Thursday, 11 February 2016

THURSDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2016

THURSDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week the Government will continue with the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. The Government also intends to make progress on a number of pieces of legislation, including the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16, Research and Development, and Remedial Matters) Bill.

Points of Order

Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Sentencing (Minimum Term for Repeated Burglary Offenders) Amendment Bill

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a result of recent reports on burglary resolution rates being as low as 10 percent, I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name, the Sentencing (Minimum Term for Repeated Burglary Offenders) Amendment Bill, to be set down after question time today as order No. 1, for first reading.

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

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Mental Health Services, Canterbury—Funding

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “we’ve slowed the growth of public spending” given growth in health spending has slowed from over 9 percent under Labour to just 2.6 percent over the last five years, and what impact has this had on district health boards?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. If we had maintained the rates of growth in public spending that we inherited from Labour, New Zealand would have owed $100 billion more in debt by 2021 and the debt to GDP ratio would have grown to 60 percent, rather than the 30 percent that we have reduced it to. Although health expenditure has grown by $4 billion, we have focused on the quality of spending, with district health boards delivering more services to Kiwis than ever before.

Hon Annette King: If an increase of 2.6 percent is OK by him, how does he explain the insufficient funding being given to the Canterbury District Health Board for mental health services to cope with an increasing number of cases of people suffering mental trauma arising from the earthquakes?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There is not insufficient funding. I was down in Canterbury at the start of November. I announced an injection of an extra $13 million to that district health board, part of which would be used for mental health services at the discretion of the chief executive officer. So that member might run her political argument, but it is not the truth.

Hon Annette King: Is he denying that he has been told that Canterbury District Health Board mental health figures show that child and youth cases are up 67 percent, rural adult cases are up 80 percent, and adult psychiatric assessments at emergency departments are up 102 percent since 2012, increases that are way out of line with other district health boards?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to check those figures, but I can tell the member that I was meeting with the Mayor of Christchurch this morning and I was down in Canterbury last week, making an announcement. The fact is, obviously, that there have been unusual pressures in Canterbury over the last 5 years. The Government has supported the people of Canterbury with an extra $70 million on top of the extra $254 million that has gone in over the last 7 years, and it is up to the chief executive to make sure that he provides, within that budget, the services that the people of Canterbury need.

Hon Annette King: In light of some people recognising demand and circumstances in Canterbury, why is mental health funding at the Canterbury District Health Board significantly below the national average for mental health services, as highlighted by the chief executive at the select committee yesterday?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would absolutely dispute that. I mean, the fact is that mental health funding is ring-fenced. There have been extra injections of funding into Canterbury—an extra $70 million. Also, we have had special programmes to actually promote awareness around mental health issues down there. More and more money has gone into Canterbury—an extra $254 million over 7 years. It is a huge budget, and the chief executive has to make decisions at his discretion in order to provide the services that people down there need. It is a far cry from when Annette King injected another $3 billion and delivered less.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wonder whether you could give a ruling later as to whether this year we are going to have the Minister bringing up at the end of his answers, in all his answers, the fact that I was a Minister 11 years ago, in order to justify his own inadequacy.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a good point, and the last part of the answer from the Minister was not going to help the order of the House. On this occasion, I was possibly more lenient than normal, in that in the very primary question the member asking the question has actually taken the opportunity to bring into the question the previous Government’s record. So I think that gives a little more leeway to the Minister, but I would also be grateful if the Minister could refrain from normally putting in a flick at a previous health Minister towards the end of his answer. [Interruption] Order! I am not going to put up with that amount of interjection coming from my right-hand side. Supplementary question to be asked by the member. Otherwise, we will move on.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Government turn a blind eye to the request for an additional $4.1 million for mental health services in Canterbury 2 years ago, and even as recently as 2 months ago the director-general was told by the district health board: “There is an increased demand, particularly for women, children, youth, and new entrants to school who are demonstrating developmental delay and parental distress.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, that is absolutely incorrect. I mean, I was down there in November announcing the extra $13 million, and that is more than ample to cover the $4 million that Canterbury said was necessary to cover mental health demands. So you have got to get your facts straight.

Hon Annette King: Why is the Minister not aware that the $16 million he gave to the district health board was not, in fact, for mental health services but was, in fact, for deficit support; not for additional mental health services? I would have thought he would know that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, that is totally incorrect. That is money that the chief executive can use at his discretion to fund the services that the people of Canterbury need. Those are the facts.

Hon Annette King: Why is the Ministry of Health not passing on information to the district health board about detainees arriving from Australia with mental health problems, who are adding to the burden for under-funded mental health services in that region?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, all that bluster sounds like a great conspiracy, but in actual fact, there are very clear lines of communication between the ministry and the Canterbury District Health Board, and to suggest otherwise is totally mischievous. You know that.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table, from 26 January this year, a hospital advisory committee meeting report saying—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! In tabling documents, a member is required [Interruption]—hold on—to nominate what the document is and give us the date, both of which were done, but it is not an opportunity to then detail the contents. I will now put the leave, and the House will decide.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You must, surely, want a little bit of an idea about what it is about. It could be about any old thing.

Mr SPEAKER: I have got enough of an idea, and it is actually more for my information as to whether I put the leave. The House will decide whether it wants the information. But, as we had yesterday on one occasion, the tabling of documents is not an opportunity to make political points; it is about informing members. Members have enough information, I am sure, for what is being given. It does not need to be described further. I will put the leave. The House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular medical information dated 26 January. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, I would like you to consider this, because the reason why I wanted to table it—if you listen, the Minister disputed that I was telling the truth.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have put the leave, the document will be tabled, and that is the end of the matter. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Hon Annette King: No, I think I have used them all.

Economic Outlook—Growth and Risks

2. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the outlook for the New Zealand economy, and how does this compare with other developed countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): There is quite a lot of international uncertainty at the moment, ranging from concerns about the European banking system, emerging market capital flows, and continued lower commodity prices. However, the New Zealand economy remains on track for further solid growth in 2016. It is now in its 7th consecutive year of expansion, and Treasury is forecasting growth to average over 2.5 percent per year through to 2020. The Reserve Bank is forecasting 2.8 percent growth over the next 3 years, and 173,000 more jobs. New Zealand compares well with other developed countries, with forecast growth expected to be in line with Australia and to exceed most other developed countries.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: In view of recent international developments, what are some of the risks to the domestic economic outlook?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Global economic uncertainty could certainly have some flow-on consequences to the New Zealand economy, although they are not all negative. For instance, weak commodity prices have made it considerably cheaper for families to fill up the car, at the same time as reducing dairy sector returns. The Chinese economy is expected to continue slowing; however, its transition to consumption-based growth continues, and that is positive for our tourism and agriculture. Uncertainty around the impact of US interest rates beginning to rise may also reflect on our economy. However, domestic data remains fairly positive and suggests that further solid growth will occur in 2016.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How well placed is the New Zealand economy to manage downside risks to the economic outlook?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I suspect we are going to continue to get a fairly solid flow of news about the downside risks to the global economy, but it was noted by the IMF yesterday that New Zealand is well placed to manage through global and domestic uncertainty. It points out the Government’s balance sheet is fairly strong and its accounts near balanced, our credit rating remains strong, the financial sector is sound, and although house prices have risen further than we would like, they have not led to a credit boom. As a result of this, average wages are rising faster than inflation, lower interest rates are helping first-home buyers, and there is steady, if not rising, consumer business confidence.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What steps is the Government taking to support growth and improve resilience in the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the more recent higher-profile steps was agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and it is good to note, finally, the support of the Labour Party for the TPP deal—as of yesterday; it could be different now. But the Government intends to stick to its position. Having agreed to the deal, we will see it through. The other step the Government is taking is investing in infrastructure, with clear plans laid out publicly for $50 billion of investment over the next 10 years.

Housing New Zealand—Warrant of Fitness Scheme Report, Response

3. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: What assurances can he give that the remediation work needed on the estimated 57,500 non-compliant houses, as identified in the 2014 Trial of Rental Housing Warrant of Fitness Scheme report, will be carried out as a matter of priority?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC): I can give the member that assurance. I just want to point out, though, that the warrant of fitness trial covered 400 houses and included 49 criteria that set a very high threshold for quality. So, for instance, a house could be one of the projected 60,000 non-compliant houses if it has one weak security latch on a window, or if one light switch is not actually working. I am pleased to report that on each criterion, the criterion was met in 95 percent of cases. With regard to any urgent risks, Housing New Zealand properties are responded to within 4 hours. There is a 95 percent success rate on meeting the 4-hour criterion where there is an urgent need. From 1 July this year all Housing New Zealand properties receiving an income-related rent subsidy must have ceiling and underfloor insulation, and all residential rental properties in the country must have smoke alarms. All State homes, where practicable, have already been insulated.

Marama Fox: Given the answer that the Minister has provided, with 60,000 of those homes needing urgent repair, will the upcoming Budget reflect the Government’s assurance that the remainder of those repairs will be completed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That process is under way. The Government does not specifically budget the housing maintenance programme; that is done by Housing New Zealand in its capacity as an independent entity. So it is certainly dealing with the urgent cases within 4 hours. It will be making some trade-offs. It has put a high priority on warm, healthy homes, so it tends to be dealing as a highest priority not with the home with the broken window latch but with the home with the family in it where children are showing signs of ill health and where it can act urgently to upgrade that home. It is spending in excess of $100 billion this year on that project.

Marama Fox: Given that we are still receiving reports of families who are living in substandard quality housing experiencing rats, mould, and other such issues, can the Government assure those families that it will act with urgency, as it has in upgrading the latest Ministry of Education building to the tune of $20 million?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been pointed out, the upgrade to the Ministry of Education building is part of making very substantial savings in the costs of housing the Public Service. In fact, I think the Ministry of Education as a result has reduced its footprint by 30 percent. That allows us then to take money that was wasted on excessive accommodation for public servants and turn it into real services for the families that the member mentions. Housing New Zealand is not doing a perfect job of meeting the needs of every single family, but, as I said, it has allocated a large proportion of its budget to dealing with those families who have question marks over the health of the housing they are in.

Roading, Auckland—East-West Connection

4. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has the Government made recently on the East-West Connection roading project in Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Onehunga-Penrose area is the engine room of New Zealand’s industrial and manufacturing economy, and, along with East Tāmaki and Auckland Airport, employs over 130,000 people and generates $10 billion in GDP a year. It is for those reasons that the Prime Minister recently announced the East-West roading connection, estimated to cost somewhere between $1.25 billion and $1.85 billion, as a project of national significance. This means that the project will go through a streamlined consenting process later this year to bring forward its construction, so work can start as early as 2018.

Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How will the nationally significant East-West connection project benefit Auckland?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, the projected growth rates of Auckland, particularly at Auckland Airport, Manukau City, and East Tāmaki - Botany, will generate greater demand for cross-city, east-west traffic. The East-West roading connection, which will link the south-western motorway and the southern motorway, will tackle congestion and provide more reliable travel and freight times in and out of the Onehunga-Penrose industrial area. It will also provide much better access between the eastern suburbs and the airport. That is why the planned connection is a real priority for Auckland, and the Government is committed to completing this nationally significant project as quickly as possible.

Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What other priority roading projects is the Government delivering in Auckland to support the city’s growth?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, as the member will well know, there are many. The Government is committed to Auckland’s transport system to ensure that the city remains a great place to live and do business. Over the next 3 years, $4.2 billion will be invested in transport in and around Auckland. This includes completing the western ring route, opening the $1.4 billion Waterview Connection, ongoing construction of the $1.3 billion Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative, $268 million to upgrade parts of the southern motorway, and starting construction of upgrades on the northern motorway in 2018. All of these projects, I think, underscore the Government’s strong backing of Auckland to succeed.

Julie Anne Genter: Is he confident that spending $1.25 billion to $1.85 billion on a stand-alone highway is the most cost-effective way to address freight mobility in that part of Auckland; if so, why?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Without question, because, unlike the member, we actually think there is still a role in the future for cars and trucks.

Julie Anne Genter: How can he be confident that it is the best solution, when the indicative business case undertaken by his Government shows that there are other road improvement solutions that achieve the same or better time-travel savings at a fraction of the price—$500 million?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I simply do not accept that, but there are many reasons why I am highly confident that this is the right and the best solution. They range from the technical data, through to the wide and varied press releases and support from every conceivable business outfit that Auckland has to offer.

Julie Anne Genter: So is he saying that his Government judges the cost-effectiveness of a solution based on the press releases of supportive businesses rather than the objective analysis undertaken by his Government, where it shows that there is a solution that will achieve these same time-travel saving benefits for freight and cars at a fraction of the price, $500 million?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member did not listen to my answer and all of what I said. I think what is true is that the member and her party are blinded by ideology when it comes to transport. This Government takes a balanced approach, and is investing in rail, roads, and cycleways, because we are the Government of infrastructure that is making a difference in this country.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister acknowledge that if his Government shows the more cost-effective roading upgrade option, we would get exactly the same or better time-travel savings for freight in the area, the same environmental benefits, and we would have an additional billion dollars that could be spent on other transport improvements in Auckland, like—

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

Julie Anne Genter: —like extending rail to Mount Roskill, electrifying rail between Papakura and Pukekohe, extending the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative busway into Ellerslie and Manukau, and have change left over?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There is so much there, but can I just say that we take cost-effectiveness incredibly seriously, as we do matters of the environment and the like. That is why this road—it may surprise the member to know—will take much better public transport in terms of the bussing and so on, and will be cycleway-enabled. And I think it is going to make an incredible difference to productivity as well as environmental outcomes in Auckland and, actually, for New Zealand, given its very significant national significance.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this analysis by the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just assure me that it is not available on a website.

Julie Anne Genter: Well, it does not seem the Minister has read it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That in itself brings this House into disorder.

Government Financial Position—Crown Debt

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: When the Prime Minister said in his statement to Parliament this week that there is now a $17 billion shortfall from Budget 2015, leading to “slightly higher debt”, exactly how much higher net and gross debt is now forecast, and when will that debt peak?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I am glad the member has caught up on this. If he had done his own work, he would have found that that was announced publicly in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. Lower than expected economic growth in 2015 combined with weaker inflation means that tax revenue is expected to be slightly lower than was forecast in the 2015 Budget. This means that net debt is now expected to peak at 27.7 percent of GDP in 2016-17. The previous peak was forecast back in 2015 as 26.3 percent. Net debt is still expected to fall to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the Minister has interpreted that question in a particular way, but it did ask about net and gross debt. I did not actually hear the gross debt numbers.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to complete just that phase of the answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just thought the member was losing concentration.

Mr SPEAKER: I will just have the answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Gross debt is forecast to peak at 37.5 percent of GDP in 2016-17. The Budget 2015 forecast showed a peak at 35.6 percent of GDP. But I might say to the member, as I often say to the media when they ask about these numbers, that it is just another Treasury forecast. It is about to start on reforecasting for Budget 2016, and it is possible that those numbers will change.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, issued after the House rose last year, actually shows that nominal net debt will be $6 billion greater, when it peaks in 2017, than was forecast in the Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It could be something like that. That number will be generated by a combination of lower tax revenue and higher capital investment levels, as the Government also indicated in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. It increased its capital allowance for this next year by around a billion dollars. So on the current Treasury forecast, debt will be up compared with where we thought it would be; on the next Treasury forecast, debt could be down again. But, generally, it is headed towards a peak and then coming down.

Grant Robertson: Can he in fact confirm that he has overseen New Zealand’s net debt rising by more than $50 billion, and that on these forecasts he is set to break the $60 billion increase level some 5 years after he declared that the financial crisis would have been over?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is absolutely no doubt net debt has risen, and that is because on Planet Earth, as opposed to “Planet Labour”, we had a major recession and a $17 billion contribution to rebuilding Christchurch. The way we are getting debt to stop rising and to drop is to do all the things the member opposes—that is, control spending; shrink the footprint of the Public Service by rationalising their accommodation, which the Labour Party has opposed vigorously in the last few days; and otherwise dig into the long-term driver of Government costs, which is social dysfunction.

Chris Bishop: How do Treasury’s latest forecasts on Government debt compare with its forecast just after the National-led Government was elected?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The latest Treasury forecasts for net debt show that it is expected to fall to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020—that is, 20 percent of GDP by 2020. This is in stark contrast to the forecast prepared before this Government’s first Budget, Budget 2009, where Treasury projected never-ending deficits and net debt at 60 percent of GDP. That is three times the level that we are now headed to. That, of course, is what happens when you increase spending by 50 percent in 5 years, as the previous Labour Government did.

Grant Robertson: What level of net debt did the National Government inherit on coming into office in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What it inherited were Treasury forecasts—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked. I want to hear the answer, but I cannot possibly hear it—[Interruption] Well, if the members also want to hear the answer that is good news, so they can be quiet and we can all hear the answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: OK, well, the member should listen very carefully. I think that in around Budget 2008 the Labour Government forecast net debt of around, I think, 8 percent. By early 2009 the combination of the global financial crisis and the re-estimate of the huge spending blow-outs of the Labour Government meant we were headed to net debt of 60 percent of GDP. That is when we got to work.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question, and the Minister of Finance did not answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot be sure on this occasion. I was listening carefully but I had a barrage of interjection continuing on my left, and whether it was answered accurately or not, I cannot tell. If the member had assisted me to get silence when I asked for it—by less interjection from his own members—I would, on this occasion, possibly have been able to help him.

Grant Robertson: It was close to zero, by the way, Bill. What price per tonne of whole-milk powder has been factored into the calculation that there is now a $17 billion shortfall from Budget 2015?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot give the member that figure off the top of my head, but I can characterise the forecasts. When they were done back in November, Fonterra had forecast a significant uplift reasonably quickly in that price. Both Treasury and the Reserve Bank took a more conservative view, and they do not forecast the price as rising much above where they are until later on in 2016. It is possible that the most recent decreases, the price level it decreased to in the last couple of weeks, is a bit lower than what is in the forecast.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, is it correct that in Budget 2015 a whole-milk price of US$3,900 per metric tonne was given, and that it is now, on the latest auction price, US$1,952 per metric tonne, and how much of that drop has been factored into the forecast?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would say most of it, if the member is looking for an answer, but I would have to go back to inquire of Treasury about the detail. But the member would simply be giving the wrong impression if he is suggesting that the forecasts prior to Christmas that underpinned the $17 billion reduction in GDP are way above current milk prices, because they will not be way above it.

Grant Robertson: Can he in fact confirm that the price per tonne of whole-milk powder that has been used to calculate the $17 billion shortfall is in fact a substantially higher amount than the current price?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can go and check exactly the numbers against the price this week, but the member is in the habit of picking in any week or any day the most negative number he can find and then comparing that with a forecast that was actually made 2 or 3 months ago. In this case, the whole-milk powder price has fallen in recent weeks. Some other dairy product prices have gone up. It could go up again next week. Treasury is about to redo its forecasts and it will use the most up-to-date information. The most up-to-date information will include the boom in tourist numbers—

Hon Nathan Guy: Manufacturing.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The record growth in manufacturing, now, I think, is in its 40th month since the member declared a crisis. So although dairy prices—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was answered right at the start.

Grant Robertson: Will the Minister of Finance commit today that the figure of a $17 billion shortfall from Budget 2015 includes a price for whole-milk powder that reflects the current price?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Almost by definition it could not, because the forecasts were done in November last year and as part of his extensive work, the member may have noticed that a lot of things have happened since then. That is why Treasury is about to redo the forecasts and it will take into account the best current information. In the face of global uncertainty, New Zealand is fortunate that dairy is not as big a proportion of the economy as the member seems to think it is. It is not going well. Other parts of the economy are going well, and that is why real wages are rising and more new jobs are being created.

Tourism—Growth

6. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he seen about the number of tourists that visited New Zealand over the summer season?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Tourism) on behalf of the Minister of Tourism: The tourism sector continued its very impressive growth last year with a record 3.13 million visitors coming to New Zealand—up 10 percent from 2014. Summer was particularly busy with 445,000 visitors—the highest-ever monthly figure visiting in December alone. It was also, of course, the month that Taylor Swift visited, took a fantastic selfie, said that the players are “gonna play, play, play”, the haters “hate, hate, hate” but she was “love, love, loving New Zealand”.

Tim Macindoe: What kind of contribution are international visitors making to the economy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Not only are more people visiting but they are spending more as well. Last year international tourists are estimated to have spent $11.8 billion in New Zealand. There is the cruise sector where currently P and O have got a cruise ship in Auckland that is staying for the next 5 months and doing trips around New Zealand dropping in to ports like of course Napier, Picton, Akaroa, Tauranga, and Wellington. Here you can see a cruise ship most days—

Hon Member: Timaru.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Timaru, I can hear my colleague saying. It is just another example of a great industry that is growing and great for New Zealand.

Tim Macindoe: What is the Government doing to ensure tourists visit regional New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I tell you what: supporting regional tourism is absolutely a priority and it is one of those industries where we can ensure that we have got visitors going throughout New Zealand and that more can be done. Just last week the Minister for Economic Development, Mr Joyce, here announced $4 million in funding for the construction of the Hundertwasser Art Centre and the gallery in Whangarei. What a great attraction that has the potential to be—bringing people into that region and giving them another experience. I do not even need to talk about the cycleways, but why would I not? On top of the more than $50 million invested so far, we are seeing more of those visitors here going into greater regions in New Zealand, spending their money, and of course having a fantastic time.

Student Achievement—Socio-economic Factors

7. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the findings of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Report that “the socio-economic status of students is probably the most important risk factor associated with low academic performance”?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: The Government is pleased with this report, as it reinforces the general approach that there is a range of risk factors involved with student achievement to help our most vulnerable students. However, I do not agree with the member that the statement that she references is an exact finding of the report. If she looks at the executive summary, she will see that the report says analyses show that “Poor performance at age 15 is not the result of any single factor, but rather of a combination and accumulation of various barriers and disadvantages”.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister dispute the findings from the report and the quote that “the socio-economic status of students is probably the most important risk for children in their academic achievement”? That is what the report said.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: As I said in my first answer, I do not agree that it is a specific finding of the report. There are recommendations in the report, which I am happy to take the member through, and further supplementaries on what the Government is doing in terms of those recommendations, but I think that if you read the report—the 212 pages of it—it looks at all of the risk factors working together. Minister Parata has just been in Gisborne today announcing a new programme called Year 9 Plus, which takes into account the range of risk factors, and we believe that is the best approach.

Metiria Turei: Why did the percentage of New Zealand kids in the poorest households who were performing at the lowest levels increase from 28 percent to 42 percent between 2009 and 2012, under this Government?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I would have to look at the specific—

Metiria Turei: You said you had the specific report.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Well, I would have to look at the specific figures that she is quoting, but what I can say to the member is that when you look at the report and the cohort of children that is being considered in the data, a lot of these children actually started school in 2003. Since that time, our Government has been very focused on supporting our most vulnerable kids, from the fact that we have been investing in, obviously, breakfast in schools—6 million breakfasts for children. We have been focused on Māori and Pacific achievement. We have more children, more Māori and Pacific young people, than ever before in early childhood education, so my point is that since 2003 we have had huge initiatives focusing on our most vulnerable.

Metiria Turei: Given that the report shows that most other OECD countries have managed to break the link between socio-economic background and educational achievement, why has the Minister and this Government failed to do so for New Zealand kids?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I do not agree with the statement that the member has just made. In fact, there is a statement in the report—I will get her the quote after I leave the House, if she likes—where it says it is very important to acknowledge that there is real diversity in each of the different nations that are being compared. And, actually, I think a key aspect of this report is saying: “Let’s look at the specific risk factors rather than have a simplistic debate.” Let us look at the fact that it does matter in terms of language, it does matter in terms of access to food, and it does matter in terms of good teachers. We have to take a much more complex approach. These are complex issues, and our children deserve that we do that.

David Seymour: Is it not also true that the same report says, and recommends, that countries’ education systems “identify low performance”; and what is this Government doing about that?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I do note that one of the recommendations of the report is that we actually need to know where these children who are specifically low performing are. One of the key initiatives that we have implemented, which has been opposed by Opposition parties, is national standards. We know where these children are, we are now resourcing more than ever before where we need to in numeracy and literacy, and we are putting more resource into them. We would not be able to do that if we did not have national standards.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister dispute the OECD finding that in New Zealand the very poorest kids are more than six times as likely to do badly in maths as the very richest kids in this country?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I will make three points. The first is that we welcome this report, because we actually believe all of the recommendations. We are doing a whole lot of things to address those recommendations. The second thing I would say is that we do not agree with the member that the statement that she quotes is a key finding of the report. And the third point that I would make is that my understanding is it is not six times; it is three times. Finally, we want to work together to make sure that we continue to invest in order to help our most vulnerable students.

Metiria Turei: Why is this yet another Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have the question, please.

Metiria Turei: —thank you—who is choosing to override the very clear evidence that poverty-related effects on children mean that they are failing to perform as expected? Those poverty-related effects are things like cold, damp homes and not having enough food and insecure housing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now the question is going on for too long. Bring the question to a conclusion.

Metiria Turei: —in the policies that this Government is making and the failure to address the needs of those children. Why are you refusing to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I just do not agree with the statements that the member has made. We said we welcome the report. Actually, there is a lot more that we need to continue to do to help our most vulnerable students, and we have done more than any other Government, actually. Whether it is insulating homes for some of our most disadvantaged New Zealanders, whether it is raising benefits, which will kick in in April, whether it is targeting Māori and Pacific students, or whether it is breakfast in schools—6 million of them—we are doing that. And I think that this report actually confirms, when you look at all the recommendations, that it is a complex area and you need to address all of the risk factors—not quote things like “it’s about poverty”, but look at the real detail and address that specifically.

Radio New Zealand—Board Appointments

8. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Is she satisfied there is no conflict of interest in recent appointments to the board of Radio New Zealand?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Broadcasting): Yes.

Clare Curran: Did she provide certification to Cabinet regarding conflicts of interest for Bill Francis, in accordance with Cabinet guidelines, when appointing him to the board of Radio New Zealand?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Yes.

Clare Curran: Why did she ask Cabinet to approve Bill Francis’ appointment to the board of Radio New Zealand when he had a clear conflict of interest as chief executive of the Radio Broadcasters Association, which represents commercial broadcasters and is in competition with Radio New Zealand for listeners?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Because he finishes that role before taking up the appointment.

Clare Curran: Why was Mr Francis’ position as chief executive of the Radio Broadcasters Association not flagged as a conflict of interest during the appointment process, and how can she realistically expect someone who represents commercial broadcasting in one role to manage a conflict of interest in another role governing a competing State broadcaster?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Because he does not, and it was flagged.

Regional Economic Development—Northland

9. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made about economic development in Northland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Last week, alongside a number of other ministerial colleagues, I launched the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan at a function of around 150 community and business leaders in the Bay of Islands. The plan identifies 58 actions that will help increase growth in the region, prioritising infrastructure improvements relating to transport, digital, skills and capability, and water. Nothing generates sustainable, higher-paying jobs and boosts the standard of living better than business confidence and business investment. The plan, which was generated by local government, business, and community leaders working with central government, will build confidence amongst potential investors and will lead to more and higher-paying jobs for the people of Northland.

Mark Mitchell: Why has the Government made Northland the focus of an economic action plan?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand will not be able to realise its full economic potential until all our regions are thriving. Although Northland has shown good progress recently, with nearly 4,000 more people in employment now than 2 years ago, and an unemployment rate down to 6.2 percent, which is the lowest it has been since the previous Government led the country into recession, over many decades and several Governments the region has not reached its full economic potential. The Government is therefore working with the local iwi, central government, local government agencies, and Northland businesses. They are all working together to put together a plan that we are all confident will lead to a step change in economic activity in the region over the next decade.

Dr Shane Reti: What economic development opportunities does the economic action plan set out?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are 58 projects, a number of which are getting under way. For example, critical infrastructure like ultra-fast broadband, airport improvements—

Hon Member: What about the election promise of sealing roads?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, new bridges and roading upgrades; the Hundertwasser Art Centre and the Wairau Māori Art Gallery in Whangarei, to which the Government has committed $4 million to help construct; new tertiary providers working in the region, like the Queenstown Resort College, to get more young people into training and employment in the tourism sector; better use of Māori land to encourage more farming, horticulture, and forestry, and high-value products like mānuka honey; and of course other projects like trading more with the world, which is why trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Korean free-trade agreement are so important to regions such as Northland.

Tracey Martin: Kia ora. How does the Minister reconcile his Government’s promise to Northlanders to upgrade 10 single-lane bridges, when only three of those bridges are funded and the Northland economic action plan does not even mention a bridge?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is mistaken with the second part of her question. Actually, the upgrading of the Twin Coast Discovery Highway, including bridges, is very clearly in the economic action plan. It is a reasonably short booklet, but if she would like to read it again, I am happy to show her where it is. With regard to the other part of the question, that commitment is over a 6-year period. We have already stepped up, with three bridges. The fourth is coming. There are three to be investigated. I will tell you what. This Government will deliver those bridges in Northland. Northlanders will know it, and they will be very positive about that achievement.

Tracey Martin: How can Northlanders trust a word he says, when the Wellsford to Warkworth motorway has no indicative route, and yet the Northland economic action plan, on page 12—for the Minister—says it will be delivered within 5 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, I think the member needs to have another look at the report because the report refers to the Pūhoi to Warkworth section being delivered within 5 years, and that is the construction that is taking place. The Warkworth to Wellsford section is the second part of that. The report also refers to four-laning the highway to Whangarei, which is being investigated now by the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Government. That would be a very big commitment to the region. Can I say to the member that picking on a Government is fine on a number of things, but on roading in Northland we will be shown to have done more for Northland than any other Government.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I offer the Minister page 12—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! No, you cannot.

Border Control—Illegal Drug Interception

10. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Customs: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No. 11 in the House yesterday?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): Yes.

Rino Tirikatene: Why did she say that quantifying the proportion of drugs intercepted at the border is “impossible to answer”, when the National Drug Intelligence Bureau said in 2009 that 16 to 20 percent of drugs were being seized at the border?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: It is always a speculation on what percentage of drugs are seized at the border. It is impossible for anyone, including the member’s anonymous source, to measure exactly what is brought in. Contrary to all other importers, drug smugglers do not tell us what they are bringing in.

Rino Tirikatene: Does she have any updated figures that disprove the fact that the drug interception rate has deteriorated to one in 10 under her Government’s watch?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I have as much information as your sources, to make that statement. As I have said, the facts that underpin are the facts that we have got interceptions at record levels, the number of P users is going down from 2.2 percent to less than 1 percent, and the price of P has remained stable and high.

Rino Tirikatene: How is the Customs Service meant to catch drug traffickers when as few as seven officers operate at Auckland International Airport on a night shift, seeing up to 2,000 passengers an hour?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Eighty percent of customs officers work at the border. Our customs officers are very skilled, and with our recent investment of $6.6 million into SmartGate, the vast majority of routine customers can go through that process, and so our customs officers are there to manage high-risk passengers and goods.

Rino Tirikatene: How can she say that the Customs Service is doing a good job stopping drug trafficking when the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says the price of methamphetamine in 2015 was lower than it was in 2014, and its availability and purity has increased?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: That is not correct. The price fluctuates but it has maintained very stably since 2008, and it has remained very high. And it is very interesting that we, with Australia, are very high in the world, and that in Australia, which has just given its latest information, it is less than ours.

Road Safety—Overseas Drivers and Rental Vehicle Companies

11. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Is he satisfied with the rate and seriousness of accidents involving overseas drivers, in light of the work the Government is doing to target overseas drivers?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Transport): I am never satisfied with the rate and seriousness of accidents that occur on our roads involving any driver whether they are from New Zealand or afar. We want everyone to be safe on our roads, and that is why we are investing more in road safety measures, increasing the numbers of signage in tourist areas, and providing more information to visiting drivers to better educate them on New Zealand driving conditions. This complements the work that is being done by industry organisations such as the Rental Vehicle Association of New Zealand and the Tourism Industry Association. We will continue to invest in making our drivers more informed, better prepared, and able to drive safely on our roads.

Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister accept that some rental car operators are not making a genuine effort to ensure the competence of drivers whom they hire vehicles to; if so, what will he do about it?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I do note that the Rental Vehicle Association of New Zealand has about 70 or 80 percent of the rental fleet as its members. There are some rental companies out there that are currently not members of the association, and, therefore, are not part of the code of conduct it is trying to bring in to assist visiting drivers. So what am I doing about it? I am continually working with the Rental Vehicle Association of New Zealand so that it will enforce it amongst its members, and continue to increase the numbers of those who are participating in the positive code of conduct. By and large, it is working.

Denis O’Rourke: What has he got to say about the recently observed practice of some rental car operators instructing overseas drivers to falsely complete questionnaires to confirm familiarity with New Zealand roads and traffic laws, even after the driver has stated that they are not familiar with them?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Yes, I saw that comment in the member’s press release, and I suggest that that member with that information talk to the Rental Vehicle Association of New Zealand, confront that rental vehicle company, and tell it about the safety issues that the member is rightly concerned about.

Denis O’Rourke: Will the Minister adopt my member’s bill to make rental car operators vicariously liable for accidents caused by drivers, if it can be proved that they have not taken reasonable and practical steps to ensure the competence of the drivers and their familiarity with New Zealand traffic laws and roads; if not, why not?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: As recent court cases would have shown, I expect and continue to expect that the drivers of vehicles who cause accidents are held responsible and accountable and are punished, where necessary, for their actions. I am not transferring that liability to some other organisation.

Denis O’Rourke: Will the Minister adopt my member’s bill to also require rental car operators to hire only vehicles complying with the Australasian New Car Assessment Program’s 5-star safety rating, including autonomous emergency braking, a blind-spot monitoring system, and a lane-support system to warn drivers if they stray from a lane; if not, why not?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am glad the member asked that question. The member’s bill and the member’s press release do not actually line up. The member’s press release says all drivers including New Zealanders would be subject to that; the member’s bill promotes something else. But what the member’s bill proposes would result in, actually, only the latest-model BMWs and European cars over $100,000—whatever they are—to be allowed to be rented out in New Zealand, and, quite possibly, would raise costs for renting vehicles for all New Zealanders and all tourists. So if the member wants to raise costs for all rentals in New Zealand—over a million rentals a year—and create a fleet of only the flashest, latest BMWs that have the things that he prescribes, then he can go for it.

Denis O’Rourke: Is the Minister aware that some overseas driver’s licences can be purchased without a robust driving test? What will he do to invalidate those licences for use in New Zealand?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: If a driver’s licence that is presented to an operator or an authority in New Zealand is found to be fraudulent or not valid, then the rental company can take that—

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister must have misunderstood the question—

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a fair call. I will invite the member to ask the question again.

Denis O’Rourke: Is the Minister aware that some overseas driver’s licences can be purchased without a robust driving test? What will he do to invalidate those licences for use in New Zealand?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have heard reports along those lines, particularly last year. I note the visiting drivers issue is ongoing at this time of the season. In respect of issues around accusations of driver’s licences being purchased and used potentially fraudulently in New Zealand, first of all, the rental companies have a code of conduct where they compare and check licences that are approved in New Zealand. There must be an English version of those licences. So there is not one silver bullet in this space; there are a whole lot of initiatives in this visiting drivers’ space. I appreciate and acknowledge the good intent of the member’s bill, but events have by and large bypassed that bill.

Wine Industry—Growth

12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the growth in wine exports?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recent reports show that New Zealand wine exports have reached a new record high of $1.54 billion for the 2015 year. This is up 14 percent on the previous year. New Zealand wine is exported to more than 90 countries, and it is our sixth largest export sector. In the last year we have seen significant growth in the US, up around 26 percent; Canada, up 18 percent; and the UK, up 12 percent—very impressive growth indeed.

Stuart Smith: How is the Government supporting the growth in the wine industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The Government has partnered with industry in a $17 million Primary Growth Partnership programme, Lifestyle Wines. This is developing low-alcohol, low-calorie wines, and it is the largest ever research and development project in our wine industry. Of course, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will have massive benefits for the wine industry. TPP countries account for around 60 percent of our overall wine exports. The TPP ensures that tariffs on wine exports to these countries will be eliminated. This will generate savings of around $10 million per year for our local wine growers.

Stuart Smith: What reports has he received on the importance of the TPP agreement to the wine industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. The local wine industry is hugely buoyed by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Wine Marlborough’s general manager, Marcus Pickens, states that “If you give consumers a New Zealand wine over the rest of the world, I’d like to think that they’d choose us.” New Zealand Winegrowers’ chief executive, Philip Gregan, said: “This is an excellent outcome for the New Zealand wine industry. Finalising the TPP is strategically very important for our export future”. He goes on to add that the “TPP will undoubtedly help the wine industry reach our goal of $2 billion of exports by 2020”. He went on to say: “We congratulate the Government and the negotiators for their hard work, and the very positive outcome they have achieved.”

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 10 February.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is great to be back in Parliament and the Government, and I think New Zealand is looking forward to a fantastic year in New Zealand. Can I just wish you every success this year, Mr Speaker, after, I am sure, a refreshing break. Can I also, on a personal note, offer my heartfelt congratulations to Simon O’Connor, the National member of Parliament for Tāmaki. Can I actually offer him my thanks as well for his engagement to my sister Rachel. I can confirm there have been no promises of special transport deals for his electorate, but I do wish him very well. As I think Stuff said yesterday, it is good to keep it in the family, and that is, I think, what we are doing here.

Can I just say that what is very clear in the pre-Parliament posturing that we have seen this year in politics is the absolute contrast that there is between the parties in this House in the lead-up. On one side, I think we have a Government that is very confident, that is optimistic about New Zealand and about its place in the world, and that accepts that there are risks, and that good people, competent people like Chris Finlayson and Gerry Brownlee—I just said competent, by the way; I did not go too much further than that—are leading. We are fundamentally optimistic and confident about where we are going as a country in the world, while the other parties—it seems to me it does not go too far to say—are fearful about our role in the world and want to retrench, want to be inward-looking, and want to in a sense hark back to those sort of Muldoonist days, when the last one out was supposed to turn out the lights.

Denis O’Rourke: That was National Party.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That is not a vision that New Zealanders—Denis O’Rourke—want to buy into. They do not want to be defensive. They do not want to be fearful.

I think, actually, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) debate that we have seen is really a symbol, albeit an incredibly important one for New Zealand, of that. We think, on this side of the House, that the left fundamentally miscalculated that, first, because TPP is so good for New Zealand—the benefits for New Zealand and provincial New Zealand are so strong—but also in terms of the politics of it. We say on that, bring it on. And can I say, as a provincial member of Parliament representing Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty, along with Anne Tolley; Todd McClay, the trade Minister, who, of course, will be working so hard on these matters; and Todd Muller, an ex-agricultural executive who knows a lot about these things, that we are absolutely firm in the feedback we are getting. I know from talking with Ms Tolley and with the others that feedback is so strong on this TPP. They are so supportive of it in the Bay of Plenty, and I know, as well, that that is the message going out from provincial New Zealand all around the country. That is why we hold the seats, and that is why the MP for Napier, who is not here right now, and the MP for West Coast - Tasman will be sheepish on this issue, because I know the feedback they will be getting from their constituents.

If you just take the Western Bay of Plenty, where I reside, it runs on an increasing number of things, but a small number of things. Sue Moroney is laughing. I hope she stays for the speech, because I have got a few things to say to her a little later on. But in the Western Bay of Plenty—kiwifruit going so strongly—they are at one in supporting TPP. They know that it is worth $6,000 a grower—$1,000 a hectare. And it is not just those areas. Nathan Guy talked about wine in the south in answer to questions just a little while ago. That is not something, at least in terms of production, that people think about when they think about the Western Bay of Plenty, but there are wine labels in our area that have been trying for years to get into the US. They are very excited about the tariffs coming off in this area and the flow-on effects in a buoyant economy.

Tomorrow in Tauranga I will be opening a new addition to a very substantial auto dealership—a new part of that. That is really a symptom of a buoyant economy, where people are doing well and the effects of strong kiwifruit growth and property construction are flying through.

Over and above all of that, though, can I just back everything the Prime Minister has said and reinforce what a busy programme and agenda this Government, on this side of the House, has this year. Certainly it is true in my portfolios. I am really excited about—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Mine, too.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And true in Chris Finlayson’s. That is just because he likes to be busy, but enough of that. In transport, in aviation, in maritime, in land transport, and also in energy, we will be putting bills before this House making very good progress.

Denis O’Rourke: How about the other seven bridges?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They are, Mr O’Rourke, great portfolios—

Denis O’Rourke: Are they illusory bridges? Are they mirage bridges?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —because unlike Mr O’Rourke, where it is all talk on that side of the House, we are a Government that is doing significant infrastructure. We are the Government and the party—the National Party—of infrastructure. We are getting on with the job in an unprecedented fashion, with quality investment all over the country, Mr O’Rourke, from the top of Northland right down to the bottom of the South Island. If you want some evidence of that, I suggest that members look at the National Land Transport Fund programme and funding over the last several years. Actually, it went from around $1 billion in the early 2000s—

Denis O’Rourke: What about railways?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —I will come to that—to over $3 billion per annum last year. Consistently over $2.5 billion is going into land transport in this country. Recently, actually, in the last couple of years it has been over $3 billion. Whether that is rail—

Denis O’Rourke: What about the ferries? What about the Cook Strait ferry?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, the member over there talks about rail. The City Rail Link—we are bringing forward the business case and getting on with that. The East-West Link is a $1.25 billion to $1.8 billion game-changer, not just for Auckland but actually for industry and heavy industry in this country. We have got the Auckland alignment project going along—Bill English and I are working on that—to get alignment on transport projects to make a difference in that big city for the long term.

And, Mr O’Rourke, where your party is constantly harping on about regional development, we are doing the work in this. [Interruption] Shall I list the projects? Shall I list the projects we are doing with Crown funding? Kawarau—or, as they say down there, “Kawara”—Falls Bridge in the Queenstown area. They have been crying out for that for decades, and that is true of all of these projects: Taramakau on the West Coast, the Mingha Bluff to Rough Creek project in Canterbury, the Akerama curves in Northland—Mr O’Rourke—and the State Highway 35 improvements that we have done and we have delivered in Gisborne and the East Coast—

Hon Anne Tolley: Mōtū Bridge.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —where they were, as Anne Tolley knows, so grateful to this Government for getting on and doing that. Mōtū Bridge is coming; so is Normanby Overbridge realignment, a very excellent project that has been advocated for strongly. Many others—I will not go through them all. There are too many to name. But in cycleways, where the left says, you know, we are doing nothing, they talked and we are delivering the most significant set of investments—

Denis O’Rourke: Very slowly.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —in that area ever in New Zealand’s history. The member says “slowly”—over 3 years, $333 million. And in rail, again, there was a lot of talk in the 2000s, but it is this side of the House that has delivered billions and billions of dollars in infrastructure. So although the rhetoric on the other side is “We could have done it better.”, that is what it descends to. Well, Mr O’Rourke, “would’ve, could’ve, should’ve”—we are the Government of infrastructure that is getting on with the job in this country, and that is delivering projects that deliver better safety, better resilience, and much greater economic productivity so that New Zealand is backed in this area.

Sue Moroney: The road toll is going up, Simon.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Sue Moroney, can I finish on you? I think it is absolutely disgraceful that this member does not back—indeed, opposes—the Waikato Expressway around her electorate, one of the most significant game-changers in the upper North Island, which the people universally back. If the member wants to know why she has never been an electorate MP, it is right there.

Unlike on that side of the House, we are backing infrastructure and making a massive difference to this country. The year 2016 will be a great year for New Zealand and for making progress on projects all over this great country.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): The Minister of Transport, who just resumed his seat, spent the majority of his address to this House listing a range of land transport projects. You may not have noticed that in between his excited listing of roading projects, he let out a little squeak about something called the City Rail Link, and I would describe that as the political equivalent of swallowing a dead rat. He did not expand on the $2.5 billion investment in that project—that “game-changer” for New Zealand, that “game-changer” for Auckland—because he is so reluctant to be spending money on that project. So in 10 minutes we had one tiny little mention of the City Rail Link. He can barely even talk about it with a straight face. And I can tell you, Mr Bridges, at least Labour will let you off the hook in one regard. You will not have to cut the ribbon on that project you do not believe in because by then Labour will be in Government, and we have stood by that project from day one. So we will spare you that misery.

It is easy in the House sometimes to feel like you are in a strange, parallel universe. On the one hand, the Minister of Finance cannot tell the House what net Crown debt was when he took office—he cannot tell us. This sudden amnesia overcomes him. But ask Government members for any Taylor Swift lyrics and they will be able to recite them off the hip, because that is what we had from the Minister for Social Housing today. I am very disappointed to see that Bill English is still unwilling, after all these years, to acknowledge that he inherited close to zero net Crown debt from the Labour Government. That is the truth of it—that is the truth of it—and Labour will consistently remind the Government of what it inherited, instead of allowing it to rewrite history, as it is wont to do.

I want to reflect on the Prime Minister’s statement because, of course, that is what this debate is meant to be about. For some reason, even though I have been in this House for 7 years and I have got experience listening to these speeches, a part of me still expects that when he stands up to deliver those speeches, the Prime Minister will act like a Prime Minister. I expect him to be a statesman. Perhaps I am naive to still expect that, after 7 years of prime ministerial statements. I wanted the Prime Minister to stand up and acknowledge the reality that New Zealanders are experiencing—the Kiwi reality.

In Labour, we talk about the Kiwi Dream because we are so stunned by the reality of what people are currently experiencing. And what is that? It is unemployment at 5.3 percent—and yet, actually, I question whether that is accurate, when we know that there is significant under-employment amongst New Zealanders now. What does that mean? They have got a job, but it is not enough—they need more. And we already know—in fact, any National MP worth their salt will have spoken to constituents, people in their area, who will tell them that they are working multiple part-time jobs just to make ends meet. That is a growing reality for New Zealanders.

What does that mean? It means that parents are making a trade-off—families are making a trade-off—between getting by and being there for their kids. It is a choice that no one wants a family to have to make, but it is the reality. That is why, even though we use the shorthand of child poverty, we actually mean family poverty, and a quarter of our families in New Zealand or more are experiencing that now—the fact that they do not have enough to get by, to have a decent way of life, and to have that Kiwi Dream that Labour, at least, has not given up on.

But what does that Kiwi reality also mean? It means that the next generation is experiencing a pretty significant amount of hardship too. Students who decide to take on post - secondary education are leaving with debt of $20,000, on average, and are, on average, taking 9 years to pay it back. That has a massive flow-on effect. That means that it takes longer to own that unaffordable house, if at all. And it is utterly depressing to me that people in Auckland of my generation do not believe that they will own a home in their lifetime. When you have an average house price of over $900,000 and you have $20,000 of debt because you had to go and extend your education just so you could get a decent job, and it is going to take you 9 years to pay that back, the house goes on the back-burner and having kids goes on the back-burner too. This is the reality for that next generation. It is no wonder that we have the lowest homeownership rate since the 1950s.

All of that reality presents a pretty grim outlook for New Zealanders. That is what I wanted the Prime Minister to address in his statement at the beginning of this year, but that would have needed leadership. In my view, the only leadership I have seen on those big issues is coming from the statements I have heard in a state of the nation speech from Andrew Little. We know on this side of the House—in fact, the World Economic Forum is now saying—that unless nations start tackling some of those bigger, longer-term issues like the changing nature of work, like lack of job security, and like automation in New Zealand wiping out 46 percent of jobs within two decades, we will be in a much more dire state than having the 5.3 percent unemployment rate we see now.

We need to plan—and that means acknowledging, just as we did when we went to free education back in the day—that in the current environment. Secondary school education is not enough. It is not enough. Now, leaving secondary school is only the beginning of your preparatory work for going into the market place to find a job—it is only the beginning—and yet what statistics are telling us is that we are not preparing. We have had a 22 percent decrease in the number of apprenticeships under this Government. We know that we have demand in the trades—just look at the lack of housing supply in Auckland—and yet not enough young people are training to ready themselves for those jobs.

There has been a 20 percent decrease overall in people taking up post - secondary education under this Government, and yet if you ask anybody, they will believe that that is more important now than ever. The Kiwi Dream is based on the idea of having a decent job and a decent income, and that means having a decent education and consistent access to retraining as well.

That is why, when Labour sat down and said “What message do we want to send at the beginning of the year?”, it was a message of hope that all of the principles we have ever based ourselves on, going right back to Savage and to Kirk—who always used to articulate that all people really need is a place to live, something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for. We definitely know on this side of the House that, unless we have Government-endorsed Tinder, we cannot help with all of that stuff. Maybe Simon Bridges thinks he can, with his family-based dating service, but not on this side of the House. We know that the stuff we can help with is housing, jobs, and hope.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: That was weak.

JACINDA ARDERN: The Government has a role in all of that—Paul Goldsmith just called a joke from me weak. I want to see you stand up and try having a sense of humour in this House for a change, Mr Goldsmith. I issue that as a challenge. I will put my weak Tinder jokes against anything you say in this House.

Three years of post - secondary school education for free—that is the kind of policy that captures our belief that we need to meet current challenges, that we need to prepare not just our school-leavers but people currently in the workforce, and that we need to give people hope. Those are all things that Labour believes are fundamental to the Kiwi Dream, and that is what we as a party are focused on. Although I was hugely disappointed by the Prime Minister’s speech and although I was upset not to hear him make grand statements on big issues like child poverty, at least I am satisfied that I know those are the issues that one side of the House, at least, will be addressing in the coming year.

I would like to finish on one particular area of passion for me. On this side of the House there has been only one person who has committed to taking a zero-tolerance approach to child poverty in New Zealand, and that is Andrew Little. For all of the rhetoric about what the Government believes it is doing in that area, we have an increasing number of children and families living in the kinds of circumstances that we would consider intolerable and inexcusable in this country. We in this House should all have a zero-tolerance approach to child poverty, but at the moment the kind of leader whom I want to back and whom I believe in is standing up and saying that now. That is Andrew Little. That is why I absolutely believe that the only way we will see the restoration of the Kiwi Dream in New Zealand will be via a Labour Government.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): It is great to be back after a glorious summer in this magnificent capital city. I had a great summer. There is nothing more enjoyable than charging up Mount Kaukau to look out on this city—the best views in Wellington.

Unlike Jacinda Ardern, I thought that the Prime Minister gave an outstanding address to inaugurate the political year, and I was particularly interested when the Prime Minister outlined a number of significant New Zealand sporting achievements. He mentioned the Sevens, our great cricket team, and Lydia Ko’s brilliance. I was just a little disappointed that he did not mention another great New Zealand sporting achievement—namely, my hole in one on the 11th hole at the Royal Wellington Golf Club, at 1.30 p.m. on 29 December 2015. Mr Faafoi would be interested in this, because I know he plays at Heretaunga. It was a 7-wood, brilliantly teed-off. It went slightly to the left—well, about 160 metres in a northerly—it jumped the bunker, and slid into the hole, and I was very proud of that.

I want to begin by paying tribute to my colleague Tim Groser, who is about to leave for the United States. He and I came into Parliament together in 2005, and I was his associate culture and heritage spokesperson until Tim was reshuffled out of that role and I took it for myself. In 2014 Tim and I won the party vote in New Lynn and Rongotai, embarrassing our high-profile opponents. In fact, Tim almost became the member of Parliament for New Lynn, which was slightly better than I have ever achieved against Mrs King, although Tim did have the benefit of being up against David Cunliffe.

I am very interested to hear that Annette King may be standing down as the MP for Rongotai. That is a very important political development because it will have the effect of turning Rongotai into a hair-trigger marginal. Whenever I am out campaigning with the people in Rongotai, the voters always say they will switch to me once Mrs King retires. So I used to say I would win the seat in 2038, but I have been doing some very hasty recalculations and I think it could be as early as 2023. Tim and I were bench mates for our first term. We used to sit in the second row, where David Shearer sits now, and we often used to come down to question time reading our Spectators until Marian Hobbs, the then MP for Wellington Central, told us that, no, that was not very wise, but we should try to look riveted when the speaker is asking questions. It was very sound advice, which I have always remembered.

I am very sorry that Tim has left our presence without giving a valedictory speech, so I thought I would give one for him. I would like to outline what I think are his top five contributions in office, even if Tim would have done a far better job of telling us about his achievements than I will be able to do, and over the course of my speech I will avoid quotes from Napoleon, Juvenal, and Thucydides.

Tim’s achievements were momentous. The first one, of course, was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement—the obvious one. He achieved what many people thought was unachievable. Secondly, there was the Taiwan economic agreement and the Hong Kong free-trade agreement, which made New Zealand the first country to have trade deals with all of China. He concluded a free-trade agreement with the ASEAN, Australia, and New Zealand arrangement. He positioned New Zealand’s trade relationship with Asia in a very effective manner. He also concluded a free-trade agreement with Korea. These all prove the value of free-trade agreements, as traditional Labour leaders have always said. The rise in the volume of New Zealand’s exports has been huge, and the same will happen with the TPP agreement, which makes Labour’s approach both so bizarre and so disappointing, given its very positive contribution to trade over the years.

Tim was a very respected voice overseas for New Zealand business, and I am sure he is going to continue to be so in his new role. He spearheaded overseas business trade missions to introduce New Zealand companies to new markets. Whether at the World Trade Organization, or whether at Washington or Beijing, people listened to him—they had no choice—and New Zealand businesses all benefited from it.

Finally, he was a very effective Minister for Climate Change Issues. The work he did behind the scenes on international agreements earned him significant respect. The recent Paris agreement was based on the New Zealand proposal. I know the Greens are looking disconsolate because they think they have a monopoly of virtue on these matters, but Tim was a very effective Minister in that area. I should not finish without mentioning his glorious reign as the Minister of Conservation between 2008 and 2010—as Tim himself calls it, the golden age of conservation in New Zealand—until he was fired by the Prime Minister.

I am sure all of us wish Tim all the very best for the future, and I know that he will be a very effective ambassador to the United States.

There is a lot to do this year, and I am very much looking forward to approaching the issue of Treaty settlements with renewed enthusiasm. We had a good year last year, and I acknowledge my friend Mr Nuk Korako for being such an effective chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. I acknowledge the wonderful work of the Leader of the House and of the Business Committee around Parliament for being so generous with parliamentary time so that we could move Treaty legislation ahead. I want to acknowledge all my fine negotiators, like Paul Swain and Rick Barker, for the good work they have been doing in so many areas to advance Treaty settlements. Paul is stepping back from the front line this year, but I want to place on record my respect and my affection for him. He is a fine New Zealander.

My friend and colleague the Minister for Māori Development is an outstanding Minister, and he has been working on a variety of projects over the last 12 months, including reforming the Maori Language Act and working towards the reform of Te Ture Whenua. I would like to say, as Tim would say by reference to Thomas Gradgrind of Hard Times, that the facts matter, and we are not seeing a great many facts on the reform of Te Ture Whenua. The tribunal itself earlier this week acknowledged that much of the impetus for reform of this antiquated and outdated legislation has come from the people themselves. It is legislation that cries out for reform. It needs an urgent upgrade. That is what inspired me when I was the Associate Minister for Māori Development to put together a technical group, which conducted around 30 hui around the country to see what could be done to improve this legislation, engaging with iwi and whānau, engaging with various groups, and coming up with a very, very good report. That report gave rise to policy proposals, and those proposals have been consulted on up and down this country.

I find it incredible that 100 hui at least and two exposure drafts are not regarded as sufficient. I was amazed when Prue Kapua of the Māori Women’s Welfare League said that Te Ture Whenua Act 1993 was the result of 20 years’ consultation. Surely to goodness, 4 years of consultation, two exposure drafts, and ongoing consultation is something that is going to result in a very good piece of legislation. And then, once the legislation goes to the Māori Affairs Committee, there will be 6 months for people to make submissions. People are listening and they are being listened to. Consultation does not necessarily mean agreement or acquiescence. It does require that people listen with an open mind, and that is what this Government is doing on this very important area.

I was disappointed that Meka Whaitiri was so negative in the House yesterday. Her speech was very disappointing. I do not know who is briefing her, but they are simply ignorant of the facts and they know nothing about the law. I was disappointed that the draft report that was released on Friday last week was released by her before the embargoed hour of 7 p.m.

So there we have it—there is a lot to do this year. I am looking forward to approaching these issues and also the security law reform, where Michael Cullen and Patsy Reddy have been doing such a great job. I hope that when we have that discussion people will engage in the facts and engage in a principled debate, rather than waffling and engaging in piffle.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call for the Green Party—Jan Logie.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am pleased to follow on from that piffle. As I listened to the Prime Minister’s statement to this Parliament earlier in the week, I must say that unlike others who seem to be in awe, I personally was left bored and frustrated by the cheap barracking and the smoke and mirrors. It is not like we do not have major social, environmental, and economic challenges in front of us as a country. Half of the population did not get a pay rise last year. In just 2 years there has been a 20 percent increase in the number of people who are underemployed. There are 305,000 children living in poverty in this country, and our emissions are going up while we watch the cyclones approach. In all of John Key’s many speeches over the last 8 years, he has mentioned poverty only 15 times—and, even then, it has been mostly to deny its existence—and he happens to have mentioned rugby 21 times.

Despite our pressing global challenges, the Prime Minister has never mentioned climate change in a state of the nation speech. John Key seems incapable of naming our challenges or accepting that we can do something about them. He seems so tied up with what is in front of him and his mates that he is missing the bigger picture, and this is so evident when you look at the Government’s Better Public Services targets. These are its main goals for what it wants to achieve in Government. The No. 1 goal is reducing long-term welfare dependence—specifically, to reduce the number of people getting income support by 25 percent by 2018—with 75,000 fewer people getting income support within this parliamentary term. I really want to examine that a little bit, because I can understand that some people will think that that is ambitious and is a really good thing. But is that really the most important goal for this country? Is it more important than reducing poverty? Is getting someone off income support, without any concern as to whether they have got a job or whether they are well or whether they are safe, more important—the most important thing in our country? Is that the extent of our ambition?

But put aside for a second the poverty of the goal and let us consider how the Government is doing on its No. 1 goal. The only real, at all relevant, material I heard in the speech in relation to that goal was the Government saying that it has created an extra 160,000 jobs over the past 3 years and that Treasury expects another 195,000 by 2020, which, actually, if you analyse those numbers, shows us that the job creation rate is slowing, and the Government is telling us that is a good thing. These are the figures that John Key promoted in his speech, so we are all expected to think: “Well, OK, surely there are more jobs, so these beneficiaries are going to be able to get off welfare and into work. If they need the work, great.”

But last year the same Government granted almost 186,000 work visas. Admittedly, that includes visa renewals, but the majority of these visas—120,000 of them—did not cite an occupation and are likely to be low-wage jobs. So even allowing for these renewals, these are obviously more visa work permits than the number of jobs created. So, while saying getting people off income support is its No. 1 goal, the Government has actually made it harder for New Zealanders to get off income support and get into work. It has, effectively, flooded the market with low-wage workers.

When I asked the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Social Development about how it was tracking on this target of 25 percent—it was 2.8 percent last year—he said: “Oh, well, actually it’s more of an aspirational target.” He is not even expecting to achieve it. This is the Government’s No. 1 goal, and the chief executive officer has given up on it—and no wonder, when the Government’s other policies directly conflict with doing this and the achievement of it. And what it has left us with is a stigmatised group of people, who have been subjected to some of the harshest, most intrusive welfare reforms that this country has ever seen. It is time the Government—

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

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Prime Minister, I have sat and I have listened to all your speeches opening Parliament, and I would like to congratulate you on delivering your eighth. It is a real accomplishment, and you must now be thinking how history will remember you.

Just outside this Chamber are the portraits of our great political leaders, from Seddon to Savage, from Fraser to Kirk. How do these giants who established universal suffrage and a caring State in the midst of the Great Depression and a world war and who built a modern, independent, bicultural New Zealand compare with you? Is the flag it? Your desperate, lumbering, grasping attempt at building a legacy with a flag will not mask the realities. Hungry kids, up; inequality, up; pollution, up; electricity costs, up; housing costs, up; foreign ownership, up; debt, up; corruption, up.

You might have once been a national leader, but now you are looking like a National Party leader. Once you attacked the nanny State of efficient lightbulbs, but then presided over the most wide-reaching mass surveillance network of our country’s history. You passed the Skynet law under urgency, sacked elected councils, then refused elections.

You are our first selfie PM, our first comedian PM—a derping, planking, rape-joking expert at getting us on American late-night comedy shows. At a time of growing inequality, rapid global change, and systemic economic problems, we basically got a chilled-out entertainer as a Prime Minister.

On election night 2011 you first and foremost thanked your pollster. You are our most poll-driven Prime Minister, yet, after all these years, we still do not know what you stand for, bar the jokes and the three-line slogans.

Do you see more for New Zealand than just China’s dairy farm and America’s spy station? Prime Minister, why, just last week, on our national day, did you run from debate at Waitangi into the arms of rugby players? To the 300,000 Kiwi kids growing up in poverty, do you really say: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for Skycity, Serco, Saudi sheikhs, MediaWorks, Rio Tinto.”?

Under your leadership, scientists have been ridiculed and silenced and NGOs have had their funding and voice cut. Rape crisis centres are closing and food banks are doing a brisk trade. Kiwis are known for their generosity and their hospitality, but, Prime Minister, under you, New Zealand has become more welcoming to oil companies than to refugees. Whenever there was a Government scandal, there were extreme benefit measures floated and: “Hey look, pandas!”.

Prime Minister, you may not have a plum in your mouth like your political hero Holyoake, but you are exactly the same—an arrogant, born-to-rule, out-of-touch, short-term, “kick it down the road” style of leadership. You delivered tax cuts the country could not afford, and you are leaving $120 billion in national debt, a superannuation crisis, crippling student loans, and a generation locked out of homeownership. You may call that a legacy; I call it intergenerational theft.

Once we were one of the richest nations in the world, yet now Kiwis work some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages and pay some of the highest costs of living in the OECD. After selling our assets, you are now selling out our sovereignty to corporates and the Hollywood industrial complex. Your small army of spin doctors tells us again and again how you grew up in a State house, but now that you are on the ninth floor you are even selling them too.

But you do seem like a good guy to have a beer with, and no one else in this room could have got away with your antics and your gaffes. How have you got away with it? Well, we could ask Crosby/Textor, and we could also point to the biggest of big business bucks and the dirtiest of dirty tricks operations in this country’s history. But Kiwis are a good people, a caring people, and we can reclaim our democracy from dirty politics and big money.

One of your legacies—what you cynically call the rent a crowd—is growing into a real movement for political change. Another legacy is a Green Party bigger and stronger than ever before. Thank you, Prime Minister.

Prime Minister, as you reflect, this may be one of your last opening speeches to Parliament. I have no doubt that you will go down in history as one of the most successful politicians of a generation, but by that I mean “politician” in the sense used on the Stuff comment threads.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call for the National Party. I call Jian Yang.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. May I first say hou nian kuai le, which means “happy Year of the Monkey”, to my colleagues and to all New Zealanders, including the members of the Chinese community. The Chinese believe that the monkey is a very intelligent, creative, and clever animal, so those born in the Year of the Monkey will have great careers and wealth. With this in mind, I am very proud to be part of a National-led Government that is making great strides towards building a stronger and more prosperous country in New Zealand. We are continuously working hard on delivering what matters to Kiwis. It is about building a stronger economy that attracts new investment and creates more jobs. It is also about delivering world-class public services, including health and education.

Ensuring every child gets a good education is one of the most important things National can do to raise living standards and also to build a more competitive and productive economy. As chair of the Education and Science Committee, I am very proud of what we have achieved and what we have been able to deliver in education. So may I take this opportunity to congratulate our Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, on what she has achieved to date.

The National Government has set a number of targets, particularly for education, and we are doing well in meeting these targets. More specifically, the National Government is investing $359 million to raise the quality of our teaching and leadership in our schools. We are helping keep our best teachers in the classroom and sharing experience or expertise in leadership across schools to lift children’s achievement. Regular participation in quality early childhood education dramatically increases a child’s chance of succeeding in education. That is why we have almost doubled investment in early childhood education since 2008, and we are also investing heavily in infrastructure such as schools, which will in turn create jobs and offer learning opportunities.

I would like to talk about our schoolkids learning Asian languages, particularly Chinese. It is important that we prepare our children for the future. A trend in the past few decades is that New Zealand is moving closer to the Asia-Pacific, including East Asia, economically and socially. For instance, East Asia as a whole was our minor trading partner in the 1970s. Now it is our most important trading partner. In the 1970s we could barely notice new Asian immigrants, but now the Asian population accounts for 11 percent of our population. So not only does New Zealand need to increase the number of students learning Asian languages to support our growing trade and international relationships but also international evidence shows learning a second language can contribute to the development of a student’s literacy skills in their first language. Against this background, the Government has committed a total of $10 million over 5 years to increase second language learning for all students.

The Government has achieved a lot. We believe that New Zealand is in very good shape. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, it has been a great start to the year for the Government, but it has clearly been a very bad start to the year for the Green Party. I have heard some poor speeches in this House in the short time I have been in the House, but I have never seen or heard such a spite-filled, hate-filled pile of bile like we just heard from Gareth Hughes. It is that speech that demonstrates precisely why the Green Party is going nowhere in politics.

It has been a great start to the year for the Government and, indeed, a great start to the year for the country, because the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal was signed just a few days ago—hugely significant for New Zealand and its future, a proud day for New Zealand, and the apex of trade and foreign policy in New Zealand. The National Government knows that, the former leader of the Labour Party Phil Goff knows that, and former leaders, I should say, in this House, Phil Goff, Helen Clark, Mike Moore, and David Shearer—they all know that. The only person, it seems, in New Zealand who does not seem to know that is Andrew Little.

So the question really has to be asked: who are we going to trust to tell us the truth about the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is it the doyenne of the liberal left, Helen Clark? Is it Phil Goff? Is it Mike Moore? Is it David Shearer whom we are going to trust, along with credible people like the neutral and independent public servants who work at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Are we going to place our faith and reliance upon former Labour leaders and Prime Ministers, including our own, or are we going to place our trust in Jane Kelsey, who does not support any free-trade deal New Zealand has ever signed? She does not support the Korean deal, she does not support CER, and she does not support the China free-trade agreement. Are we going to trust her? My answer to that is no. Are we going to trust the noted “independent commentator” Barry Coates, who has been going around representing Oxfam New Zealand and putting out economic commentary on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement? He keeps being reported by the media as being an independent commentator, even though he is next on the Green Party list. Are we going to trust him? I do not think so.

It has been a great start to the year for the Government, but the Labour Party has also released some policy. You could be forgiven for not really noticing it. In keeping with its stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, Labour has released a policy that is regressive and back to the future—right back to the 1970s—and is it not revealing about those members’ political priorities? They come down here to the House every day and they talk about child poverty, and then they suddenly invent $1.3 billion. And what do they spend their $1.3 billion on, which they have just materialised out of thin air—what do they spend it on? What does the Labour Party spend it on? Not child poverty—no. Those members come in and they say “No, the real problem facing this country is that people who leave school”—who leave Auckland Grammar School and go to Auckland University—“have to borrow $5,000 per year for a law degree. That is the real issue. I know, we’ll give them 3 free years’ tertiary education.”, even though people who leave university with a tertiary education earn far more than people who do not go to university, and they pay those loans back, and they contribute to the economy. There are private and public benefits—

Carmel Sepuloni: Not just university—any tertiary education, Chris.

CHRIS BISHOP: —from tertiary education, and it is only fair that people make a contribution. I hear Carmel Sepuloni bleating away over there. She has said some really silly things on this topic. Her point is that people in the 1970s got free tertiary education. Yes, that is true. It was not completely free; it was very cheap to go to university in the 1970s. But, as I have pointed out to her via Twitter, the reality is that very few people went to university. So, yes, kids from white middle-class families who got their bursaries went to university. Guess who did not go? Māori children, Pasifika children, and kids from poor backgrounds.

What has the student loan scheme done? The student loan scheme is one of the most progressive, equitable policies ever implemented by any Government in New Zealand history. And guess who started it? Phil Goff. Student fees and student loans are a legacy of the reforming, progressive administration of the fourth Labour Government because it shares the cost burden of tertiary education. It recognises that there are not just public benefits from tertiary education; there are private benefits. And not only are there private benefits where you ask people to make a contribution; then we wipe the interest from their loans. So it is an extremely generous system, and it has massively expanded access. That is why there are more Māori at university, that is why there are more Pasifika at university, and that is why they are succeeding under this Government. The student loan scheme is something Labour should be proud of. It should not try to dismantle it through back-to-the-future, 1970s policies.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi o te Tau Hou ki a koe, ā, ki ngā mema katoa huri rauna i Te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings of the New Year to you and to all the members throughout the House.]

Obviously our Working Futures policy is a good one because National is railing so hard against it. What does Chris Bishop have against helping people to get ahead? We know from the figures that in 20 years’ time, 40 percent of the jobs that exist now will not exist at that time, so the Labour Party is doing something about it. We are focusing on the Kiwi Dream, on the Kiwi future; not just railing about what is happening today and being focused on today. He is obviously a guy who has grown up with a hint of privilege, whereas people like the people I represent up north—

Jacqui Dean: Oh, that’s so Labour.

KELVIN DAVIS: —do not quite have the same level of privilege. We actually do have to graft. We do struggle. There are a number of people up north—although they have the potential and everything that it takes to succeed at university, the one thing they do not have, and it is a barrier to their participation in university, is the money. And that is just a fact. I heard a member over there screeching out—

Carmel Sepuloni: Talk about privilege.

KELVIN DAVIS: —yes, talk about privilege; exactly—about this policy and railing against it, and that is because members opposite do not really mix with the type of people who are in the Tai Tokerau or on the East Coast. They mix with the people of their own sort, who have grown up with a measure of privilege.

We saw how New Zealanders reacted, actually, to the Prime Minister at Eden Park on the weekend, when, instead of turning up at Waitangi Marae to face all those angry people—people who have not really had all the information regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement put in front of them. I mean, look at it. There it is there, I think, in the grey folders on the Table there. I mean, all the folk up north are expected to read that and absorb what is in those folders. I am not sure whether that is the TPP in its entirety or whether that is just one chapter, but, certainly, it has not been touched. Nobody can actually be bothered to read through it and decipher what it really means for us out there in the provinces. But John Key—instead of turning up to Waitangi to talk to the people and to allow Māori the opportunity to throw questions and challenge him on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, he ran off to Auckland, to the Nines. He walked along the side of the field in front of the terraces, and the people in the terraces—our people—soundly, roundly booed him, to the point that he scurried upstairs to where he was comfortable, in the corporate boxes, and he was happy taking selfies with people. He was happy to be seen there. He was all relaxed. But out on the terraces, where our people watch the sports, there was not quite the reception that he hoped for.

In fact, it just reflected a measure of the anxiety that people up north, at Waitangi, had regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But where I really took offence—because I was one of the people at the meeting 2 or 3 days before Waitangi Day who voted on whether or not the Prime Minister should attend Waitangi. I was one of the people who stood up and said: “No. I think the Prime Minister should be allowed on to Te Tii Marae.”, and I voted for him to attend, on the basis that it is an opportunity, the one and only time that Māori will have the opportunity, to challenge him on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. But instead he said: “I’m not going to turn up because they’re banning me from speaking.” Well, look, that did not stop anyone else from turning up. We were all told we were not to talk politics, but we did in fact talk politics because we know—those of us who are in touch with the history of the area know—that on 5 February, the day before the signing at Waitangi, all the chiefs sat at a place called Taurangatira at Waitangi and they discussed the Treaty, which in their day was the equivalent of discussing politics. So if you know the history, if you know tikanga, and if you are in touch with all New Zealanders, including Māori, you would know that no one is going to stop you from standing up on a marae and saying what you want to say.

But instead the Prime Minister said: “Oh, it’s a bit mickey mouse.” Let me tell you. When he said that it was a bit mickey mouse—the Te Tii Marae trustees—he is talking about half a dozen 70 to 80-year-old pensioners. He is the man with all the resources of the State at his disposal. He has goodness knows how many Ministers, how many MPs, how many spin doctors, and how many advisers, he has got Crosby/Textor, he has got the resources of the State at his disposal, and the best he can do is turn and pick on half a dozen elderly pensioners who are just trying to do the best for their marae. That, to me, was insulting. To me, it also signified how out of touch the Prime Minister is with the people of Tai Tokerau and Māoridom in general. How dare he stand up there and belittle and denigrate elderly New Zealanders who are just trying to have a role. I bet you he does not even understand what they do in their role on the marae. Over the course of 3 or 4 days they had to sit there, for probably 10 to 12 hours at a time, and welcome group after group after group on to the marae. He does not understand that because he is out of touch.

What I have suggested to Shane Reti, the National MP for Whangarei, is that next year the Government—because the Treaty is the partnership between Māori and Pākehā, and it should be the Government and Māori actually sitting on the taumata of the marae and welcoming the rest of New Zealand in. That is what those members should be doing, as a Government. I hope they take up that suggestion.

Working Futures—the dream for New Zealand. The Kiwi Dream has been roundly criticised by the people on the other side of the House, and that is to be expected. They were quite stunned by the audacity of the plan—the fact that it is forward-thinking and the fact that it is going to help New Zealanders. It is going to get people ahead. Instead, what they want to do is saddle our young people with debt into the future.

My daughter is one of those people. She is in her fourth year, this year, of a law degree. She knows that she has to pay off all that debt, $20,000-odd, before she gets to start saving money for her house—getting on the property ladder. That is the Kiwi Dream—owning your own house. But that is out of touch for so many of our young people.

A nephew of mine was lucky. His parents are quite well-to-do. They helped him to get into a house in a fairly average suburb in Auckland. That house cost $400,000, and 4 years later he sold it for $790,000. That is the skyrocketing cost of housing. That is the price our young people are having to pay for those houses, and yet they have to pay off their student debt first.

We really do not ask for much in this country. After the essentials such as oxygen and food and water, we want a decent job. Let me tell you. I was appalled to read this the other day. David Clark has done some fantastic work to get the Mondayisation of Waitangi Day, but then we heard about an employer who has insisted that their employees, if they are called up, must turn up for work on a public holiday—a statutory holiday. If they do not turn up on that day, then they face the sack. What sort of a country do we live in where an employer can just break the law and demand that people turn up to work on a statutory holiday and give them the sack if they do not do that? That is absurd. All that New Zealanders want is fairness. That is part of the Kiwi Dream.

Serco last year—I have to say that the previous Minister of Corrections did not cover himself in glory last year. Already we see the makings of another ministerial train wreck in the Minister of Customs, who really is just not on top of the game. Nicky Wagner is probably the first nominee for the “Sam Lotu-Iiga Ministerial Incompetence Award”. All she talks about in terms of combating the importation of P and drugs is SmartGate. I suggest she should buy her own SmartGate, install it in her office, and walk through it about a dozen times a day in the hope that something—anything—rubs off.

All that New Zealanders want is a fair go. We do not want to live in poverty. We do not want our children to struggle through life. I believe that Gareth Hughes summed up superbly what is going wrong in this nation, and I congratulate—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

Bills

Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move, That the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill be now read a second time. I would like to begin by thanking members of the Health Committee for their thorough consideration of the bill, for their suggestions for its improvement, and for the quick turn-round to support a timely progression of the legislation, to enable commencement by 1 March 2016 as agreed by the settlement parties. The committee has recommended that the bill proceed with amendments.

This bill will benefit around 24,000 care and support workers who assist older people, disabled people, and those recovering from illness and injury, with personal care and household management. Funders and providers also benefit from the additional funding appropriated to ensure that providers can pay the agreed amounts. In summary, this bill is a very positive investment by the Government in some of the lowest-paid care and support workers in the health sector. They will benefit from a total Government investment of around $38 million a year—approximately $150 million over 4 years.

Members may recall that the bill results from a negotiated settlement between the Crown, district health boards, unions, and employer representatives to resolve how workers should be compensated for the time and costs of travelling between clients. The settlement agreement intended that legislation be passed to ensure that support workers were paid for travel time and costs with minimum rates and agreed formula, that employers’ liability is capped so that payments are affordable and sustainable, that employees would not be any worse off under the new arrangements, and that employees covered by the bill could not pursue further legal claims.

Seven submissions were received on the bill as introduced, and all supported the bill. Key submissions from employer and union representatives raised the same sets of issues, and sought amendments to clarify which employees are intended to be covered, to spell out the formulas used to determine pay rates, to ensure that no worker would be worse off financially under the new arrangements, and to include a formal review mechanism to ensure the legislation is working as intended. These concerns and suggestions have been addressed in the amendments now set out in the bill before the House.

I note that the committee has made some positive changes, both substantive and technical, which I will discuss briefly. The main amendments enhance clarity and ensure consistency with the settlement agreement. This includes the following changes. A new purpose statement makes a clear link to the settlement agreement—that is, to ensure support workers are paid according to the agreed formulas. The quid pro quo of closing off further litigation is made clear. This reflects a key intent of the settlement agreement, that the legislation removes the ability for further legal challenges. Some necessary consequential amendments were also made to the Minimum Wage Act, exempting workers covered by this bill from some particular parts.

ACC-funded services will be covered by the bill. Although ACC was not a formal party to the negotiations, the settlement agreement made it clear that similar arrangements should apply where ACC funds injury-related personal care and household management services. The Minister for ACC will consequently be formally involved in any future review of, or changes to, the legislation.

Care has been taken to simplify the definitions of home and community support workers and employers as far as is possible. For the sake of clarity, salaried workers are specifically excluded from coverage. Similarly, a revised definition of services ensures that only those workers who must travel between clients to provide household maintenance or personal care services are covered. An annual review mechanism is included to ensure that the bill will work in the way it is intended, and that workers will not be financially disadvantaged by the changes. It requires the Ministers of Health and ACC to consult and consider whether changes are needed, within quite precise parameters, therefore avoiding a burdensome legislature review process.

Initially it was intended that regulations would set out the formulas for calculating the payments. Instead, the bill incorporates these parts into a new, separate schedule. This innovation provides a clear and easy way for an employee or employer to determine whether they are covered and how payments are calculated. All the information needed is now contained in one place. There are also provisions to amend the schedule. However, these are tightly prescribed to constrain the use of Orders in Council, as recommended by the Regulations Review Committee.

Some amendments are technical in that they improve the flow and internal consistency of the bill. For example, Parliamentary Counsel Office best practice is to insert standard clauses for transitional savings and related provisions, and these have been included. Other minor amendments have reordered or renamed some parts or removed clauses that all parties agreed did not reflect the settlement agreement, did not confer any benefits, or were not practicable—for example, the previous clauses referring to employer zones.

I am pleased to support the committee’s changes to the bill, which I believe are sensible and well considered, and allow care and support workers and their employers to be clear about who is eligible for payments and how those payments should be calculated. I would like to thank the committee members once more for their work. I again acknowledge the settlement parties and Government agencies for their goodwill and cooperation to ensure that the bill reflects the intent of the negotiated settlement agreement.

This bill represents an important milestone in recognising the valuable work of people who provide care and support for many New Zealanders. These workers will benefit from a total Government investment of around $38 million a year. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): May I begin by congratulating the chair of our Health Committee, Simon O’Connor, on his recently announced engagement—he is a dark horse. We met yesterday, but not a mention of it. I think he was trying to avoid having to shout the committee a morning tea. Can I suggest that next week Mr O’Connor will be shouting us a very luxurious, healthy morning tea at the Health Committee. But congratulations, and I always love a happy ending.

Labour supports this bill in the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. We were pleased to see that the settlement on this case was finally brought to this House, because the Human Rights Commission made a ruling several years ago that travel should be remunerated. So this issue arose several years ago, the Human Rights Commission—in fact, Louisa Wall probably remembers it from when she had something to do with the Human Rights Commission. This issue has been around for a long time, and we are very pleased that settlement was reached between the major parties.

But I want to begin by giving credit to the brave woman who took the test case. You always have to have somebody who is prepared to put their hand up and to front an issue like this, knowing that there is, no doubt, going to be lots of publicity, and you are not used to that publicity, but you are so committed to the cause that you are prepared to do it. That person was Jenny Goodman. Jenny Goodman bravely took that test case and claim on behalf of hundreds of fellow home-care workers. So I think it is important that we always give credit where credit is due to Jenny, but also to the Public Service Association (PSA).

As we know, although we are passing this legislation—and I will get on to the process that we have been through in that—it is still a long way from dealing with the historic underpayment of home and community support workers. Most of these workers are paid close to the minimum wage, and I believe that they deserve to be paid for the very important work they do commensurate with the responsibility that they have.

We would not be able to provide the health services and the home-care services in people’s homes without this army of, overwhelmingly, women. It is an occupation that women have gone into—a caring occupation—and many of us have had parents who have been the recipients of fantastic home help from these home-help workers. And so, yes, we are very pleased to see that we have this bill back before the House. I have to say that it has been done in a very rapid manner. All parties on the Health Committee wanted to get it through so that we could reach the deadline that had been set.

The bill was introduced on 24 September, had its first reading on 13 October, and was then referred to our committee. We made this one of the last tasks we did before we lifted for Christmas. We reported the bill back on 15 December. There were seven submissions, and they had a similar theme through all those submissions, which made it possible for us in the committee to make, I think, some very important changes to the original bill that came into this House.

I thought what I would like to do is talk about some of the submissions that we did receive and what they had to say. For example, the submission we received from the PSA and E tū said this: “There is a long running history of work by employees, their unions, and the Human Rights Commission to have conditions in this poorly paid and hard-working workforce improved. Part of this work focused on the reality that these employees spend a considerable amount of their working day travelling in their own vehicles between clients for little or no reimbursement.”

And that was the issue, I think, that really did concern members on all sides of the House—that there were workers who would drive from one house to another within their working hours and they were not reimbursed for that, but, perhaps, the plumber or the electrician or someone else who was working out there in the community and travelling between workplaces was reimbursed. So the PSA said that it supports this bill and it recommended that the Government have a commitment to improving both the terms and the conditions of employment for workers in this sector.

The next submission I want to share with you is from the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women. It came from the angle that we needed to be looking not just at this bill—and it said this about this particular bill. It said: “this is a step in the right direction but by no means the end of the journey. We want to see that this recognition of travel time is tied to inflation and if we are using the minimum wage as the yard stick that with the increase of the minimum wage this is reflected and linked to the travel time allowances paid.”

It went on to say its concern was for vulnerable workers, particularly women, and that it believed the bill does go some way to recognising the contribution that these employees were giving in their time as unpaid employment. And it was unpaid employment when they were travelling between jobs because they were not being paid. The federation also said this is not the end of the work that needs to be done and it urged the Minister of Health to increase funding to the aged-care providers to provide pay equity for all aged-care workers, in accordance with the Equal Pay Act 1972, and to change the funding model for aged-care providers to ensure any funding increases include ring-fencing of pay increases and accountability.

We had submissions from the major employers of these women. One of them, perhaps the biggest employer of these women, is the HHL group, Healthcare of New Zealand Holdings Ltd. It said this: “We are supportive of the Bill due to the benefit it will bring to our employees (and clients). This Bill represents a significant positive change for the Home and Community Support Services (HCSS) sector.” That was, really, the message we were getting from employers but, also, the message that we were getting from employees and unions. Another submitter—one that some of our rural members across the House will be familiar with—is Access Homehealth. It put in a submission and it said it supported this bill because it “provides major benefits to both our, and the Home and Community Support Services (HCSS) sector, clients and employees.”

What went very well in this committee was, having listened to the submissions, the members of the committee, across all sides of the House, questioned very closely how it worked and whether we could improve on this legislation. We have, I think, made some quite significant changes that do improve the original bill. We recommended that we include ACC in the bill because ACC, although it was not a party to the original settlement, is explicitly mentioned in clause 1.3 of the final settlement agreement. That has been agreed to—that we include ACC in it—and that came from a recommendation from our committee.

There are a number of other amendments that we made, including to the definition of an employee. We recommended replacing the definition of an employee so that “The intent of the settlement … is that non-salaried staff only would be covered. The new definition would clarify that, for the purposes of this bill [now], a person is an employee within the meaning of [“employee”] in the Employment Relations Act 2000 and is someone who does not receive a salary.”

I know that I am running out of time, but those who read the amendments that we made, including a new schedule 3—we took away regulation-making provisions and have put them in a schedule—I think will see that this bill has been improved by the work of the whole committee. So we support this. We are very pleased with the progress that it has made. It is a very good start, but it is not the end of the journey for those very important home-care workers.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): It is a pleasure to speak on this, the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. It is in the name of the Minister of Health, Dr Jonathan Coleman, but as his Associate Minister I have responsibilities for the areas in which this bill will have a huge impact, particularly for those community health workers and carers who have been mentioned in this House this afternoon.

I also want to commend the Health Committee, particularly the chairman, Simon O’Connor, for his work, as well as the cross-party support for this bill, because I think we all understand the importance of these workers in our communities right up and down this country. They do an invaluable job to help with our elderly, our disabled, our whānau, and our aiga right across New Zealand.

Government agencies understand that there is a time and distance between patients and their carers, and it is only right and proper that this workforce should be compensated for the time that they spend travelling between their clients. The bill arises out of a settlement agreement between service providers, the support workers, and their unions, as well as the many district health boards across the country—and the Crown, obviously, playing a focal point in those negotiations.

What the bill does is it creates an affordable and sustainable framework to compensate the longstanding issue of in-between travel. It addresses an issue that has, to be fair, been a little bit of a sore point, and, importantly, it ensures that people can continue to receive quality care in their own homes. Let us not forget, while we are compensating the workers, that it is about those people whom we are serving in their homes, up and down this country, allowing them to have a better quality of life. So by implementing this settlement and setting out an agreed process for investigating and moving this workforce forward to a more regulated employment model the Government looks ahead to ensure that the service can attract, recruit, and retain a high-quality workforce to meet the demands of the changing demographics and the increasingly ageing population.

It is important because in order to increase workers’ incomes—reimbursing their vehicle use—it increases their certainty of hours of work and provides for more stability in that workforce, which, again, I cannot re-emphasise enough just how important it is in caring for the elderly and the disabled. What it also does—a knock-on effect, if you like—is it reduces the high staff turnover in this sector and it eases the pressure on recruitment and retention of these very important workers. Ultimately, again, it does benefit those who need care and need help.

I believe that it is a responsible approach, and one that will give the industry some sort of long-term, skilled workforce and certainty to support our elderly and support our disabled to live in their own homes, which is really important, because that is the general desire that they have: to remain part of our wider communities and to remain part of their families in those communities.

So it is about an investment; $96 million over 4 years was announced in Budget 2014 to support this, with a further $14 million in the last Budget going forward. It is part of an investment into making sure that we support this important population so that they live longer and so that they live better-quality lives. It ensures that our health system is able to cope with the increased pressures around the demographic changes, but also around just the increased demand for these services long term. We know that an ageing population will present challenges to our system. The Government will continue to invest in these areas to make a difference and meet some of those particularly difficult challenges that lie ahead.

In Budget 2015 we also invested $98 million to improve people’s prevention and treatment of their conditions, and another $50 million over 3 years to support extra surgeries and interventions for the elderly. There is also an investment into hospice and palliative care. End-of-life care is, again, something that is important to this Government; $76 million was announced over 4 years in the last Budget, and, again, these workforces in the aged-care area are particularly important. They make a difference, particularly to those who are suffering terminal illnesses.

I just want to quickly wrap up by saying that we are reviewing and updating the Health of Older People Strategy. There are currently workshops going on out there to engage with our communities, to engage with those in the sector, and to engage with those who use these services. That is particularly important. I encourage those who want to make an input into the strategy—it is being updated for the first time in 13 years—to put their hands up, come forward, and take part in this very important strategy going forward.

I again commend this bill. I support what has been said around this House this afternoon. Those workers are an important part of our workforce, and they should be duly compensated for the work that they do. Thank you very much.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēna koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ngā mihi o Te Tau Hou, whānau. I hope everyone had a good break. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of our tamariki and whānau from Weymouth Primary School who are here. Nau mai, haere mai. I hope you have had a wonderful tour of Parliament, and it is a privilege for me to speak in front of some of my constituents.

I used to be a member of the Health Committee, and I must admit I miss it, but, in saying that, I am enjoying my new role as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is my privilege to speak in support of this Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. As others have noted, this piece of legislation actually has a few people whom we should credit for highlighting this particular issue. The first is Judy McGregor, who was then a commissioner at the Human Rights Commission. She and her colleagues contributed to the writing of a document called Caring Counts: Report of the Inquiry into the Aged Care Workforce. One of the recommendations within that report was fair travel for our community and support workers, many of whom are on minimum wage, and many of whom had to pay for the petrol they used when visiting clients themselves.

We also owe this piece of legislation to two women, and I want to acknowledge their contribution. Tamara Baddeley, who, as a member of the then Service and Foodworkers’ Union, now E tū, took with her union a case to the Employment Relations Authority. When that was written up, Tamara was on $14.80 an hour, and in one particular day she had visited 12 clients. I think, actually, when we think about this piece of legislation, we have to acknowledge those who have put in the hard yards and created this opportunity for change. The other person was Jenny Goodman, who, as a member of the Public Service Association (PSA), was also involved in highlighting the relevance to her work of this piece of legislation, and, again, it was very much about ensuring that our community and support workers, whilst they are in the community, are appropriately remunerated for something that is actually an essential and core part of their work.

What I want to highlight really is that when the agreement was reached, instead of going to court the Crown came to the table with E tū, with the PSA, and with the Ministry of Health. But what should be highlighted is that the select committee was very considered, because it extended the scope of this legislation to ACC. The reason that we extended the scope of this particular legislation to ACC was that many of the home and community support workers work in that sector. Both the Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Health have highlighted the communities that benefit from this valuable work, work that our home and community support services workers provide to older people and to people with disabilities. So this is very much about recognising that there were some changes to the negotiated agreement, and one of those was saying that this piece of legislation is relevant to those who are contracted through the Ministry of Health, but also those who are contracted through Vote ACC.

What I want to highlight in my speech is that Part B of the agreement is actually an exclusion in this legislation. What was negotiated had a Part A—and that is this piece of legislation—but what was not, and has not been fully realised, is Part B of the negotiation. Part B is about a committee coming together to investigate two things. The first of those is an investigation into the funding for this whole area of home and community support services. There is an agreement that the Government has with the PSA and with E tū to look at the funding for the sector. And the second part of the agreement, in Part B, was to develop and oversee the transition of the workforce to a regularised workforce. What is that about? That is actually about ensuring that our workers have guaranteed hours and that the workforce is paid a living wage. We have talked already about the workforce, and how the workforce is valuable because the people it is serving are older New Zealanders, and New Zealanders with disabilities—New Zealanders living in the community that, if it were not for these 28,000 workers, some of them would be incredibly isolated. So I think there is general agreement that we value that cohort in our society. If we value that cohort in society that this sector services then, actually, we need to value them as well. So the most critical part, I believe, of the negotiations and the agreement is yet to be realised.

What I do want to note is that in November last year, the Government convened a joint working group on pay equity principles, and what that group will end up doing in the future—their work is incredibly relevant to this workforce—is it is going to provide some practical guidance to employers and employees around implementing pay equity. It will also be working on female-dominated vocations or work. That is why it is about pay equity. As we know, our women are not paid as much as our men, and I want to acknowledge my colleague Sue Moroney, who is in the House, who has been a champion of this issue for many years. I put my hand up today in the House to say that I am a champion of this particular kaupapa, because we are actually talking about home and community support service workers. They are the people in our communities—mostly women—who work with the aged, who work with the disabled, who provide the care and support that they need to live in dignity and to have their needs met in our communities.

I had not been out with a home and community support worker, but before Christmas I had the privilege of spending the day with Mele, who is an aged-care worker, and she works in a facility in Manurewa, in Bupa Hayman Park. I spent a day with Mele—I walked a day in her shoes—and now I know the type of work that she does. The type of work that Mele does is to look after about 10 to 12 people. It includes bathing them. It includes preparing their breakfast, and for some of the people it includes feeding them. It includes washing them. It includes changing their beds. It includes providing them lunch. It actually includes everything that we would hope for some of our family who are in those facilities: that there is someone who cares about them, who nurtures them, and who provides for their well-being. Having experienced a day in Mele’s shoes, I am incredibly committed to ensuring the protection of this sector of our workforce and of our society, who do amazing jobs every day to look after people who are vulnerable—people who, actually, are our mothers, our fathers, our brothers, and people for whom I believe that, as New Zealanders, we all think their needs are incredibly important.

I really just want to highlight that there is general support for this piece of legislation across the House. I just want to highlight that the changes that were made at select committee were made with the consent of the unions, with E tū and with the PSA. In fact, some of the changes are not about us leading the changes; they are about those two unions coming to the select committee and saying: “Actually, this doesn’t quite reconcile with the negotiated terms that were agreed by the Government.” So they actually held both the Government and also us as select committee members to account, because we got copies of that negotiated agreement. It was about translating that into a piece of legislation that is actually underpinned by all the values and principles that helped negotiate that settlement in the first place. So I can stand here and say that I think we did an incredibly good job to uphold those principles. I think the PSA and E tū will be incredibly happy with this piece of legislation. As a member of E tū, I am incredibly proud that our unions are actually advocating—but more than advocating, implementing pieces of legislation like this that actually matter to working New Zealanders.

I will be monitoring Part B of the negotiated agreement, and I look forward to this piece of legislation passing expeditiously through the House. Kia ora.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. As I begin, can I thank the Hon Annette King for her very kind words, at the start of her speech, to myself and my fiancée. Indeed, I will even bring a healthy celebratory snack to the committee next week.

Jacqui Dean: Not healthy!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes, I am trying to get away from the bad habit of sort of teasing the committee with doughnuts and sugary things.

Jono Naylor: It is the Health Committee, after all.

SIMON O’CONNOR: It is the Health Committee, after all, but sometimes there is a role for irony.

I just want to thank the last speaker, Louisa Wall, as well, and, I suspect, others who will speak on this bill, for the support that they have shown not only, obviously, in the vote for this bill but actually in the work that has gone on. In that vein, I just want to make three observations. First, yes, to the union officials, to the home and community support workers, and to all those who advocated in this space: thank you. In particular, what was shared in the committee was well appreciated.

To the officials and to the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and all of those who have worked: you have worked incredibly hard on that. They, rather, not you, Mr Assistant Speaker; I am sure you would have. But officials and others have worked incredibly hard on this. In that relationship—and I think we saw it during the consideration and then deliberation phases—where a submitter may have raised a particular question or concern, we were able to turn very quickly to officials to resolve the situation. More often than not, nine times out of 10, the official had already had the conversation. So, again, thanks to both those parties. Thanks also goes to the whole committee. It is a very collegial committee, I would say, at the best of times, and I think it was certainly shown here.

We have made some very good changes, and I am particularly pleased to hear the Minister note that he is happy to accept all of them. To the Ministers who are involved with this, Jonathan Coleman and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga—I think we were pleased to work with the Ministers. It is a relatively simple bill, but one that has some very significant changes within it.

As other speakers have noted, this legislation is something that has avoided a court process. There has been a clear need for the Crown—the Government, that is—to step in and provide some recompense for travel. I think we are picking up on what others have said. It is something; it is not as much as everyone would want. Obviously, the Government has to focus on sustainability, but it is a step in the right direction to acknowledging not just the transport costs but the important work that goes on here.

It was a cooperative discussion between the likes of the district health boards, community and health support groups, the unions, and Government, as I said just a little earlier. It avoided the need for court intervention. I think the Ministers involved, and certainly the select committee, were very clear that we needed to get this bill back into the House as quickly as possible. It became a matter of priority for the Health Committee to hear the submissions, to consider the evidence, and to make the changes to the bill. Again, I think it is with thanks to all those involved, including the Parliamentary Counsel Office for being able to draft things very swiftly to bring the bill back here to the House.

I am not going to go through all the changes—many of them are just quite technical—but I think there are two things I personally want to highlight. One is that the bill obviously sets up a regime for reimbursing travel for home and community workers. Importantly, it also has a transitional section to it. That will be known to people working in the sector, but there is sort of a twofold element there. The second is that we were very keen to get the definition, if you will, around what home and community work is. We started with something quite prescriptive. I think the committee, officials, and others rightly saw that we did not want, in this piece of legislation, to lock in a definition or a way of seeing things that might actually block some further development in the industry. I think we have been able to get some clarity, but leave it open enough to, obviously, see whether there is any evolution in this space.

Finally, I want to finish by echoing what I have heard from some members. I am sure that from all there is thanks to those who do work in this home and community space. I am no expert in the field—I have bumped into people who work there, be they constituents, friends, or acquaintances. It is remarkable, the job that is done, and the care, the love, the support that is given. I think, again, this is a step in the right direction.

Finally, I do just want to acknowledge not only the work that was done but the conversations that were had, and that more work and discussions will be had going on—everything from recompense right through to training, acknowledgment of services, and otherwise. Thank you very much.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise to take the first call for the Green Party in the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill.

I am the industrial relations spokesperson for the Greens, and I have to say that it was an absolute pleasure and a privilege to be part of the Health Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill. This is a bill that actually seeks to fix some problems. It is quite unusual, in my role as the industrial relations spokesperson during the term of this Government, to be able to agree with the Government on anything pertaining to the rights of workers, particularly low-paid workers.

I want to thank the select committee, and in particular I want to thank the chair for his role in ushering this bill through that process. The bill comes back to the House with minor amendments that are reasonably just technical but also small changes that, as the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, noted, were actually agreed to by the unions representing the workers in the care sector who had been negotiating with the Crown to get the settlement.

To recap, the legislation legalises the negotiated settlement that followed after a court case that was taken by the New Zealand Public Service Association and E tū union for home-care support workers, to say that there was a breach of the Minimum Wage Act because they were not being paid for the time spent travelling between clients. The reason it is a breach of the Minimum Wage Act is that generally the wages are so low that when you take the travel time into account and add that to their gross wage, basically it slips below the minimum wage. That is why they took the case.

As a result of this court case—and I want to thank both the unions and the members for taking it—the Crown entered into some negotiations with the sector, both the industry and employers, with the unions, and with the officials from the Ministry of Health. They sought to find a way forward to deal with the fact that winning the case for payment for travel time between clients would mean a back payment for about 28,000 workers who work in the sector. Most of them are women. But as a pragmatic approach, the unions and the members they are representing said that they would sit down and negotiate. I think we need to kind of respect that and show the unions a debt of gratitude, essentially, for getting into the situation where they would negotiate on this, because otherwise it could have the consequence of basically making the health sector go broke, particularly if a back payment was determined by the Employment Relations Court.

This bill does not actually offer back-pay. Those workers will not get back-pay. However, the quid pro quo—and in any good negotiation there usually is one—is that the benefits outweigh that. Those benefits are—and it is outlined in the legislation—a payment of 50c per kilometre from March this year, and 60c per kilometre from July this year, which is up from an average of 33c per kilometre.

There is a transition to guaranteed hours of work, which is really, really important in the sector. Frequently home-care workers are in the precarious position of having shifts changed at very short notice. The deal also includes training for carers to a level 3 qualification within the first 2 years on the job, and this benefits both workers and employers, as a skilled and trained and qualified workforce provides exceptionally good care for those who need it most—their clients.

The other part of the deal they have been negotiating is the discussion around pay rates that are better than the minimum wage, where qualifications are recognised in the pay scale. It was agreed between the employers in the sector and the workers—represented by the unions, and the Crown and the ministries—that this would be where they would negotiate further. It is a transition that I think we need to see come to fruition, given that our population is ageing and home care is going to be more and more the way people are looked after in the future. So we need to ensure that people are looked after with the best possible care those workers can give.

During the select committee process there were only seven submissions, which, I guess, indicates that the legislation was well received. But it was interesting to see who those submitters were. Two of them were from the industry itself—they were people who employ home-care workers—and one was from the organisation that represents the home-care organisations, the support services themselves. All of them were in agreement that upskilling their workforce is a way to ensure a better service. They were also very clear that they supported the bill and they supported the whole issue of payment for travel time.

The other organisations that submitted, of those seven, were women’s organisations, and I found that particularly interesting. So we had submissions from the Federation of Business and Professional Women Inc. In its submission it said that it had a mandate from the annual conference that was contained in a resolution from May last year. It said: “That the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women … urge the Minister of Health: a) To increase funding to Age Care Providers to provide pay equity for all aged care workers in accordance with the Equal Pay Act 1972. b) To change the funding model for Aged Care Providers to ensure any funding increases include ring fencing for pay increases and accountability.”

So, essentially, this is to ensure any money that is transferred to service providers does make its way into the wage packets of the low-paid women workers themselves. I guess this is highlighting the fact that for decades—for decades—women working in the aged-care sector have been underpaid and basically their exploitation has been what has been keeping the whole sector going. It is time we recognised that, and this piece of legislation is one way of fixing the first piece of exploitation around the breaches of the minimum wage.

I also want to read a small piece from the one submitter who was just an ordinary citizen and her name was Mrs Dalziel. She actually submitted basically to reinforce the fact that home carers provide a huge and essential service that benefits not only the client but the families themselves. She said: “I remember the first time a lady arrived and with a big smile and happy attitude dealt with personal health care tasks for my elderly parent. This relieved the stress I was experiencing of being forced to intrude on my parent’s privacy …”. She goes on, and I actually thought it was a wonderful piece of the democratic process to hear this, the firsthand account of the difference home-care workers make in people’s lives. We will be supporting this bill. It is a good bill. It does actually start to fix some of the problems of the exploitation of women carers in the home-care sector. Thank you.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): First, I must congratulate Simon O’Connor on his good news. I think it shows that newspapers are still very important, even in the digital age. We did not hear anything at select committee.

It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of New Zealand First at the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. We must thank the officials, who helped enormously as this bill was going through the Health Committee to ensure that for any changes that we wanted to make we had the full information, so thank you very much. New Zealand First also totally supports this bill. We are very pleased to see that this bill is formalising the agreement that has already been negotiated between the 24,000 to 28,000 community support workers, unions, providers, and the district health boards to ensure that these valuable workers are actually recognised for the travel that they do between clients. Travelling between clients is definitely work: no one would be doing the travelling between clients if it was not for work.

We are also very pleased to see that ACC was included in this legislation. We realise that there are a lot of people on ACC who need home-care assistance as well. This, basically, is an issue that should have been resolved years ago, and I know that Parliament has received petitions and protests on this very issue. We must give credit to Jenny Goodman and the Public Service Association and Tamara Baddeley. This bill is important because home-care workers keep clients out of rest homes, and many people want that independence at home rather than living in a rest home. So it is really important that they are paid correctly. This is a group of workers that are generally paid at a low rate, and the current turnover rate is about 40 percent—far too high for any industry, any sector in the employment area.

I would like to quote from a submission received at the select committee from Melissa, stating that for some home-care support workers the financial gain makes it possible to stay in the sector, and: “Beyond the low pay, for most support workers there are currently no guarantees in the number of hours they work per week. It’s a bad combination of working conditions that has led to a destabilised workforce with a nearly 40 percent turnover rate.” Home support worker and union delegate June Conner also said: “There are so many variables beyond our control that being paid for travel time takes some of the edge off. For example, if a client goes to hospital that means I am down those hours for the week. So I might start the week thinking I have X number of hours, but if I have a high-needs client who goes into hospital, I could … lose one-third or even [more] of my anticipated hours.”

That is not a very secure working environment, particularly in this industry and in today’s hard economic times. We have to thank that group of people who have basically carried out an enormous task for many years, under very trying circumstances. It has not been easy. So, really, we come to the point where it is essential that there is a sustainable future home and community support service, because we know that the demand for this service is going to grow at an unprecedented rate into the future.

The interim solution that has been agreed—and I will read from the bill—is that between 1 July 2015 and 29 February 2016 the workforce will be paid a figure that represents the minimum wage for the average time spent travelling between clients. From 1 March 2016 this will change to employees being compensated at the minimum wage for qualifying travel time, and they are to receive no less than 50c per kilometre for that qualifying travel time. I have to note that the IRD estimates that 74c per kilometre is a reasonable estimate of what the costs incurred by the employee for running a motor vehicle are, but I would say that these employees would be very happy, initially, with the 50c.

When we look at Part B of the terms of settlement, “Establishment of a Regularised Workforce and Review of the Home and Community Health Sector”, it is very relevant and very important to the development of this bill. I am very pleased that all parties want to work towards a regularised workforce within the 24 months following this settlement agreement taking effect. Certainty of employment is absolutely essential in today’s economic environment.

There have been some important changes in this legislation, such as the removal of the 20 kilometre limit for travel and the removal of employer zones. Employer zones are definitely impractical and not a part of the settlement agreement. In New Zealand First we believe that there does need to be a dramatic overhaul of the entire funding of the sector, with a focus on workforce planning to futureproof New Zealand from the coming crisis that is predicted in the care sector. This needs to be the start of a continued effort by Government to get the funding and the organisation right in this sector, and to give the home and community support workforce the support that they deserve. New Zealand First is very happy to support this legislation.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to speak in support of the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. I also want to acknowledge the people who have worked so well together in coming to the position that we are currently in, whether it was the support workers and unions, whether it was the service providers, the Crown—everyone who was involved in this process. We saw a very coordinated effort by officials and by the whole team to come to a sensible solution on this issue, so it is a real pleasure to be here supporting it.

I have to say I have had some firsthand experience over recent times. I have got an elderly father-in-law who has just moved into a rest home, but prior to that, when he was in his own home, he had some very dedicated people coming into his home and taking care of him on a daily basis.

One of the members over here referred to the fact that those people often come in and they have a big smile and a happy attitude. I think that really sums up the types of people who do the home-care and support work. They really do have a fantastic attitude towards those people who are elderly or who are disabled.

We are talking about travel between workplaces in this instance, and there is a saying in this world about going the extra mile. I guess we could take that saying two ways when it comes to supporting this piece of legislation, because not only do those people go the extra mile to be looking after their clients, but also they were actually driving extra miles to get there. I think it is really important that we are recognising those people today.

We are solving a historical issue here—something that has actually been causing people quite a bit of not only angst but also financial discomfort for a period of time—and it is a pleasure to be here, helping to build a sustainable system that is enduring, that is affordable, and that is in a sustainable framework going forward, because these types of services are extremely important.

It has been a pleasure to work with the Health Committee. It is good to be standing here knowing that the parties that have spoken so far have been in support of it. The Health Committee does work really well together, and it is always a pleasure to be part of that process.

I also want today to acknowledge the submitters. Everyone who came in added a contribution towards the progress of putting this work together. There is some quite detailed information in here, in terms of being able to have this piece of legislation aligned with other pieces of legislation, including ACC, and it was quite a picture to put that all together. It was not only the negotiation; it was also getting everything in place in the legislation to line it all up, to come to where we are at today.

It is important to note that in Budget 2014 the Government did invest money in supporting this. It is my pleasure to stand here today and support this piece of legislation.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I like to begin second reading calls by giving my thanks to the select committee staff, ministry officials—some of whom are here in the Chamber today—and to the submitters who made contributions on the bill, all of whom I think made the bill better, and also give my praise to members of the select committee. I stood down from the Health Committee for this item of business, but it seems to me that the bill is considerably improved by their efforts.

The health sector probably has, overall, a staff that is more female than male. Many of the health occupations are ones that are typically carried out by women, and therefore it is a sector that is particularly beset by the problems of pay inequity—in other words, when occupations that are predominantly filled by women are systemically paid at a lower level than those, with equivalent-value work, filled by men. The aged-care workers, both in residential care and providing home-based support, have long been recognised as particular occupations where this is the case, where the, typically, women carrying out that work have been underpaid.

Other speakers in this House today have already mentioned the contribution of Judy McGregor and her fantastic report Caring Counts, and I see other members nodding. I note that this whole House probably appreciates the work that she put into that. I also want to acknowledge the work that Sue Kedgley and Winnie Laban put into a joint report from the Labour Party and the Green Party, looking at some of these systemic issues in the aged-care sector, which also acknowledged this issue of travel times. Judy McGregor noted that the practice of not paying for travel time was both unjust and disrespectful of the workers carrying out this incredibly important work, as Barbara Kuriger has just mentioned also. She asked: what does it say, as a society, about our valuing of older people if we treat those who are providing these basic services for older people so disrespectfully? Paying properly for travel time is a question not only of being just towards the workers involved in that sector but also of ensuring that the services themselves are viable and respectful for older people.

As members know, I live on the West Coast, and I can see around the Chamber a number of other members from rural areas. Maureen Pugh is also from the West Coast—welcome, Maureen. The simple fact is that the distances to travel between houses, between clients, that workers sometimes need to incorporate into their day—if those travel times are not paid for, the worker cannot possibly afford to provide that service, and the viability of the service itself is brought into question if these workers are not being properly paid for them.

In finishing, I want to just briefly note my appreciation of the role played by the unions but also, in fact, by the employers here, who came to the committee and supported this deal. That contrasts so starkly with the behaviour of rest home employers when I, as a district health board chief executive, had gone to the then Minister of Health to get extra money to pay increased wages to rest home staff members. The Minister approved it, the district health boards approved it, and then the rest homes kept it for their bottom line rather than paying the workers. So it is great to see these home-based support organisations actually contributing to this deal, and is it not great to actually make a decision through a negotiation and consensus? Let us do a bit more of that, eh?

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I have not had the privilege of being on the Health Committee and actually deliberating on this bill, but I am really happy to have the opportunity to speak to the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. Firstly, I just want to say that Labour is pleased to see the settlement of this case finally brought before the House after the Human Rights Commission ruling that travel times should be remunerated several years ago. I just want to reiterate what Kevin Hague has said in terms of the acknowledgment for Winnie Laban and, I think, Catherine Delahunty, who actually hosted a meeting maybe 6 years ago, when these issues were discussed.

I think it is good that we have an understanding—a shared understanding and support—for this bill in the House, but I do need to highlight that National has reluctantly bowed to pressure from unions and has adopted Labour’s fair and sensible policy to pay home support workers for the time they spend travelling between clients. That is a fact. Unfortunately, it did take some convincing. We are glad that National has finally got there, but it is unfortunate that it could not see sense in respect of this issue right from the start [Interruption]—Jonathan Naylor. That is indeed what happened.

We do give credit to Jenny Goodman and the Public Service Association, who bravely took a test case claim on behalf of hundreds of fellow home-care workers. Even with this progress, this settlement is still a long way from dealing with the historical underpayment of home and community support workers. Many of these people are on wages close to the minimum wage and, given the work they do, they deserve to be on a pay grade similar to nurses. I think we need to acknowledge that this is a growing workforce. We have an ageing population in this country, so the demand for carers and home support is only going to increase. So we cannot continue to ignore the fact that we have a workforce here that is underpaid and that needs to have further investment. I am sure all of us, as we get to the point when we require this type of care, want to know that we are getting the best care possible, and we want to know that when we are getting the best care possible, the people taking the time to look after us are, in fact, being looked after.

That workforce that we are talking about, I think we need to acknowledge, is a highly feminised workforce. Before I came into Parliament I had the opportunity to manage a research project that was about the non-regulated Pacific health workforce. Many of those whom we were doing the research on actually fell into this category of home and community support workers. Again, just to reiterate, many of them were women. One of the biggest issues that we had was that it was an underpaid workforce. But one of the things that stood out was that when surveyed, the workers in that workforce highlighted the fact that they were in it not just for the fact that it was a job but because they actually cared. They enjoyed their work and it was the work that they had chosen to undertake. So I think we need to acknowledge that and really look at ways in which we can increase the remuneration for that workforce, moving forward.

The wider funding of the home support services also needs to be addressed, as home support remains the only service not planned and funded on a national basis. The lack of funding pushes down wages in the sector. The lack of funding also means, as the Home and Community Health Association has stated, that home and community support will increasingly become an option only for those who can afford it. Many people in the last year have found their home support levies cut. This is dangerous, and I think we need to acknowledge it. If people require support but do not have the funding to pay for it, and then they are left in their homes to try to battle their way through everyday tasks, then actually we are putting them at risk. The cost down the track, in terms of the health care that will be required if they have accidents because of the fact that they were not in a position to be able to undertake all the tasks that they were doing, is actually going to be far more than it would have cost to provide the few hours of care that they may have needed.

This Government has cut $1.6 billion out of the health system, over 6 years, and the workforce is bearing the brunt of this gross underfunding—and is stretched to capacity. There are still issues with this new settlement. New organisations that join up will not be covered by this deal. There are things that need to be ironed out, but as I said before, I express Labour’s support for this bill. It is just an area that we need to continue to work on together in this House to ensure that—

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

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to acknowledge, first of all, the officials who are in the House and who worked so very hard and diligently on this bill. It was a negotiation, and we do appreciate, all of us—and it has been expressed, but I want to also express my appreciation for the work that the officials did on this bill to get a good outcome. So thank you to the officials in the House and also to those in support of getting this Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill to this stage.

I also want to acknowledge that there have been some pretty good speeches in this House this afternoon. We are all in agreement with this bill, so essentially we can all end up saying very much the same thing. But a couple of speeches have stood out for me today. One of them was a comment from Barbara Stewart, who said that it was important that there is a sustainable home support service. That member is absolutely correct. In saying that, it means that we do not care about the clients and recipients of that service, but actually we should and do care for the providers of that service, the home-care workers themselves.

I also want to acknowledge Kevin Hague, who acknowledged Maureen Pugh and welcomed her to the House, and I do so as well. Go the West Coast! Kevin Hague also acknowledged that the provision of good-quality home support and community-based care is integral to the well-being of disabled folk and older folk in our rural and smaller provincial communities. Throughout the consideration of this bill I always had in my mind Palmerston and Ranfurly, because the homes there are very widely dispersed. They are rural communities in the South Island and much the same as you get all around New Zealand, but in fact those home-care workers do spend a lot of time travelling from client to client. It was good to hear Kevin Hague acknowledging that need.

I also want to make a very brief comment about the clients themselves. I know somebody who is in receipt of home-care services. That person will damn well make sure their diary fits in with the home-care worker. If I say to that person “Right, let’s go and do such and such today.”, if it does not suit, the person will say: “No, no. I need to be at home at 10 o’clock because such and such is coming around.” I go: “OK. We’ll reschedule.” The reason why the person will do everything to be at home, for the home-care worker, is that they have a bond. They enjoy each other’s company. The home-care worker comes in and does a marvellous job of supporting that person, and they are now friends. I think we should never underestimate the benefit of that to the recipients of home-care support, but also the value of those people who go into this work and who willingly, cheerfully, diligently, and lovingly provide that support to people so that they can live in their homes in comfort.

In my short contribution I say thank you to all those who have worked so well on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana. Firstly, can I extend my greetings to this House. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the new year—

Phil Twyford: Kia ora.

POTO WILLIAMS: —kia orana—so I want to wish everyone a successful and robust year in the House. Greetings to the new member, Maureen Pugh. Welcome to the House.

I want firstly to talk about the role of a home-care support worker and some of the changes that have happened that have facilitated the need for this bill, and to signal what may happen in the future in terms of home support. A home-care support worker does a variety of jobs within the home. It is not just about preparing meals or supporting someone to keep their home clean. It is often very intimate and very personal care that is afforded to the recipient of the home care. There is definitely a relationship of trust that needs to be developed between the person who delivers the care and the person who receives the care. As Jacqui Dean has just said, often the recipient of the care will do what they can to ensure they are available when their carer is available, because they have built that relationship and that trust and it is not an easy thing to then go and give that trust to another carer.

What has happened over recent times in the home-care arena is that through new technologies and new ways of assessing the needs of recipients of home care, we have actually got to a point where carers are delivering shorter and shorter and shorter periods of care. It may have been, say 10 years ago, or 6 or 7 years ago when I was in the business of managing a home-care service myself, that you might have had 2 to 3 hours a week of care that included perhaps housework, meal preparation, and showering or some personal care. We have now proceeded through a process where our assessment of the needs for people has meant that they are actually provided with less care in terms of the amount of time that somebody goes into a care home. So what that means for a home carer is that they may have more clients. In an 8-hour day or a 10-hour day they would be travelling to, say, five or six clients, whereas in the old days, when the assessment was for longer periods of care, they may have had two or three clients. So the need for addressing the issue of travel has become more apparent.

Yes, we did start thinking about this several years ago and the agreement was put in place all those years ago, but I think that over the course of the next few years it will again shift and we will need to be thinking again about ensuring that we are up to date with not only the levels of care but ensuring that home-care workers are compensated for what they need to do and the number of clients that they are servicing within a day. So not only do we need to pay for that travel, we are actually paying for more travel and paying for home-care workers to actually address the needs of more people in one day.

Jacqui Dean did make the point about the rural community, and there is often distance to be travelled. But often home-care workers are specialised in a particular type of care, and it is not just rural workers who have a higher level of need in terms of the distance that they travel. It may be that because you deliver a specialist type of care, your client base may be far-flung across a city environment, even. Others have referred to those who submitted to the select committee, and I just want to make comment about three of the submissions.

Obviously, the National Council of Women of New Zealand had a concern about the value that we place on women’s work. It is true that we continue to undervalue the role of women. Pay parity is a very, very topical topic at the moment, and the National Council of Women is very keen to ensure that we keep this uppermost in our consideration. The National Council of Women also talks about the clients living in rural areas, which means that travel can be a significant issue. It was my view that before this settlement, and also the discussion around how we pay residential care workers for overnights, that we have in fact been allowing our home-care workers and our residential workers to really subsidise the care for our most vulnerable people.

The submission from Access home health care included a really interesting snapshot of the demographic of the workforce. About 91 percent of the workforce are women, and there are wide varieties of ethnicities within that workforce. I note it is quite interesting that when some home-care workers are from a different ethnicity to the person whom they are caring for it can be quite interesting at times when meal preparation is required, because you can often have a wide variety of different ethnic foods, depending on who is actually delivering your home care. The age profile is really interesting too. It tends to be older women over the age of 45 who are part of this workforce—from the age of 45 to 64. I think that does speak to a point that Carmel Sepuloni raised about people in this workforce actually wanting to do this work. It is work of a particularly caring nature, and it does tend to be dominated by women who like to be part of the caring profession.

Access also made comment on the changing nature of the homecare environment. It is interesting. If we were operating a home-care service in somewhere like Hong Kong or China, travel would not actually be an issue because they live in multi-level apartments, and the travel required would only be in the elevator to go up to the next floor to your next client.

With the Home and Community Health Association Inc., it talked about the frame of the health sector investment, and I thought it was a really interesting paragraph about the broad context of health sector investment. I want to quote from its submission: “If our workforce can transition towards a place where the workers are paid fairly for the work they do, and are better trained; if provider organisations can be more financially sustainable, and therefore more innovative and productive, then New Zealand will have a health sub-sector that can defray the more rapidly rising cost of other health services”. It is a really, really important issue: that keeping people well at home costs this country far less than to have those people cared for in an institution. This really should be where we think more about the investment dollar actually having a cost benefit to this country. I could not speak more highly of the cost effectiveness of having support at home, as opposed to having support in a residential setting.

Just to conclude, this bill really comes to us as the already negotiated settlement agreement, and we know Part A of that agreement sets about to ensure that people will be paid at least the minimum wage for the time that they are required to travel. Part B of the settlement, which this bill does not cover, but that I think the Health Committee will enjoy getting some evidence on at some point, really looks at the regularisation of the workforce, and also the review of the sector, which I think would be quite valuable in terms of going forward and determining where the health-care sector can be in the future. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As a member of the Health Committee it gives me special pleasure to be the last speaker in this second reading debate on what I think is a very important piece of legislation for the people who will be reaping the benefits of the work that the Health Committee has done on considering the legislation.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Health, Dr Jonathan Coleman, on bringing this piece of legislation to the House. I also want to acknowledge, as others have done in this debate previously, and thank the officials, the select committee members, the chair, and everyone who has been involved, but particularly the seven submitters who brought to the committee some good ideas and some useful ideas. The committee was able to make some, I think, practical, useful improvements to the legislation from when it was first introduced to the House at its first reading.

I represent the beautiful Coromandel electorate. It is a vast, rural provincial electorate, and many of the home and community care workers who look after so many of the people in my electorate, because of its older age demographic, will be very pleased to see this bill making progress through the House with the support of all parties. That, of itself, is relatively unusual in this place, but I think it is a sign and an indication of a good piece of legislation. I commend it to the House with pleasure.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill

Second Reading

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister for Ethnic Communities): on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: I move, That the Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate) Bill be now read a second time. This Government is continuing its commitment to improve the social housing system in order to support more vulnerable New Zealanders across our country. I would like to thank the Social Services Committee and particularly the chair, Alfred Ngaro, for the timely consideration of this particular bill. The committee considered 11 written submissions and it heard from eight of those submitters. The main change recommended by the select committee is to introduce a requirement that the Crown report on its operations for State housing land that is declared to be under exclusive ministerial administration.

There are a number of other minor amendments recommended by that committee that have been made. I am grateful, also, for the efforts of those officials who worked on the bill. The bill, essentially, achieves three things. First, it authorises designated Ministers to enter into social housing transactions in the name of Housing New Zealand Corporation and its subsidiaries. This allows us to transfer homes beginning first in the areas of Tauranga and Invercargill to various community housing providers. Along with transferring some of those properties, this bill enables the designated Ministers to enter into contracts to require that Housing New Zealand provides transitional services to those community housing providers to ensure that their tenants’ needs are looked after during that transfer process. It will also ensure that the transaction processes work smoothly for current tenants.

The transactions process is new, both for the Government and for the community housing providers that it will deal with. The processes are proceeding in a measured way so that potential participants have the opportunity to prepare and the rights of tenants are protected under that process. Officials have received expressions of interest about both the Invercargill and the Tauranga social housing transactions, and by mid-March they will announce a short-list of bidders who will be asked to submit a detailed response to a request for proposals issued by the Government. So the Government is pleased with the level of interest shown in these transactions, but there are safeguards in place over this process. Following exercise of the transaction mandate, Ministers are required to publicly notify the general nature and the purpose of the use by means of a statement published in the Gazette, and it is presented to this House of Representatives. This provides transparency and allows for Parliament and New Zealanders to assess whether the exercise is consistent with the purpose outlined in the legislation.

The bill also clarifies that the Public Works Act 1981 offer-back provisions do not apply to land held by Housing New Zealand and preserves this treatment for designated Ministers. Just as the offer-back provisions do not apply, and have never applied, to land held by Housing New Zealand, they do not apply to the Ministers acting in Housing New Zealand’s name. It is important to provide certainty on this point to avoid delay to the social housing reform process. This amendment does not alter any existing rights; it merely confirms that the current legal position of the offer-back regime does not apply to Housing New Zealand properties. It is also important to note that this bill does not remove any rights of first refusal that iwi may have in relation to Housing New Zealand properties under the Treaty settlements processes. We have been engaging with affected iwi since last year to ensure that the rights are appropriately recognised.

The final aspect of this bill is an amendment to the Housing Act 1955 to clear up a longstanding issue not directly related to the social housing reform programme. This amendment is a technical one that gives a designated Minister the exclusive power to administer State housing land that has been identified by that Minister in a Gazette notice.

The bill is an important one, but it is a small part of an overall work programme to improve social housing across our country. We are also opening up Crown land in Auckland for social and affordable housing developments, providing more emergency housing with a $2.5 million funding boost to the sector, we are contracting with community providers to provide more social houses in Auckland, and freeing up social houses by reviewing the tenancies of those who can afford private rentals. This Government remains committed to improving the lives of tenants in social housing, and this bill supports that objective. I commend this bill to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): This will be a change of styles after the soothing tones of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. I am very disappointed that we do not have the pleasure of the Hon Paula Bennett to contribute the Minister for Social Housing’s perspective in this debate—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I think the member knows that he is skirting with trouble.

PHIL TWYFORD: Why do we oppose this bill? Because we do oppose this bill, with every bone in our body. The first reason is that it enables a policy that we utterly oppose and disagree with, the State house sell-off. It will be part of John Key and Bill English’s legacy: the dismantling of a system of housing that for generations has put a decent roof over the heads of struggling Kiwis. Dismantling the very system that gave him a taxpayer-supported start in life in Christchurch in the 1960s will be part of John Key’s legacy—a legacy of shame. It is the wrong policy at the wrong time. It is a bad policy, because of the effects that it will have.

Secondly, the other reason that we oppose this bill is that it opens the door to corruption, and I am going to have plenty more to say about the concerns we have about the extraordinary unfettered powers that this legislation will give to Paula Bennett and Bill English to flog off billions of dollars of publicly owned land and housing around this country—land and housing that was paid for by generations of New Zealanders who believed in the Kiwi Dream that if you worked and saved and played by the rules in this country, then you could get a roof over your head. If you could afford it you would be able to buy and own your own home with all the security and the benefits that that implies, but if you could not make that and you were struggling, part of the social contract in this country going back 100 years has been that the State, the community, the taxpayer will ensure that you and your kids get a decent roof over your heads.

This bill is enabling the dismantling of that very system, and it is doing it in a way that really puts a question mark over the propriety of the process. By giving unfettered powers to those two Ministers, by sweeping away all the legislative safeguards that would normally apply in a situation like this, and by allowing Paula Bennett and Bill English all the freedom in the world to do whatever deal they like to keep their sordid policy alive, it is a charter for corruption. It should worry all New Zealanders that New Zealand under this National Government is slipping down the international rankings by Transparency International—slipping down because of Oravida, because of the Saudi sheep scandal, because of Skycity, and because of this Government’s congenital secrecy and its inability to maintain a clear line between private profit and public good.

We saw that today in the House, actually, in question time, where it was very clear that the Government members could see nothing wrong with the fact that Amy Adams had appointed Bill Francis, the chief executive officer of the private Radio Broadcasters Association, to the board of Radio New Zealand, its chief competitor. They cannot see the problem with breaking down the line between private profit and public good, and what this bill does, by giving the Ministers carte blanche, absolute freedom, to negotiate whatever deals they like with whomever they like with no legislative safeguards and accountability—it is a charter for corruption.

Why is this the wrong policy at the wrong time? Because we have an acute housing shortage in this country. If people listened to Radio New Zealand the other day and listened to the heartrending report about working families with young children and babies left homeless, sleeping in their cars, and being turned away by the Ministry of Social Development—they cannot even under this National Government get on the waiting list for a State house. It is an absolute disgrace, and what did Paula Bennett, the Minister who is responsible for this bill, say when asked by Radio New Zealand about families with babies and young children sleeping in their cars? What did she say? This is a classic of this Minister: she said that “There’s recently been a review of the housing register, but … in some cases, the fault lies with the families themselves.” What a classic. We have got a waiting list of nearly 5,000 families in New Zealand who cannot get a State house, we have got unprecedented levels of homelessness and families with babies and young children living in cars, and the responsible Minister in this National Government, Paula Bennett, says it is the fault of the families themselves.

Another sign of how bad the current housing crisis is, which will be made worse by the passage of this bill: today on TradeMe someone is advertising the bottom bunk in an Auckland apartment, a 40 square metre apartment in Auckland. It is $170 a week to rent the bottom bunk of an apartment. Is it any wonder that the New Zealand Herald reports over the summer that students are selling sex in order to try to put a roof over their heads? To find housing that they can afford, they are selling themselves for sex. That is what it has come to. That is what National’s housing crisis has done to our country.

But the Government’s idea of a solution to the housing crisis is to sell off the very houses that should be used to house our most vulnerable citizens. It does everything—everything but the obvious thing you do in a housing shortage, and that is build more houses. So it is the wrong policy at the wrong time. But worse than that, this policy will actually make things worse. It is undermining and weakening and dismantling the system of social and State housing put in place over generations to ensure that no matter how your parents might be struggling financially, our country will put a roof over your head and make sure that every child in this country at least gets a decent roof over their head. But that is an alien ethos; it is another language, which the National Party does not understand.

The Kiwi Dream has been part of this country’s culture. It is part of the fabric, it is part of our history, it goes to the heart of who we are as New Zealanders, and it is about ensuring that every kid gets a decent start in life. As I said, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can, if not own your own house, at least have decent, affordable, and accessible housing.

But what this policy will do—this policy is about enabling the breakup and the dismantling of State housing. It will weaken that whole system of social support that has been so critical over the decades. Paula Bennett and Bill English have tried to frame this policy as being about improving and modernising the system of State housing, and they originally promised that non-profit organisations would be the beneficiaries of this policy, because they wanted to grow the community housing sector. But as soon as the Salvation Army came out and said: “We don’t want to buy these houses because we don’t think it’s a good policy.”, they immediately opened the door to merchant bankers and property investors. They said that State and social housing would be better administered by local groups who understand their communities better.

But we know they are negotiating and talking with Horizon Housing from Australia, and any number of other interests that are willing to buy these houses. They held a workshop towards the end of last year, and who attended it? The Plenary Group, the international infrastructure business, John Laing from the UK public-private partnership firm, every merchant banker you can imagine—the whole meeting was dominated by lawyers, banks, consultants, and developers. This is not about empowering the community housing sector; it is about flicking off billions of dollars of publicly owned land and housing to their Cabinet club mates.

All of the objections that we raised in the first reading of this bill have been ignored by the Government. All of the concerns that were raised by submitters at the select committee have been brushed aside by the Government members on the select committee, and by the Minister. It is in the National Party’s DNA to blur the boundaries between private profit and public good. That is what this bill does. Submitters came along to the select committee and raised multiple concerns about the unfettered powers given to Ministers to dispose of these publicly owned assets. We think it is extremely unwise to do that. It raises the perception of corruption and impropriety, and we will have a lot more to say about that in this debate.

ALFRED NGARO (National): As this is my first speech in the House this year, Mr Assistant Speaker and to all the members of the House, can I also say kia orana to you as well. As my grandmother would say to me, “kia orana”, and the essence of the word “ora” means well-being, so that actually can also be interpreted as “May you live long and may you live well”. And to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, you have longevity in this House, and you have also done well in this House. So kia orana to you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Kia orana.

ALFRED NGARO: Christmas is a great time to stop and reflect on the year that has passed—what we have seen, and even what we have done. I am sure that Mr Twyford, who has just spoken, may not have had enough reflection, especially, possibly, in regard to this bill as the spokesperson for housing for Labour. Because if he had reflected, he might have remembered some of the words that he spoke in 2014 at the Community Housing Aotearoa Impact Conference, in which he said—these are his words, on reflection, that actually go to the heart of this policy—“Tenants with high and complex needs may be better off being transferred to a community housing provider.” The regulatory impact report clearly states that there are 3,650 tenants who are looking for and need assistance into social housing provision and that is exactly what we are doing. Mr Twyford, by his own words, has supported what we are doing. So I am a little bit confused about it being the wrong policy now.

He also said this: “Our vision for that is to have Housing [New Zealand] … and a bigger, stronger community housing sector working in partnership to deliver more social housing, more diverse types of housing, and a broad range of services.” We are doing all those things—this policy, actually, is being confirmed by Mr Twyford by his own words and, in fact, he said in the speech he made last year: “We are committed to your members having access to the income-related rent subsidy, to capital grants, and to stock transfer.” This goes exactly to the heart of this bill. This bill deals with the fact that we are transferring stock. In other words, it gives a statutory transactional mandate to the Ministers to be able to transfer that stock. That is exactly what Mr Twyford has disagreed with.

The essence of his disagreement is this: wrong policy, wrong time. In other words, really, it is only the wrong policy and only the wrong time because it is not in Mr Twyford’s time. It is not in the time that he has talked about. He talked about multitudes of submissions. There were only 11 written submissions and eight oral submissions. There was not, in a sense, the outcry from the sector to say that this was all wrong. There were areas that we needed to tweak, there were concerns that we needed to take into consideration, and that is exactly what we were doing.

Can I say that at the heart of this legislation, it is dealing with the very complex needs that we know exist in our sector—at the heart of this. Mr Twyford himself has confirmed the fact that Housing New Zealand, in its ability to provide for those needs, is unable to do so. Therefore, it needs the partnership. The transactional mandate allows for the transfer of this stock to the partnership with the community housing providers who have the ability to be able to provide for the complex needs and services. They may be the areas of disability, mental health—there are a variety of different needs. In fact, as we speak, there are currently 1,300 State housing tenants who also made applications, because of their high and complex needs, for transfer into a social housing provider. This is not dreamt out of thin air. This is not because we think it is just an idea that maybe we could pursue. It is the right idea. It is evidence-based.

Currently, one of the concerns that is raised is that maybe we were starting off the great State house sell-off. Let us talk about what the stock is. The commitment by this Prime Minister was to increase the State housing stock. Over 8 years, 62,000 is what the current stock is—

Phil Twyford: It’s gone down in the last 7 years.

ALFRED NGARO: And Mr Twyford was there at the annual review, where Mr Sowry, through his report, said this. Mr Twyford knows: there are 67,000 houses—an increase of 5,000 houses—that currently exist, and 190,000 people are living in State houses. That is what is being provided by this Government. Not only is it increasing the stock where it is needed, but, most important, it is about wanting to ensure that we have the ability to transfer that stock to social housing providers who have the ability to meet the high and complex needs of our tenants who are there.

We believe that this bill is important. We believe that it is heading in the right direction. It is meeting those needs that are there. Most important, it actually is reconfirmed. I want to finish off with, again, a confirmation by Mr Twyford in his own words, from a speech in this House around the income-related rents. This is from the Hansard, from the words of Mr Twyford. Here is what he says: “We are not opposed, in fact, to the Minister’s intention to shift housing stock across to the community housing providers. That makes sense”.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I do not know what you would say—I do not want to breach anything around the Standing Orders. But it just sounds a little bit complicated, a little bit confused, because, on the one hand, Mr Twyford is saying this is the wrong policy at the wrong time—I would contend that this is the right policy. It is at the right time. Most important, it is not just about bricks and mortar. It is not just about houses. It is about the people of those communities, who absolutely need our support and our help. I commend this second reading of the bill to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): That member who just spoke, Alfred Ngaro, can turn a blind eye—along with his colleagues—as much as he likes, but the reality is that National has failed New Zealand when it comes to housing. It is clear that National has failed New Zealanders when it comes to housing. In west Auckland the other day—and Alfred Ngaro knows all about west Auckland, because he is trying to run for a seat out there—I heard from a—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! Sorry, I am going to actually let the member start again, but I want to warn Mr Ngaro. He is not allowed to wander around waving his arms in the air and interjecting while he is on his feet when he has not got the call. Carmel Sepuloni, starting again.

CARMEL SEPULONI: I heard a very disturbing thing from one of our health providers in west Auckland the other day—that is that the Waitematā District Health Board is on the verge of having to release people into homelessness. These are people who are still recovering from illnesses, who do not have homes to go into. There is no emergency housing. There is very little, or a lack of, social housing. And they are on the verge of having to release people—sick people, who are still recovering—into homelessness. Is that side of the House still proud of its accomplishments when it comes to housing when that is the case? I cannot imagine why it would be.

We heard from Alfred Ngaro that Labour is opposed to building up the community housing providers. I just need to make the point that we are not opposed to building up community housing provision. What we are opposed to is the National Government flicking off Housing New Zealand houses to those social housing providers and not actually building up the stock, but just passing the buck when it comes to housing. Actually, the Government is flicking off billions of dollars that belong to New Zealanders in terms of assets. That is what we are opposed to. We are not opposed at all to building up the community housing providers.

I sat through the select committee process with my colleague Phil Twyford, and a number of things came up that were disturbing. I just want to point out one small thing before I get on to the two main reasons why we are not supporting this bill. One of the things that came up, which a lot of the submitters were also concerned about, is that with this bill all of the decision-making power in respect of the transactions—in terms of passing the Housing New Zealand houses over to the community housing providers—lies with the Minister but all the accountability and responsibility for the success of that transaction lies with Housing New Zealand. So the Minister has all the power to make the decision but will not be held accountable if anything goes wrong in the transaction, despite the fact that she is imposing that decision on Housing New Zealand. I cannot see how in any way that is fair, and, actually, a lot of the submitters agreed that that does not seem fair to them. If the Minister is going to have the power to make these decisions, then the Minister needs to be liable if anything goes wrong with those transactions.

It is not only Labour that opposes this bill. We oppose it along with our Green colleagues and our New Zealand First colleagues, and, as I said, there are two main reasons for our opposition to the bill. The first is that the bill enables a policy, as Phil Twyford has already outlined, that we disagree with—the sale of a large proportion of the country’s stock of State houses is central to the Government’s policy. Our view is that the housing crisis, more than anything, demands a substantial increase in the number of houses that are affordable for people on very low incomes. In addition, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of State housing—in particular, to make it warm and dry.

We have heard through the media, and through some of the reports that have come out from the Government, that there has been a decline in the number of people on the social housing register. I just want to say that there has not been a decline in demand in terms of people trying to get on the register. What is happening is that there is a block right at the beginning, when people try to get access to the register in the first place—in order to even be considered for a Housing New Zealand house.

We have seen instances where the Government has had the opportunity to build up the stock of Housing New Zealand houses, and I want to cite one in my own electorate, in respect of the Waterview Connection project. For that project, Housing New Zealand sold houses to the New Zealand Transport Agency. They were no longer required for the project. Housing New Zealand had the opportunity to buy those houses back but instead chose not to, so those houses went up for private sale. How irresponsible is that? It is irresponsible because of the fact that there are hundreds of families in that particular area who are trying to get into homes. Yet when they had an opportunity to buy back the houses that they had sold for a particular project, they decided not to.

There is an urgent need to improve the quality of State housing—in particular, to make it warm and dry—and we see that in our offices every day with our constituents who come through with health issues that have come about because of the state of the housing they are in.

What has been really disappointing is listening to Minister Paula Bennett rave on in the media about the fact that people should be grateful when they are offered a home and that they will be denied the opportunity to take up any home, and in fact removed from the list, if they turn down a house. There are so many good reasons why people turn down houses. Yet we have Minister Bennett stigmatising these families. Here, in the House, she talked about two people who had turned down a house because of the fact that they did not like the decor. Two people in the whole country turned down a house for a reason like that. Yet we know of hundreds of families who have turned down houses because of things like they are not in the close vicinity of the schools their kids go to, or because of the fact that the house is too far away from the work, the job, they have so they would not be able to travel there, or because it is too close to a former abusive partner whom they cannot be near because it is dangerous for them and their children, or because it is not fenced appropriately and it would be dangerous for their small children to live there. More often than not, people have good reasons for turning down Housing New Zealand houses.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.