Wednesday, 2 December 2015

WEDNESDAY, 2 December 2015

WEDNESDAY, 2 December 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Cambodia—Delegation, Parliament

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome a parliamentary delegation from Cambodia, led by His Excellency Mr Kong Korm, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, Complaint Reception, and Investigation of the Senate, which is present in the gallery.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Student Visas—Overseas Immigration Agencies

1. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Is he aware of agents in India blatantly promoting student visas in New Zealand as a pathway to residence?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I am aware of the issue that the member raises, but this occurs within a wider context, which is worth noting for the House. New data released today from Statistics New Zealand shows that for the year ended September 2015 we enjoyed a $3.2 billion services surplus. The report pointed out that education travel services was our largest export to India, earning New Zealand almost half a billion dollars. So, yes, although there are certainly a few rogues operating—and we take that very seriously—it is a small part of what is a significant industry for New Zealand taxpayers.

Ron Mark: Why is he turning a blind eye to corrupt agents in India, who are extorting huge amounts of money from international students despite repeated warnings from the licensed immigration advisers for New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member is conflating two issues. Clearly, education agents have a role in the facilitation of international education into New Zealand. All agents working with Education New Zealand must agree to follow the Education New Zealand code of conduct. That code of conduct is based on the principles for ethical recruitment of international students. A complaints process is followed where a recognised agency does not meet standards or behaves unsatisfactorily.

Ron Mark: What does he say to Ludwina Maybin, who posted on Winston Peters’ Facebook that her daughter was—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! David Bennett, that is your last warning for interjections today. Start the question again.

Ron Mark: What does he say to Ludwina Maybin, who posted on Winston Peters’ Facebook that her daughter was dumped from her cafe job in favour of international students who accepted less than $10 an hour? Is this not just slave labour?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would say three things. Firstly, she might want to get better Facebook friends. Secondly, some international students are entitled to work as part of their study commitments, but only about one in five does. And if anybody is being paid less than the minimum wage, the employer is in breach of employment standards and a complaint should be laid. The process is pretty simple.

Ron Mark: Why is the Minister touting a farcical export education sector that is becoming nothing more than a people-trafficker’s paradise, an extortionist’s dream, typified by fraud and corruption?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Firstly, I would tell the 27,000 people who work in the export education sector in New Zealand not to listen to the rubbish that has just been put into that question. This is a very important service export earner. I would also add that it is worth seven times more than it was when that member’s party was in power. Despite that, there are fewer Indian students going on to gain residence, which the member seems to think is a bad thing.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does the Minister recall the letter that I wrote to him in November last year about Filipino, as well as Indian, students who have been misled about their prospects of gaining residence in New Zealand; given that this is a matter that is raised repeatedly, does he not think it is actually time that he did something about it?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, I do not recall that, but I am sure he got an outstanding reply.

Better Public Services—Progress

2. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that one of the Government’s key priorities “is to deliver better public services”; if so, what steps is the Government taking to help achieve this?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. To help achieve better public services, in 2012 the Prime Minister set 10 challenging Better Public Services targets. Since then there are more than 40,000 fewer children living in a benefit-dependent household, the proportion of 18-year-olds who achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 has increased from 74 percent to 81 percent, and total crime has dropped by 17 percent, with youth crime down by almost 40 percent. Although these are good results, there is much more to do.

Jacqui Dean: How does the Government’s priority of delivering better public services interact with its other priority to responsibly manage its finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government takes the view that we will be able to better manage our finances when we get better delivery of public services. The best way to control the Government’s finances is to have the Government do its job properly, particularly in delivering services to those who are most in need and have the most challenging lives, and delivering those services in a way that changes those lives. Often it is the cost of Government service failure that leads to future pressure on our books.

Grant Robertson: How is the goal of better public services going to be reached when he has allowed the department that he is responsible for to deliver reports that are “dopey”, “utter tripe”, and to become a political body commenting more and more on Government policy; or is the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery wrong to make those claims about Treasury?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury is always open to constructive criticism, and I think that it would probably acknowledge that Minister Brownlee has been one of its more constructive critics over the years.

Jacqui Dean: What progress has the Government made on the Prime Minister’s 10 Better Public Services targets for 2017?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are still a couple of years to go, but significant progress. Participation in early childhood education has increased from 94.7 percent to 96.1 percent; the proportion of immunised 8-month-old children has increased from 84 percent to 92.9 percent; there has been a 14 percent decrease in people being hospitalised for the first time with rheumatic fever, which is a very significant step forward when the known costs of rheumatic fever are around about $2 million per child. The trend in the number of children and young people experiencing substantiated physical abuse has flattened, after being on an upward trajectory, but it has not yet begun to decrease, and the rate of reoffending has dropped by 9.6 percent.

Jacqui Dean: How is the work of the Government’s Rules Reduction Taskforce supporting the delivery of better public services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Can I compliment the member on her excellent work as part of the Rules Reduction Taskforce, highlighting that there are some pretty silly rules around the place. Some steps are being taken. For example, the recently announced Resource Management Act reforms will streamline the local council planning process considerably and provide less opportunity for them to make silly rules that cause high costs for no benefit.

Economic Development, Minister—Confidence

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Economic Development, given that the economy is shrinking on a per person basis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, because the Minister is insightful, dynamic, very focused, he is thorough, and he has achieved an awful lot through the Business Growth Agenda, which is a very thorough microeconomic policy reform programme.

Andrew Little: Is he confident that Minister Joyce is doing his job when household incomes fell in Manawatū-Whanganui, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago, and the Southland regions over the last year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and I am not surprised that some household incomes have taken a hit from a loss of national income, which the Opposition parties have described as billions of dollars. Of course, if there is less income coming into the country from the big drop in dairy prices, then there is bound to be an impact on incomes in our households.

Andrew Little: Does he think that Minister Joyce is focusing enough on lifting wages, given that household incomes in the South Island fell 2 percent in the last year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Given the Opposition’s predilection for picking out often quarterly numbers in years when numbers actually went up, I will have to check those out. But, by and large, across New Zealand on average, wages are going up faster than inflation and that is benefiting households because it is the fruit of a growing economy.

Andrew Little: Does he think that Minister Joyce is focusing enough on creating jobs, given that unemployment in the South Island—[Interruption] Mr Joyce—has risen by a third in the past year alone?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member should go there sometime, because he would find that over the last 4 or 5 years, unemployment in the South Island has been very low, actually—very low. If he visits places like Invercargill he will find that the main problem of many employers is getting staff. So, actually, the issue is continuing to work on a better match between the jobs that are available and the skills of the people who are applying for them.

Andrew Little: How can he say Minister Joyce’s regional growth programme is working, given the West Coast has entered recession, according to the ANZ report?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, the member probably understands what is going on on the West Coast but does not want to say so, and that is that, like every other coal-producing area in the world, it is suffering significant impact from very low coal prices. But the regional growth partnerships being set up by Mr Joyce are by far the most constructive, cohesive, and comprehensive approach to growth in the regions, which allow and in fact encourage the regions to understand their own strengths and make their own decisions about their own destiny.

Andrew Little: How can he say Minister Joyce’s—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not put up with that interjection from Mr Joyce. The supplementary question, Andrew Little.

Andrew Little: How can he say Minister Joyce’s Business Growth Agenda is working, given the economy lost 11,000 jobs in the past 3 months and there are now 150,000 New Zealanders out of work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, those numbers reflect what was a pretty soft first half of this year—everyone knows about that—after a period of 4 or 5 years of very strong job growth. Mr Joyce is sufficiently humble that he will not try to take credit for the whole lot of that job growth, but he is certainly working hard to ensure it picks up again.

Andrew Little: Are not the 15,000 more Kiwis out of work over the past year proof that after 7 long years this Government has failed to create an economy that delivers for New Zealanders and gives them the security to live the Kiwi dream?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. What it is primarily proof of is the very strong migration flow into New Zealand. Population growth at the moment is running at around 2 percent, which is about as high as it has ever been, and we have a net inflow from Australia for the first time in 20 years. These are the problems of success, not the problems of failure.

Regional Economies—Government Initiatives

4. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What is the Government doing to encourage investment, jobs, and growth in regions like the West Coast?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I am pleased to have the question. A number of things. Last week, on behalf of my colleague Amy Adams, I was pleased to announce that Greymouth has become New Zealand’s 12th fully fibred town under the Government’s ultra-fast broadband programme. We are also investing in other critical infrastructure on the West Coast. There are tens of millions of dollars for regional roading projects like the Taramakau replacement bridge near Greymouth and the Mingha Bluff to Rough Creek realignment near Arthur’s Pass. There is new tourism development: the Old Ghost Road Trail, involving a $3 million Government investment; our $10 million commitment to create New Zealand’s 10th Great Walk, between Blackball and Punakaiki, in honour of the Pike River commemorations; and we are working with the Buller District Council in particular on a range of other projects to assist the region’s development.

Joanne Hayes: What is the Government doing to develop further opportunities for growth on the West Coast?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: To maintain this momentum I announced last week that the Government will undertake a comprehensive regional economic growth and investment study for the West Coast. [Interruption] The West Coast is blessed with fertile land, stunning scenery, and a proud population, with a strong commitment to their region. Interestingly, for members of the Opposition, the West Coast sought this programme. The regional leaders asked for us to come in and do this programme. I am keen to see that potential turn into dividends for Coasters and the rest of New Zealand through innovative ideas for new and existing industries. Although mining and dairy have been the traditional industries, and tourism continues to grow, diversification and new opportunities are the key for the West Coast. This study will help identify more opportunities for competitive new industries and help remove the roadblocks that may prevent them from developing. The West Coast is the fifth region to join the Government’s regional economic growth programme, joining Northland, the East Coast, Manawatū-Whanganui, and the Bay of Plenty.

Hon Damien O’Connor: How does the employment of a Wellington consultant to write a report on the West Coast offset the 1,000 jobs lost when the National Government destroyed Solid Energy through incompetent oversight?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Perhaps the best answer to that is from the Mayor of Buller, Garry Howard, who salutes the approach and says there is a real commitment to it: “I have read about one of these projects and spoken to the mayor involved and they are getting things happening. What they are doing is developing an action plan. It will be a 12-month process but things will continue to happen in the meantime.” That is the mayor, Garry Howard, who says, yes, in the past, with other Governments and other representatives from other MPs, there has been lots of talk, but, actually, this time he is seeing action on the Coast for the first time. So if I was the member, I would be worried. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection is unacceptably loud between both Mr Brownlee and Damien O’Connor. If they want to have a conversation, they are welcome to take it outside into the lobbies if they so wish.

Joanne Hayes: What are some of the wider benefits we are seeing of this joined-up approach from the Government’s regional growth programme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, we are seeing a number of benefits already—for example, in the Bay of Plenty with the Ōpōtiki Harbour project. But I also wanted to raise particularly Northland, where we have launched a similar regional growth programme and seen the recent announcement that the Queenstown Resort College will open a Tai Tokerau Resort College early next year. This will be based in Paihia. It is training young people to work in the hospitality industry. It is a collaboration from the private sector, the region, and central government and will predominantly train young Māori and capitalise on the growing tourism industry. It is a great project, and I was pleased to see that the local MP was able to raise himself to come along and also be welcoming of it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if the new college in Paihia is going to be so good for the Māori of Northland, where the part-owner is undisclosed until that date—Shanghai CRED Real Estate—and kept away from the audience until the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the question please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask why were Mr Flavell’s comments not included in the document put out by him as Minister and by the other Minister who turned up; in short, Mr Flavell was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The general debate will start shortly.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There was a lot in that question, but perhaps if I could draw one thing out, certainly this Government welcomes investment into the north. If the member wants to say that Shanghai CRED Real Estate or whatever company it is should not be investing in the north, well, he just has to say so, and I am sure the Northland people will mark him accordingly.

Question No. 1 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave to question No. 1.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In answer to a supplementary question, I indicated that fewer Indian nationals were gaining residence within 5 years of their first student visa. I intended to say that a lower percentage of Indian nationals were gaining residence.

Pharmac—Cancer Treatments

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on access to affordable pharmaceuticals for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I have received a number of reports, including that this Government has increased pharmaceutical funding by an extra $150 million, that we are now offering free prescriptions for children under the age of 13, that Pharmac’s budget stands at a record $800 million, and that an extra 70,000 New Zealanders benefited from new and improved access to medicines last year. I have also had reports that we have completed the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement at minimal cost to Pharmac—an achievement that the member opposite claimed would cost $1 billion.

Hon Annette King: Was the Cancer Society wrong in its comments last week that New Zealand does not have similar access to cancer medicines compared with Australia, as claimed by Pharmac in its recent report, because Pharmac counted only the number of drugs funded and not the number of conditions that the drugs can treat, with Australia providing far wider access to its people who are suffering from cancer?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to go and check the Cancer Society’s statement, but in terms of the 22 cancer drugs funded in Australia but not New Zealand, the fact is that only one of those has been found to have a significant clinical benefit. I am advised that Pharmac is having a look at that at the moment.

Hon Annette King: Why has the advisory committee to Pharmac given the latest melanoma drug Keytruda a low recommendation for funding on the basis of inconclusive data when the United Kingdom and Australia have found the data compelling enough to fund the drug?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Clearly, the member is questioning the scientific evidence that Pharmac bases its decisions on, but in the end Pharmac is a body that makes its decisions at arm’s length from the Government. It looks at the data and makes the decision accordingly.

Hon Annette King: Is he prepared to set up an early access to medicine scheme, similar to that of the United Kingdom, which could provide interim funding for ground-breaking cancer drugs like Keytruda, to ensure that New Zealanders get the opportunity to extend or save their lives; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not know whether the member is proposing that the Labour Party would change the Pharmac model, but we are very committed to it. It provides the medicines that the public need. It has greatly increased the number of funded medicines: 41 medicines over the last year, and 70,000 more New Zealanders than the year before getting access to a medicine. But if Mrs King wants to say she is going to change the model, she is welcome to do it. We are not.

Hon Annette King: If the Government found it possible to fund the extension of Herceptin during an election campaign, why can it not fund Pharmac to make the drug Keytruda a priority for melanoma sufferers, because cancer specialists in New Zealand say there is no other meaningful option?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As the member knows, Pharmac has to make decisions in the best interests of all New Zealanders. It gets funded to the tune of $800 million a year, an extra $150 million more than what it got when we became the Government, and it is managing that pharmaceutical budget in a way that provides the treatments that everyone across New Zealand needs and will receive on an as-needs basis.

Emissions Reduction Targets—Emissions Trading Scheme and Target Setting

6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “It makes no sense to be calling for emissions reductions on one hand, while subsidising emissions on the other”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: What is the cost to the taxpayer of all financial support his Government provides for fossil fuel exploration and extraction?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to that question depends on whether you follow the World Wildlife Fund definition, which says there are some subsidies, or whether you follow the APEC definition and other international bodies, who estimate the cost at zero—that is that New Zealand has no subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not say the word “subsidy” at all. I asked for the cost to the taxpayer of all financial support provided by the Government. That is a different thing.

Mr SPEAKER: And if you listened carefully to the answer, the Minister explained that it depends on the way in which the subsidy is then described.

Metiria Turei: How much has the Government spent on the two-for-one deal under the emissions trading scheme, which does subsidise greenhouse gas - polluting industries by up to 50 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not have those figures to hand, but it would not be much because the carbon price has been so low. And I know the Greens liked the emissions trading scheme until the carbon price went down, when it decided there was not enough pain being inflicted on the population at large, so now it has changed to a carbon tax. And I suppose that would earn us quite a lot of revenue.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is simply moving into a criticism of a Green Party position. That is not appropriate for an answer.

Mr SPEAKER: And I agree with that comment. I probably should have pulled—[Interruption] Order! I am just ruling. I should have pulled up the Minister earlier. The question was answered right at the start by saying he did not have that information with him.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that the last time fossil fuel electricity generation was subsidised in New Zealand was when the Whirinaki power station was built with Government subsidies, and when the Government provided a guarantee for the new gas-fired power station at Huntly, an initiative that was taken by the previous Government and supported by the Greens?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have become aware of that, and was very surprised, given the tone of the questions that we have been answering. And, actually, as the member may know, since the electricity market has become more effective, it is now likely that the carbon-producing generation at Huntly—well, it has been reduced and could be reduced further.

Metiria Turei: Is the granting of $9.6 million this year to help multibillion-dollar companies like Anadarko and Exxon Mobil search for more oil in New Zealand not an example of the taxpayer subsidising the fossil fuel industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, and if the member cannot tell the difference between the Government paying subsidies for petrol at the pump and the Government providing public funding to a research vessel to go and explore the ocean, then I do not think we can have a sensible discussion. Surely, the Greens are not suggesting we should now wilfully cultivate ignorance of our ocean just in case some petroleum company decides to use the information.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister saying that it is not OK to subsidise the public’s consumption of fossil fuels but that it is perfectly OK for the Government to use taxpayer money to subsidise foreign companies to extract more fossil fuels from around New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, New Zealand has led an international effort, which is gaining momentum, to encourage Governments to remove their direct subsidies at the pump on fossil fuels, because all the work shows that could reduce carbon emissions by up to 12 percent simply by charging the market price. A number of Governments have been moving in that direction, many of their own volition, but certainly with encouragement from the international community. I can only repeat again, for the member’s benefit, that although we could have a detailed discussion about the tax treatment of activity around the petroleum industry, there are no subsidies to the industry; there are a series of tax treatments that have been put in place to achieve consistency and equity in our tax system.

Metiria Turei: Is the Government spending $8 million through New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals to map oil reserves in Nelson, Otago, and Southland yet another example of the taxpayer subsidising the fossil fuel industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, it is a matter of whether we believe that the Government and New Zealand should be wilfully ignorant of its oceans. We think it is worth knowing. I mean, we pay hundreds of millions of dollars for research in our oceans to understand what goes on out there—the ecosystems, and, in this case, mineral potential. Of course, that information could be used by international oil companies, but we think it is worth having the knowledge and taking the risk that they may use it, which we do not regard as a risk.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister now guarantee to the New Zealand public that no company that is engaged in fossil fuel extraction, exploration, or mining will have any access to any of the information that the Government subsidises in looking for oil or mineral reserves—that there will be no subsidisation of that information?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am rather taken aback by this 20th century form of Luddism—or is it Ludditism? We are in fact the Government that has the opposite approach—which is why we will not agree with the member—and that is open data. We believe that everything the Government knows that is not breaching privacy and confidentiality should be available to the public, even if they are members of the Green Party or multinational oil corporations. We are certainly not going to start hiding publicly funded data for politically motivated reasons.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Has the Government made any estimate of the percentage reduction required in our emissions in order for New Zealand to have its fair share of the global carbon budget consistent with 2 degrees?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I suspect that calculation may well have been done, but I do not have the numbers to hand. The Government is satisfied that the targets we are talking about at the conference in Paris represent an adequate balance of our contribution to reducing both climate change and temperature increase with the fact that for New Zealand the cost of reducing another tonne of carbon emissions is higher than for any other developed country.

Dr Kennedy Graham: What are the principles of fairness that his Government has used when it decided on its self-described “fair reduction target” of 11 percent of 1990 levels?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Pretty much what I have just said and that is carrying our share of the burden of reducing carbon emissions across the globe on the one hand, and on the other hand balancing it up with recognising that it costs New Zealand more than pretty much every other developed country to reduce carbon emissions by another tonne because of the unique mix of carbon emissions that New Zealand produces.

Dr Kennedy Graham: With full regard to that unique mix, would he agree that if one takes account of New Zealand’s per capita emissions, our relative wealth, and our historical emissions, our target would be at least 40 percent below 1990 levels, not 11 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All those things have, I am sure, been taken into account, and some of them may be at a detailed level, but, just by way of an example, a very high proportion of our energy is from renewable sources already. I note that other countries that are, on the face of it, promoting more aggressive targets than New Zealand are at the same time, for instance, shutting down low-carbon-emitting energy sources such as nuclear energy and expanding their coal energy, and it is going to be pretty difficult for them to reconcile those kinds of conflicting objectives.

School Buildings—Investment

7. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements have been made regarding the Government’s investment in education infrastructure?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): In the last 6 weeks our Government has announced close to a quarter of a billion dollars in school property investments. These investments cover six of our most complex school redevelopment sites across New Zealand. These include $79 million for Western Springs College—the largest ever redevelopment in New Zealand’s history—$39 million for Wellington East Girls’ College, $26 million for Takapuna Grammar School, $24 million for Aotea College, $24 million for Balmoral Intermediate School, and, of course, $63 million for the two schools in Marlborough, for which I understand the Minister of Education received a rapturous applause at her announcement. This Government is investing more to ensure young New Zealanders access modern 21st century facilities.

Melissa Lee: What investment has the Government made over the last 7 years in school property?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: This Government has invested more than $4 billion in school property since we came to office. This is more than 30 percent more than the previous 7 years of the last Labour Government. Back then, we inherited huge numbers of leaky schools, schools that needed earthquake strengthening, a system that did not adequately plan for growth, and a system where we did not have a condition assessment of all New Zealand schools. Since then, we have spent more than $375 million repairing leaky buildings, we have completed condition assessments for all New Zealand schools, and there are huge numbers of redevelopments that have happened. We have also put $350 million in to accelerate growth in Auckland and we have invested $700 million in ICT infrastructure to ensure New Zealand schools have access to uncapped, fast connections. We have done more than ever for young New Zealanders. We are very proud of this.

Melissa Lee: What recent announcements have been made about addressing demand as a result of population growth?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: On top of the 51 projects that I confirmed several months ago for Auckland, we have roll-growth classrooms being added right across New Zealand, in areas like Queenstown, Hamilton, and in New Plymouth, where I was with Jonathan Young. Today I also announced an extra $6.8 million will be invested in the Waterview Primary School redevelopment, taking the total value of this project to $17 million, and an extra $5 million will be invested in the Freemans Bay School redevelopment, taking the total value of this project to $18 million. This additional investment is part of this Government’s comprehensive plan to get ahead of growth in parts of New Zealand.

Christchurch Recovery—Anchor Projects

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he agree with the Treasury assessment of the anchor projects in Christchurch that “it is highly likely that additional funding will be needed to finish the programme” and that “this means increasing funding would require significant compromise of other investment initiatives”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): Not necessarily, and not necessarily.

Grant Robertson: Can he guarantee that no other investment initiatives will be significantly compromised as a result of additional funding being required for the anchor projects—in particular, the convention centre?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Given that we are in commercial negotiations at the present time and that the actual cost of the convention centre is not known at this point, I cannot make that comparison.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: I was thinking that this might be a point of order, but we will make it a supplementary question. Can he confirm the statement of Tim Hunter, chief executive officer of Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism, that the Prime Minister said in August that the Government was struggling to get value for money for the convention centre proposal?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have got no responsibility for anything Mr Hunter has ever said.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, what does he say to Tim Hunter, the head of Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism, who said that the Government was in total disarray on this project and that after 3 years of failing to deliver, it was time for the Minister to stand aside?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Good luck.

Grant Robertson: If the Treasury report into the Christchurch City rebuild that described it as likely to be unachievable was “dopey”, does that make him “Grumpy” and Bill English “Sleepy”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, but given the member’s performance in his portfolio, it certainly makes him “Dozy”.

Police—Mobile Technology

9. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Police: How is the Police using new technology to help victims of family violence in New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): Yesterday the Police launched a 4-month pilot in Palmerston North to record victim video statements at the scene of certain family violence incidents, using recently rolled-out iPhone 6 Plus smartphones. The video statements will be actively used to help investigate and prosecute family violence incidents and are expected to result in earlier guilty pleas and to reduce court time. The pilot will help provide a better service to family violence victims and aligns with initiatives that this Government already has under way to improve the way that we address family violence.

Ian McKelvie: How has this technology become available, and what are the impacts on police?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In 2014 the Government rolled out all-mobile technology to 6,500 front-line police, resulting in significantly reduced time spent on administration, and freeing up the equivalent of more than 350 extra officers. A considerable 41 percent of all police front-line time is spent dealing with family violence, so it is great to see the police coming up with innovative ways to use this technology in a way that is better for victims and more efficient for police—[Interruption] those members do not like good news, do they—the justice system, and the taxpayer.

Freshwater Management—Consultation with Iwi

10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes, particularly my statement that parties that are genuinely concerned about jobs, about housing, and about regional development in areas like Northland will support the Government’s resource management reforms.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he particularly stand by the statement he made in regard to the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act and the involvement of iwi in water management that “I actually think there are advantages for all New Zealanders in these changes,”; if so, why?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I support involving iwi properly in the consultation and development of water plans and improving New Zealand’s water management—and I would say, for instance, that I think the member supports it as well. I noted that on 11 December—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am asking him about his comments, not about mine, or New Zealand First policy. I just want to know, as the public does, what his comments mean.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. You asked whether the Minister stood by his comments; he has answered that he does, and he was giving an explanation. If the member does not want—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to give the member a further—

Mr SPEAKER: No. If the member does not want to hear the explanation, we will move on with further supplementary questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is OK, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] The joke will be on you, baldy.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Kris Faafoi, I am on my feet. Would the member just proceed to ask his supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister where the advantage for all New Zealanders is in having the statutory responsibility for the allocation and control of fresh water transferred from councils to unelected private interests based on racial entitlement?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That certainly is not in the bill; it is certainly not in the Government proposals. But I would note that changes were made to the Resource Management Act providing for iwi joint management agreements that also cover water. That legislation was introduced to the House on 16 December 2004, and voted in favour of by both the member and his party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need some silence from my right-hand side.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I have a read-out of the proposed law 11 years later—for example, like 2015—rather than something reciting—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have no idea what point of order the member is making.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can this Minister tell the House what iwi or hapū values are, and how developing a range of mechanisms to give effect to them will improve water quality, given that that is the proposed objective in a document from the iwi leaders group that Cabinet received in July of this year—2015?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government does believe that iwi and Māori need to have an effective say in the way in which this country manages its freshwater resources. I would note that that member’s party also agreed with that view—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have asked this Minister whether he can tell the House what iwi and hapū values are. That is all that was in this question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it was not. The member then went on and added about a memorandum that had come from the iwi leaders group in July—[Interruption] No—[Interruption] Order! If the member wants to remain in the House to ask his questions, he—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member had simply asked that, I could have helped, but that was not the question the member asked. He then added substantially more, which gives a very wide ambit for the Minister in answering the question. If the member wants a short, sharp answer, he needs to ask a short, sharp supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to specifically refer to what I asked for, which was iwi and hapū values, given that they are in the proposed objective document—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The way forward—[Interruption] Order! If the member wants to stay to ask another supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! The member will stand, and withdraw and apologise for that interjection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will now resume his seat. I have ruled that the question that was asked was very elaborate and gave the Minister quite a wide ambit in answering it. That is my final decision on that. If the member wants to ask further supplementary questions, he can do so; otherwise, I am very happy to move to the next question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that I asked the Minister to tell us what iwi and hapū—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A short, sharp supplementary question, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, Mr Speaker, I had hardly got out the first five words when you made that criticism.

Mr SPEAKER: And the member should read Speakers’ rulings and understand that you are not actually meant to ask questions starting with the words “Given that”. If we can now have further supplementary questions that are in order, we will have them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will he advise what iwi and hapū values are, as referred to in a document that Cabinet received, and will he give credence or support to the following demands made in this document: one, that ownership of all Crown-owned lake and riverbeds be transferred to iwi; two, that ownership of freshwater be transferred to iwi; three, that all marae receive freshwater infrastructure; and four, that iwi receive—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is too long. It can be answered—[Interruption] Order! There are three questions there that I deciphered.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What I can be very clear about is the Government’s policy with respect to freshwater, and that is that no one owns the water, that we need to work the issues through on a catchment-by-catchment basis, and that the final decisions on all water plans across New Zealand will be made by elected councils.

Marama Fox: Can the Minister enlighten us as to whether Wairarapa Moana will be part of the settlement in which the member Ron Mark negotiated on behalf of Wairarapa iwi to return to Kahungunu?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to raise a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that you have been at pains to make sure that the Opposition asks certain specific questions, except that you are allowing Ministers to deviate, having been led on by supplementary questions from the Government side. First of all—No. 1, this is a confidential matter. It cannot be disclosed in this Parliament. That is a breach of confidentiality—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am unaware of whether it is a confidential matter. I have got an interjection coming from my side, which should not be coming through a point of order, that it is in the public arena. So I cannot make a comment—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The question that was asked is certainly in order. It was a longer question than I would have liked, but it is definitely in order.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it is probably not possible for you to make a ruling right now, but could I ask you, in consultation with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, to look at the obligations of the Crown in its negotiations to keep confidential all matters relating to ongoing negotiations. That is a clear breach of the confidentiality agreement between the Crown and the negotiators of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki Nui-ā-Rua.

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You might want to expand that investigation or consideration a little bit further, because if, in fact, the question from Marama Fox was a breach of confidentiality, then we would be in a position of New Zealand First in fact arguing that no other iwi should get the secret provisions that it has been able to negotiate for a particular iwi. That itself would be a breach of the confidentiality.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, I need no further assistance. [Interruption] Order! Mr Mark has asked me to look further into this matter and acknowledges I am not in a position to make a decision as to whether this is in the public arena at this stage. I will look into the matter. In the meantime I am going to invite the Minister to answer the question. I would expect him, if it is a matter of confidentiality, to state that in his answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been briefed by the Ministry for the Environment on the proposed agreement dealing with the Wairarapa Moana change of ownerships in respect of the longstanding relationship that local iwi has. I would commend the member, the mayor, for his involvement in what I think is a constructive way forward for that water body.

Sexual Offences—Resolution Rate

11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does he think that a 47.6 percent resolution rate for reported sexual assault crimes is acceptable; if so, why?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): I would not use the term “acceptable” for any unresolved sexual offence. This is a priority area for the Government, and we are taking it very seriously. Part of addressing the issue of sexual violence is encouraging a culture where people have trust and confidence in police to come forward and report offences. Reported offences have increased markedly in recent years. As a Government we are working to improve the safety of victims, to improve services, and to change longstanding behaviours and attitudes.

Stuart Nash: If the Minister is taking this seriously, how can the public have any faith in his Government’s approach to resolving sexual offences when the resolution rate for sexual crime has dropped under National from 64.1 percent in 2008 to 47.6 percent, and what message is this sending to victims?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: At the risk of relitigating a question asked a fortnight ago—

Hon Annette King: Just answer it then.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I will. Although there were 230,000 unresolved offences in 2008, there are only 205,000 now. In other words, there are 11 percent fewer unresolved crimes this year—

Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was very clear—it was around sexual offences, as opposed to general offences. It is a very clear category—

Mr SPEAKER: The question, as I recall it, was: how can the Minister be taken seriously? He is allowed to give an explanation to that. He is obviously saying that it is not a matter of percentages; it is more a matter of numbers. That addresses the question that was asked. If the member then wants to take it further, he can do so with his supplementary questions. Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?

Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point was not the percentage; it was actually the category, which is sexual offences, which is a specific category in police crime figures.

Mr SPEAKER: The way forward is I will give the member an additional supplementary question. I suspect he is a bit lucky to get it, but we will move forward.

Stuart Nash: Does he think that the 5,472 Kiwis who reported a sexual assault over the past 3 years but had no resolution can have confidence in the police to deliver on their promise of safer communities together?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Absolutely, because that is what the community is saying to us. What I believe that data is telling us is that people are having more confidence to speak up and report sexual offending. But what we also know is that many of those are of long standing—recent reports of crimes committed many, many years ago. That makes them much harder to resolve, but police are determined to do so.

Poto Williams: Does he believe that the low rate of resolution of sexual assault complaints is in any way responsible for the nine out of 10 victims of sexual assault being unwilling to report the assault to police?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No. There are many reasons why that may be the case, and we need to deal with them as a community, but I do not think that is one of them.

Stuart Nash: Has the resolution of sexual assault crime under National dropped from 64.1 percent in 2008 to 47.6 percent in 2014?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have no reason to doubt that the member has got the data from reported crime statistics, but I remind the House that under this Government not only are you less likely to be a victim of crime, you are less likely to be the victim of an unresolved crime.

Stuart Nash: Does he think that it is an appropriate use of police resources to fly two police officers from Auckland to Wellington to search a journalist’s house for a simple handwriting sample, while sexual assault, burglary, property, and car theft resolution rates are in free fall?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is a judgment call, but it is a call that police make, not politicians. And the member, who aspires to be the Minister of Police, should be very aware that under the Policing Act 2008 the Commissioner of Police is not responsible to, and must act independently of, any Minister of the Crown. I am obliged to follow the law. No one is above the law—no MP, no truck driver, no journalist.

Roading, Queenstown—Kawarau Falls Bridge

12. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on its commitment to replace the Kawarau Falls Bridge in Queenstown?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Oh, great progress. Yesterday, alongside the good member, it was my pleasure to mark the start of construction on the new $22 million Kawarau Falls Bridge in Queenstown. The new two-way bridge will replace the existing and historic 90-year-old single-lane bridge and will be the biggest roading infrastructure project seen in Queenstown in many a year.

Todd Barclay: How will the new $22 million Kawarau Falls Bridge support and benefit the Queenstown area?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Motorists can look forward to the traffic flowing much more freely and more predictable travel times when the new bridge opens in 2017. The new bridge will support the strong growth in the area and provide a safer, faster, and more resilient link to Frankton, Queenstown Airport, the Queenstown central business district, and developments south of the Kawarau River. I am excited that the Government has been able to accelerate this important roading project sooner than was originally planned, because of our Accelerated Regional Roading Package.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Two issues today highlight the solid, sensible approach that this Government takes to environmental issues that will let us build more houses, get more jobs, develop our regions, and get infrastructure. One is the introduction of the significant, 200-plus page Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that came into Parliament last week. Our approach is also reflected in the very sensible position and the leadership that the Prime Minister and Tim Groser are giving to this country in those important negotiations that are going on in Paris.

I want to say, particularly on the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, that the Government is showing that it understands the connectedness between the economy and the environment. Getting rid of subsidies of fossil fuels would result in a 12 percent reduction in global emissions—that is, over a hundred times more than New Zealand’s total emissions. It is to the credit of Tim Groser and the Prime Minister that over 40 countries have signed up to that initiative, and I want to acknowledge how hard Tim Groser has worked, going around the capitals of the world promoting that position and securing that support.

I also want to note the increased investment announced by the Prime Minister in terms of agricultural emissions, which is crucial not just for New Zealand but actually for this issue globally. This was an initiative that was announced in Copenhagen. I heard a statement that said that actually the best thing that came out of the Copenhagen negotiations was the research alliance around global emissions. That extra $20 million going into that programme shows that this Government is serious about addressing the issue but is also serious about marrying together good environment policy with good economic policy. There should not be a single member of this House who does not understand the importance of those agricultural industries.

I also note with some irony that during the time of the previous Government it was actually subsidising fossil fuels. The previous Government, with the support of the Greens, actually spent taxpayers’ money on building a new oil-fired power station at Whirinaki and a gas-fired power plant. What has happened under this Government? Apply a sensible price through the emissions trading scheme and you will change behaviour. Is it not extraordinary that under a National Government Genesis has announced the closure of New Zealand’s biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions at Huntly—something that should be celebrated—and it shows how this Government is capable of actually marrying together good environmental policy with good economic policy.

That brings me to the Resource Management Act. If there are any parties in this House that are genuinely committed to job growth, to housing development, and to infrastructure, they will support the Government with that large and important Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. I have heard from Labour for 4 years that the Resource Management Act has got absolutely nothing to do with housing, and I almost fell off my stool last week when I heard Phil Twyford finally say that actually the Resource Management Act was the root cause of the housing problem. I welcome his conversion, his road to Damascus moment, at the last moment, and look forward to Labour’s support for the bill.

The last point I want to make is that I had a letter on housing passed on to me and it was from Mr Little. He was asking constituents for solutions around housing. I cannot blame him for that. He is not going to get many from his spokesperson. What was interesting in the letter from Mr Little to a resident in Ōtaki is that it was asking about how he might solve the housing problems in Masterton. Well, I know things are a bit of a mess opposite, but at the end of the year, Masterton, Ōtaki—he cannot find his way around the country, let alone lead a party.

The progress on the Resource Management Act and the sensible negotiations and leadership going on in Paris show we have got a Government that is serious both about economic growth and responsible management of our environment.

I seek the leave of the House to table in the House the letter from Mr Little addressed to a constituent in Ōtaki asking them about housing problems in Masterton.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Hon Nick Smith and I are, I think, the only two members to have attended the 1992 Rio conference, which produced the original framework convention. I am not sure that our paths have converged too much in the intervening 23 years, but hope springs eternal. I invite the Hon Nick Smith to reflect on green policy over the next few years, because the Government does need to take on board green policies. Mr Smith advanced the usual claims about New Zealand’s initiatives in global climate change. Unerringly his Government focuses on what other countries should be doing, while New Zealand’s emissions continue to increase.

I will be on the plane in a few hours’ time, heading to Paris. I am looking forward to interacting with the Hon Simon Bridges and Tim Groser and others in a constructive way, but it will be constructive criticism that we will be bringing to bear on this Government’s policy.

Let us remember that the Paris agreement will not, in fact, be the first global agreement, which is how it is being described. That was in 1992. The Rio convention called for emissions to stabilise, to prevent dangerous climate change. It has taken 23 years for all Governments to agree to submit national targets. We should all be ashamed that it has taken this long. In 1990 annual global emissions were 38 billion tonnes. Today they are 53 billion tonnes. Had we stabilised by, say, 2000 or even if the developed world had stabilised, as the Rio convention had called for, we would be safe, below the 2 degrees. The Paris agreement will succeed in being the first protocol of Rio to require a commitment from all parties to cut or limit emissions. But that should have occurred in Copenhagen 6 years ago. Back then global emissions were 49 billion tonnes—4 billion tonnes less than today. We keep losing precious time, taunting the gods.

The main problem that will come out of Paris is the ponderous formality of the peer review mechanism—the so-called global stocktake. This will commence only after the Paris agreement has entered into force—in fact, not until 2022. That is too late. It must start in 2016. Peer reviews will not do it. I have had experience with international peer reviews, having defended the New Zealand aid programme before the OECD in Paris two decades ago. That year our official development assistance was 0.28 percent of gross national income. What is it today? It is 0.28 percent. A peer review of inadequate voluntary targets that starts several years after the scientists say global emissions are meant to peak virtually guarantees failure to stay under the 2 degree threshold.

Meanwhile, our Prime Minister has told an unsuspecting world that “While New Zealand’s emissions are small on a global scale, we are determined to make a strong contribution”. It clearly depends on what we mean by “strong”. Our current emission projections for 2030 will make a strong contribution to a 3.5 degree world, which is described by the World Bank as catastrophic. Mr Key reminded the world that “New Zealand faces unique domestic challenges in reducing emissions.” So, of course, does every other country. That is why we have the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Part of the unique New Zealand challenge is that we are one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, and we bear disproportionate responsibility for historical emissions. The Prime Minister does not include this in his structured world view of climate policy.

He then said: “Our emissions trading scheme … remains our key policy tool in reducing emissions.” Those present were too courteous to laugh, but the fact is that emissions have soared, not reduced, under the emissions trading scheme since he took office 7 years ago. The Prime Minister rounded off his contribution by concluding that “New Zealand … is determined to play its part and make a real difference.” That too is an epic statement.

I wonder whether anyone has whispered to the Prime Minister, asking what percentage reduction might be required of New Zealand to play its part in sharing the global carbon budget for a 2 degree world. That is closer to 70 percent—70 percent, not 11 percent. May Paris be a success, but let us not delude ourselves over the magnitude of this challenge.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I am enormously proud to be part of a Government that is both encouraging and enabling the building of more houses, more businesses, and greater infrastructure. I want to take a moment to just acknowledge the extraordinary work of the Hon Dr Nick Smith in bringing the next phase of the Resource Management Act reforms to the House. It is about supporting business owners. It is about supporting homeowners. It is about supporting our councils to actually ensure that we are able to get the level of development in cities and towns from one end of New Zealand to the other. This Government is very much clearly focused on reducing silly rules, reducing bureaucracy, and actually making it easier for councils to put together consistent plans that support their work in their communities.

We have heard endless examples as we have spoken with constituents and councils alike about the obstacles that have been in their way, and reforming the Resource Management Act will make a significant difference to enable them to really get things moving. It is about greater consistency. It is about more responsive planning, simplified consenting, and—equally important—better alignment across other pieces of legislation.

This Government has focused on delivering Better Public Services. It is also around enabling better local services in local government, and, as we know, the performance of local government is absolutely critical in regional economic development and the quality of everyday life. One of the things that I spoke about last night at the launch of the civil trades is that in the next 10 years we are expecting that central government and local government will spend approximately $11 billion each year in infrastructure. We have a responsibility to enable that to occur quickly and efficiently, so this Government has really been very deliberate about finding more ways to support local government in responding to the significant challenges of infrastructure and also those of building more resilient communities and growing their local economies.

Some of the work that we are doing is looking at what other opportunities there are to improve local government. There are some fantastic examples up and down the country of how regions are working together across councils. We have got great examples in Northland, Waikato, and Canterbury, but it is actually about how we go further to enable shared services to have a look at the functions and structures, to enable greater collaborations to actually enable the constituencies—our taxpayers and ratepayers are the same people—to get some of those savings and better local services delivered in our communities.

We have had the Rules Reduction Taskforce—goodness me, some of the absolutely loopy rules that both homeowners and business owners talked to us about were absolutely horrendous. So that is another piece of work lining up the Resource Management Act reforms with the rules reductions, which actually makes a significant difference for local government and local government’s customers. It is significantly about reducing costs and it is about reducing delays, because we know on this side of the House that when businesses are trying to grow we have actually got to get some of these things out of the way for them.

We had great results from the first round of Resource Management Act reforms. I think this piece of legislation might be even thicker than the first one, but at the end of the day it is about making New Zealand go faster, it is about growing our economies in small towns as well as our large cities, and it is about building more houses and building them faster. So I am enormously proud of what we are doing in local government, and hats off to my colleague for the Resource Management Act reforms.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Last month marked 7 years of this Government, and I say with no irony “7 long years” because if you asked any member of the public what it is that this Government has achieved, as I have done in recent times, you will be met with a certain degree of silence before they might come up something like “Well, they’re trying to change the flag.” What if you reflect then on Government members’ achievements around the area that they campaigned on most clearly? If you were to try to pick out something that they tried to campaign on it was just simply this mantra of the economy—no particular goals around the economy just the economy. Well, look, if they want to put that up as their measure of success I am happy to use it, because if we look closely at what they have achieved in that regard we have got markers like the fact the debt under this Government has increased by $60 billion. I will say that again: debt under this Government has increased by $60 billion.

Tim Macindoe: Thanks to the Labour Party. What happened to public spending under Labour? Tell us about Government spending under Labour.

JACINDA ARDERN: I will tell you, Tim Macindoe, if you want to hear about Labour: net Crown debt went down to zero—down to zero. Now there is an increase of $60 billion of debt. If we pick another measure, perhaps unemployment, well that has got to 6 percent and it is potentially going to hit 7 percent by the end of this year. A third measure—because I want to be fair to this Government let us pick a third—is this: exports. Exports as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest point since 1997—since 1997—and it is probably not a coincidence that 1997 was the last time that we handed the keys, as Mr Robertson said, to Bill English to manage the economy. So on any measure that the Government set out for itself we have seen absolute failure from this Government in terms of leadership on the economy.

And I would add a fourth measure, child poverty, because under this Government, a Labour Government, you will see every single Budget a report on child poverty because what is GDP—trade and debt levels—if we are not factoring in the impact that all of Government policy is having on children. There are 305,000 children living in poverty under this Government up from 260,000. That is dire on anyone’s measure and on any account.

I do not blame the general public if they do not know about all of those dire statistics. I do not—and why? Well, not actually because there is any kind of fabulous spin machine in the Government. That has always existed. What is new in this situation is that we have an increasingly gutted fourth estate. They are the ones that we rely on—not just the Opposition; not just the Opposition—to tell the story about this Government. But we rely on a decent fourth estate and what have we got in that regard in recent times? Well, we could reflect simply on what has been hitting the headlines. MediaWorks is about to enter a phase where TV3 has no current affairs—none; no investigative journalism for one of the most prominent television stations in our country.

Hon Maggie Barry: Take it up with them.

JACINDA ARDERN: Should I take it up with Mark Weldon, the Prime Minister’s very dear and loyal friend perhaps? I will let the public draw their conspiracy theories about that. But putting that aside—the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage does not seem to think that this is a problem—perhaps we should look at the areas where Ms Barry has some control: public broadcasting. Under this Government the Television New Zealand charter has gone, TVNZ 7 has gone, TVNZ 6 has gone, and Radio New Zealand and NZ On Air are in dire straits in terms of the static funding that they have received.

In fact, public broadcasting is at the lowest level of any modern budget in this country. Compared internationally, with any comparable democracy, we spend some of the smallest amounts on public broadcasting. Why am I raising this? Yes, this Government’s record is dire, but the problem is much worse than that. The public deserve to know what is happening in their democracy, and the voices we rely on tell that story are being gutted by the Government as well. The combination is a threat to our democracy and is a threat to the future of this country.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Those of us who are fortunate enough to have the privilege of representing constituency seats, particularly in rural and provincial New Zealand, often hear from constituents who use words like “inefficient”, “cumbersome”, “inconsistent”, “slow”, “inflexible”, and “bureaucratic”—and they are not talking just about the Opposition. They are talking about words that describe our resource management legislation. Those words are used to describe the Opposition and our resource management legislation. Tomorrow in this House the member who represents the Nelson electorate and is also the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Nick Smith, is going to introduce phase two of this National Government’s reform of the Resource Management Act. That is going to be wonderful legislation. It means that a solid, pragmatic, and sensible approach to Resource Management Act reform is going to be finally introduced into this House, and it is much needed and much overdue. We had wanted to introduce this phase two legislation some time before in this Parliament. The announcement came last week, and it has been interesting to see that across the country there has support and encouragement for this legislation being introduced. It has been welcomed by a whole range of interested stakeholders, not least of which has been local government, which has, in fact, responded incredibly positively to the introduction of this legislation.

The first reading of this legislation tomorrow shows how effectively this National-led Government relates to, organises itself with, and engages its partners across the House. So I want to thank and encourage members of the Māori Party and the ACT Party MP who are going to support us in this bill. I was pleased to see that belatedly the Labour Party has decided to, in fact, support this bill at its first reading, and I take that as a very positive sign indeed. But one thing that we will be wanting to watch with particular interest tomorrow at the first reading are the intentions of New Zealand First. Less than a year ago up in Northland the Rt Hon Winston Peters was campaigning to the people of Northland in a provincial rural seat, a seat where people do get complaints about the Resource Management Act. Winston Peters was campaigning in that by-election and was saying he would support sensible Resource Management Act reform. Winston now has an opportunity to come to this House tomorrow and encourage his party, his supporters, on behalf of the people of Northland, who will benefit from an improved resource management legislative environment.

Tim Macindoe: Will he do it?

SCOTT SIMPSON: Will he do it? Will the proof of the pudding be in the voting tomorrow? We are yet to see what that will be. Tomorrow we expect that, because the people of Northland will be the sort of people who will benefit from this legislation, New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters will, I am sure, be supportive of this legislation.

Planning processes under the Resource Management Act are, we all know, occurring at glacial speed. They occur incredibly slowly. They occur at a speed that prohibits development and that actually disincentivises people from making development decisions for progressing their businesses, growing their enterprises, creating jobs, and creating a growing economy. What the legislation seeks to do is streamline and smooth out some of those processes. We had an operation going through the country a month or 2, or 3, or 4 ago, led by my colleague and friend Jacqui Dean, called the Rules Reduction Taskforce. It published a great paper about loopy rules, and I am pleased to say that many of those loopy rules are going to be fixed by this piece of legislation. The Rules Reduction Taskforce has done a very, very good job. Standard planning templates will be introduced as part of this reform. Just to give the House some idea of some of the benefits that will come from this, I told that currently there are 242 definitions as to what could be described as a commercial zone. That certainly cannot create certainty in the environment that we want to be part of.

So I am looking forward tomorrow to the first reading of this second phase of our Resource Management Act reform. I am looking forward to support across the House from parties like Labour, like the Māori Party, like ACT, and, certainly—hopefully—like New Zealand First. It will be good legislation. I am chairing the select committee. Bring it on. It is going to be a great bill.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): You know that this is a Government out of ideas when the whole of this debate is focused on a piece of legislation that the Government should have brought to this House more than a year ago—a piece of legislation it is bringing back to the House in a watered-down state. When that is the best that Government members can do in this debate, you know they are out of ideas. No wonder Scott Simpson’s constituents are coming to him and saying: “You’re inefficient, you’re cumbersome, and you’re working at a glacial speed.” It is no wonder they are saying that—seriously, is this the best they can do?

Their whole debate has been about a piece of legislation that they could not even bring to this House in the form they truly wanted. That is the best that this worn-out Government can do. But this year they have spent their time doing those sorts of things. They have been facing down so many scandals, and trying to bring in so many distractions that they have forgotten to get on with the things that New Zealanders really need them to get on with. They have been focused on fighting off the Saudi sheep scandal. They have been trying to make people forget about the ponytail pulling. They have been trying to distract from the things that have gone wrong for this Government, because they truly have lost their way.

I think that one of the pinnacles of this—[Interruption] Well, in the Northland by-election I think the people really started to give them a signal that they had had enough of that sort of behaviour. Also, John Key rolled over on the issue of human rights for New Zealanders being deported from, and detained in, Australia. If Richie McCaw had rolled over for Australia in the same way that John Key did, we would not be holding the Rugby World Cup; we would actually be saying instead “Oh gosh, we lost to Australia.”, because John Key was too weak to actually take that issue on.

But Andrew Little was the one who showed leadership on this issue. He was not prepared, and is not prepared, to see New Zealanders being treated in that way. He went over and he confronted the issue; he did not run away and hide. That is the sort of leadership that this country needs, and, instead, what are we getting?

Well, in the Waikato—in the region that I come from—unemployment has gone up 34 percent in the last quarter alone. Unemployment is up in the Waikato by 34 percent. So it has gone up in the last quarter, from being 5 percent to being 6.7 percent—just in one quarter. That represents the loss of 3,800 jobs to people in my region—3,800 jobs, just in 3 months. And that is before we lose 200 jobs from Ruakura Research Centre next year. That is right. In the heart of agricultural New Zealand, in the Waikato, that Government is sacking scientists in the agricultural area, from the heart of agricultural New Zealand—200 jobs are being lost. And so when those jobs go, the unemployment rate is going to look even worse.

Huntly mines: the Government completely mismanaged State coal, and Huntly miners have lost their jobs. The 3,800 jobs lost, in just the last 3 months, you can multiply that several times for the number of family members who will be hurt by those jobs being lost, by the number of local businesses that will lose income because those jobs are being lost, and the poverty—the increased poverty—that our children will face in that region as a result of that.

So at the same time as jobs are being lost in their thousands in the Waikato, what else are we facing? The Government’s failure this year to fix the Auckland housing crisis means that housing prices and the cost of renting in Hamilton are going through the roof. So we have got the perfect storm under this Government. We have got increasing housing costs—an 8.5 percent increase in rental costs in the Waikato in the last year alone. And I can tell you that is just the tip of the iceberg. Aucklanders are marching down, over the Bombay Hills, because that Government has refused to do anything about the housing crisis. It has been warned for years about that developing housing crisis, and it has done nothing about it. And now Aucklanders are coming to my city, buying up in Hamilton, forcing the housing prices up, and continuing to work in Auckland because they cannot get jobs in the Waikato because unemployment has gone up by 34 percent. Can you imagine what that is doing to family life for those people?

So that is the fate under this Government. That is the brighter future that it has delivered after 7 years—rising unemployment and increasing costs at the same time that people can least afford to pay those costs. It is damaging our society, it is damaging New Zealand, and it is time for the Government to reconsider its position or just vacate Government. If it cannot do the job, then just get out of it and let those of us who have got the ideas get on with it.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I regard it as a gift to be able to follow that speaker, Sue Moroney, in this general debate and to say how proud I am to be part of a Government that is focused on the things that matter to New Zealand, that is focused on the economy, and, in the instance that I want to talk about today, that is focused on reform of the Resource Management Act. And it was truly a gift—truly a gift—for that member to cry crocodile tears about her view that this Government has taken no action on the housing crisis, so-called, in Auckland when, in fact, Minister Nick Smith has done little else over the last 2 years but focus on the issues around strong economy and strong growth in Auckland. The number of measures that that Minister has taken, together with this Government, to tackle the need to provide for more housing is legion.

But I just want to focus on one aspect of that, and it is in this second tranche of Resource Management Act reform, which will, in fact, provide for planning processes to allow speedier, more effective consenting to provide for housing in district plans. And that, Mr Speaker, and members of the Opposition who do not quite understand the Resource Management Act, will go a significant way into providing speedier, more cost-effective consenting and the provision of land designation to allow for housing to be built in Auckland. And that is on top of the other provisions that this Government has brought in for Auckland housing, like special housing areas, which are beginning to bear fruit.

You see, one of the problems that Opposition members have with housing is that they seem to think they can just say “We’re going to build 800,000 homes in the next 10 years.” and they think if they click their fingers and wave their magic wand, it will be so. Unfortunately, in the real world, planning conditions have to be placed around that. We have been faced with a local authority that has been determined to impose a city limit. It has imposed so many restrictive covenants on development in Auckland that it has been a large body of work to enable the planning framework that then, in turn, enables the consenting and construction of housing, let alone the work this Government has entered into in the realm of social housing, which also has been significant.

I want to return to the Resource Management Act and the second tranche of reform that this Government is introducing. I want to refer, also, to what we fondly called the The loopy rules report: New Zealanders tell their stories, which was a large body of work undertaken by a group of New Zealanders who travelled the length and breadth of New Zealand; who consulted with thousands of people, many sectors, local authorities, and industry groups; and who discovered, when listening to New Zealanders, that the Resource Management Act comprised about a third of the complaints we heard around how difficult it was and can be to do business in New Zealand because of what they told us were loopy rules. The loopy rules report recommended 10 top fixes, amongst our many recommendations, and some of those related to the Resource Management Act. I am so pleased that this Government, under Minister Nick Smith, has picked up on those recommendations made in The loopy rules report.

We did recommend that, as part of the Resource Management Act reforms, the Government eliminate the need for resource consents for minor and technical breaches, which cause so much consternation for homeowners and property developers. I am so pleased to see those provisions picked up in this Resource Management Act reform bill. We recommended the introduction of faster, more flexible processes for changing plans under the Resource Management Act. I am so pleased that this Government and this Minister have chosen to pick up on that recommendation and have proposed two new ways of plan changes and of streamlining the planning processes. I am pleased to see that a collaborative planning regime is going to be brought in by this Government.

I know from the work that we undertook on another piece of work, in the Mackenzie Agreement, that collaboration works. It is a bright beacon for the future, and it should be supported by this House. I am very much in favour of the Resource Management Act changes. I think it is a good piece of work by a progressive Government.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I do note from the Trans Tasman that the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, got a rating of two out of 10.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What? How much?

RON MARK: Two out of 10—two out of 10. But on to serious matters here. Today New Zealand First asked a hapless Minister of Immigration questions about the rort being visited on this nation through lax legislation and an indifference of this National Government, which is blinded by its desire to simply make money, regardless of increasing and overwhelming evidence that its new darling child, namely the export education sector, has become a people trafficker’s paradise and an extortionist’s dream, characterised by fraud, corruption, and exploitation of the vulnerable and young.

New Zealand First has submitted written questions and Official Information Act requests, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters has raised this matter on numerous occasions—we know a couple of things about the export education sector. Young people are coming here from developed countries all over the world with the sincere objective of getting a high-quality education, paying their full way, and leaving and going home. We also know there are those who are coming here from undeveloped nations, hell-bent on using it as a pathway to residency and citizenship, and then to enjoy the tax benefits and the subsidies of the New Zealand taxpayer. We also know that in January Independent Tertiary Institutions admitted that incentives existed to work and gain residency in the export education sector. We know much about the Government’s policy of encouraging these people to come here.

I want to put it to you that New Zealand First believes the New Zealand Government has a duty of care towards these foreign students who come here. We have a pastoral responsibility to ensure that they are not exploited, they are not extorted, they are not manipulated, and they are certainly not lost in the labour force as slave labour. But does this Government care about that? Not one bit. We warned in January—in fact Winston Peters, our leader, warned back in January 2015 that student visas were being sold as a back door to New Zealand residency. On 19 November Pattrick Smellie—of course a card-carrying member of New Zealand First, as we all know—wrote saying: “Immigration officials are warning that New Zealand’s reputation is at risk. There is widespread evidence of fraud and corruption, of exploitation in the workplace.”

Business leaders have been saying, and are now on the record as saying, that deflation is being credited because of cheap foreign labour being imported through the student education scheme. We know that Lincoln Tan wrote this month, saying that the Immigration Advisers Authority and Munish Sekhri from Licensed Immigration Advisers for New Zealand both raised concerns about this matter. But what do we hear from the Minister of Immigration today? This Minister says: “Oh, if they have got problems, they should go to the authorities.” Is he dreaming? Is he on “Planet National”? Does he not know that these foreign students—

Alastair Scott: Why don’t you just send them back to the countries where they came from? Go back to where you came from. Like you do with all the immigrants—send them home.

RON MARK: —do not know their rights, do not know who the authorities are, and have had their passports taken by unscrupulous employers? And the member for Wairarapa had better button it because he knows that there is a petrol station in Masterton right now that has been accused of doing this. But he would not know; he does not live there—he does not live there. He has not got a clue. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member but that level of barracking from that member Alastair Scott is completely unacceptable. If he interrupts again, I will be asking him to leave the Chamber for the remainder of the general debate.

RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member for Wairarapa does not know; he does not live there. People say that consistently—that is why they come into my office now.

But we know that this is a serious matter. New Zealand’s reputation as a quality provider and as a good nation of good people is at risk because the Minister of Immigration today refuses to accept that we are, through our international export education sector, allowing extortion, allowing manipulation, and allowing people to be treated like slave labour. And what did he say to that mother whose daughter lost her job? Well, he actually did not give a toss, and the whole of the National Party laughed. Look it up, it is going to be on video on Facebook: the National Party laughing at the plight of that woman Ludwina Maybin—at her daughter. Watch the video. The National Party members did not give a toss and do not care. That is the mark of this Government. That will be the mark of its reputation. Unfortunately, it will be the mark of New Zealand’s reputation unless they sort it out, and sort it out they must.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I just apologise to the young children in the gallery of the debating chamber this afternoon who had to sit through and listen to that negativity and cynicism, because, on this side of the House, we are positive. The first thing that I would like to do, as we draw an end to 2015, is acknowledge the hard work of all New Zealanders. It is New Zealanders who have brought this country back to a surplus, it is New Zealanders who have caused this country to have the highest workforce participation on record, it is New Zealanders who have allowed this country to have forecasted positive GDP growth that is the envy of all other OECD countries, and it is those New Zealanders who we are supporting through these Resource Management Act reforms. On this side of the House, we back New Zealanders, and we know that they can do more, and we want to support them.

First of all, before I go on, I want to thank this National Government, on behalf of all Waimakariri residents, for the new Rangiora Hospital, which was opened last week. It was an honour to have the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman come and open the new North Canterbury Health Hub, which will be seen as the gold standard in health services across rural communities. It must be embarrassing for people like the Hon Annette King—and for Clayton Cosgrove, who was the Labour candidate at the time—who stood outside the old Rangiora Hospital and said: “This will not go ahead. This Government is not going to fund the Rangiora Hospital.” Fast forward to less than a year later and we are opening up this fantastic world-class facility for regional New Zealand, for North Cantabrians.

This is part of a bigger picture. We are rolling out $900 million in the biggest hospital rebuild programme that New Zealand has ever seen, building Christchurch Hospital, Burwood Hospital, and Rangiora Hospital. What we are doing is backing Canterbury post-earthquakes. As we know, the Canterbury recovery is one of the top four priorities. We have got the earthquake recovery Minister at No. 3, and our next Canterbury Minister is at No. 7. What does Labour do when it has a reshuffle? Its first Canterbury MP is No. 10—that is what it thinks of Canterbury. It is the second-biggest economy in the regions and the second-biggest by population, and it puts its first Canterbury MP at No. 10. Labour is not sticking up for Canterbury, and it is not sticking up for Cantabrians’ recovery.

What we are also doing is supporting housing, and there are a lot of lessons out of the earthquake recovery. We know that with the land-use recovery plan we freed up land, and we increased supply, and that equalled demand. As we know, with the Treasury forecast we are heading towards a housing surplus in Canterbury. These are real lessons that are informing this resource management bill. If you look at annual house price inflation across New Zealand of over 10 percent, Canterbury is at about 5.5 percent and Waimakariri is at 3.5 percent. We are the third-fastest growing electorate and the third-biggest populated region in the South Island, but we have only 3.5 percent annual house price inflation. That proves what the Productivity Commission said—that tight regulation of land increases house prices.

We know that it is up to local councils, under this Resource Management Act bill, which will allow them to match the needs of residential growth with land needs. What we know with the KiwiSaver HomeStart package is that in the first 6 months 122 families in my electorate qualified for that and have gone on to buy their first home—over $550,000 worth of grants from that scheme are going into young families in the Waimakariri, and that should be celebrated. This has been incentivising builders to build houses for under $450,000, which is the cap, and to deliver affordable housing. It has been a great year in the Waimakariri: new beginnings, openings, and milestones. We have opened the Rangiora Town Hall, the Oxford Town Hall, the Ruataniwha Kaiapoi Civic Centre, the hospital, and the Ashley Bridge. We have started $300 million worth of roading improvements. It is going great guns. On behalf of all Cantabrians, thank you to all New Zealanders for supporting us through this difficult time. With your indulgence Mr Speaker—[Bell rung]

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): This last weekend, or just ahead of the weekend, we heard that there was a new antibiotic-resistant form of campylobacter through at least three of the four main poultry suppliers in the North Island. The Green Party says that the Government needs to investigate the links between that antibiotic resistance and the rampant herbicide use in New Zealand as well as in the imported feed to that poultry and in other feedstocks.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and a number of other glyphosate-based herbicides, is commonly sprayed on genetically engineered soy crops internationally, and that is the vast volume of soy that is brought into New Zealand animal feedstocks. There was a quarter of a million tonnes of soy imported in 2014—nearly double that from 2010—and we have been battling campylobacter right through that time. Not so long ago Professor Jack Heinemann of Canterbury University and an international group came out with a research result that showed, over three different herbicides and a range of different antibiotics, levels of resistance or amplification in effectiveness of the antibiotics, depending what. But it showed that there is a connection and a there is a change in antibiotic effectiveness from herbicide use.

We are soaking in herbicides in this country, our food chain is soaking in herbicides in this country, and chicken would have to be one of the worst. I remember a few years ago when Inghams Enterprises was busy advertising its chicken as containing no GMOs and no synthetic additives, etc. We showed, through the Commerce Commission, that it was totally out of order because at that stage at least 15 percent of its feedstock was genetically engineered soy, and it will have risen since then. So too have all the other feed producers carried on using this sort of product.

The Environmental Protection Authority here has approved 60 substances containing glyphosate under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and the Ministry for Primary Industries, with the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines group, has active registrations for 89 glyphosate products. We know that glyphosate is affecting the gut microbes in chicken and in other livestock, and yet we have got this major risk to our health, our consumers’ health, and, actually, to our export markets. We know how critically important it is when there is something going wrong in the dairy industry that affects our markets. We knew, when we thought there might have been a risk of botulinum, how serious the ripples were that went out in our exports. Yet, botulinum is a likely problem because of our increased use of glyphosate and others, because of the suppression of beneficial microbes in the gut of both our ruminants and, of course, in our chickens. Glyphosate—as I wrap up—probably causes cancer. It is genotoxic at sub-lethal concentrations as a hormone disruptor. It is a reproductive negative and it contributes to digestive illness, gut disruption, and nutrient deficiencies.

We need this Government to look at this seriously and not go around with its head in the sand in terms of how we are treating agriculture. There is another option; we must take it. Let us look to organics and, seriously, agroecological systems of farming, moving away from pesticides.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Can I just say how proud I am to be a part of a well-balanced Government that is aspirational for New Zealand and aspirational for New Zealanders. As I have sat here over this last 12 months of my first term of Parliament, one of the big cries that I have heard from the other side of the House is that National is concerned only about its rich mates. It is an accusation that is often made, and so I thought I would have a look back over my past year here in Government. I had a little bit of a look at the pieces of legislation that I have had the privilege of speaking on—there have been 30 of them. There have been 30 different pieces of legislation, and that is just my share—the ones I have spoken on. I want to look at some of the themes of that legislation that I have had the privilege of speaking on.

Some of them have been in the justice sector because that aligns with the Justice and Electoral Committee, which I am on. We have had the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, which has sought to protect young people, in particular, from online bullying and the like. We have had the public protection orders going into place, which are going to help protect victims of crime from further victimisation; extended supervision orders; and the like. In the social space, we have got the Support for Children in Hardship Bill, with the bills arising from it having their third reading tomorrow. It is a fantastic piece of legislation, raising the benefits in real terms for the first time in 40 years—that is not just “looking after your rich mates”. We are seeing the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill, which is going to help our most vulnerable teen parents and high-risk young people.

This is a Government that is doing all sorts of other things as well, not just the things that I speak on. We have seen some great initiatives in the environmental space, with the expansion of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, which will now be one of the largest ocean sanctuaries on the globe. We have got a whole bunch of other things going on. In the health space, we are seeing waiting lists for elective surgery coming down as well—that is not just “looking after your rich mates”. But we have also been focused on the economy, and I know, in my home patch where I come from in the Manawatū, we have been privileged to have a regional growth study done that has been a partnership with the local councils, with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and with the Ministry for Primary Industries. It is a fantastic document, which is going to lead the way forward for regional development in that region. It is going to see more jobs. It is going to see people doing a whole lot better. So we are seeing that happen in the economy space. Then financially of course, against all odds, we have got a Minister of Finance who has delivered a surplus for the New Zealand Government.

This is a well-balanced Government, as I said, which is aspirational for New Zealanders and for New Zealand. To go along with this continued, ongoing balanced approach, tomorrow we will see the first reading of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. Again, it is a sensible, balanced approach. We would all acknowledge that a Resource Management Act should be, and it still will be, focused on protecting our environment. But our Resource Management Act has not actually been a particularly useful tool at times for some people, and we know that it has been a roadblock to sensible development. It has been unnecessarily holding up processes, which has made things difficult for businesses and for people who are going to be producing jobs in our regional economies. It stops them from moving forward, so it is time that we had some reforms of the Resource Management Act.

There are some really good reforms in particular. What I have seen in my time in local government that what was challenging for people was the amount of time that it took to get plan changes through. So there is going to be a 2-year time limit on getting those plan changes through under the new Resource Management Act. It has also been ridiculous over time that if you want to do something as simple as putting a deck on your house, you have had to get consent from not just the neighbour who is going to be most affected by it but also just about anybody else in the neighbourhood. We are going to start streamlining these processes through the Resource Management Act so that we continue to look after and take good care of our environment but also ensure that there is going to be a sensible approach that will deliver other, better outcomes for New Zealand. So, in summary, we continue to move forward with this Government in a balanced approach that is delivering for New Zealand economically, socially, and environmentally right across the board. We continue to be aspirational for New Zealanders. We continue to be aspirational for New Zealand, so that New Zealanders can continue to live more fulfilling and prosperous lives.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I have heard a number of National speakers in the last hour, and when National talks about surpluses, Labour talks about communities. National talks about GDP; Labour talks about people and jobs. National talks money; we talk about opportunity. That is the difference between a tired party that is lost for ideas, and Labour, which is energetic, hungry, and aspirational for all New Zealand—and that includes regional New Zealand. The rhetoric over there is about aspiration; the reality is so far from that. Those members have just lost sight of it.

From ponytails to plastic sheep to pandas, this Government has misfired because it has taken its eye off the ball. It has lost sight of the issues that are important to the people of New Zealand, things like jobs, like education, like decent health care—heaven forbid! I would love to hear our Prime Minister talk about what the Government is going to do to grow the economy, as opposed to his habit of weeing in the shower, and about what he is going to do for those in the provinces, as opposed to silly sideshows like Saudi sheep and ponytails. The thing is, John Key started his reign with energy, with Ministers like Tony Ryall and Simon Power, but like rats they have deserted a sinking ship, and now the party John Key leads has become tired, moribund, out of touch, and out of fresh ideas. If those members think that changing the flag will put more money into the back pockets of good, hard-working Kiwis, will lift one child out of poverty, will create one job—

Jono Naylor: Who said that was the aim?

STUART NASH: —then they are really out of touch with the majority of Kiwis and with what New Zealanders want a Government to do for them.

That member over there said: “Who said this was the aim?”. Well, what I would really like to know is what the aim is—what the aim is—of this flagship policy of changing the flag. We all know—New Zealanders know—it is a vanity project for the Prime Minister, and that is a shame, because New Zealanders want a Prime Minister who is working for them.

Labour will. Under Andrew Little, Labour has a vision for the future. It is based around jobs. It is based around employment that will put more money into our communities and our homes, put food on the table, and allow people to pay their power bills and live a life with dignity. Labour believes in the value of education and of equality of opportunity. Labour believes in decent health care, affordable for all. The year 2016 will see Labour begin to deliver a plan for all New Zealand and all New Zealanders. We will continue to engage with those in our cities, our towns, and our provinces and rural communities. Labour has started this year how we want to continue. We have visited over 50 different electorates. We have engaged with those who are looking for a vision, who are looking for a Government to actually provide solutions and not things like ponytails—not to get distracted by silly sideshows.

In conclusion—

Jacqui Dean: Like leadership contests?

STUART NASH: —National has run out of ideas and is concentrating on sideshows and silly distractions.

That member said New Zealand is looking for leadership, and I completely agree with her—I completely agree with her. New Zealanders are not looking for a Prime Minister who believes that pulling a ponytail is funny. They are not looking for a Minister who rules a department that buys $500 hair straighteners, has problems with plastic sheep, and does dirty deals with Saudis.

Labour has the energy. It has the leadership. It has the passion. It has the people to deliver, to find solutions to the issues that the people of New Zealand are telling us are important. New Zealanders are looking for leadership. They are now looking for an alternative Government, because they are tired of this one. Labour is ready to deliver for the people of New Zealand, and come 2016 the smiles of those on the backbenches will slowly begin to disappear, because they know 2016 will begin to deliver the change that 2017 will bring. Thank you very much.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Affordable Healthcare Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 11 November.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering this bill Andrew Bayly had the call, and he has 4 minutes remaining to speak if he so wishes.

Tim Macindoe: Best member for Hunua ever.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Yes, it is a pleasure to be talking on this bill that the former MP for Hunua has been promulgating. Of course, this bill is a good bill, in fact, because there is such a laudable objective about it. There is a lot to be commended about it, and, of course, it fits very nicely with the constituency that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is representing in Parliament, but in my view it is simply misdirected.

Let us look at it; why do I say that? It has got three parts to it. First of all, it requires all those migrants who fit within the parent category or are a secondary applicant to a main application for immigration to have health insurance for 10 years after the time they come to New Zealand. Secondly, it removes the fringe benefit tax (FBT) on health care. Thirdly, it introduces a 25 percent rebate for superannuitants on a SuperGold card, up to a maximum of $500.

The main reason why I do not think we should be supporting this bill is, quite simply, the cost. As some of you who listened closely to the Minister of Health back on 11 November will be aware, this bill would cost $150 million—$150 million. Secondly, by dealing with issues such as FBT, what it does is it cuts across the incomparable tax system that New Zealand has. We have a very clear tax system. It is very transparent. It is very clear, in the sense that it does not have a lot of exceptions. Of course, what this bill does immediately is to introduce an exemption to that clear tax policy. Thirdly, it would perversely induce employers to put in place health care schemes. Those schemes normally benefit high-income and high-salary earners and, in fact, not the constituency that the member who has introduced this bill is seeking to represent, namely older people and those in care. Fourthly, there is the sheer cost of $150 million being ploughed in to this initiative. Although, as I said, the aims are laudable, there are other opportunities, and this is an opportunity cost—a $150 million opportunity cost.

Finally, I think the reason I cannot accept it is that this Government has invested strongly and heavily into health. We are currently at $15.9 billion we spend every year on health care in New Zealand, and, of course, much of that goes to the benefit of our older people, which is quite rightly so. We have heard earlier from the Minister of Health that he put another $50 million into orthopaedic surgery and other main surgeries. Of course, some of the prime beneficiaries of that are older people. We are increasing our funding; we have got another extra 5,000 people getting access to elective surgery every year.

So already we have a fantastic health system. We are putting the money where it counts. We are concerned about our older people, and they are participating, as quite rightly they should be, in our health care system. On that ground I simply cannot support this bill, and I think, from a Government perspective, we are better to look at other opportunities where we can spend $150 million for the benefit of our older citizens in New Zealand. Thank you very much.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The health insurance industry, health professionals, and the general public have expressed dismay at the opposition from the National Party to our bill. Parliamentary videos show the famously apoplectic David Bennett spouting on, in his ignorance, and frenzied attacks by National MPs, including the Minister of Health tossing around unsubstantiated figures, but none of the benefits. We got Business and Economic Research Ltd to do the work for us. It said that the benefits were up to $250 million. We do not want to hear from another MP who by a tea party, back-stabbing attack on the good Dr Hutchison got into this Parliament. That is why he represents Hunua. The whole thing stinks.

This is the National Party’s double-talk at its worst. Compulsory health insurance for migrants is already in New Zealand immigration law. Migrant work visas, investor migrants, and retirement-category migrants are all required to take out health insurance—so much for the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act nonsense; it was just debunked, in three easy examples. The Affordable Healthcare Bill is only adding a category of elder migrants that was missed by past legislation because, not like them in Parliament today, we did not allow this rampant influx of people. There is now over 80,000, over 8 percent already, added to our superannuation bill. That is what we are trying to fix up. Like the retirement visa migrants, most in this category are older migrants who will add more heavily to public health care costs. There is no requirement for any of them to have contributed to our economy in order to access all these benefits. You cannot find one other country on earth that allows this.

As to removing fringe benefit tax (FBT) from workplace insurance—why, the Prime Minister publicly supports this health insurance measure every chance he gets, to appease the business community. Here are his words: “At the moment any employer who offers health insurance gets hit by a fringe benefit tax. I think it’s crazy. The more we can encourage employers to provide wholesale medical insurance for their staff the better.” Who said that? Why, John Key, their glorious leader. Then—here we go; here we go—another example: “Elimination of FBT on health insurance in the workplace is a good start.” Who said that?

Hon Member: It was “Flip-flop Key”.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is right—the serial flip-flopper. He said it again in August this year at the Upper Hutt Chamber of Commerce. This is what he said, as reported by the Upper Hutt Leader: “Key favoured wiping fringe benefit tax on companies that pay health insurance for employees.” That was reported in the local newspaper, the Upper Hutt Leader, with his photo, along with a photo of another MP. Guess who? Take a wild guess: Chris Bishop, who had got up and ranted and raved against the introduction of the bill.

What a bunch of double-talking, serial flip-floppers. There would be wide economic benefits for the economy if employers were encouraged to participate more in the health of their workers. The cost-benefit analysis speaks for itself: higher workplace participation in health insurance would result in shorter sick days and getting workers back to work earlier, and if more people retained health insurance it would allow wider allocation of public health spending and shorter waiting lists to the balance of New Zealanders.

Finally, our 25 percent SuperGold insurance rebate—why, guess who also supported that at one stage? Well, if you go to the 2008 National Party manifesto, there it is. Yes, 30 percent—30 percent. There is plenty of pre-sale, like before the election of 2008—lots of pre-sales talk, no after-sales service. In fact, you have just got walking, talking hypocrisy posing as an opposition.

The Government’s enraged rhetoric against the Affordable Healthcare Bill indicates that this bill must have the National Government worried. If health Minister Jonathan Coleman should come down and speak on this, which he did, he at least could actually read the bill and compare it with National’s own policies, which he did not, and not make himself look stupid. We expect more of him—he is a doctor, for goodness’ sake. That is why I always admired the previous MP for Hunua. He was a standout doctor, a good man. He represented the people of Hunua, not just his own little mates.

The last thing is that this bill will free up public health services and short-circuit surgery lists for the chronically sick, the disadvantaged manual workers around this country, and the poor. God knows that under this Government they desperately need it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Affordable Healthcare Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 46

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

Noes 75

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think it was Mr Bennett and Mr Peters who were exchanging comments across the House while the vote was taken. I think both members have been here for some time and realise that they are not meant to do that.

Bills

Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I move, That the Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee. In 2015 the current National Government amended the Education Act 1989, and repealed the requirement for democratic elections and student representatives on tertiary institution councils. Removing democratic representation from university councils is plainly wrong. It undermines the integrity of our public institutions, and it sends the wrong signal to the next generation of Kiwi leaders and the many thousands of hard-working academic and general university staff.

The Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill would ensure mandatory staff and student representation on university councils, and would limit ministerial appointees to four. It has the widespread support of the tertiary education sector, with key stakeholders such as the New Zealand University Students’ Association, the Tertiary Education Union, and Universities New Zealand on record as calling on all parties to find a workable solution forward, and, thus, to allow this bill to the select committee for a fair and robust debate.

The first reading of this bill comes at a time when the need for good governance in our tertiary institutions has never been more apparent. The National Government’s mismanagement of the sector is plain for all to see. Instead of treating education as an essential public good, which it is, Minister Joyce treats it as nothing more than a factory, or a cash cow for private tertiary providers to milk dry the international student market.

On Budget day, Minister Joyce announced phantom funding that was exposed by Labour to be yet another year of real cuts, another National Government vanishing act, and another brick in the wall of unfulfilled promises. The National Government has been underfunding tertiary education for years. Just ask the lecturers, the administrators, and the cleaners at our tertiary institutions, who are being asked to do more with less—and we know that that means more work for less pay.

New Zealand now ranks near the bottom of the OECD on tertiary education spending per student—behind Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, France, Germany, and Israel—and well below the OECD average. Under the National Government, total spending has fallen from around $3.2 billion a year to only $3 billion today. It is an embarrassment that New Zealand is going backwards.

It is no wonder that our university rankings are on the slide. Victoria University dropped by at least 50 places, and Canterbury and Waikato both plummeted more than 100 places in global rankings this year. To make matters worse for university researchers, New Zealand invests only half the average of research and development of the OECD countries. The result is a wave of mergers and cuts, and an increasing reliance on foreign students. That is the context of this bill.

At the same time as he has been, effectively, starving the tertiary sector and selling short our children’s future, Minister Joyce has been hard at work stifling the democratic voice of students. The National Government’s 2011 voluntary student membership legislation was an ideological diatribe that scrapped students’ universal association membership, limiting student associations and leaving them dependent upon the institutions that they were supposed to robustly represent the interests of their members to. Student associations are on such thin ice that the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations has been in danger of folding with just 10 members left after major institutions such as Canterbury and Waikato pulled out several years ago.

Chris Bishop: Why do you think they left?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Because they could not afford it, Mr Bishop. Unless turned around, this could force that students association to fold after 86 years.

Worse, in the polytech sector many institutions lack any student body at all, like at Aoraki Polytechnic. Some student bodies, like at Waiariki Institute of Technology, where Mr Tabuteau once worked, are under such pressure that their voice is routinely and systematically stifled. A strong campaign by staff and students saw democracy restored to Victoria University with two members on the university council. That is, essentially, what this bill seeks to do nationwide.

While all of this has been going on, Minister Joyce and the National Government have been building up a private tertiary fiefdom that is akin to the wild west, with loose standards and weak oversight being the order of the day. As the Government doubles down on bad governance and chases the international student dollar, it is, effectively, a free for all—a free for all where numbers are inflated, tutors are enrolled in courses, and some $50 million has been overpaid to institutions in the last year.

On the substance of this bill, the silencing of students and staff on university councils directly undermines their role as a critic and conscience in society. They are crucial and legitimate stakeholders in how universities and other tertiary institutions work, and their voices deserve to be heard.

Including their voices in law on every council also assists the institution. Information can flow both ways, and feedback and opinion can be properly channelled. It creates value for both sides. This is the modern networked world in the information age. Sharing information, aligning interests, and building a positive community of support works well for the institutions, well for the students, and well for the staff.

That is why it is time in this bill to move beyond ideology. It is time to find a workable compromise and a new way forward—one that engages students, staff, unions, management, and, of course, the Crown. It should be one that ensures both good governance and strong representation, and, thus, creates shared value for all stakeholders, rather than getting lost in a war of words or an outdated market ideology that treats higher learning institutions as factories, staff as machines, and students as commodities.

To conclude, it is apparent that the integrity of our public institutions has been under constant attack by this Government, and in particular by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, who seems to relate it to an outdated business, with no respect for staff or students. This bill will provide a pathway, through a select committee process, that will reverse the Government’s attempts to stifle democracy at universities and will allow for a wider debate about the commercialisation of education by the current Government.

Proper representation also matters to the critic and conscience role of universities and other tertiary institutions. Principles of good governance demand representation of all parties—of students, of staff, and of governors. Supporting this bill would allow all the issues to be aired and new solutions found at our public institutions.

I want to signal that the Labour Party is open to extending the scope of the bill to include wānanga and polytechnics as well as universities. The draft has been cleared by both the Office of the Clerk and the Bill of Rights Act vet to allow that amendment to happen at the select committee.

Also, the Labour Party wishes to signal its willingness to cooperate with the Government and with all parties around the House to amend the bill significantly if necessary to find an enduring, positive, and relatively apolitical way forward where the Government’s partial aim—to give it some credit, perhaps—to ensure business-like governance is matched by the legitimate need to have democratic representation on university, polytech, and wānanga councils.

We are keen to work with all parties. We ask the House to send this bill to a select committee so that the views of the sector and core stakeholders can be properly heard. If the Government across the aisle has nothing to be afraid of from allowing that process to go on, I hope that it too will support this opportunity for a refresh of the current law.

In the end, ideas cannot be supressed by law. Democracy will flourish despite the jackboot of the temporarily powerful. Progressive ideals will continue to inform this beautiful but fragile country of ours.

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

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. In speaking to the Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill in this first reading debate I want to begin by saying I disagree with almost every sentiment expressed by the recently dumped former tertiary education spokesperson of the Labour Party, David Cunliffe. This National Government has only just this year amended the Education Act and repealed the requirement for democratic elections and student representatives on tertiary institution councils. So this bill would repeal those changes that have only just in recent months been made and restore the requirement, for instance, that students be represented in governance on councils. These changes have not yet even taken effect on all councils. On checking with some of our university council websites, they still have councils operating under the previous council sizes, so it seems to me to be quite ludicrous to be wanting to tinker with a system that has not even been allowed to go through an initial trial period.

Those changes that the Government made earlier this year were among a number of reforms that are designed to ensure that our education system is equipped both in a strategic sense and also with the flexibility both to deal with the challenges and opportunities that the 21st century will provide but also, most important, to lift student achievement. We know that smaller, skills-based councils will be able to respond much more quickly and with much greater flexibility to the challenges of modern-day tertiary education. We in the National Party want to help all students to get the qualifications they need to succeed and to be able to play their part in a growing economy and in a modern workforce. So these changes, which have only just been recently made, will support our priority of building a more competitive and productive economy. Universities are still able to provide for staff representation and student representation on their councils, and they are doing so. This is a point I will touch on a little later in my contribution, but it is a fact that seven of the university councils have one student on their council, whereas the remaining institution actually has two. So there is student representation currently in New Zealand. Also, seven of the eight have two staff positions on their council, with the remaining institution having one staff on council.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why not write that into the law?

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Student and staff are represented. I think the member is attempting to solve a problem that does not actually exist.

The old governance settings were not written with the modern world in mind. I will actually make a few comparisons with where our universities came from and where they are now. I am proud to be a member of the court of convocation of the University of Otago. That was my Alma Mater—

Tim Macindoe: A very fine institution.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —where I studied archaeology, politics, French, classics, and gender studies with other such fine people as the Minister of Finance, Bill English, and the chief whip here, Tim Macindoe. Otago is New Zealand’s oldest university, dating from 1869. It has an endowment that may be a tiny fraction the size of that of some of the great international institutions, although it did inherit 100,000 acres of farmland when it was first established. It currently has a council of 20 members, and that will reduce to approximately eight to 12. The other university at which I spent some time, the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, is a collegiate research university with no known date of foundation, although there is some evidence dating back as far as 1096 for tertiary teaching, so it has been going for around 919 years at least. It is the oldest university in the English-speaking world, and it is the world’s second oldest university, full stop. It enjoys an endowment of £4.5 billion, which is nearly NZ$10 billion—equivalent probably to roughly the entire New Zealand annual tertiary education budget. It might surprise members opposite to know that although the council of the University of Oxford now comprises 24 members, there are no student members on that council; there are three observers, however. That has not stopped the University of Oxford being regularly rated among the top—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member and ask him to deliver what is obviously a very well-prepared speech, rather than read it.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: The University of Oxford is regularly rated among the top four or five institutions in the world in such highly respected means of measuring university success as the Times Educational Supplement.

If we look at the University of Otago and its governance arrangements, there are four ministerial appointments on the board. I want to point out that those are people of very fine quality, and I will refer to my notes for facts and figures, as I believe that the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings allow me to do. So Mr Stephen Higgs, for instance, a ministerial appointment on the University of Otago Council, is a partner in Polson Higgs, a Dunedin accountancy and financial advice firm of great repute. He is also a director of Otago Innovation and is a trustee of the University of Otago Foundation Trust. We also have Ms Donna Matahaere-Atariki, the chair of Ōtākou Rūnanga and the author of many publications on Māori issues, the Treaty of Waitangi, education, and child development, who brings obviously a knowledge of tikanga but also of wider social issues in the Otago region. We have Dr Royden Somerville QC, a well-known Dunedin barrister who provides the legal expertise on the board. He was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1998. He also chairs the Council of Knox College and Salmond College. Knox and Salmond form just two of the wonderful colleges they have at Otago. Like Oxford, Otago is a collegiate system. Then there is the chancellor, Mr John F Ward, a very fine chancellor, but bringing to the university council significant business experience. He is the chair of the SBS bank and he is the chair of H&J Smith Holdings but also of A J Hackett Bungy Group—so there is tourism expertise.

So we have appointed, by the Minister of Education, people with legal expertise, accounting expertise, business nous, and the Māori perspective and a wider social conscience. These people bring valuable skills that you may not actually be able to find among the academic research staff of such a university. I think this demonstrates that, unlike the view taken by members opposite, university councils are not a training ground for the activists and political apparatchiks of the future. Their role, their important role, is to provide for a good quality education for the students who attend that institution and to make sure that their institutions are well governed, legally and financially, and delivering on the outcomes that we expect of them.

I do want to make a few other comparisons both corporate and international. In the corporate world company boards are seldom of the size of New Zealand university councils, as they formerly were under the previous system. To give you one example, Apple, one of the world’s leading companies—arguably the biggest based on turnover—has eight members on its board of governance.

Chris Bishop: How many?

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Only eight, Mr Bishop. Not 20 or 30 or 40, or however many it is that Mr Cunliffe wants to put there. Infratil, which is a New Zealand leading infrastructure company, part-owner in Wellington Airport, for instance, has seven members on its board of governance, and Zespri, one of our leading agricultural companies, has eight members on its board. I think having many, many board members is no guarantee of success. In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite.

If we make a few international comparisons with universities overseas—I have mentioned the University of Otago—we have the board of Harvard University, which is comprised of only 12 members including the president. Like Oxford, Harvard is regularly rated among the very top tertiary institutions in the world. There is Cambridge University, which is not as good as Oxford of course, but it has a governing council of 16 elected academic members, four external members, and three student members. We have the University of Edinburgh—only seven members on that particular council, and guess what? No students elected there. The University of Glasgow has 11 members on its overseeing council—no students there either. The London School of Economics, although it has an extravagant 19 members on its council—you would think economists would be a little bit more streamlined than that—it has no student members there. The University of St Andrews, another fine institution that is regularly in the top 10—no student members on that board. Imperial College London—no student members. Yale University has 19 members on its board—no student members. Princeton University has an extravagant 23 members on the board—up to 40—and of those members, no current students. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT—leaders in science, technology, engineering, maths—includes no fewer than seven, and no more than 10 members of its board, and guess what? No student members.

New Zealand universities are democratic, there is good student representation. To be among that list of those very, very fine institutions, adding to the governance boards is not the right way to go about that. For that reason, among the others I have discussed, this is a bill that cannot be supported. I will not be supporting it to go to the committee, and I will not be commending it to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): If ever the public of New Zealand needed another example of how out of touch and removed from the community this National Government has become, they just got it from that member, Paul Foster-Bell—although I will acknowledge it is the single biggest contribution that he has made to parliamentary proceedings so far this year. Mr Foster-Bell basically compared New Zealand’s universities to businesses and said they should operate like businesses. How out of touch can he be?

I want to quote from the then-chair of Universities New Zealand, in other words the former New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee, Professor Roy Crawford, who said: “The world’s leading universities have councils that are larger than company boards and are not based on a business model. This is strength, not a weakness. They recognise that it is essential to have a wide range of viewpoints and perspectives to inform and enrich their decision making.” Mr Foster-Bell said: “Oh well, these changes are relatively new and not all universities have adopted them in New Zealand yet.” No, that is right—they have not adopted them, because the universities themselves oppose them.

I sat on the Education and Science Committee when the original bill introducing the changes that shrunk down the size of university councils went through. How many submissions do members think there were in favour of those changes? How many submissions in favour? Absolutely none. Not one single submission was in favour of the changes introduced by the National Government. Every single submitter opposed the changes being introduced. They did so very, very vocally, and their voices fell on deaf ears. They were completely ignored by the National Government.

I bring a perspective to this as someone who has served as a student representative on a university council.

Chris Bishop: Very good.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Chris Bishop is nodding over there. I am not sure that he ever quite made it that far—

Chris Bishop: I did.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, he did make it that far.

Chris Bishop: I was elected.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, he was elected as a student representative on a university council. Well, there you go. I hope that he will recognise the value of student representation, unlike the person who was previously sitting beside him and contributing, Paul Foster-Bell, who does not see the value of student representation.

I want to bring one specific example of the value of that student representation to the university council. That occurred during the time when I was on the Victoria University council, when the then Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon—my good mate Professor Stuart McCutcheon—brought forward a proposal to change the academic grievance procedures of the university that would have, effectively, required students who went through the academic grievance process unsuccessfully to appeal to the courts. It would have removed their right to appeal to the university council, so it would have, effectively, forced students who were having difficulty with the institution to go directly to the courts.

We went to the council, as the student representatives, supported by the staff representatives, and actually made the case that this recommendation would create more risk for the university, not less. Do you know who backed us? The people who backed us at the council to overturn the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor were the business people sitting on the university council. They recognised the contribution that the student representatives were making—a voice that would not have been heard had we not been there to give a contrary view. In the end, that recommendation did not proceed, and that was a good decision. As a result, we ended up avoiding opening up the university to much greater risk through a recommendation that had not been properly thought through.

I want to return to Professor Crawford’s comment, when he said that the original changes proposed by the Government represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinct role universities play in societies. He went on to talk about the universities’ need for autonomy and academic freedom, so that they can be the critic and conscience of society. The changes introduced by the Government absolutely undermine that, because they increase the amount of ministerial control over university councils and decrease the amount of democratic representation that exists—of independent representation that exists—on university councils. There are a lot of good reasons why that is a bad thing. The example I mentioned is one of them; there are many others.

Our universities should be independent of the Government. Of course the Government is a significant stakeholder, as a significant funder. It has representation on the council, but it should not be in ultimate control, which is what it is going to be if the changes introduced by Steven Joyce are fully implemented. This is a good piece of legislation because it allows the institutions to determine what the ideal composition of their councils should be. They make the decisions, not the Government. That is the way it should be.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I am delighted to take a call on this bill. Can I first of all pay a huge compliment to my colleague Paul Foster-Bell who, I have to say, gave a magnificent speech. We learnt stuff about universities around the world, from his speech, that I think was absolutely outstanding. I cannot wait to get back to my office to download a copy of the speech and play it again tonight, a number of times. Probably the DVD will come out as well, if members want to take it to family and friends.

I have to say that this is another example of the divide that exists between the left and the right in politics. I am not being derogatory or anything, but the left truly do believe that there should be more controls, there should be more mandatory requirements, there should be more rigid structures in place for things to occur, and that the Government should have a whole lot of legislation to control things. The right of politics, depending on how far to the right you are, believe in providing more freedom to an operation or an institution or to a financial product or whatever, and allow for the people to make the choice themselves.

I have to say that universities and polytechnics have got to be the best example of a market-driven unit of operation. They have no right to guarantee enrolments; they have to have people choose to come to them; they have to be on their mettle the whole time about the product and the standard that they offer and whether indeed they are going up in world ratings and being seen to be a phenomenal institution, or they again have to be on their mettle to make sure they do not look like they are becoming stale and not the flavour of the month. And, finally, students are choosing to go elsewhere. If we had zoning, for example, like we have with schools, and you lived in Auckland you had to go to Auckland University—

Chris Bishop: Woo hoo!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I know, I should not suggest this because Labour members—about three of them—are already scribbling down the idea for some legislation to have zoning in tertiary education. Thank goodness we do not. What makes me laugh is that they say it would be dreadful to have that, but we will have it for schools. But if we had zoning in tertiary education, then the universities would not have to worry. Stuart McCutcheon in Auckland would say: “Well, we’ve got a catchment of 1.4 million”—or whatever it is—“and they have to come here, so we’re fine.” But they know that almost daily they have got to keep looking at their perception in the media, their perception from the students, and their perception from the parents. Are we providing a good product?

The changes that the National Government made were to try to give some flexibility to each one of the tertiary institutions that are out there, because they are all different. It is not just that they are eight universities that are different. There are polytechnics, there are private training establishments, there are wānanga; there are big ones, there are little ones, there are fat ones, and there are skinny ones. They are all different. To think you can have a one size fits all for them is just a mistake.

That does not mean to say that it is not a good idea to have staff representatives on the councils. I actually think it is a brilliant idea to have them. I would say that if I was in any way involved in the council of a university I would be demanding that the council confront the issue of how we get staff representation, so that we hear their views. You do not want to get bushwhacked a few months into a programme you are initiating because you had not brought the staff in. So it is a good idea. But why does it have to be mandatory? Some of those operations might be so small that they can actually consult with staff, a handful of them in some cases, and know their views, without having to have them on the council. It is the same with regard to student representation. No one on this side of the House is saying that it is wrong to have student representation. I think it is a damn good idea to have it, in most cases, but not mandatory.

I was quite interested to see some of the briefing notes that came from our research unit. I do not normally read a lot of this stuff, but I read this. It talked about universities still being able to provide for staff and student representation on their councils. I knew that. It said that, in fact, seven of the eight universities have one student on their councils, with the remaining institution having two student representatives. I am going to read that again: it is not compulsory, they have got some freedom and flexibility, and it is evil that we do not have mandatory student representation. Then, seven of the eight universities do have it. They have obviously seen the merit of it. They have obviously seen the benefit of it. One of them even has two student representatives.

This is a dopey piece of legislation, and I mean really, really dopey. It is a silly thing to be doing—putting a straitjacket around our institutions. I certainly will not be supporting the bill, and I hope the House does not support it either.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This bill is not dopey. This is a good, practical, common-sense, positive bill. What it does is it reverses Steven Joyce’s wrong answer in search of a problem, when he rammed through the Education Amendment Bill that reduced the mandatory student and staff appointees to university councils. It is not dopey, as we have heard suggested by other members, to have students and staff represented on those councils. I think it is a frankly ridiculous argument, the last speaker saying that he supported student and staff representatives and he thought it was “a bloody good idea” but it should not be mandatory. You could apply exactly the same logic to ministerial appointments. They are a good idea, possibly a bloody good idea, but why make them mandatory? You make them mandatory because you want to see those voices around that table.

When Steven Joyce made those massively unpopular changes to the university, wānanga, and polytech councils there was massive opposition. I remember, when on the select committee, the response. Of the 1,037 written submissions, there were five—only five—that supported the Government’s change. What we saw was the unions, the universities, the vice-chancellors, and the mayors coming out opposing this change. I want to congratulate the member the Hon David Cunliffe on putting this bill in the ballot and having it drawn. It is a good bill, which goes back to making sure that we have student and staff voices around the table.

This Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill is a good bill, and I hope it can pass. What we know is that when you remove those student and staff voices you reduce the institutional and academic freedom, you remove the protection that those voices around the table bring to the role of universities as the critic and the conscience of our society. They ensure diversity. They ensure that those voices, which are critical—you know, you may just see them as customers. But it is crucial to have those customers’ perspectives around the table, or you risk getting bushwhacked, as the previous speaker put it.

I called it Steven Joyce’s “wrong answer in search of a problem” because there was no problem. There was no evidence presented from any of the Government members at the time as to why we had to massively scale back membership of these councils, from 20 to eight to 12. There was no reason why we had to remove the student and staff positions. What we have replaced them with, of course, is appointed positions. I believe in democracy. I believe that those positions should be elected by their peers. That is not what we have seen in all those cases. What we saw was an ideological solution in search of a problem, because they presented no evidence. In fact, they ignored all the evidence. When you look at some of the top-performing universities, which I am sure the Government members would like to see us following—Massachusetts Institute of Technology. How many members has it got? Not 12, but 70. Cambridge University—how many has it got? It is not 12; it is 30.

When you look at the data of corporates in New Zealand and Australia, in fact it is larger boards that are bringing a bigger dividend and better financial success than smaller boards. What Steven Joyce ended up doing was somehow confusing and conflating good management practices with good governance practices. These councils are governance bodies that hear from everyone—incorporating some of those strategic decisions.

Secondly, what this good bill does is reverse more “Joyce meddling” in our tertiary education sector. We used to hear a lot about nanny State in New Zealand. Nanny State to me is Steven Joyce deciding how to spend the students’ levy. Nanny State for me is Steven Joyce deciding who is going to be on all those university councils with those ministerial appointments. I support students and I support staff and their voices being elected by their peers around those councils, and, ultimately, that is how we are going to get better decision-making and a better, higher-quality tertiary education sector.

Lastly, I want to touch on the track record of the Minister who has been making those ministerial appointments—rather than the staff and rather than the students electing them. I remember speaking in previous debates looking at Minister Joyce’s poor track record. This comes out of the New Zealand University Students’ Association submission. Of all the appointments—there were 30—only five were women. Of those 30 only one was Māori; none were Pasifika; two-thirds were chief executive officers, company directors, and accountants. What we have not been seeing is those students, the staff, the Māori, the Pasifika, the community voices around the university council tables, and that is why the Green Party is proud to support this bill.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The National Party opposes the Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill in the name of Mr David Cunliffe. The bill seeks to backtrack reforms that were in the previous Education Amendment Bill (No 2) around governance changes in this area and especially seeks to reinstate the previous requirements around student representation.

I do not think that anybody in this House would deny the importance of the student body, and also the academic bodies, in regard to tertiary institutions. But there are also other interested parties as well. The Government is one of those interested parties, as a big funder of those institutions, and the community has a role to play as well, because the community wants to see a strong institution in its area.

When it comes to looking at the council and the board, it should not just be a matter of—as the Opposition is seeking in this case—appointing students or the tertiary sector people, or whatever mantra they use for that, to determine the success of someone on the board. I think we need to take a more objective approach and look at what good governance generally is. I think the speech of Paul Foster-Bell was an excellent speech, in which he detailed through a number of boards and, basically, bodies that run institutions in the tertiary sector overseas. It was very obvious from those examples that he gave that there is a predominance of small boards—smaller than what is intended in this bill. This bill intends to reinstate the size from 12 to 20 members, as opposed to the eight to 12 that the size has changed to now in the current legislation.

When we look at those overseas examples, they are definitely in the realm of the lower number, and they show themselves to be most effective for those large institutions that have very strong academic records. When we also look at the corporate sector, there has always been a movement to lower board sizes in that area as well. That is a justification, because they look at the skills and the mix of skills that they have got, rather than necessarily the size, as determining the success of an organisation. Again, Mr Paul Foster-Bell gave some very good examples of some very big organisations in the corporate sector that have quite small boards and are seen as very effective organisations and companies that are able to deliver for their shareholders and also for their communities.

This bill comes from a philosophical point of view—from the Labour Party, of course, and supported by the Green Party, obviously, in the last speech, by Gareth Hughes. There were a few facts in that Green Party speech that were not actually correct. When you look at democracy, as the previous speaker said, that gives some kind of expectation that there would be an election for all board members on a university council, which is not how it worked previously and is not the intention of the Labour bill either. It is not something like the Parliament, for example, where you have a general election. These board members are appointed in many cases, so there is not that democracy—as the Green Party tried to indicate—of having election by peers, because that is not the case under the bill that is being proposed.

Also, the Government does not direct what happens with the student levy; the student levy goes to the student institution itself. So the Green Party is not correct in saying that. The universities are determining that they might wish to have a student levy on their own account at this time, but that is something that they have to determine and the board that is there at this time will have to determine that. So it is not the case that the Government determines what the student levy is, as that member tried to present—

Gareth Hughes: The student support levies are prescribed by Joyce in regulations.

DAVID BENNETT: No, that is not the case. The member should actually go and investigate what actually happens at universities and see what happens with student levies and student boards, but that would be too much for the Green Party in this House to do.

Gareth Hughes: You lose the argument, so you get all personal.

DAVID BENNETT: Oh no, no. This is just telling the truth, mate. That is how it works. With the universities themselves there has not been a great movement for a change in the legislation. There has not been something that has been shown to be ineffective. If we look at the polytech sector, it has had smaller boards for a number of years now and they have proven to be very effective—

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

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. It is always interesting to follow Mr Bennett because there are times when I listen to Mr Bennett’s contributions and I think: “You know, I might not know what I’m talking about.” Then I remember it is Mr Bennett and then I remember actually, for example, the little statement that Mr Bennett just made with regard to the Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill, around the fact that the Green Party member Gareth Hughes was wrong when he talked about democracy and how there was not actually any democracy with regard to student representation or staff representation, because they were appointed.

Obviously, Mr Bennett and the notes he has got—either he has read them wrong or he needs to replace his researchers. What we are talking about, Mr Bennett, is that there is a seat being placed there for a student representative who is then elected by the student body to that seat. I commend Mr Foster-Bell for his speech. He managed to find the single Māori woman in the whole of New Zealand who has been appointed by this Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment. So well done, Mr Foster-Bell—a good piece of research there. You did have to search for it. I guarantee it: you did have to search for it.

I want to commend Mr Cunliffe for trying to do the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment a favour—for giving the Minister an opportunity to undo another cock-up that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

TRACEY MARTIN: —all right, another mistake that the Minister has made inside amending the Education Act 1989.

Just while we are talking about amending the Education Act 1989—there are so many things that have been contributed that will make it easier—Mr Foster-Bell said that the reason why this bill should not be supported is that the Act has only just been amended, so therefore it does not make sense to go and amend an Act that has only just been amended. However, this Government is in the middle of quite incredibly pressured consultation around amending exactly the Act that Mr Foster-Bell says we should not touch because it has just been amended, and only yesterday the Government announced that it is putting in another piece of legislation to amend this Act that it amended only earlier this year.

So you cannot have it both ways, Mr Foster-Bell. Either it is all right for the Opposition to say that there is a mistake inside this legislation, very similar to the legislative changes around the 7-year cap, for example, and to give Mr Joyce the opportunity to actually admit he made a mistake, or it is not OK for the Government to go ahead and decide that it is going to continue to amend the Education Act 1989.

Mr Foster-Bell’s conversation also—if you listen to it carefully—argued for exactly this piece of legislation. By mentioning the number of universities—predominantly in America and in the United Kingdom—where there was no student voice on those councils, he argued exactly for the reason why it should be required that there be a seat for the student voice and a seat for the staff voice on university councils.

Mr Williamson, for example, talked about how the right believes in the right to choose. Again, Mr Williamson obviously did not really read his notes. He did not understand what had happened under the changes that happened earlier this year to the Education Act. The universities did not get their choice, Mr Williamson. A hundred percent of the universities submitted and said: “Please don’t make this change.” If the Government, if the right, as Mr Williamson said, truly stood for the right to choose, it would have supported that university voice, it would have supported the student voice, it would have supported the staff voice, and it would have supported their choice to have the council structure remain the same.

What Mr Cunliffe is trying to do is undo a mistake. He is trying to give the Government the opportunity to put back what is democracy, Mr Bennett, into the representation of those councils. He is trying to give the Government an opportunity to say: “We should have listened in the beginning. We should have heard and realised that we have had one series of elections without this protection.” Government members have been lauding it that there is this voice here and two voices over here. Without these protections—Mr Foster-Bell has just told us—as we look to go forward that voice will disappear.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill, presented by the honourable member for New Lynn across the House. In response to the member who just resumed her seat, Tracey Martin from the New Zealand First benches—she is always very passionate about education bills, and I commend her for that. But I just want to remind her that there is democracy, and then there is democracy. North Korea is called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—I will just leave it hanging there. I just want to say that good governance does not need specially mandated seats for all and sundry who demand them. Often there are more who demand them than there are actually places available for them.

It is a real shame that this bill has been brought to the House because it fails to take into account the amazing work that our Government and our Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, the Hon Steven Joyce, have, in fact, carried out. It fails to understand the great work undertaken to modernise and promote best-practice governance at all our tertiary learning institutions. The reforms that the Government has actually introduced, which will pass into law in February, allow universities to take better stock of how they wish to govern themselves. They promote the introduction of smaller, skill-based, and more productive university councils.

I know that different members have actually mentioned the participation of students and staff members as well, and I repeat some of the statistics that I know the Hon Maurice Williamson has mentioned. Seven out of the eight universities have one student on their new councils, with the remaining institution having two students on its council. As for the staff, seven of the eight universities also provide for two staff positions on the councils, with the remaining institution having one staff member on its council. It is not mandated; they have done it by choice.

The law changes that we on this side of the House implemented just a few months ago ensure that New Zealanders and international students attending our universities will not face deficient bylaws and processes that may affect their study opportunities. Students should be able to learn effectively without the hassles of access, bureaucracy, and unnecessary intrusions to their formative academic years. For those worried about the loss, as I said, many of the universities have actually committed to making sure of staff and student participation as well.

I just want to talk about one of the things that some universities have also removed, and that is something called the Court of Convocation, as part of the changes to governing councils. The Court of Convocation is something that not many know about—I did not even know—and nor do many university graduates. It basically elects graduates into its council, but the reason that the universities themselves actually abolished it is that graduates with eligibility were often voting in such abysmal numbers, and they had terrible turnout. It did not actually reflect the will of the university alumni.

So we on this side of the House are keeping our promise to make sure that New Zealand gets the best delivering of education to ensure that we have world-class universities, and the people of New Zealand get best practice in leadership in these public institutions. I will be voting alongside my party colleagues in not supporting the advancement of this bill. We will be supporting the current process, which is actually working for New Zealand.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to stand to reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill. It is a well-thought-out piece of legislation that seeks to undo some of the damage that has been done to the tertiary sector over recent years by this Government. It is a simple and straightforward enough proposition to get a much better balanced and more democratic approach to establishing the governance of universities. It is a topic somewhat dear to my heart. I studied at three different universities and taught at two. I had a 13-or-so-year career as an academic, and I understood from the inside out that the culture of a university, the way in which it is governed and the way in which it is managed, is very influential in the success or otherwise of that institution, and that is a point I will return to.

I was on the select committee that dealt with the ill-fated Education Amendment Bill (No 2), and there was an enormous number of submitters who were almost universally opposed to it, including some fairly high-powered groups and individuals, and including Universities New Zealand, representing the vice-chancellors of all of the universities. It was not the most radical, hare-brained group you could name in the country. They came out, not least of all, criticising this notion of reducing the number on the governance bodies and, critically, making so many of them ministerial appointees. There is a serious challenge there to the independence of the universities. They are deemed to be the critic and conscience; this is part of their founding purpose—to be critic and conscience of our societies, and for the most part they have historically done that quite well. That is not something we should take lightly.

We saw an example just a week or so ago where the independence of an academic was threatened and challenged. A gentleman from the University of Canterbury was threatened with being blacklisted for a ridiculous business about being called a gang associate. The police commissioner, to his great credit, has backed off that and will put the matter right, but it just highlights that academic independence is important. It is always under threat and it must always be defended, and governance bodies have a role in doing that.

One of the submitters on the earlier bill—the bill that fundamentally changed the nature of governance bodies—noted that the bill as it was then confused governance and management. Mr Foster-Bell, with his interesting litany of numbers and percentages and so on, was actually talking about management. I have been a business adviser. I know very well that a small, tight, fast-moving, nimble management team is actually a very good thing to have. But sitting behind that you want a very strong governance group that reflects the diversity of the organisation, and there are few organisations as complex and multifaceted as a university. We need to recognise that complexity in the make-up of the governance body. It should be making long-term, well-informed, thoughtful decisions about the future of that organisation, and then devolve them to the management team to implement.

I mentioned earlier the culture of universities. We want our universities to reflect a culture of inclusiveness, of participation; because I know from experience, both as an academic and as a student, that that is where people thrive. People need to feel that they are part of something where they are included and where their opinions, their information, their knowledge, and their contribution is respected—even if not always necessarily listened to, in the sense of winning the argument. If you take away from people the right to have the argument, to be part of the contributing body, to speak to the matters—whatever their matters might be—before the governing body, and if you deny people a voice at that table, you are doing them a significant disservice. Over time, it will degrade the quality of the decision making and it will degrade the quality of the culture of that organisation. I am a great believer—both in public sector and academia, and, indeed, in business—in this notion of being inclusive and of encouraging participation, because only then do you get the best out of people.

If people know they are on a governance body by the grace and favour of a Minister or, indeed, of ministerial appointees, their contribution will be constrained because they will always have a thought of: “Oh, I mustn’t offend. Mustn’t rock the boat, as anything too overtly critical might end up with me being spun out of here.” So the notion of having preserved positions was important in maintaining that integrity and that independence. This is a very good bill. We are very pleased to support it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): In contrast to the previous speaker, David Clendon, I want to make the point that this is not a well-conceived bill. This is a bill that seeks to undo something that Parliament considered only about 2 years ago, and something that was advanced for very good reasons.

Mr Cunliffe, when he introduced this bill—in his remarks in the first reading of this bill—placed the bill and the reasons for its advancement within the general context of the policies that the Government has advanced towards tertiary education. I want to address a couple of the points that he said. What was his first major point? His first major argument was that the Government has underfunded tertiary education—well, nothing could be further from the truth. Since 2008, when we inherited Government in the teeth of the global financial crisis, we have increased tertiary spending by 14.4 percent. University funding is up 20 percent since 2008. So the claim by Mr Cunliffe that the Government has underfunded tertiary education is just simply not borne out by the facts. Tertiary funding, and university funding in particular, has increased far in excess of inflation.

What was his second claim? Well, his second claim was that the Government is failing students—that the tertiary system is simply failing to provide for students. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. You could look at a plethora of statistics that the Government puts out on this or that the universities provide to the Government, which then get published, to prove this. I just want to point to two particular metrics that indicate that this is a tertiary system, under this Government, that is performing. For example, in 2013 the university system—the tertiary system—produced the highest number of Bachelor’s degrees ever. The highest number of Bachelor’s degrees ever, up 23 percent since 2010, in just 3 years.

Something that I am particularly proud of is the performance of Māori and Pasifika students because they have historically underperformed both in our secondary education system and, in particular, in our university system. Well, the gains that Māori are making are quite remarkable under this Government. For example, the number of Bachelor’s degrees achieved by Māori is up 46 percent since 2010. Take a look at Pasifika—quite remarkable—up 68 percent since 2008. A 68 percent increase in the number of Bachelor’s degrees. So Mr Cunliffe’s second claim, that the system is failing, is simply wrong.

What about his claim that the tertiary system is dependent on foreign students? You know, the members opposite have a very odd attitude towards foreign students. And I have heard Tracey Martin—I missed her speech before—rail against foreign students before. Actually, international students are a vital source of foreign exchange for universities, but also for this country. They provide jobs; they create economic growth, including in our regions; and they are extremely important. So, again, this is not about increasing dependence on foreign students.

What else has the Government said? And in particular I want to respond to David Clendon’s remarks about the critic and conscience of society. Does this bill destroy the independence of universities? Does it take away from that important role of universities as the critic and conscience of society? Absolutely not. That section of the Education Act 1989 is completely unchanged.

Does this bill increase the Government’s control of universities? No, it does not. The Government currently appoints around a third of council members to universities; it will still appoint around a third of members to councils. Chris Hipkins, actually, in a somewhat odd contribution to the debate, did make the point that the Government is an important stakeholder in universities and in tertiary education because it is the majority funder of tertiary education. Most students out there at universities will not know that the Government is funding 72 percent of their degrees, on average, at universities.

This is not a good bill. The Government’s changes back in 2013 were all about flexibility and were all about introducing greater skills-based people for these university councils in the context of a world of massive online open courses, or MOOCs as they are called, and in the context of a world of increasing international competition from China, from India, and from other countries in the developing world. In an environment in which we want our students to be internationally connected and we want our universities to be globally connected, the changes made by the Government were sensible and prudent, and, therefore, this bill should fail.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon David Cunliffe in reply.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): In this short summing up, may I touch on some of the arguments that have been raised around the House. The Government noted that seven out of eight universities have one student rep, and that seven out of eight have two staff reps. What, then, is the problem about writing that into law as of right? Although I think it is obvious that two student reps, elected as of right, with democratic rights, is the way to go. That does, Mr Bishop, support the critic and conscious role of universities.

There are arguments raised by the Government that universities should have small boards, but then, in a very puzzling contribution, Mr Foster-Bell quoted a number of overseas universities that, although they are reputable institutions, have boards of 20, 30, or 40 members. I am not quite sure what point he was trying to make, because that flew in the exact opposite direction of the law change that this bill seeks to reverse.

The Government then took refuge in the argument that small boards with no student reps are better, contradicting the earlier point that most of the unis have at least one student rep. So we looked through the list of institutions that have no student reps. Guess which ones popped up? Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre had no student representation. It did have National MP Barbara Kuriger on the board, but that did not stop 5 years of systematic rorting, resulting in a payback of $6.25 million. I think an independent student voice would have spotted that rort, because the board was asleep.

And if that is not enough, what about Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi? It had no student on the board either, but it also ripped the taxpayer off so badly that the Warriors football team was awarded a 3-month diploma for turning up for 1 day. Do you think a student rep on the board might have stood up and said: “That’s just a little bit suspicious.”? And if the National Government was so OK with students on the board, it would not have told the Waiariki Institute of Technology student representatives to shut up about the merger or they would no longer get funding for the student association. That is the kind of, as I said earlier, jackboot tactics that this bill seeks to outlaw. And if it was not happening, we would not need to enshrine in law what, admittedly, in some cases, happens in practice.

That is the principled argument. But I think the Government missed the message at the start, which is that Opposition parties are seeking to find a workable new way forward. Actually, this bill is designed to get the debate to a select committee. What we want to do is work across the House and with stakeholders across the sector to find a new way. Perhaps it will not involve taking the boards back to the size that they once were, even if—thank you, Mr Foster-Bell—those of Oxford University and Cambridge University and a whole lot of others are much bigger. But maybe there is room for compromise on that.

Maybe the compromise here is something about ensuring that there is a proper right for student representation and staff representation, rather than it happening by accident or by dint of perseverance in the face of an ideological approach from a Government that, actually, Mr Foster-Bell and Mr Williamson exhibited when they said: “University students associations are just a hotbed for political apparatchik.” I wonder if they said that to the former president of the University of Canterbury Students’ Association, the Hon Peter Dunne, who is in a position to influence this bill—and I hope that he will reflect his experience as a former student union president and cast his vote for the voice of students to be heard as of right in institutions across the country.

This bill represents a genuine attempt by the sector, working across the House, to find a new way forward, a consensus way forward, and a compromise forward. It will allow the whole sector to engage systematically, properly, and with protection of their independent rights to get a win-win outcome for institutions that understand joint value creation and that are going for shared value. I see Jian Yang there—an experienced academic. He would normally involve his students. He would want to see staff represented. He must be deeply uncomfortable sitting on that side of the fence, where those rights are currently not enshrined in law. This is a genuine attempt by the sector and Opposition parties to provide a win-win future, one that underpins the democratic rights of students and staff to have a voice in the institutions that are there to serve them and all New Zealanders. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I was making a genuine attempt to get you to sit down at the end of the 5 minutes.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Restoration of Democracy to University Councils) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. Child safety is an absolute priority. We need to protect our young people from sex offenders. Child sexual abuse causes significant and long-lasting harm to the children in our community and to their families. In 2014 alone 451 offenders were convicted of a child sex offence, and 307 were sentenced to imprisonment. The aim of my bill is to amend the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995 to prevent convicted child sex offenders from legally changing their names.

This bill seeks to protect vulnerable members of society from child sex offenders by preventing those individuals convicted of a child sex offence from changing their names. This will ensure that the appropriate agencies can properly manage these offenders to assist in their rehabilitation and to maintain public safety. It will also reassure parents that, along with changes already made by the Government, they can have faith in the vetting of anyone being employed in a job related to children. Parents and children should be able to trust people in positions of responsibility. The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill will enable this. This will prevent other sex offenders from being able to change their names in an attempt to get closer to innocent children. This bill serves an important objective. Victims of sexual abuse are extremely vulnerable and the resultant harm is often very serious and long-lasting.

Sections 21A and 21B of the principal Act provide for the right of eligible persons to register a name change and the procedures for doing so. Section 21 of the principal Act defines “eligible person” as: “a person—(a) whose birth is registered; or (b) who is a New Zealand citizen or is entitled, under the Immigration Act 2009, to be in New Zealand …”. The bill extends the definition of “eligible person” by providing that the term does not include a person who is a child sex offender. The bill defines the term “child sex offender” as: “a person—(a) who has been convicted of a relevant offence; and (b) whose conviction for the relevant offence has not been quashed.” The bill provides that the term “relevant offence” has the same meaning as the term has in section 107B of the Parole Act 2002. The relevant offences listed in that section include a great variety of offences including, for example, sexual violation, incest, murder, manslaughter, acid-throwing, and kidnapping. Some of the offences listed as relevant offences in section 107B apply only to offences against a person below the age of 12 years or 16 years. However, most of the offences listed are general offences applying to persons of any age. I look forward to the select committee input on this bill to meet the objective of preventing convicted child sex offenders from legally changing their names.

My bill dovetails into the National Government’s programme of work aimed at keeping our young people safe from harm. This programme includes a Government bill to establish New Zealand’s first child sex offender register with the aim to reduce the risk posed by child sex offenders. The Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill received its first reading in September and has been referred to the Social Services Committee. I will ask the select committee to consider my bill alongside the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill, and I look forward to working with the committee. The register will provide information to authorise the Police and Department of Corrections staff, which will identify and manage the risk posed by convicted child sex offenders who have come to the end of their sentences, or some who are serving non-custodial sentences. The aim is to have the register established by July 2016.

It is estimated that 472 offenders will be registered in the first year, rising to 1,541 in year 4 when an evaluation will be completed. Registration will apply to offenders convicted in New Zealand and to those who move here following a similar conviction overseas. At the moment offenders can disappear back into communities when they finish a sentence. We want authorities to be able to keep track of them and get information on any change in their circumstances that may increase their risk of reoffending. Last year 294 child sex offenders were released from prison back into the community. The majority of these offenders will have no ongoing contact with justice sector agencies after they complete their sentence or orders, even though their risk of reoffending may be high.

This Government has already gone a long way towards addressing the risks presented by high-risk sexual and violent offenders, with the introduction of public protection orders and the enhancement of extended supervision orders in 2014. In addition, National introduced 24-hour GPS tracking for high-risk child sex offenders. We also have the Centre for Impact on Sexual Offending. Police and corrections staff started working more closely to share information intelligence, resulting in the centre, which profiles child sex offenders who are about to be released from prison or who are serving sentences in the community. Under this Government, we are changing the system.

National legislated the Vulnerable Children Act to protect children from the adults working with them. The Vulnerable Children Act requires State sector agencies that work with children, and the organisations they fund, to have child protection policies in place. They will face a requirement for all paid children’s workers to be safety checked in a consistent way. Also, we have stronger child protection memorandums of understanding with Child, Youth and Family and other agencies, including police, health, and education, and for iwis.

I look forward to the select committee discussion on this bill, as child safety is an absolute priority. We need to protect our young people from sex offenders. Thank you.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. It is a great pleasure to stand to speak to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the promoter of the bill, Dr Jian Yang, first of all, for the purposes that he has set out, which are very admirable. But the question that I have to ask myself is whether or not this bill is able to deliver on the purposes set out by the member. From my perspective, we also have to ask ourselves whether or not there is any value in sending this bill to a select committee for further consideration.

I can report that we on this side of the House have looked very carefully at this bill, and there are some very concerning things about the way it is drafted—things that mean we have to ask ourselves whether or not we can indeed support this bill to go to a select committee. It is our assessment that, actually, this bill needs to go back to the drafting table to be completely rewritten, and that it would be a waste of the select committee’s time to spend time on this bill. I will set out the reasons why.

We do not think that it meets the standard required for any bill to be considered by a select committee, and I point, first of all, to the report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applied to this bill. There are some very concerning things that the Attorney-General has stated in his report. The very first one is that he has said that he has concluded that “the bill limits the right to freedom of expression affirmed in s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act and that limit cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” That alone would indicate to me that there is a very high threshold for this bill to make it over on that particular part of that report. It actually goes on, and there are many other aspects under each and every part of this report that the Attorney-General states his concern about, and uses language like “it would not meet that” or “merely” meets it, or words to that effect.

One of the areas that drew my attention was where he states that—and I will read the exact words—“Further, an exception could be allowed in cases where prohibition would be manifestly unjust.” Of course, within this bill there are no provisions for an exception to what has been proposed. I got thinking about what kind of exception there might be. Over my time working with my community, with my hapū and iwi, on a number of occasions I have had the situation where a person has been fostered—for want of a better word—out of their family into another family and has assumed the name of that family. They have got themselves into a little bit of trouble, come back home to their hapū and iwi, and have wanted to reconnect with their whānau. That reconnection has played a very important part in their rehabilitation, and part of that, in at least two situations that I know of, was to reclaim their Māori whānau name.

From my perspective and my view of the world, if this was to be prevented in a situation like that, then not only would it be contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but it would also be a breach of that person’s Treaty of Waitangi rights. It is not good enough for us to stand in this House, talk about the settlement of claims, and make really wonderful speeches about how we are going to create a better society for our iwi and hapū through these settlements, and then bring in legislation that potentially impacts on our Treaty rights. That is just not right, and I stand here to say that this is a really important thing for me to address in this House.

In saying that, I can well imagine that some people will say: “Well, what will be the solution?”. I think, as the Attorney-General’s report points out quite clearly, that there are other measures already in place and there are measures—which, I have to acknowledge, the Government is currently pursuing through legislation—that would adequately take care of the situation that this bill purports to be able to deliver on. I think that it is unfortunate in one sense that I am having to address this bill in this way, but we have to be true to, one—in particular—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and, two, the Treaty of Waitangi.

I ask the member Dr Jian Yang—and I listened very carefully to his contribution. He did not once mention the Attorney-General’s report. I think that every single member of Parliament—and I cannot speak for everyone, but I think everyone should actually read this report, in all seriousness, if we are to have the best legislation for this country to address an issue that has impacted on all communities in this country. Because I know, and I am not speaking because I have read something—I am speaking because I have been part of my hapū and part of my iwi and have actually had to deal with these issues, and they are really difficult issues to deal with. I think, from the value base that our hapū and iwi come from, this particular bill will impact quite negatively on them.

I think that a better way forward would be to look again at these particular issues within this report, and, as I say, come up with a better way forward. I am not convinced, actually, that there is any need for legislation to prevent people from changing their names. Surely the register that is currently being promoted would adequately deal with that issue. There are also, in relation to that, a number of other ways in which we can ensure that the safety of our children and young people is preserved. So I stand here before the House and say that Labour will not be supporting this bill. We will be voting against this bill, not because of the purpose of the bill but because it just cannot deliver on the purpose of the bill. Nō reira, e mihi kau ana ki Te Whare e tū ake nei, oti noa, ki te mema e whakatū ana i tēnei pire, ahakoa taku kōrero ka mi’i ake ki ngā whakaaro kei roto i tēnei pire.

[And so I really compliment the House standing here before me, but at the same time I say to the member who proposed this bill that despite my address I do acknowledge the ideas in it.]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I like to go into Te Reo Māori when people are not making sense in English on the other side. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak on this bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill in the name of Dr Jian Yang. First of all, I would like to congratulate Dr Jian Yang, promoter of this bill, on bringing up this very important legislation to this House. I think this is in accordance with what this Government has been doing for the last 7 years to make our community safe. This bill, as Dr Jian Yang said in his speech and in his press release, is to protect children from child sex offenders and keep them safe in our communities. You will remember that a little while ago there was an incident where a teacher who changed his name—and changed it not once, but a few times—went into the teaching profession. He was again caught doing some kind of offence, and he was arrested. That is why we need to have a register where we can see that anybody who has been convicted of child sex offences should not be in this profession. Police vetting is very important in this; that is why we have got this provision where every teacher goes through the vetting process, and anybody who is admitted into any profession that relates to children should go through the vetting.

This bill is part of what the Government has been doing from time to time. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995 to prevent convicted child sex offenders from legally changing their name. In this bill the main provision is to amend the definitions used in sections 21A and 21B of the Act, which provide the right of an eligible person to register a name change and the procedure for doing so. What Dr Jian Yang is proposing is that whosoever is convicted of a relevant offence should not be allowed to change their name, so that he should not get into that profession that is related to any child or any school, so that we can protect them. Vulnerables are to be protected, and I think this bill will do the right thing.

Talking about what the previous speaker from the Labour Party, Adrian Rurawhe, just mentioned—that this bill is irrelevant, or will not do anything—I would like to remind him that today one of his colleagues, Stuart Nash, asked the Minister of Police, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, about what is happening with sex offending in this country. The question was “Is it acceptable?”, and the Minister said it was not at all acceptable. We are working hard to ensure that this community is safe.

Iain Lees-Galloway: So bring legislation to the House that would actually do something.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes, we are doing that. That is what he was trying to tell you, and you were not trying to listen and your colleagues were not trying to listen to what he was trying to tell you. It is very important that something should be done, and I commend—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes—something useful.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: It is very useful. Let it happen. You will see what is going to happen out of it. Before it is even happening you are disparaging this legislation. I think this is irrelevant. This is totally ironic considering what this Government is trying to do, and those members are trying to stop us. I would like to once again congratulate Dr Jian Yang on bringing this bill to the House, and I commend this bill. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Can I begin by reiterating our Labour colleagues’ comments—we support the intention of this legislation. All of us want our children to be safe. We do need to ensure their security and well-being. Sadly, also in common with our Labour colleagues, we do not see sufficient substance in this bill to suggest that it would contribute to child safety.

The bill itself is short—to the point, to say the least. Bills Digest No. 2292 does not offer much more in the way of evidence or argumentation as to exactly how preventing people from changing their names would actually contribute to child safety in the long run. The only evidence we are pointed to, if you can call it that, is a newspaper article from a month or two ago, when the bill was drawn, which references, as has been noted, the one instance of a fellow—a thoroughly unpleasant fellow, by the look of it—who managed to get work at schools in Northland despite having a history of sex offending and despite having a supervision order out against him. He did that, we are told, by using a fake CV and a fake birth certificate. I see nothing in this bill—this notion of preventing people from legally changing their names—that would prevent somebody from breaking the law in that way. Sadly we had—yes, so I will not go into people using birth certificates badly; that is irrelevant. But there is nothing in this legislation that would prevent the sort of wrongdoing that this fellow used to get himself into that position, where he ought never to have been.

The point is also made that he adopted various aliases. Again, the legislation might prevent somebody from legally changing their name, but it would do nothing to stop them using aliases or other forms of false identity that would enable them to avoid and evade any controls on their behaviour. The bill goes beyond that.

Unfortunately, the drafting of the bill is such that not only sex offenders would be captured by it. It references section 107B of the Parole Act, which includes a large number of offences, including violent offences and murder—a whole host of things—but it also deals with indecent assault. It is entirely conceivable that under this bill a very low-level incident of indecent assault could put somebody into the basket that would prevent them from ever changing their name. Indecent assault is not a minor matter, but there are levels of offending. A young man in a bar, too much to drink, lays hands on a woman without her consent, and he is rightly convicted of an indecent assault. In the cold light of day, sobered up, he thinks better of it, and does not behave in that way again in his life. However, under the legislation proposed here that young man would be for ever prevented from changing his name legally, for whatever reason he might choose to do so.

There is a raft of examples like that. The proposer of the bill did identify that there are a large number of offences under section 107B of the Parole Act that have no relation to children, or indeed sexual offending—and yet, according to the drafting of this, anybody convicted of those would be captured by it, which makes me wonder at the disjunct between the name and the declared purpose of the bill, and the actual effect of it, if it did come into law.

We do have on the books a lot of alternative means of seeking to manage people who are of some risk to the community—child sex offenders. We do have public protection orders, extended supervision orders, and preventive detention at the most extreme end.

This bill could actually be quite dangerous, in that sometimes people do offend, they see the light, they turn their lives round, and they seek to put their past behind them. Sometimes changing a name is a means of doing that. We heard this morning, in submissions on the proposed child sex offenders register, that so-called naming and shaming often is counter-productive, in that it might cause more offending rather than reduce the likelihood of offending. Preventing people from putting their past behind them could be entirely counter-productive in this context too.

We see good intentions in this bill. We see a very poorly drafted bill. We see very little likelihood of it actually having any beneficial effect, so, regrettably, we cannot support it.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to speak in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill in the name of Dr Jian Yang. I just want to commend the member for bringing this bill to the House. I do not think, for one minute, that anybody expects this to be a silver bullet for preventing sex offenders from committing crimes against vulnerable children, but it is part of a suite of reforms that have been taking place over the past 6 to 9 years. It is an important part of that. I think it is a bit funny for the Opposition not to support a piece of legislation that prevents sex offenders from reoffending and reoffending again. It is not the first time that they have been on the wrong side of a particular piece of legislation that puts vulnerable New Zealanders first, and, I am sad to say, it will not be the last.

With regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which the Labour Party is hanging its non-support of this bill on—

Jacinda Ardern: Did you read it?

TODD BARCLAY: Yes, I have. It is actually a fine balance between either supporting vulnerable children and providing for their ability to go through life with relevant agencies and their families having access to information that could put them in harm’s way or else balancing the needs of people who have actually made a decision, who have offended against children, and who have made those choices for themselves, around their access to privacy. I think that if you are going to make such a move against a vulnerable child, or any New Zealander, in such a way, you lose part of that liberty.

What we need to be focused on is how we prevent these people from falling into this position of reoffending. Part of it is by preventing them from changing their names. What is the motivation for changing their names? Yes, there are a lot of people in that situation who have probably been rehabilitated. They want to get on with their life, and they do not want to have this scar on their CV or on their life going forward, but there are others who want to be able to reoffend again. I do not think we can be naive, looking at the fact that there are some people who will use this as a loophole—an opportunity to reoffend.

I was working in the office of the Minister of Education at the time when the ministerial inquiry into the sex offenders in schools was launched—it was a few weeks after the Minister became the Minister of Education. You would be surprised at the number of sex offenders in our schools and across this country. There are over 50,000 people who work in the education sector, and there are a lot of people who are in the position where their names come up again. We have heard a number of examples today of people who have been in that position, who have offended in schools once, and they have offended again. It is not just schools. What we are trying to do, though, is to add to the suite of policies that prevent people from reoffending, to prevent the likelihood and the ability for them to reoffend, and also to protect vulnerable children, because that is what it is all about.

We know that in 2014 there were 451 offenders convicted of a child sex offence; 307 of those were sentenced to imprisonment. Last year there were 294 sex offenders who were released back into the community. There is a good chance that most of those will probably not offend again, but how do I know? How do you know? How does anybody know which of those offenders are likely to reoffend, or which ones are not going to reoffend? Most of them have probably undergone some form of rehabilitation while they have been in prison. Who knows to what extent that has worked, but it is down to the individual who is being released into the community. We simply do not know that. The fact is that we cannot be putting these people back into the community, with the best will in the world, without knowing for a fact that they are not going to reoffend again. It is simply not good enough to say: “Oh, well, they’ve undergone some form of rehabilitation. They’ve said they’re not going to reoffend. We trust them. We’ll just let them loose into our community.” It could be my neighbour. It could be your neighbour, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not drag me into it.

TODD BARCLAY: That is the point, I think. We need to have a level of security and safety in our communities. That is what this piece of legislation does. It adds to that. It is not the silver bullet, but it is part of a wide and impressive suite of reforms that have taken place over the past 6 years. So I would like to congratulate the member and look forward to following this bill through a successful passage through the House.

Debate interrupted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I seek leave for the House to adjourn at 10 p.m. tonight or at the conclusion of members’ order of the day No. 5, whichever is earlier. The reason is that there literally will be about 10 to 15 minutes, possibly, in which I will be introducing my bill but then we may not get another opportunity to debate that bill until next year, following the Christmas break, so I would prefer that it was done all together.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Bills

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill put in front of us today, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill. That is a mouthful. I will just narrow that down to the “Name Changing of Child Sex Offenders Amendment Bill”, for the rest of this speech.

This is a very, very serious matter, and one that New Zealand First takes extremely seriously, as do all New Zealanders when we are talking about our young children, the vulnerable people in our society, and those people perpetrating crimes against them along the lines of sexual activity of that nature. We do support this bill moving forward, and we do get behind what Dr Jian Yang is saying here. However, notwithstanding that, there are a number of holes. This legislation is very, very wide. You could drive a bus through it, but we see that the right place to get down to the nuts and bolts of this piece of legislation is in the select committee process. We would like to hear from submitters—people in the community who have a deep understanding of this situation—to try to iron out some of those issues.

We have read the Attorney-General’s report. It is like many Attorney-General reports, which do not always support the legislation that is put forward by Government or through some other members’ bills, but you have to be objective and look at that and say: “Where can we straighten up this piece of legislation?”.

Some of the unintended consequences, I think, really come down to a situation that encapsulates other crimes committed. Largely, those crimes should be collected—you know, the murderers, assault with intent to rob, etc. Then, of course, you have got indecent assault. Or we do have a situation where there are people captured under the Film, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, relating to publications of objectionable material. I can think of a number of scenarios where you might have a female in a situation where she has got herself on the minor end of an indecent assault, or somehow involved negatively in the publications Act, who finds herself on that sex offenders register. In a situation where she decides, in time, to get married and change her name to her husband’s name, it will pose what I would consider an unintended consequence. I believe the right place to iron out these unintended consequences is, of course, in select committee.

I think the Attorney-General’s report is a very good, in-depth, and thorough report delving into some of those holes, but I would much rather err on the side of caution. New Zealand First would much rather be supporting this bill because it is a step in the right direction, as opposed to not taking that step at all. It does dovetail quite nicely into the sex offenders register, which is very, very topical at the moment. New Zealand First, of course, does support legislation that does come down hard on the criminals in our society—those criminals who are perpetrating crimes against other vulnerable New Zealand citizens.

I did, however, take some offence at some of the words that Adrian Rurawhe was talking about, and I think a lot of New Zealanders will take offence, when we come to the Treaty of Waitangi and the rights of the Treaty of Waitangi. To me, that is offensive.

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

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Before the dinner break I was just starting off my contribution around Adrian Rurawhe’s contribution. I can understand parts of what he was saying around the very wide-ranging openness of this bill, which will allow for this bill to be having little or no effect potentially. However, I cannot accept that he was using the Treaty of Waitangi and the rights around the Treaty of Waitangi as a reason to oppose this. I find that deeply offensive. I was certainly aghast when he used the Treaty of Waitangi in this manner.

This bill is about child safety and it is a huge concern for New Zealanders and New Zealanders at large. We need to do everything and anything we can, even if they are little micro-steps heading in the right direction, and we see this bill as a micro-step in the right direction with some ironing out that can certainly come through the select committee process. This bill is about reducing the opportunity. We cannot take away the opportunity from some of these recidivist offenders but we can reduce it. This bill does take that step. We do, however, need to see a better form of information sharing to make this bill more effective. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill—it is quite a large two lines of title. It is a relatively succinct bill, but it has a very strong intent to protect those vulnerable amongst us in order to stop those who would seek to change identity to remove themselves from the watchful eye of society and the agencies the Government appoints in order to continue to potentially commit offence.

This has been a very interesting debate so far. There have been many comments made about the report of the Attorney-General. It is wonderful that he is here this evening. I have it on good authority that our Attorney-General is not encumbered by political concern but writes his reports to address the spirit of the law. He is a true man of the law. He has written a number of things that I would like to address.

In paragraph 11—because this is an issue around the right to freedom of expression—the Attorney-General writes in his report: “The right to freedom of expression is to be construed as having a wide ambit in New Zealand, and the broadly described examples in s 14 are non-exhaustive. I consider an individual’s choice of name is an element of freedom of expression.”

We know that the names that people choose are expressions of their creativity. We name streets. We name companies. We name businesses. We name clubs and organisations. We name teams and musicals. We name songs, poems, and movies. We name our dogs, our cats, and our goldfish. We name our plants. Some people name their trees. Some people name their houses. People use names all the time as an expression. But when people change their names—for example, if a company that owes a lot of creditors money winds up and changes its name, we say that that is wrong because it is seeking to elude justice. What this bill is about is not about stopping creative freedom, but stopping people escaping justice or escaping what would be considered to be a reasonable surveillance by a society in the protection of the most vulnerable.

The Opposition members say there are holes in this legislation, and, of course, that is what a select committee process is for. It is to go through the legislation to find the weaknesses, the strength, the intent, and the spirit of it, and make it workable legislation, make it workable law that achieves this intent and purpose. If we were to defend the freedom of expression of somebody who could go about and just change their name because that is their freedom of expression, yet we did not protect the freedom of children to grow up, and I know we do that in many, many ways—in many, many ways. But if we put the freedom of expression to change your name as you will and wish first and foremost, and we do not—and I am sure everybody in this House would hold high as an aspiration that we protect the ability for young people to grow up and be able to express themselves freely and fully without fear, without concern, without brokenness, without horror, and without all the things that happen to young people, unfortunately, in our country. We have got to think through these sorts of things very, very carefully.

I am really happy to commend this bill to the House. There are many pieces of legislation that have come through this House to protect the vulnerable, and I believe this will add to that suite of laws. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I am going to give a very straightforward contribution in this House on this particular bill and debate. You will not hear anyone in this Chamber argue for a moment that we should be lured away from the focus of protecting children. Everyone in this House agrees that we should be putting in place, as far as our powers allow, protections to prevent children from being harmed, to as far as we are able prevent those who target children and seek to harm them, and to protect children from those individuals. We share that intent. Intent, however, is not enough. It is not enough to symbolically stand up and say: “We all believe this and here is a law, a bill, that proves that we believe this.” Intent is not enough if the bill that this Parliament is debating will absolutely not deliver that shared view or that shared intent. This is the New Zealand Parliament; we cannot simply usher through pieces of legislation because they purport to do something that they do not. I know that the Attorney-General will agree with me because he has made it absolutely undeniably clear in his report on this bill that the bill, which has been titled the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill, actually does not even achieve the objective of the title. This bill will not stop sex offenders changing their name. If that is meant to be the purpose of this bill—and yet we have had the Attorney-General tell us it will not achieve that outcome—why are we supporting it? Why would we waste this House’s precious time with a bill that will not achieve the stated objective?

I want to read from the Attorney-General’s report. The Attorney-General states: “Notwithstanding its wide drafting,”—so this is him pointing out that actually the bill does not target those it is meant to as well—“the Bill does not prevent, or only partially prevents, a ‘child sex offender’ from changing their name. At common law, a person can lawfully use a new name without registering it, so long as the new name is not used for fraudulent or improper purposes. The new identity is established simply by using the new name and by repute, and the change comes into effect when the person starts using the name. Similarly, a person is not legally obliged to give their ‘registered’ name, address, or other information unless there are statutory requirements specifying otherwise.” Statutory requirements might be, for instance, registering to be a teacher in which you are required to have a criminal check and disclosure around criminal history anyway. The Attorney-General goes on to say: “I consider the prohibition on child sex offenders changing their registered name will have a minimal impact on the ability for a child sex offender to use other names.”

This bill will not do what the bill sets out to do. It is farcical to have a Parliament pretend—act under the pretence—that we are protecting children, when clearly we are not. In fact, putting up that pretence is dangerous. This is a point I wish to offer up in this House, because someone might say: “Well, even if it doesn’t quite do it, if there’s a small chance it might, maybe you should do it anyway.” Putting through a bill that purports to prevent someone from changing their name, when it does not, creates a false sense of security, and that is a dangerous thing. The individual who in the past committed child sex offences and was found to have changed their name did so unlawfully. They fraudulently changed their name, as in they used a false name when they tried to take a job as a teacher. They acted unlawfully. This bill would not have stopped that. So by passing a bill that makes it seem as though we have covered everyone who might do that, perhaps we might not take our police vettings as seriously. Perhaps we might not do the checks and balances via the teachers council that we need to undertake. We cannot afford to drop our vigilance, and I would put forward that this bill means that we could, as a result, drop our vigilance and put children at risk of being harmed, when what we all collectively want to do is prevent that harm from happening in the first place. We cannot support a bill that the Government’s own Attorney-General patently does not support.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on a bill introduced to this House by a colleague of mine sitting next to me, Dr Jian Yang. I think it has taken a great effort, in fact, to get this bill to this point. I want to remind a number of speakers who have gone prior to me that the process of Parliament enables bills to be introduced to the House and then discussed at length by select committees. It seems to me that a lot of the criticism that I have heard tonight from both the Labour Party and the Greens could certainly have been furthered in the course of a select committee discussion. I think that is the first point that I want to make.

At the core of this bill is yet another effort to make the lives of some of our children better than they already are and to protect them from those who can only be called predators. I think that the attitude of those opposed to this bill at the first reading is a little sad, because I think it is an opportunity for us to make some progress on a very difficult topic, a very difficult issue for our communities. The issue of name changes, of course, is also a difficult issue for our law enforcement agencies and for those around them. I accept the fact that you cannot stop someone from changing their name by passing some legislation, but you can certainly make it illegal to do so by passing some legislation. I think that that is really important for this Parliament to consider as it goes through this process.

David Clendon talked about the low levels of offending that could lead to the conditions of this bill kicking in. Again, this is an issue that could well have been dealt with, and could well be dealt with, by the select committee in the course of the discussions it has. That is why we have select committees. I congratulate New Zealand First on recognising this and on in fact wishing to take this discussion further and get some progress on the issue through the select committee.

Very recently Minister Tolley launched the Wanganui children’s team, which covers the Taihape, Marton, and Raetihi part of my electorate, and which will be most welcome in those areas. When you get these diverse rural electorates, of course, the challenges right throughout those electorates are very different in the different areas. Wanganui touches on the edge of the Rangitīkei electorate, and that Wanganui children’s team will certainly have a good impact, in my view, in all three of those towns I have mentioned and the communities surrounding them. It is further evidence of the effort put in by this Government to the protection and safety of our young people.

Also just recently I had an organisation from Taumarunui, a Whānau Ora provider, the Taumarunui Community Kokiri Trust, bring its presentation to Parliament, looking at a lot of the issues that this bill aims to deal with as well. Although this bill deals with a very, very narrow part of the challenges we face in respect of child sex offenders and the impact they have on the young people they come into contact with, all those providers out there are working very hard to try to alleviate this situation. Every piece of legislation we can put in place to assist that process is a good one. So I fully support even the smallest progress that we might make through this bill, and I support the bill because of it. I think it is really important. If we impact on the lives of only two or three children a year, we have made a significant difference to those children’s future, and no doubt to the family that lives with whomever that offender might be.

I have read the report of the Attorney-General, and the issues raised in this report will, of course, be discussed in the select committee. There is always opportunity, I think, to alleviate some of the concerns expressed in that report. There will be some concerns that will not be able to be alleviated, and the select committee will at that time make its judgment on that.

Changing one’s name is no doubt a freedom that most deserve. However, everyone has a responsibility to their fellow humans and to their neighbours. In some cases abuse by these people, and abuse of that freedom, should lead to some rights being withdrawn. I think that there is often evidence that we can make a very strong case for some rights being withdrawn from offenders, particularly offenders of this nature. I have got a great deal of pleasure in supporting this bill and I hope it makes good progress. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call to supplement my colleague David Clendon’s earlier submission on this, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill, which has been brought to this House by the National member Dr Yang. I rise to say that the Green Party will be opposing this bill. I commend the member for his intention, and I am sure that, actually, his intent was good. It is unfortunate, however, that this bill, from our reading of it, has such fundamental flaws that we are unable to support it.

Some of those flaws—to summarise at the beginning of this contribution—would be that it would not achieve the goal that the title suggests it would; that it might create a false sense of safety; and that it actually may put another barrier in front of judges convicting in the first place, if they are concerned about the double jeopardy being added. We know that we have struggled with juries to get convictions as things are, and that, really, the concerns of the Attorney-General—they have been raised in the House already, in the report, and I think they do speak to the heart of our opposition.

If this bill does not achieve what the title suggests—and it goes much wider than that title suggests, but does not even partly achieve that protection against a change of name for child sex offenders—then we have to ask ourselves: is that worth the time of this House to spend it on examining an idea that has so many fundamental flaws? I can hear some people saying: “Well, if you’ve got concerns around it, they’re just technical. Support it to the select committee and work through it.” But they are not just technical; they are fundamental. It is about the drafting and it is about the practicality of this legislation in practice. There is strong evidence to suggest that it would have a negative impact, in fact, on the safety of our children and the functioning of our courts.

I do think that we need to prioritise the review of our police and court system. I understand that some of the work that is being done cannot be done through a member’s bill—like the problem that we have with a 1 percent conviction rate for sexual violence in this country, which cannot be solved by a member’s bill—but it would be really good if that work was within the scope of the Government. When I heard the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, stand up and say that this bill is evidence of this Government’s effort to protect children from child abuse—that is a little unfortunate when it is a member’s bill and is not a reflection of the Government’s intention, at all.

At this point I do need to raise the ongoing, deep frustration I have with the attempts, over decades now, to try to fix our police and court systems to be able to deliver justice—to ensure that those who offend are actually held to account—and the lack of progress on that. We have had a Government that has put things on the table, taken them off, and put them back on again. What we are left with at the moment, I understand—after decades of work and so many unpaid hours from the community for people struggling to get justice for women and children who are the victims of violence—is a time frame of 6 months for the Law Commission to report on a piece of work that is huge. It means that out of 16 or more significant policy points, the Law Commission is probably going to be able to consider only two or three.

What we are going to get from this Government is more partial tinkering, when the evidence is so clear that the system is fundamentally broken. There is no way that anyone can tell me that a 1 percent conviction rate demonstrates the need for a tinkering solution. It does not. It needs a very well-considered and systemic approach to this problem. When the Government is saying that this bill is evidence of its efforts to protect children, I wish it would just address the fundamentals instead.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Dr Jian Yang—5 minutes in reply.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I will briefly reply to the accusation of the previous speaker, Jan Logie, about the Government’s inactivity in protecting our children. The fact, actually, now that we have looked at some statistics, is that the child abuse statistics show that the number of children abused in the year ended June 2014 fell by 2,306 or 12 percent on the previous year. Also, under our Social Workers in Schools programme 142,000 children now have social worker access. We have done a lot of things to protect our children. We have also established four children’s teams around the country to work with vulnerable children and their families. We have the Children’s Action Plan, with more than 30 initiatives to tackle the complex issues that lead to children being vulnerable. We are modernising the social work programme. We also have tougher sentences for crimes against children, in which household members are accountable for failing to report abuse. These are the things that the National Government has been doing or has done.

I would like to elaborate on a few points raised by some speakers. First of all is the freedom of expression. The Attorney-General’s report acknowledges that “There is no question the Bill serves an important objective. Victims of sexual abuse are extremely vulnerable, and the resultant harm is often very serious and long lasting.” The report does raise the issue of freedom of expression. We certainly value the freedom of expression. However, we also value child safety. So the key question here is how to have the balance. I believe that the bill will help us eventually to find the proper balance. Related to this is the definition of “child sex offender”. I am sure that we will be able to work out a clearer definition to better serve the intended purpose of the bill. There is another thing that one particular speaker mentioned, which is that naming and shaming can be counter-productive. But this bill is not about naming and shaming. It is about how to prevent convicted child sex offenders from legally changing their names. I find it very hard to understand why some people are putting the feelings of sex offenders before the interests of our children.

I would say that it is important for us to make sure that we have all the efforts there, all the tools there, all the mechanisms there to protect our children. The Government has been doing a lot. A member’s bill can simply strengthen some part of the overall system or mechanism. So the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill is intended basically to strengthen the system a little bit further. I hope that all parties will support the bill being referred to the select committee and protect our young people from sex offenders. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 46

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.

Bills

Electricity Transparency Bill

First Reading

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I move, That the Electricity Transparency Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. This bill is about protecting consumers. It is a guard against householders being screwed, because they are being screwed, or if they are not, they do not know whether they are or not because their electricity bills are so obscure and so opaque that they do not actually know what is going on. This bill is very simple. It simply gives power to the consumers to see which part of the electricity bill is being charged at what rate. If there is any change, they can see that from day to day and from bill to bill. They are able to go over to their next-door neighbours or whoever and compare one bill against another and see what sort of a rate their neighbours are getting. So it is about transparency of pricing, and that transparency of pricing will encourage competition.

The idea is, first of all, to unbundle the bills so that there is a clear separation from the various components of the electricity bill and, secondly, as a part of that, to estimate a percentage of what part of that bill is actually generated by renewable resources. It is an effort to be able to show people this and therefore give some sort of impetus towards renewables, as opposed to fossil fuel consumption.

We have an electricity system that is relatively complex, as they are all over the world. We have many generators, whether they are hydroelectric, whether they are geothermal, whether they are wind, or whether they are coal-fired. Those generators generate electricity. The electricity goes into the grid, which is looked after by Transpower, a State-owned monopoly. And from Transpower, off that grid, come the local lines groups, whether they be Orion, or Vector, or the lines company, or whatever. Each part of the country has its own lines company. Finally, the electricity is delivered to the householder and billed to the householder by the retailer.

A few months ago when I put this bill into the ballot—and it has not changed since that time—power prices were going up. Each of those components, whether it be the power companies or the lines companies, was pointing the finger at each other and saying that it was the fault of the power company or it was the fault of the lines company that power bills were going up. The remarkable thing about this was that nobody could disaggregate what was actually going on. So even when the Electricity Authority, Consumer New Zealand—a whole bunch of different people—sat back and looked at it they could not see what the different parts of the electricity bill were made up of and which parts were going up and which were staying static. An unseemly row broke out. Contact Energy pointed the finger, for example, at Wellington Electricity, and Wellington Electricity told Contact Energy that it was a liar. The whole thing went round in an unseemly circle. But the bottom line, and the key issue here, was that consumers were not able to see what was happening in their power bill but they should have been able to. We all should know which components of our electricity bill are made up by which parts. Surely that is straightforward.

Let me give you another example: Vector, the lines company in Auckland, was told by the Commerce Commission that it was charging too much. It had to drop its lines charges by 9 percent, which it did. Under law it was obliged to. What it expected to see was that drop flow through into people’s power bills. It never happened. Why not? Because the power companies absorbed that windfall, if you like, themselves and did not pass it on. Actually, nobody knew because there was nothing out there that was going to be able to indicate to them that their power bills had changed.

So in New Zealand, we have—in a sense—these conglomerates that have a pretty comfortable existence, whether they be the banks, or the power companies, or the building supply companies, or whoever. I believe that consumers need and deserve a better deal, and that is what this bill is about. It is about unbundling our electricity bill so that we can see what is going on and we can make choices on the basis of that, and that, in turn, would encourage competition.

The main electricity body in the country, the Electricity Authority, is charged with trying to ensure that there is sufficient competition in the electricity sector. So the Electricity Authority, after this happened, announced that it was going to do a survey and do some analysis on unbundling these bills and providing more transparency. So it went out and spent thousands of dollars and talked to everybody, but—surprise, surprise—the electricity companies came back and said: “We don’t need any more transparency. The consumers have enough transparency.”

Contact Energy said that not only has it got enough transparency but it would be too expensive for it to do it and actually it is not sure if it could actually do it anyway. Despite the fact that we have got telecommunications companies all across the country that can tell you almost minute by minute what your phone bill is, a power company as large as Contact Energy, which has just spent tens of millions of dollars on its billing system, cannot give you a breakdown of what your bill is. Then along comes Flick, a small retailer that is not only able to give you a breakdown of your power bill by sector—whether it be the generator, Transpower, the grid, or the lines company—but also can tell you hour by hour what the price of electricity is. So for Contact Energy and others to say that this is somehow impossible for them is absolute nonsense.

So there is a conspiracy and a cloak of opaqueness and convenience around power bills that benefit the power companies at the expense of the consumer, and I want to see the consumer getting a better deal. Unfortunately, I believe that the Electricity Authority is more of an apologist for the status quo and what is going on rather than an authority stepping up and being on the side of the consumers, which is actually part of its rationale in its statement. In fact, it is really only talking to people in the know. If you have a look at its website, I can guarantee that 90 percent of New Zealanders would not spend more than about 3 seconds on there, because everything is so densely presented there that nobody could actually make sense of what it is saying and what it is doing. It is certainly promoting the status quo above what consumers would want to think of as an Electricity Authority that is standing up for them.

This bill is a member’s bill and I am asking for support right across the House, because, let us face it, this is something that the National Party would—I would imagine—be wanting to support. I was on a panel with Simon Bridges, the Minister of Energy and Resources, when he said that, yes, he thinks billing will need to be broken down into its component parts. He is on record saying that, so, in a sense, it is part of what he wants to do. It is part of, I would have thought, the ACT Party’s agenda of giving consumers—after all the “C” in ACT stands for “consumers”—the benefit of actually having good information and transparent information so that they can make good choices. Unfortunately, I do not think that right now people are able to make good choices, because they are not getting good information.

So this is the chance for the people in the House to vote on the bill going through this first reading to a select committee so that we could actually bring in the various components that make up our electricity system in New Zealand and have them talk about what transparency means—to have Flick alongside Genesis and Contact Energy and ask whether this is possible or not. Why can consumers not have good information? Why do they have to rely on the press releases of power companies or lines companies in order to be able to get proper information? Incidentally, the Electricity Authority’s recommendations, after spending tens of thousands of dollars on this analysis, were to have some guidelines, which, of course, nobody is adhering to. I mean, guidelines are the lowest bar that you can possibly come up with in terms of recommendations. So I say again that this is a bill that is on the side of consumers, that is promoting transparency, and that not only gives information about billing on those various parts of an electricity bill so that somebody can see whether they are getting a good deal or not but also provides some information about the sustainability aspect of their bill as well.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Electricity Transparency Bill, sponsored by the member opposite, Mr Shearer. I rise in opposition to this bill. The way that Mr Shearer describes this bill, certainly, on the face of it, more transparency sounds like a good idea, but, at the end of the day, I think that this bill is misconceived. The question really is why this so-called extra transparency is needed. What is it actually trying to achieve? What is the problem that this bill would solve, and, if this bill was passed, what would be the effect on the electricity market—in particular retailers in the industry? The Government maintains that although this bill may be well-intentioned, it is misguided for a number of reasons, and I will come to outline those shortly.

What the bill aims to do is to bring into the market a specific mechanism—that is, itemised billing—so that all electricity retailers must include on every electricity bill sent to the consumer a breakdown of what part of the bill is attributed to the generator, the distributor, and the retailer, plus the GST component and any Government levies. Paying electricity bills is not fun for anyone, especially if you live down south—but I do note that Invercargill reached 28 degrees today, so it is not all doom and gloom in the winter down there—but it should be noted that residential electricity prices fell by 1.4 percent in the June 2014 quarter—

Hon Member: How much?

SARAH DOWIE: —1.4 percent and that is the biggest drop since 2001. But in the grand scheme of things, seeing a breakdown of costs in isolation is actually not that helpful. It is when the change in cost, that rise or fall, is seen that is the important distinction.

How these changes are communicated to customers is what is important. Within our electricity sector we do not want to start a blame game between the generator, the distributor, and the retailer, because that is simply unhelpful. Recently the Electricity Authority—which, again, is independent and charged with promoting competition in, the reliable supply by, and the efficient operation of the New Zealand electricity industry for the long-term benefit of consumers; that is, of consumers—looked specifically at the issue of transparency of electricity charges. After considering submissions from both consumers and the industry, the authority decided not to proceed with a standardised template of electricity bills. The reason it gave for not having prescription was that it would stifle innovation, and it would reduce the flexibility to tailor offerings to different customer needs and adapt to changes over time. Bespoke pricing is a case in point; developing and grouping options for a particular type of consumer for their benefit, which also gives the retailer a competitive point of difference, is a made-to-measure approach.

If retailers have to report prices in a standardised way it will be difficult to do and it will be costly administration-wise, and that cost—to go through this detail and break down the information—will ultimately be put back on to the consumer. So the effect of standardisation may be that retailers would move away from bespoke options to a more one-size-fits-all type of product. As I said before, those administration costs of having to break all those details down will be passed on to the consumer.

Bundling of services—such as electricity services with, say, telecommunications and broadband or gas, such as TrustPower has done—gives the retailer a competitive advantage but suits classes of customers, and that is another way that the industry has innovated in providing this. Bringing in a prescriptive measure of reporting for billing, as this bill would do—a certain way of reporting one’s accounts—reduces the flexibility of the retailer to make such offerings as TrustPower has done, and having that bundling of services has proved very popular with consumers. We do not want to restrict retailers’ ability to think outside the square and then pass that on to consumers.

Another example is the advancement in the way companies communicate with customers. If Parliament starts adding a layer of prescription as to how communications are supposed to occur with consumers, in a certain form, in a prescribed way, again, it stifles innovation. If you look at the evolution of technology and at, for example, our iPhones, the apps on our phones that are providing information have absolutely advanced. So retailers may be able to provide some sort of information via an app or using pie graphs or pie charts. A picture paints a thousand words, and this presentation in this way may, in fact, be more meaningful to a customer than a standard itemised bill.

So this type of prescription does not take into account how quickly the scene in the electricity market, or its structure, can change, especially if people move to self-generation, for example, by way of solar or wind, and how their generation will or will not be incorporated into the grid. We cannot foresee at this stage how the electricity industry and its structure will change with those advances in technology and with electricity generation becoming more accessible.

The other thing I want to touch on is that this bill wants consumers’ accounts to detail in percentage terms the amount of renewable energy used so that consumers can make an informed choice as to their electricity use. Companies are already using a percentage of renewables in their own marketing campaigns, and this information does not need to be accessed via a bill or an account. It is on the internet, and, as I said before, different companies are using it to attract their customers through their marketing brand and holding themselves out as renewable providers and being responsible users of the environment. Meridian Energy is an example of that. It advertises that it has 100 percent renewable generation.

So although this bill has good intentions, the Government believes that it is misguided. It is restrictive, and it is far too prescriptive. It does not solve an issue; instead it would prevent innovation and evolution in the industry. It would not, at the end of the day, be good for consumers, and, therefore, I do not support this bill.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I do not actually believe that the member who has just spoken, Sarah Dowie, believed a word she spoke. The reason I say that is because she contradicted herself so many times, to the point where I do not know whether she actually knew what she was saying. Let me give you a couple of points. Ms Dowie said that the electricity prices dropped by 1.4 percent in Southland in the last year. That is fantastic, but what Ms Dowie cannot tell us is whether that was the electricity charge, the generation charges, or the line charges. I would have thought that an informed consumer would actually like to know where the savings were made. The thing is that she is right on one point, though: this industry is fluid. There is great change going on and the thing that we do not know is what the sector will look like in 10 years’ time, but one thing I can tell you is that the industry is innovating in a way that we have not seen for a long, long time. We are not experts in this area.

The reason I think it is really important that these things go to a select committee is that we get the experts in and they say to us: “If we implement this bill, it may look like this. These are the advantages, and these are disadvantages.” The industry experts from both sides of the argument can actually inform us, and maybe Ms Dowie is right—maybe this will stifle innovation. But I cannot say that. I am our energy spokesperson. I have had good hard look at this, and I do not believe it will stifle innovation. In fact, I think it will promote innovation, and that is just based on all the research I have read. Mr Shearer is the same. He believes it will promote innovation, but we do not really know, and, as sure as eggs, Ms Dowie does not know whether it will stifle innovation. But there is a group of experts who work and live and operate in our electricity sector and who will be able to inform us. The thing is that if the Electricity Transparency Bill goes to a select committee, we will hear all the arguments about how it will benefit consumers or how it may stifle innovation, and then when it comes back to the House for its second reading we can make an informed choice. But, at this point in time, we are MPs who are passionate about this country, about doing right for good, hard-working Kiwis, and I think they would agree that they want to hear what the experts say, so let us send the bill to a select committee.

Let me give you an example of how innovation is changing the sector at this point in time. I moved to Flick recently. It is an online seller of electricity, and it provides me with an account that shows me the exact breakdown of where my bill comes from. So when Ms Dowie says that this is creating cost, Flick does not believe that. I know on Monday that my power costs varied between 12.6c per unit and 36.39c per unit. So I can make an informed choice. And this may sound a little anal, but what I did on Monday night before I went to bed was I turned the dryer on at 11.30 p.m. because Flick told me that the rate was down to 13c. I made an informed choice. But what it told me in my last bill was that it was $51.66. That is what all of us get in our power bills—$51.66. But what it told me was that $22.86 was transmission and distribution, $1.52 was for metering, $14.35 was for generation, $6.98 was for other, and what it told me was $5.98 was for electricity charges—that is all, in my whole bill, that was for electricity charges.

What this member’s bill does is it provides consumers with choice, with options, and with opportunities. This is consumer driven and in the 21st century I think that is what consumers want, to the point where the Inland Revenue Department (IRD)—yes, the IRD—has recognised that, and it is going to consumer-driven apps based on breaking down information. In conclusion, all I would like to say is that I believe that consumers deserve the right to understand what makes up their power bill. Whether they choose to exercise that or not, that is up to them. But at least what this bill does is it gives them the right and the opportunity to understand it. And I think that is what all consumers deserve. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Electricity Transparency Bill. It is great to hear about the last speaker, Stuart Nash’s, power bill and the ins and outs of his power usage. But the reality is, if that member has a bill that discloses all that information, why do we need this Parliament to prescribe to other providers that they should do the same? And that really comes down to what it is about. This is about the Labour Party thinking it knows best and telling people what they should have in their bills. This is typical Labour Party rhetoric and—

Stuart Nash: It’s about transparency.

DAVID BENNETT: It is not about transparency; it is about prescription, and it is about creating more cost when the market already provides it. The market can provide that information, as that member has said. Why does that member not believe that other companies would transfer their technology—

Stuart Nash: Why won’t they?

DAVID BENNETT: Why do they not do that? Because there is not a desire amongst the public to do so, Mr Nash, and if there was a desire amongst the public, they would do so. This Parliament should represent the people’s desires. It should represent what the people want, not what Mr Nash or what Mr Shearer want in their power bills. Rather, we should be looking at what is in the best interests of New Zealand consumers—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Oh, well, don’t—

DAVID BENNETT: —and New Zealand consumers have that choice. It is all right for the New Zealand First Party to sit there and groan and moan. It has never supported anything that has been good for New Zealand consumers. It never has and it never will, because its party is a party of negativity, and it is against any competition in any market, and that is shown by its prescriptive nature as well. It is a wonder that those members’ boss is not here to prescribe to them their speeches—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order!

DAVID BENNETT: That is the normal approach in the New Zealand First Party. But we do not need to put this into our electricity market and into our electricity companies and their billing arrangements. They are quite able to do it themselves. If they feel that it is a desire of the public to do so, they will do so, and without creating a lot of requirements on companies that may not be able to do so, or may not have the desire to do so, and on consumers that may not have the desire to pay for that extra increase of collection, then it is something that I think this Parliament should not invest its time in—making companies do something that they are able to do if they want to and consumers are able to request by moving to the company that delivers that information. Far be it for this Parliament to believe that it has the role to be prescriptive to all New Zealanders in how they live their lives. And I think that is partly what it comes down to with Mr Shearer and Mr Nash—looking to have every little bit of control and every little bit of prescription over consumers, rather than giving the market the choice.

Members may say “Well, that could be a very limiting approach.”, but it actually is not. It actually is about giving consumers and companies, more important, the ability to have some flexibility. Why not let them be flexible suppliers to the market? Why not let companies be flexible in the way that they deliver their bills to their customers? That flexibility is important for the delivery of products. If we are not flexible with their products, then they will not be flexible in their billing arrangements. So it goes to a prescriptive approach to the electricity market, and we all know what the Labour Party wants to do in the electricity market. The Labour Party wants to nationalise that market, and that is why the New Zealand First Party is supporting this bill, because it wants to go back to those days of the nationalisation of the electricity market. It was Labour’s policy at the last election. At the last election its policy was to nationalise the electricity market, and that was its policy. This is another symptom of this.

Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was never our policy to nationalise—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No, no, no. You are wasting the House’s time.

DAVID BENNETT: For those listening, that is a common ploy by those who are in trouble—to try to do points of order when they know that they are in trouble. It was Labour’s policy; everyone knows that. Labour may not be able to enunciate that before the next election in its no-policy approach to the next election, but it certainly does believe that, and this is just another part of that process that it would go through. The New Zealand First Party is always a party that supports those kinds of things, because it believes in nationalising everything in this country, and then it would sell it, as its leader has—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry, the member’s time has expired. Before the next speaker speaks, I would actually like to hear what the debate is about. There is a lot of background noise here, and I would like to hear Gareth Hughes.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I would like to start with a statistic that I think members may find interesting. I was having coffee with the chief executive officer of one of our large generator-retailers last week, and he told me that that single company has 14,000 separate accounts, which are 14,000 separate pricing plans. You know, it has got various options. You have got 29 different regional lines monopolies, all with their own different way of charging. If you apply that across the numerous retail companies across the country, we could have a hundred thousand different pricing plans in a little country of—what—4 million people. You think that is complex? What is really complex is when you open up your power bill, because it is hard to understand what on earth is going on. You may have tried to use less power in the week, but you would not know from the power bill because of all the fixed charges, the lines charges, the Electricity Authority levy, and everything else on top of it. This is a real issue and a tangible issue, and I acknowledge and salute the member David Shearer for putting the Electricity Transparency Bill in front of Parliament because we know our customers are struggling in New Zealand when it comes to paying the power bills.

When customers open the power bill—you know, first, you have got to gingerly tear it open because it is terrifying. You never know what it is going to be, but you know it is probably going to be higher than what it was last year. What we do know is that power bills have gone up some 25 percent in the last 5 years. New Zealand has seen the fifth-highest power price increases in the entire developed world since the Max Bradford energy reforms. The four countries ahead of us are all ex-communist countries coming out of Soviet domination. We have the fifth-highest power prices in the developed world, and what is the Government’s response to massively increasing power bills and a rise in energy poverty that now see a quarter of New Zealand families spending more than 10 percent of their weekly disposable income just to keep the lights on? Sadly, families are actually making that tough choice between whether they heat this week and whether they eat. And what has the response been? It has been: “Well, shop around. Use your consumer power.” I remember Simon Bridges in this House saying: “Those reforms still need a little bit more time to bed in.” How much longer are we going to have to wait for those reforms to bed in when we have seen the fifth-highest power prices over that period? What we have seen from the industry in response to those rocketing power bills and that real energy poverty is a blame game, or a blame-around, where the retailers blame the lines companies, the lines companies blame the retailers, and no one can make head or tail of it because everyone is blaming everyone else.

It reminds me of what the former chief executive officer of Telecom once said off the cuff, which was that part of its marketing was to cause confusion as a marketing tool. When you cannot understand your bill it is hard to change behaviour, it is hard to shop around, and it is hard to exercise your consumer power. At the same time we also see the National Government cut funding—or it has not extended funding—for the Powerswitch website where consumers can switch between power companies. What I have heard in this debate—and look, it has not been much of an intellectual or a true debate around the issues—from National members is that they want to keep consumers in the dark. I thought that party stood for consumer rights, for greater transparency. They said that the companies would do it—you know, competition will urge them to provide more information to their companies. If that was the case it would have happened already, but it has not. Then they said it was too costly. For those big old power companies with maybe 14,000 separate accounts and creaky backroom IT systems to deal with it, it may cost a little bit of money. But the fact is you have got innovative new retailers like Ecotricity and Flick that are coming into the market.

What consumers want in New Zealand is more consumer power. They are sick and tired; for decades they have been passively paying the power bill and seeing it going up. They want to produce some of the power themselves. They want a little bit more control. When I was in California recently doing an energy study tour, what I heard there is that the utilities are trying to think about themselves as providing energy services, not just pushing electrons one way down those wires. It is for the reason that consumers are kept in the dark and are not being given real choice that they are going solar in record numbers. I am supporting this bill, and the Green Party is, because it is part of giving consumers more control. It is part of our mission for energy, and my mission as energy spokesperson, to get cleaner, cheaper, smarter, energy for New Zealanders. Now we can do it. The question facing Parliament tonight is where members stand. Is it with those old power companies and their old creaky IT systems that cannot get there, that spread confusion and doubt when it comes to their power bills, or are they going to stand on the side of consumers and the new energy economy to make sure that consumers can have a choice, transparency, and make decisions based on them.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. Aristotle once said that a speaker should have logos, ethos, and pathos, and that member was a speaker who actually managed to fail at all three. But I do want to commend the member who brought the bill because I think it is actually important that we continuously attempt to improve the functioning of our electricity market, and I believe that the member sincerely wants to do that.

So I wanted to come to the House and make a speech to explain why I am opposing that attempt. I think the member’s argument breaks down to the fact that there is a suboptimal amount of information about electricity costs, or at least the contributors to electricity cost structures, appearing on the bills that we receive when we pay our electricity bills. So the logic continues that if there was more information, the market would somehow become better.

I think we have to ask, first of all, what is the market failure? What is preventing electricity companies from doing what the member’s bill would require them to do? Quite obviously nothing, because so far three speakers in favour of the bill have pointed out that there are electricity companies already doing precisely what the bill would require them to do. Then you might ask, perhaps, are those companies somehow outliers that are swimming against the tide of the incentives that the market gives them? Is there some sort of conspiracy going on, and is it the case that perhaps there is a systemic incentive not to provide more information?

Again, it is really not clear why, in a highly competitive market, any of the incumbents would not want to compete on providing more information. Perhaps the reason they have not done that, as David Bennett alluded to, is that information and the processing of it is actually costly. Information is something you should give up real resources in order to attract, and it is just not that appealing to have a more complex bill.

A great irony was that Gareth Hughes pointed out just how complex it would be, given the number of different permutations of generators, retailers, and distributors that there are in one transmission company across New Zealand. So perhaps it is the case that this bill would actually add enormous costs across the sector that so far, given the choice, retailers have decided is not worth competing on. But if you were to ask, a little further along the chain of events, what would happen if consumers were to be provided with this information—if we assume that prescribing by legislation is not going to stifle innovation in the way information gets passed through the market. If you assume that—and that is a big assumption—how would consumers respond to having this information? Presumably they would be more likely to switch their electricity company, based on having some information about some particular sector of the system that was not serving them very well under their current retailer.

It is an open question whether that would actually be a positive occurrence, because one of the things that I find difficult to defend as part of our market-based electricity system, which is otherwise very good, is the dead-weight cost of people constantly switching retailer as new information comes to pass. It is with some irony that Gareth Hughes argued that he wanted more information and more switching in a market characterised by those two features that he does not support. Perhaps they would switch more, but perhaps they would also decide to take political remedies to perceived difficulties with the market: that one particular sector needed to be better or worse regulated.

Again, it is not clear that we are going to get an efficient outcome by having political lynch mobs going about trying to attack a particular part of the electricity system. As you can see, it is easy to have good intentions in electricity markets but the further you go, the more complex it becomes. So I have to oppose this bill simply because while the intentions are good, once you account for the unintended consequences and the real cost of information in a market, this bill will leave electricity consumers the same at best, and worse off if we are not lucky at all.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): It was disheartening to hear the previous speaker, David Seymour, in his contribution. He spoke about markets and information, but one of the first fundamental failures of most markets, in any economy and in any market, is the lack of perfect information, and that is the debate we are having tonight. What is it that we are being asked for here? We are being asked for information so that the consumers can make choices. National Party members have stood up, one after the other, and told New Zealanders—they have literally told New Zealanders—that they would be better off in the dark. Those members have told New Zealanders that you do not need to know.

Pita Paraone: And that is literally.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: They literally want to grow New Zealanders like mushrooms. It is actually unbelievable—unbelievable.

There are elements within the sector that have been seen to have spun a story for some of the members here tonight, and they seem to have lapped it up wholeheartedly. They have taken it in hook, line, and sinker. There are elements in this electricity industry that profit from the opaque nature of this electricity market. They are incentivised by and they profit from the fact that consumers do not know what is going on. For National and ACT members to stand up and tell New Zealanders that they should continue to be grateful for not knowing what is going on is unfortunate and an anathema, I believe, to everything that they presume to publicly stand for.

I would like to commend Mr Shearer for this bill. This is core New Zealand First policy, so in our mind it is good, common sense that this information be out there. This legislation is about protecting consumers. It is about empowering consumers. It allows them to compare and contrast. We were given examples like Flick Electric. The unfortunate reality, and the counter-argument that says why everyone does not go down that road, is that it is not a national entity. You cannot get in there in different regions; you cannot opt in from everywhere. It is about choice, and the reality is that it is not there. As I mentioned, the reality is that there are elements that are incentivised to keep these secrets. It is about transparency. This knowledge gives average Kiwi households, in particular, the power that they deserve to make real and informed decisions.

Actually, I would like to point out for the benefit of the members opposite that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy and Resources are on record saying that transparent billing systems and itemised billing systems are actually a great idea. So I think that side of the House has got its politics round the wrong way tonight. Those members are talking against their leader and the one who gave them the job, so those members need to acknowledge that transparency and itemisation is a good idea, as they are on record saying that very fact. The National backbench has got its politics wrong tonight.

We have heard of the Flick Electric example, like I said, but what I also want to point out to Ms Dowie is that we also have the likes of Dr Heffernan, who is in charge of a big retail company, going on record saying that, actually, this kind of legislation is absolutely appropriate and that this is the track that the industry needs to go down. So I do not think it would resent it. I think the fact that ACT will not support this bill to at least go to its select committee stage because the industry does not know what it wants—well, that is what a select committee is for. It is so that we can have those conversations, so that we can understand what the pressures are and, hopefully, get around them. New Zealand First supports empowering consumers—unlike this Government—and so we wholeheartedly support this piece of legislation. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I would call this bill a solution looking for a problem. That is the way I would describe it. With due respect to Mr Shearer—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You said that about Solid Energy.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Hello, Mr Cosgrove. Good to see you back in the House. With due respect to Mr Shearer, I was at that hearing when Doug Heffernan spoke. He did speak about some of the possibilities of what this would create, and what we see is that the Electricity Authority is already putting into place mechanisms around this.

So to address the concerns about transparency of consumers’ electricity charges, the Electricity Authority has consulted on a proposal to “require retailers and distributors to consult each other about any media releases”—that is, communication to consumers—“… about changes to consumer charges in a distributor’s area.” This will “require retailers to provide information, in a standard form, to consumers about any price changes” that makes clear the nature and reasons for price changes.

So what this bill is wanting to do is to unpack all the different elements of what makes up an invoice so that people can see, well, this is the price for this and this is the price for that—there are usually around about seven different components. We know—and if you do not mind I will go back into a little bit of history, because we know that just recently the Labour Party has scotched its one power purchaser proposal.

What I want to read out is a response to that—and I am not doing this for political reasons; I am just doing it for information for the consumers out there. They need to hear it because Mr Heffernan has been quoted as being a great supporter of this idea, Mr Shearer, and this is what he said back in August a year ago. This is the quote from the Mighty River Power press release: “Mighty River Power Chief Executive, Doug Heffernan, says the official data from the industry regulator (Electricity Authority) and audited results reported by major power companies this week tell a very different story of a highly competitive market with flat to declining energy prices.”

That is why I say this is a solution looking for a problem, because what we are already seeing is that in this highly competitive market, where we have nearly got over-generation, we have seen for a number of years now the flattening of prices—and even the dropping of prices—and of energy charges. If we look at the componentry of what makes up a charge, and they have gone up—Mr Shearer will know that we have gone through an incredible rebuild of Transpower’s national grid.

If I could just read out a comment and a quote from the Auditor-General’s report on Transpower, it says this—and this is going back to June 2008, which is when the previous Government was in power—“In June 2008, Transpower commissioned an independent review of its maintenance practices and spending. … Discussions with staff of both Transpower and the contractors revealed a workforce that [was] innovative [in its] approach to solving problems.” Fantastic. All right? Congratulations. “This has been driven mainly by a need to keep operational an aged asset base as little asset replacement has been undertaken on a broad basis in the last decade.” The last decade—2008. So that is during the tail-end of a National Government and all of a Labour Government that there was very little asset replacement.

So since then to now, about $5 billion has been invested in Transpower, and, as a State-owned enterprise, obviously there is a need for a return on that level of investment. So we know that when prices have increased—and it has been half the increase under National compared with what Labour gave us—we know that most of it, let us say, has been generated by the required upgrade of assets by Transpower. All right?

Stuart Nash: But make it transparent so the consumers know. Give the consumers an opportunity to know that.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Look, there is going to be a Transpower fee in every retail bill—every retail bill. Why do you not just come out and say—

David Shearer: Where is it? It’s not there.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Do a press release and say, Mr Shearer, “OK, this year, this is what the Transpower cost is going to be.”—end of story. Instead, you want to create a very complicated mechanism. You want to find a solution for a problem that does not exist, because what we are seeing is a very competitive, cost-effective market that is working, with 26 retailers out there competing for the consumer. All right?

We are in a great place, and we just need to see this continue to grow and develop. Thank you. And we do not support this bill, obviously.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): It is a pleasure to stand up and support this bill. The Green Party supports transparency. It supports consumers’ right to know. I am amazed, sitting here listening to speeches, that people are arguing against transparency—against consumers’ right to know. I find that highly offensive to consumers. We have the right to know what components make up our power bills. We should not be patronised by National and ACT and be told: “Oh, you don’t need to know this information. We’ll take care of that for you.” That is incredibly patronising. Power is a significant part of people’s daily expenses, and we have the right to be able to be fully informed and decide for ourselves which power supplier we will use. There will be many decisions and factors that go into weighing up who we will use, and consumers are not going to switch suppliers at the drop of a hat. It is a cumbersome process—ringing up, sorting it out, trying to work out who is available, and so on—so the kind of scenario that was being outlined by Mr Seymour I did not find very credible.

The reality is that consumers are going to sit down and really think about who they want to be their main electricity provider, and they are going to weigh up different elements about what works for them, what is their pattern of power consumption, do they have an overnight storage heater, is there a lower side rate available, where are they in the country, and also the right to know how that power is being generated is really important, especially in today’s climate. When climate change is one of the most incredibly challenging issues that we face, we have the right to know as consumers exactly what proportion of our power bill is made up of renewable energy and is generated from renewable sources. That is an important piece of information, and consumers have the right to know and access that information and should not have to go hunting for it. To have it presented on the power bill is an incredibly important part of transparency, and we, the Green Party, support Shearer’s bill for bringing in transparency for us to be able to act upon. It is incredibly important.

It is important, also, to be fully informed so that we know how we can conserve energy. If we know that the bulk of our power bill is made up from line charges, there is not going to be a lot that we can do to conserve energy. So greater billing transparency is a good thing, and it is incredibly patronising and unbelievable that National and ACT can stand up there and say they do not support transparency and they do not support consumers’ right to information. I find that absolutely staggering. Why not? Why should we not be informed? It has been proposed before, but the industry lobbied against it. Yes, there are some new reforms coming in, but they are much weaker than what is proposed in this Electricity Transparency Bill.

I commend Shearer for bringing it to the House. We will be voting for it. We are in favour of transparency. We are in favour of consumers’ rights to know and to be able to make informed decisions around which electricity supplier they will use. Thank you.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to speak—unfortunately, in opposition—to the Electricity Transparency Bill in the name of Mr David Shearer. I think it is a—

Fletcher Tabuteau: We understand why you’re sad about opposing it.

TODD BARCLAY: Well, I think that the reason why I am opposing it is that although it is incredibly well intentioned, I think that the Government and the industry over the last couple of years have come a long way in terms of meeting the concerns that were raised around transparency around pricing by the industry, leading back to probably about 2014. I think that since then there has been a number of steps that have taken place, in terms of the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Electricity Authority, to address the concerns around transparency of consumers’ electricity charges.

There are a number of things that happened most recently. I will just list a couple of main points: the requirement for retailers and distributors to consult each other about any media releases about changes to consumers’ charges in a distributor’s area, and also the requirement for retailers to provide information to consumers about any price changes. I think the most fundamental tool that consumers have if they are unhappy with the level of transparency or the pricing that they are receiving is the What’s My Number campaign, which has proved to be incredibly successful since it was initiated in about 2013. There have been about 400,000 consumers who have completed switches since then, which proves that the mechanism is currently in place for consumers who are maybe feeling that they are receiving higher pricing than they should or that they are not receiving adequate information from the retailers. They have got the opportunity to switch if they like. So that is probably the main reason why I oppose this bill, although it is very well intentioned. Thank you very much.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): We have had some pretty lacklustre, average sorts of responses from the other side as to why those members are not supporting transparency and full information by which consumers can make a choice. It is kind of surprising, really, when it is coming from the side that purports to be the party of pro-market. For example, Jonathan Young and Todd Barclay were just talking about the fact that somehow a press release, which is an optional mechanism that can be adopted by power companies, is going to be as good as getting a fully annotated and broken-down power bill. Let us face it, guys: that is rubbish.

The Electricity Authority came out with a report that has got to be the lowest possible intervention it could possibly scrape out to try to keep up some sort of semblance for the tens of thousands of dollars it spent on that study. Then David Seymour from the ACT Party stood up and made, actually, quite a good contribution, but it consisted mainly of questions: “What about …”, “Perhaps”, “Maybe”. The way to actually get around that is to send it to the select committee so we can actually get the industry—

David Seymour: The answers were implied.

DAVID SHEARER: —to give the answers that, perhaps, Mr Seymour lacked when he stood up to make his contribution.

The real issue here is about consumers getting a fair deal and being able to look at their power bill and understand it. The power price has gone up 25 percent in the last 5 years, and every time it does there is finger pointing between line companies, Transpower, power companies, retailers—whoever—that they are not to blame and somebody else is. You can talk about all these power prices coming down. Ask the people out there, Mr Young, about power prices going down. I can tell you, you would be hard-pressed on the street to find anybody who could tell you that their power price has gone down.

This is about real information. Let me give you another example: meters—power meters—smart meters. We have had smart meters installed across our country. They are the dumbest smart meters in the world. They give the power companies the ability to know what you are consuming in terms of your electricity every 15 minutes, and what everybody else in the world gets is real-time information on a minute-by-minute basis of what is happening inside the home, so they can turn on their dryer late at night or they can make use of cheaper power. We have dumb power meters that will not give us that. They will give the electricity companies lots of information, but they will not give it to the consumers.

Why is that? It is because they do not want you to have good information. As Theresa Gattung once said about the telecommunications industry, it makes good business sense to keep people in the dark, to keep it opaque, to keep them confused. That is what we have got now: confusion that suits the industry down to the ground, and that party over there is backing that. It does not want to have consumers being able to know what their power bill is and to be able to break it down and make informed choices.

If I were sitting here watching this debate today, I would be disappointed with the National Party not standing up for consumers and with the ACT Party—with consumers in the name of its party—not standing up for consumers. I would be saying: “I give up on these parties, because they do not stand up for what they believe in.” I would recommend that instead they go to a company like Flick Electric Co. and try to get a better deal. Unfortunately, the number of Flicks we can sustain throughout the country—and it has only less than 1 percent of the power market right at the moment—is not going to be great enough to make a huge difference.

That is the real tragedy of what we are talking about today: that what we could have easily done is what the Minister of Energy and Resources has purported to want to do, which is to break down our bills into their component parts. That is what Doug Heffernan of Mighty River Power has wanted to do: to break down our power bills into component parts. In fact, just about everybody agrees with that. You talk to Simon Mackenzie, chief executive officer of Vector. Look at its submission. Of course it wants to see these broken down. This is a bill that is, unfortunately, a wasted opportunity. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electricity Transparency Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill

First Reading

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I move, That the Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. I developed this bill to address a real problem that is common knowledge in the supermarket and grocery industry. At present just two big supermarket chains control over 90 percent of the grocery market in New Zealand. This means that small local food suppliers, the people in New Zealand who grow and produce the food that we eat, can struggle to access that market. This bill provides a very simple regulatory measure that will create a more balanced playing field for the long-term benefit of both consumers and local suppliers. I want to start by acknowledging the work of former Green MP Sue Kedgley, who devoted significant time and energy in this area. This bill picks up and is built on the work that was done by Sue.

So what does the bill do? It requires the appointment of a supermarket adjudicator, who is then tasked with developing a code of conduct for supermarkets in consultation with all the key stakeholders, and then with receiving and dealing with complaints under the code. The Ministry of Justice New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment report has found that the bill is consistent with the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It also gives a very clear description of the bill’s intent and purpose, which I will repeat here: “The purpose of the bill is to promote competition in New Zealand markets by introducing measures to prevent or mitigate restrictive trade practices for the long-term benefit of consumers and suppliers.”

The bill’s aim is entirely consistent with existing regulatory purposes in New Zealand competition law, such as the Commerce Act and the Telecommunications Act, which are focused on making sure that markets work properly and fairly. That principle is very important for most New Zealanders. We go about our daily lives, buying and selling, feeding our families. We place trust in the system that we are getting a fair deal and that we are not being ripped off. A competitive market can help provide us with the choices that we want as consumers. The presence of competition helps ensure that retailers are honest. But when a market lacks competition and when it is dominated by two large players, as is the case with supermarkets in New Zealand, then there is a strong case for the Government to step in and ensure that it is regulated at the appropriate level, which is what my bill provides for.

As I have said, the problem is that over 90 percent of the grocery retail market is controlled by just two companies in New Zealand, and this makes us one of the most concentrated markets in the OECD when it comes to groceries—in fact, one of the most concentrated in the world. What this means is that there is a very unequal power relationship between the big supermarkets and the local foodstuff producers, who employ people in our regions and make great food. If they want their food to be on the supermarket shelf, it can be very hard to achieve that.

Different suppliers face different issues with different supermarkets, but across the board there are people who say that supplying their product to supermarkets is very difficult. This is because one supermarket can dictate the terms of an agreement to a supplier, and if the supplier does not like the terms, the only other option is to go to the other supermarket, which can dictate pretty much the same terms. The fact is that supermarkets have unfair market power, and this can result in restrictive trade practices. They can buy produce at a low price and sell it at a high price. There has been conflicting evidence about exactly what retail margins there are for fresh produce, and it is likely that one of the supermarket adjudicator’s first tasks would be to get to the bottom of this and make sure that everyone is getting a fair deal.

Suppliers have also told me about other problems, such as being forced to reveal all recipes and processes—not just the ingredients on the label—to a supermarket, which gives up a supplier’s intellectual property and competitive edge. I have heard of supermarkets dumping suppliers or their product at very short notice, leaving the suppliers holding large amounts of packaging and ingredients with no way to sell them. I have heard about unfair behaviour around selling products on special, with suppliers paying the extra costs for advertising and the full discount not being passed on to customers.

I also want to say that I have heard from supermarkets too. The other side of the problem is the power wielded by the massive multinational grocery suppliers, which can, in fact, be turned against supermarkets. The supermarkets might sometimes be seen as the bad guys when it is really the big overseas food companies that are calling the shots. When so many of the products on the supermarket shelves come from just a handful of multinational food companies, they can potentially decide their market power against the supermarket. A code of conduct and a supermarket adjudicator could address this too. The adjudicator could be tasked with addressing unfair market manipulation and restrictive practices, no matter who is responsible.

My bill requires all relevant parties to be consulted and involved in developing the code of conduct to ensure that it is balanced and fair. It does not prescribe the code itself. It is not appropriate for Parliament to decide exactly what the code should say, which is why I have left it to the adjudicator to write the draft code, in consultation with key stakeholders, and then for it to be signed off by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. That ministerial sign-off is very important to ensure that no one party has taken over the process and tipped the scales too far one way or the other.

I am sure people remember the Commerce Commission investigation into Countdown last year. Some might say that the inquiry has proved that we already have a system for dealing with restrictive trade practices, but we need to remember that it took massive media outcry, led by Shane Jones, to force that inquiry. Whereas the outcome of the investigation by the Commerce Commission found that no rules or laws had been broken, it does not mean that it found that the current system is working fairly. In fact, it shone a light on the fact that many produce suppliers did actually have serious complaints about how they were treated, but not many wanted to speak out publicly because of the fear of repercussions. That is my experience in talking with suppliers too.

And so what the Commerce Commission showed is that the system is not strong enough to deal with the concerns that suppliers have, and that is why I drafted this bill to strengthen the system and bring in new regulatory tools. The Commerce Commission powers are limited by law, and it has become clear that what the Commerce Commission is allowed to do is not enough. It is not about picking on any particular supermarket; it is about saying that the current regulatory rules are not working, so we need to replace them. I look forward to the debate tonight and support from parties in the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the member Mojo Mathers on having her member’s bill drawn from the ballot. Members’ bills are pretty difficult, as some of us know. Some of us have actually had bills in the ballot for many, many years and still have not had the opportunity to have a first reading.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: I got one.

MELISSA LEE: Yes, Mr Bakshi, you were very lucky. You got it first up, but I am still waiting for my turn to actually have my bill read.

This bill is to amend the Commerce Act 1986 to require that a supermarket adjudicator is, in fact, established to resolve disputes between supermarkets and suppliers. I guess the position of this adjudicator would have the power to enforce a code of conduct on supermarkets and force them to pay a levy towards mediation services with suppliers where disputes actually occur. The only thing that I can actually see that will do is increase the prices of products that we buy from supermarkets. I cannot imagine the grocery shops, the supermarkets, saying: “OK, we will actually pay for the levy. We are forced to do so, and we are not going to pass on the cost to the consumers.” That is all I see.

I will take the opportunity now to say that I see no reason for this legislation to continue. I do not see it as necessary. The Commerce Commission already undertakes the functions of a regulatory body tasked with addressing issues of anti-competitive or dominant market powers in New Zealand. In creating a second agency, which Miss Mathers is actually proposing, I just see a doubling of authority. I see that it is completely unnecessary.

This bill is particularly aimed at two leading supermarket-owning companies, Progressive Enterprises Ltd and Foodstuffs (NZ), which provide groceries and goods to hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders all over the country. The Commerce Commission has already reviewed and examined these companies from time to time where concerns have been raised. Most notably, a review was undertaken due to a recent complaint that one of the companies had breached the Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Act, which Miss Mathers alluded to earlier. As a part of its investigation, the Commerce Commission has not said it needs additional tools to undertake its commendable work protecting the markets. The Government believes the Commerce Commission has ample resources to continue its task and does not need what Miss Mathers is actually proposing in her bill.

It has always been an expectation of the Government that all companies deal in a fair and transparent manner. That is what we all want as consumers. This is the case whether there are dominant business partners in the market or smaller low-end suppliers. Where companies do not, the Commerce Commission has the necessary tools and resources to investigate and, if necessary, it can actually take action. It can be seen that the supermarket industry is regulating itself without the need for a mandatory code of conduct. Supermarkets, like any other company, know it is bad business to undertake unsound commercial practices. They know that just as they need to keep consumers happy, they also need to look after their supply lines. They maintain their own standards without the need for further regulation.

Having had a business where we used to supply grocery shops with imported goods from overseas, it is often very difficult to break into that market. Sometimes it seems like climbing Mount Everest, because you are—not you, Mr Speaker, but the business is—in competition with other businesses to break into that supermarket chain, because you want to show that you have got a good product. But the supermarkets have many, many choices. What they do is that often they are in tune with the trends of the market. They know what is popular with consumers, and so they will buy what is popular and what will sell at their supermarkets. I think they will get the best products for the best prices, and often suppliers want to do that, too, because by being on the supermarket shelves they are reaching more people than if they do it themselves from their little, I do not know, shed, manufacturing—

Todd Barclay: What about Four Square?

MELISSA LEE: Four Square? Yes, there is another option. There are many people who actually have choices.

Consumers too have choices. They do not have to go to supermarkets. There are many places in New Zealand where people buy their fresh fruit from the markets. The Grey Lynn market is actually a good example. Farmers markets are actually good examples. Many of us use that option and do not always go to the supermarket. On Monday I wanted to cook fish, and instead of going to the supermarket I went to the local fish shop where I live. I think that was actually really, really good. It is a consumer’s choice to do so. I think the supermarket industry, as I said, regulates itself to provide the best possible produce for the consumers, and I do not believe that this adjudicator is necessary.

Just in addition to the substantial defects in the policy rationale of Miss Mathers, the bill actually contains some fundamental technical errors, I think. What she is actually saying is that the designated supermarket chain and the supermarket could exclude Foodstuffs (NZ)’s 700 owner-operator supermarkets. Under this bill the adjudicator does not have a clear means of efficiently dealing with complaints. So, just to make it very short, I do not think it is necessary. I will not be supporting this bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I will say from the outset that Labour Party members will support the Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill to select committee because unlike that member who has just spoken, Melissa Lee, who is orbiting a stratosphere that very few New Zealanders have been on, and who proved how out of touch she is, we believe there is a problem. We believe there is a deficiency. We commend the Green Party for bringing this bill to the House. However, we agree that there are some difficulties with the bill, but they could well be addressed in select committee.

Labour drafted before the last election what we would consider a pretty robust and tailor-made piece of legislation. I would have to say to the Green colleague, congratulations on the bill but I think there are some substantial weaknesses in it—for instance, there is no penalty regime in here. The adjudicator is empowered to simply investigate, and if they cannot resolve the issue, as I understand it from the bill, they can require the Minister to invoke their powers under the Act to invite an inquiry. We set out, in our code of conduct—and we have a code of conduct already drafted in a piece of legislation—a penalties regime where the adjudicator should have the power to investigate, publicise information, but also to render penalties. We would say we will support it to select committee. There are some difficulties, I think, also in terms of exclusions. Supermarkets, for instance, so my partner Jane tells me, have a major area of cosmetics. They are excluded from this piece of legislation. They are subject to market power, as are pharmaceuticals, tobacco, greeting cards, and gardening equipment. A number of those issues, I think, need to be refined and addressed.

We will support it to select committee, but I will just say this, in the brief call I have got, to the member opposite. Obviously, the National Party purports to be a friend of business. Ms Lee says that she has a choice when she goes to the grocer’s shop, the fishmonger, or whatever. Obviously, she has never come across, for instance, an entity of people called tomato growers. Tomato growers—

Todd Barclay: Ha, ha!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —and the member from down south, where my old man’s family comes from, does not understand this either. Tomato growers were told by Progressive Enterprises, for instance: “At a certain point in time we will buy your tomatoes for x price.” Tomato growers went there and said: “Well, actually, x price is less than what we can produce for.” The answer was: “Well, son, if you want to be on the shelves next year, that is the deal.” As a result, many of those market gardeners, certainly down in Canterbury and other places, have gone out of business. If you actually read some of the submissions to the Commerce Commission, you would argue there is a difficulty here. The UK, for instance, has a very robust piece of legislation. They have far more grocery chains than New Zealand does and they believe there is a difficulty, there is a problem, and it does warrant an adjudicator. They have a slightly strange system where the adjudicator can recommend penalties but then has to get a Minister to sign them off, which I find quite strange.

I think the costs are, we established, about half a million bucks to three-quarters of a million a year. So the so-called massive cost that is going to be visited on the consumer as the industry pays for it, as that member purports, is bunkum. She has not done her research. She has not done her homework. We would also say that an adjudicator would be part of the Commerce Commission bureaucracy and would have the right—cost recovery—to use the investigative personnel and staff of the Commerce Commission rather than creating, as that member seems to think, some sort of duplication. These are suggestions that we may put to the Green member, if the bill makes it to a select committee, to improve the bill. But the National members simply say: “There is not a problem. We will do nothing about it. We are a friend of the big end of town.” And I wonder what they say to all the suppliers down in Wallacetown, in Gore, in Invercargill, down the young fellow’s way, who have been royally done over—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. Members are not to be addressed in that ageist manner. Clayton Cosgrove—[Interruption] Order! Was that you, Jonathan Coleman, who made that comment?

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It was me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Yes, Mr Assistant Speaker. I withdraw and apologise.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That is OK. I am only 46—younger than you, mate. Anyway, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the father of the House, I suspect—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Right, the member’s speech is terminated. Next speaker.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I would also like to congratulate the promoter of this bill. Before I contribute to the bill I would like to congratulate the Hon Clayton Cosgrove on his return to the second row benches, and I hope we will see him in Parliament more, as he was out of action for a long time, and because we used to miss him on the—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to rule on that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Not yet, the member is less than 30 seconds—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat. The member is less than 30 seconds into his speech. He was saying something, I think, in relatively good faith, without the degree of cynicism that the member is applying to it. But I am sure the member will get to his speech soon.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Definitely, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just congratulating my good friend, because we were together on the Commerce Committee, and we have had a good relationship over there. And we did miss him during the—

Kris Faafoi: He speaks very highly of you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I know, I know. I have seen that in the last 7 years, how much regard he has got for me. Thank you for the opportunity and I think, as my learned colleague Melissa Lee mentioned, that the issue is not that big, as it has been mentioned in this bill. We have got a Commerce Commission that is really looking into these areas. As you remember, last year we had an inquiry, where the Commerce Commission went through all these areas where the issues were raised, and it found nothing in there.

We have got options to go and buy the stuff from anywhere. Particularly, I would like to mention that because I live in South Auckland and my office is based in South Auckland. We have got heaps of shops where we can go and buy different stuff, particularly when we look at vegetables and some of the ethnic grocery foodstuffs. I can assure you that in South Auckland there are more than 50 outlets where we can go, and the prices are very competitive. We do not have to go to the supermarket and buy their stuff. I know there are some areas where there are concerns. But, still, we have got options where we can go and buy the stuff.

I think this bill will be additional bureaucracy. This Government has really worked very hard to reduce bureaucracy and make sure that businesses are able to do their best in their business, promoting their businesses, rather than dealing with bureaucracy. With these words I would like to say that the National Party will not be supporting this bill. I invite the 60-year-old man Mr Cosgrove to come to the shopping area in South Auckland.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise for that.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I withdraw and apologise.

Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. Before we get to that can I say to Jami-Lee Ross that I hold him responsible for Mr Bakshi having to apologise. I think that he should be aware that people can see when he is creating disorder.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to make—maybe not now, because we have other business—a considered ruling. I am not speaking about your ruling on me. I put it to you that there has been some humour across the House, no member has taken offence either way, and I would suggest to you that although you are extremely diligent and knowledgable in your rulings, I think we are in danger of going a bridge too far. I do not—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat. I thank him for his advice. I will not be coming back with another ruling.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take this short call in the first reading of the Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I want to say that New Zealand First supports this bill, and I will endeavour to outline just why we are supporting it.

First, this bill’s purpose has merit. Its main purpose is to amend the Commerce Act 1986. It is going to put in place an independent adjudicator, funded by a levy coming from the suppliers and the supermarkets. So the main task this person will be tasked with is actually to develop a code of conduct, and this will primarily target preventing or mitigating the restricted trade practices and unfair dealings towards supply of groceries to supermarkets.

I just want to talk about that in depth, because I have experience with codes of conduct through the sectors that I come from. I have to highlight that codes of conduct in New Zealand in the business realm are nothing new. There is an unspoken expectation that businesses and corporations should have a code of conduct in place. Australia has a code of conduct for their supermarkets and grocery stores and so does the UK, which started off having a voluntary code of conduct that actually went to compulsory, because it allows the sector and the industry to have a middle person—and if you like the word “referee” then I will use it—before it gets to the stage of having to bring in the Commerce Commission.

Codes of conduct here in New Zealand are actually currently quite valid. They are very workable. They give the opportunity for the adjudicator to work with the supermarkets, to work with the suppliers—the very industry that will actually need buy-in and will need to believe that they can set their standards; that they can actually not only perform best practice to not only ensure that their code of conduct is fit for purpose but they can also moderate, if you like, when new smaller suppliers come in and give them that base level field for a code of conduct to come into effect.

I want to say that the former Government speaker Melissa Lee said that she did not feel that there was a need for this process to be put in place here in New Zealand. I just want to remind this Government that in July 2014 there was an allegation in this House that Countdown supermarkets were practising bullying behaviours towards their suppliers. The investigation into that was quite interesting because at that time—I was just a member of the public and could see this happening—it brought to mind a few occasions where my family have actually packed shelves in supermarkets, where they have worked within supermarkets, and there have been occasions where they have questioned the behaviour of supermarkets that were saying “You need to do this or we’ll take your preferred product away from the preferred shelves where buyers are actually attracted.”, and statistics tell us that buyers will buy product from shelves at certain heights.

So, interestingly enough, the Government officials at that time were investigating a voluntary code of conduct for the food and grocery industry here in New Zealand, but due to that investigation they were recommended to just hold off and wait to see what the outcome of that investigation was. I think the term that has been tossed around has been that the Commerce Commission did not kind of see any problem.

I want to reiterate that industries themselves, if they get the power, and we empower them to set their own code of conduct, are more than likely going to be very proud of that and buy into it and ensure that that code of conduct is adhered to. Industries here in New Zealand have had codes of conduct—like the taxi industry, the sports industry, the education industry, the medical industry, the hair and cosmetics industry, New Zealand boards of directors, corporates, and so on.

Currently we are faced with having a duopoly here in New Zealand, with two main supermarkets that hold 90 percent of the market competition. That concentration here in New Zealand is actually quite high in terms of the world global scale. The bill has been introduced by Mojo Mathers, and I want to thank her for spending the time with me to give me a bit of history about why she felt the need to bring this bill to the House. What I will say, before closing, is that I am actually quite stumped. I am stumped that a Green Party member brought this bill to the House, when in fact the Government tells us and reminds us constantly that it has a leadership role in this country. My question is: why do you not put that leadership role in place and bring such a great bill to the House? I want to reiterate that New Zealand First will support this bill. I believe that it will put in place a fair practice. It will bring us up to international standards, and it will protect the small suppliers that need businesses as well.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I was going to say I am pleased, but I do not think that is quite true—I am not greatly supportive of this Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill. This is an example, to me, of bad legislation, for a number of reasons.

Paul Foster-Bell: It’s a monster.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I would not go as far, Mr Foster-Bell, as saying it is monstrous. There are a few bills about which I might say that. I would probably ascribe that to Labour Party bills. This is not a good piece of legislation, for a variety of reasons. The first is around its intent; and, secondly, even in the delivery tonight I think we are playing into the classic lines of sort of moralising and conspiracy to justify it, and I will elaborate on that. We also have a thing about the fact that it is out of time and it is badly drafted. Although I always acknowledge, and want to acknowledge, members who bring bills to the House—I think it is good to do that—at the same time I find this is a deficient bill.

I think primarily this is about interference in the market in a way that is not needed or required. I do not say this as an absolute, total, zealous believer in the market. There is a time and place. In fact, from listening to the previous speaker, I think there were some very good examples of where we want codes of conduct or codes of practice. One that was mentioned was in the medical fraternity. Absolutely there is a time and place for codes of conduct, codes of ethics, there. But, actually, you are dealing with a different kettle of fish—if I am not beginning to mix my metaphors—of what that is trying to do there.

This bill is, effectively, a response to what I think could have been described previously as a political stunt. It is one of those political bills that came out of a political stunt. For those of us who were here in the last Parliament, and obviously following this from outside of Parliament, a member of this House came and made a series of accusations around one of the major players in the supermarket industry. I think many of us, right across the House, were quite interested in what was being said and why. But we were also looking for substance. Unfortunately, as far as my memory serves me, no substance was ever found to prove these facts.

The Government, I think quite rightly, responded to that, through the Commerce Commission undertaking an investigation to see whether or not there was any evidence—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, no. Shane Jones put a complaint in, not the Government.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Sorry, I have been rightly corrected. My memory, even at my age, is possibly not as good as that member’s.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

SIMON O’CONNOR: The Commerce Commission, to be accurate, chose, with facilitation from a previous member, to engage. The interesting point is that the Commerce Commission did not find any evidence of what was being put forward in the accusations. That leads me to one of the elements tonight. I talked about the debate being put forward as something that is moralising and as something that is conspiratorial. To use that latter part, we have already heard tonight: “Oh yeah. We acknowledge that this report was done, and we acknowledge that the report showed nothing, but, you know, there is a conspiracy behind it, because, actually, we know that people know that other people know what the suppliers know about what people might know in the supermarket industry.” That is just classic conspiracy. It is an attempt to deny proper process that has happened and proper results that have been given.

The second element I touched on too, which has tried to, I suppose, fuel this debate, is moralising. Everyone likes to feel that they could save some money. We have heard in elements of the debate: “Gosh, New Zealanders just want to pay less for their tomatoes, their meat, their vegetables, for everything. They are just paying too much. Who would be against forcing the change?”. Well, again, I just categorise that as moralising. In fact, the market does operate quite effectively in this space. When I think about the supermarkets, and actually the variety of supermarkets throughout my electorate—I hear some members talking about two supermarkets. Fortunately I have always been able to count beyond two supermarkets. Actually, when I think of my own electorate, there are a good number of supermarkets. In fact, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi was talking about the number of options he finds in South Auckland, which is the same as I find in east Auckland. So there is competition in the market.

But I think the fundamental element here is that the bill is not necessary. We do not need interference in this market. The Commerce Commission has found that it is not required. I come back to my initial point. I just do not think this bill is needed or warranted, and trying to build the reasons for it on moralising and conspiracy is not particularly helpful. I will not be supporting this bill going to the select committee.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is with great interest that I have been listening to the contributions from the National side of the House tonight. Members on that side of the House, almost ad nauseam, stand and say “We are the friend of business. We are out there, on the side of the punter.”, yet in this instance the Government is not taking the side of business and it is not taking the side of the punter. But it should, if it says what it says on a regular basis in this House, which is “Back this bill.”

This bill will give consumers and suppliers the ability to go head to head with these two big supermarket chains, to get the access that they think is fair and reasonable. I think there is a fair degree of “head in the sand” on that side of the House. I will quote a couple of members. Kanwaljit Bakshi said this issue is not that big. I went to a reasonably sized business. I am not going to name that business in this House, or say where it is, due to that business’s fear that any publicity around this issue for it will come back and bite it in the bottom in terms of the supermarket duopoly that operates here in New Zealand. The business raised with me and a number of other Labour MPs, when we went out and spoke to the business, that it has major issues with the two supermarket chains. My colleague Clayton Cosgrove has already mentioned the situation with the tomato growers, and because of the nature of the business that I visited I am not going to mention it because there are a small number of suppliers that it could potentially be. It was aghast at the behaviour of the two big supermarket chains. Again, the kinds of things that they were being told, especially around Christmas time, were: “We are asked to supply quite a lot more product, because of the time of year, at a price that we can’t sustain.” That is the kind of thing that we are being told by businesses in New Zealand when we are visiting them, so I cannot fathom that members on that side of the House, who claim to be the friend of business, can say that this is not a big issue, and that this piece of legislation is not required because nothing wrong is happening here. It is obvious to me, and to the number of businesses and suppliers to the big supermarket chains that I have visited, that something is not right here.

We have said to the Greens that we will support this piece of legislation to the select committee. We believe that there can be improvements because, unlike members on that side of the House, we believe this is an issue and it is an issue for business in New Zealand, which—again, I say—that party claims to represent in this House. I think it is slightly ironic that that party over there accuses us of not being the friend of business or small business or the Kiwi punter, and it is saying that this piece of legislation is not required. Is that not strange? Is that not odd? National would rather have the status quo, with the duopoly with the supermarket chains, carry on and would rather that the small supplier that wants to break into that market has no or little power. Some of the bigger suppliers want to make sure that they can offer their product at a price that actually means they can cover their production costs and can get into that market, but, oh no, members on that side of the House think that we do not need that—we do not need that. Simon O’Connor says “We’re not generally supportive of that.”, Kanwaljit Bakshi says “This issue is not that big.”, and they say that the market operates effectively. Well, the market might operate effectively if you are one of the big supermarket chains: it operates just fine. But if you are one of those suppliers that want to get your product into those supermarkets, then it does not operate fine at all, and that is the feedback that we have been getting.

Let us look at the other side of that equation, and that is the consumers. There is an issue around choice, there is the issue around price, and we hear from members on the other side of the House that this is moralising around what happens in supermarkets and the choices that we get to make in supermarkets. Well, let us look at people who cannot afford much in those supermarkets and look at the options that are and are not available to them and whether things can be better. Should we look at that? We believe, on this side of the House, that, yes, we should. But on that side of the House the answer is no. If they have got any guts to stand up to that duopoly, they should support this bill.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): On 12 February 2014 Shane Jones railed against Progressive Enterprises here in this House. Just today it gave $30,000 to the Taranaki District Health Board children’s ward. I said that because it has been severely criticised. This is a grocery chain that over the last 10 years has given $10 million to hospitals. The reason why it does that is because it is profitable, and the reason why it is able to not only supply consumers with goods but also supply income to suppliers is because it is a profitable organisation.

I think that when it comes to this bill it is trying to duplicate in a minute way, in a granular way, the responsibilities and activities of the Commerce Commission. We know, because of what happened on 12 February last year, that a letter was received by the Commerce Commission. The commission felt that it was a serious enough allegation to go into an investigation, which, when it came to report to the Commerce Committee—which I was chairing at that particular point in time—members like Clayton Cosgrove certainly put the fire to its feet to try to find out exactly what it was investigating or what sorts of outcomes it had come to. The Commerce Commission has printed a report that is available to the public, and it has said that the practices that it found were not unlawful.

When it comes to, for example, coercion, coercion is actually what happens in business. I go and buy something and it is called pressure, it is called negotiation. Those gentlemen across on the other side there may bring out their issues and quote their things but when it came to the Commerce Commission’s report, what it said when it looked at this particular issue was: “Progressive assertively communicated its expectations for improved performance and margin to two suppliers. Progressive advised that it may have to consider how it sourced, ranged, displayed and promoted the suppliers’ products if the suppliers failed to meet Progressive’s expectations. The two suppliers concerned were large multinational companies.”

This is the business of buying and selling and supplying and creating an opportunity—an outlet—for those products, and it happens. It happens. In fact, there were comments made around what the Commerce Commission looked at that I want to just read out to you because I find it very, very interesting indeed. It said: “The courts have recognised that in everyday, non-legal terms, anyone might feel ‘coerced’ if, while under pressure, they agree to [do] something they would prefer not to do. However, the courts have said that something more than persuasion is required to breach section 23, and not every form of pressure amounts to ‘coercion’ in law.”

So all of these issues are about where the fine line is. We essentially disagree with this bill because we believe that the courts of this country and the Commerce Commission have everything they need in terms of legal ability to work through these issues if there are genuine and serious complaints. It is very interesting to know that food prices decreased half a percent in the year to October 2015. It is interesting also to know, for example, that Countdown added 7,000 new products to its stores in 2013, which is equal to 23 percent of total products.

There is huge competition to get your product on their shelves, because many, many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders go there to buy and they need to have that expectation that a product that is promised to be a great seller is going to achieve their goals. It is their business to be, in a sense, the infrastructure for the ability for consumers to come and purchase, and they have people who compete to get products on their shelves. All of this is how this grocery business works.

What the member in charge of the bill is wanting to do is to create an adjudicator, but I do not think it is going to work in the way she wants it to work. But we do have the Commerce Commission and we have the courts of this nation, which I think work very effectively in this particular area. We do not support this bill.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I would like to address comments from the other side of the House.

The UK has 12 or so supermarket chains, so there is far more competition than what we have here in New Zealand. Here we have only two major supermarket chains, and yet the Government does not want to introduce an adjudicator. This bill would amend the Commerce Act 1986. It would require supermarkets to establish an adjudicator, and we on this side of the House believe that this is a good thing. An adjudicator, according to this bill, must in turn establish a code of conduct and then he or she would be able to resolve issues that may arise between supermarkets and their suppliers when and if the code of conduct is breached. This bill would prevent and mitigate restrictive trade practices for the long-term benefit of consumers and suppliers.

I welcome this legislation. We believe on this side of the House that it would address the power imbalance between our limited number of supermarket owners and their suppliers. Labour has been concerned about the issue that this bill would address for quite some time. We have been working for a number of years on a bill that would look at options for developing a code of conduct for the supermarket industry. So we are pleased the bill that Mojo Mathers has introduced will actually look at developing a code of conduct, and one of the key tasks of this bill would be to introduce an adjudicator.

The Labour Party has also been pushing for section 36 of the Commerce Act to be reviewed, because we would like to ensure that companies with substantial market power cannot continue to dominate the market unfairly. We believe that the bill we have been working on is tailor-made, and even though we in the Labour Party support this member’s bill going to the select committee we will be introducing amendments if it gets to that stage. Establishing a code of conduct and an adjudicator to oversee compliance with the code should have beneficial flow-on effects to both local producers and local consumers. New Zealand is a small country. We have a comparatively small population, and the fact is that some of our consumer markets lack competition. Certain industries, such as supermarkets, have been dominated for too long. In fact, having only two dominant chains that have a 90 percent share of the market shows that we should have an adjudicator to actually address that issue of control of the market; it leads to higher prices, particularly for families and end-consumers.

The most recent Colmar Brunton poll reveals that the top issues concerning our Kiwi families are wages and the cost of living, affordable housing—or the lack thereof—and unemployment. Thousands and thousands of families across this country are struggling just to survive. They are struggling just to make ends meet. Allowing local producers, as this bill would do, to survive in the supermarket arena should bring local benefits to our local communities, and a code of conduct could possibly put a brake on any attempts to price gouge or to price fix what is charged to our consumers.

A lot of our people are in South Auckland and when they have jobs, that does not actually give them fixed hours, does not actually guarantee them a fixed income per week, and does not even guarantee that they can earn enough money to pay large sums of money to childcare providers to assist them so that they can go out to work. We believe that we need a bill like this. However, as I said earlier on, if the bill gets to select committee, the Labour Party will be introducing several Supplementary Order Papers. Thank you so much.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise in opposition to the Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill 2015. I think that I am living in a little bit of a warped sense of reality, having listened to some of the arguments opposite, because I would simply say: Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission is our regulatory body that takes care of competition and looks at fair trading, and in my mind it is certainly working well and the parent Acts that govern it, the Commerce Act and the Fair Trading Act, are working well. So I do not believe that this bill is a strategic change for the better. In fact, I think this is just really messing around the edges and a little bit of jiggery-pokery.

As has been discussed before, the aim of this bill is to require a change to the Commerce Act and put in place a supermarket adjudicator to resolve disputes between supermarkets and suppliers. Again, my question is why, when have the Commerce Commission, which is our primary competition regulatory agency? We have already got good legislation in place, which is working well. The commission was established in 1986, and it is an independent body. So its functions, its enforcement, and all of its regulatory activities are independently undertaken.

Todd Barclay: And Goldie’s doing a good job.

SARAH DOWIE: Yes, the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs is doing a very good job in overseeing commerce and all that it entails.

The Commerce Commission’s purpose is to achieve the best possible outcomes in competitive and regulated markets for the long-term benefit of New Zealanders, and I believe it certainly is doing this. We do not need further red tape to complicate the issue. That is something that I learnt when my colleague the honourable member Jacqui Dean ran a series of workshops called “Rules Reduction”. We held one of those meetings in Invercargill, it was well attended, and one of the things that I learnt is that people, in general, especially in Southland and in New Zealand, instinctively know what is fair. And, actually, people do not automatically revert to the worst-case scenario in their dealings. We do not need to govern for that minority. People in business do not like complicated or overly bureaucratic rules. We do not need an extra layer on top of legislation that is already working well. We do not need another adjudicator on top of an independent body that is doings its job well and is completing its mandated tasks well.

If you over-complicate these rules, even good operators will not be able to comply with all of the red tape that is put in place. They will not have the time and they will not have the resources, and the only winners will be lawyers, at the end of the day, as they navigate through a complex set of rules trying to trip up honest, hard-working businesses as they go about their fair trading.

As my colleagues pointed out, last year the Commerce Commission investigated and found no evidence that a major supermarket company had breached the Commerce Act or the Fair Trading Act. In coming to this decision, the Commerce Commission report did not indicate at any stage that it lacked the tools, the expertise, or the resources needed to complete that investigation. As the Government we have no plans to compel supermarkets to enter into any industry code unless they want to do so voluntarily. We believe that people instinctively know what is fair. We believe that the existing legislation is working well and that the Commerce Commission is doing its job appropriately. There is, therefore, no need for this bill, and I therefore oppose it.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): Well, it is very clear to me from listening to the speeches that this side of the House is on the side of small businesses and consumers and that side of the House is absolutely complacent—everything is all sweet and hunky-dory in New Zealand; the large supermarket chains never abuse small businesses, never take advantage of them, never exploit them, and are always reasonable; it is all sweet and there is no power imbalance; and the Commerce Commission is able to deal with any issue that arises. Well, that is a load of bunkum. It is just not the case.

You have heard from this side of the House that we have been getting stories from businesses and suppliers that have been approaching us and have been telling us about practices that are clearly unfair, clearly not working, and are clearly disadvantaging local food suppliers and producers in favour of large multinational corporations, which are flooding the supermarkets with their mass-produced products from overseas. So we want to support local suppliers that are here in New Zealand, and we want to have a fairer deal for them.

A lot of people have made a big song and dance about the Commerce Commission saying that it found that no laws had been broken. That is the whole point of this bill. The whole point of this bill is to create a fairer system, because despite what it found it did not therefore follow that there was no unfairness in the system, but that the current legal system is not equipped to deal with it. This bill is to bring in a low level of regulation in order to create fairness, and that is what we stand for. I think it is time for a vote and to find out what parties actually stand for: for fairness, or for large companies and anti-competitive practices?

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Commerce (Supermarket Adjudicator and Code of Conduct) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 61

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

Motion not agreed to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): In accordance with the leave granted earlier today, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.