Wednesday, 2 March 2016

WEDNESDAY, 2 MARCH 2016

WEDNESDAY, 2 MARCH 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing, Rental—Warrant of Fitness and Child Health

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Has the Minister received advice on how many children’s lives would be saved and how many child hospital admissions would be prevented by a rental housing warrant of fitness; if yes, what are those figures?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): My advice is that the Government’s proposal to require rental properties to be insulated would save 18 deaths per year and the mandatory requirement for smoke alarms three deaths per year. The analysis also shows savings of $12 million per year in hospital admissions. The estimates are not exclusively for children. It is not possible to give a single answer to the proposition of a warrant of fitness, because it depends on what the specific requirements of that warrant of fitness would be. My advice is that the greatest benefits are from insulation and smoke alarms, and that is why those requirements are to become law. We do not support requirements like those in the member’s warrant of fitness bill that would prohibit renting a house unless it had glass visibility strips on windows, because we think it is over the top.

Metiria Turei: So can the Minister confirm that he does not have any advice on the cost of children’s deaths and hospitalisations versus the cost of a rental warrant of fitness for housing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The analysis that the Government has done, in my ministry, includes not just the deaths of children but also the deaths of all New Zealanders. For instance, I am advised that, in fact, the greatest benefit—in terms of saving lives—from our requirement that all rental properties be insulated is actually from older New Zealanders and influenza-type diseases, and I think it is proper that we count the lives of all those who are saved, as well as children.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that even one child dying from a cold, damp, mouldy house is one child too many?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, and that is why this Government is going to require that those 180,000 rental properties that are not currently insulated, but can be, shall be by 1 July 2019. That is why the existing housing regulations require that homes be free from dampness and mould, and that is why our bill before Parliament will require my ministry to actually be able to enforce those regulations better. What we do not want is a bureaucratic warrant of fitness that will add $100 million of costs in administration, which will be passed on to the very tenants that we are trying to help.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister dispute the statement in Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills’ submission on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill that insulation and proper heating, which would be included in a rentals warrant of fitness, would save low-income families $800 a year in health costs alone?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The error in the Children’s Commissioner’s analysis is that if you impose costs on landlords—for instance, if we required every landlord in the country—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He is not addressing the question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would both members resume their seats. Can I ask the member to repeat the question for the benefit of the Minister.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister dispute the statement in Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills’ submission that insulation and proper heating, which would be included in a rentals warrant of fitness, would save low-income families $800 a year in health costs alone?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I do dispute that, because the flaw in the Children’s Commissioner’s analysis is that if we imposed a requirement on every single landlord in New Zealand to provide, for instance, a new heat pump in every one of those properties, that cost would be passed on in the rents. What you do need to include is the regulatory costs that are passed on to families and not simply pretend that somehow when we impose regulatory requirements, it is a free good.

Joanne Hayes: How many people have been killed in house fires in recent years, and what advice has he had about the presence of smoke alarms in these tragedies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There have been an estimated 47 deaths from house fires in rental properties over the past 6 years. Half of those had no smoke alarms, and so the Government’s requirement for those to be installed by 1 July this year will save many lives. To ensure that we get the maximum safety dividend from this new requirement, we are also requiring that the new smoke alarms be the long-life ones, because there has been tragic loss of life where smoke alarms have been present but the batteries have either been taken out or not been replaced, and there is an extra safety dividend by requiring those long-life smoke alarms.

Metiria Turei: Why does the Minister consider that his bill will be enough, when even once it has passed, rental homes will still be cold, damp, and mouldy because they will not be properly heated and they will not be properly ventilated?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The part that the member seems to overlook on an issue like ventilation is that it is actually about the tenant using the property wisely, as well as the property being provided with ventilation. So what we have provided for, quite sensibly, as part of the package of the bill that requires home insulation and requires smoke alarms, and that also enforces the existing law around those standards, is a good-quality information campaign both to remind landlords of their current responsibilities around quality and also to remind tenants about the things they can do to contribute to homes being warmer, drier, and safer.

Joanne Hayes: How much money has this Government invested in retrofitted home insulation, and how does that compare with the previous Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government has spent $45 million on insulating every State home that could be insulated, and a further $450 million on the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme of subsidies, coming to a total of $495 million. I am advised that over the 9 years of the previous Government, it spent $31 million. That is, this Government has spent 16 times as much money on making our homes warmer, drier, and safer.

Metiria Turei: What is his response to a submitter on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill who today described living for some years in a State house that is insulated—ceiling and floor—but that remains consistently mouldy because of poor heating and poor ventilation inside the house, and whose only advice from Housing New Zealand on ongoing complaints is that he should use Janola to wash it off, despite the mould returning—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is quite long enough.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would say to that member and to that submitter that the current housing regulations require homes to have adequate ventilation and for those homes to be free of dampness. One of the important provisions in that very bill before the select committee is to give us greater capacity to enforce the existing regulations rather than creating an expensive bureaucratic warrant of fitness, as the member proposes.

Metiria Turei: Is not the Minister’s refusal to implement a proper rental housing warrant of fitness, in light of all the advice he has received that it is necessary for child health and well-being, the worst kind of Government penny-pinching and the kind that will cost New Zealand children their lives?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, quite the opposite. What the cost-benefit analysis has said is that home insulation makes good sense, and we are doing it. It says that smoke alarms make good sense, and we are doing it. But what we are not going to do is silly, petty provisions like that member’s bill, which has inspectors going around to see whether we have got glass visibility strips on every one of our windows and fining New Zealand homeowners for provisions that I bet the majority of members of this House do not even have in their own homes.

Tertiary Education—Student Debt

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, given the Student Loan Scheme Annual Report 2015 forecasts student loan debt will hit $15.458 billion this year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; not only do I have confidence in Mr Joyce but I am actually immensely proud of him because he is the Minister under whom we have seen the student loan balance growing at the slowest rate in more than a decade. What a remarkable achievement that has been, under his leadership.

Andrew Little: Does he even accept that forcing young people into $15 billion worth of student debt creates a barrier to study, and puts off other life opportunities, like owning your own home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the term “forcing” people is incorrect. Actually, people do take student loans and they take them because they know that if they have an undergraduate degree they will earn 46 percent more, on average, after 5 years. That is a very sensible investment.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the New Zealand Herald and the Dominion Post that supporting the Kiwi Dream by investing in free education is a better use of taxpayers’ money than his plan to borrow for tax cuts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I would not jump to conclusions on what policies National will or will not be implementing. You have to wait for those. But I think putting more money into student loans, at a time when 70 to 80 percent is already paid for by taxpayers, when you would be essentially asking lower-paid New Zealanders to cross-subsidise people who will be earning more, does not seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Andrew Little: Will he come with me this afternoon, hand in hand if necessary, to Massey University and explain why he wants to give tax cuts for the wealthy, instead of reducing the $15 billion student loan burden?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, if the member will come on TV tonight and say that he is going to vote for the new New Zealand flag, I will come hand in hand with him to Massey University, sure. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Annette King: That was pathetic.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! When I am on my feet, the Hon Annette King should not continue to interject.

Andrew Little: Is not the reality of the situation this: that his state of the nation reheated policy was just a reheat and a flop, and Labour’s fees-free policy has drawn praise from across the land?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is a dangerous precedent to get into a “my press coverage is better than your press coverage” argument, but I remember when we announced that we would be joining with Auckland City to fund the City Rail Link, when we went in there and said the East-West Link would be developed when other important regional roads like Mt Messenger would be completed—I remember the press coverage from that, and then I remember the press coverage from the announcement from Labour. Actually, that is right, there was not much coverage, and that is why we keep getting asked these questions every day, because they are hoping to reheat their failed policy. The simple reason why there was not much press coverage is this: for the policy to be implemented, they would not only have to win one election, Labour would have to win four—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The answer is quite long enough.

Andrew Little: Given the public’s support for Labour’s fees-free plan, which is presently running at 2 to 1, will he just level with me for a moment? When can we expect him to adopt this as National’s policy, given his adoption of other policies he hated, like KiwiSaver, interest-free student loans, Working for Families?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is certainly true that under a National-led Government we have continued with policies like interest-free student loans. I accept that. But, actually, here is the rub, is it not—

Grant Robertson: You hated it, though.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I thought there were some real issues with it, but, actually, here is the point: Mr Joyce has dramatically improved that, because under Labour student debt grew at 11.6 percent. Under National it grows at 4.2 percent and is predicted to be at 2.8 percent. We are very happy with our policies and they are working well, thank you very much.

Andrew Little: When will he just admit what everybody else knows, that Labour’s vision for free education in the 21st century is in every Kiwi’s best interests?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think it is in every Kiwi’s best interests if you are asking a lower-paid New Zealander to pay more of their taxes to someone who is going to earn a lot more. I think the balance is set about right, and I think most New Zealanders can see that, yes, it is worth investing in our people for tertiary education, but when we are paying 70 to 80 percent of the bill, it is about right.

Economy—Growth and Diversification

3. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing the New Zealand economy is strengthening and exports are diversifying despite uncertainty in the global economic outlook?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Today the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research released its quarterly predictions. It says the New Zealand economy is picking up after a softer first half of 2015 led by increases in construction, tourism, and population growth, and these point to a reasonably strong finish to the 2015 year. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research says that the foundation for sustained growth in New Zealand remains intact. It forecasts an additional 193,000 jobs to be added to the economy over the next 4 years, which is higher than the Treasury forecast for new jobs, and moderate growth of around 2.5 percent through to 2020.

Matt Doocey: How is increasing export diversification helping to support resilience in the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are export figures out today showing that despite the drop in the value of dairy exports, New Zealand’s total exports have increased recently. Tourism is now New Zealand’s largest earner, with a record 3 million visitors achieved for the first time in the last year. Annual beef exports are now $3.3 billion, up a third in the last year, and will be assisted further by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. International education now earns $2.8 billion, supporting over 30,000 jobs. Wine exports are now worth $1.5 billion, up 14 percent in the last year. The ICT sector has achieved 9 percent growth per annum. In addition to this, the ANZ Regional Trends survey shows rising or steady economic activity in all 14 regions.

Matt Doocey: How is the Government’s commitment to trade through the TPP expected to support further export diversification, resilience, and growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If you support diversification of the New Zealand economy, that will certainly be assisted by a wide range of options for countries to sell our goods to. The TPP accesses up to 800 million consumers, who represent 36 percent of the global economy. At current trade volumes it will deliver $274 million a year in tariff savings, and we believe that over time this will prove to be a conservative estimate. But if you support diversification of the New Zealand economy you must back that up with support for more trade agreements, so we get access to more markets for more products.

Matt Doocey: What additional steps is the Government taking as part of its fiscal and economic plan to support growth, jobs, and higher wages for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The forecasts I referred to earlier reinforce the other forecasts from Treasury that were on a moderate growth track of around 2.5 percent per year through to 2020, with the creation of somewhere around 170,000 new jobs. Real wages continue to rise, and the Government will continue with its programme of microeconomic reform, including over the next year or two focusing on the proper regulation of the housing market, continuing to improve our fiscal management and productivity of Government services, and sorting out issues related to the intensification of agriculture and fresh water.

Dr David Clark: Can he confirm that figures released by his Government today show trade with China to the December quarter was the lowest in 2 years, and that dairy trade overall is at its lowest level in 3 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That may be correct, but I thought the member would be pleased about that, because there has been criticism—

Dr David Clark: What? Why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, total trade is up $1.9 billion for the year, and trade to China is down. That surely indicates progress against the criticism that we are too dependent on China and on dairy. In fact, other export industries are growing robustly.

KiwiSaver—Employer Contributions

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): My question is to the Minister of Revenue. When was he first advised that employers owed $29.3 million—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member start again, without the interruptions coming from my right-hand side.

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Revenue: When was he first advised that employers owed $29.3 million in contributions to KiwiSaver accounts, and what action has he taken in response to this?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): The statistics on contributions to KiwiSaver accounts are published and tabled in this Parliament each year as part of the Inland Revenue Department’s (IRD) annual report. When employers do not pass on the deductions they are required to, the IRD will take action if it is unable to resolve the situation and to implement a repayment plan.

Dr David Clark: Is he going to answer the question?

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Grant Robertson—does the member want to raise a point of order?

Grant Robertson: No, because there is not really any point. Is it correct that 46,154 employees have not received the required employer contributions to their KiwiSaver accounts since the scheme began?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am aware of media reports to that effect, and, at this point, I have been unable to verify them. But what I should—

Grant Robertson: Oh, hang on, you just said it was tabled in the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, those figures were not in the IRD’s annual report. What I would say is that that does not constitute the overall loss by those, and the high-level maths on that suggests that the average amount owed to those employees by that loss is about $229—irksome, but not dramatic.

Grant Robertson: So is he saying, by that answer, that because it may be $229 for one person or $2,000 for another that it does not matter and that he cannot be bothered following up with the department to find out whether it is 46,000 New Zealanders not getting what they deserve?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No.

Grant Robertson: Is he satisfied with the department’s work to follow up the nearly $10 million of employer contributions that KiwiSaver account holders are owed, given statements by tax consultant Terry Baucher that the department is too slow to act in these cases?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, I am. That $10.68 million the member refers to has been accrued since the scheme began in 2007, and represents 0.06 percent of the total contributions to KiwiSaver. So although it is extremely concerning for those people who are affected by the non-payment of those funds by their employers, I am satisfied that the IRD has a very speedy and effective process for ensuring compliance by employers.

Grant Robertson: Is he so out of touch with the lives of ordinary New Zealanders that he does not think that 46,000 people not getting what they deserve from KiwiSaver is something he should care about as a Minister?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Quite the opposite; I am extremely concerned to ensure that the payments that are being deducted from employees’ wages—and which are Government guaranteed, by the way—are passed on to the Inland Revenue Department—

Grant Robertson: No, they’re not. I know. I’m not asking you about that.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the employee contributions, which are Government guaranteed, are passed on—and that where employer contributions are not deducted, they are chased up. I think we are very effective at that, and the evidence of that is the 99.9994 percent collection rate that the department is successful at.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm to this House that employer contributions are not guaranteed, and what action will he take on behalf of the 46,000 New Zealanders who have not had money paid into their KiwiSaver account that they are meant to get?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I can certainly confirm that the framework that was established by the previous Labour Government under Dr Michael Cullen, where employer contributions were not guaranteed, has not changed. I am also very satisfied that the Inland Revenue Department has extremely good processes for ensuring compliance with the deductions.

Forestry—Timber Processing and Overseas Investment

5. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What is the Government doing to increase log processing in New Zealand to maximise wealth for the regions that produce them?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): The Government has a wide range of measures under way designed to support the growth of log processing and the wider forestry industry. It is worth noting that domestic processing of logs has actually been increasing. In 2014 the share of total harvest processed domestically was 49 percent; in 2015 this rose to 51.2 percent; and domestic processing is expected to continue to increase in 2016. Of the timber exported, 42 percent goes out as logs; 58 percent of it is processed in New Zealand. I will give the member just a couple of examples to support this. We are working as part of the Engineered Timber Stakeholder Working Group to identify and develop export markets for those processed wood products. We are ensuring a supportive regulatory environment—case in point, the Ministry for Primary Industries has recently approved the new Rotorua log processing company Lumbercube to undertake phytosanitary inspection as a Ministry for Primary Industries - approved organisation. And, lastly, the Ministry for Primary Industries is also undertaking analysis—this is New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and the Ministry for Primary Industries—have co-funded analysis on wood availability and processing capacity for a new processing facility located in Ngāwhā in Northland. There is plenty to say about what we are doing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is taking too long to say it.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Why is she allowing foreign corporates to buy up large regional forests such as Northland, Southland, Taranaki, and Rotorua, which are then exporting two-thirds of logs directly overseas, bypassing local New Zealand sawmills and processors?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Jo Goodhew.

Hon JO GOODHEW: Yes, I will stick to my ministerial responsibility. What we currently have in New Zealand are some companies that have changed hands and, yes, there has been foreign investment. So, although the member was on his feet a couple of years ago decrying the loss of jobs in Rotorua when Tachikawa Forest Products lost more than 200 jobs, now we see Lumbercube investing here in New Zealand in many jobs and new processing capability. That is but one example. There are many other examples around the country where overseas investment—which is not a dirty thing in New Zealand—is creating jobs for New Zealanders whose jobs have disappeared. The Government—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The answers have to be shorter than the Minister is giving.

Fletcher Tabuteau: If she does not agree with me, does she agree with Dr Jon Tanner, Chief Executive of the Wood Processors and Manufacturers Association, that the current trend is threatening the longevity of the wood processing sector; if not, why not?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I am able to advise that we are in constant engagement with Dr Tanner and that we are working together with him. So, although there is always more economic gain to be strived for in the wood processing sector, that, in fact, has been encouraged and supported by this Government. That is why there has been more processing happening each year for the last 3 years as this Government supports the businesses in New Zealand that are processing, and the member would do well to remember the statistics I gave him at the beginning about the numbers of logs—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Fletcher Tabuteau: Has she even considered options such as those in Canada that require logs to be supplied first to local processors and that the best logs cannot be exported; if not, why not?

Hon JO GOODHEW: It will not surprise this side of the House that we are not market interventionists trying to screw the scrum. We are enabling businesses to get on and do what they do best. So while the engineered timber frameworks in New Zealand are being developed, we will use the best logs and get the best possible price back to New Zealand’s economy, instead of trying to advantage one part of the sector over another.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Would she concede, or does she agree, that New Zealand wood processors—or, in fact, the whole New Zealand economy—are missing out as foreign corporates take the value and the wealth of unprocessed New Zealand timber directly overseas?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I do not accept the premise of the member’s statement.

Fletcher Tabuteau: What will she do to ensure foreign corporates from Canada, Malaysia, Japan, China, and America work first with our local wood processors, or is she willing to see regional industry go bust?

Hon JO GOODHEW: This Government is focusing many, many actions on regional economies—for instance, I will give examples from up in Northland. These examples show that we are analysing the wood availability and the processing capacity up in Northland currently. What that will mean is more jobs for the people of Northland. That is but one example. However, we understand that this country also needs foreign investment, and the member would do well not to forget the jobs that have been created by foreign investment.

ICT Sector—Graduate Schools

6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress is being made to train more of the skilled graduates needed by New Zealand’s growing ICT industry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Last week I opened the Auckland ICT graduate school at Auckland University—it is a collaboration between the University of Auckland and Waikato—which will develop postgraduate students with the skills that the fast-growing ICT industry needs. The school is part of the Government’s $28.6 million commitment over 4 years to establish three ICT graduate schools around the country, which, when they are fully established, are expected to train more than 350 additional students annually, in 1-year graduate and postgraduate courses.

Melissa Lee: How will the schools meet the specific needs of the ICT industry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The schools are designed to deliver industry-focused education by having close links with the industry, drawing on the expertise from companies in the sector, and from a number of ICT specialities. This benefits the companies by training graduates with work-relevant and business-focused skills, providing more direct pathways from education into jobs, and helping grow New Zealand’s overall ICT talent. Students get a real world view, and the opportunity to build connections with the industry while they are studying.

Melissa Lee: Why is there a need for the ICT graduate school?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The most recent ICT sector report shows that our IT services and software industry is still rapidly growing. The number of people employed in the sector was up 2,800 in just one year. Exports from the sector have also grown to nearly a billion dollars in 2014, and the compound annual growth rate is around 14 percent. The sector needs skilled staff to maintain growth, while the number of ICT graduates per year at Bachelor’s level or higher has been rising by over 400 since 2010. These schools will help deliver more graduates more quickly to help continued growth in the sector.

Justice System—Family Law Reform

7. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Is she satisfied with all of the outcomes of her predecessor’s family law reforms?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): It is my view that the family law reforms have had a positive impact on the Family Court. The reforms were designed to help people resolve their disputes outside the court, where possible, saving them and their children from being dragged through court proceedings and freeing up court time for the cases that really need it. Early indication is that it is doing exactly that, with more than 50 percent of eligible cases completing family dispute resolution, and 85 percent of those being able to resolve some or all matters between them. That being said, as with all new systems, we have already made—and we will no doubt continue to make—refinements to the system.

Jacinda Ardern: Was it her Government’s intention that, as the Principal Family Court Judge pointed out this morning, an “astounding” 86 percent of claimants are seeking urgent hearings, up from 50 percent, because her predecessor’s reforms mean this is the only way they get legal representation and avoid massive delays.

Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all, my officials advise me that the figure is, in fact, 67 percent of applications are being made without notice. But, in actual fact, the requirement to be able to apply without notice is an important safeguard. What really matters is which cases proceed without notice, and I trust our judges to apply that and I am very confident that the cases that are proceeding without notice are those that really need it.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she agree with claims that her Government’s reforms have led to an unfair, two-tiered system, where families with money access a lawyer and “can get all the assistance [they] need” and the rest are left struggling with just an advice service and self-representation?

Hon AMY ADAMS: No, I do not, because as the member has just pointed out, the reforms remove lawyers from the process for everyone, except where they are absolutely necessary, and where they are, the family legal advice service is available and legal aid is available. But the whole point is that, in the main, these are disputes around how to care for a couple’s children—they are not legal issues; they are human and relationship issues—and keeping lawyers out and allowing parties to resolve matters for themselves has been internationally proven to give better, more resilient results.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she share the concerns expressed by the Principal Family Court Judge, whom she says she trusts, that these reforms have led to people with unresolved disputes walking away and that “we are talking about thousands of people.”, when she dismissed these very same concerns at select committee last year?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I do not believe it is leading people to walk away. I believe there are a lot of people who manage to resolve their own issues. In fact, the reforms have helped people to get Parenting through Separation advice and to resolve their disputes through mediation, and so a lot fewer need to go to court, which is exactly what we want. What we are finding is that the cases that end up in court are those that absolutely need to be there. When they get to court, if they need legal advice, if they need lawyers in court, the judges are very free to make that order.

Jacinda Ardern: Will she commit to bringing forward the formal evaluation of her predecessor’s reforms, which is not scheduled to happen till 2017, and fix this mess, given the systemic issues that have been raised now by judges and the impact that it is having on families and the lives of children?

Hon AMY ADAMS: As I said in the answer to the primary question, all of the information tells us that it is working and is having a very positive effect. It is not going to resolve every issue. The evaluation will take place, but we have to have the right amount of data. They are already doing initial evaluations, but, as you say, the full evaluation will take place next year. But, actually, there is every indication that far more people are now resolving their cases themselves directly, without the aid of lawyers, more quickly, and in a more resilient way. I think that is a good thing.

State and Social Housing—Emergency Housing

8. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Housing: What announcements has she made about increasing emergency housing places in Auckland?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Today I announced that the Government has signed a contract with Emerge Aotearoa, a community housing organisation that will provide 30 new emergency housing places in Auckland that will be able to house at least an extra 120 people each year. The service will be in place well before winter, with 17 of the new places available from mid-March and the other 13 available in May. The Government has put $2 million towards the project, with Auckland Council contributing a further $500,000.

Alfred Ngaro: What will Emerge do to ensure that people have the support to move to housing independence?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As we know, homelessness is a complex issue, and a vital part of the service that Emerge will provide, and that we have contracted for, will be linking people up to other social services like addiction counselling and education or training. It will also develop a plan to help people move into sustainable housing, and it will continue to provide them with social support so that they can sustain their independence. While in emergency housing, tenants will pay 25 percent of their income to Emerge, to get them used to paying regular rent.

Alfred Ngaro: What else is the Government doing to ensure emergency housing is available to those who need it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The new places in Auckland come on top of our contracts with VisionWest Community Trust and Comcare Trust to provide emergency housing in Christchurch. The Christchurch service has already helped 112 households, 81 of which are now in sustainable accommodation. It is great to be able to roll out a similar model in Auckland. Decisions on a more sustainable long-term emergency housing funding model will be made in the first half of 2016.

Darroch Ball: Why was the land at Hobsonville Point not used for State or emergency housing when it was illegally transferred under the Public Works Act specifically for State housing purposes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not know.

Darroch Ball: What exactly is the Minister’s definition of “State housing purposes” and where is this definition derived from, given that the National Government has made it clear in all of its official documentation that Hobsonville Point was to be used for State housing purposes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: My own opinion of what that means is irrelevant; it is the legal one that counts. There is a legal definition under the Public Works Act as to what those State housing purposes are—and, actually, under the Residential Tenancies Act, I think that has it as well.

Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Does he agree with his Government that it is unrealistic for New Zealand’s rivers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I just ask the member to start again. There are a couple of quite important words that she has missed out as she has read the question.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: OK. I have got a blocked ear, and I cannot hear very well.

Mr SPEAKER: Just read the question again, please.

9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with his Government’s reported comments that it is unrealistic for New Zealand’s rivers to be swimmable all the time, and does he think that represents an acceptable and aspirational vision for New Zealand’s waterways?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The Government is committed to improving water quality and the swimmability of our rivers, but a legal requirement on councils for all rivers to be swimmable all of the time is unrealistic. It is unrealistic because nearly all of our rivers, even those in pristine national parks, breach World Health Organization swimming guidelines during flood events. My family and I are regular swimmers, but we do not expect to swim in the Matai or the Pelorus or Lee Rivers when in wild floods. It is also unrealistic because some rivers are naturally unswimmable in volcanic areas, and others are unswimmable from contamination from bird colonies. We are a Government of practical and not purist environmentalists.

Catherine Delahunty: What is the point of all his freshwater initiatives if the standards are so weak that no river has to be swimmable, but only safe for wading or boating?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is exactly not what the national standard said. What the national standard says is, regardless of where the river is, that is the bottom-line standard, and then regional councils have the opportunity to determine what the appropriate standards in different areas are. I point out, for instance, that our most polluted water bodies are in a city like Auckland. A single stream in Auckland, if we were to impose the swimmability standard, would cost about $150 million, despite the fact that nobody has ever swum in that particular river ever, and I am not sure that that sort of imposition on the ratepayer is sensible and practical. We are about improving water standards, we are about improving swimmability, but we are not into pure bottom lines that will not work for New Zealand.

Nuk Korako: Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā. What is the Government doing to ensure there is greater disclosure and better information on the swimmability of our lakes and rivers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is committed to improving the swimmability of our rivers and lakes, and part of this is improving the quality of the information that is disclosed by our regional councils. One of the problems we have at the moment is that some regional councils measure water quality only in areas where it is a problem, and that leads to parties like the Greens grabbing those and pretending they are representative. Other areas actually measure water quality in those areas where there are not problems. The new Environmental Reporting Act is actually going to require a consistency of that information, and that will enable us to have better information and put pressure on those councils that are not performing. What we have also done is funded the Land, Air Water Aotearoa website. What that does is it provides up-to-date information all the time about those lakes and rivers that are swimmable, so that we also put pressure on communities to get on and clean up their rivers.

Catherine Delahunty: When he said that some rivers were unsafe for swimming in the pre-human era, how does that justify his Government’s current weak water standard?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because it would be ridiculous for the Parliament and the Government to say, for instance, in the central North Island, that the Whangaehu River must be swimmable, when because of volcanic ash there are high levels of chemicals in that river. Are the Green Party and the Labour Party really saying that there must be a legal requirement on that council? What about the water bodies where there are bird colonies that result in fecal coliform counts that make those water bodies unswimmable? Are the Green Party and the Labour Party saying that they want to have a massive bird shoot of native birds so that those water bodies are swimmable? That is where parties opposite are impractical—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the Minister for his answer.

Catherine Delahunty: As a swimmer who says he “will be taking my family to swim in wonderful water bodies like the Lee River”, what does he say to those whose local rivers are not swimmable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, it is true that I regularly take my family for swims in rivers, and have done so for more than 20 years in Nelson, and I would also draw that member’s attention to all of those favourite water bodies in Nelson that have not seen any decline in water standards over that era. It is not heavily reported because there are no problems. What I would challenge the Greens about is that rather than quoting just water quality standards in those areas where it is measured and where there are problems, they are actually honest with New Zealanders about the fact that the vast bulk of our lakes and rivers have ample spots where Kiwis can get out and enjoy a swim.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very interested in his rhetoric, but—

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

Catherine Delahunty: —I asked the Minister what he says to people whose local rivers are not swimmable. He did not answer; he told us a lot about Nelson.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to go back and look more carefully at her question. That was not the question. It was talking about swimming in the Lee River, etc. As far as I am concerned the question has been addressed by the Minister.

Landcorp—Financial Position

10. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What has been the return on equity for Landcorp over the past 3 years?

Mr SPEAKER: Is there a Minister going to answer this question? [Interruption] Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: There are a number of ways to measure Landcorp’s performance. The return on equity, excluding non-cash fair value adjustments, averaged 0.9 percent over the last 3 years.

David Seymour: How much lower is that return than the Government’s cost of borrowing at 2.25 percent for Government bonds?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is significantly lower than the Government’s cost of borrowing when you look at the straight return on equity. Another measure, the total shareholder return, which takes into account, essentially, inflation and land values, shows that Landcorp has averaged 4.6 percent over the last 5 years. So if you take into account the increase in the value of its assets, which may or may not be sustainable, it has a return slightly higher than the cost of debt.

David Seymour: How much lower is even that return than the Government’s return from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund over the last 3 years at 12.25 percent per annum?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member is making the point that Landcorp, with a value of well over a billion dollars, is making low returns, they are certainly lower than the New Zealand Superannuation Fund returns have been, and they are likely to drop. Landcorp is one of New Zealand’s largest dairy farmers, and as dairy prices have dropped considerably in the last 12 months or so we would expect that Landcorp is probably going to make negative returns in at least the next year. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund may also be heading towards making negative returns. Its high return figures quoted here have been based on an increase in asset values. They have extensive investment in world stock markets, and those stock markets have not been doing so well since the beginning of this year.

Richard Prosser: Will the Minister guarantee that his Government will not sell Landcorp in whole or in part?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has made it clear it will not sell Landcorp, but it does buy and sell farms all the time. In fact, you would expect that in current conditions, where it is making significant losses and is facing the normal commercial risks that every other farmer is facing, and where it has debt levels it needs to deal with, it may well sell some farms.

David Seymour: How do the returns from Landcorp compare with those from another State-owned enterprise, Air New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Air New Zealand is technically not a State-owned enterprise; it is only half-owned by the Government. At the moment it is making very significant returns, for a number of reasons. One is that fuel prices are very low; secondly, it seems to be making good commercial decisions; and, thirdly, it has the benefit of the Greens, who are against carbon dioxide emissions but are spending so much time on our planes.

Te Ture Whenua Mori Act / Mori Land Act—Reform

aa

11. MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he believe the recent consultation hui on Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform has given him a mandate for land reform; if so, why?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora tātau katoa. Kia whai wāhi au ki a Ranginui, e takoto mai rā i Ōrākei, kei te tuatahi. E koro, takoto mai.

[Acknowledgments to you all. I take an opportunity, in the first instance, to acknowledge Dr Ranginui, lying in state there at Ōrākei. Lie there, grand old one.]

In response to the question, there is broad support for the land reform that comes not only from recent hui but also from the extensive consultation that has taken place over a period of 17 years. I for one am not prepared to stand by and wait another generation while too many Māori landowners are constrained by unfair and inequitable law.

Meka Whaitiri: Can he confirm that te ture whenua Māori will allow freehold Māori land to be reclassified as general land and then sold off to the highest bidder?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The member will have to wait until it arrives in Parliament, but that is not the intent.

Meka Whaitiri: Will he ignore Māori landowners, the New Zealand Māori Council, iwi leaders, and the Māori Women’s Welfare League, who have rejected his changes, which will lead to the loss of land for future generations for Māori?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I can say that at Waitangi actually the iwi leaders were quite supportive of the programme that we are running, and in fact we have some letters of support already that have come in the door. In terms of the consultation that we have run, we can say that we have been working very hard to have landowners engaged, and indeed iwi leaders, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, and the New Zealand Māori Council have been involved in the discussion about the bill and workshops during this year. Is it a hard process? Absolutely. We have taken the unusual step of releasing two drafts. We have taken the unusual step of having, or counting up, at least, 121 hui since 1998 on these reforms. Most of those have been in the last 3 years, and just in case there is any doubt, we have received 666 submissions since 1998. Most of these have been in the last 3 years. There has got to be something in that that tells the member that, actually, there is support for this movement.

Chris Bishop: How does the series of expert advisory groups and dozens of national hui conducted over the past 3 years compare with the Labour Government’s decision to confiscate the foreshore and seabed after consultation with Winston Peters? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: If members on my right-hand side wish to stay for the balance of question time—I know there is not more to go—then they will not interject. [Interruption] I will hear the point of order, if there is one.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just invite you to reflect on the Speaker’s rulings that you have previously made about the Government members using their supplementary questions to ask questions that are simply designed to provide an opportunity for attacking the Opposition, as this one does. The Minister has no responsibility for the actions of the previous Government.

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is not at all unreasonable to ask a Minister to make a comparison between processes that could have some degree of controversy. So the question seeks to make controversy out of the superb process that has been run by the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and the real point is that it is in stark contrast to a different process used by a previous Government.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance from either, and I do not know, because the question has not been answered, as to whether it is in stark contrast or not. Mr Hipkins is right to refer to Speaker’s ruling 174, I think it is, that I will not accept a question if it is designed simply to attack the Opposition parties. But in this case the question, to me, is legitimate in that it is asking how the process being established by the Government compares with a process established by a previous Government. The question is in order. I will be listening very carefully to the answer so that it is informative to the House and not taken as an opportunity to attack an Opposition party.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I have ruled on that. If it is a fresh point of order, I am only delighted to hear it.

Chris Hipkins: There are other Speakers’ rulings and there are in fact Standing Orders around not including assertions in questions that are being asked. I know that you have been very liberal in your interpretation of that, because those making assertions—then the Ministers have an opportunity to respond to any assertions they disagree with. In this case the assertions being made are being made by a questioner and being answered by a Minister, neither of whom has any role in the assertions being made. So I would ask you to more strictly interpret that part of those Speakers’ rulings if these types of questions are going to be allowed.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance, because I think we are actually just relitigating exactly where I have been. What the question asks, in essence, is how does the current process being established compare with the previous process. That is the essence of the question. That is legitimate. We quite often get questions, particularly to the Minister of Finance, as to how the current economic trend compares with something under a previous Government, and that is accepted. So the question is in order. We will listen carefully to the answer. I do not want to hear the answer being used simply as an opportunity to attack an Opposition party, in which case, if it is, I will not hesitate to stop the answer.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I outlined earlier the role that we have taken in trying to consult with people across the board. I have talked about hui and I have talked about submissions. We have also made 109 changes to the bill and, as a result of feedback, 28 deletions. As recently as this February we have had a further 21 hui across the country to explain changes. Throughout this time we have engaged with a large number of landowners, trusts, and corporations, both directly and through representative groups. I can say that the process that we have run has been extremely well attended and well done. We have undertaken genuine consultation, with the aim of actually strengthening Māori rights, the rights of the Māori people, over their land and not taking away rights.

Meka Whaitiri: When will he come clean with Māori and admit these changes have been driven primarily by the National Party, and the party and its friends are the most likely beneficiaries of Māori land loss?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: I will just start by giving one statement from one group that actually represents more than 150 members, and I talk about the Federation of Māori Authorities. I have support from the largest representative grouping of Māori freehold landowners, who will be impacted by the reforms and who support the direction of the reforms. In fact, their spokesperson Liz Mellish acknowledges, as do many other groups, that “The [other] iteration of the draft Ture Whenua bill reflects the changes our members have asked for.” As one of the biggest landowners in the country, the federation is right behind this legislation. That is what counts. The Māori landowners—that is what counts.

Chris Bishop: Has he seen any other proposals for reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I must ask particularly for some cooperation from my presiding officer.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: In response to the question, actually, yes, I have, strangely enough. I have seen a proposal “to help Māori realise the economic potential of Māori land by reviewing Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.” I have also seen a proposal to “review Te Ture Whenua land legislation to simplify the development options for Māori land.” Both of those appear in the Labour Party’s 2008-11 Māori affairs policies. I seek leave to table the Labour Party’s—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. We are certainly not going there.

Marama Fox: Has the Minister received any reports from landowners in the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti region to support the ture whenua reforms?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: That is a great question. I am pleased to advise the member that I have received a number of reports from the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti region supporting the changes that are taking place in te ture whenua, including one just 2 days ago from the chair of Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki Trust, a trust that oversees some 30 land blocks in Gisborne. It is supportive.

Marama Fox: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that tino rangatiratanga and the Treaty of Waitangi remain at the heart of the bill?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: That is another excellent question. The purpose and principles of the bill clearly outline that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tino rangatiratanga, and taonga tuku iho are given greater effect than the current Act. If the House will indulge me for just one moment, I will quote from the English version of the proposed text in the bill, which says: “The purpose of this Act is to recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised and continue to exercise over their lands, resources and taonga in accordance with tikanga Māori and, consistent with the guarantees given in Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to protect the rights of owners of Māori land to retain, control, occupy, and develop their land as taonga tuku iho for the benefit of present and future generations of owners, their whānau, and hapu.” If that member supports that sort of notion, hopefully we will look forward to her vote when it comes into the House.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Emerging Primary Industries

12. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership support new and emerging primary industries?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is very beneficial to our major exporters, it will also support a range of small and emerging primary industries. Honey exports globally have jumped up to $286 million in 2015, up $84 million on the previous year. The TPP will eliminate tariffs in the US at entry into force and a 22.5 percent tariff into Japan after 8 years. Craft beer production has the potential of following the same success as our wine industry. New Zealand beer exports to TPP countries were worth $29 million in 2015. The TPP will eliminate all tariffs on beer, including the $1.80 per litre tariff into Malaysia and a 23 percent tariff into Viet Nam. The TPP will also remove the 11.2c per kilogram of tariffs imposed on all of our New Zealand avocados currently exported into the USA and eliminate the 3 percent tariff into Japan. This will result in around $400,000 a year in tariff savings for this very promising industry.

David Seymour: Will the Minister talk to some of his ministerial colleagues about domestic barriers to the craft beer industry, such as the regulatory burden that led to the cancellation of the New Zealand Beer Festival just last week?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Oh, I am always interested to have discussions with my colleagues in Government about the importance of the tariff obligations on the new and emerging beer markets, and any complications that the member does see that are holding back domestic production in the very exciting emerging market of boutique brewing.

Ian McKelvie: Why is the TPP so important to growth in these new and emerging industries?

Hon NATHAN GUY: For emerging industries, tariff barriers can be more prohibitive than for the larger industries. Removing barriers to trade gives exporters an opportunity to grow faster than they otherwise would have. If you have a look at Liberty Brewing Company owner Joseph Wood, he said that the TPP opens a gateway for us exporting over to Asia, and he goes on to say it would help make our pricing more competitive overseas. New Zealand exporters of avocados will now have duty-free access to Mexico with the 20 percent tariff eliminated on entry into force. Although Mexico has not been a previous market for avocados, the TPP now provides a viable new opportunity for them.

Dr David Clark: Does he believe that market access equivalent by 2030 to the output of three large dairy farms—that is three farms, not profit but output—is substantial enough to nullify the then Minister of Trade’s threat to walk away if dairy products were excluded?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The dairy industry is the biggest sector that benefits from TPP—$102 million that will be removed for the dairy industry, which, right now, they believe is vitally important. I cannot believe that the member’s party will not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, when every other leader from the Labour Party has. That member should go down to his electorate and hang his head in shame.

General Debate

General Debate

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. You always know when a Government is in trouble and when its polling statistics and its polling trends are giving it cause for worry. That is happening right now. This Government is looking at a flag referendum, which was going to be the legacy of John Key, going—well, turning upside down.

Tracey Martin: Down the gurgler.

RON MARK: That phrase was in my mouth; I stopped it in time—going down the gurgler.

We know for a fact that there is a bit of shock behind the National Party scenes because, for the first time, it is seeing reports that the Prime Minister is hated—hated. He has never had to deal with that. Not only is it hurting him personally but it is hurting those who sit behind him and further back on the backbenches, because they are worried about their chances of re-election.

The other thing that is concerning National is the rise and rise of Winston Peters and New Zealand First and the trend that National’s pollsters have already noted, which the wider media has not yet seen. It is concerning National. It is not worried that the Labour Party is going nowhere, but it is worried about New Zealand First. So what happened?

New Zealand First, in the last week before the adjournment, started asking questions about gangs, about the number of gang people in houses, and raised questions about police resourcing and about gangs moving into areas where the police resources have dropped, where police stations have closed. What did the Government answer? “It’s not happening, it’s not a concern, it is not a worry.”, despite the fact that the police ran an escort for 180 Hell’s Angels members who drove through Rodney and stopped all the traffic—not an issue, not a concern.

Suddenly, after the adjournment, gangs are a concern. Suddenly, after the adjournment, the Government is going to get tough. Something tells me that the Hon Judith Collins is seeing her chance here and, just like Jenny Shipley did, she is stamping out her turf. I take my hat off to her.

But the history—and this is where I have got to slap the media. How stupid that the media should buy into this and have it all over. Gangs are a problem? Well, hello, if we go back, the number of reports on gangs goes back—what? Let us start at the 1979 select committee report on violent offending. Let us talk about the Roper report of 1981. Let us talk about the Justice and Law Reform Committee report back in, what, 1985, championed by Labour’s Mike Moore at that time. Let us talk about all the reports from Judge Mick Brown that everybody loves to quote.

And where are we? Still with the same problem, 40 years. What is the real history? Well, in 1996 the good people of New Zealand saw fit to send New Zealand First to this House in good numbers, and we did some things like bump up the police numbers—record numbers—got some laws changed with the National coalition, and we did the same in 2008. But in 2006 we tried desperately to get anti-gang legislation passed to ban gangs—to ban them. Who stopped it? Actually, Labour did, under Annette King—would not allow us to introduce the legislation.

That was based on very good legislation drafted using the South Australian example—South Australia’s Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act, which went through Parliament on 21 November 2007. We used the Terrorism Suppression Act as a model and we incorporated that, and we used the US Congress’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We put it all in. Who stopped us at every turn? National and Labour. Who is now trumpeting that it is going to be the salvation and the saviour of the New Zealand public from organised crime? Well, National.

I will say this: back in 2009 Simon Power did do something—he passed some legislation through this House. And we saw a member’s bill go through from another National Party member on gang insignia and the bandying of it around. But back in 2008 the National Party was chastising the Labour Government for having gangs in Housing New Zealand houses, and today—2016—the same thing is happening again. This would be ludicrous, if it were not so tragic. This would be a comedy, if it were not so sad.

The fact is that both these parties are the same. They will do nothing—nothing at all—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Do you know, I actually quite like Ron Mark. I am very sorry to see him and my other good friend Annette King having a bit of an argument, because, frankly, I do not know why people do not understand that Ron Mark is actually one of the nicer people in New Zealand First. He is such a good guy. He does not even want to talk about the Search and Surveillance Act that this Government got through when I was the Minister of Justice. He forgot to mention that one. Unfortunately, New Zealand First and Ron Mark did not vote for it, so they cannot take any credit at all for the excellent work that is now going on to help keep New Zealanders safer.

But I am so pleased he has raised an issue that I want to talk about today, and that is the issue of gangs in this country. My colleague Anne Tolley and I announced some measures yesterday. There is a lot of work going on with our agencies around gangs. I am going to say something that has not often been said in this Parliament, and that is that gangs are bad. Gangs and their behaviours are bad, and the people who suffer the most from them are not you and me, Mr Speaker, but actually their own families.

Gang members are, in fact, the big perpetrators of family violence. To all these people who want to bang on about us having too many people in prison, I say: “OK, so stop killing kids. Stop beating up your spouse, and you will not go to prison.” So it is really pretty clear, and I think Ron is with me on this one: “Stop killing people and you will be fine. We will leave you alone.” So that is my message to the gangs. My message is: “We know what you are doing.” Police are working with other agencies. We have got far better powers now because of the privacy changes that have been made, but also because of the Search and Surveillance Act—did I remind you that New Zealand First did not vote for that law—which is helping police in their work.

Is it not great to be part of a sensible Government doing what we said we would do, which is focus on social investment? Today, after 7 years of a John Key - led Government, New Zealand is a stronger and more prosperous country. Never before in the last 40 years have we seen more people coming from Australia to live here than leaving New Zealand to go there. And it is not just Kiwis returning back home; it is Australians coming here too.

All around the world we are looking at Governments that are not stable. This is a stable Government—not like, say the poor old Labour Party, although it is stable in its instability, if that could ever be possible. So what is it, really, that Labour stands for? Is Labour for free trade? Well, that depends. It is for free trade with China, but it does not like people with Chinese names. It is for free trade with Korea, but it is not sure about them, because they have got Asian names too. What else is Labour against? Oh, I know what. It wants to sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); no, it does not want to sign up to the TPP. Good on Dr David Clark, because today Dr Clark actually asked a supplementary question on the TPP—the first one that we have had from the Labour Party that anyone can remember.

Hon Members: No. Wrong.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Jacinda Ardern says no, they have done that. Oh no, they do not like that. The questions were all in the Labour caucus. “What are we going to do—what are we going to do? Phil Goff’s voting with the Government.” Well, actually, that is a party that is all over the place.

Let us look at the flag referendum. Everyone knows my views on the flag. I am pretty wedded to the current one, but do you know what? I would go with the public. I would go with whatever the result of the referendum is. The Labour Party’s own policy is to change the flag and have a flag referendum. That is its policy. What is it doing? I do not know; not supporting the Government on it. So that tells me that it is flip-flopping all over the place. Labour members are not sure. They are looking for a poll and trying to have a view. That is what we have got for our major Opposition party. No wonder New Zealand First is looking so good compared with Labour, and no wonder the Greens look so good compared with it.

Let us just talk about some more national security issues. Are Labour members for or against terrorism? Are they for or against the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)? Are they for or against the SIS? Are they for or against what is going on in the world at the moment?

Tim Macindoe: How would you know?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: How would you know? How would we know? Would those members be the people you would want to trust with your national security? The answer is no, you could not. For a start, we have Andrew Little against New Zealand trainers going to Iraq—absolutely against it. He did not want to have that. He would not have a bar of it. The next thing, a few minutes later, “No, no, we want those trainers in Iraq.” Thank goodness we did not hold the plane, waiting for Mr Little to agree, because we would be here all day waiting for it. He also says we should now send more troops in. Well, I do not know. Where is he? Has he got approval from anyone else? Has he got support from his party? Probably not.

Then we have the age of entitlement for superannuation. He was musing the other day about how we would like to raise the age of entitlement to superannuation, and then he saw the poll and he backtracked down. He backed away from that. So what we have in the Labour Opposition is, as I said, very, very diverse views. No one is agreeing with anyone.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): If Paula Bennett was ever worried that her interests in the leadership of the party were under threat from that member, then those worries were put to bed very firmly this afternoon. She has got good chances. It is very rich for Judith Collins to be talking about the surnames of Chinese people. There is a Chinese surname we want to know very urgently, and that is the name of the Chinese border official whom she had dinner with when she was acting in the best interests of her husband’s company, when she travelled—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

ANDREW LITTLE: —to China just 2 years ago. The woman who has the most studied career in conflicts of interest and how to breach them—well, that is Judith Collins. That is the returning Minister of Police.

It is, of course, absolutely fitting that Judith Collins should be given the job of sorting out the gangs, because she has destroyed the Family Court in one fell swoop. Why should she not be given the job of sorting out the gangs? If she could do to gangs what she has done to the Family Court, life would be a lot better for a lot more people. New Zealanders do not ask a great deal in life. We are people with simple ambitions and aspirations.

One of those aspirations is a decent job—a decently paid job. Frittering around on a minimum wage of $15.25 is not enough. Having a regime where you can have an employment agreement that requires you to turn up to work with no specification of hours is not good enough, which is why Labour’s position is very clear. We do not support zero-hour contracts, and we will not support the Employment Standards Legislation Bill when it comes back to the House if it does not remove any provision for zero-hour contracts. That is our position.

The promise for New Zealand and New Zealanders is pretty simple: if you work hard, you should be able to get ahead, and that includes owning your own home. Far too many New Zealanders are now being shut out of that pretty basic opportunity, which was once an ordinary expectation of every New Zealander. Those hopes, those dreams, that basic dream of owning your own home is slipping away from far too many New Zealanders. We have the lowest level of homeownership since 1951, and we now have those people aged between 20 and 40 years of age at the lowest level of homeownership, having slipped from 50 percent just 20 years ago to now just 20 percent.

Young people, because of student debts and the burden of student debt, simply cannot get ahead. That is why dealing with the student-debt burden issue is so important, and Labour’s 3 years of free tertiary or post-school education is so vital to address that issue, along with many others. We must give young New Zealanders a chance to get ahead. We see in the news today that student debt is now at $15 billion—$15 billion—and that far too many young New Zealanders are labouring under that burden. That has an effect on homeownership; it has an effect on the ability to start a family and get ahead in life. Well, it has got to come to an end.

The right, including the National Party and its consiglieres and the commentariat, has a new device it is trotting out now—that when it is on the back foot, when it is on the ropes, it accuses us of politicising things. So when we reasonably raise the issues that two-thirds of New Zealanders are concerned about, like the flag referendum being a waste of money and going nowhere, we get accused of politicising the issue. It completely forgets that it was Cabinet—John Key and his Cabinet—that overturned the cross-party agreement on how to conduct the referendum, including that basic question: “Do you want to change the flag?”. That is politicisation—that is politicisation.

And then, when it comes to our drug-buying agency, which refuses to entertain the idea of buying a new drug that will address one of the most common forms of cancer in New Zealand, melanoma, which sees New Zealanders dying at the rate of one a day, it says that we are just politicising the issue. It is a political issue. It is a political issue when our drug-buying agency is unresponsive to the needs of New Zealanders. And it is a political issue when our Minister of Health fails to see that issue, as well. The Labour Party stands on the side of New Zealanders, and we will fight for New Zealanders and their right to pursue the basic Kiwi Dream, which is so important.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister for Ethnic Communities): Thank you for the opportunity to reiterate in this House just what the National Government is doing out there after 7½ years. We are back in surplus, we are building a competitive economy, and we are building more effective public services, which the members opposite do not care about. We are also rebuilding Christchurch, which is important not just to Cantabrians but to New Zealanders right across our country. So let us just focus on how we are managing the economy.

This morning over 2,369,000 people got up and went to work—over 2.369 million people—and that is more than at any other time in our history. The most people working in this country—and that is up 1.3 percent year on year from last year. What does it mean?

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s got it wrong. Fire the speechwriter—fire the speechwriter.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is 5.3 percent unemployment, and that unemployment level has gone down 6.7 percent year on year. Mr Mallard knows it. Mr Mallard knows it; that is why he is about to depart.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The number of Pacific people in employment is over 130,700.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Telling fibs again.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Thanks for staying, Mr Mallard. Over 130,000 Pacific people, and that is the most in any time in our history, too. And these are things to be celebrated. These are achievements that this National Government has done on the back of hard work, clever policy making, and it is done in partnership with the people of New Zealand. It is really important.

Why are jobs important? Jobs are important because they support families, support kids, support the elderly, and they keep our community strong. And that is why this Government continues to focus on jobs, the economy, and growth, which is in contrast to the members opposite, who continue to deny this country of the trade opportunities that should be available to all New Zealanders.

How do I know this? Well, I was visiting a company in my own electorate of Maungakiekie, Custom Technology Systems, a small local company hiring a few local people. They were working on integrated security systems. They are growing, they are looking to expand into the United States, and they are looking to export their expert services to consumers overseas and to businesses overseas. And for companies like that, they want to see the Trans-Pacific Partnership signed; they want to see them hire more people—hire more New Zealanders—so that we can grow together as part of my local community. And I daresay that that is a story that will be replicated over and over again, whether you are in rural, provincial, or urban New Zealand. We want jobs, we want to grow, and we want to look after our own families independently of the State.

It is not just about the economics, though. This is a Government that cares about New Zealanders, that is compassionate about New Zealanders, and that is all about investing socially in New Zealanders, early and often, in order that those New Zealanders can go and grow and flourish in our communities. How do we do that? Well, clearly we have programmes like the Well Child checks. What has that done? It has led to immunisation of 8-month-olds increasing from, under the Labour Government, 84 percent up to 93 percent for our young kids. It means early childhood education—over $1.5 billion invested in our youth, in our young people.

National standards are the other thing. Members opposite railed against that. I know Kelvin Davis did not, because he understood how important national standards are to getting performance and to getting the achievement levels of our kids raised. Kelvin Davis gets it, but the rest of the Labour Party does not.

It is also about front-line police. You invest in front-line police, and you will see crime go down right across this country; 20 percent, crime has dropped. Of course, we have still got work to do, and Judith Collins is doing that in the police portfolio, but that is what an investment in front-line police does. Of course, we know about the investment in working prisons and the drug and alcohol programmes that we put in place there in order for offenders not to reoffend or to become recidivist offenders.

We know those programmes work. We know that it is about putting money up front into insulation and putting $116 million into social housing to the houses of those families that need warm and dry homes. What did the last Labour Government do? It did not put $116 million into the insulation of Housing New Zealand homes, nor did it put $450 million into Warm Up New Zealand. That is a subsidy that has made warm, dry homes. We are about the economy and we are about growing our jobs, but we are also about caring for New Zealanders right across this country.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): The speech from Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the member who just sat down—he was throwing around figures here and numbers here and amounts there—reminds me of the old saying: “It is a truism that 62.4 percent of statistics are made up on the spot.” He just proved that, right there and then. This Government—

Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I hope it is a point of order.

Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I am happy to table the figures that relate to my remarks in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: So the member is seeking leave to table—

Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Well, I am seeking leave—I am happy to table those figures that are—

Mr SPEAKER: The source of the figures and the date of the figures?

Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Well, they are research figures—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not putting the leave. Sorry to interrupt the speaker.

KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, the nuances of that one-liner were lost on the Minister there.

Look, this Government is arrogant. It is out of touch. It is ignoring the big issues that face New Zealanders. When we say “arrogant” and “out of touch”, we just need to present exhibit A, who was sitting in the blue dress over there earlier on. Judith Collins exudes the arrogance and the out-of-touch state of this Government like nobody else we have ever seen.

Look, New Zealanders do not ask for much, but we have a dream. And the dream is that we have a good house—a decent house; a warm, safe, dry house—we are able to provide for our families, and we have a decent job. But this Government has made it almost impossible for that dream to be realised by anybody. Let us take a look at the warm, dry home. How many people these days who are just leaving school or leaving university and are trying to get into the home market—how many of our young people really have that chance today? With the skyrocketing price of houses, how many young people these days are really going to see that that dream is reachable or attainable?

On the Labour side of the House we talk about providing free education—3 years’ free university education—for our people. On the other side of the House there, all those members want to do is criticise and condemn that. What we are trying to do is give young New Zealanders a leg-up. I was talking to my colleague Megan Woods, who said that she had a $100,000 student debt and she has only just managed to pay it off—$100,000. That means she has had to pay off that debt, really, before she can actually start saving for a house—saving for a place for herself to live in—and yet Megan is in a well-paid job and has done very well.

But there are other people in New Zealand, we know, who do not have such great jobs, because jobs, in themselves, are hard to find. So we want to have a place to call home. We want to be able to provide for our families. We want to be able to provide food, shelter, and clothing for our families. That dream is becoming harder and harder to come by. In particular, we see that the minimum wage has been raised to $15.25—well, something is better than nothing, I must admit—but Labour was calling for a minimum wage of $15 two elections ago, and only now is the Government saying that it can afford it. It said that if it was raised by another 50c, 2,000 jobs would be lost. Oh, really? Again, I say that 62.4 percent of statistics are made up on the spot.

Then we have the zero-hour contracts campaign. You know, what sort of Government does this to people? A zero-hour contract means that somebody basically has to sit at home. They cannot really go anywhere. If a family wanted to go to the beach on a Saturday afternoon, for example, they would plan for it, but they cannot do that because they have to sit at home and hope that the phone is going to ring for work, or because they think that the phone might ring, but, then again, it might not. How can a family actually plan for quality time? How can a family actually do things together when they know that if they are on a zero-hour contract, they have to sit around and wait and hope that the phone is going to ring? What sort of Government does that to its people?

Zero-hour contracts—we say we are committed on these three matters. We want to remove the ability of employers to put people on contracts where they are on call but with no permanent hours. Employers should not be able to cancel shifts. Imagine somebody who is wanting to work, and expecting to work, and the next thing you know the shift has been cancelled. How fair is that? What sort of Government agrees to those sorts of things? And where practical, hours of work should be included in the employment agreement, so that people can actually plan and have some security in their lives.

This Government is actually trampling on the Kiwi Dream.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): It was interesting looking at the first general debate for 2016 and watching the faces of the Labour Opposition members as their leader was speaking. I understand that Labour is going through a process of getting rid of some of its old policies that are unpopular and getting rid of some of the things that lost it the election. Well, if those members are looking at things that were not working, they probably need to look at the leader, who cannot even get one in 10 New Zealanders to support him in the opinion polls. If they are looking for something to scrap, I think they saw, during that speech, the first place they should look.

This Government is getting on with the business. This Government is growing the economy. This Government is growing jobs for New Zealanders. We are delivering better public services for New Zealanders. We are delivering better education outcomes. We are delivering better health outcomes. We are delivering increases in the Working for Families increases in child benefits. There is a lot that this Government is doing. When New Zealanders go to the polls in 2017, they are going to ask themselves: “Can we rely on the Government that is delivering a huge amount of benefits for New Zealanders, or can we rely on an Opposition party that does not even know what its position is on many issues and does not even know the policies that it thinks it wants to implement if it is in Government—an Opposition party that does not even support free trade for New Zealanders any more?”. Those are the questions that New Zealanders will be asking themselves.

If we look at some of the things that the Labour Party has been presenting to New Zealanders in the past few months, New Zealanders will really be questioning whether or not Labour is actually fit to govern. I think the first one we can look at is the flag referendum, because New Zealanders will be getting their voting papers in the mail fairly soon. Of course, not that long ago the Labour Party was all in favour of having a flag referendum and changing the flag. It was not until John Key proposed it that those members then had a flip-flop and changed their minds. It was not so long ago that the Labour Party was opposed to anything that New Zealanders should be doing in Iraq, but all of a sudden Andrew Little popped up a few months ago and said that all of a sudden he wants to send SAS troops to Iraq—another flip-flop.

In the past week or so we have heard the Labour Party talking about funding Keytruda, and, yes, the Government will be looking at the health budget very carefully in the coming few months. But it was not so long ago that those members were going up and down the country with the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party, saying: “Oh, this is terrible. The Trans-Pacific Partnership may undermine the Pharmac model.” Well, the worst thing that could happen to Pharmac is having politicians decide all of the drugs that it should be funding—

Hon Annette King: Like Herceptin.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —because that is what those members are asking us to do. That is what they are asking us to do.

Whilst we are on the topic of health, let us just say to Annette King that nobody believes her when she says that we have underfunded health. I want to give her some numbers. The health budget that Labour left was $12.2 billion. The health budget right now is $15.9 billion. I do not know how good she is at maths, but the way I look at it, that is actually an increase in the budget. Nobody believes the Labour Party when it says that health has been cut, when, actually, there are billions of dollars more going into the health budget.

I also want to talk about those members’ position on free trade, because it was not that long ago—actually, only weeks ago—that they were saying to New Zealanders: “We are the party of free trade. We are the party that believes in getting more free trade for New Zealanders.” Well, if those members really believe that, they should be fronting up and supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

When they talk about the TPP, they claim they have these bottom lines they wish the TPP to meet. Well, the TPP actually meets every single one of their bottom lines. If they really want to be consistent, they should be coming over to this side of the House, into the Ayes lobby, and supporting the TPP agreement. Does it include protections for Pharmac? Yes, it does. Does it include the ability to restrict foreign ownership of land? Yes, it does. Does it protect the Treaty of Waitangi? Yes, it does. Does it result in meaningful gains for farmers? Yes, it does. Most of the Trans-Pacific Partnership tariff benefits actually go to farmers, and it also ensures that New Zealanders get access to 800 million customers. It ensures that we are part of a big trade agreement that gets out to 40 percent of the world’s GDP. Labour members should be supporting that. The investor-State dispute settlement provisions, which they are opposed to as well, are exactly what they put in the China free-trade agreement and also supported in the Korea free-trade agreement.

New Zealanders want a Government that they can rely on. They are getting that under the John Key - led Government. There is absolutely no way they would ever get that with the Labour Party.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. We all know that National loves outsourcing: outsourcing public servants; outsourcing how we pay teachers; outsourcing mental health services, prisons, conservation, State houses, schooling, and Child, Youth and Family services; and, of course, outsourcing its dirty politics. Is it also now outsourcing its political attacks on the Green Party’s environmental credentials? This past weekend National’s man in Epsom, David Seymour, said he cared more about the environment than the Green Party did. The credibility of this argument has as much substance to it as ACT’s denialist climate policy, which disappeared from the website 4 hours before the speech.

National members know they cannot attack the Greens on the environment, because they would get laughed out of the room. National is the party that gives grand speeches on climate change at the same time as subsidising fossil fuels and promoting coal mining. National is the party that promotes glossy 100% Pure New Zealand posters, while at the same time its aspiration for our polluted rivers is wade-ability, not even swimmability. What is really at stake here? It is the ancient kauri forests of Northland, the rugged beaches in Raglan, the golden tussocks of the Mackenzie Country, and the primeval wetlands of the West Coast. New Zealanders have an emotional, historical, and a deep spiritual relationship with our natural environment—or what the Government calls a brand. We are seeing these places that define us in the world being flogged off, degraded, carved up. It is happening in front of us in broad daylight through conscious decisions, Government policies, and laws passed in this House.

Our Māui’s dolphins are going extinct for fish and chips. Volunteers have had to don hazardous-material suits to pick up oil blobs from Bay of Plenty beaches. Our kids risk getting sick when they swim in our rivers. It is a tragedy, and it is a disgrace. Our Māui’s dolphins, our beaches, and our rivers cannot speak for themselves, lobby, or donate political funds. If they could, maybe they would get a hearing from this Government. It is easy for David Seymour to grandstand at Alan Gibbs’ sculpture farm and say how much he loves the environment, but where was he when it really mattered? We were there with hundreds of thousands of Kiwis making history, saving Lake Manapōuri. We were there on the West Coast, stopping the destruction of our ancient forests. We were there, marching on the front lines to protect our conservation estate from mining. Where was National? It was there, but on the losing side of each of those arguments. On every step forward, National has had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Then, when it thinks no one is looking, it tries to take us two steps backwards.

The Green Party has always been a champion for the environment because it is right; not just because it polls well. We always have. We always will. For 40 years, alongside countless individuals and community groups, we have championed protecting the environment and we will not be lectured by those with dismal track records on the environment. We, however, will work with them constructively to try to improve things. From working with Labour we established the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. Working with National we insulated 235,000 homes. We have successfully achieved the construction of a national cycleway and now, after years of Green campaigning, we are finally seeing the missing critical link of Auckland’s rail infrastructure—the central business district rail loop—started. We have saved wetlands. We have cleaned up toxic mine sites. We have achieved a ban on shark finning, and we saw our campaign to create the world’s largest marine reserve around the Kermadecs come to fruition. The fact is, though, the work is not over, and the issues are more pressing than ever.

In Government, we will work with farmers to protect our lakes and rivers. We will scrap the dysfunctional emissions trading scheme and drive a cleaner economy and give Kiwi businesses and Kiwi families a tax cut through our climate tax cut. We will cut the subsidies for oil drilling and we will drive a cleaner economy, moving towards 100 percent renewables and making sure Kiwis get a fair deal from producing their own solar power. We know a great responsibility has been entrusted to us by the people of New Zealand: to stand up and be a champion and protector of the environment. While other parties go off and play politics and outsource responsibility, we will continue to earn the trust of New Zealanders and focus on what is important: protecting the places that we all love.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I can remember a time when I was at a conference and the speaker after the dinner was Gary McCormick, and he was telling a story about he and Sam Hunt going on a road trip. As young boys, they did this road trip. They surfed from the top of the North Island, down to the bottom of the South Island. He was telling the story that when they did this road trip as older men, they found a conspiracy. What it was, he said, was that in every town they went down to, that they went through, there was a roundabout. They could not believe it. They had substituted traffic lights for roundabouts. Halfway, as they got down to Wellington, they said: “There’s a conspiracy. The Government of the day is trying to create a conspiracy. It is creating these roundabouts so that rather than getting through a town as quickly as you can, to the place you want to be, you create a roundabout and people just go round and round and round.”

That was the time when he said to us there, at that conference, that it was about time the Government of that day renamed itself the “Pull Yourself Together Party”. He said: “These guys have got to pull themselves together. They have got to stop going round and round. They have to make some decisions, take away the roundabouts, and get into the traffic lights.”

I hasten to say that that conference was in 2006. The Government of the day that they were speaking about was the Labour Government. And here we are today—the Labour Party should actually be calling itself the “Pull Yourself Together Party”. Guy Williams has written an article about it. Why? Because at the moment, Labour just keeps going round and round. It has an inability to be able to make decisions that are really important.

I will take an example of one of those decisions. I am actually live on the Labour website, and the big thing that it is talking about is the big Kiwi Dream. Here is what it is talking about. It is live and here it is: “We call it the Kiwi dream. It’s a home to call our own. Opportunities for everyone’s kids to succeed, no matter where they live. Security and freedom to make our own choices. Pride in our independence …”.

I also want to challenge those words, to the Labour Party, when the partnership, the coalition, with the ACT Party around partnership schools happened. In South Auckland—let us take Rise UP, for instance. What they talked about was this: they wanted the best for their children. That is what your Kiwi Dream label says. They wanted the best opportunities for their children, no matter where they lived. They lived in South Auckland, but they said: “It doesn’t matter whether our kids live in Remuera or South Auckland, they should have the same opportunities.” And here is the punchline. They said: “We want to be independent.”

What did the Labour Party say in its press release from Mr Chris Hipkins? He said this: “If the Labour Party comes into power, it will do away with partnership schools.” You can go on to your website, you can talk about the Kiwi Dream, but to the very people who supposedly are your heartland, the people from whom you would seek support, you are saying no to their kids, no to their independence, no to the fact that they can achieve what they want by themselves.

Is it not interesting that most of those partnership school partnerships are both Māori and Pasifika providers? Why? Because they are turning round and saying this: “You want to talk about the dream?”. They want this dream. And this dream is coming as a reality, not under a Labour Government but under a National Government, and I have to say that under the coalition with the ACT Party that is what we are doing. We are making a difference.

Let us talk about some of those results for some of those Pasifika kids. Labour members can talk about it, but in 2008 the number of Pasifika students enrolled in qualifications at Bachelor’s level or higher was 8,940. In 2014 it was 13,300. Tertiary qualifications are up 75 percent, with 7,400 in 2000. These are not made up; these are statistics that you can actually get as well. You can seek them if you do the work. There were 12,900 Pasifika students in tertiary qualifications. Not only that—as a tradesperson, I believe that the investment that we have made in trades is also making a difference.

Mr Speaker, two more—I know you are asking me to wind up. Course completion rate—74 percent. This is one I am proud of—the fact that we start and we finish. We have raised it up to 74 percent. The completion for Bachelor’s degrees in 2008 was 975; in 2014 it was 1,640, a 68 percent increase. I am proud of the fact that we are not a Government that just talks about change; we actually do make changes. We are pragmatic. We actually get on with the business of doing the things that our communities want. You can talk about a dream all you like, but guess what? We are the people who make the dream come true. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. As the proud member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, holder of one of the largest electorates in this House, I get a great deal of satisfaction from travelling up and down my electorate. It is a 9½ hour drive from one point to the other. When I travel around my electorate, I do not see the returns that I believe the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti should be experiencing under this Government.

The Kiwi Dream is definitely slipping away from the people in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti under this National-led Government. This economy is stacked in favour of a privileged few, while everyday Kiwis, and particularly my constituents of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, find it harder to get ahead. We have a housing market that has become a plaything for speculators, locking a generation out of the dream of homeownership. But do not take my word for it; let us take the word of the Salvation Army and the Presbyterian Church, which did not want a bar of what this Government was offering when trying to sell off our State housing. We have a health care system stretched to breaking point. We are slashing services to the tune of $1.7 billion over 6 years, denying Kiwis the care they deserve and need. We have an education system drowning our young people in debt, and we heard today that that current debt is at $15 billion.

Hon Annette King: $15 billion?

MEKA WHAITIRI: $15 billion. I am a mother of two teenaged sons—and I can say they are both teenagers, 19 and 18 years old. They have started their first week at Victoria University, and their future is already going to start with a heavy burden upon them. We have rates of child poverty that are a national disgrace, with too many kids going without food, living in cold, damp houses, or relying on charity for basics like a raincoat or a decent pair of shoes.

At the beginning of this year, our leader, Andrew Little, set out his vision for the future with the Working Futures Plan, providing 3 years of post - compulsory education, free. This policy tackles the problems we are facing with the rapidly changing nature of work. Labour is also going to back an economy that works for all of us and not just for the privileged few; a country where our kids can hope to one day own their own home, have a job that pays well, and have the security to live a fulfilling life with the people we care about; and a world-class health system that is there for us all when we need it. For the first time in our history, the next generation could be worse off than the last, and National will not offer any solutions of its own, just criticism and cheap slogans—we only have to reference the Prime Minister’s speech on his statement for justification of that statement.

Labour will turn this round. We will back the Kiwi Dream and restore security and opportunities for all New Zealanders.

We mentioned zero-hour contracts: Labour will not support the Employment Standards Legislation Bill unless it eliminates zero-hour contracts. I have workers in Wairoa—AFFCO workers, freezing workers—who had to take Talley’s AFFCO to the Employment Court not once, not twice, but successively won their case in the Employment Court. Labour stands by and campaigns for its success to ensure that we are protecting all our workers at the bargaining tables with employers.

I want to make it really clear and go on record that Labour remains committed in terms of the zero-hour contracts in the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, on three matters: one, we want to remove the ability of employers to put people on contracts where they are on call with no permanent hours. Being on call can be fine in some contexts, but being on call at all times with no security of regular hours is not particularly useful for many of our people.

Again, I had, like I said, two teenaged sons working over the Christmas holidays. One would religiously go to work, and get told that he was not needed. As he was a 17-year-old who needed to work to ensure that some of his tertiary bills were covered, I can tell you it was heartbreaking to even get him up to go to work, knowing that when he got there he often got turned down. So I am glad that we are standing on the principle that no others will have to suffer that. The second point is that employers should not be able to cancel shifts at the last minute. The idea that employers can cancel shifts when they should not is normalised in law.

I am proud to stand on this side of the House with Labour to say that we will stand up for the Kiwi Dream and that we will stand by our commitment of eliminating zero-hour contracts. Kia ora tātou.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I have noticed, in the House over the last two or three weeks, that the deputy leader of New Zealand First has got very excitable about Rodney and Helensville. I do not blame him, because they are two great electorates, obviously. He was talking about gangs, and I am going to come back to gangs very shortly, but the other comment he made, and he said it a couple of times, was about the rise and rise of Winston Peters—the rise and rise of Winston Peters! So I wondered where this—[Interruption] Well, exactly. I wondered where this came from, and so, of course, I used that fantastic tool, Wikipedia, to have a look. I realised that he was putting together his own story for his leader. If you have a look on Wikipedia—

Fletcher Tabuteau: Don’t read Wikipedia to us again.

MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, here it comes. Yes, it is coming. The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer: this is the title of a satirical film about the influence of public relations spin and opinion polls in politics. That was the first one. That is the first reference. The second one—[Interruption]—oh, it is going to get better, trust me. The Rise and Rise of Daniel Rocket—this one is a light-hearted entry in American Playhouse. It is about a man who really believes he can fly without the aid of machines. I could see where this was going, right? I could see where this was going. The deputy leader of New Zealand First has taken these two great stories and he has combined them. He has brought them together with a new title: “The Rise and Rise of Winston Peters”. What is this about? It is the title for a satirical film about a man who uses the influence of public relations and spin to convince people he can fly without the aid of a machine. I think that is a very accurate title and a very accurate description for the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

But I did want to come back to a very serious point, and that is—we are talking about gangs. Mr Mark made a comment after the Minister of Police had got up and spoken and outlined that there was going to be a very robust programme put in place—and I want to acknowledge Minister Anne Tolley, as well, who has had a lot to do with this as a past Minister of Police and now a Minister for Social Development. The point is that we want to keep putting pressure on gangs, because gangs are blood-sucking leeches on our communities and our societies, without a doubt. You might laugh, but, actually, there is nothing—that is a very accurate description of what gangs mean to the communities that they flourish and operate in.

But Mr Mark said that we had not been doing anything about gangs, so I wanted to give you an email that I received from one of the gangs’ two-bit flunkey lawyers. I received this Friday, 27 February, so this is over a year ago. What he says—I will not use his name, but what he says to me is this: “Could you please disclose all information in your power or possession about Wellsford police using a cross-governmental approach. This will include correspondence, emails, reports, briefings, diary and meeting notes, and any other information, and please see my comments, that they are taken out of the Hansard, attached. Could you also please disclose all correspondence, emails, or similar between you and your office and police about gangs, generally, and about the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill.”

This email came to me, maybe to try to intimidate. I mean, that is a common tactic used by gangs, is it not—intimidation? So I would not put it past their flunkey lawyers to try the same tactic. This letter came to me because there had been a concerted effort between central government agencies and local government to put pressure on the Headhunters in Wellsford, to make sure that they were compliant with laws, to make sure we got rid of unsafe structures, and to make sure the correct signage was up, because, again, they put the signage up to try to intimidate and scare people—one of the classic tactics that they use.

I would just like to point out that I received this email a year ago. The nice thing about it was this: it did take me a few days to respond because my email filter was working well and it went straight to junk mail, right? Yes. So it did take a little while to actually dig it out, find it, and respond to him. The response was that you are not going to get any of that information. My electorate agents actually do a very important role. Their role is to support the constituents in my electorate and deal with their serious matters; to make sure they get the support that they need, not to act as legal executives to a flea-bitten gang lawyer. I just want to finish by highlighting that I want to congratulate the Minister of Police. I want to acknowledge—

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to compliment the previous member, Mark Mitchell, on his literary prowess that was on display, and ask him just how on earth he has kept it so well concealed for so long.

I am feeling very, very good. I am feeling good for Epsom and I am feeling good for ACT. The only thing that has been making me feel bad is the Green Party, because the Green Party members are not hypocrites—that would be unparliamentary. The behaviour of the Green Party is highly hypocritical. Who would have thought that the party whose members tell all of us to do as they say would be the ones who, when they do, are the most expensive fliers in this House? Who would have thought? Certainly not me.

Their co-leader James Shaw loves to go around and around the country telling the story of how, as a management consultant, he once helped clients reduce the amount of time that they spent in the air. Well, the Green caucus has been getting high, all right—it must be his hardest client. Those members spend so much time in the air. They spend more time than any other party. When people say “Oh, but that was just the last quarter.”, well, yes, the last quarter was the highest because they spent more and more progressively every single quarter of last year under James Shaw’s leadership.

And does that not tell the story about the Green Party? Some will say: “Oh, but you are being churlish. It is a political party; it does not have actual constituencies like some of us who serve electorates.” But it does have constituents around the country—it does have that—and its members have to get around to see them. I could understand if the Green members sometimes needed to fly, but not more than any other party. The fact is they do not care. They do not even try. The fact of the matter is that the Green Party has delayed debates in Auckland while a Wellington-based member flew in to be part of the debate, when I know that a Green MP lives one bus stage away, just up the road from the University of Auckland. And if you do not want to catch a bus, another one lives a 40-minute ferry ride away—you know, coastal shipping transport, of course, being very ecologically friendly—who could not make it either. The fact is the Green Party does not even try to structure its affairs to practise what it preaches for the rest of us. So much for it.

The truth is, if you look around the world, the Green Party has been out of sync with what is really good for environmental custodianship for a very long time. If you look at the Yale Environmental Performance Index, which measures the environmental performance of different countries; if you look at the Fraser Institute’s economic freedom of the world index, which measures the extent to which parties practise free-market policies, they are correlated. Countries that practise free markets have better environmental records than countries that do not. Those are the facts.

Fletcher Tabuteau: I think China just skews the data.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Counterintuitive and irritating to some members, but those are the facts, and there is nothing like the facts to trip up and confuse Fletcher Tabuteau. I would describe the free-market premises of environmentalism as the four Ps. Accurate pricing is important. We heard from Gareth Hughes earlier, who wanted to pervert the price system in the electricity market. This would have led either to a reduction in solar panel installation by homeowners because they would have discovered that it did not pay because the price had been set too low, or to a reduction in the offerings of solar buy-back services by retailers because the price had been set too high for them to buy it back. Only the Greens, through their economic illiteracy and misunderstanding of the importance of the price system as a method of resource allocation, could introduce a pro-solar policy that would discourage the uptake of solar. But I digress again.

Property rights are important because the pollution that we see is overwhelmingly, as the Greens say, in the water and in the air and in the things that nobody owns where nobody is saying: “Don’t put that there.” Under the fourth Labour Government the introduction of the quota management system—that is, property rights over the fisheries—was one of the largest advances in environmental custodianship that this country has ever, ever made. I see David Shearer nodding there because he agrees. Prosperous countries are better at looking after their environment. The countries that encourage private initiatives are better at looking after their environment. The ecosystem does not require authoritarian measures; it requires free societies. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just seeking your advice, Mr Assistant Speaker, and referring to something—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are dealing with a point of order.

CARMEL SEPULONI: —that the previous MP just mentioned. In the past we have been told that calling someone a hypocrite is out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Is it in order to say that someone’s behaviour or actions are hypocritical?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is. [Interruption] Order! To call someone a hypocrite is definitely out of order, and that has been ruled on constantly. The point that the member made—and I listened very carefully to what the member was saying—was in order, otherwise I would have brought it to the attention of the House at that stage, or if some other member had thought that it was out of order and unparliamentary they could have raised it at the time. But I ruled that it was in order, and that was the end of the matter.

Carmel Sepuloni: Speaking to the point—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. No, I have ruled. That is the end of the matter.

Carmel Sepuloni: —I just want clarity.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have given you clarity. It was in order. The word “hypocrite” is out of order, and that is what has been ruled in.

Carmel Sepuloni: But “hypocritical” is in order?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): In the context in which it was said, it was in order.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in this general debate, because it is a pleasure to be a Northlander. It is a pleasure because this Government is investing in Northland. It is putting its money where its mouth is. A few weeks ago the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan was unveiled: 58 initiatives from roading to land-based projects to tourism.

It is Northland tourism that I want particularly to talk about today. Tourism in Northland, like the rest of New Zealand, is booming: 1,200 businesses employing 4,000 people; 1.756 million guest nights per year, which ranks us sixth behind major centres like—

Denis O’Rourke: Should be more. It should be a lot more.

Dr SHANE RETI: —Auckland, Canterbury, Queenstown—and it will be with what I am going to discuss in a moment—Wellington, and Rotorua. “The best December in years” was a recent local headline as Northland also gets the benefits of new air routes, a managed New Zealand dollar, and tourism investment. A big announcement was confirmation of $4 million in central government funding for the Hundertwasser Art Centre and the Wairau Māori Art Gallery—four million dollars.

I would like to briefly recap the Hundertwasser story and acknowledge people on the way. In 1973 Frederick Hundertwasser first travelled to Northland. He was travelling with a companion, Henry Kelliher, who later became Governor of the Bank of New Zealand, was a founder of Dominion Breweries, and patron of the arts. Hundertwasser liked the Bay of Islands so much that in 1976 he purchased the Shortridge family farm, and he stayed there for most of his time in the far north as a very prolific artist. In 1986 he was granted New Zealand citizenship.

Some of the unique features of the Hundertwasser style of art include art concepts of afforestation of roofs, which I will describe briefly: “Hundertwasser’s architecture in harmony with nature supports his maxim that wherever territories of nature are eliminated by man, for instance, by building, nature has to be restored on top—on the roofs.” He also had the concept of the uneven floor. “The uneven floor becomes a symphony, a melody for the feet, and brings back natural vibrations to men. Architecture should elevate and not subdue mankind. It is good to walk on uneven floors and regain our human balance.” That is a quote from Hundertwasser himself.

You know, Hundertwasser is probably the only internationally recognised artist who came to New Zealand with an international reputation, lived in New Zealand, and whose prolific life and works were then influenced by the New Zealand way of life and Māoridom. This makes his work unique. Show me another international artist who has that pedigree? To that end, it is also very important to note the Wairau Māori Art Gallery component. Hundertwasser conceived this as being absolutely important to the whole concept, and closely integrated Māori art into the final design.

I would like to acknowledge Government support for the Hundertwasser project, especially the officials and advisers in the portfolios held by Maggie Barry, Chris Finlayson, Paula Bennett, Steven Joyce, Wayne Eagleson, and the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Northland thanks you. I would also like to acknowledge the operational Hundertwasser arm: Prosper Northland Trust, Barry Trass; the Whangarei Art Museum Trust, Grant Faber; the Mayor of Whangarei, Sheryl Mai; the Wairau Māori Art Gallery, Ben Pittman; and Northland Inc., David Wilson—not to be surpassed by the ongoing guidance from Sir Ron Carter and Sir Michael Hill.

I now want to pivot from good art and good tourism to bad art and bad tourism. New Zealanders from all over the country are writing to Associate Minister of Tourism, the Hon Paula Bennett, and to me complaining about the filthy signage on Australian campervan firm Wicked Campers. The Minister and I have spoken, and to Wicked Campers I say this: your offensive signage is unacceptable. Your disgusting degrading of women and children is unacceptable. Your signage is an affront to public decency, and no parent, including me, should have to explain it to their children. High-quality tourism is what this Government and what New Zealanders are investing in. So, Wicked Campers, respect New Zealand’s advertising standards or go home—because New Zealanders deserve better than your garbage. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill be now read a second time. I introduced this bill to Parliament last year to enable Christian Churches New Zealand to reorganise its portfolio of Church properties across New Zealand. There are 44 Churches across New Zealand that are affiliated to Christian Churches New Zealand.

I am very proud of the fact that the Church began in Nelson in 1844. A Church was opened the following year in Auckland, and this Church movement grew significantly through the 19th century to the significant number of congregations that there are today. I cannot talk for other communities on the role that Christian Churches New Zealand plays, but I can say that in my Nelson community the Annesbrook Church is one of the largest, most progressive, and very constructive Churches in my community. Its work with youth and its work in helping families is something in which my community takes a great pride. That is why it is a privilege to be able to advance this bill, which makes administrative changes to the way that network of churches is managed in New Zealand.

The bill repeals the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act, which dates back to 1929. The core of the changes proposed in this legislation is to enable the new trust that those 44 Churches have agreed to establish to have a more modern governance structure and to be able to manage their Church properties in a more flexible way. I want to thank the Government Administration Committee, chaired by Ruth Dyson, for its work on the bill, for those two submissions that were made to the select committee, and for the relatively minor refinements that were made—in a pretty bipartisan way—to this legislation.

The select committee did explore whether long-term legislation could be dispensed with altogether in transferring the 44 parish properties over to a new trust, and whether it would work for Parliament for the trust to simply operate under our existing trust legislation. Although I have some sympathy to reducing the number of statutes on our books, the committee, on advice, came to the view that because of the unique history of Christian Churches New Zealand that was not a practical option, and that, in fact, this new law would need to stay on our books to ensure that those Churches have got the security of their property and are able to manage it into the future without any legal uncertainty.

I also want to acknowledge the work of Viesturs Altments, a constituent of mine who has been at the forefront of this reform. He is a person who has served in my community in so many different ways: as chief executive of the Nelson City Council; as the chief executive of the previously largest dairy company, back in the 1990s; and he is a person of considerable financial nous as well as a great deal of community-mindedness. It is his endeavour working with those 44 Churches across New Zealand that has put the hard work into preparing this bill for Parliament—getting the broad consensus of those 44 parishes, and enabling this more logical structure for the management of those Church properties into the future.

It is worth noting that Christian Churches New Zealand, those 44 parishes, have met every year since 1905 and continue to have an annual conference, and that at that conference the churches, the owners of these properties, have thoroughly debated and thoroughly supported the changes to the now old 1929 Act. I also note that Christian Churches New Zealand in a number of parts of the country is united with parishes of other denominations, which is certainly true in a number of our more rural communities, and the new Church structure ensures that that can continue into the future.

It is also worth commenting on what brought about the growth of the Christian Churches way back in the 19th century in the UK, where there was concern about the traditional Churches—and I confess to being of Church of England origin. The concern for the original Christian Churches movement was that our traditional Churches had become too rigid and too authoritarian. The Christian Churches movement, which is spread around 185 countries in the world, is very much based on a philosophy of all persons being able to participate in Church governance, in Churches being largely independent and being part of not a top-down Church structure but rather one that is very much driven by its grassroots parishes. The architects of this bill have been very concerned about, and cautious of, ensuring that that Church culture, which goes right back to the beginning of the 19th century in the United Kingdom, is maintained with this bill.

The last comment I would wish to make about this legislation is to thank the select committee members for the diligent way in which they both listened to the submissions and made the changes that they have sensibly made to the bill. When we come to the Committee stage of Parliament’s deliberations and the clause by clause analysis, we will make the minor changes around the process of the dissolution of the old property management board and enable the transfer of these properties, which are worth some millions of dollars, over to the new trust structure. As I have indicated, I am strongly supportive of those relatively minor changes that the select committee has made.

I would note that probably the most significant change in this bill from the 1929 Act is that the Act put quite a narrow constraint on the property trust board to be able to spend the funds and the revenues of those properties only back on property, and the view that the 44 parishes have today is that the trust board should have a wider mandate and that it should be able to spend those property funds as those united 44 Churches would want to. I think that is a flexibility that this Parliament should confer on that trust board. Any of us who are involved in churches would know they are not just about bricks and mortar. They are about people, and if the parishes of Christian Churches New Zealand wish to spend their funds on things other than property, that is very much their asset, their financial base, and their choice.

Again, I acknowledge Ruth Dyson and the constructive dialogue I have had with her in refining this bill as it comes back to the House. I commend the bill to the House. It is about supporting this network of churches and their parishioners in being able to have a more modern structure, so that as this Church extends beyond its 165-odd years in New Zealand it can have more flexible structure for governing the properties that it owns across New Zealand. Thank you.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te W’are, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku atu te reo poroporoaki ki te rangatira nei ki a Tākuta Ranginui Walker. Nō reira, e te rangatira, hoki wairua atu ki a rātou mā i te wāhi ngaro; e oki, e moe, ā, kāti mō tēnā.

[And so, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. But at the same time, it is fitting that I deliver a farewell tribute to this esteemed one, Dr Ranginui Walker. Therefore, to you, esteemed leader, return spiritually to those at that place that is out of sight; rest, sleep, and let us leave it at that.]

It is a delight to stand and speak on this bill, the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. First of all, I want to acknowledge Christian Churches New Zealand, which, I understand, spent around 2 years before this bill came to the House making sure that it had consulted widely amongst its parishioners and the wider Church. This bill is not needed to create the new trust—that trust is created under other legislation—but the old board was created under the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929 and this bill is required so that property can be transferred to the new trust. So the purposes are, of course, to transfer those property interests and the powers and obligations from the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. Also, as the Hon Nick Smith mentioned, the bill will dissolve the old board and repeal the original 1929 Act.

There were only two submitters on this bill, and I would like to mention both. The new board itself made a submission, which was very helpful. Again, the Hon Nick Smith mentioned this: there was a submitter who asked that there be a sunset clause put into the bill, so that after, say, 2 years—2 years after this bill becomes an Act—the Act would be automatically repealed. On advice, the Government Administration Committee decided not to. I just want to elaborate on exactly why. One, it was because of the advice. For example, the select committee was told that if one of the parishioners perhaps had left in their will a donation to the old trust board and this Act had been subsequently repealed, then that donation would not be able to be actioned. There are other reasons as well, but that was one reason that we took particular note of, and I think it is worth mentioning in this second reading.

Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board, the new members, also spoke about the restrictions of the old board and its ability to operate in—it was then 2015—the modern world, and to deal with issues that its churches are facing. We are talking about 33 churches that are part of this collective of Christian Churches. So each one of them has its own requirements, and they needed a lot more flexibility to be able to go about their business. We absolutely support the Christian Churches being able to go about their business in a modern context and not be restrained by legislation that was enacted 90 years ago. It is time for an update. As part of that update, as I understand it, in 2012 Christian Churches New Zealand got together and started this process. They went through a name change and began to develop what they wanted in this bill.

So we come to the bill, which gives the board a number of powers that any board would want in this day and age. The Hon Nick Smith also mentioned some of the other changes that we will come to in the Committee stage. There were a few minor technical changes that need to be made around dissolving the board and repealing the original 1929 Act, and we support those. I want also to acknowledge the submitters, the Church representatives, who came to the select committee. They did make some very good points. They talked in particular about the legislation requiring the assets and the liabilities of the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board to be transferred to the new trust. They talked about the terms of the new trust being considerably wider than those of the 1929 Act. They talked about enabling the board to consider their wider mission and outreach. They also talked about not only the buildings but also using their funds for other activities of the Church. In their opinion, they were also to promote the charitable purpose of promotion of the Christian faith. I think all of those things were accepted by the select committee.

It was a pleasure to be part of that select committee. Also, it was great that the select committee was able to get through all of its work in supporting this legislation. We too, on this side of the House, support this bill. We commend it to the House.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the second reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I firstly would like to acknowledge the committee that has been working on this bill. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson—

Chris Bishop: A very hard-working chair.

MARK MITCHELL: —a very hard-working chair of the Government Administration Committee; our deputy chair, Invercargill MP, Sarah Dowie—

Chris Bishop: Even more hard-working.

MARK MITCHELL: —that is right—my colleague Brett Hudson, Kris Faafoi from Labour, and also Mojo Mathers, a Green Party member who sits on the Government Administration Committee. They worked very hard on this bill.

I just want to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith for bringing this bill to the House because it does show what a good electorate MP, when an issue or problem is brought to him or her, can do in advancing a bill as a private bill. This bill is in his name. He did identify that there were some loopholes that had to be closed. He has highlighted today just how important this is for the churches that it affects. So I want to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith for bringing this bill to the House.

I think it is important that I just go over it again and highlight once more the purpose of the bill. The purpose of this bill is to transfer all of the existing property, rights, powers, and obligations of the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. The bill also dissolves the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board and removes it from the register of charitable trust boards, under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957. It repeals the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929.

We have a list here of the Churches that are affected. I think in my speech in the first reading I highlighted and noted that there were two Churches here that I know fairly well, as a young bloke growing up on the North Shore. There is the Mairangi Bay Community Church on the North Shore and also the Wellsford Church of Christ in Northland, which is also an area that I know very well.

The key messages in relation to this bill are that the bill is about allowing the new Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board to hold properties similar to the soon to be dissolved trust. As I highlighted before, when I was referring to the Hon Nick Smith, there was a gap in the legislation, and a private bill was required to enable the transfer of the property, the rights, the powers, and the obligations from the existing board to the new board. This bill will enable this and fix this historical problem.

The previous speaker, Adrian Rurawhe, referred to the select committee process. I just want to acknowledge him and say that it was a very thorough and robust select committee process. There were two submissions received on the bill. There was a lot of discussion in the committee about these submissions. As the previous speaker alluded to, there was discussion around a sunset clause—the advice that was given to the committee—and after a lot of discussion it was decided not to add a sunset clause. I think that was the right decision to make.

I would like to talk a little bit about the history of the bill. Christian Churches New Zealand is an association of more than 30 congregations throughout New Zealand—and literally throughout New Zealand—from the far north to the far south. The congregations are autonomous but they act together through their regular national conferences. I like the point that the Hon Nick Smith made about the changes in this bill that will allow a congregation that always comes to pray together, worship together, and work together, to now be able to—this is going to allow a much more inclusive framework for them to be able to—carry that right through all the activities of the Church.

Initially, property was in the names of the elders of the congregations. There were obvious practical issues with that arrangement, and in the 1920s a conference decided to have a legal entity that could own their own properties. In April 1924, in Dunedin, at a convened conference of delegates from the Churches, a board of trustees of certain members of the Churches was set up, with the intent that the board should hold, as trustees, the lands of those Churches that wished to vest the land and their properties in the board and also all real and personal property for church extension purposes. The board was then incorporated under the Religious, Charitable, and Educational Trusts Act 1908 and was known as the Church Extension and Property Trust Board of Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand.

I think, just very quickly, obviously as a Parliament we always work very hard to pass new legislation, but actually a big part of our role is to look at old legislation. Sometimes we have legislation that is 30, 40, or 50 years old that is no longer fit for purpose. It is actually really important that we are able to identify that, through lots of different processes, and actually make the changes that are required.

As there were doubts as to the board’s ability to legally hold the properties vested in it, a private Act of Parliament was enacted, the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act, which was implemented in 1929. That legislation contained a provision defining the trusts upon which the board was to hold real and personal property vested in it. That was section 9 of that Act. Over the years a number of Churches of Christ properties have been sold and the proceeds of sale paid to the board. Further various bequests and gifts have been made to the board for the purposes of the work that the Churches undertake. The wording of the present legislation creates doubts as to how the funds held by the board might be applied for the furtherance of the work of the Churches. There is a strong presumption from the legislation that the funds received are on trust for the purposes of real estate only.

A conference of the Churches in 2013 decided a new trust should be formed, and the existing real and personal property held by the board be transferred to the new trust board. The new trust board has been formed as the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board and is registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. A transfer like this requires a private Act of Parliament. However, as the terms of the existing legislation did not include the power to transfer the assets to a new trust board, the new trust board has interim trustees and a local solicitor. It is intended that on the passing of this legislation that the Churches will elect new trustees.

So this is where this enabling piece of legislation became very important. It is going to allow those changes to take place between the old board and the newly formed board. I would just like to finally acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith again for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly, I have to say that it is a pity that the Hon Ruth Dyson is not here to hear the accolades—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

POTO WILLIAMS: I apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member cannot refer to the absence of a member.

POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do also acknowledge Ruth Dyson as chair of the Government Administration Committee and the work that she has done to ensure that this bill was expedited to the House and that the mechanisms are in place in order for Christian Churches New Zealand to be able to effect what needs to happen for the board to continue with the work.

Churches and religious organisations have a strong link to the history and the development of this country as a nation. In fact, missionaries were here preaching the gospel to local people a long time before the establishment of many of the institutions that we now hold, and they were instrumental, I suggest, in ensuring that relationships were forged between local people and those who came later, and were also instrumental in providing pathways and opportunities for those early leaders who worked on the development of what then became the Treaty of Waitangi and the establishment of this country.

It is important to note that Christian Churches New Zealand was here as early as 1844. It was here almost at the very beginning of this nationhood and it has developed over time, starting in Nelson in 1844, and then, over time, developing more congregations, first, after Nelson, in Auckland and Dunedin, and today having 30 congregations in the name of Christian Churches New Zealand. Each of the congregations act autonomously and they have their own programmes of work and their own ways of working with their congregations, but, collectively, through their national conference they have set up an organisation to drive the work that is needed at a national level, particularly around the acquisition and the use of property, the management of bequests, and the like.

It is through these national conferences that the structure of Christian Churches New Zealand was developed and formed. The establishment of the board happened on 18 April 1924 in Dunedin. They established the board of trustees, and the intention of the trustees was that the lands that the Churches held could be used for church extension purposes at the time. So the real and personal property that was held by the Church was used for church extension purposes.

Also, what happened at that time was that an Act was enacted that meant the Church could then be established under the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929. But at the time there were some doubts about the ability to legally hold property under that Act. Section 9 of that particular Act dealt with what was meant by holding real and personal property.

So why are we now with this legislation? The wording of the present legislation creates some doubts about how the funds that are held by the board may be applied for the furtherance of the work of the Churches, and there is a strong presumption from the legislation that the funds received are on trust for the purposes of real estate only. We all know that the work of Churches around the country, and this organisation in particular, is around supporting not just the development of property and lands but also supporting the programmes to provide social good into their communities and their congregations. That will be working with children, working with mothers, working with people who may have concerns around substance or alcohol abuse—that type of thing.

So it was thought that the legislation does not provide enough ability for the Church to legally act in that way and to use the property in that way. That is why in September 2013 a resolution was made to form a new trust. The trust would then use the existing real and personal property, and it would then be able to be transferred to the new trust. The trust was then registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, which meant that it can legally establish structure that did not require the purposes of the Act. What happened then was an interim board was established to be held in place until the new trustees could be elected so that at the passage of that particular legislation, it would then be possible to have new trustees elected.

The terms of the new trust under the 1929 Act include the use of funds, which is the most important difference between the old structure and the new structure. It actually provides the opportunity for the trust to then determine what use it can make of the funds, the property, and all those other donations, bequests, and gifts that come to the Church.

There were two submissions that were made to the select committee, and I acknowledge the Church’s submission made to the select committee. There was one that was completely in support of the bill as it stands, and there was another submission that suggested there should be a sunset clause in place. The sunset clause was fully considered by the select committee, but it was considered that if that were to stay in place, because of the length of time that the Churches had been established, there may be future bequests, for example, that would be in the name of the previous establishment, and would, therefore, not be able to be used by the new trust in the way that it needed. The select committee fully considered the sunset clause and decided that, actually, in relation to the intent of the Act and the bill and what the Churches need to do, it would not be in the best interests to have the sunset clause.

Just in conclusion, this bill will provide to Christian Churches New Zealand the ability to do what it needs to do for its congregations with the property that it holds. We commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to stand and take a call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill here in the House in its second reading. I want to make a disclaimer. I am not a member of the Government Administration Committee, and also I have not sat in on the submissions. But I do stand here—I wanted to be able to say that, because we all have the opportunity to speak in the House. I suppose the opportunity to be able to speak—others have spoken about the technicalities of the bill, and I am sure some of my other colleagues and maybe members on the other side will fill their 10 minutes with a lot of the detail that is really important about this bill.

At the heart of the bill—it is a piece of legislation that is really about the transfer of assets and liabilities. I will just put that out there—we know that. So there is the technical aspect of it. The point that I want to speak about is that—I have done a theological degree and I have actually been a pastor of a Church and worked in Churches, in what they would call in Church a form of ministry, which is to work through the Church into communities, both to the parishioners and to the congregation that you work with on a Sunday and serve, and also into your communities.

I would like to take a slightly different tack and talk about the intent of this bill and what it is trying to do. So why would we look at this legislation, which looks a little bit odd? Why would a Church group seek a form of Government legislation to ensure that its roles and responsibilities were carried out in a way that continued the faith of those who had bestowed that upon them, for the ongoing stewardship of their roles and responsibilities?

I would have to say that the intent of this, and of these 33 or so Churches up and down New Zealand, was that although they, in a sense, may have played a religious role on a Sunday, they also played quite an important role of meeting some of the other needs inside those communities. So when the legislation actually put this association of 33 Churches together—there are times in the life of Churches where they grow, and then times, in one sense, when they sort of fade away, for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, properties are sold. They are then bestowed back to the responsibility of the association.

I suppose the challenge that I have seen, both in my experience and in other Churches that I have seen, and with this Church association in particular, is how we can continue to be relevant, with the intent that we have not only to serve our congregations on Sundays but also to meet the needs of our communities that are around us. You will see in the bill that the intent now is that although there is the sale of those properties and those assets, which will then return that income into the responsibility of the trust, what it is seeking to do—this is not just about bricks and mortar. In other words, it is not just about building another church that will make a difference.

A lot of these Churches are now saying that the fact is that, actually, there are other roles and responsibilities that we can play, such as providing day-care centres or kindergartens—when I was at Tāmaki Community Church that is what we did—or providing opportunities for budgeting services. We had the East Auckland Home and Budget Service at Tāmaki Community Church. We had an op shop that ran there. There were a number of different services that came out.

So I can actually see really clearly and understand that the intent of this bill is not just to enable that association of Churches to say “Let’s build more churches and let’s build more buildings.”, but, more important, at the heart and the intent of their Christian faith is “How can we ensure that we make a difference to the communities in which we seek to serve?”.

I also want to put on record that when we think about Churches, people again keep thinking about these religious organisations, but many of these Churches have had an important role in the life of New Zealand—in its social services, in its areas of advocacy, and so forth. Think about, for instance, the Salvation Army state of the nation report and the roles that it plays. Let us talk about the Methodist Mission. There is also Lifewise, which is up in Auckland, which comes out of the Methodist Church of New Zealand. Presbyterian Support New Zealand provides a number of social services—regionally, in the different regions, as well. Another one that people may not know is Barnardos. Dr Barnardo was a Christian who was also a physician. Back in his time he wanted to provide a provision and a place for orphans. So the role of Barnardos actually has quite a strong Christian base.

Again, the reason why I am mentioning these in relation to, and in the scope of, this bill is that I can understand the intent of these 33 Churches, in their association, to seek the right to ensure that the legislation that gets renewed from the previous legislation of 1929 enables them now, in 2016, to continue to provide and to adapt the services that truly do make a difference in our communities.

So I commend these Churches for what they are doing. I can see the needs that they have. There will be services such as, as I said, budgeting services. There will be after-school programmes, like the OSCAR Foundation, and the funding that they give that allows them to hold these programmes in their facilities. It is in the community halls that they provide.

Also, I have seen in the Religious, Charitable, and Educational Trusts Act 1908 that this trust had associated itself with the education clause that allowed it to provide education. I remember there was a time when I used to take—what do you call it—they used to call it Bible in Schools. I remember that for nearly 16 years I would faithfully go along and teach kids I suppose just about, simply, the values that they thought were really important. I have to say that many parents would come along. In fact, just recently a young man saw me at a shopping mall. He said to me: “Mr Ngaro, do you remember me?”. I said: “You look really familiar, but I don’t quite remember your name.” He said: “I am one of the boys who was at your Bible in Schools classes.” I said: “Oh, that is great.”, and I said: “Did you learn anything?”. He said: “No, I didn’t. I didn’t learn anything.”, which made me feel quite interested. I thought: “Oh no. Was I not a good teacher?”. He said: “No—I can’t remember any of the words and so forth, but what I do remember was the fact that you made us feel good about being who we are.”

Maya Angelou said that sometimes it is not about what you say, and maybe it is not always just about what you do. Sometimes what is important to people is actually how you make them feel. I suppose in a sense that part of the role of these Christian churches, these 33 Churches, is about ensuring that what they do—both on a Sunday and also, more important, what they do every day of the week in the roles that they play, seeking to become relevant to those communities—is what really makes a difference, in the hope that people will turn round. They may not always remember the things that they talked about, or maybe even the things that they did, but I do hope that what they will remember is how they made them feel. Did they feel that they felt important? Did they feel that they were acknowledged for where they were, in their circumstances? Did they feel uplifted, because there was a message of hope that may have been given to them at that point in time, in the circumstances that they were facing or the challenges in their life, whatever they may be? The intent is what I am speaking about in this bill, with the 33 Churches that are seeking, through Government, a change in legislation that will enable them to continue to become relevant in the roles that they play inside their communities.

Can I just finally round off my comments by saying that when I think about these Churches that are here, everything from Mairangi Bay Community Church, which Mark Mitchell has talked about, on the North Shore, to Invercargill, the Freedom Community Centre; to the Reach Christian Centre, which is in Naenae; to the Church of Christ Community in Dunedin North; all the way down to Harvest Christian Church in Te Atatū—that is actually on Swanson Road. It also holds services in the Te Atatū Tennis Club. We have got Churches down in Nelson, in Annesbrook Church; Feilding Lifepoint in Rangitīkei—so thereto my colleague Ian McKelvie—and all the way through, down even to Matamata Union Parish and Homestead Community Church in Point Chevalier. There are a number of them here.

I think the broad reach of this Church throughout the regions, throughout the different communities, whether they be urban city centres or in the localised rural communities, speaks volumes that the Churches are wanting to make a difference. What I would like to say in closing is that I do wish them well. I do hope that this change in legislation will enable them to continue to be relevant to the communities and the people they seek to serve, so that they truly can live to the values and the principles of their faith, so that people can be uplifted and have faith and hope in their lives. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this, the second reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. With no disrespect to the previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro; Maya Angelou; or Christian Churches New Zealand, my contribution is not going to be a long one. The outline of this bill has already been established, as has the purpose of it. For some bills that come to this House, it is appropriate for them to come to this House, and there are some bills, as this is, that are appropriate to be considered by the House, that are not controversial, and that are not dealing with any particularly deep issues. I would submit that this is one of those times, so my contribution will be kept relatively short.

This bill is a private bill that was introduced last year by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It enables the repeal of the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, to dissolve the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board, and to transfer all property, powers, and legal obligations from the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board to a new charitable trust, which is now called the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. This bill gives the trust the legal power to do that.

Christian Churches New Zealand asked Parliament, from a decision at its conference in 2013, to do this, to enable it to be able to be more flexible on the use of its property or the proceeds from the sale of that property, because the existing Act on our statute book from 1929 gives an impression that the trust is restricted to use the money or the proceeds from the sale of property only towards other property, and the Churches want to be able to use it for other charitable Christian purposes. So it is actually incredibly simple.

The one matter of possible discussion or dissent that was considered at the Government Administration Committee was whether there should be a sunset clause to this bill so that there would no longer be an Act—there would no longer be any standing in terms of a statutory Act. There was a decision made consciously by the Government Administration Committee to reject the idea of the sunset clause, even though it is a good idea to have as few pieces of legislation on the table as possible, because if somebody left money in their will to this organisation, as it was written in previous legislation, and then we repealed the legislation, that money would go to the Public Trust when the intent of the person bequeathing it was for it to go to the Christian Churches. So the only way, at the moment, to be sure that that money would get to them in the future would be to keep the legislation on the books. It seems pretty simple to me. So we are very happy to support it.

The explanatory note of the bill has some really fascinating history in it. I just note that for people who are interested in the contribution to New Zealand of the Christian Churches and the reason that they were set up, which was, I guess, as an act of rebellion, in some ways, against the divisions in the churches. They were hoping to bring together a lot of different Churches under the one banner with the reference to the Bible, rather than the differences of the Churches. I did notice, though, when I was looking up a bit more detail on that on Wikipedia, that actually there was still another split after that point between the Churches that used musical instruments and those that chose to sing a cappella, which seemed an interesting note, to me, in the history.

But this is an organisation, a Church, that has been in New Zealand as part of our landscape and our social fabric for a very long time. The first was established in Nelson in 1844. So it is not such a bad thing, I guess, that the legislation is still on the book, at least for the reference to that continued thread of history. We support it.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First has no objection to this bill, and we take some pleasure in noting that there is multiparty support for it, as, of course, there should be. There has actually been quite a long history, in terms of how Church property is held in trust in this country, and, initially, the property was held in the individual names of the congregation members. Of course, that is a little bit impractical when you come to think of it, so a solution had to be found, and as a result special legislation was passed in 1908, which was called the Religious, Charitable, and Educational Trusts Act 1908. All that did was establish a board for the holding of the Church property, but it did not really do much more than that.

So there were still problems in practical terms as a result, and it did not take long for a new call to be made for legislation, and that happened in 1929, with the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929. And that actually did take the step of setting out what the trusts were, under which the trustees would hold the church property. But it still really concentrated on the retention of land and buildings—other property as well, but especially land and buildings. So that was the theme of the early legislation—holding on to those things.

But, obviously, over time things have changed, and I agree with Alfred Ngaro that the attitudes and the roles of Churches have changed over time. They are less concerned now with holding on to property, and more concerned with investing the resources they have and applying them for social purposes in the community, and we in New Zealand First applaud that, as I am sure everybody else in the House does. Other things have happened as well, of course. Being from Christchurch, I know that, as a result of the earthquakes, a lot of Church buildings did get either destroyed or severely damaged, and it is clear that not all of those are going to be replaced or repaired. So the effect has been to accelerate what was happening anyway, which is the rationalisation and, probably, the reduction in the number of Church buildings and land held for Church purposes, and an increase in other demands—investments of different kinds and ways to apply those investments, especially for social purposes. And so that has been the trend up until today and, I think, really, the driving force behind this legislation.

So we do see that a number of Church properties have been sold and invested in other ways, and yet the definition of the powers in the current legislation are really still quite narrow and inappropriate for today’s needs. Clearly, that needs to change. So we need to solve the doubts that exist currently about what the trusts are, how wide they are, and what powers the trustees have to do the new things that are required of them in this day and age; and that is, really, what this bill addresses. The Churches had a conference back in 2013, and I applaud them for that. They have got their act together, they know what they want, and they have come to this Parliament for assistance in rectifying the current situation.

The new bill really does just two things. One is to enable the transfer of the property from the existing trusts to the new trust established by the Churches; there are inadequate powers to do that currently, so this bill is absolutely necessary for that reason alone. And, in addition to that, there are new and broader powers to be given to the trustees to do the new things that I have spoken of. It will allow the Churches to consider a wider mission, not only in terms of buildings, but in using their funds for the other activities of the Churches that they now wish to indulge in. New Zealand First thoroughly approves of both of those things: the updating of the trusts and the broader powers that the trustees will have. This bill more than adequately addresses those needs. I commend the Minister, Nick Smith, and also the Government Administration Committee for the work they have done to make sure that the new legislation will be fit for purpose in the future. New Zealand First will have no hesitation whatsoever in continuing to support it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): What a pleasure it is to stand and take a call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. Just at the outset of my speech, I want to acknowledge the very hard-working Government Administration Committee. It is fair to say that this is the select committee of the Parliament that deals with somewhat odd pieces of legislation—the ephemera of the Parliament: things like fireworks; things like private bills, like this; but also things like marriage equality, which went to that very important committee, chaired, I know, by the Hon Ruth Dyson and deputy chair, Sarah Dowie—they do a great job. It is fair to say that it examined this bill in some detail. The committee had only two submissions on this bill, but it has recommended that it be passed, and I am sure from the support that the House has indicated tonight, it will, indeed, pass into law, and so it should.

The history of this bill has been well canvassed, and it is, actually, a fascinating history. I am not on the Government Administration Committee, very sadly, but I went back and I read the first reading speech from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and read about the history of the Christian Churches of New Zealand, and, indeed, it is a fascinating history. And it is not a history that I am familiar with. I was brought up a Methodist and, in fact, just the other day I went to the Wainuiōmata Coast Road Church’s 150th jubilee out there in the Hutt where one of my—I have got to get this right—great, great, great grandfathers used to be a lay preacher. He was a peripatetic evangelist. He used to journey from Pētone over to Wainuiōmata. It would have been a tough journey back then.

Stuart Nash: Do you think he voted National?

CHRIS BISHOP: No. I think it is safe to say, Mr Nash, he was not a National Party voter. On my mother’s side of the family they were certainly not National Party voters. I think it is fair to say that you had a monopoly on their political support, my friend. They would have been very great fans of the late Norman Kirk, no doubt about that, and Mr Nash as well.

My faith—or my faith growing up, anyway—was very much of the Methodist faith, but it was fascinating to read about the history of the Christian Churches of New Zealand. I note that one of the Churches that is affected by this bill is in the Hutt. In fact, there are two Churches in the Hutt, but the one Church that is in the electorate of Hutt South is the Hutt City Link Church, which is, of course, on Laings Road. I am not familiar with this Church, but I was reminded this afternoon that I used to go to events at that Church and I know that it plays an important role in the community. It is just around the corner from the Laings Road Methodist Church, which was—disgracefully, I have to say—demolished in 2002. That Church sat on the site in Lower Hutt for 75 years before it was demolished for a private development—I think it was a Briscoes—in 2002. My parents got married there, and I think it should never have been demolished.

This is an important bill for the Christian Churches, and in some ways it is slightly odd that Parliament has to sit on a Wednesday afternoon to pass a private bill to become a private Act to give effect to what is a very sensible change to the trust deed. So, as the sponsor of the bill said so very succinctly in the first reading, the bill dissolves the trust, repeals the Act, transfers all of the property of the trust into a new trust, and, basically, allows it to manage its property more sensibly. I think, as Jan Logie said in her contribution, that is actually pretty much it. There is a lot of history behind the Churches and their trust. There is a lot of long and important history and a lot of important work that they do in the community, but the bill is actually pretty simple, and that is probably why it has got unanimous support and it is probably why only two submissions were made.

In closing, I do have to wonder, for the House, whether there is a better way of Parliament dealing with things like this bill. You know, we are sitting here on a Wednesday, on a members’ day. It is a non-controversial, very small change to something that affects a very important group of people in our community that is actually a very small subset of the community. Private bills, you could argue, are actually anachronistic in this modern age. The fact that we have to every now and then—and I looked it up, actually. Since the modern parliamentary website was developed, there have been 20 private bills that Parliament has passed, so, on average, that is about two a year. They were things like the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, on which Parliament spent a lot of time, to require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to, basically, change the birth certificate of a particular person, and things like the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill and the Westpac New Zealand Bill. You have got to wonder whether there is a better way of dealing with non-controversial private bills that affect incredibly small subsets of people, and I just leave that for the House to ponder. This is an important bill. I look forward to its passage, and I wonder whether there is a better way.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I relish the opportunity to rise and take a short call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. Members across the House have spoken well on the bill. They have detailed the history, and can I echo the sentiment of thanks towards the sponsor of the bill and, of course, the Government Administration Committee, which heard all of the two submissions on the bill.

What I like, and what I sense from the discussions in the House today on the bill, is the collaborative nature of this particular entity. We know that it comes from the Christian background, but can I take us back to 1814 and the beginning of the Christian faith here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The first sermon was given by Marsden, Te Matenga, in the Bay of Islands, and it is neat to see that despite the differences between the Churches that transpired post-1840 to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, we see pretty quickly after the signing in 1840 that this particular organisation has come together because it sees the sense in working together on particular issues. If one of those is to simply join up the property that the Churches hold, I think that is a good thing.

If there is one thing I would like to offer here today, it is that I hope that some of the other churches that might not be part of this particular group would maybe like to consider that collaborative approach in some of the dealings they have with the properties that they currently hold. I want to point the finger in this instance towards the Churches that administer the Māori schools. We know that the Māori schools are struggling, and I have said for a long time now that I think it is now time for the Churches to actually work collaboratively with these schools to make sure that they get the best use out of their assets—which this particular bill is hoping to do with this group—and also the best educational outcomes for Māori, for the students of those schools.

So I want to applaud the approach taken by this particular group. I also see in this bill a very pragmatic approach. It has already been spoken about in the House how the original legislation provided too small a scope for the trust to move forward, and now this particular bill will allow that scope to broaden out and empower it to run its social agenda.

Something that we have already heard in this House today is that the Churches are heavily involved in our communities—in particular, in the great electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, where I have been fortunate to work alongside some of the Churches—and it is amazing to see the good work that they do. It is not an easy thing to do, in my opinion, to change legislation just willy-nilly like this, to make sure that the powers of this particular organisation gain a broader scope in its social agenda. It is something that Parliament, I am sure, does not do lightly, which is why I am at ease that the bill went through a robust process in the select committee and that the submissions given were heard, and members have already spoken about them in the House today.

So, moving forward, we look forward to seeing the social outcomes from the social agenda that this bill will empower the group to do. I am sure that all members across the House will endeavour to support it where they can, to make sure that Christian New Zealanders—and, indeed, all New Zealanders across the country—will gain from that social agenda. It is sensible, it is pragmatic, and it clearly has the support of members from across the House. I do not want to go on too much longer because it has been well canvassed. I hope, though, that the sermons and the services in the many Churches across the country certainly have a bit more vigour and add a bit more life to the debate than is happening currently on this particular bill. It has been a little bit hard hearing everyone drag out every single word that you see in the particular papers in front of us, but what I do want to just finish on is how excited I am to see the scope of the social work that I hope the organisation will be able to do to benefit all New Zealanders.

The bill, as I have already said, is pragmatic. It will be the job of politicians and, indeed, this House to make sure that that particular agenda is fulfilled, because, as I have already mentioned, it is not very likely or too common that we change legislation like this just at the whim of a particular group—and we want to make sure that it fulfils its particular part of the process, and this empowering bill will allow it to do that, moving forward. So, in closing, I stand on behalf of the Labour Party and offer our support for this bill. Kia ora.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour and pleasure to rise and speak in support of the second reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. Just to pick up where Peeni Henare, the last member, left off, I am hoping that we are not sounding like we are giving sermons but, rather, debating and talking to the issues at hand. There are probably several members who could claim to know what it is like to do the work of God, but it is great to stand here in support of a worthy cause.

I just want to acknowledge that I have not been involved in the select committee process, having not been a member on the Government Administration Committee. But, first, I would just like to acknowledge the Hon Dr Nick Smith for the private bill that he has brought here, and also the Hon Ruth Dyson, as the chairperson and a fellow Canterbury MP, who has done well in shepherding this bill through the legislative process. There are also a couple of other select committee members I would like to acknowledge for their hard work, Brett Hudson and Sarah Dowie. Obviously, they are two strong MPs from the class of 2014 who are doing some great work on the Government Administration Committee.

I have had a look at this bill, and for me, really, the bill is about change, and it is facilitating that change for this organisation, Christian Churches New Zealand. Actually, there are a few background points I want to put on record. It is no surprise that this Church seems to take the lead in change. When you look at the background of this Church, it is pretty much a globalised network—it operates in about 185 countries. When you trace back its history in the UK and the United States, it was very much around the Enlightenment period. And when you think about what the Enlightenment period was, it was a movement where people moved away from the control and the conformity of religion, and moved to a more rationally based outlook on life around science. We all know of the astronomer and scientist Copernicus at that time, who proved that Earth was not the centre of the universe; it was the sun, and Earth moved around it. Why that is important to this bill is that, if Christian Churches can trace their history to the Enlightenment period, it shows their ability to move through different phases and to change.

That is what Christian Churches have identified in this bill—that the current legislation, the current structure of the board, is now needing a change to drive it forward. I thought that was very important—it is predominantly based on change. What we know with this organisation as it focuses possibly less on bricks and mortar is it moves out to its outreach approach and supports people in the communities that it serves. I suppose being brought up somewhat in the Christian faith, I know and understand the ambition, as well, of getting out and serving the people. I think it is only right that we are supporting this legislation to go through and help Christian Churches.

It is also interesting, when you look at the history of Christian Churches in New Zealand, coming over here about the Treaty of Waitangi time. I noticed—being a Christchurch-based MP—it said they arrived and set up around 1870 in Christchurch. It is great to hear the stories about the rich tapestry of history that the Christian Churches brought to a city like Christchurch—I mean, it has been claimed to be the most English city outside of England. A few days ago, in my electorate of Waimakariri, I went to the Woodend-Pegasus Anglican Church—it was the induction of a new vicar. When you stand in that church you take in the art and the tapestry and the culture of those organisations that have been around for a very long time and also appreciate the people who have been in that church and the sense of community—the sense of wanting to go out and make a difference in other people’s lives.

I think that is probably why the MPs around this House can relate to this bill, because it is about an organisation that wants to make a change in people’s lives. We can see that the legislation contained a provision defining the trusts upon which the board was to hold real estate and personal property vested in it. That is very much the crux of this legislation and the bill.

We know that in the select committee process there were only two submissions, and one of those submissions was made by Christian Churches itself—the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board. What that trust went on to do was a bit of a cost-benefit analysis, looking at different options of how it would like to move in a board structure. It looked at retaining the status quo, and it said in its submission: “The board concluded that the constraints imposed by the 1929 Act were significant, and the benefits of increased and more flexible powers in respect of the use of the funds, both capital and income, well outweighed any costs of seeking to change.” I suppose that comes back to the point around change We are moving away from the bricks and mortar and understanding how Christian Churches can best use their resources to serve the communities they are in, because when you look at the range of locations where they are, there are quite a number. I did notice that they are not in the Waimakariri, the third-fastest growing electorate in the third-biggest district in the South Island, so I would urge Christian Churches that that would be a place of growth to come to, as well.

When you look at the option 2 the trust board provided around a new property trust board, it explored the options for the select committee there, and I think this is why it was helpful for the select committee to understand how it had landed with the proposed bill. Finally, it landed on option 3 around the charitable trust. It went on to say: “A more modern charitable trust concept was considered to provide the best vehicle for the trust board to be able to operate efficiently and meaningfully in 2015 and beyond.”

I will just follow on from Mr O’Rourke, who, as a Canterbury-based MP, referenced the earthquakes. We see the parallels in this change of legislation to reflect the needs of Christian Churches, just like, as the city of Christchurch—the change in the legislation, as well, to support it to grow, but, ultimately, to go out and connect with the people whom the organisation is trying to support and make a difference in their lives. We see that, whether it be health care services or social care services, but in the case of Christian Churches, it is around pastoral services and how they can go out and capture those resources, because currently under the old legislation, which this new legislation will repeal and amend, it allows for the resources to be spent only on real estate. With this new bill it will allow Christian Churches and the board to then make decisions not only on real estate but on how they can allocate their resources according to the needs of the communities they are serving.

One thing I just wanted to finish on was the acknowledgment of what Christian Churches have done, not only in New Zealand. I noticed in their background notes that they have churches over in Zimbabwe and the support that they have given over in Third World countries, I think, needs to be acknowledged as well. Overall, I think it is fair to say, by the support around the House, that this bill is well supported. It is a well-intended bill that, ultimately, is about change, and what we are doing here is supporting a traditional, historic organisation like Christian Churches and allowing it to think forward about how best to serve its needs and those of its parishioners. It is great that Parliament, and this Chamber, and all MPs around this House are able to facilitate that and support it. I commend this private bill in its second reading to the House.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I rise to take a call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. But before I do, I think there are a couple of comments by previous speakers that deserve just a little bit of rebuttal.

Mr Doocey suggested that perhaps these Churches need to come to his electorate in Waimakariri. I ask: is that because of the growing number of disenfranchised people whom the Government has forgotten about and the member refuses to advocate on behalf of, and because there is a growing underclass in “Waimak” and therefore the Church is needed there to pick up the slack where the Government has slacked off?

The other thing I also note is that Mr Bishop wondered whether we could do this bill better, or whether there are private bills that do not need to come to Parliament. I would like to remind Mr Bishop that, in fact, democracy is not confined to large corporates or social housing providers. This is a House for all New Zealanders, and I believe that private bills do actually play a very important part in democracy. It is important that they do go through the robust processes that Parliament affords. I would be loath to see any change to Parliament hearing private bills.

The other thing is I listened to Alfred Ngaro’s speech—he is a National list MP—and do you know what I thought? I thought that is a speech from a Labour member. That is a speech from someone who understands community values. [Interruption] No, no, not only understands community values but champions community values and principles. Alfred Ngaro spoke about the intent of this bill. He talked about his role as a lay preacher. He is not the first to hold that esteemed position in this House. In fact, there are a number who have been lay preachers within their communities, who have come here to make a difference. In fact, two Labour leaders—Walter Nash and Arnold Nordmeyer—were also lay preachers. In fact, common consensus is that the first Labour Government was not a social democratic party; it was actually a Christian democratic party, because it preached the Christian values and principles at the heart of its philosophy, let alone its drive to create a better society.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to interrupt the member and say that, as with a number of other members, he has given a good run-around history, but 3 minutes into his speech, it would be good to refer to the bill.

STUART NASH: Have I spoken for 3 minutes already? As mentioned—I think by every speaker—this bill does replace the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929. But whenever I see a bill like this, which is, as everyone has mentioned, non-contentious and basically just changes the legal structure under which assets are held, I always have one question. I think it was answered by Minister Smith, but my question is whether all members of all parishes actually agree to the change of structure. I think they do; that is the impression I have had.

Obviously, the legal implications from changing the structure alter, but it is still bound by all the deeds, contracts, and obligations of the old trust. In fact, it appears, through reading the bill, that very little has changed except the actual name. Again, we just need to know that every parish that is part of this actually agreed to it. That is why, actually, it is so important that members’ bills do go through a robust process, so that we make sure this is not one large group sort of steamrolling over a group of smaller ones.

I also note that things change over 85 years. Back in 1929 who knew what was going to happen in 2015? They set up this structure 85 years ago to meet the needs of the times, and times have changed. It is quite interesting to reflect on this. Obviously, back in 1929 the country was in the grip of recession. There was record unemployment. People were worried about their jobs, their future, their children, and their families. Although some things change in 85 years, I think that if we reflect, some things do not.

Eighty-five years later, the Labour leader gave a speech in this House today about child poverty, about the minimum wage, about the Kiwi Dream, about jobs, about homeownership, about education, about a future, because today people are still worried about their future. The Labour Party has a Future of Work Commission because we do not know what work is going to look like. The same issues that were around in 1929, when the first bill passed through Parliament, are still as relevant today. The thing about the Churches is that they are still there, picking up the pieces of a Government that has lost touch with the community. This is the case today.

I think the Churches do a fantastic job, and I applaud them. I think the Churches do a necessary job. But what we are seeing, more and more, is Churches picking up the slack where the Government has dropped the ball. This is absolutely the case today. It is one of the reasons why I am proud to speak about this legislation, because anything that gets the Church structure to a point where it is best utilised to serve the needs of the parishioners, of the people—in fact, if we are honest about this, the vast majority of people whom Churches serve these days are not actually their parishioners; they are members of their community, whom they have taken in and cared for. This is what Churches do, because that Government has failed a whole lot of people in our community.

I do support this bill. Why would you not? But I would also like to say congratulations to the Churches on the wonderful work they do in our communities. Thank you.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I too rise in support of this bill. I will refer to the two trusts as the old trust and the new trust. This bill, the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill, refers to the obligations of the old trust, being the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board, and what I will refer to as the new trust, being the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Hon Dr Nick Smith in bringing this bill to the House, but also acknowledge the Church that we are referring to for making the initiative, for being forward-thinking, and for thinking about the future for the people it serves in its communities.

This bill is really an evolution, as has been referred to already—an update, a change in the rules governing the trust to adapt to the times that we are in. The reason this bill has been brought to the attention of the House is the restriction that the existing Act places on the board trustees. There is some concern that the Act requires them to focus on, and reinvest, in bricks and mortar, and we know that the Churches of today are much more than that. We know that the Churches of today are much more than bricks and mortar. They are there to serve the community.

The Salvation Army, for instance, spends and invests money and time and effort on its state of the nation analysis, which was recently released. Churches invest in food banks. They might subsidise a driver who helps people in the community. Churches have always done this, and they will continue to do this. Churches are particularly important in rural New Zealand, where, for example, some bus services, public transport, may not exist because of the population base. These Churches have a very important role in our rural communities.

When a Church is restricted, or feels that it is restricted, to invest in bricks and mortar, there is a problem. We also have a problem when there are bequests made to the Church. The bequestor—is that the right term—intends the money to be used for the purposes of the Church, rather than for the purposes of the Act, which talks about bricks and mortar. The bequestor is quite keen to see more food banks, more petrol subsidies to drivers, and so on. So the trustees have the intentions of the bequestor but—and this is the dilemma that the trustees would have—they are restricted by the Act. This bill transfers the obligations of the old trust to the new trust. The obligations as far as contractual obligations, commitments, liabilities, and assets are concerned are exactly the same, so when one contract refers to the old trust, it will automatically refer to the new trust. That is a nice clean transition.

The next bill that will be brought to the House is in a similar vein, in that it is an evolution of legislation in the same way. I would like to pick up a point with which I concur, made by Mr Henare regarding the Māori Church schools. I commend, again, Christian Churches New Zealand for being forward-thinking. I think we have to continue to evolve and rethink where we are in the community and what our real purpose is. I commend Mr Henare for challenging Māori Church schools to rethink their purpose, with the assets that they have available to them, in much the same way as Christian Churches New Zealand has done today.

I would just like to point out what I think is, at the least, quite an interesting irony in the discussion that we have had today, in that all the members of the House have spoken in support of enabling the board’s trustees to have greater flexibility in the management of their assets so that they can focus on the things that matter. The things that matter, of course, are the people. We have all talked about the importance of enabling the trust to do what it wishes with its assets, with its buildings, with its bricks and mortar—to perhaps sell, as the Church shrinks, or, even if the Church is growing, to perhaps sell a property for the benefit of supporting community services, to focus on the people.

My point here is that that is what this Government is doing in the social housing sphere. It is ironic, I find, that the opposing benches support this bill but do not support the freeing up of the social housing sector vis-à-vis focusing on the people and the needs of the people. I find that interesting, and I think this bill is quite an interesting parallel to what we are doing—what the Christian Churches have done with their assets and what this National Government is doing with the Government’s assets in the social housing sector.

This is a very tidy and evolutionary piece of legislation that is going to enable the new trust to focus on the people. It is going to enable the new trust to not be concerned about breaching the Act if they were to invest in something other than houses and bricks and mortar. I commend Christian Churches New Zealand for the initiative it has shown in bringing this to the attention of the Hon Dr Nick Smith so that we can progress this through the House and so that they can do, and continue to do, the good work in the community. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill

First Reading

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I move, That the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider this bill. I would like to thank and acknowledge the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri Trusts Board for coming into Parliament today, and welcome to you. I also acknowledge Māori Party member Marama Fox for her initiative and advice.

The trust has played an important role in providing educational opportunities for young Māori in Wairarapa. It all began when Māori donated three blocks of land—the Papawai, Kaikōkirikiri, and Clareville land—to the Crown for a school to be established under the authority of George Selwyn, the Lord Bishop of New Zealand. The land was vested in the trust board in 1853. The Papawai Native School was subsequently established and operated on that piece of land until 1932, when it was destroyed by a fire. The trust’s remaining funds were not enough to re-establish and maintain another school, so the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act was enacted in 1943. This Act extended and varied the trust’s authority in order to make practical use of the available income and to establish a new board to administer the trust.

Since that Act, the trust has been distributing the income from the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri land to support the education of post-primary Māori students. Under the Act, two-thirds of the trust’s distributions must go to Ngāti Kahungunu children first, then to children of Māori descent, and, finally, to Māori descendants anywhere in New Zealand. The scholarships for these children must go to schools conducted by the Anglican Church in Aotearoa / New Zealand and Polynesia. The final one-third of funding must go towards the cost of boarding, clothing, and other school-related costs.

The bill will remove these strict funding restrictions in the Act, and give the trust more flexibility in how the funds are best distributed to the tangata whenua of Wairarapa. The trust will then be able to distribute funds to where they are most effective rather than where they are required to go under the Act. The board members are in the best position to decide where the money should be going. It should not be decided by legislation that is over 70 years old.

The requirement for the scholarships to go towards Anglican schools is another part of the bill that is being updated. Schools nowadays are not normally run by Churches, like they used to be, and scholarship recipients should not be restricted as to the type of school they attend. The bill does this by repealing the definition of the Church of England, as the purpose of the trust is to advance education for Māori, and the strict requirements in the Act are not necessary to achieve that purpose.

Another reason for the bill is to establish a more robust nomination process for the board members. Under the current law, there are 10 board members, five of whom are appointed on the recommendation of the Diocesan Trust Board, four members on the recommendation of the Māori Land Court, and one member on the recommendation of the Minister of Education. There are no provisions relating to their term of office. Members of the board can remain members until their death, their resignation, or their conviction for an imprisonable offence.

This bill provides a better framework for board appointment. One of the major changes is that the board must have eight instead of 10 members: four appointed by the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika and four members being tangata whenua of Wairarapa, who are either appointed or elected in accordance with a process that is adopted by the board. Board members will serve a term set at 4 years. These changes to the appointment process give more authority to tangata whenua of Wairarapa to decide whom they would like to see manage the trust and to decide on an appointment process that can be used in future to suit their needs.

Another important part of this bill is to better facilitate the long-term development of lands. Under the current Act, the board may sell the lands with the consent of the Minister of Education, but the Minister may not consent to the sale of any land that has been acquired from any Māori tribe or hapū unless the Māori Land Court has given its consent. That court must ascertain the wishes of the members of the tribe or hapū concerned—very complicated; this is another part of the Act that needs updating. The bill warrants the board to sell the Clareville land if it wishes, but not the Papawai land or the Kaikōkirikiri land.

The board can lease all three of the lands in whole or in part, and on any terms and conditions it sees fit. This gives the board more flexibility and allows for better use of the land to increase the trust’s finances.

This bill modernises the current Act to remove many unnecessary restrictions, and to establish a more robust nomination process of trustees. We will also see a more fair and flexible distribution of funds by modernising the restrictive distribution provisions in the Act. The bill enables the board to enter into modern business transactions to enable better use of the land and updates the trust’s relationship with the bishop. This bill, most importantly, empowers the board and iwi to determine for themselves the utilisation and distribution of their assets. This can only be achieved through legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Labour will support this bill to select committee. Can I just make the point that, as the current elected member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti—where this bill sits—it is an opportune time, I guess, for us to ensure across the House that we understand the bill, so we can get cross-party support for what you are clearly attempting to do here, Mr Scott. I would have welcomed the opportunity, but, like I said, it will go to the Māori Affairs Committee and we will hear from those most affected. I stand in support of this particular bill and, like I said, I look forward to it coming to the select committee.

If I look at the main provisions of the bill—the member outlined a few of the provisions, and there are a couple that I want to just go on record about in anticipation of it coming to select committee. He has read out the one around application of trust moneys, and the proposed changes, as outlined, are to provide scholarships for post-primary education of children who whakapapa in relation to the tangata whenua Wairarapa. It also provides for provision of books and clothing and other equipment for holders of scholarships. It also makes grants through governing bodies of any schools at which any such scholarships are tenable. Section 12(3)(d), replaced by clause 9, talks about “the establishment, furnishing, maintenance, and management of a school or schools in the Wairarapa district for children, including provision for residential accommodation.”

We have had many Māori boarding schools in our recent history that have closed, sadly, for lack of involvement both from the Churches and the Government. One thing I am hoping is that this is not being set up to also add to the declining number of Māori boarding schools. So I just want to go on record to say that this bill with that particular clause gives me some concern but we will definitely address it through the select committee. The member mentioned the members of the board. He talked about reducing it from 10 to eight. Like any proposed changes in Māori land legislation, for me it is important that we define what the problem is—a problem definition—and that we ensure that we have consulted everybody, and, again, no doubt, that will come out at the select committee to ensure that, when we are proposing changes, those most affected are being consulted and then involved in the new provisions.

I go over to the provisions in the bill that talk about alienation of land. Can I just make the point that this side of the House, when it comes to protecting Māori whenua, will scrutinise this bill to the utmost to ensure that there is no Māori land loss through these proposed changes. I want to just put the questions around the bill when it talks about “the Board may sell the Clareville land”. I understand there are three packages of whenua. We are going to protect the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri whenua, but the proposal is—this is according to the bill—“The Board may sell the Clareville land … by public auction or by private contract, and on the terms and conditions that the Board thinks fit …”. So I am getting a sense that we are protecting the Māori corpus land, but the general land in terms of the Clareville land might be subjected to potentially more changes. I guess the cautionary note there is that we ask the question why that particular parcel of land is being treated differently to the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri whenua.

So those are some points in terms of the bill that has been presented in the House today. Also, when we talk about investment of trust funds, again we talk about decisions over the leasing arrangements of the Kaikōkirikiri whenua, the Papawai whenua, and the Clareville whenua. I suppose I just want to ensure that the trust that we are establishing under this bill understands the importance of making critical land decisions that do not alienate the original intent of the land being put aside for educational purposes, and that we do not see it either put up for sale or traded for any other purpose. Like I said, we stand in support of this bill going to select committee. If members of the board are in the gallery, I welcome them too.

Also, to end, I say that I look forward to further scrutiny of this particular bill when it comes to the Māori Affairs Committee, to ensure that we are both protecting Māori whenua and ensuring that there is no risk of alienation around that land. Also, I believe, we are ensuring that the educational needs of our young people from Wairarapa are also supported under this bill, because we have many examples, both in our present and very recent history, where that has not been the case and many good schools have closed. I do not want to prolong my speech any longer but just say that Labour will support the bill. We look forward to it coming to the Māori Affairs Committee and look forward to all those who will be impacted—both the original gifters of this whenua, as well as the current board and, as proposed, the young Māori from the Wairarapa area—having their say on this bill and ensuring that it does meet the objectives for which this member is bringing this bill to the House. That is why I say we will support the bill to select committee. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

NUK KORAKO (National): Ā, tēnei te mihi o te whanauka o Te Waka o Takitimu, o Ngāti Kahungunu. Ko Kai Tahu tēnei nō Rāpaki nō Te Rakiwhakaputa e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[And so, I, a relative of the Tainui canoe and of the Ngāti Kahungunu people, acknowledge you. I am Kai Tahu, from Te Rakiwhakaputa, and acknowledge you all.]

It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in support of this bill, the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge, first of all, the work of the excellent local MP for the Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, who has brought this bill to the House. As we have heard, this bill will amend the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act 1943 to enable this trust board to better manage its functions, and that is the essence of this bill—to better manage its functions.

The Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts hail from the time when the Wairarapa Māori donated two blocks of land to the Crown for the purpose of establishing a school. That school was to be under the authority of the Lord Bishop of New Zealand. The schools established on this land had various misfortunes, however, in their early years. The first school closed within 5 years and the second, a college, was established but was destroyed by fire.

Around 1943 a need was seen to make more practical use of the income available from the lands held by these two trusts and for the purpose of furthering education. The Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act was passed to allow this, and a new board was established to administer the amended trust on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu. Since that time the trusts have continued with their goal of furthering education. They currently provide educational scholarships for children of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and also of Rangitāne o Wairarapa descent. In 2014, 119 scholarships were awarded, at a total value of $59,600.

This amendment bill provides a timely update to the legislation governing the trust board and it will achieve four main objectives. First of all, it will better describe the relationship between Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board, the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and tangata whenua of Wairarapa. Second, it establishes a more robust nomination process for the board members. Third, it provides a fairer distribution of funds for tangata whenua of Wairarapa. And the fourth one is to facilitate the long-term development of the lands held by the trusts.

These sensible and practical changes will assist the trust board in achieving its mission. And when we look at its mission it is to uphold the aspirations and expectations of our tīpuna, to enhance the faith and education of our people of being good kaitiaki of our taoka tuku iho through our business practices. That is the mission. And stemming from that mission they have four goals as well. The first is to enhance the faith to empower whānau and hapū. The second is to make positive contributions to the education of tamariki, which empowers whānau—and we all know that. Education empowers whānau. The third one is to be a good steward of our taonga tuku iho and other assets. And the fourth one is to operate in a manner that upholds the expectations and aspirations of our tūpuna. That is about tikanga.

This amendment bill will assist the trusts with meeting this mission and these goals. I look forward to hearing from the trust and others when we consider the bill at the Māori Affairs Committee and ensuring that this bill does everything it can to support the ongoing work of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board. I commend this bill to the House. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. [I acknowledge you all.]

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is 1 minute to 6, so I would suggest that perhaps the House could rise for the dinner break now, by leave, and we return to this bill afterwards.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just checking with the member. She is seeking leave to adjourn 30 seconds early for the dinner break.

Metiria Turei: 30 seconds early. It seems reasonable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There appears to be no objection. I will leave the Chair for kai time and someone will resume it at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to acknowledge the trustees of the Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri Trusts Board who are here, just as I understand it, or have been here this afternoon.

Ko Tararua Te Maunga, ko Ruamahanga Te Awa, ā, ko Tākitimu Te Waka. Nō Rangitāne me Kahungunu-ki-Wairarapa, nō Ngāti Moe ahau; ko Ngāti Moe Te Hapū, ā, ko Papawai te marae.

[The mountain is Tararua, the river is Ruamahanga, and the canoe is Tākitimu. I am from Rangitāne and Kahungunu to Wairarapa and Ngāti Moe. The subtribe is Ngāti Moe and the marae is Papawai.]

Kia ora. Just saying.

Pita Paraone: So you’ve got a vested interest.

METIRIA TUREI: I have a vested interest in making sure the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill goes beautifully through the process. I am very pleased to be speaking for the Green Party on this bill, and we certainly support it. I am looking forward to the kōrero that we are going to hear about this bill in the select committee, actually.

There are many trusts like these all over Aotearoa that use Māori land and Māori resources from years and years and years back, from generations back, and there are many reasons why those resources are being used by trusts like these. They are set up to provide support to Māori children, in particular, for educational purposes. I have myself been a recipient of grants from the Wairarapa Moana Trust, for example, and I know the extent of the need out there for this kind of charitable work and support for Māori children and young people. So I am really pleased to see this being recognised here in the House. It is a chance to express my personal—but also, I think, on behalf of many of us who have received these kinds of grants from these kinds of trusts—gratitude to those who do the work to provide that extra financial support to whānau who struggle. You cannot underestimate the importance of that.

I want to just quickly acknowledge there are a whole heap of Māori MPs from Papawai.

Ron Mark: Yay.

METIRIA TUREI: Yay. I do not think I have got the list completely right so, members, please correct me if I am wrong: Ron Mark and Marama Fox. Peeni Henare, I understand, has connections. Is it right that Rino Tirikatene has connections back to Papawai? There are others. Joanne Hayes has connections back to Papawai. MPs who are no longer in the House: Edwin Perry, who was a New Zealand First MP, and Rāna Waitai, who was a New Zealand First MP.

Ron Mark: Tūtekawa.

METIRIA TUREI: Tūtekawa had connections back to Papawai. Parekura Horomia, I understand, bless him, had connections back to Papawai, and maybe there are many others. What really interests me, of course, is that Papawai, being the place of the first Māori Parliament, has managed to produce so many Māori MPs across the political spectrum. There has got to be something in that, I think.

We are pleased that, in terms of the bill, the bill is an attempt to modernise the trust board and to provide it with more flexibility and opportunity to use the resources it has to improve its financial standing and, therefore, to improve the services that it can provide to Māori whānau. I am very pleased to see the focus shift away from Anglican children. I thought we were all Catholics, so you learn something new every day.

Ron Mark: No, the Anglicans took the land from us.

METIRIA TUREI: “The Anglicans took the land.” says Ron Mark. But I am pleased to see that the process is being cracked open a bit to make it more accessible, and I think that, again, that is part of the modernisation of a trust board like this. Being able to have an opportunity to speak to some of the trustees from this trust board over the dinner break, I feel very confident that the kaupapa, the purpose, of these trusts is in good hands. I am looking forward to the stories that we will hear in the select committee about the history of these trusts, and there may be some concerns raised too. We will take those seriously as we consider it. But I am very pleased to be supporting the bill tonight. Tēnā koe.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koutou ngā kaumātua o Wairarapa o Te Papawai me te Kaikokirikiri Trust; tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai.

[Thank you. A huge acknowledgment to you, the Wairarapa elders of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trust; greetings, salutations, and welcome.]

I am pleased to stand to take a brief call on the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. As my colleague and sponsor of the bill, Alastair Scott, has said, this bill is a form of updating. It is updating the ability and the flexibility for the board to be able to make some decisions around managing the trust with its educational purposes, and the land and what they do with it.

Members of the Māori Affairs Committee are looking forward to having this bill there. We currently have been having a look at and reviewing the Māori Education Trust, and so with this bill coming to us, I think that we will have a good opportunity to look in, be able to receive submissions, and hear what everybody has to say about the changes that have been proposed in amendments in this bill.

One of the things that I am quite interested in, which I talked about with Marama Fox—and I am going to steal a little bit of her thunder. I read an article that she has just been writing around Wairarapa. One of things that she mentioned in there was the Papawai Marae and the pou on the marae and that all but one of them actually face in. When I said to her “What does that mean, Marama?”, she said that it is a symbol of looking into themselves and making sure that they themselves are well and doing well. Then they have one pou that stands out to protect the area. Papawai Marae is very historical in terms of being the first Māori Parliament for the country. I think it is one of those eras that we, as Māori MPs, should never forget—if we already have not remembered that. We should never ever forget that.

I too want to acknowledge the number of Māori MPs—exactly what Metiria Turei talked about—who whakapapa to Papawai. She said that there is something about it, it has got to be in the water—but, no, it is about genes. It is about whakapapa, and that is what makes it such a historic occasion, really, to have representation in this House from across all the parties, except for ACT and United Future, that have MPs here.

Without any further ado, I note that there is a long way to go on this bill, and I do want to save some of the more savoury moments. I know that the member Meka Whaitiri mentioned about having that kōrero with my colleague, and that kōrero will carry on. It will happen because that is the way that it is. Without any further ado, I stand to support the first reading and support this bill through to its conclusion. Kia ora.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is a privilege and an honour to be able to stand and to speak to the first reading of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. I want to start by acknowledging my whanaunga, whom I cannot see in the gallery, but I know they are up there, who have come along to witness this first reading and will no doubt appear at a later stage before the select committee. I cannot see them from here, Alastair. I am too short. It is a genetic thing, you know—it is my Ngati Porou side. Although looking at some of my cousins, cousin Marama, we seem to share the same affliction—height disadvantage and not being able to see.

But, anyway, a couple of things that have already been mentioned here today: I think it is timely, right, and proper that an Act that was put together in 1943 comes before the House for amendment so that it fits contemporary law a little more and makes it more workable. Those of us who are from the Wairarapa who are Ngāti Kahungunu ki Te Wairarapa, who do whakapapa to Papawai Marae—the thing you need to know also is that if you whakapapa to Papawai Marae, you probably whakapapa to Hurunui o Rangi, to Ngāti Hinewaka, to all of those hapū that surround the lake. It is something that was pointed out to me when I first came to Parliament, back in 1996. After that, I was told where I was from. Cousin Rex Hemi and Kim Workman arranged for me to go home, to Papawai, and introduced me to my whanaunga and told me who I was—something that I did not really know a great deal about, having been brought up as a ward of the State.

It was quite astonishing, as a member of Parliament, to be standing there and hearing the history of Papawai—it being the seat and the home of the Kotahitanga movement, the site of the only, still to this day, Māori Parliament in New Zealand, and a marae from which an immense amount and quality of leadership was demonstrated to the nation as Māori gathered there from all over the motu to discuss the issues that concerned them and to have those issues brought here, to the Parliament of the day.

So it was something that quite astonished me when people like Rāna Waitai, who became a New Zealand First member of Parliament, who then ended up with the National Party again, having come from the National Party—he was a former policeman of some renown—told me that he too was from Papawai, and Edwin Perry. At that time, Tūtekawa Wyllie also introduced himself to me as another person who could whakapapa back to Papawai. We have a list here of at least 10, but I think there are more members of Parliament who whakapapa directly back to Papawai.

I will leave that to the House and to others to contemplate why it is that such a small marae, in such a small part of New Zealand, has such a long history in politics. I guess it is that wairua thing that keeps tapping you on the back of the neck and reminding you that there are things beyond your control that lead one to where one is at the time, despite one’s best efforts, maybe, not to be there. But it is something that you need to note: from the seat of the Kotahitanga movement we end up here in Parliament today with Māori from Papawai represented in an array of cross-party political parties.

I just want to conclude by saying two things. It is timely that this bill is here. I would have liked it to come to the House probably from Meka Whaitiri because she is the elected Māori MP over in that part of the country. I would have liked it to come to the House maybe from someone who actually comes from Papawai, but it has come here in this way. I would also have liked to have more consultation with our people back home, giving us some background as to why this bill is here. It concerns me that Labour, New Zealand First, the Green Party, or I had any contact at all from Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board to brief us as to what the issues were and why this bill is here. I think we need to recognise that there are more than just two Government members in Parliament from the Wairarapa. There are a lot more. If we talk about tino rangatiratanga and kotahitanga, then we need to demonstrate that.

But the bill highlights some issues, like the two-thirds of the funding that goes to students going to religious schools and only one-third going to other Māori students, when in actual fact I think the number is about 10 in the Church of England schools and about 200 applicants from the wider whanaunga.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): My apologies to my colleague. I was just at the flag referendum debate and came late back to the House, so the lovely Jo Hayes took my spot. We have done a swap. However—ā, tuatahi, kei te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki Te Whare, ki ōku whanaunga e noho nei ki roto i ngā tūru kei runga rā me te tuku whakaaro ki ngā tupuna, ka mihi atu ki a rātau! Nō rātau tēnei whenua i whakarite, nā rātou tēnei kaupapa i whakarite hai awhi, hai tautoko i te hunga rangatahi o te kāinga, kia tupu pai ake i roto i tēnei ao hurihuri, nō reira, tēnei te mihi.

[And so, in the first instance, I want to acknowledge the House, my relatives in their seats up there, and spare a thought to the ancestors and accord a tribute to them. They considered this property, and came up with this scheme as a means of assisting and supporting the young people of the local area to improve their growth in this evolving world; therefore, I applaud them.]

The Papawai-Kaikōkirikiri lands were gifted by the Crown, after they were gifted to the Crown, for religious and educational purposes in 1908. There was an intention to build a school at Papawai, which never happened, which is why they established this scholarship fund. The current trust was created in an Act in 1943; hence we are here.

This bill has been with different members in this House for many, many years and has never progressed. When I came into Parliament, the whānau came and said: “Marama, can you help us move this bill along. It’s been sitting on the table for a long time and under different people’s names, it wasn’t able to progress.” In the discussion with the whānau we felt that it was a good idea to put it with the Government’s representative from the Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, thereby speeding up the process, instead of waiting for the day when it might be drawn out of the ballot.

I take on board the points made by Ron Mark, cousin and member for New Zealand First, and our colleague Meka Whaitiri, the representative of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. There is still much to be debated, and when this bill comes to the select committee we will all again have the opportunity to collectively work on the bill to ensure that it does do just that—that it upholds the rangatiratanga of our people to determine what they think is best to move the trust forward.

My own children have been recipients of the scholarships proffered by the trust, as have many in the Wairarapa. Papawai is a significant place. It was known as Ngā Wahakaka o Wairarapa—the great speakers and holders of the knowledge. In fact, we found in our writings that when Ātiawa, over here in the Wellington region, were struggling with an issue of tikanga, an issue that they could not settle, they said: “Me haere tātau ki ngā waha kākā o Wairarapa hai whakatau.” [“Let us go to the Wairarapa representatives to settle it.”] Such was the renown of the people of Papawai—yes, the seat of the Māori Parliament. But not only that, the repository of knowledge of our tohungatanga, of our whare wānanga. So it was right that they saw fit to ensure that there would be scholarships available for our young people, growing up in a new and modern world, even at that time, even until this time—that they be supported in their education so that they can strive to take their place, as we have done, in the halls and the seats of this Parliament and in the world beyond.

Today, in this Parliament, there are five members of this current 51st Parliament who whakapapa to Papawai Marae, from five different parties. It is the legacy of a people who saw in a vision that they could be self-determining; hence the trust has come and asked that we make the changes necessary to the Act that governs the paying out of scholarships from the fund so that they too can continue to uphold that legacy of our ancestors. So I am quite proud to stand and speak on this basis.

The Papawai block was 400 acres. The Kaikōkirikiri block is 177 acres. The trust then purchased a further 150 acres. The collective funds gathered from the good trusteeship and governance of that land is what keeps our children in school today. So I am proud to stand and support this bill.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te W’are, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki te w’ānau kua tae mai ki te tautoko i tēnei pire. E tū ake tēnei tangata poto anō hoki, tērā pea ki te taha ō tōku kuia nō Wairarapa me Kahungunu, ko Meipara Tāwhimāka tōna ingoa ki te taha ō tōku pāpā. Nō reira, e mihi ana ahau ki aku hoa ma’i, kātahi anō ka rongo ki tēnei whakapapa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is right that I extend a welcome to the family who have arrived to support this bill. This person—a short person as well, from the side of my grandmother, who hails from Wairarapa and Kahungunu—rises to do that. Her name, on my father’s side, is Meipara Tāwhimāka. And so, I acknowledge my work colleagues who have just heard this genealogy for the first time.]

It is a pleasure to stand in support of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill going to the select committee. From my reading of the 1943 Act of Parliament, the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act, a couple of things have occurred to me, probably because I have also read a couple of other bills—one from 1929 and around that era—and they seem to be very prescriptive. I would probably go so far as saying they were paternalistic, as well, and I think they definitely need to be brought into this century so that the trustees can carry out the functions of the original intent of these trusts.

I want to acknowledge the long history—and it goes way back further—and I defer to the other members who have shared a lot more history about it. I want to acknowledge that history, but I also want to acknowledge the long commitment that the trusts have had to the ongoing education of ngā tamariki nō taua wāhi [the children from that place], from Wairarapa. I think it is important to also acknowledge the real change that will happen under this bill, the change going from having the Church of England Schools Scholarship Fund to having the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Scholarship Fund. That is a significant move because I think it acknowledges moving from that—even if it was subtle—paternalism.

I think it needs to be stated in this House that this amendment bill seeks to address that in a way that empowers the whānau, and that is why I am really keen to hear the submissions that will no doubt come in. If there are any things that need to be corrected in there—I cannot see anything, myself, but I think the overall issue of moving it forward into this century is really important. That is why we have this process, so that our people can participate in it and can make submissions on this bill that affects their lives. There are some other things in there that are quite interesting for me: the new definitions that are in there—I would really like to hear what the people have to say about those—and the changes to the governance arrangements, which are really, really important.

One thing I would like to say about the governance arrangements is on the phrases that are used in there, and how we describe ourselves. The language of 1943 talks about “Maoris”, or Māori, and the language in this bill is talking about tangata whenua. I raise this because there are other bills—another one in particular that is before the House, which changes the language, similar language, talks about the Aboriginal people of New Zealand, changing that to “people of Māori descent”. I raise that because I think that, with a number of Acts of Parliament, we should come to a standard way of describing who we are. I acknowledge the words in this particular bill because I think those were the right words in describing us.

I do want to acknowledge the member of Parliament for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Meka Whaitiri. I think that she could have played a much wider role if she had been involved in this. I think, under her stewardship, it would not have slowed down any, so I just want to acknowledge her. Nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Unfortunately, I do not have any link to any whakapapa in the Wairarapa, so I cannot take any credit for being part of the education success that this trust has been able to engage in. But we do have a Catholic heritage, which is quite similar, I guess, to the Green Party when they mentioned that they thought that there was a Catholic, not an Anglican, basis to it.

From an outsider’s perspective, education is crucial, and any opportunity to give our young people an education is something that we should celebrate and make as successful as possible. When you have got a community that is willing to be so forward thinking as to donate land to build a school, and then not actually have that happen but uses that money over generations to have other people from a similar background get that opportunity for education, then this House should stand by and do all it can to assist that trust in making sure that it achieves its purposes. I presume we have got some members of the trust who might be watching, or are here tonight. We welcome you, we acknowledge the great work that you do, and we wish that it carries on.

The nature of the political process is that sometimes these kinds of bills do need to come before Parliament to enable the trust to achieve its purposes, and we have to make some changes in that way. This bill, basically, gives flexibility to the trust to be able to achieve its purposes in a more modern environment where there will be choices in education, and not limited to one religious background—for example, the Anglican Church, where those scholarships would be delivered.

I think that we need to congratulate all members of the House who have spoken here today. I think there has been a lot of support and willingness to work together. I think everybody takes on board the wishes to involve the local members and to make sure that the understanding and desires that they have are incorporated through that process as well. I look forward to our Parliament working together in this area to ensure that we can give the best solution for the trust and for the education of students going forward who will benefit from this trust.

So it is my great pleasure to support my colleague Alastair Scott, and to support other members of the House who have an interest in this bill, and to wish the trust all the best. Hopefully, we will see many more politicians come through who gain an education and an opportunity provided by a trust like this, and they take on the leadership and deliver even greater and better results for their communities in the future. Thank you.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): After the relevant speeches from members, I feel a bit left out. I am amazed that there are so many people from this Parliament who are connected to the Papawai Marae. I commend, again, the trustees and the people of Papawai for bringing, obviously, a fantastic culture to Wairarapa and to the country.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their support of this bill. This bill is just one part of many actions, policies, and changes that this Government has initiated that support and empower Māori. To summarise how this bill achieves that: first, we are going to remove the restrictive parts of the legislation so that funds can be distributed in a more fair and effective manner. The tangata whenua of Wairarapa, under this bill, will have greater autonomy to manage their own affairs. They will have the ability to invest trust money into the educational purposes where they believe is best. This will provide better outcomes for Māori by widening the areas of education where the funding might go. The board has done a great job to date in the management of the trust. In 2014, 119 scholarships were awarded, worth a total of $59,000. The trust gives students the opportunity to live up to their potential. It is not only Wairarapa Māori who are achieving in schools. Since 2008 National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 achievement for Māori students has risen 32 percent, up to a 66 percent pass rate. Young Māori are on the right track to success.

Secondly, the bill establishes a more robust nomination process for board members. Tangata whenua of Wairarapa will play a role in appointing or electing members to the board, keeping the decision within the community. Thirdly, the bill helps to facilitate the long-term development of the land. This is essential, as it empowers the board to increase the amount of trust money to be distributed to students.

I would like to touch on some other initiatives of this Government that also improve outcomes for Māori. The Crown has been working hard over the past 7 years to speed up the Treaty settlement process, empowering more Māori to determine for themselves their future using their own assets. We are working hard towards our goals of reaching final and durable settlements with all willing iwi by the end of 2017. So far we have signed 53 deeds of settlement with iwi in the last 7 years, compared with 15 in the 9 years before. Of these settlements, 36 have had legislation enacted, with four settlements currently in the House and two at select committee consideration. We are moving in the right direction, and we can already see the benefits that these settlements are bringing to iwi, communities, regional New Zealand, and the country as a whole. It is important we continue to complete the process, for the benefit of everyone.

Another Government initiative to further develop Māori interests is Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform. This is planned to be introduced to the House this year. The reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will unlock the economic potential for Māori land, while recognising the need to maintain its ownership in the hands of Māori landowners. There has been extensive consultation on this reform, and there is overwhelming support from iwi, who want to unlock the potential of Māori land for its owners. The Ministry for Primary Industries has estimated the economic benefit could be in the region of $5 billion to $8 billion. The potential benefits for Māori economic development are exciting. This work is a top priority for the Government this year.

Thank you again to the House for the support of this bill. This bill is an empowering bill. It will improve the administration of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board by providing greater flexibility in the distribution of funds, establishing a better nomination process for boards, and making better use of the land being managed. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Waiata

Bills

Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill

First Reading

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) on behalf of Hon Nicky Wagner (National—Christchurch Central): I move, That the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. At this point I would have been nominating a select committee to consider the bill should it pass its first reading, but I noticed that there is actually a contradiction between the notes I have received from the sponsor of the bill and the advice contained on the drill sheet. So, for the benefit of the House, I propose to nominate later—probably in the right of reply—which select committee should be considering the bill.

At the outset, I should acknowledge that the Hon Nicky Wagner is the sponsor of this bill, and I am honoured to be performing this task on her behalf. I also want to extend my greetings to Blind Foundation members and staff in my home Waikato region. I very much enjoyed, as I know did my colleague David Bennett, the MP for Hamilton East, joining them last year for their 125th anniversary celebrations. They do an excellent job, and David and I are very proud to represent them here in our Parliament. I know that they and many other organisations are deeply grateful for the genuine interest and enthusiasm that the Hon Nicky Wagner demonstrates for their work, needs, and challenges in her capacity as Minister for Disability Issues. She is an excellent advocate for, and friend to, the many organisations supporting disabled communities throughout New Zealand.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why is she not doing the speech, then?

TIM MACINDOE: It is most unfortunate to receive such an unhelpful and ignorant interjection, I must say. I am also delighted to be introducing a bill for the first time in my parliamentary career; after nearly 7½ years that is quite something for me.

In 2015 the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, which is now known as the Blind Foundation, celebrated, as I have mentioned a few moments ago, 125 years of providing life-changing services to people who are blind or partially sighted. The foundation traces its origins to the Jubilee Institute for the Blind, which was established in 1890.

Simon O’Connor: When was that?

TIM MACINDOE: Back in 1890—just a couple of years before you came into existence, I think, Mr O’Connor. More recently, in 1963, the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind Act 1963 was passed, which established the foundation as a statutory body under the name Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind. In 2002 the foundation wished to clarify its status as a body controlled primarily by, and for the benefit of, people who are blind or have limited vision and to modernise its structure and governance arrangements, giving it the characteristics of an incorporated society. The foundation also wished to change its name to the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind to more accurately reflect the organisation’s modern philosophy. To that end, this House enacted the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act in 2002. The Act provided the foundation with an option to register as an incorporated society, and was structured in such a way as to become spent if the foundation chose to exercise that option. The foundation registered as an incorporated society on 10 January 2012, and accordingly that Act is now spent, or redundant.

The foundation considers it desirable, therefore, that the Act be repealed. There are two main reasons for this: firstly, that keeping the Act on the statute book causes confusion, as it suggests that the foundation is still a statutory body when it is not; and, secondly, that the repeal of the Act will emphasise the foundation’s status as an entity that is completely independent from Parliament.

Throughout the foundation’s rich history the organisation has continued to adapt to the changing needs of society, from its beginnings as a school for blind children to today’s multifaceted organisation that offers a range of services and support. Currently the foundation offers services that empower and support people who are blind or have limited vision to lead independent lives and reach their full potential. These services include support for the blind and partially sighted in independent living and getting around; helping them with technology and ways to continue reading—which, of course, is so vitally important to them—and communicating in general; and advice about staying in or looking for work, which is obviously also of tremendous importance to those wishing to maintain a high level of independence. The foundation also offers professional services to assist the wider community to engage constructively with people who are blind or partially sighted. Such services are invaluable to our communities.

The foundation’s strategic plan for the 2015 to 2020 period contains four key priorities: promoting independent living, achieving access for all, reaching more people, and building a foundation for the future. The foundation’s members and associated parties regard the repeal of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act as the final step towards full member governance and self-determination, and towards assisting the foundation to achieve its goals.

I am sure that everyone in this House is aware of the great work that the foundation achieves for New Zealanders who are blind or partially sighted. I hope that all members, therefore, will join me in congratulating and thanking the foundation for its fantastic work so far in the 126 years that it has provided service throughout this nation, and wish it all the best as the foundation takes this next step in a long and proud history.

I understand that it is necessary during the course of this speech for me to nominate a select committee to consider the bill. I therefore nominate that the bill be considered by the Health Committee. I know that it will give it excellent consideration, and I am delighted to have the chair of that very fine committee, Simon O’Connor, here in the House tonight. I know he will receive it with rapture and give it due consideration.

Simon O’Connor: With rapture, or with—

TIM MACINDOE: With both, Mr O’Connor. You are a person of great capacity, and I have enormous confidence in your abilities.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not bring me into it.

TIM MACINDOE: You too, Mr Deputy Speaker, are a person of great capacity—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I said do not bring me into it.

TIM MACINDOE: —but I do not wish to be making any personal comments.

It is, therefore, with great pleasure that I commend the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill to the House, and I am particularly pleased that the Attorney-General has enjoyed this fine oration.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I too take pleasure in the first reading of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. I want to spend a few moments just going over some of the heritage brought to this country by what we now know as the Blind Foundation.

We know that the Blind Foundation began in 1890, and that it was actually called the Jubilee Institute for the Blind. It provided services for people who were blind or had low vision. As the previous speaker, Tim Macindoe, has already said, it has enjoyed 126 years of connecting Kiwis who are blind or who have low vision to expert services, often delivered by their peers, so that they can gain training, tips, and abilities to deal with their blindness and achieve their potential. That is a very worthwhile aim. The first formal service of the foundation was actually a school in a residence in Parnell—and we all are familiar with the Parnell facility. At that time, it delivered sheltered employment, workshops, and residential programmes, but over the course of time, as the desire to give greater integration into the community has imposed different sets of values, this has of course meant that the workshops, the hostels, and the other institutional activities have been gradually withdrawn.

Of course, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 brought another turning point for the foundation, and it was finally able to formally recognise itself as an organisation accountable to those people living with blindness and low vision. The board is elected from people who are impacted by blindness or low vision.

Why did it take the step of becoming an incorporated society, as it did on 12 January 2012? Well, primarily because it delivers services to its members, and the services that it delivers to its members include such things as adaptive daily living and adaptive communications and technology. It delivers peer support, counselling, and employment opportunities. There is no doubt that we all know the service that it provides in supporting accessibility through its guide dogs. We also know that it offers some very specialised services—for example, for children and young people, and for people who are deaf and blind. It does particularly good work with Māori and Pacific communities, I know—I have a cousin who is blind who has received some particularly good support through the Blind Foundation.

But there is another reason, of course, to become an incorporated society, and that is because it is membership based: it provides accountability and equity of accountability across the membership. Becoming an incorporated society is a convenient way whereby groups of people of similar interests—whether it be as in this case, or sporting interests, or particular leisure pastimes, or professional groups—can group together and have shared values and vision. It also means that the properties, the assets, and whatever may be the ongoing development—it could be of a proprietary nature—remain the property of the society, so there is some longevity and some futureproofing built in to the society so that it can retain its assets. And, of course, being a member, you are subject to member fees.

I just want to add a note of caution: there are also some aspects of being an organisation like this that could cause some challenges. One of the challenges I want to talk about, through the wider community sector, could be the pressure that is imposed upon some organisations when it comes to advocating on behalf of the people and the causes that it serves. Sometimes that can impact on their ability to gain Government contracts and funding. There are quite high levels of accountability that are required in reporting, and that is a good thing, but there is also a level of resource that is required to ensure that the organisations can meet those higher standards of accountability in reporting.

There is also a very competitive nature when it comes to tendering for contracts and for funding. The requirements of outcome-based measurements and reporting, again, are a good thing in terms of being able to be very clear about the types of results that you are achieving with your funding dollar, but, again, as I said, they are resource-intensive. It can sometimes be hard to attract the type of calibre of person to sit on your governance boards that you require. With the Blind Foundation being very clear that its leadership will come from within its own membership group, it does require some support around building capacity into that group.

This bill will ensure that the Act, which is now defunct, is removed from the statutes, because the foundation is no longer a statutory body. The repeal of the Act means that the foundation itself can be completely independent from Parliament, and the foundation can see that its members will take the final step to that full-member governance and self-determination that it requires.

There is also one other aspect of this bill that is of importance, and that is around copyright when it comes to the matter of Braille. Under certain conditions, published material can be copied into Braille for use by people with vision impairment without infringing the copyright, and that is as it should be, and I am pleased that that is a provision within this bill.

There is not much more to say on this bill. It does complete a circle, I guess, in a sense, for the Blind Foundation. It is necessary to tidy up its status and ensure that we do not have statutes on the book that are no longer fit for purpose. In that regard, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on the first reading, on this Wednesday evening, on the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. It is a repeal bill, as has been noted. Look, its purpose is relatively simple. It is to ultimately strike a piece of legislation off the books to enable the foundation to stand completely independently, if you will, of Parliament by engaging now as a fully incorporated society.

Can I begin, though, by acknowledging the members of the royal foundation for the great work that they do in the community. I have had good reason to engage with them from time to time back up in Auckland, usually through friends and acquaintances who work there, who speak incredibly highly of the organisation. I acknowledge too, in my short time here in Parliament, those from the foundation who have come before Parliament to advocate for the blind—for those who are visually impaired—and who have always done so in a very constructive manner. I think most recently in the education sector, as we did a review of parental engagement, we had people from the royal foundation come in and explain to us how important it is to have access to something as simple as—well, what we take as being relatively simple—PDF documents from school, and to be able to format them in such a way so that parents can read and be fully engaged with their children, be it the child or the parents who have visual impairment. So, again, it is with thanks that I take this call for the work, the support, and the advocacy that is done.

As we have heard from the two previous speakers, and primarily from Tim Macindoe, who led off reading, the bill is here to deliver on an ambition of the Blind Foundation, as it is known, to modernise its structure. I think one element I have been struck with when looking through the history of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind is that it has evolved over time. If I can indulge my own historical interest and perhaps that of Paul Foster-Bell, who is with me here, in 1889 there was a meeting with the Bishop of Auckland—I assume that is the Anglican Bishop of Auckland—who called together what was called the Association of the Friends of the Blind. From there—well, a year later—it turned into the Jubilee Institute for the Blind, which I imagine—

Paul Foster-Bell: What was it the jubilee of, Simon?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, I am not 100 percent sure, actually, but it will be one of the royal jubilees, I am sure, which led in 1908 to the Jubilee Building in Parnell, which is actually one that I lived very close to.

Tim Macindoe: Could’ve been the jubilee of the Treaty of Waitangi.

SIMON O’CONNOR: You never know, actually. But, actually, the Jubilee Building is remarkably well-known in Auckland. Whether it is absolutely known for its association to the Blind Foundation, I am not 100 percent sure. I know that the foundation is now based next door to it. But the Jubilee Building has now been taken over by the council and the community comes together there, and I think there is actually strong and good symbolism in that.

But that was one of my little learnings. As I went through the history I also noted that in 1927 what was then known as the New Zealand Institute for the Blind set up a military band. That was a little learning—I think I have always associated seeing-eye dogs and the like with the foundation, but not necessarily a military band. In 1955 there was then an Act of Parliament, and that is what we are beginning to repeal this evening. An Act of Parliament was passed in order to regulate and work for the foundation. In 1972 the foundation received royal patronage. I believe Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra was out and she gave over that royal patronage. In 2002, as we have heard from Poto Williams, there was a review of the Act of Parliament. Then in 2015 the foundation celebrated 125 remarkable years, and in that time, as this little bit of history has touched on, it has evolved, it has changed, and it is now seeking via this repeal of legislation to modernise itself further.

What I think is clear through all 126 years is the desire to form a strong community of like-minded people—the common bond around visual impairment and blindness—to be able to live their lives as they see fit and to advocate into the New Zealand community, so that we understand not only their situation but to allow them to be the Kiwis whom they want to be. So I support this bill and, like others, I commend it and look forward to it coming to a select committee.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this, the first reading of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill, which has been brought to this House as a private bill, I understand, by the Hon Nicky Wagner.

It is in its essence a very simple bill. The heart of the bill is the intention to repeal the existing 2002 Act because the Act, which was established by Parliament in 2002, enabled changes to the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, including enabling the foundation to choose whether it wanted to become an incorporated society or not. It specified within that Act that if the foundation chose to become an incorporated society, then the 2002 Act would be spent and would need to be repealed. Subsequent to that, of course, the foundation did go through the process of becoming an incorporated society, so it has asked that the 2002 Act be repealed. Specifically, it wishes for it to be repealed because keeping the Act on the statute book would cause confusion and would suggest that the foundation may still be a statutory body when, in fact, it is not. The repeal of the Act will emphasise the foundation’s status as being completely independent from Parliament.

I understand that for the foundation the 2002 Act was a very significant event because, in its words, it made the foundation truly accountable to those living with blindness or low vision, rather than to the State or Parliament. That, of course, is a change that is to be respected, and now it is reinforcing that change by asking for the Act to be repealed.

There has been a little bit of history given already this evening, and I am going to add to that, though not by talking about the buildings, and so on, but by talking about some of the philosophical changes that have happened over the time from when the foundation was established in 1890 as the Jubilee Institute for the Blind. Its purpose was to provide services to people who were blind or who had low vision, and the way that it existed at that time was by having the first formal service school and a residence in Parnell. It offered, over many years, sheltered employment opportunities, workshops, and residences. But it is nice to reflect now, I think, on the social change and—probably, in part, as a result of the advocacy work that it has done—the change in the late 20th century away from separating people who are blind or impaired by low vision into ghettoes, rather than having a focus on acknowledging their strengths and inclusion and roles to play alongside everyone else as part of our diverse society.

So today we see that the foundation’s first object is the independence, integration, enablement, and well-being of New Zealanders who are blind or who have low vision. I think it absolutely makes sense for the foundation to be independent and accountable to its members and to be off the books of Parliament as a sign of that independence and enablement and focus on its membership. Of course the work it does is very broad, and part of that is around advocacy and part of it is about services, and I am sure that everyone in this House would like to offer their appreciation for the more than 125 years of advocacy and enablement that the foundation has provided.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is a great pleasure to speak in regard to this bill. We have had a very generous, I think, explanation from members of the House around the history and the roles undertaken by the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind—especially the last speaker, who made a very poignant point about the need for independence and the ability to live one’s own life even though someone may have a disability.

My grandfather was, in fact, blind—or of limited sight. We knew little about it, but we do have stories of him going to Parnell in Auckland, travelling from Cambridge, and I know that that service in those days was essential to him, and I know that that service has carried on over the years. It has grown and it has become a lot more sophisticated, I am sure, since then, and has delivered a lot more in a range of areas for a number of New Zealanders who have had to endure and go through the process of making a life for themselves in our community, which is not always open to people who have disabilities or issues with sight.

This is a bill that is a very simple bill in the sense that it adjusts the structural nature of the organisation so that it can provide better service to its members, and that is something that I think everybody in this House is, no doubt, in support of and wishing to see progress. I just want to echo the words of my colleague Mr Tim Macindoe around how, in Hamilton, we are very fortunate to have a very strong service in our city that is well represented. There are so many great people there who give a lot of voluntary time to help out other people, whether in communication, or just support.

I think the key thing, though—when you talk to people who are in a situation where they do have limited sight or hearing loss—is very much getting into the job market. Having an occupation, having the ability to be part of the community and work, is a big part of giving them confidence and support. I think that is one thing that this Parliament could possibly do a lot more of to help people in that area—into work and to enable organisations like the foundation to actually achieve a lot more to give people that independence and confidence in their own abilities and also their contribution to our community, and to feel that they are valued and part of the community. That is essentially what everybody wants. If we can make that easier for people to have that opportunity, then I think that is something that this Parliament should progress.

Although it may be a simple bill and achieve quite a simple purpose, it is something that is in a very important area that makes a real difference to people’s lives. I think that we should support and assist, in any way we can, organisations like this that do a great deal of work in our community and make a real difference to people’s lives in ways that we would never understand, unless we have actually had to go through it.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This bill could hardly be simpler, or more straightforward, or, in fact, more sensible. The Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, as we all know, and as many people have said in the House this evening, does wonderful work in the community and has widespread support throughout New Zealand. It has become an independent incorporated society under the Incorporated Societies Act, so it no longer needs a special Act of Parliament. The Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 is, therefore, redundant, and it is sensible to repeal it.

We in New Zealand First wish the foundation well in its important work. It is good to see it flourishing and succeeding in that work. For all those reasons New Zealand First will be very happy to support the bill.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I am pleased to stand and support the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. We have heard tonight the many reasons why the Act is to be repealed, so I want to take my contribution a little bit to the side, and talk about some of the services that the foundation has provided. I want to do this by talking a little bit about some examples of where I have seen this actually happen. I want to hark back to my university days.

Back in the day I was doing a first year social work degree at Massey University. They had all sorts of first year students doing that degree, but one was a woman who was born blind. She came into the university and had studied right up to then and wanted to complete a social work degree, and I thought that of all the people studying towards the social work degree, she would have been, to me, the most deserving and the most rewarding student—if I had been a lecturer—to teach.

I was really amazed at the guidance that the foundation supplied to the university and to her to help her get through the exams. We all know that to first year students, exams seem a little bit overbearing; they are a little bit more structured and intense than schooldays. I was quite intrigued about the way that they examined her—all verbal—and the number of volunteers who came in to read the exam papers out to her, and some of her papers as well. I was very impressed with the services that the foundation gave to this young woman, who went on to gain her degree and, no doubt, become a very good social worker working in the community.

The next example I want to talk about is farmers, because farmers, over time, are quite susceptible to visual impairment because of their exposure to the sun. My next-door neighbour came to me—he was only in his early sixties—and he said: “Oh, you’d better wear sunglasses.”, and he had just been diagnosed with glaucoma. He started his journey receiving advice and support, not only from the doctor but he also went to the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind to ask for things that could perhaps actually help him to come to terms with the fact that he had glaucoma and there was really nothing that he could do, and eventually he would go blind. He had to come to that realisation—really, we saw it in his face: it was devastation right through to acceptance.

In 2014 I collected for the foundation in Christchurch, and one of the volunteers on that stand with me was a farmer from Southland—from Clutha, Southland—who knew Bill English very, very well. He told me that he went blind fairly suddenly. This man would have been in his late fifties, early sixties, and he had a guide dog, and he said to me that ever since he had made a connection with the foundation, it had helped him immensely. He had had this dog for 6 months. He must have been very good with animals, because he, basically, had this dog eating out of the palm of his hand, or the dog had him eating out of the palm of its paw. I was really impressed. This man and all the people with whom I have come into contact who have either been born blind or have gone blind over time always have this absolutely wonderful, wonderful attitude and that drive to carry on and live really great, independent, and full lives.

The last one I want to talk about—I met a trainer of guide dogs, and she had a pup sitting next to her. He was 6 months old, and I can tell you that my 6-month-old huntaway is not as well behaved as this young guide dog pup. She asked whether I would be interested in helping to raise one as a puppy, and I said I knew my husband would never let me have a puppy because I would not ever let it go, and I would ruin all chances of its training because I would spoil it rotten.

This bill is a great bill, and I know, with the backing across the House, that this bill will go through and is well supported by everybody. I commend it to the House.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this call on the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. The Blind Foundation was 125 years old last year. It has been through a number of changes since it was established as the Jubilee Institute for the Blind way back in 1890. The foundation is this country’s primary supporter for nearly 12,000 people who are blind and those with low vision. It provides emotional and practical support with a view to enabling them to face their future with confidence. It allows people to take up the same opportunities and choices as everyone else.

As the spokesperson for employment skills and training, I understand the need for appropriate skills and training for employment for everyone. I also value those who, like this foundation, take on the important work of ensuring that differently abled people are equipped with the skills and training that they need to participate fully in society, whether it be support in living independently or in getting around or help with technology or better ways of communication or, indeed, advice on staying in or looking for employment. I commend the foundation for the work that it has done, and the work that it has done over the last 125 years. For it to get to the current stage of governance and strategic direction over that period of time is a feat indeed.

The most recent of the foundation’s incarnations was in establishing the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002. That Act changed the governance structure, and it allowed the adoption of a constitution that ensured that the foundation was led and governed by its members. It also allowed people to elect to their own offices. That Act also offered the foundation the option of registering as an incorporated society, should the membership see that that was a beneficial course of action. As this House has heard, it took that option up in 2012, meaning that the provisions of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 are now spent. To keep the statute book clean, the Act should now be repealed.

As someone who is passionate about education and high standards of literacy throughout our society, I wholeheartedly support the consequential amendment to the Copyright (General Matters) Regulations 1995, which is proposed in clause 4 of this bill. This amendment would ensure that the foundation is correctly described for the purposes of the Copyright Act. It allows it to continue with its important role in making and circulating Braille or audio copies and adaptations of published books and dramatic works to those with low vision and those who are blind, without infringing copyright. This brings a richness to the daily life of the foundation’s members, and it allows them to be on an equal footing with others in our community in education, training, or in simply enjoying the reading of a good book. Labour supports this bill. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. In rising to take a call in this first reading debate on the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill, I just want to respond to some comments that have been made so far in the debate.

My colleague the chairman of the Health Committee, Simon O’Connor, the honourable member for Tāmaki, reflected on the history of the Blind Foundation. The question was raised around what was the eponymous jubilee in the name of the Jubilee Institute for the Blind, when it was founded in 1890. Well, having done a little bit of historical research, I am pleased to be able to say that I can inform the House that it commemorated the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Colony of New Zealand in 1840. Because I think it might be of interest to other monarchists—Simon, I know, is one of them—I was wondering whether there was a royal jubilee in 1890, and, of course, there was not. So that was the event after which the initial institute for the blind was named and was formally adopted at in a public meeting.

Then, in 1891 a school known as the Jubilee Institute was founded in Parnell. I think members have also touched on that establishment. In 1892 the institute was incorporated as a separate charitable institution, and a board of six trustees was appointed. A lot has happened since then. The jubilee building opened in 1908, and there was a significant event in 1926 when the institute was renamed as the New Zealand Institute for the Blind. Other members have also mentioned the foundation of a military band, but they might also be interested to learn that from 1927 onwards the institution of a military band also led to a dance band, a school choir, and a girls’ string orchestra, providing much enjoyment, obviously, to those people who might have visual impairments but could still enjoy the beautiful music performed by those bands. In 1955 there was an Act of Parliament that enforced deinstitutionalisation.

I, like other members, want to reflect on some of the changes that this bill now brings in, as we are in the modern era in which there are technical aids to assist those with visual impairments and blindness. The changes to the copyright legislation that the honourable member Jenny Salesa mentioned—it is actually the Copyright (General Matters) Regulations 1995—actually changes the descriptor of the foundation in those regulations so that modern technology can be used, for instance, to read aloud from a PDF file or other electronic sources; so that those technical aids can be provided so that blind people and those who are visually impaired can enjoy literature without running the risk of impinging upon copyright. I think that is a very positive measure.

This is a measure that has been supported by the Blind Foundation itself. In fact, as early as 2002 the foundation expressed a wish to clarify its status as a body controlled by, and for the benefit of, people who are blind or have low vision, and also to modernise its structure and its governance arrangements, giving it more characteristics of an incorporated society. This is not a new desire; this has been the wish of the foundation itself for more than 10 years. We know other groups that are supporting people with disabilities in New Zealand and that have similar statuses have modernised their constitutions and updated their arrangements to reflect the modern environment in which they operate.

As other members have mentioned, in 2015 the Blind Foundation commemorated 125 years of providing valuable services to people who are blind and have low vision. I think it behoves this House to ensure that the next 125 years for the Blind Foundation are underpinned by the best possible institutional arrangements, to allow them to proceed with transparency as a body controlled by and for their members, and to deliver the results and the services that people with blindness and visual impairment require and need.

So it is without a moment of hesitation that I would commend this bill to the House, and hope that the select committee gives it—and I am sure it will, under the chairmanship of Simon O’Connor—full and proper consideration and advances it further.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want, in this contribution, to refer to two kinds of transformation that are, perhaps, embodied or exemplified in this bill. The first of those is a transformation in the stance taken by organisations such as this, because the way in which the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind was first constituted exemplified almost a paternalistic view of how services ought to be provided. I guess that was in common with the approach to charitable works that was prevalent at the time, as well. Under that approach, people who were blind, or others who were the recipients of such charitable services, were seen as passive recipients who ought to be grateful for the largesse of the State or of the charities that provided for them.

Things have moved on quite a bit from then, and part of that is demonstrated in the change of name of the foundation itself, becoming, first of all, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind to make the point that, in fact, the foundation sets out to be an organisation that comprises people who are blind or have visual impairment. This next step that the bill provides for—cutting the ties to a statutory basis for the foundation—I think, is the next logical step. That accompanies the 2012 registration of the Blind Foundation as an incorporated society, marking that full transition away from an arm of the State—or an entity of the State—through to a fully independent organisation of blind people themselves. Empowerment is one of the two pillars for achieving independence.

The other pillar for achieving independence that I want to speak about is changing the environment that surrounds blind people, because when we speak of disability, there is an ongoing debate about whether we should talk about people who have disabilities as being disabled. Indeed, that is the preferred term, because people who have disabilities are disabled by the failure of the society around them to provide space to adequately integrate those people into the full life of society. That is another of the changes that the Blind Foundation has made. It has now emphasised the importance of services that enable blind people to participate fully in society.

In the few minutes that I have remaining, I want to talk about two extraordinary New Zealanders: Joan and Jim Newcombe. They are my parents-in-law. Jim Newcombe is 86. He is blind—has been now for some decades. Jim is the person whom I go to when I am at home when I want to know what is really going on in the world, because it is Jim who will have read all of the latest magazines and all of the latest books, and he does that through the services of the talking book service from the Blind Foundation. It is Jim who actually gets around the town, and he does that using his guide dog—again, from the services of the Blind Foundation. He has got his watch from the Blind Foundation; he has got his globe from the Blind Foundation. A more connected man—a man more in touch with what is going on in the world—I cannot think of. He could not have achieved that without the services of the Blind Foundation. Joan Newcombe is one of the principal fundraisers for the Blind Foundation. Her efforts are what enable Jim to participate fully.

So I fully commend this bill to the House, and I thank the Blind Foundation for its work. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Tim Macindoe—in reply.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Could I begin by thanking all members who have contributed to this debate for their very thoughtful contributions. I am sure that those who have been in here, or perhaps tuning in around the country, who have been listening to the debate will have been moved, as I have been, by some of the personal stories that members have told about their association with people who are blind or partially sighted. For instance, we have just heard from Kevin Hague of his account of Jim. I relate to that story very closely, and I thank him for sharing that with us. I fully understand, as Mr Hague has suggested, that often it is those who cannot see physically who have enormous insights into the world, and we can learn so much from them. Unanimity of views may not make for riveting after-dinner television or for sensational headlines, but it does indeed demonstrate the capacity of members of this House to focus on matters of some sensitivity such as this and to work cooperatively and intelligently on these non-controversial matters that are very much in the public interest. So I thank members for doing that.

As many speakers have noted during the debate, the principal reason for the introduction of this bill—which has, of course, been requested by the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind itself—is that the statute it seeks to repeal is now redundant. I want to apologise to members for my initial hesitation earlier in the debate over the particular select committee to which the bill would be referred in the likely event that it passes its first reading, but I am delighted to hear that it is being welcomed by the Health Committee, and that will be under the excellent chairmanship of my good friend and colleague Simon O’Connor, the member for Tāmaki.

I was interested to hear from my colleague David Bennett, the member for Hamilton East, that his grandfather was blind. As a former member for a Hamilton electorate, Mr Assistant Speaker, you will know that the two MPs for Hamilton frequently see more of each other at many of the events that we attend than I often feel I see of my own family. And yet I have to say that I was unaware until this evening that Mr Bennett’s grandfather was blind, just as I am sure that he would be unaware that my wife’s grandfather, the late John Johnson, was also blind in his latter years as a result of the condition that we know as glaucoma.

John Johnson was a truly admirable man, and I held him in the highest of regard. It was a great privilege to know him in the years after our marriage—I think he survived for about 12 years after I married my wife. He was dearly loved and is still greatly missed by his children and grandchildren. I want to put that on record because I never heard him complain about his condition, and in all the time that I knew him, he was completely blind. I spent a lot of time with him when I could. He could never see me, but he was a tremendous conversationalist, a deeply intelligent man, and, as Mr Hague was mentioning when he spoke of Jim recently, he had tremendous insights into the world. I was, as I say, greatly in admiration of him. He was an avid reader before he lost his sight, and so, therefore, to lose that ability must have been deeply frustrating to him. And he was deprived of the joy of seeing his great-grandchildren—he had several great-grandchildren in his twilight years.

I mention him and want to put him on record in the reply in this debate because his lack of self-pity was a feature I have witnessed and admired in many of the blind and partially sighted members of our community. It is humbling for those of us who are fully sighted to detect the acceptance, the gratitude, and the can-do attitude that so many Blind Foundation members demonstrate. Sometimes those of us who do not live with a significant disability need to be reminded of just how fortunate we are and how little we really have to moan about.

Again, I commend the Hon Nicky Wagner for sponsoring this bill, and for her dedicated efforts as Minister for Disability Issues. She does put a huge amount of time and energy into that portfolio, and I know she enjoys it and I know she is appreciated for that effort. I also know that she will be as delighted as I am to hear that this bill has attracted the unanimous support of members of this House tonight. I thank members sincerely for that support, and I especially thank and commend the foundation for its outstanding service throughout its history in New Zealand, from 1890 to the present day. I warmly commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I move, That the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It is my pleasure to speak on the report back of the bill after it has been considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Clearly, Labour is supporting this bill in the House at its second reading. May I, first and foremost, acknowledge the support of New Zealand First, the Greens, the Māori Party, and United Future in supporting this bill to the select committee. Can I also, while I am on my feet, acknowledge the many submitters who came from a wide-ranging field of expertise from many of our national non-Government agencies in the environmental space, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Ngāti Kahungunu iwi, who felt it was important to make a submission on my bill.

This bill amends the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 by adding an additional objective: that the organisation must aim to protect, maintain, and enhance New Zealand’s environment. When the Act was passed, the stated objective of the Environmental Protection Authority contained an important oversight in that it did not actually require the protection of the environment as part of the authority’s role. This bill aims to correct that. What the bill does is place protection of New Zealand’s precious natural environment right at the heart of the law governing the Environmental Protection Authority. The bill does this by cementing in legislation the Environmental Protection Authority’s role in protecting the environment, by amending section 12(1) by inserting the following paragraph: “(c) protects, maintains, and enhances New Zealand’s environment.”

We had close to 200 submissions on this bill in select committee. Actually, there were 206 submissions that we received—198 supported the bill and eight opposed the bill—and in the time I have got I would like to address the eight opposition views, and what the officials from both the Ministry for the Environment and the Environmental Protection Authority said. Essentially, the opponents of this bill made their position clear the bill was unnecessary, amending the principal Act would create uncertainty and confusion, the bill would impose delays and impose costs, the amendment would prioritise the environmental protection over economic growth and sustainable management goals, the bill would alter the scope of the Environmental Protection Authority, and the amendment would create conflict with the Resource Management Act.

Turning to the feedback from both the Ministry for the Environment and the Environmental Protection Authority, there are comments there—from the Environmental Protection Authority, particularly—saying that by adding this particular paragraph we are creating a new test in the account that potentially conflicts with the purpose, principles, and other considerations that the Environment Act may bring. That is the point. For a lot of the submitters who came to the select committee, this amended bill actually clarifies the role of the Environmental Protection Authority. It makes it really clear by adding that objective that it is there to protect the environment. There is no ambiguity with those sets of words. They are very, very clear, and so I again challenge the findings of the Environmental Protection Authority when it alluded to the fact that this is only going to create another test and lead to further confusion.

By way of example in its report to the select committee, it referenced the unnecessary aspect of this particular amendment by saying it would lead to a particular conflict: managing the resources in a way that provides for people’s economic well-being may conflict with the requirements to protect and maintain and enhance the environment. But, again, that goes to the whole point of this bill, because it makes it really clear that in addition to managing our environment it actually protects the environment. So I challenge that point in the feedback from officials.

The other comment is the fact that the additional objective of the Environmental Protection Authority Act would likely have a negative effect on exploration companies, and it is no surprise that the eight opposing submitters to my bill were actually exploration and petroleum companies. The point that they made was that by putting this in here it will cause uncertainty for those companies seeking exploration permits. They said it will be unclear, it will be costly, and the process will be extended, and therefore they had complete difficulty with this amendment. But again I would say to the House that having the protection as a clear objective for the authority would make it very clear to oil exploration companies or mineral exploring companies that when they put in a proposal, they need to make sure that it is not impacting on the environment.

I turn to those submitters and I do want to quote from some of the submitters because they probably said it best as to why we need to support this amendment. I will talk specifically around the duplicated effort view that was proffered by the majority members of the select committee to basically say that this was an unnecessary bill. We had a submission from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, who made it really clear that this enabled the authority to apply another lens on consideration of permits. I think that it not only applied another lens but also ensured that the obligations entered into by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu through its Treaty settlement upheld the principles and guaranteed them under their particular settlement. [Interruption] I thought that was your bell, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Scott Simpson: Somebody else’s bell.

MEKA WHAITIRI: Someone else’s bell. But in asking for the support of the members who first got this passed off to the select committee, I say it is important to note that those who submitted, be it Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the Sustainable Council of New Zealand, or the Fish and Game Council—the support was overwhelming from the 198 submissions, in that it made clear sense, it was unambiguous, it was first and foremost about protecting the environment and sending a very, very clear signal that our economic development should not come at the expense of our environment. In fact, our view on this side of the House was that when the officials advised the committee that it took an either/or approach, one of the suggestions that we made during our select committee deliberation was that we look forward to officials giving advice where we look for and/ands—and there were plenty of examples in the submissions that we got that gave both protection for the environment, as well as enabling development down the end.

So from our side of the House this is an important piece of legislation and I hope parties across the House will give due consideration to supporting it. It is about our environment, it is about our opportunity, and it is about our image and who we are in this global world that makes us unique as Māori people and as New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill, I rise—with some regret actually—to report back to the House that by majority the committee decided that this bill should not proceed. The reason for my regret is that I think the motivation of the member who has introduced this bill to the House, Meka Whaitiri, is probably well-intentioned, but the process and the result that she seeks to achieve actually will not bring about the desired result that she is seeking.

So when we went to the select committee, we heard from a good number of submitters, many of whom made their points eloquently and thoroughly, but many of whom I think were under the impression that the principal Act, the Environmental Protection Authority Act, stands alone in itself as an island and a beacon for environmental protection in New Zealand. The reality is, of course, that this is part of a suite of environmental legislation that works together to ensure that our environmental objectives are achieved and that our environmental nature is preserved and enhanced and maintained. When an analysis of the bill is done and bit of a restatement of the history of its genesis is done, it becomes very clear very quickly that the purpose that is being sought by the member introducing this bill does not really achieve the objectives that she seeks. So when Meka Whaitiri says that no ambiguity would exist, well, the reality is that if this was to take place, the ambiguity would certainly exist.

The Environmental Protection Authority has a role to play as a regulator of our environmental legislation, and it has to balance a range of social, economic, and other objectives as well in order to protect our environment. The proposed amendment to this bill would, in fact, adversely affect the Environmental Protection Authority’s ability to properly balance all those objectives for which it has been tasked. Section 12 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 clearly states and spells out that the authority should carry out its functions. Section 12(2), for instance, says that it has to observe the environmental purposes and objectives in the other Acts it partly or fully administers. It is those other Acts that it partly or fully administers that are actually at the core of our environmental protection. Just because our Environmental Protection Authority has that name it does not automatically mean that, for instance, our Environmental Protection Authority is the same as the Environmental Protection Agency, similarly named, in other jurisdictions. There is actually a difference. We do not have to have exactly the same legislation.

I want to take a few minutes to go through some of, I think, the points that were incredibly well made by our advisers from the Ministry for the Environment in their departmental report, because they went to some considerable trouble to point out to members of the committee exactly what the issues and problems were if this bill was to pass. I guess the most significant and important point that they made was that the content of the principal Act is focused on the administrative provisions, rather than the specific environmental management functions of our legislative framework.

These specific functions are provided for under a range—that suite—of separate legislation known as the environmental Acts. They are defined in the interpretation section of the Environmental Protection Authority Act, and there are in fact six environmental Acts that are involved. They include the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, otherwise known as the “HaSNO Act”; the Climate Change Response Act 2002; the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, otherwise known as the “EEZ Act”; of course, our resource management legislation, the Resource Management Act; the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988; and the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996. So those are the fundamental working machinery pieces of legislation that actually protect our environmental resources.

When the Environmental Protection Authority carries out functions under those environmental Acts, it is required to act in a way that furthers the objectives or purposes of that Act, as well as undertaking its functions in a way that meets the objectives specified in section 12. For this reason alone, the objective for the Environmental Protection Authority Act was deliberately worded—deliberately worded—to avoid conflict between objectives while still guiding the overall operation of the Environmental Protection Authority. It is this subtle difference, I think, that was missed by the sponsor of this bill, because I think that when you delve down into the rationale, the fundamental structure of this legislative framework, it becomes clear that our environment is very well protected and it is unnecessary to add this extra, potentially confusing wording, which will conflict with those other pieces of legislation. It was not deemed necessary at the time, and still is not in my view, to include the proposal that the member is seeking to achieve.

The departmental report went on to cite some very good examples. It went through the submissions, submission by submission, and provided answers to the issues that were raised by the various submitters. One, for instance, was that the assertion that the lack of a specific protection objective was in some way an omission—something that was forgotten from the principal Act, or that it was an oversight. Clearly that was not the case. That is an incorrect assertion. Issues of environmental protection are, of course, absolutely considered by the Environmental Protection Authority but always within the context of that environmental suite of other pieces of legislation. That was a common theme of submitters—that the exclusion of Meka Whaitiri’s suggested changes was somehow an accident or an omission. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There were further concerns by submitters. One that was quite common was a sense that in some way the principal Act applied an overarching objective that could not be fulfilled by the exclusion of these extra words. Again, clearly that is not accurate, and was deliberately and intentionally not put in the principal legislation for the very reasons that I have already talked about. The departmental report went on at length, submission by submission, going through the various points, and I thought it was a very good departmental report. But, in the end, the summary was that the Ministry for the Environment itself recommended that the bill not proceed.

But it was not just the Ministry for the Environment officials who were advising us; it was the Environmental Protection Authority itself, in its own submission, that suggested and indeed pleaded with the committee that this bill not proceed. It said in its submission that the new objective would create a new test to be taken into account that could potentially conflict with the purposes, principles, and other considerations set out in the environmental Act in question. I think that is a pretty obvious and conclusive position from the Environmental Protection Authority itself. It went on to say that this would potentially provide difficult and time-consuming issues to resolve. There would be confusion on which objectives should prevail as there is nothing in the bill to suggest how a conflict should be addressed or resolved. This uncertainty is likely to lead to additional costs both to the Environmental Protection Authority and for applicants, slow down decision-making processes, and increase the risk of litigation around the Environmental Protection Authority’s decisions and its processes.

I think that the bill as introduced by the member initially was probably well intended, but it is often like things that happen in our lives: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case the devil would be in the detail. This is absolutely a bill that would add confusion and a layer of unnecessary concern to an already good piece of legislation that supports a suite of legislation. I cannot support this bill in its second reading.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I think that last speaker, Scott Simpson, protested a little too much about what is actually being proposed here. This is a very simple amendment to an Act, but it is a simple amendment that has great importance to, in fact, clarifying what this Act is about. The bill is called the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill—that is the authority we are talking about—and yet there is nothing, as I can see, in section 12 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act, “Objective of EPA”, that actually addresses the title of that agency. When I look at section 12, and I will just very quickly go through section 12 as it is set out in the Act, it says: “(1) The objective of the EPA is to undertake its functions in a way that—(a) contributes to the efficient, effective, and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources; and (b) enables New Zealand to meet its international obligations.” Well, that is not exactly what you would call ambitious in terms of its protection of New Zealand’s natural resources.

In subsection (2) it goes on to say: “When undertaking its particular functions under an environmental Act, the EPA must also act in a way that furthers any objectives (or purposes) stated in respect of that Act.” What Meka Whaitiri is adding as part of this amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority Act is simply a new subsection, which would be subsection (1)(c)—it would come after subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b)—and it would say: “(c) protects, maintains, and enhances New Zealand’s environment.” There has been a lot of discussion about how this would be confusing and it would lead to further delays, further problems, and further expense. But when you look at that simple addition, an addition that really is an omission from the original legislation, I cannot believe that it is going to create that degree of dissent and it would, on the other hand, be able to lead to greater clarity about what the Environmental Protection Authority sets out to do.

Nick Smith, the environment Minister, has ridiculed this and talked about it being meaningless, that it was not able to add anything—the usual political mumbo-jumbo that Nick Smith goes on and on about. But the fact is that this is fundamental to the Act because it sits at the front of the Act and it guides the passage of this Act. It is not about mumbo-jumbo; it is actually about making sure that the Act sticks to what it is meant to be about, which is looking after and protecting our environment. It is adding to and making more ambitious an Act that is inherently very unambitious in the objectives as they are set out today.

There has also been a lot of talk about the fact that this would favour the environment over economic development, and vice versa. I personally get rather tired of the way that that is split off. New Zealand’s reputation in its economic development is bound inherently to the way that we look after our environment. The clean, green “100% Pure New Zealand” image, if I remember rightly, is about the 22nd most recognised brand in the world. It comes in behind Dell or one of the other big computing companies. It is, therefore, highly recognisable. It sets us apart from many other countries. It sets our products apart from products from many other countries. Therefore, the protection of our environment is inherently about our economic development. I think that what we do, and what we tend to do, is to say that one should happen and the other should suffer as a result, rather than looking at it as two parts, effectively, of the same coin.

I would like to see in clause 4, with the addition of this extra section, the recognition that has been omitted up until now that the Environmental Protection Authority is actually all about protecting our environment. That would enable the enhancement of not only our environment but also our economy. Today in question time Nick Smith gave us chapter and verse for why, for example—and this is a classic example—our rivers cannot be swimmable. It is shocking to most New Zealanders that somehow we will get sick if we swim in our rivers, and that these rivers instead will be brought up only to the level of wadeable—I imagine in rubber waders or gumboots or something. But we certainly would not allow our kids to swim in those rivers. He went on to talk about how birds put droppings in the rivers and asked, therefore, would we shoot the birds? I mean, seriously, this person needs to be taken out and given a good talking to. He has lost the plot. He certainly lost the plot in question time today, if anybody happened to be looking at that.

We must always aspire to having clean rivers. We want our kids to be able to swim in rivers without getting sick, and, yet, this Government seems to be setting the bar so appallingly low and saying that most of the rivers are going to be only wadeable. It is protecting those very industries such as those in the farming sector that are actually responsible for a good deal of our economic prosperity, yet its own branding depends on the fact that our environment needs to be as clean and as pure as possible.

I come back to the bill. What this bill does is it sets out what we would like to see—that we set the bar high for our environment, but at the same time ensure that the economic development, the economic progress, that comes from our environment is able to be protected. There were 206 submissions that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee as a result of this bill. I understand that the select committee consideration was handled very well. It was a good, robust procedure, and Scott Simpson deserves praise for his chairing of the committee. Overwhelmingly, the submissions were in support of the bill. There were half a dozen submitters, I think, who spoke against it—once again, talking about the possibility that this might bring up ambiguity in the Act. Twenty-two people came before the select committee and spoke on the Environmental Protection Authority amendment. Again, most of those were in support.

In terms of being able to clarify an Act that up to now lacked—it is fundamental, really. The fundamental section that Meka Whaitiri has put into this amendment is to protect, maintain, and enhance New Zealand’s environment. I struggle to see how any New Zealander listening to this debate would say that that should not go into an Act that purports to protect our environment and the Environmental Protection Authority. If you are looking at this now, how could you possibly disagree with “protects, maintains, and enhances New Zealand’s environment.”? I would have thought that was pretty basic to an Act and to an agency that is called the Environmental Protection Authority. This certainly and simply just means that the authority is able to do its job properly, and it does its job properly over six different environmental Acts: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the Climate Change Response Act—although there has not really been a climate change response from this Government; that Act has been somewhat redundant for a very long time—the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, the Resource Management Act, the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act, and the Ozone Layer Protection Act. Those are the six Acts that the Environmental Protection Authority has its authority over.

I come back to the key point of what we are trying to do here. We are trying to make sure that our environment is well protected and well looked after. Since the current Act has been in place, and it has been only 5 years, there has been a degree of testing of the Act in terms of what it can cover. That Act went through without any difficulty, and I cannot see why, in any way, adding a third section that sets out to protect, maintain, and enhance New Zealand’s environment could confuse or create more ambiguity than what is there currently.

In conclusion, I believe that this bill has been a long time coming. I refute what the Government is saying, which is that this is going to create problems. Instead, the Act will now do what we want it to do, which is to enhance New Zealand’s environment.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. In speaking on this second reading debate on the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill, I would like to follow on from some of the comments that were made by the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee that considered this bill—the honourable member for Coromandel, Scott Simpson. He referred to the departmental report in his outlining of the reasons why, on this side of the House, we are not inclined to support this bill further to subsequent readings.

We heard from a range of submitters and there were some who made a particular impression upon me. The area of concern around whether this bill is necessary or not—and I accept that the member has positive motivations in bringing this bill to the House. I am sure she is a hard-working and very honourable member of this House, and she has the best motivations in bringing the bill. But there were a number of concerns highlighted by submitters that do deserve our consideration, given the implications if this bill is passed into law. There was a question around whether this bill is necessary.

We had a number of submitters, and five of them, in particular, I want to name: Agcarm, which, for those who are not aware, represents 30 different manufacturers of animal and crop health products; Federated Farmers, and they need no introduction for this House; the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand; Straterra, which represents the mining and extractive industries sector; and Todd Energy. I just want to put on note perhaps something of a conflict of interest with Todd Energy, in that I had the pleasure of spending time on a placement through the Business Parliament Trust with Todd Energy, including visiting its facilities in the Taranaki region last year. I saw what a safe and clean and environmentally minded corporation, actually, Todd Energy was, which returns so much to the community and provides so many jobs and valuable employment both in that region and here in Wellington. Anyway, the concerns expressed by those five submitters, representing many thousands of people in those industries—in fact, probably tens, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs within those industries—was that this bill is unnecessary.

Todd Energy, in particular, noted that the Environmental Protection Authority does not currently have an overriding environmental protection mandate and that this was Parliament’s intent when the Act was initially passed. The Environmental Protection Authority exercises its functions under other legislation that already provides considerable protection needs alongside the proposals for use and the development of resources. The purpose is to achieve a balance between development of resources and protection of the environment. I think that Todd Energy made a useful and valuable point there.

Both the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association and Straterra said that the current wording of section 12(1) of the Act is deliberately general to avoid interference with section 12(2), whereby the Environmental Protection Authority must further the objectives of other environmental Acts. I think these are useful points that were made by those companies and representative industry groups. The ministry, when it did its analysis of the evidence provided, submitted to us that it was actually in agreement with that assessment, and that is a view that I also happen to share. Turning to another issue, which has also been given, I think, some discussion, particularly by Mr Simpson, and that is around the uncertainty that this legislation may well introduce.

Denis O’Rourke: Or may not.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Considering the uncertainty that could be introduced—and there were additional submitters who said that there would, in fact, Mr O’Rourke, be uncertainty introduced. There were not only Agcarm, Federated Farmers, the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association, Straterra and Todd Energy but also Business New Zealand, representing 90 percent of the private enterprise in this country, Mr O’Rourke—hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk when we are talking about uncertainty being introduced into legislation. That uncertainty could have very real ramifications, I think, for some of the decisions that have been taken by the Environmental Protection Authority in the last year or two.

I, personally, do not agree with each and every decision that the agency has been taking. I did not necessarily agree with the Chatham Rock Phosphate decision. On a personal basis, I might not have agreed with the decision around ironsand extraction in Taranaki, and I certainly did not agree with decisions around the Basin Reserve roading improvements that have been stymied, holding our capital city back. Although I personally did not agree with them, it is important that certainty is present in those decisions.

There was one interesting decision that I agreed with very much last year, and that was the Environmental Protection Authority’s groundbreaking decision to approve the use of a retrovirus for human liver cancer treatment trials. This is a third-phase clinical trial of a hepatocellular carcinoma retrovirus. It is the first genetically modified organism capable of self-reproducing within humans, and this has the potential to save over 300 lives a year in New Zealand, particularly among the Māori community, because let us remember that Māori and Pacific populations have a higher than average rate of liver cancer.

So if we are not to allow such valuable medical trials, if we are to introduce uncertainty into the underpinning legislation—because let us not forget, the Environmental Protection Authority does not just approve major environmental projects such as the extraction of resources or mining or farming or roading; it also does have a role in our hazardous substances and new organisms enforcement in this country. If we are to introduce uncertainty into the approval of such valuable and important medical research, we are potentially putting at risk the lives of many, many future patients who suffer from liver cancers, at the very least. That is one of many, many genetic medicines that I am sure will be trialled as we go forward.

In addition to the uncertainty, the cost issues were very real, and they were raised, again, by some of those submitters that I have already mentioned. Andrew Stewart, in particular, for instance, said that the amendment would impose a burden of proof cost on applicants, making consent applications ever-more expensive. I would take seriously the evidence provided by those submitters because they are people who actually have experience of submitting applications. They represent industries and, in fact, companies that have experienced delays under the current system, and they certainly would not want to see that exacerbated any further by the additional uncertainty and the additional cost implications that this well-intentioned but, in my view, erroneous legislation brings in.

The main impact of this bill that I am concerned about is to increase the complexity in the decision making of the Environmental Protection Authority. As it is, decisions are considered very carefully and can take a period of time—in fact, so much so that in the last couple of years we have actually had to pass an amendment dealing particularly with the extractive petrochemical industries to make sure that our supply of gas in this country keeps on coming. The last thing this House should be planning to do is putting at risk our ability to power our homes, to undertake valuable medical research, and to have hundreds of thousands of jobs in these valuable industries that I have referred to. For these reasons, this is not a bill that should be advanced further, and I oppose it.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe; tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Acknowledgments to you, Mr Assistant Speaker; secondly, to you, all the members of our House, greetings.]

I am pleased to take a short call on the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill. You would think the world is going to come to an end, given the National Party members’ opposition to this bill—Mr Foster-Bell, talking about power for our homes being lost, valuable medical research being imperilled by this bill’s passing. All it is doing is inserting “the protection of the environment” as one of the objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority so that the agency actually lives up to its name. So I have been astonished by some of the comments of the Government members and their huge opposition to this bill. I think that just shows that National does not like its lacklustre record on the environment being shown up. It does not like anything that could cut across its “extractivism” agenda in its economic policy—dig it, drill it, mine it, irrigate it. Those members are failing to recognise that we need a healthy environment for both a healthy economy and a healthy society.

When you have an organisation like the Environmental Protection Authority, which is functionally a Crown entity, that is a significant decision maker under our environmental laws, then it needs to have protection as an objective. I thought it was very interesting in Mr Foster-Bell’s speech the way he referred to those submitters—and there were only eight, of all 206 submissions on the bill—that opposed the bill. Those submitters that opposed it, of course, were companies like Todd Coal. They were Federated Farmers, they were Straterra and the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand—all organisations that are interested in extracting resources; none of them interested in protection. So of course they are going to oppose the bill. Mr Foster-Bell talked about how they had experience of the Environmental Protection Authority processes.

Well, a lot of those who made submissions had experience of the processes, not as applicants for development and use but as submitters, and they were quite strong in their views that this additional objective was needed so that the Environmental Protection Authority had an unambiguous purpose and a much stronger focus on protecting the environment.

As another speaker Meka Whaitiri has noted in her bill, Ngāi Tahu said that this objective would put an extra lens on the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision making. Ngāi Tahu makes quite detailed submissions on legislation, usually informed by people with legal understanding. They were quite clear in their submission that this new objective was quite consistent with the six pieces of legislation that the Environmental Protection Authority administers, such as the Resource Management Act, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Certainly, all of those pieces of legislation contain quite specific purpose statements about how the Environmental Protection Authority should operate under each of those Acts, but we need to guide the overall workings of the Environmental Protection Authority.

If I can refer to the Environmental Protection Authority’s own statement of intent for 2014 to 2018, it said that its mission was “to protect people and the environment”. So what on earth is the problem with having a specific protection objective? One of the issues raised by submitters was that at the moment the objective of the Environmental Protection Authority, in section 12 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011, was “contributes to the efficient, effective, and transparent management of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources;”. But what is the purpose of that management? It has got to be “efficient, effective, and transparent”. Those words, “efficient” and “effective”, are often used in business parlance. Efficiency in the workplace means the time it takes to do something. It is associated with completing tasks in the least amount of time possible with the least amount of resources, and I think this is where the Minister’s preoccupation with fast tracking decision making under the Resource Management Act and under the exclusive economic zone legislation and putting in place very strict statutory deadlines comes from.

If you have an organisation that is focused on efficiency and effectiveness, that is not the same as safeguarding the quality of the natural environment. It is not the same as ensuring that decisions, whether they are about marine consents or resource consents, actually enhance the quality of the environment and safeguard the basis for our economy. If we are going to have responsible resource management that requires that we protect, maintain, and enhance the environment, then this bill, with its new objective for the Environmental Protection Authority’s work, would help achieve that.

The objective is even more important because of what the Government is proposing to do to the Resource Management Act with its Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. That bill will result in a politicisation of the decision making of the Environmental Protection Authority under the exclusive economic zone Act, because that bill provides for the Minister, rather than the Environmental Protection Authority, to appoint the hearing panels that will decide marine consent applications to go oil drilling, to go seabed mining, and for other development in the exclusive economic zone and our oceans. So that politicisation, where the Minister personally will choose who sits on the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision-making committees, means that we are reducing the independence of the Environmental Protection Authority.

To me—and I think to a lot of New Zealanders—we want to have an Environmental Protection Authority that is independent, where we can trust that these major applications for oil drilling will be evaluated by independent, objective experts, not by cheerleaders for the oil and gas industry who are working under the Minister’s thumb. So that whole change in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill underlines, in my view, the need for this bill to proceed and for the protection objective to be inserted in the principal Act. That sort of change is typical of what this National Government is doing with the environment.

We saw the contortions that the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith, went through in question time today to try to justify why his Government has a very weak national bottom line in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management of having rivers that are only wadeable, suitable for contact recreation like wading and boating, not suitable for swimming. He claimed that that was due to the fact that we have got some streams in geothermal areas and some rivers that get sediment in them after floods. Those were the contortions he was going through to try to justify why we cannot have a national aspiration of swimmable rivers.

Again, that reflects the objections to this bill of members on the Government benches to this bill. They do not want environmental protection to be at the heart of our economy, to be at the heart of our legislation. It is part of this Government’s agenda to weaken the checks and balances on ministerial powers, to push much more “extractivism”—dig it, drill it, mine it, irrigate it—and to undermine the ability of the Environmental Protection Authority to actually be concerned about the sustainability of our environment and managing our natural areas so that we look to future generations and having a sustainable basis for the economy.

There were a lot of submissions in support of this bill. Sea Shepherd, for example, talked about how it was really important because it would help uphold our international reputation of having a clean, green environment. Because if you have got the Environmental Protection Authority having this key responsibility for regulatory management of the environment, then it needs to be clear what the purpose of that management is, what its core objective is. And so, as Sea Shepherd said, it makes sense—not just good environmental and conservation sense but also good business sense—to have this bill pass. The Government is using a lot of exaggeration to oppose the bill. The new objective was debated at the time the legislation was passed; it should have been put in then, so that the agency actually lives up to its name of being an Environmental Protection Authority, rather than one that just contributes to efficient, effective, and transparent management. It would ensure that we are looking at the three aspects of sustainable management.

This Government likes to look at the use and development aspects, but, both under the Resource Management Act and under the exclusive economic zone, it neglects the protection aspect. That is a core part of sustainable management, and this bill, which the Green Party is very pleased to support, would actually help emphasise that protection aspect. If we want to ensure that natural resources can be utilised for future generations and that they maintain their intrinsic values, then we have got to put greater weight on protection, and this bill will go a little way to doing that. Thank you.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Environmental Protection Authority (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill’s second reading. Last time I stood in this House in the first reading, I did reiterate that it seemed to be a wasted exercise to do this. After listening to some of the contributions tonight, and especially the one from the Green member just previous, Eugenie Sage, I take offence to some of the things around the farming community. The waterways, and protection of our waterways and fresh water—I come from a farming background, and I can tell you now that we have the most stringent protection of our waterways, more so than whatever happened when the previous Government was in power.

I am proud to stand here to say that I am a Bluegreen. I am a Bluegreen. We are here to give good advice to the Minister for the Environment through the rest of our party members who sit outside of Parliament. And through the Bluegreens, we have worked with the Minister on a number of policies, especially around the Environmental Protection Authority. It was this Government, in 2011, that set up the authority; we must remember that. We must remember that when we came into power there was no environmental protection anywhere in this country. It was this Government that actually put it in and started to shape it up to protect the waterways—and it was all about protection. That is what the second word in the Environmental Protection Authority is; it is “protection”. It is about protection and maintenance; that is what it does. It is in its vision, it is in its policies, and it is in its goals. Why try to add it again and again when we all know that it is already there? The advisers to the Local Government and Environment Committee actually said it over and over again. They said that it would be a wasted exercise and that what it would do is take away the core function of what the Environmental Protection Authority was set up to do in the first place. It is working at arm’s length to this Government—

Hon Member: Oh!

JOANNE HAYES: —yes, it is working at arm’s length.

Let us have a look at some of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s reports to the Local Government and Environment Committee. They have been challenging to our committee, because that is what the commissioner’s job is. Her job is to write reports that challenge our committee, and that is what she is doing. You cannot say that she has been influenced by the Minister to write x, y, and z, because she has not. She is an independent person and writes independent reports.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Should have got here earlier, Bish.

JOANNE HAYES: And some of the things she writes—we might not like it. He has just come through an environmental rainfall. We might not like what the commissioner says, but, hey, we respect what she says, and it is all about protecting the environment.

I hear things like “this National Party digs it and drills it”. When we came into Government, on drilling it, there was no consent process in place for drilling, I can tell you that now. It was this Government that stuck in consent processes—licensing for companies to go and drill in our waters. Let us have a look at our marine reserves. Hey, marine reserves—were there marine reserves when the previous Government was in? No, there were not. This Government actually set up marine reserves. That is protecting our marine environment. I remember going to the conference in Kaikōura when we launched the Kaikōura marine reserve—that is a plus. That is history for this country, and you have got to admit that. Did the Labour-Greens Government set up marine reserves? No, it did not. Did it have marine reserves? Did it set up anything like that to protect us? Did the Opposition parties go out and drill merrily away and not even tell the New Zealand public about the 30-odd wells that were drilled out in the sea without telling anybody? At least this Government has put it on the table. We have put it on the table, and we are very proud that we have done that.

I just want to restate that this is not a lacklustre Government when it comes to green things. Many times I have heard that unless you are a Green—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am a bit reluctant to interrupt the member, but I would like her now—we have had a good exposition across quite a range of subjects, but it would be good to talk about the bill.

JOANNE HAYES: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So, anyway, the proposed objective is to change the authority’s mandate. So that, potentially, blurs the lines between the operational work and the work of other policy agencies such as the Ministry for the Environment. That is what it—

Dr Megan Woods: Very blurred.

JOANNE HAYES: It does. It also creates a lot of confusion out there with other Acts. These other Acts that I am talking about are the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996, the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012—I guess National did that one, as well. So this is what these seven simple little words are, which I understand Megan Woods said in her previous contribution—seven simple little words that really throw the cat amongst the lions.

The proposed objective adds, also, extra financial constraints on consent applicants. Is that what we want? Do we want to add more cost to consent processes? Well, I can tell you now that we do not want to add any more cost to consent processes.

Iain Lees-Galloway: What sorts of pigeons did they have where you grew up?

JOANNE HAYES: A much greener space than what you grew up in, I can tell you right now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will sit down and the member will not address me in that way, especially when she is suggesting cat sacrifice. Thank you.

JOANNE HAYES: I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Paul Foster-Bell: Didn’t they have pigeons at King’s College?

Iain Lees-Galloway: I grew up on a farm, you idiot.

JOANNE HAYES: So did I.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, I doubt whether either of the members really did, the way they are going on at the moment.

JOANNE HAYES: In closing, I want to reiterate that the amendment would change the purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority, well beyond what it was set up to do, and it would make it difficult for it to make decisions as an operational agency. And the authority could be required, should this amendment go through, to have a whole new set of tests for it. It introduces a whole new set of tests, a whole new set of duties, and increased financial constraints on the authority itself. The Environmental Protection Authority does not have the resources to be able to implement the changes—[Interruption]; it does not—should they come into force, because it does a really great job with what it has at the moment. As I said before, the objective does blur the lines—

Hon Member: It does blur the lines.

JOANNE HAYES: It does blur the lines—it does. Amending the principal Act is going to achieve nothing other than confusion. It is going to create a whole lot of uncertainty, and I do not support the bill moving forward into the third reading. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Denis O’Rourke—and I will—I am going to issue a warning to the House. There is one section of the departmental report that has now been read out four times. If anyone else reads that section out again, their speech will be terminated for tedious repetition.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): We have heard some pretty irrational nonsense from National Party speakers tonight. First and foremost amongst those was the comedy speech just given by Jo Hayes, which is almost as good as the science fiction fantasy speech given by Paul Foster-Bell—all irrational nonsense; absolute piffle from beginning to end.

All this bill would actually do is to add a new paragraph to section 12(1) of the Environmental Protection Authority Act by adding the words: “(c) protects, maintains, and enhances New Zealand’s environment.” That is all it does. Try to relate that to the speeches we have heard from the other side of the House tonight. I cannot, but I would like someone to try to give me that relationship, because it seems to me that the speeches given by the members on the other side of the House had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the words that I just read out. I would like to know why they gave those speeches, because they seemed to me to be either irrelevant, or irrational, or incomprehensible, or science fiction, or a comedy show—one of those.

Those words should certainly be in the Environmental Protection Authority Act. Another part of that Act says this—this is section 12(2): “When undertaking its particular functions under an environmental Act, the Environmental Protection Authority must also act in a way that furthers any objectives (or purposes) stated in respect of that Act.” That is a purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority. Or you could say that it is the only objective that is stated in that legislation, because there is nothing else. It refers to the words “an environmental Act”, and that is defined in section 5, and there is a list of legislation in that section. We have heard that, so I will not repeat it again. But it does include the Environment Act itself. You would have thought, therefore, that that Act would actually have environmental objectives, and yet the Environment Act actually does not specify any environmental objectives at all. We have that strange situation, then, where the purposes of the Environmental Protection Authority Act are those in other pieces of environmental legislation, including—and I would have thought especially—the Environment Act itself. Yet that Act actually does not have any stated environmental purposes whatsoever. Where does that leave the argument of those opposite? I think it leaves them in cloud-cuckoo-land, because their argument simply does not make sense.

Clearly, the Environmental Protection Authority Act therefore has sloppy drafting when it comes to what its objectives are. In order to find that out you have to look at other legislation, some of which does have environmental objectives in it, and some of which does not. It is very difficult to find out, therefore, what the objective of the Environmental Protection Authority Act is. Furthermore, where those other environmental Acts they are referring to do state an objective, then they are completely consistent with what this bill would do in adding the words “protects, maintains and enhances New Zealand’s environment.” Just look at those other Acts—look at, for example, the Resource Management Act and its objectives, which are stated particularly in section 5—they are completely consistent with what this bill would do. Again, where does that leave the argument that is put forward by the National members opposite? It just does not make any sense whatsoever. So the point that I would make principally here is that there is, in fact, a problem to be fixed—one which members opposite do not acknowledge and will not do anything about. Of course the Environmental Protection Authority Act should have an objective. All important legislation of that kind should.

In the last minute or so I want to begin with the main arguments in support of the environmental objective for the Act, as set out in this bill. The first thing is that the authority’s primary purpose should be in protecting the environment, otherwise why have an Environmental Protection Authority? Even the title itself, “Environmental Protection”, tells you something—it is about environmental protection, so should its objective not actually state that its objective is the protection of the environment as set out in this bill?

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.