act, and, in particular, the Māori families. For some time now I have represented the four Māori families. Although I feel that I may have done a good job, I still felt that it seemed to be inequitable that the Māori families were represented by one person whereas the non-Māori families each had their own representation. This bill corrects that. But I must say that in terms of the length of the term that people can sit on the board, which is limited to periods of 3 years with a maximum of 9 years, up to this point in time the membership of the board was left to the individual members who sat on that board to determine when they would resign or it was when they departed this world. To think that my grand-uncle sat on that board for almost 49 years, and there were other long-serving members.

Never, in the history of the board, were there any untoward decisions made that would put the estate in jeopardy. In fact, the only time that there was something that questioned the integrity of the board was when the Department of Conservation was responsible for the administration of the trust. But, be that as it may, the board certainly looks forward to the enactment of this bill.

Can I say that the bill is not entirely what the board had requested from the beginning, but we take solace in the knowledge that it is the intention of the Minister to conduct a review that will look at the possibilities of the board being able to enter into commercial activity. At the moment, the trust deed restricts the board being able to do that. I certainly look forward to doing that.

On Waitangi Day next year we will have the privilege of opening a museum that will allow for the trust board to exhibit a number of taonga that we have in our possession. The previous speaker, Mr Clendon, made reference to the hope that the Treaty might one day be displayed in Waitangi. I certainly hope that that can be achieved, as does the board itself. However, although we had hoped that the Treaty might be displayed during the opening of our museum next year, unfortunately, due to the fragility of the original Treaty document itself, there is some difficulty about the possibility of that happening. However, I have signalled to the Minister that it is certainly the ongoing desire of the board to see the Treaty displayed in Waitangi, albeit for a brief time.

There is not too much more to say, other than to say that in terms of the representation of Parliament on the board—a member from each side of the House—although it is not exactly articulated in the bill, it is intended that in terms of the representative from the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition will consult with all other parties who are not sitting in Government. I just wanted to make that point.

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee and the time that they took to consider this bill. I also want to acknowledge the officials and, in particular, a former chief executive officer of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Lewis Holden. He was certainly responsible for initiating this whole process, from a ministerial point of view.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He was the one who quit because Maggie Barry was so rude.

PITA PARAONE: Be that as it may—I want to conclude by acknowledging my fellow board members. I know that a number of them will be watching this debate. They have waited for so long. But we are also waiting for the intended review that the Minister promised. Ā, nā reira kei te tautoko au i te urunga mai o te mana hoki o tēnei ia pire, arā, ko Te Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill, kia ora rā.

[And so I endorse the introduction of the particular power in this bill; in other words, in the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. Thank you very much.]

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill. I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee, so it is a great privilege for me to be able to contribute on this bill, because this bill reflects the important partnership between the Crown and the Waitangi National Trust Board.

Our founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, remains central to much of the governance of our country. The Treaty is an integral part of our constitutional framework. The Treaty is embedded in many Acts of Parliament—for example, the Conservation Act, the Resource Management Act, and many others. When developing policy, the Government considers its responsibility under the Treaty of Waitangi alongside other factors, to have the best possible outcomes for the people of New Zealand. The ongoing relationship between the Crown and Māori, grounded in the Treaty, helps the whole society move forward together. The Treaty helps us build social cohesion while addressing the growing diversity within New Zealand. The combined cultural factors that we have in New Zealand—that is, Māori and Pākehā—give us a very unique identity as a nation.

It is important that the Waitangi Treaty Grounds are recognised, because it is about our culture and it is about our history. It is important that the heritage status of Waitangi is acknowledged and also that the governance structure of the board is strengthened. This bill is to provide for financial viability, and to strengthen the governance board. This bill is also about separating the Crown from the board, which will help remove any possible risks of conflict, and also will ensure a positive ongoing relationship between the Crown and the board.

This bill ties in really well with the work that this National Government is doing to acknowledge our history and to acknowledge our Māori people. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I have got to, firstly, acknowledge that it feels like quite an honour to be able to speak this evening to this bill, the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill, in its third reading. I also want to acknowledge that it is very easy to forget in this House, sometimes, the mana that the different members of this House carry with them. Listening to this debate so far, I have been reminded, indeed, of the mana carried by so many members of this House. There are people with some very deep links to Waitangi. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Waitangi National Trust Board, Pita Paraone, who spoke previously, and all of those who share whakapapa with the families on this board. I also want to acknowledge my colleague David Clendon, who spoke earlier, who has family members who signed the Treaty both for the Pākehā settlers and for the tangata whenua. That is, I think, something worth acknowledging.

Personally, I think that I feel a sense of grievance on some levels that I did not learn about the Treaty or its history in my time of going through school. It was only when I went into the workforce, into the community organisation working for Women’s Refuge, that I learnt about our history. There is the amazing example that the Treaty is for us and the rest of the world of the vision, if the Treaty was fully realised, of how it is possible for peoples to live in partnership and dialogue to resolve difference, to ensure that identities and cultures are able to be realised. The role of fundamental connection to the land and sovereignty that is within that document is, I think, an extraordinary thing. After learning that history, I just have such a sense of privilege about having a place to be in this country through that document that I really, really wish everyone in this country would get access to that learning, to be able to have that same sense of belonging and place and responsibility that is held within the Treaty.

What we are debating here in the third reading are some changes to the Waitangi National Trust Board that are positive. It is really nice, also, after days of urgency and an undermining of the democratic process, to actually have accordance within this House and to see what can happen when a democratic process goes through and when people’s voices are honoured and principles of partnership are realised. It is a good feeling, and this House feels different now from how it has in the last couple of days.

I do want to specifically acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee for the work that it has done on this bill. My understanding is that it really listened to the submitters and to the concerns that were raised by the Māori families about the fact that up to this point the three non-Māori family members have been represented by three members on the board, whereas four Māori families were represented by only one member. The Waitangi National Trust Board, the symbol of partnership and nationhood for us, should fundamentally recognise that sense of partnership, and that was not being realised. The committee worked through the detail of that and worked with the Parliamentary Counsel Office to be able to find out that this bill could realise that vision in changing the structure and the membership of the board. That is a great thing. That is what select committees can do when they are functioning really well. I give credit to the chair and all of the members of the select committee for really engaging with that and doing honour to the intent of the legislation and the vision of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I do also feel compelled to mention, as has also been mentioned, that it is the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty—[Interruption] Are you sure, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member has a 5-minute call, which she has used.

JAN LOGIE: I am not sure that is—my understanding was that it was an extended call, because it was not being split, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will let the member run. It is a—

JAN LOGIE: Fascinating contribution!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): —new arrangement. In fact, what we will do, just in the spirit of doing everything properly—I seek leave for the member’s speech to be up to 10 minutes, having taken 5 minutes already. There is no objection to that.

JAN LOGIE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I may not take the full 10 minutes. It is the 175th anniversary of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the 79th year of this trust Act. I also recognise that it is 2015 and that He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni was signed on the lower marae on the Waitangi grounds in 1835. So this is a very significant year for us as a country. It is not often enough acknowledged, I think, the role of He Wakaputanga around establishing us as a nation, and that sense of Māori taking the leadership to say to the world: “This is our country. This is a country that you need to deal with as you would deal with another nation. This is not just a land for you to come and do what you will with.” It was an expression of tino rangatiratanga that put this country in, I think, a very strong position for going forward, and that enabled the later signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which, I say again, gives us all that place to stand, if only we fully lived up to the principles in it.

On that note, and, again, noting the mood in the House, the Green Party is very pleased to be able to end this sitting period in supporting a bill that improves democracy, relinquishes some control from the Crown, and acknowledges our nationhood and partnership between Māori and non-Māori. Kia ora koutou katoa.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a short call on this bill: to tautoko the kaupapa of this particular bill, but also to tautoko a lot of what has been said already in this House today. I think it has been a great example to hear, actually, what everybody is saying and what everyone wants to see happen around this, and to hear some of the aspirations that different members have that will come as a result of this bill coming into force.

There is no question that Waitangi—the place that is Waitangi—is significant for New Zealand. I do not think it matters what your view is on the Treaty of Waitangi or what its status is in the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand. Whether or not you think it has been honoured or not honoured or how that works, you would actually have to be completely blind, deaf, and stupid not to accept that it is still a significant part of our history and needs to be maintained. It needs to be managed well and it needs to be taken care of in a way that future generations can enjoy that place—enjoy coming together as New Zealanders to really acknowledge what went on there.

I just want to sum up by saying that it has been great to see that as it has gone through, the Māori Affairs Committee has been able to improve this bill to recognise some other families up north and the role that they will play on this trust board going forward. So with those brief comments I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I too want to support the third reading of the bill and make a couple of brief contributions. I commented in previous parts of the passage of this bill on the issue of extending the membership, so I do not intend to significantly go over that ground. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, who stewarded through the discussions on this bill in a very fair way. We had only one significant discussion, which was around the extension of the memberships, but it was also around the pending review that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage should take with regard to the future role and function of the trust.

I also, for those who are listening carefully to this debate, want to acknowledge the current chair of the Waitangi National Trust Board, Pita Paraone, who at the very onset had declared his conflict of interest. He had not weighed down, one might say, any of the consideration of the committee when it came to some substantial issues. Firstly, the issue around the rotation and the term of members on the board—notwithstanding some personal views that he may have held, he enabled the discussion to be fully had around a three-term membership for 3 years and the pros and cons of that. The second issue was specifically in relation to extending the membership on the board of those whānau members. Again, as chair he may have had personal views, but he stood somewhat back from the discussion so that all committee members could consider on merit whether or not there was a justified reason to be able to urge the Minister to change the legislation in favour of that. I make that point because it is difficult as a serving member of Parliament to take yourself out of the discussion and provide some wisdom and some support to members when they are considering significant things. Nō reira, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe [and so I acknowledge you].

The other point that I would raise in the third reading is the impending review. In fact, the committee was at pains to ensure that the Minister was going to give some urgency to a future continued review of the role and function of the trust board. The trust board itself presented a submission to the committee that really put in context the type of modernisation and parameters that needed to be considered in terms of its future role and function, most of which have been covered by my colleague Peeni Henare in terms of the future role of the trust board. It asked that consideration be given to the way in which its business activities are carried out but also to its bylaw-making powers and the penalties that stem from those particular provisions.

If I could say one thing in this third reading, it is there is still a need to review the operating parameters of the trust board so that the more extended roles and functions that the trust board can have for the future operation of Waitangi can continue apace. If you look yourself at the website of the trust board, you will see that it is modernising the look and feel of this significant site on our behalf—on the nation’s behalf. There is an education component that occurs at Waitangi, where young people can go up to Waitangi for an out-of-classroom, integrated curriculum experience. That is a good thing for all of us, because people get to learn about the Treaty in situ. They also get to appreciate the contribution of the Treaty to the national identity of our country. It is, I think, the ongoing future role that the trust board will play in this space that will improve our relations within this country but also so that future generations can inherit a very proud history that we have, albeit chequered at parts along the way.

The other part that you will notice on the website is the collaborations that have occurred in order to promote the Treaty of Waitangi but also to make more accessible the role of the Treaty in a modern context as it links to our historical foundations. In 2013, in partnership with Westpac Banking Corporation and at the same time that the fund was launched to invest in renewing the museum, a film competition was promoted amongst young people. These are the types of collaborations that the board in its foresight saw as necessary to advance the contribution of this estate to the public consciousness and education about what Waitangi is all about as a place, its historical connections, and the Treaty of Waitangi. They are all other aspects that people may not be aware of, and this speaks to the business end of the role and function of the trust board. Not only is this a place to visit—and it is a significant tourist attraction destination for domestic and international travellers—it is also a place that is available for venue hire for those very special occasions, and I am sure there have been many there.

The forestry estate—in the first reading and the Committee stage of this bill, a number of members made comment that the forestry estate gifted by the Bledisloes in 1932 should remain an inherent part of the trust board property. In fact, I went back to my first contribution and I had mentioned that one of my concerns was that in the context of Treaty settlements that are occurring, certainly in the north, it is my great hope that the forestry estate remain intact with the purpose of the gift of the Bledisloes and managed by the trust board. That will be the case. We certainly explored that to some extent, and that was confirmed.

Other aspects that we did not comment on at all—and I did not want to cover ground that had been covered by my colleagues previously—was the fact that the Official Information Act and the Public Audit Act applies to this bill, as it did previously. I think that is an important aspect of ensuring public confidence in the work and the decisions of the Waitangi National Trust Board. Again, albeit the trust board will manage its own affairs through its own income, it is still publicly accessible in terms of the decision-making process. People might not be fully aware of some of the smaller intricacies of the Act—and I am sure there will be a colleague who is sitting not far away from me who will be able to inform us in time and in due course about whether or not these are very real issues going forward.

It is around the bylaw-making powers. The trust board at present can make by-laws and cannot impose a fine more than $250 for an offence. At some point in time, once the review continues and those bylaw-making powers are properly reviewed, the penalty regime may need to be reconsidered as well. That is a matter that will legitimately go to the Regulations Review Committee. There will be ample opportunity to consider the range of penalties that may need to be considered within a modern context, but let us take, for example, the issue of access and the closed roads that are able to be managed by the trust board that is currently in place. If access provisions come up in the future, who knows what some of the challenges might be?

I will reserve those types of comments for when the review takes place, but it is important to mention it in a third reading speech, because my final comment is to the Minister, and that is to urge a review of the full operations of the Waitangi National Trust Board so that it can operate in a modern context for the future benefit of, and contribution to, all New Zealanders, so that we can celebrate not only Te Tiriti o Waitangi but the contribution of a significant, historic place that all New Zealanders should be very, very proud of. Kia ora koutou.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to take a short call on this third reading of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill, a bill that, effectively, contemporises the actions of the board. I see this new thing as new kaupapa—a new kawa, if you like—but I think it is an extension of the good work that the trust board is already doing. I would like to acknowledge Pita Paraone as the chairperson of that board.

I had an example of its good work recently when I was petitioned by a group of constituents. They were raising a question, which I know has been raised in great detail, around the admission charge to Waitangi. I took this up. I had an off-line discussion with Pita and he advised me to speak to the chief executive officer, and I got an excellent letter back from the chief executive officer. He pointed several things out to me, and one of the things he pointed out was that ratepayers in the Far North District Council area do indeed receive a discount, representing the fact that the Far North District Council contributes significantly to Waitangi and its surrounds. Well, what an excellent, modern, sensible commercial collaboration—what an excellent example of what the board is already doing. I think that what we are doing here with this bill is giving it more leeway for exactly the same in future collaborations—modern, sensible commercial collaborations.

So this has been just a short call to support the chairperson, Pita Paraone; to support the board; and to support this bill, with the widening of scope—the relaxing of scope—that this bill gives to the trust board, and to lend my support to it and to this bill. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 October.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the second reading of the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Law and Order Committee who participated in this process. I would also like to thank all the officials for their assistance during this process. This bill, which was introduced by the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, amends the Bail Act 2000, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Parole Act 2002 to enable the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police to require community-based offenders and bailees who are subject to the condition of prohibiting the use of drug and alcohol to undergo drug and alcohol testing. It is very important.

This Government has been working so that reoffending can be reduced, and this is one of the measures that will help ensure that the people who have been released from prison are constantly monitored and they are not using drugs and alcohol. The Government has a target to reduce reoffending by 15 percent by 2017. We are working hard to reduce reoffending so that people can feel safe in their homes. When offenders are back in our communities, we want to support them to stay away from drugs—which are the main reason for crime, as has been found in many studies—and we want to make sure that the communities are safe. The bill supports the targets that are set by the Government to reduce the reoffending.

The Law and Order Committee made some changes in this process. The first one was to provide that psychoactive substances can be tested from time to time. The offenders who have been released from prison or released on bail should be able to be tested for psychoactive substances because they are becoming one of the major problems, as drugs and alcohol have already been. This change will reduce the driver of the crime. We also recommended that if someone does not allow these conditions to be tested at their premises, they can be prosecuted under the condition of breach of bail, which is more consistent with the existing approach of the bill.

It is important that we want to make sure that a community feels safe when these people are released in the community, and with these words I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Labour Party is supporting this legislation because we agree it is sensible where people are serving community-based sentences, be they on bail or parole, that the authorities can monitor conditions that are imposed upon them relating to drug and alcohol use. That said, I have to take issue with something that the prior speaker, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, just said. He said that the Government has an objective of reducing reoffending rates. I want to highlight what is happening in respect of the—at the moment—contentious issue around serious sexual crimes. Do you know how it is cutting reoffending rates? It is actually not prosecuting and convicting those people in the first place.

You might think that that is a throw-away remark; it is actually grounded in fact. We have an increasing number of serious sexual crimes being committed. We know that from the statistics. We also know that we have fewer convictions for those crimes in total, so, despite a higher number of total offences, there are fewer convictions, and the clearance rate of those crimes is lower, as well as the conviction rate. So there is more crime in this area, fewer convictions, and fewer clearances. That is not a record that the Government should be proud of.

I want to turn to another issue. We agree, I think, on all sides of the House here—I think there is very wide agreement—that this is a good piece of legislation, giving the authorities further powers to monitor people, including those on parole. People who serve a sentence for the most serious of crimes—murder—are sentenced to life imprisonment. They are generally then released after a period—depending on sentence, but it is generally around 14 years—and then for ever, whenever they are released from prison, they are on parole for life because they are sentenced to life imprisonment but they are, after a period, released on parole. So those people, the most serious of criminals, are on parole for the rest of their lives. The parole conditions can include monitoring for alcohol and drug abuse so as to minimise the risk to society that they will reoffend.

Just yesterday in this House we were having a discussion as to why it would be prudent to send to a select committee the legislation relating to returning prisoners from Australia. The Labour Party had suggested a way in which we could guard against problems in that bill that had not been thought of in the truncated process that was whacked through under urgency. Because of negligence by the Government, the bill had not been introduced until yesterday and had to pass through all stages before those flights landed, with large numbers of serious criminals coming from Australia. We knew that it had to be done under urgency, but we also knew that doing it under urgency meant that some of the flaws in that legislation would not be picked up. So we said that that bill should be passed through all stages in one version with a termination date of a year, and a second version of that bill should go to a select committee immediately so as to take effect on the expiration of the other bill in a year and we would sort out the problems in the meantime. This is an example of a serious problem.

You know, we have heard from the Government how important this bill is so that we can monitor people on parole. Well, what happens to those people who are coming back from Australia with murder convictions? Does this bill apply to them? Can I have an answer to that from the Government? No, I cannot because the answer is, no, it does not. That problem could have been fixed in the next few months by the parallel process that I have been talking about for fixing this aspect of the legislation that applies to returning offenders from Australia.

At the select committee any one of us could have listened to this debate—this thought had not occurred to me until I actually prepared for this debate today. I did not think of this yesterday when we were considering the returning offenders legislation. We would have had submissions from the Law Society, from Rape Crisis, from the people who represent the interests of victims of crime, from rehabilitation people like People at Risk Solutions, or the Howard League for Penal Reform—someone would have picked it up, even if no MP did. They would have said that we need to make sure, in respect of these people who would have had parole conditions in Australia and are now returning to New Zealand unsupervised, that the New Zealand authorities have the ability to appropriately supervise them and protect the New Zealand public by having similar parole conditions imposed in New Zealand, including in respect of drug and alcohol abuse and the monitoring thereof. They would have picked up that it is absolutely obvious that this legislation should be applying to those people too.

I think this is yet another illustration of—I have got to say it—the belligerent, myopic stubbornness of Amy Adams on this occasion. What I was proposing through the Labour Party would not only have got the balance right in respect of protecting the civil liberties of New Zealanders and making sure that we are not going too far in the legislation; but, as I said in those debates, it would have ensured that also we were properly protecting the New Zealand public. As a consequence, the day before the Government stands up and heralds this legislation as better protecting the New Zealand public, we have not picked it up—we have not picked it up. We have not heard from the Government that we have got this gap now in the New Zealand legislation that means that the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill, which applies to, amongst others, people who are on parole, will not be applying to the people who are coming back from Australia.

Having alerted the Government to the issue, I hope that the Government, or its officials, actually listens to this debate and has the good grace to come down here in the Committee stage and actually amend this legislation before it goes through to make sure that it applies to those returning offenders. But it does show how important it is to New Zealanders that you have a decent Opposition that is actually pointing out the negligence of this Government when it comes to protecting the interests of New Zealanders. I am shocked that our offer from the Labour Party—we offered to support that legislation through all stages under urgency. We offered to support Government members on the Business Committee to make sure that a parallel copy of the bill could go through at the same first reading, so that we were debating two versions at the same time. We could have done that by leave of the House. All parties, I think, would have cooperated with that.

Todd Barclay: It’s Thursday now.

Hon DAVID PARKER: “Thursday now.” It is Thursday—that is right. And what is your point? Is that your only contribution?

Jono Naylor: He’s just waiting his turn.

Hon DAVID PARKER: He is waiting his turn, right. Well, it would be good if the members of the National Government did stand up and take a call to explain why it was that just yesterday they refused to have a parallel copy of the legislation—which is now an Act—and that was passed in respect of returning offenders from Australia and elsewhere, go to a select committee so that these very sorts of problems could be sorted out.

I have probably said enough in respect of that issue. I will return to the original theme of this legislation—

Todd Barclay: Oh, that would be novel.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —which is that it is, obviously, desirable—well, it would be novel—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. I am going to ask the member to resume his seat. I am going to suggest to members on my right that the member is making a serious contribution on very serious legislation that affects the lives and the safety of New Zealanders. I think flippant interjections like those made by two members are inappropriate in this circumstance.

Hon DAVID PARKER: We all know in this House that drug and alcohol abuse is associated with criminal offending. When people are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, their inhibitions reduce and they are more likely to do silly things that they might themselves later regret but that, certainly, their victims are adversely affected by. Accordingly, it is good if we can, as we move towards community-based sentences—and I would acknowledge the Hon Bill English in terms of some of the moral leadership that he has shown in the National Government in terms of recognising the ineffectiveness of some prison-based sentences and how it is more desirable that you have programmes both within prisons and after imprisonment to minimise recidivism. I think the Hon Bill English deserves some credit for that, and I give it to him. If you are going to move to those treatment programmes and things, part of the way in which you make them work is through the sorts of monitoring that is proposed by this bill, and that is why the Labour Party will be supporting it.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill. In response to one of the questions raised by the last speaker, David Parker, I just want to provide a clarification. Within the law that was passed yesterday for returned offenders there is a clause for special conditions that can be applied. One of those special conditions could be in relation to drug and alcohol testing. So it is, in fact, covered by the laws that were passed yesterday.

The important part of this piece of legislation is that it helps ensure conditions in relation to community-based offenders and bailees who are subject to being prohibited from using drug and alcohol substances so that, in fact, when they are released from prison they actually comply with those conditions. It gives the police and the Department of Corrections more flexibility to monitor and, in fact, test offenders who have been suspected of using the substances that they are being forbidden from using. So, I think, it helps the conditions to be met on a number of levels: first, because it is an obligation, for a start, for the offender not to use the substance in many cases. We know that two-thirds of prisoners have substance abuse problems, and around half of all crimes that are committed are committed by somebody under the influence of either drug or alcohol substances. So it helps to actually reinforce one of the conditions of their release, but also it helps to support them to stay away from one of their drivers of crime.

We know that for so many offenders, drug and alcohol abuse is a major factor. So it is an assistance for them in terms of their rehabilitation too. But, thirdly, it also protects the victims. Kelvin Davis and I were, today, sitting in on four Parole Board hearings up at Rimutaka Prison, and of the four, three of those hearings were in relation to offenders who had committed crimes under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. A major factor that was coming through there from the convenor of the Parole Board and the other two members sitting on it was that they were trying to extract a view around how these offenders, should they be released back into the community, were going to be prevented from falling into the same patterns of crime again. A major factor was around how they could convince the Parole Board that they would not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol or fall back into that pattern. So this piece of legislation is very important in relation to that.

I want to just touch on another point that the previous speaker made in relation to sexual crimes and the increase in reported crimes. That is right. There has been an increase in reported sexual violence - related crimes due to a number of factors, as the Minister of Police was describing today in question time. We have created an environment through our preventative approach to justice, which encourages more victims to come forward when they have been a victim of sexual crime. So, obviously, as part of that the reported numbers are going up and that is a reflection of that. We are taking sexual crimes very seriously, so I think that the flippant remarks by the Opposition were a bit unfounded.

In conclusion, I would just like to offer my support for this bill.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am also pleased to speak on behalf of the Greens in supporting this bill. I guess, echoing the comments of my colleague Jan Logie, it is good that at this late point on a Thursday we can find a level of agreement in the House at the end of what has been quite an acrimonious week—and with good reason, I think—in the House. I think it is fair to say that, probably, a lot of members of the public would express some surprise that people on community sentences—bailees, parolees, and the like—who have drug and alcohol conditions placed on them are not already subject to some form of compliance other than the obvious, of course. For example, a police officer might see someone on bail in a pub with a beer in their hand. They are obviously offending, but to actually be able to monitor, to ensure compliance through a testing regime, is something we probably ought to have looked at some time ago. So it is good that at this point this bill is coming to the House and that we will in future have a measure of some legitimate framework for actually testing compliance with these very important conditions.

We know very well, of course, that alcohol and drug abuse are two major drivers of crime in New Zealand. Alcohol, particularly, is probably the single most serious driver of violent offending in New Zealand. The point is made in the report back from the Law and Order Committee, which considered this bill, that something like two-thirds of people who are on home detention, supervision, or intensive supervision in the community are people with measurable and often serious drug and alcohol abuse or addiction problems. I have actually heard District Court judges suggest that something like 75 to 80 percent of the people whom they see in that sorry parade before them—people who have been charged with offences—have offended while there has been alcohol or drugs involved. Either they are under the influence or in some measure there is an involvement with drugs and alcohol. So it is a serious problem and clearly one we need to deal with, not only at a legislative level but certainly in terms of our own national culture, particularly around alcohol use and abuse.

So we think it is a good bill. It puts a level of control on people. Yes, it does impose a level of intervention in people’s lives, but given the serious nature of the consequences when drugs and alcohol are used unwisely, we think it is appropriate.

It was a good select committee. I sat on it, and I think we hit the right spot, the right level. Again, referring to the select committee report, it makes the point that imposing and enforcing drug and alcohol conditions will play an important role in preventing reoffending and ensuring public safety. I think it is true to a point. I think this framework for measuring compliance is a necessary element, but on its own it is not sufficient to ensure public safety, and that is a point I will return to.

I think there is an upside to this. Some offenders, no doubt, will find it an imposition that they are obliged to concede to these tests, but there is an upside. The provision that we got put into the bill is that if people are tested, then the results of those tests—assuming they demonstrate sobriety and abstinence from drugs or alcohol—can be used in other proceedings as evidence. For example, if somebody is endeavouring to get visitation rights to children or some such, the evidence gathered from these tests can be used as evidence that these people are sober and, perhaps, in a better condition. It might assist them in getting access to children, or whatever the situation might be. So I think there is an upside. There is a positive side to the obligations placed on these people.

There was some conversation about the appropriateness of the conditions of bail often being set by registrars, and the point was made that, given that the new testing regime will impose a higher level of intervention in people’s lives, perhaps it should be a judicial officer who would solely be able to impose these conditions. I guess, again, the compromise that was found was that a registrar will continue to be able to impose conditions, as is current practice, but if the offender raises any objection to that, then it will be a judicial officer who is called upon to actually make that call. I think that also reflects, in part, a response to a letter we had from the Chief Justice along those lines. A submission from the Chief Justice pointed out that perhaps it was more appropriate that it be a judge or a judicial officer who does impose this.

I think it is also worth noting that the Chief District Court Judge also noted that the bill has the effect of raising the threshold for imposing drug and alcohol conditions for a community-based sentence. She expressed some concerns about the resource implications of that that might land on the court, and I do think that we need to take cognisance of that and ensure that, given the sheer volume of cases that come before the courts, that does not impose an unreasonable burden and, indeed, if it does have a resource implication, that the resources are made available to the courts.

Finally, I would just like to reference a very good submission we received from JustSpeak at the select committee. JustSpeak is the youth wing of Rethinking Crime and Punishment. It made very well-considered and very well-informed and very articulate submissions, and this is one of them. It makes the point that it agrees in principle with the intent of the bill. It accepts the value and necessity of imposing some sort of compliance framework on people who have these conditions. But it also argues that there is another side to the coin, and I return now to my comment earlier about the legislative requirement to submit being necessary but not sufficient in itself. As I say, two-thirds of these people have alcohol or other substance addiction issues. So simply saying “thou shalt not” is a deterrent to an extent, but it is not unreasonable to expect that while we impose that condition we also ensure that the resources are in place, that the facilities are in place, to enable these people to be treated for their drug abuse or their alcohol abuse conditions.

I know for a fact because I have measured it—admittedly in a way that was not scientific; it would not stand up to peer review. But anecdotally and being engaged in some of the communities that provide these services, I know there is an absolute deficit of treatment programmes available in New Zealand for people with serious drug and alcohol conditions. Be they community-based programmes, residential programmes—almost without exception, those programmes are oversubscribed. Where people are coming voluntarily to them, saying “Look, I’ve got a problem.” and they recognise that, very often they will be obliged to wait a number of weeks—at the worst end of it, even some months—before they can get access to those programmes. Even when people are referred by the court to the treatment programmes, often their immediate entry to them cannot be assured because there are capacity problems, and I think we need to get real about that. We need to recognise that reality, and I think it is in our interests at every level to pump more resource into that and to ensure that we build the capacity for when people either in themselves recognise they have a problem or when the courts determine that they must go and get treatment in an attempt to break their addiction to get them out of that cycle of drug or alcohol abuse.

I think it is incumbent upon us to ensure that those programmes are readily available, accessible, and on demand. It is no good to say to somebody who might be hanging on by their fingertips to some level of sobriety and keeping away from offending that there is no programme available. I think it is important that they have got quick access to those programmes at the point that they do need them—as I say, in their own selves if they have acknowledged their need, or when the courts direct them to do so.

With that qualification, to some extent, I do think we need to attend to that matter of the capacity, particularly within the community. It is relatively easy, I guess, for a person serving a custodial sentence to avoid drugs and alcohol—though, of course, they do exist in our prisons—but there are many more temptations in the way of people in the community. We need to provide them with the support and the assistance they will need to be able to comply with the good intention of this legislation. Thank you.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill. This bill, rightly, amends three Acts of Parliament in an effort to reduce crime, to improve public safety, and, hopefully, to reduce reoffending. The majority of crimes are committed while the offender is under the influence of drugs or alcohol—and, most times, both.

Drug and alcohol abuse is more prevalent in our society than we would like to think. Tens of thousands of families are broken and children are taken away by Child, Youth and Family. Although youth facilities are a safer place than our streets, they are not the ideal place for our youth to grow up. Foster-care homes are only next-best, and in the absence of parental care our youth turn to drug and alcohol abuse when they are most vulnerable. Drug and alcohol abuse has also been identified as a major factor and a driver behind violent and sexual crimes. So we need to change the behaviour of these offenders and we need to break the cycle of drug abuse and crime. This bill, to a good extent, aims at changing the behaviour, and that is the reason we will support this bill at the Committee stage.

But we would also like to point out that this bill is not perfect—like most other things. The issue we have with this bill is that there is inadequate sharing of information between the two vital departments of our law and order machinery: namely, the Department of Corrections and the police. A very glaring example and a very live example of that was the Phillip John Smith escape case, where a criminal managed to make use of that lack of exchange of information and made his way all the way to Brazil, causing huge embarrassment to us. Had the Department of Corrections and the police been in greater sync with each other, this escape, we feel, could have been avoided, and so would the embarrassment caused to our nation.

There is an expectation in this bill that the chief executive of the Department of Corrections and the Commissioner of Police will work together to work out the modalities of this bill as to how these offenders and bailees would be monitored in terms of their drug and alcohol abuse while they are in the community. So there is a wee bit of ambiguity between the two departments. One department, at the moment, does not seem to know what the other one is doing, and they are too shy to share that information also, which can be vital to manage these offenders in the community and, of course, those who are on bail.

So our expectation is that it should be a requirement that these two departments work together, and not an expectation as it is in this bill. So we want to change that wording from “expectation” to “requirement” because in the absence of that requirement, there is room for ambiguity and there is room for confusion between the two departments. This is not fair on the bailees and the offenders who will be managed under this legislation, and it is definitely not fair on the victims of their crimes. Any room for ambiguity should be removed, and there should be clear guidelines for both the Department of Corrections and the police to work together to make this effective. We have seen this lack of communication between these two critical departments in the past, and we do not want to be the laughing stock of the world if the case of Phillip John Smith is repeated.

There is a human rights element to this piece of legislation also, and we must not forget that. The victims’ rights are paramount, but the offenders’ rights also have to be respected. Being shoved from pillar to post is not fair on those offenders who are chucked out of jail, put in the communities, and then they do not know what to do with themselves.

We have some concerns around the modalities of how it is going to work—whether the police are going to be managing only bailees and the Department of Corrections will manage the offenders in the community, is it going to be vice versa, or is there going to be some kind of distinction between the two? The taxpayer pays for the testing and treatment of offenders, and there has to be value for money for the taxpayer also. In addition to that, we feel that when the classification takes place for high-risk offenders, those offenders who have offended against children, women, or the elderly should be classified as high-risk offenders and they should be managed in the communities accordingly. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am pleased to stand and speak at the second reading of the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill. As you said, Mr Assistant Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. This is to do with the safety of our communities. This is to do with the rehabilitation and reintegration into our community of people who have offended. It is important to understand that in our justice system there are different reasons why people perhaps are imprisoned. They are to protect society, to bring a degree of seriousness and judgment over what their offence has been, and also to bring about the rehabilitation and reintegration of people. That is the reason why the Department of Corrections is called corrections—to bring about a change of behaviour.

It is important that when people on community-based sentences and bailees are active and moving around our communities, our communities are kept safe while these people are fulfilling their sentence and are also being rehabilitated and reintegrated into society in a positive way. So it is very fitting that we put these conditions as imposed by the court or requested by the police or the Department of Corrections upon these people, especially those who, under the influence of drugs and alcohol, have committed their offences.

We want, as a society, to address these issues. This month is White Ribbon month, and 25 November is White Ribbon Day. So many offences of violence in this nation happen under the influence of alcohol and drugs. This nation increasingly is becoming very much aware and very committed to addressing these issues. This piece of legislation is very important. I am pleased to say that the Law and Order Committee took a very mature approach and worked very well together in terms of coming together to bring our recommendations back to the House. I am very pleased to stand and recommend this bill at its second reading. Thank you.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this opportunity to take a call on the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill, which the Labour Party is supporting. This bill is designed to ensure that people in the community who are on parole or on bail with conditions prohibiting the use of drugs and alcohol would undergo drug or alcohol testing or monitoring to ensure that they comply with those conditions. Even though we are supporting this bill, I have to say that it is somewhat distressing that this Government has taken 7 years—7 long years—to bring a bill requiring the drug and alcohol testing of criminals, which is 3 years after it decided to start drug testing our beneficiaries. It is 7 years too long.

Drug and alcohol misuse are constantly identified in research as major drivers of crime. Around 5,000 offenders each year are on community sentences and orders, and it is approximated that about 1,500 of them are bailees who have abstinence conditions that are imposed on them. However, it is only in very rare cases that these abstinence conditions require testing. Evidence from overseas—from Australia, from the UK, and from other countries—shows that when you actually impose conditions of monitoring, it actually works. According to the Department of Corrections, the rates of reoffending are particularly high, particularly for those on driving and domestic violence offences. Alcohol and drug abuse is a significant factor in those offences and these are crimes that potentially put a number of people at risk.

When we actually look at the cost of reoffending in human terms and in terms of lives lost, because some of these offenders when they are out on bail and they commit various offences—there are a lot of human lives that are lost. Unfortunately, some people get killed when these offenders are out on bail. In 2013 the Ministry of Justice figures showed that 31 people were killed by offenders who were out on bail: 11 people were murdered, 14 of them were victims of manslaughter, and six were killed by bailed offenders who were committing driving offences.

Testing for the presence of alcohol and drugs to improve compliance with abstinence is actually a really good thing. The Labour Party has a strong vision for this country. We are working hard for New Zealanders to ensure that we guarantee civil and human rights, that we provide equal justice for all, and that we achieve public safety rather than just delivering immediate punitive measures. We support this bill.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I just rise to take a very brief call on this bill and to support much of what David Clendon said, interestingly. He made a very good summation of the work of the Law and Order Committee and, of course, of how this bill was put together. I think this bill achieves a fair bit for our Government’s aspirations around law and order, and I have no problem commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.