Wednesday, 4 May 2016
Volume 713
Sitting date: 4 May 2016
WEDNESDAY, 4 MAY 2016
WEDNESDAY, 4 MAY 2016
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Obituaries
Ian Quigley
Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I regret to inform the House of the death, on 3 May 2016, of Ian Terence Quigley, who represented the Otago Central electorate from 1972 to 1975. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express the sense of loss we have sustained and our sympathy for the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Points of Order
Written Questions—Ministerial Responsibility for Independent Bodies
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise an issue with you under Speakers’ ruling 175/3, regarding operational matters and the ability of members of Parliament to lodge questions to Ministers. This is an area where we have raised issues with you before, and, in some cases, you have intervened to require Ministers to answer for operational matters.
In relation to the new Education Council, which has been established by an Act of this Parliament, the Minister of Education has refused to answer any questions—really quite a wide range of questions—that we have put to her, on the basis that the Education Council has been established as an independent body. However, the accountability back to Parliament still rests with the Minister, and if the Minister says that she will not answer questions because the body is set up to be independent, Parliament then has no way of holding the Government to account, or of questioning, relating to that body. So I would ask that you give some consideration to that, because it seems to be in clear violation of the spirit of Speakers’ ruling 175/3, which states that although Ministers may have no legal responsibility for something, they are still accountable to the House.
The final point that I would make is that there are many, many agencies and entities that would fall into this category if independence from Government were to become a criterion that allowed Ministers not to answer questions. For example, they could refuse to answer any questions relating to the Police if that were to be the standard, and I ask that you give that some consideration.
Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that the member is raising the question in regard to some written questions?
Chris Hipkins: Yes.
Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I will come back to the member. I will give it some consideration and do some investigation, and I will certainly, at least, come back to the member—and maybe to the House if it is necessary.
Oral Questions—Transfer of Questions, Notification
JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was advised just after 1.30 p.m. that question No. 3 to the Prime Minister had been transferred to the Minister of Revenue. This is the second time that Mr Brownlee’s office has failed to advise our office of a transferred question in time. Given the circumstances, I seek leave to have question No. 3 transferred back to the Prime Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not prepared to put the leave. Firstly, I was advised at 1.26 this afternoon, so I accept the point the member is making: that with any transfer, out of courtesy to all members of the House, the decision should be made and advised to us a lot earlier than it was. I understand that on this occasion there may have been a slip-up in an office where the decision was made to transfer it, but certainly the advice was not given to me—or, clearly, to the member—early enough. But I want to just refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 169/2, which, basically, says that the question can be transferred at any moment right up until the time that it is asked. It is the Government’s prerogative to determine whether to transfer the question. I have looked at the question. I have no doubt that it can be answered satisfactorily by the Minister of Revenue, so, on that basis, I am not prepared to put the leave.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am the acting Acting Leader of the House, and therefore a very low form of parliamentary life. I acknowledge what Mr Shaw has said. I will raise it with the office of the Leader of the House, and I will accept responsibility for it even though I know nothing about any of the circumstances.
Mr SPEAKER: Very, very gracious of you, sir.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Economy—Employment and Wages
1. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): This morning Statistics New Zealand released its latest data on employment and wages in New Zealand. The report showed strong employment growth in the March quarter, with 28,000 more jobs added to the New Zealand economy. Since Treasury’s latest forecasts in December we have seen 51,000 more jobs created over the 6-month period. This is 37,000 more than Treasury was expecting. This underlies the strong economic bounce-back we have seen since the slower growth period in the first half of the 2015 calendar year. Although job growth was strong in the quarter, higher labour force participation of 0.5 percent led to an increase in the unemployment rate from 5.4 to 5.7 percent.
Brett Hudson: What did the Statistics New Zealand report show about wage growth over the last year, and how does that compare with inflation of just 0.4 percent?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Average weekly wages are up 2.3 percent in the last year. Low inflation means that the vast majority of these increased wages goes into the pockets of New Zealand households, rather than being taken up with cost of living increases. In total, the average annual wage has increased by 24 percent since National came into office. Over the same time period inflation has been only 11 percent.
Brett Hudson: Given the high levels of labour force participation, how does New Zealand’s employment rate—the proportion of adults in work—compare with other OECD countries?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I mentioned earlier, the slight increase in unemployment is being driven by more people participating in the labour force, and of course that is a good thing and retraces some of the decline we saw in the last year from the previous peak. This means that New Zealand’s employment rate—the proportion of all adults in work—continues to be the third-highest in the OECD, at 65.1 percent. That compares, by way of example, with 61 percent in Australia, 60 percent in the UK and in the US, and 52 percent across the European Union. I am also pleased to report that the participation rate of New Zealanders in the labour market is also the third-highest in the OECD.
Grant Robertson: How many more people are unemployed today, compared with when this Government took office in 2008, according to the—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: 40,000.
Grant Robertson: —household labour force survey? Listen to him.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I saw the member’s tweet, and he came up with a number—I do not have it exactly to hand, but I can inform him that the number of people employed in the New Zealand economy has gone up more than 200,000 since this Government came into office. That is 200,000, despite the global financial crisis, despite the Canterbury earthquakes—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is not the question that was asked.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask a very specific question, and I do not believe I got an answer.
Mr SPEAKER: No. The answer was given immediately, but the Minister did not have that figure to hand. But then he went on with something else.
Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table the tweet that Mr Joyce referred to that I gave—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Order!
Brett Hudson: How does New Zealand’s overall economic performance compare with other OECD countries?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are well positioned, and our overall economic performance reflects the good performance in employment. Between December 2010 and December 2015 New Zealand’s GDP has grown 15.6 percent. During a time of significant upheaval in the global economy, 15.6 percent is solid growth and compares very well with other developed economies. In fact, across the 5-year period, it makes us the seventh-fastest growing economy in the whole OECD.
Grant Robertson: Was Radio New Zealand correct when it headlined its story today: “Unemployment rising at fastest pace in 11 years”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not believe that it necessarily was. It has an interesting approach to its unemployment stories. Last quarter there were no stories saying that unemployment had dropped at the fastest rate for roughly forever, but it managed to pull it out today, which suggests that it had gone up—which only lends credence to the unfortunate perception of Radio New Zealand sometimes being known as “Radio Labour”. [Interruption]
Hon Members: Oh!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Mr Cunliffe, I am on my feet.
David Seymour: What has been the average growth in labour productivity over the past 5 years, and how—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I could not hear the question because of a very loud interjection to my left. Would the member please start the question again.
David Seymour: What has been the average growth in labour productivity over the past 5 years, and how does that compare with our OECD peers?
Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have the exact productivity numbers to hand, but it would not surprise me if it was still slightly slower than the average. But I can report to the member that as New Zealand wages are growing significantly faster than inflation that would suggest that employers are seeing the productivity of New Zealand employees as a positive change over the last 5 years.
Housing, Rental—Standards
2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and I am particularly pleased to stand by my statement earlier today that this Government has increased funding for Pharmac to $850 million a year, an increase of $200 million since 2008.
Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement that “I’m open and talk to Koru lounge members all the time.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think I actually said the last part of that. I said I am in the Koru lounge and I talk to people. I did not say I talk to Koru lounge members.
Andrew Little: In his travels through Koru lounges, has he talked to Tracey Allen, a terminally ill woman who now has to choose between heating her rental house or buying food?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I have not. But what I would say to her is that this Government is supporting her and a great many people like her in so many different ways, including insulating 320,000 homes and ensuring another 180,000 homes will be insulated in the next 3 years. If she is on any sort of benefit then she may well have benefited from the increases this Government has made. She certainly benefited, I would have said, from the extra money going into health under this Government, and she may well benefit from new drugs that are being supported by Pharmac today.
Andrew Little: Putting aside the fact that drugs are not normally a source of heat in households, how many of the 42,000 kids hospitalised each year because of cold, damp, mouldy homes has he met in Koru lounges, or elsewhere, recently?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that number. The member, if he wants an answer, would actually have to ask the Minister for Building and Housing, and, I suggest, put that down in writing. But what I would say is “A lot less.” because of the 320,000 homes that have been insulated under my Government’s watch.
Andrew Little: What is his response to Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills, who says that his Government’s rental standards are “shameful” and “a wasted opportunity and a broken promise to our children that will do little for children living in cold, damp, mouldy housing.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I would say is, firstly, this Government has insulated 320,000 homes, and it has a further 180,000 that will be insulated. I would say this Government has increased benefits for the first time in 43 years, which will assist people to pay for the heating that they have. This Government has created 200,000 jobs in the last 8 years, which will allow more people to have employment to pay for their heating. What I will say is I will not do what that member is suggesting, which is put up the very rents of the people he claims he is trying to support.
Andrew Little: What is his response to Dr Kimberley O’Sullivan, whose new study shows that requiring 2008 insulation standards, rather than the 1978 standards promoted by his Minister for Building and Housing, would keep thousands of kids out of hospital each year?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, it is a very technical question, which the member really needs to ask of the Minister for Building and Housing, because I have not made a statement in that area. But the Minister for Building and Housing advises me that the costs outweighed the benefits.
Andrew Little: Does he agree with Nick Smith that the costs of modern insulation and heating standards are not worth the benefits—[Interruption] Listen, Nick—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member the Hon Dr Nick Smith continues to interject and cause disruption when the question is being asked, I will be asking him to leave. Would the member please start the question again.
Andrew Little: Does he agree with Nick Smith that the costs of modern insulation and heating standards are not worth the benefits, given that the benefits are preventing Kiwi kids from getting sick and from dying?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I agree with Nick Smith in the context of the statements he would have been making. But I say this: the member gets up as if his previous Government had any kind of track record when it came to insulating and warming up homes; it was a disgrace. There were 50,000 homes that would have been insulated in the entire 9 years. In fact, that number is being generous. And, actually, it will be 500,000 on our Government’s watch.
Darroch Ball: Does he still stand by his recent statement in regard to employment that “We have strong results for young people.”, given this Government has now produced an increase of 8,500 unemployed young people and a “neets” rate that includes the highest quarterly increase of unemployed young men since records began?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do stand by that statement. I stand by that statement because under my Government’s watch 200,000 jobs have been increased. You have seen that with migration numbers of how many people are coming back. The overall “neets” rate has been increasing dramatically under this Government, because people are either in work, in training, or in education.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: On his statement regarding following the OED on corporate tax, why will his Government not take real action on international corporates, such as Facebook paying a lousy $43,000 in tax, Tegel a lousy 0.38 percent in tax, and Lockheed Martin a lousy $155,000 on revenue of $27 million; that is, Prime Minister, real action like the Australians took yesterday?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A couple of things: “On” is not the way to start a question and the “OED” is no longer a multilateral organisation; it is the OECD—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption]
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are the judge of how a question should be put. You have the authority to make that decision, not some illiterate like the Prime Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: I am pleased that the member acknowledges that I am the judge of such issues, and on this occasion I am generously allowing the question, and now the Prime Minister can answer it.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I say to the member that if he hangs around long enough in question time today, he will be able to see just how good the Speaker is.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the Prime Minister please—[Interruption] Order! Would the Prime Minister now ask the question that was originally asked.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK. OK, I will ask myself a question, then I will answer it. Are multinationals paying enough—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, question time goes like this: a member asks the question of a Minister. He does not start asking himself questions; otherwise, he should be sent off to the loony bin.
Mr SPEAKER: I could oblige, but it might not necessarily be the way the member wants. Does the Prime Minister want to complete his answer? Otherwise we are moving on to another question.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is so far back that I am trying to remember. The Government’s view is that we are working with the OECD to make sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. I do not think there is too much debate they are paying what is legally required of them today, but because of a range of arrangements available to them our view is that there may well be better opportunities for New Zealand from a tax perspective, and we are working with the OECD on base minimisation for that reason.
Tax Avoidance—Multinational Enterprises
3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Revenue: Will he follow the lead of the Australian Government and introduce new measures in the upcoming Budget to ensure multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): While the details of Australia’s measures are still being analysed, New Zealand does not need to wait for Budget 2016 to implement multinational tax avoidance initiatives, because we already have an ongoing base erosion and profit shifting programme. We have implemented a number of initiatives such as strengthening the thin capitalisation and non-resident withholding tax rules and introducing GST on cross-border services and intangibles. Our tax policy work programme includes a number of measures that are actively being developed and should be implemented within the next 12 months.
James Shaw: How many additional staff will the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) get to work on tax avoidance in this year’s Budget given that they currently do not have enough resources to work on reforming foreign trust regulation?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As to the second part of that question, it is not a matter of having enough resources. Tax policy is like drinking from a firehose: there is always more than we can do. Last year, in Budget 2015, we put a significant amount of resource into the IRD to do just this work and other domestic tax avoidance measures, and they are paying very strong dividends.
James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement on TV yesterday that when his office went to the IRD and said “Of your current programme of work, which projects would you drop in order to fit in a review of foreign trust regulation?”, it came back and said “None.”?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, and in particular the prefacing comment to that, which was that the IRD has an obligation to make sure that its focus is on things that maintain and increase the New Zealand tax base. The foreign trust review would not have done that, and it was in that context that the previous Minister asked what it would be prepared to drop—those things that would enhance the New Zealand tax base—and it said “None.”
James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement “if you’re asking me if New Zealand is missing out somehow, I have seen no information to suggest that that is the case.” given that tax expert Professor Craig Elliffe estimates that New Zealand is losing a billion dollars a year from multinational tax avoidance?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, I do, because I also then went on to say that we will be continuing to turn over every stone to ensure that anti-avoidance provisions are being followed, and working in concert with the OECD, they will be enhanced. As for Mr Elliffe’s estimate, it was simply that: a finger in the air with no foundation in reality.
James Shaw: I seek leave to table the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations report first published in 1979.
Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it was some time ago, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that OECD report. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
James Shaw: Given that the OECD has been working on addressing multinational tax avoidance since 1979, in what year does he expect it to complete its work and for New Zealand to start taking action?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I reject the implication in the question that New Zealand is not taking any action. As I say, tax policy work is an ongoing stream of work that we will continue to do. We are working very closely with the OECD, and I expect there to be much more to be done over the next 12 months.
James Shaw: Why is tax avoidance the one area where we are not trying to harmonise our regulations with Australia?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, the issue of harmony—I would reverse the comment. It is Australia that is now potentially out of step with the rest of the world by its announcement on the diverted profits tax regime. I have not seen any comments on Australia’s announcement, but when the United Kingdom did the same thing late last year, the OECD sent a directive for the Centre for Tax Policy and Administration saying that unilateral actions are not exactly in the sense of what the OECD is trying to do. Unilateral measures are not that great when you are negotiating a multilateral package.
James Shaw: What does he have to say to New Zealand businesses that will continue to pay their fair share of tax after Budget 2016 while multinational companies that are operating here will continue to be allowed to avoid it?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No taxpayer is allowed to illegally avoid the payment of their tax obligations. We are continuing to make sure that the transfer pricing rules, the thin cap rules, and other measures to avoid multilateral tax avoidance are being followed. But as the Minister of Finance repeatedly says, to the extent that these companies are not paying tax in New Zealand, they are not paying tax anywhere in the world. This is a global problem that requires a global solution.
Budget 2016—Pharmac
4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: How many times has he met with the Minister of Finance, if any, over the past two months, for the purpose of discussing Vote Health funding for Budget 2016?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Many times, and those meetings today have resulted in it being a great day for New Zealand, with the pre-Budget announcement of a $39 million funding boost for Pharmac—the single-biggest lift in medicines funding in our history. I would like to thank my Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, for their strong support of this tremendously positive investment. Thank you for the question.
Hon Annette King: During those—
Rt Hon John Key: Take your best shot.
Hon Annette King: Who was that?
Rt Hon John Key: Me.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Even the Prime Minister should stop interjecting during question time.
Hon Annette King: During those meetings, did he try to convince the Minister of Finance to increase the Pharmac budget by $103 million a year, not the $39 million he announced today, in order to reverse the funding cuts in real terms to Pharmac’s budget based on Treasury’s model of calculation from 2011-12?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.
Hon Annette King: Why does he inflate the amount of funding for Pharmac’s budget by adding an $11 million that district health boards have to find in their 2016-17 budget, when district health boards have just published a deficit blowout of $46 million, and growing, against the $19 million he planned?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Quite simply because last year the budget for Pharmac was $800 million. This year it will be $850 million. In regard to deficits, we were left with deficits of $160 million, and now they are at about $60 million and decreasing.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about him inflating the budget from the district health boards’ $11 million.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the question, in my mind—it is quite a lengthy question—was addressed as to how he justified the increase in funding, and then there was a comment about district health board deficits, as well. The question has no doubt been addressed.
Hon Annette King: Why has he provided enough funding for seven of the 20 top-tier medicines, which, according to the chief executive of Pharmac, would have higher priority than any advanced melanoma drug?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Sorry, just say that again? Sorry.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to get the member to repeat the question.
Hon Annette King: Why has he provided enough funding for only seven of the 20 top-tier priority drugs identified by Pharmac that, according to the chief executive, would have higher priority than an advanced melanoma drug?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The reality is that at any one time Pharmac is considering about 50 different drugs, vaccines, and medical devices. This is the single biggest injection of funding into Pharmac ever—a lot better than that member ever managed—and I think this is a day when she should be joining in the celebrations, because, actually, a lot of people are very, very happy. We have just had a text through here from oncologist Dr Chris Jackson of Dunedin—it came through to Michael Woodhouse: “Congratulations to you and your Cabinet on allocating Pharmac extra dollars. Huge numbers of patients will benefit. A great move and a fantastic result.” So cheer up, Mrs King—everyone else is.
Hon Annette King: Is the—[Interruption]—come on, Paula, give us a go here. This is my turn.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! And it is, so please proceed.
Hon Annette King: Is the $10 million a year for the next 4 years that he redirected from the district health boards to cover the blowout in costs in the Ministry of Health now to be given back to the district health boards to fund the $11 million that he wants them to stump up with to add to the pharmaceutical budget, or is it just a merry-go-round of money and a lot of jiggery-pokery?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Two questions there; one can be answered.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think the member needs to take some advice from her leader, who says—and this is a report from Radio New Zealand—“I think we have a bit of an issue. Things about housing, health and education, we are just not getting cut-through on those sorts of issues.” So Mrs King, I suggest that you stop promising everything—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The answer is not going to help the order of the House.
Pharmac—Funding
5. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government is providing more New Zealanders with access to new medicines?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Widening access to medicines is a key priority for this Government, and today the Prime Minister and I announced that Pharmac would receive an extra $39 million in 2016-17 as part of this year’s Budget. This funding boost of $124 million over 4 years is in addition to the annual increase of $11 million to Pharmac from district health boards. Overall, we have increased Pharmac’s budget by $200 million since 2008, bringing it to a record $850 million for this Budget.
Simon O’Connor: What benefits will this increase in funding deliver?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Pharmac has indicated that the $39 million announced today will allow it to fund seven new drugs, including an advanced melanoma drug, two hepatitis C treatments, a treatment for bronchiectasis in children, patches for menopausal women, a treatment for brain and neuroendocrine tumours, and a treatment for renal disease in children. Although a lot of the focus is on melanoma drugs, these are all important treatments. For example, 50,000 New Zealanders have hepatitis C, a serious disease that ends in liver cancer and liver failure for many. These drugs have a 90 percent cure rate with as little as 12 weeks’ treatment, and will add many, many years of productive living for these people.
Simon O’Connor: How does Pharmac deliver the best-possible health gains to New Zealanders?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Pharmac model is a world-class one and the Government stands by it. The model has come under pressure in the last few months as a range of people have called for direct funding of a particular pharmaceutical. However, what Pharmac has done is deliver a result with the highest efficacy, at the best price, for the greatest number of New Zealanders. Inevitably, the pipeline of new treatments will continue to grow, and there will be further decisions to be made. The current Pharmac model will deliver that.
Hon Annette King: Is the Minister guaranteeing that a melanoma drug will be funded as one of the seven drugs that can be funded from the $39 million?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am guaranteeing that the money is there to do that, and Pharmac has given a pretty good indication, as you well know.
Housing Affordability—Measurement and Interest Rates
6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement, “If you look at the Massey University Housing Affordability Index, independently produced by that university, actually housing affordability in Auckland and every other market in New Zealand is actually more affordable now than when National came to Government”; if so, what would the Massey University Housing Affordability Index rating be if interest rates returned to the same level as they were in 2008?
Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 381 requires that questions must be concise. This question is 69 words long and is hardly concise. It should be ruled out of order.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Chris Finlayson.
Hon Christopher Finlayson: As acting Acting Leader of the House, I can advise you that it is the primary question. It draws on a quote, rather than a rambling supplementary question. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance from either member. It is a primary question and, therefore—[Interruption] Order! Therefore, it is often longer than a permitted supplementary question. In this case the question contained a very long quote that the member obviously thought was necessary to make his point as he was asking the question. The question has been allowed and it has been accepted, and now it can be answered.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes, it does show houses are more affordable now, both nationally and in Auckland, than they were in 2008. If interest rates return to 2008 levels of over 9 percent, it would put families with a mortgage under extreme pressure. That is why good economic management that keeps interest rates low for longer is absolutely critical for families and homeownership.
David Seymour: What control does the Minister for Building and Housing have over interest rates in New Zealand?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister for Building and Housing does not have that much influence, but I do say that overall economic management has a huge impact. If Governments were to adopt the big-spending policies—every time that has occurred in history it has pushed interest rates up, it has made houses unaffordable, and it has impacted on things like inflation, and that is why there is a very real connection between good economic policy and good housing policy.
David Seymour: What control does the Minister for Building and Housing have over land supply and ultimately house prices in New Zealand?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The predominant Act that regulates land supply is the Resource Management Act, and there is no question that at the core of New Zealand’s housing affordability problems has been both the Resource Management Act and the way in which councils have narrowly restricted land supply. That is why we have seen the price of sections go up much more than the price of the built house and that is why parties that are committed to improving housing affordability will support reform of the Resource Management Act.
Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the author of the Massey Home Affordability Report, Dr Susan Flint-Hartle, who said that Auckland is one of the least affordable cities in the world, that the Government has not done nearly enough, and that the Minister’s comments about her report were “obscuring the real situation.”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member chooses to only partially quote what she said. [Interruption] She also said—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants the question answered, he is going to have to get a little more cooperation from a couple of his colleagues.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The very same researcher said that I was factually accurate and that according to Massey University’s index housing in both Auckland and New Zealand is more affordable than when the members and colleagues of his party were in Government.
Alfred Ngaro: Are there other independent housing affordability indexes than that of Massey University; if so, what do they show?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The AMP360 index, which was previously known as the Roost index, has measured housing affordability since 2002. It measures the proportion of a person’s median income that would be required to service a mortgage for an average home. Nationally that index was at its very worst in 2008 at 83.4 percent. It is currently 59 percent—i.e., houses nationally are 24 percent more affordable than what they were in 2008. In terms of 2008—and for the record, I asked them to check it—the index was 101 percent in Auckland during 2008, and that is the worst it ever was after 9 years of a Labour Government.
David Seymour: Why was the Minister prepared to take the credit for falling interest rates, which he has conceded he cannot control, when the factors, such as supply, which he says he can control, have deteriorated over the period referred to in his quote?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do accept the key element of housing that I do have responsibility for is supply. I note in the period that I have been the Minister house construction has gone from 13,000 a year to 27,000 a year. In fact, the housing build rate has increased more in the last 3 years than it has at any time in New Zealand history.
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarships and Student Achievement
7. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received that celebrate exceptional NCEA achievement?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Today I was pleased to join with the Prime Minister in presenting the top National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) scholars with their well-deserved awards. These awards recognise achievement at the highest overall level of academic excellence. Only about 3 percent of year 13 students studying each subject at level 3 are awarded scholarships. In particular, I would like to congratulate former Rutherford College student Oxana Repina on being awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Academic Excellence. Oxana received eight New Zealand scholarships, including five Outstanding Scholarship awards and two Top Subject Scholar awards. Also, my colleague David Bennett MP has two outstanding scholars from his electorate: Te Paea Ngapo, who is a Top Subject Scholar award winner at Te Reo Rangatira; and Soumil Singh, who receives a Premier Award. I am sure the House would like to join in congratulating those outstanding young New Zealanders.
David Bennett: What is the progress of educational achievement under this Government?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Provisional data show students are on track to surpass challenging educational targets almost 2 years ahead of schedule. It suggests that the number of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 or an equivalent qualification increased by 3.2 percentage points to 84.4 percent last year. When we took office in 2008 just 68 percent of 18-year-olds had NCEA level 2. The 24 percent increase in achievement means 7,600 more young New Zealanders are equipped to succeed this year than 7 years ago. These figures show more young New Zealanders than ever before are entering adulthood with the skills and qualifications they need to succeed.
Tracey Martin: What actions, if any, is she taking to ensure that the integrity of standards-based assessment is maintained while schools seek to attain her Government’s arbitrary achievement target of 85 percent passing NCEA level 2, particularly in those schools recording 100 percent pass rates?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: A number of reports, including from the Auditor-General, from the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, and from universities across New Zealand, have been convened to look at the very points that the member is asking questions about, and I can make available a list of those reports for the member’s perusal. But in addition to that, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority every year moderates 100 assessment items to ensure that the very integrity that the member and I are concerned about is maintained.
Housing Affordability and Availability—Commentary
8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his reported statement that the housing crisis is a media beat-up?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): No, because the reports were inaccurate.
Phil Twyford: Which of the following ministerial descriptions of the housing crisis does he prefer: “over hyped by the media”, as he said this week; “a challenge”, as the Prime Minister has said; or “a top-tier issue”, as Simon Bridges called it?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s position is that it is not a crisis but that there is a challenge. New Zealand is doing so well that it is attracting New Zealanders home and an increasing number of people want to live in New Zealand, and as a consequence of that good-news story, we need to make sure that we build more houses. That is a key priority for the Government.
Phil Twyford: When the IMF said that New Zealand had the world’s second-fastest growth in house prices at the end of last year and Fitch Ratings said that New Zealand has the most unaffordable housing in the world, was that media hype?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would note on the IMF chart—if that was to be the test—that the most affordable houses and the best places to live are Syria, Greece, and Spain. Actually, this Government’s ambition is not to be like any of those three countries.
Phil Twyford: When the Bay of Plenty Times reported that a 60-year-old woman faced living in her car because the caravan park where she has been living for the past 7 months is closing down, was that media hype?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would remind that member that when we applied the special housing areas to the Bay of Plenty, he said that it was a waste of time and that I should focus on Auckland. Actually, that was a member who was not in favour of the measures that this Government is taking in regional New Zealand with programmes like HomeStart and the special housing areas, which actually recognise that this issue is about more than Auckland.
Phil Twyford: When the New Zealand Herald said that housing solutions “cannot be expected from a government that has been in office long enough to have considered them.” and that “The housing problem has reached the proportions that require fresh thinking from a government elected to do something about it.”, was that media hype?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I agree that there is more that the Government wishes to do in the housing area. That is why, on 1 April last year, we introduced the most generous support in a generation for first-home buyers.
Grant Robertson: It’s not working.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, actually, 12,000 Kiwis in the last 12 months have had a grant from this Government to support them into a house. If we look at the labour force figures out today, they show the biggest increase in the labour market of people working in house construction ever, with that number more than doubling, and, actually, this Government is making enormous progress in getting more houses built for Kiwi families.
Rt Hon John Key: Can the Minister give the House some idea of the initiatives undertaken by this Government in relation to housing and contrast it with those undertaken in the period from 1999 to 2008, when house prices doubled in Auckland?
Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, around the housing initiatives.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I must notify the Speaker in advance that this will be a long answer. The first step this Government took was to remove depreciation for buildings, which affects the demand side of investment housing. The second step the Government took was the first phase of Resource Management Act reforms. The Government then introduced the HomeStart scheme—that is a $420 million investment. The Government has provided for increased housing standards, with 290,000 houses insulated. There is the ongoing work around—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will sit down.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That answer is far too long and far too wrong. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I just need to deal with that point of order. On this occasion, the member is right. It was far too long, and I was moving to curtail it, but I will be the judge of the length of answers.
Rt Hon John Key: Notwithstanding the Minister’s inability to get all of the new initiatives out in one answer, would he describe that as fresh thinking?
Mr SPEAKER: Very quickly.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, there is fresh thinking. It is interesting, Prime Minister, that when we introduced the housing accords and special housing areas, parties opposite, who today grizzle about housing, vigorously opposed each of those measures to grow housing supply, and whether it is increasing apprenticeship numbers, whether it is in terms—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member can take a slot in the general debate very, very shortly.
Freshwater Management—Irrigation and Water Quality
9. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How does increasing the amount of irrigated land by 400,000 hectares in the next 15 years, as the Ministry for Primary Industries is considering, fit with the ministry’s goal of “sustainable resource use”, when irrigation and agricultural intensification cause declining water quality?
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Because any discharge from agricultural production must be consented by a regional council within the framework of national freshwater management that was established by this Government. Ultimately, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Government believe that growing the economy and protecting the environment are not mutually exclusive. Not only does water storage offer farmers, growers, and some towns a reliable source of water, it also has environmental benefits such as more consistent river flows in the summer, and reduced pressure on groundwater sources.
Eugenie Sage: When he said yesterday that irrigation storage is good for the environment, does he believe that the toxic algal mats in the Ōpihi River, downstream of the Ōpoua dam, and in other Canterbury rivers, are good environmental outcomes?
Hon NATHAN GUY: What I did say in the House last night is that we do not collect and store enough water. We store only about 2 percent of the water that falls in this country. In particular, in respect of the example that the member is referring to, the Ōpuha scheme, what she may not realise is that about 18 months ago, when that area was in a very prolonged drought, Fish and Game was actually out there rescuing fish from nearby rivers and releasing them in the Ōpihi River, which is fed by this significant water storage project.
Eugenie Sage: What is the Minister’s strategy for dealing with more frequent droughts expected in future when irrigation storage reservoirs, such as the Ōpuha Dam, are already running dry?
Hon NATHAN GUY: What a stupid question that is.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister will stand and withdraw that remark, and then he will start the answer correctly.
Hon NATHAN GUY: I stand and withdraw that remark.
Mr SPEAKER: Now can we have the answer.
Hon NATHAN GUY: I am unsure whether the member has recently read the comments of the Environment Canterbury deputy chair, David Caygill. He had a very interesting op-ed in the local paper down there last week. I think it is worthwhile mentioning it, because what Mr Caygill said was irrigation is part of our overall strategy. It builds resilience to droughts and to climate change. It is even gradually improving soil quality. It is relieving pressure on groundwater—for example, the Selwyn-Waihora catchment. I thought you actually could not put it better than Mr Caygill has put it.
Eugenie Sage: Does the fact that the Sustainable Farming Fund has a budget of only $8.3 million this year compared with the hundreds of millions of dollars of Government funding available to irrigators show that his Government’s priorities are to promote more irrigation and more water use rather than encouraging sustainable farming?
Hon NATHAN GUY: We encourage both. The Ministry for Primary Industry’s view and my view is that we want to grow and we want to protect. Actually, we are investing in research and development so that our farmers and growers have the tools to address some of the environmental factors that they are having to address. So, actually, the member is saying on the one hand that we should not be investing in research and development, and on the other hand that we should not have any irrigation. Actually, in my view, we can have irrigation and grow the economy and our exports and jobs in the regions, and we can do more in the environmental space as well. That is why we are investing in research and development projects.
Schools—Funding Per Student
10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “schools have never been more well-funded than under this Government”; if so, why is the cost of primary and secondary education rising at almost 10 times the rate of inflation?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, in the context it was made, which was: “Schools have never been more well-funded than under this Government at $10.8 billion.” The cost of primary and secondary education is not rising at almost 10 times the rate of inflation. The assertion made in the question relates to voluntary donations and the rise in private school fees. To provide accurate information for the member, Vote Education has increased by more than 31 percent since National came into Government.
Chris Hipkins: Why does she deny that funding for schools is dropping when the Ministry of Education’s own data on its website shows on the bottom line of this chart that I am holding up—that is that one down there—that the funding per student has dropped by $149 per student in the past year?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: We have dug out the particular table. I am very familiar with it, and the member will also know that below that bottom line it has eight caveats, but let me just go through it. Since last year the number of students has increased by 1 percent; Vote Education has increased over the year by approximately 5.5 percent. Some education funding is allocated on a per student basis; some is allocated on other bases. The table that the member is referring to tracks changes in spending that is allocated on a per student basis. It does not show what is happening with education expenditure overall. In addition, the table tracks changes in per student spending, not per student funding. That is an important distinction, because schools control the timing of some of that expenditure. That means the numbers show what schools are spending at a particular time of year, but not what they are funded to spend. When major building projects are involved, for instance, that can have quite an impact on the numbers, because the spending is not even. The picture is further complicated—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to have to get the answer brought to an end.
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, I just want to solve all the problems at once. The picture is further complicated by the fact that the table reports—[Interruption]; the member’s problems, the member’s problems—expenditure on a calendar year, while Government funding is allocated on a financial year, and it does not include all of the programmes we invest in that are not for every child but for different ones.
Chris Hipkins: So is she confirming, at the end of all of that, that the funding schools receive per student has declined?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, absolutely not, because if student numbers have gone up by 1 percent but funding has gone up by 5.5 percent, then how can it be a drop? Emphatically, unassailably, no, there has been no drop.
Chris Hipkins: If the spending per student has dropped while the Government claims that the funding has been going up, then where are schools putting the money? Are they shoving it under the mattress for another day?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: That is why, with the House’s indulgence, I went through what the table—which the member is basing his concerns on—related to. So that particular table—at a particular point in time, dealing with three variables of funding, with 10 caveats—gave those particular sums. But, actually, the overall funding for education has gone up 31 percent since we came into Government, while student numbers, overall, have gone up 4 percent.
Chris Hipkins: Why did she claim that funding for school property had declined due to a drop-off in demand, as her office claimed yesterday; or is she denying that there are hundreds of schools around the country waiting for funding for property projects, some of which are urgent?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Our investment in property has gone up 11.5 percent.
Tertiary Education—International Students
11. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he have confidence in the tertiary education sector?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Overall yes, particularly as the over 730 tertiary education providers in this sector delivered something like 163,000 qualifications in 2014, up 31,000 on 2008, including 29,000 Bachelor’s degrees, up 4,500 on 2008. I am also confident that the monitoring agencies for the sector are now more robustly investigating any concerns than at any time in its history.
Tracey Martin: What action, if any, has his Government taken to remove fraudulent and corrupt education agents in countries such as India since this issue was raised in oral questions by New Zealand First in December 2015?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot recall the details of that discussion in December 2015, but I am likely to have told the member that there have been a number of changes over the last few years. The most recent one has been the requirements for the International English Language Testing System in India. There has been significant work done to monitor the issues that are periodically raised in some of the countries that international students come from. That is an ongoing job, because there are always issues and there are always occasional education agents who do not behave themselves in dealing with New Zealand providers.
Tracey Martin: How confident is he, in light of the increase in tier one providers able to process visas, that all of the 85,000-plus international students granted residency since 2008 did so with legal documentation?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that the member is correct. They do not get—
Ron Mark: Absolutely correct.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —granted residency. No, there is simply not a case where people get a student visa and it automatically gives them residency. In terms of processing applications, applications are processed under the close supervision of Immigration New Zealand. In terms of any details around those visas, she might like to put the question down to the Minister of Immigration.
Tracey Martin: How he can be confident in the tertiary education sector, when his office knows of at least one tertiary institution that had a list entitled “Need to upgrade to pass”, resulting in 18 international students being scaled from 32 percent fail to a 50 percent pass?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member would like to put that down in writing to me, I would be more than happy to take it up with—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If you want to hear the answer, allow the Minister to do so. It was a very general first question that was asked. The Minister is attempting to address it and if he does not have that information, I think that on this occasion that is acceptable. Allow the Minister to complete his answer.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: So, again, for the member, if she would like to put down that specific query to me in writing, I would be more than happy to address it. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has, for example, at any time, around 30 to 40 investigations under way. If that is not one of them, if she supplies me with the information, then I would be more than happy to follow it up.
Tracey Martin: How can he have confidence in the tertiary education sector when some providers have instructed teaching staff to not officially record ongoing achievement data for international students, so that any changes needed to enable a final pass grade are not evident?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the member is making some fairly gross generalisations and accusations. If she has specific concerns, then I invite her to provide the details of those concerns, so that they can be properly investigated. That is the process.
Tracey Martin: I seek leave to table an email to the Hon Steven Joyce’s office outlining this situation, with regard to a tertiary institution.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just need to inform the House of the author of the email and the date.
Tracey Martin: The author of the email is a gentleman inside those tertiary providers—I would redact that. The date was the 12th of last month.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none, it can be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Tracey Martin: Does the Minister understand that any perception of fraud, corruption, and exploitation of international students will have long-term negative consequences for both those students and our country, and what is he doing about it?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I am probably acutely aware, as I have been the Minister in this area for some time. Although we have been developing and growing that industry, we have made a number of changes to the industry over that time. We have introduced, for example, education performance indicators; performance linked funding; audits by the Tertiary Education Commission; changes made to the Education Amendment Act, including the requirement that private training establishments that enrol international students must be signatories to a code of practice; the development of the external evaluation and review system; bringing the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand under the monitoring of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—a whole range of things. Those things result in a very robust process. If the member has particular concerns, I invite her to provide them.
Community Development—Community Leadership Fund - Hapori Whakatipu
12. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made regarding support for social enterprise and community leadership groups?
Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Yesterday I announced the launch of the Community Leadership Fund - Hapori Whakatipu, which, translated, means “growing community capability”.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Say that again.
Hon JO GOODHEW: This fund provides $500,000—that is $500,000—of contestable funding on an annual basis to community organisations with a nationwide focus whose role is to provide leadership and capability building across the social enterprise and community sectors. This new type of funding has support for social enterprise and community leadership organisations at its heart.
Maureen Pugh: How will the Community Leadership Fund assist our communities, in particular through social enterprise?
Hon JO GOODHEW: The new fund will bring sector leadership to the fore and give opportunities both to the national-level community organisations and also, for the first time, to social enterprise—a new but rapidly expanding sector in New Zealand. Social enterprise brings a commercial model to projects that would traditionally rely on Government funding or private donations. Social enterprise seeks to create a commercially viable business with an environmental or social goal as its driving force, growing jobs and opportunities for the communities it operates in. Applications for this fund will open later this month.
General Debate
General Debate
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. So we have had a 2-week adjournment and we are back in the House again to reflect on what has happened over those 2 weeks and on the busy news cycle. A lot is happening in New Zealand and overseas, and what is Labour focused on after 2 weeks of news cycles? It has worked itself into an incandescent rage over the totally unacceptable situation that our Prime Minister knows people! My God! He knows people, and, sometimes, the people he knows actually come and talk to him. What an outrage! What an outrage! We have got a popular Prime Minister who actually goes around the country talking to people about what is on their minds. I mean, how do we stand for it? What an outrage! I am surprised there has not been a commission of inquiry. Perhaps it is just that, actually, the Prime Minister knows people, they like him, and they want to converse. Perhaps that is so foreign that Labour members do not see that as a normal state of behaviour.
While Labour members are working themselves into their little apoplexy over there, this Government is focused on getting on with building and delivering what will be Bill English’s eighth Budget. What I can tell this House is that it will be another Budget that shows this is a prosperous country with a sensible, moderate Government with a plan for success for everyone right across this country. Already we have seen some of the signs of that, have we not? We have seen the Prime Minister announcing today $124 million over 4 years into Pharmac. And, as the Prime Minister noted today in question time, that takes Pharmac’s budget, under our Government, from $650 million to now $850 million, making sure that year on year our investment in health and access to medicines has continued to climb and will continue to do so.
We have seen the announcement in the last week or so from the Minister of Revenue about the $184 million small-business tax package. I can tell this House that I know that in my electorate, where small businesses are absolutely the engine room of the economy, this has been hugely well received. I think it shows very, very clearly why this Government is so well connected to what is going on in real New Zealand. We are out talking to people, we do listen to the people who come up to us and tell us what is going on, and when small business said to us that it needs a bit of help to come up with a tax system that works better for it, we sat down and made a way for that to work—$184 million into the small businesses of New Zealand, and I can tell this House that there is much more to come.
When the eighth Bill English, National Government - led Budget is delivered later this month, it will be another sign of what is setting New Zealand apart from countries we compare ourselves to. Just look at Australia. Australia put out its Budget yesterday, and what do we know? Its unemployment rate is still higher than ours. The “lucky country” is still struggling to get its unemployment rate near ours, and it is forecasting massive deficits for many years to come—massive deficits. And New Zealand, under Bill English’s stewardship, under the John Key - led Government, is one of the very few countries that is projecting surpluses now and in the years to come, and that is a tremendous effort from a Government that has worked hard to increase investment in education, increase investment in health, support small business, and support our exporters into new markets. And, yet, we are delivering surpluses and we stand in a very, very good position.
The only policy we have heard out of Labour while we have been getting on and making things better for New Zealanders who are actually driving the employment growth in our country is that it wants to move universal superannuation to 18—at 18 it is going to start. At the last election, Labour wanted to make the superannuation age 67. That did not work, so it said: “Let’s roll it out at 18. Let’s make every single New Zealander eligible for universal, blanket superannuation from the age of 18.” What a genius idea! And there was not one costing anywhere in the policy—not one costing. We know that this could be $54 billion a year. So all you are seeing from Labour, frankly, is a whole lot of nonsense—uncosted, unfunded. At least its members wrote that one themselves and it was not plagiarised from anywhere. No one else would write it.
In the meantime, Anne Tolley is getting on with overhauling our Child, Youth and Family system—a system that has been broken for years—and it is one of the most important things we can do to fix the social system in New Zealand. The work that Anne Tolley will lead in Child, Youth and Family is the biggest thing we can do to improve the lives of vulnerable young New Zealanders, prevent the crime of the future, and help to ensure that the brighter future we have been building for 8 years now is truly there for every single New Zealander. I cannot wait for Budget day.
ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): That last speaker, Amy Adams, should pay more attention. She did not realise that her party has nicked our provisional tax policy, which we put out a year ago. It has drummed it up and called it its own. What I can say is, of course, the Government’s is hardly as good as ours.
The real question right now, because character is important in leadership and Government, is: when will the prevarication, the dissembling, the dancing around the truth really end for this Government and this Prime Minister? Yet again we have seen exactly where this Government’s priorities lie: it is concerned solely about those at the top. Why will the Prime Minister not just be straight about his conversations over foreign trusts? The reason why this issue about foreign trusts is important is that they are a device for those who own them to avoid paying tax in their home countries. We should not be part of it.
It all started off with the Panama Papers, where, I think, for most New Zealanders, we found out for the first time that there are 12,000 foreign trusts in New Zealand—12,000 people living overseas with trusts here, avoiding their responsibilities to their home countries, and most New Zealanders are horrified by that and think it is disgraceful. We also learnt that there are 60,000 references to New Zealand in the Panama Papers. We know there is another dump due soon, so we will see what that means. But when it comes to the close personal adviser to the Prime Minister and his role in the foreign trust industry, then it gets very interesting.
At the end of 2014 the Inland Revenue Department said it was going to conduct a review of foreign trusts, no doubt because the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department has a good reputation for having a tax system that is one of integrity. That is why the department wanted to review it. It was concerned about it. On 2 December 2014 Mr Whitney wrote to the Minister of Revenue, after having spoken to the Prime Minister, saying that the Prime Minister had told him that the foreign trusts would stay protected, and he asked for a meeting with that Minister. Eight hours later—8 hours later—the Minister of Revenue replied and arranged to make a time to meet. They then met less than 2 weeks later. The Minister received a briefing about foreign trusts, then he had a meeting with Mr Whitney, and the undertaking was given that there will be no review of foreign trusts—there will be no review of foreign trusts.
Let us remember what the Prime Minister said of his close personal adviser. He said the reason why he uses him is that he is highly ethical, and the Prime Minister said: “I don’t deal with people unless they are highly ethical and they do things well.” Well, surprise, surprise. What happened to Mr Whitney? He got tied up in a court case where he has been involved in setting up a trust for a bankrupt so he can conduct business without the oversight of the Companies Office. He set up a sham trust for a property developer, and then Mr Whitney failed to disclose it to the authorities who were investigating the bankrupt. When he was asked whether he thought it was a good idea to set up a sham trust for a bankrupt, this is what Mr Whitney said: “Oh, no, not particularly. It’s a common thing for people to do. It may not be morally as white as it could be, but it is normal practice.” This is the world of foreign trusts. This is the world of the greedy. And this is the matter that goes to character. That is why the Prime Minister needs to be straight about his conversations and what happened and about why the review was ditched. This is an important issue, and it has now tied up the Government and tying up this Government and New Zealanders’ trust and confidence in it.
I want to tell you about what Labour is focused on—what our priorities are. They are about looking after real New Zealanders who have real problems. We do not need 42,000 children going into hospital each year because of bronchial conditions and health issues caused by unhealthy homes. That is why I will be proud to give an introduction speech on my bill tonight and talk to it—to give a guarantee to those children and their families that they can have healthy homes if the Government has a will to support it. That is what New Zealand is about: looking after those who do not have much, who ask only to have good, healthy standards and a warm, safe, dry home to live in so that they are not having to trot off to hospital and every other taxpayer has to meet the cost of it.
That is what this is about. We are focused on the priorities for making New Zealand a great place for every New Zealander, not just on looking out for those at the top.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): That was an interesting speech from the Leader of the Opposition, who accuses this side of the House, and the Government, of being concerned about the people at the top and who then spends 4½ of his 5 minutes talking about people at the top. I say to that member: look in the mirror—look in the mirror.
The Opposition members are the only ones who are talking about the people at the top. When you look at what this Government is doing, you see that last month every beneficiary with a family with children got an extra $25 a week in their benefit. It is the first time in 43 years that that has happened, but that is what this Government is delivering to New Zealanders, because this Government understands what is actually happening on the ground. This Government is not involved in scandal and in relaying the time lines of who said what to whom among people whom, actually, the average New Zealander does not care about, like Mr Whitney—absolutely. I want to talk about—and this Government is focused on—those children who continue to be abused in this country, whether it is physically or sexually, who are neglected, and who are, in the worst circumstances, as we have seen in the courts this week, killed by the very people who should be the ones who love and nurture them.
Last year I appointed an expert panel to lead a complete overhaul of the Child, Youth and Family system so that we can get better results in the lives of those young people. The panel’s first report gave us some dire statistics that absolutely laid out why this Government needs to focus on the long-term outcomes for those children—because the statistics are horrendous. The panel looked at a group of children who were in a care placement and who were born in the year from June 1990 to June 1991, and the panel found that of those children who had come into care—that is, the State became their parent—almost 90 percent were on a benefit by the age of 21. Around 25 percent were on a benefit with a child, almost 80 percent did not have National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, more than 30 percent had a youth justice referral by aged 18, almost 20 percent had a custodial sentence, and almost 40 percent had a community sentence. That means the system is not working for the very people it was set up to keep safe and to lead successful lives.
We are going to change that system. We are going to take it apart and put it back together in a different way—a way that is focused on meeting the needs of those young people, a way that gives those young people a say, and a way that focuses on five core services rather than just crisis management. We want to work with those children and their families, from prevention through to the transition into independence. We want a system that recognises that the child’s needs for safety and love and stability have to come first. They have to come before the adult agendas, and we have to ensure that it is a system that takes the voice of the child into account.
The new model needs to have the ability to purchase services that that child needs when they need it. I have to say I have been amazed at people who use ideology to argue that those children should remain on waiting lists for State services rather than have a private provider provide the counselling or the therapy when that child needs it. Who would believe that people would be willing to see that happen for an ideological thought or belief and put children’s lives at risk? That will not happen in the new system. The new system will also be—
Jacinda Ardern: Who said that?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, there are people who have said that. The age of care will be raised, initially to include 17-year-olds. What parent in their right mind expects a child to cope on their own at age 17? But we are also going to look at what care needs to be provided for these young people up to age 25. This system is going to change. It has to change. These children deserve nothing less.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Martin Hames was sick and knew he would get sicker. He took his own life alone, not wanting to implicate anybody else in his death. He did it much earlier than he would have liked, because he knew that the advancing condition of Huntington’s disease would prevent him from later taking such action. People like Martin Hames find themselves ill and beyond the help of palliative care, and the Supreme Court of Canada describes them as having two options: they can take their own life prematurely, as he did, often by violent or dangerous means, or they can suffer until they die from natural causes.
As the Supreme Court said, that choice is cruel. This cruel choice is not just a legal construct from a foreign court; it is all too real for New Zealanders. Palliative care has advanced well in the past 20 years but, as the High Court admitted just last year, unfortunately it does not work for everybody, and, sadly, 10 percent of suicides by older New Zealanders are by those with terminal illnesses. There needs to be a more compassionate option in New Zealand, and it is time for Parliament to debate and vote on assisted dying legislation.
The democratic mandate for Parliament to do this is very, very large. In a Colmar Brunton poll last year, 75 percent supported assisted dying legislation. There are few issues in any political time that three-quarters of New Zealanders support, yet that is the case with assisted dying legislation. Last year close to 9,000 people signed a petition leading to a parliamentary inquiry on this issue. I hope that inquiry, currently before the Health Committee, will produce a high-quality report clarifying many facets of the issue for New Zealanders, but it cannot produce a bill that Parliament must debate and vote on.
There is, however, currently a member’s bill in the ballot. My End of Life Choice Bill is targeted towards cases of highest need and includes strong safeguards. It gives people with terminal illnesses a compassionate option. To be clear, a law change will not result in more people dying but in fewer people suffering. Evidence from Europe finds that, on average, assisted deaths shorten a person’s life by only 10 days. Crucially, this practice is already happening in New Zealand but in a far less safeguarded way. Auckland medical school research has found 4.5 percent of GPs surveyed on their most recent dying patient found that it was from a drug administered explicitly to hasten death. The End of Life Choice Bill would, instead, put the patient in charge, allowing them to make a safer choice under the protection of the law.
For many, the strength of potential safeguards will be the deciding factor in supporting change, and although the issues are complex, I refuse to believe that it is impossible for a Parliament that is as mature and functional as ours to agree on a set of safeguards for this legislation. I understand there are parliamentarians who oppose assisted dying no matter what, and I do not demand their support for the End of Life Choice Bill. All I ask is for the rest of Parliament to have the chance to debate and vote upon the issue. In the Lecretia Seales case, the High Court said that leaving the choice to the courts would be “trespassing on the role of Parliament and departing from the constitutional role of Judges in New Zealand”. It is not that the judge said that he disagreed with Ms Seales’ application to die on her terms and at her timing; he simply said that it was up to us to make that decision about what the law should be.
The time has come for us colleagues to do our job. To continue avoiding this debate would be a disservice to the people we purport to represent. New Zealanders deserve a Parliament unafraid to confront an issue that is on legal, moral, and democratic grounds critically important to them. I seek leave to introduce my End of Life Choice Bill to be debated as members’ order of the day No. 1 on the first members’ day after the Health Committee reports back to the House on its inquiry into the petition of Maryan Street and 8,974 others.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I rise in this general debate and I want to acknowledge the fact that there are members in this House who have worked themselves into a lather about the people the Prime Minister talks to. It is going to be a long lather, because the Prime Minister talks to people all the time. In fact, regularly he is mobbed around this country. People want to get into his ear, they want to ask his advice, and they want to tell him about the things that are happening in their lives, because this is a Prime Minister who is in touch with New Zealanders. This is a Prime Minister who, in fact, understands that he has Ministers doing a job, and he will send people to talk to those Ministers. It is really not that unusual.
We are approaching, quite rapidly—the days are going quite quickly towards it—the Hon Bill English’s eighth Budget. We have seen a few announcements, and I do want to cover off on those just briefly today, but those announcements will continue the path that this Government has taken. This is about advancing the work that we have been doing, about a more productive and competitive economy through our Business Growth Agenda. We have focused on delivering Better Public Services in health, in education, and in the fields of justice.
The other thing that we have done is we have been completely committed to responsible fiscal management—something that has been welcomed by the New Zealand public, particularly during tough times. They do not want to see a Government squandering money. So today, on International Firefighters’ Day, I want to acknowledge the pre-Budget announcement of a $303 million investment over 5 years to merge and reform New Zealand’s fire services. To call them Fire and Emergency New Zealand, this is something that has been welcomed by the volunteers who are firefighters around our nation, and something that is a very positive way forward.
But in order to actually understand yet another of the Budget announcements, we need to look to the vibes that we are getting back from our constituents, and I certainly have done so on the $39 million a year, over 4 years, announced for Pharmac, alongside $11 million coming from district health boards. Now at $850 million a year, it is the largest-ever budget by a country mile. In fact, since 2008 that is a $200 million increase of funding for Pharmac, and I can note that the heads on the other side of the House are way down on this one, because, in fact, they know they cannot slam that sort of support for Pharmac’s budget, for the ever-increasing demand for more and modern medications. Of course there will always be a competitive tension over which medications are funded and which are not able to be funded. Pharmac has a very difficult job, but it is a model that is the envy of many other nations around the world.
We are heading towards the Budget. No longer do people look to Budgets for lolly scrambles—under this Government, they understand that it will be careful stewardship of their money. It is not the Government’s money; it is the taxpayers’ money. Last year, of course, what we saw was what was reported to me as “gobsmacking”: for the first time in 43 years, a $25 rate increase for those who were relying on benefits—families with children. It was something that completely stopped the traffic on the other side of the House. It was a beautiful sight—it was a beautiful sight. What we know about the Budgets that this side of the House puts together is that they are carefully analysed. We know that we are investing in New Zealanders, and that the whole social investment idea is something that is quite new to New Zealand and certainly was never comprehended by the other side, which threw money after votes—threw money after votes.
It appears that my time is too short and is nearly over, so I leave the House knowing that everyone will be looking forward to Bill English’s eighth Budget.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Our rivers are not canals. Our rivers are not concrete structures for intensive agriculture. Our rivers are life. Our rivers sustain life, they create life, they sparkle when clean, and they are the centre of our identity as a country when we look after and protect them. That is the Green Party’s commitment: swimmable rivers. So it is somewhat sad to hear, as I did in the House yesterday, the bizarre description of rivers by yet another Government Minister who is ecologically illiterate, when the Minister for Primary Industries described rivers when they are not used for storage—when water is not used for storage—as simply running out to sea. Newsflash: that is what rivers are for, and that is what they do. Our rivers run to the sea, and in that process they sustain life, they sustain the land, they sustain the life within the rivers, and they give us a place where we can experience what it is to be natural and wild.
Instead of that, the Government intends to create yet another dam, the Ruataniwha Dam, which it is supporting and which the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is supporting, which will actually damage yet another river. If our rivers are to be sustained in this country, we have to understand their function, and it is pretty disturbing to see that people with decision-making power, at both regional and national level, do not understand that rivers are life. They do not understand that rivers are the whakapapa of the tangata whenua, the home of the tuna and the remaining tiny percentage of native fish, the source of joy to so many, and the future for our mokopuna. Instead of this, we have the Ruataniwha Dam, and because they cannot find investors for it, they are spending $80 million of ratepayers’ money in the Hawke’s Bay and now are trying to persuade ACC to front up with the rest. No one wants to invest in a white elephant—except, it seems, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and this Government. This is because they do not have any concept of what a river is, and they are prepared to sacrifice the Tukituki and other awa across the motu for the sake of a form of agriculture that is not sustainable.
Even more extraordinarily, we are going to see this Ruataniwha Dam managed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, which, I have reason to know from going and seeing a tiny dam in that area, the Waihī dam, it could not manage. It has allowed the private company Eastland Group, since 1979, to have a water right with no modern resource consent, which it breached, and it allowed that river, this summer, to turn into a drain full of silt, at the expense of local farmers, who have lost their pumps, and at the expense of local community, who had their summer stolen. That is how it was described to me when I went up to Wairoa and I saw what Hawke’s Bay Regional Council had allowed Eastland Group to do, with no consequences, no penalties for breaches of that 1979 water right. So how can we have confidence, if that is how the council deals with a tiny dam, in how it is going to deal with a vast irrigation project? And that is with the full backing of the Government.
This Government fully believes in damming rivers and creating canals, because otherwise it is just water running out to sea. But the Green Party has a vision, which includes changing the national policy statement to go from boatable and wadeable to swimmable rivers. We have a vision of recognising that agriculture can be totally successful without being so intense that thousands of—millions, now—dairy cows will keep producing diffuse nitrogen that runs into our waterways and fills them up with nitrates. So the issue is nitrates. It is not that rivers are a problem; it is that nitrates are a problem, from intensive agriculture. It is the problem in Canterbury, it is the problem in terms of the Tukituki River, and it is the problem in terms of Ruataniwha—in that we cannot keep treating our rivers like drains or pretending they should be canals. They are a source of life, and if we cannot understand that, we cannot make good decisions about it. The Green Party will restore the 62 percent of monitored rivers that are too polluted to swim in. We will stand up for life, we will recognise life, and we will love and protect our rivers. Kia ora koutou katoa.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Earlier today the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the treaty of—
Hon David Cunliffe: Ni hao.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: Thank you, Mr Cunliffe. Gong xi fa cai. Earlier today the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s report into the treaty examination of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement was presented to the House. That report was a culmination of 2½ months’ worth of hearings—650 oral submissions were heard and a further 6,000-odd submissions were received and considered by the select committee. It is by no means as much of a feat as those who negotiated the agreement, but it was quite an effort, and I acknowledge the chairman of the select committee, Mark Mitchell, who is here at the moment.
The committee considered many, many aspects of that treaty, and ultimately came down to the view that the TPP is of considerable benefit to New Zealand and considerable benefit to New Zealand exporters. It is going to be a trade agreement that will go down in history as being a leader around the world for trade for the world. It is a trade agreement that covers a third of world trade. It is a trade agreement that covers 800 million people living within the countries that are there, and 40 percent of the world’s total economic output goes to the countries that are part of the TPP.
Throughout the hearings it became clear to us that there was a huge amount of misinformation being peddled by groups around the country. The largest group that was peddling misinformation, I believe, was the New Zealand Labour Party. A party that has had a proud history of supporting trade and supporting exporters in this country has abandoned New Zealand exporters and has abandoned those people trying to produce products to export around this world. I see Mr Cunliffe, Mrs King, and Mr Parker in the House, who were Ministers in the last Government and who, quite rightly, should have been proud to stand on their feet and support the free-trade agreements that Labour supported, but they have abandoned New Zealanders in this case.
Submitters came to the committee and talked about the need to allow the Government to legislate in the public interest. The TPP does not stop that. Submitters came to the House concerned that the investor-State dispute settlement provisions would harm New Zealand. In fact, they protect New Zealand investors. They do not harm New Zealand at all, and there are a lot of protections built in there. Submitters were concerned about the Pharmac model being threatened. Well, the Government protected the Pharmac model. They were concerned about the Treaty of Waitangi having an issue taken with it. Well, the Government protected the Treaty of Waitangi. They were concerned about jobs potentially being lost. Well, there was a very poor report produced that was hung on to by many submitters, but, in fact, we can say with our hands on our hearts that through trade agreements that Governments have negotiated in the past, it only leads to more jobs, more growth, and more opportunity for New Zealanders, and the TPP will do that as well.
There were a number of minority views submitted. I acknowledge the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party for their very principled minority views, but there were some inaccuracies in some of the reports. The biggest inaccuracy in the minority view from the New Zealand Labour Party was a statement that said: “The Labour Party is the party of free trade.” That is the biggest inaccuracy I saw in any of the minority views. After the introduction, the first five paragraphs of the Labour Party’s minority view were not about economic gains or about trade, but about housing. The second two paragraphs after the housing paragraphs were about process. It was not until the ninth paragraph of the Labour Party’s minority view that it actually talked about trade. Labour Party members have abandoned the country on trade, and they no longer support exporters. In fact, to stand up in the House and write into a report that they are opposed to $2.7 billion worth of economic gain because the National Government did not negotiate the ability for them to, in the future, ban foreigners based on the sound of their last name is terrible.
They say in their report that they have a long-held Labour policy of banning foreigners, but it was not so long held that they were hanging on to that when they were in Government and started the negotiations on the TPP. But they are using that to say no to hundreds of millions—in fact, billions—of dollars’ worth of export opportunities for this country. The select committee did a good job in considering many of these matters. It is undoubtedly in New Zealand’s best interest to ratify the TPP, and I am pleased to be on the committee that supported it.
JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I would like to say that all of us in this House—all 121 MPs—are fortunate because we all have a roof over our heads. Having a roof over your head, or a house to call your own, to house your family, is a basic human right. However, it is unfortunate that not all of our families in Aotearoa New Zealand have this basic human right. I see way too many families, way too many people, coming to seek assistance from our electorate office just because they do not actually have a house.
I know that the Hon Nick Smith has made various statements, including that Auckland does not have a housing crisis and that, apparently, it is just a housing challenge. Let me say this on behalf of the many families we see in South Auckland, as well as across New Zealand: when you do not have a house, when you do not have a home that you can call your own, it is not just a challenge—one is actually homeless. Our families do not just wake up one day and think: “Oh, I’d like a challenge today. I’d like to choose to become homeless, just so that I can know just how challenging life can be. I would like to choose the challenge of living in a car, in a caravan, or in someone else’s garage.” That is not a challenge; that is called homelessness.
Professor Asher, the head of paediatrics at the University of Auckland and a respiratory paediatrician at Starship Children’s Hospital, has led research that shows that New Zealand is at triple jeopardy for preventable disease and mental illness, the causes being (1) unhealthy housing, (2) inadequate basic health-care, and (3) poverty. Unfortunately, I can tell you that South Auckland has won this trifecta. We have all of these issues.
The health of many children in South Auckland—children who are the future of our good country—depends on this Government giving them a great start in life. They are at risk because of the disgraceful state of the houses that they live in—cold, damp, mouldy housing that is linked to increased levels and rates of respiratory disease such as asthma, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, and rheumatic fever. The name Emma-Lita Bourne—a little girl from Ōtara, in my electorate—is one that has become well-known in Aotearoa New Zealand for all the wrong reasons. A defenceless toddler, her death was linked by the coroner in part to the condition of the house that she lived in, which was cold, damp, and mouldy.
I am pleased to say that Andrew Little’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) is coming to this House to be discussed today. This is a bill that will have an enormous impact on the health and educational achievement of our children. Some of New Zealand’s rented homes are damaging for our children, and this is inexcusable in a country like ours. Bronchiectasis—which is scarred, dilated airways—is caused by repeated or severe pneumonia, and it is eight to nine times more common in New Zealand than it is in the UK and Finland.
I would just like to say that I have met one of the kids who actually has this condition—a child who was born healthy. This is a child who was in and out of the neonatal intensive care unit of a hospital for many, many months of her life. For most of her life, she was homeless, but I am glad to say that our office was able to assist her to have a home for the very first time. I visited this family just 2 days ago, and the mother was really quite emotional and actually saying: “Thank you not only for the assistance to actually be placed in a home but also for the fact that for the longest period of time of this child’s life, since March”—which was when she went into this house—“until today, she has not had to be readmitted into hospital and into the neonatal intensive care unit.” Thank you.
PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): In this House we often commemorate momentous events and occasions, and I just want to place on record my regards to you on this Star Wars Day—May the Fourth be with you, Mr Speaker. We have emanating from the Labour Opposition, which is the “evil empire” of New Zealand politics, led by the archetypal “evil emperor” himself, the “Palpatine” of New Zealand—Andrew Little—a veritable stream of appalling policies coming out of its sarlacc pit of bad policy.
We have heard those members’ answers to the problems faced by the New Zealand economy. Their answers are simply appalling—a universal basic income, putting everyone over the age of 18 on the dole, at a cost of probably billions of dollars more than we would actually raise in taxation revenue each year. That is not a policy to make New Zealanders wealthier and better off. Rental warrants of fitness, which are well intentioned but in real terms put up the cost of rental housing for those at the very poorest end of the spectrum—the most vulnerable New Zealanders—are not an answer to the housing crisis in this country. Another policy is free tertiary education—well, “free” tertiary education—delivered many years hence, and, of course, nothing is life is free. You have to significantly raise taxation to give away a service like that—at no cost to the accountants and lawyers of the future but at considerable cost to the plumbers and builders and roofers and painters out there. These are not policies that will make New Zealand an economically stronger country.
I have been looking at recent results in the household labour force survey, and I thought it was interesting to note, having just returned last week from the United Kingdom, where under the Conservative Government the economy is actually performing better than the European average, that New Zealand is actually outshining the UK, Australia, and the United States—some of the countries we compare ourselves to. We have 65 percent participation in the workforce, whereas in the UK, the US, and Australia only 60 percent of the population is working. We can compare this with 52 percent, the European Union average, which shows that the policies adopted by this Government are having a very positive and practical effect on the lives of all New Zealanders.
What does this mean in real terms? It means that our Minister of Finance, one of the Jedi knights of the front bench of the National Government, has been able to deliver a Budget increase to Pharmac’s budget, something that will have very real positive impacts for the people of Wellington Central, the constituency that I am very pleased to live in and to work on behalf of in Parliament.
What will this get James in Karori? James, who is suffering from advanced melanoma, will have access now to Nivolumab, a crucial melanoma medication. Aroha in Kelburn will be able to access Harvoni and the Viekira Pak, which are treatments for hepatitis C infection. They are highly efficacious. We heard today from the Minister of Health that they are 90 percent efficacious treatments for hepatitis C. Ling in Te Aro will have access to Azithromycin, which is for bronchiectasis in children. That is the widening of the bronchial tubes, leading to increased risk of infection. Maria in Brooklyn, who has a brain tumour, has access to Temozolomide. I am sorry for my pronunciation of these Latinate words; I wish the pharmacy companies would come up with simpler terms. Dee in Mount Cook will get Rituximab for nephrotic syndrome, which is kidney disease.
So there will be very real benefits to this economy, which this Government—Bill English, and the Prime Minister in particular—has created policies to support and underpin. We have got a strong economy here in Wellington, and we can look at small companies. I recently visited a company, an entrepreneurial start-up, Swibo, which makes balance-board games. You fit a mobile phone, a smartphone, into a balance board and it creates a video game that also helps with rehabilitation, from stroke patients through to those who suffer from sporting injuries. These are the sorts of innovative, creative industries that underpin our local economy, which this Government is working very hard to back, and which are creating jobs and employment, which, in turn, leads to better lives for all New Zealanders. For that reason I am very proud to be part of this Government.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): The pleasure one could take, addressing the ridiculous comparisons made by the previous speaker, Paul Foster-Bell. Just to answer him, I ask this one question: who comes to mind when I say the words “Jabba the Hutt”? Who is Jabba? But my point is a serious one. This is it: after 6 years of secrecy, after a public-relations signing stunt here in New Zealand, after a truncated travesty of a select committee process—basically, after years of unbridled arrogance on the part of the National Government—with the insults still coming, I have to take 5 minutes out of the general debate to speak about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. That is all I get in order to speak about the trade agreement itself. There is nothing else in this House to speak about in terms of the substantive part that is the TPP itself. That is an absolute travesty of democracy and an indictment on that Government.
Despite Government arrogance, despite running roughshod over experts in international trade, and despite ignoring experts in international law who spoke against this agreement, the Prime Minister still seems to be nervous. Apparently, he is still trying to sell it. I heard last night that he spoke eloquently, apparently, in a speech about this partnership agreement. But this is the commentary from some of the observers: “Few speeches have been so simplistic in their lack of understanding of history both here and abroad, or the stark reality staring them in the face” here in New Zealand. The Prime Minister said that there is no worldwide conspiracy to take jobs from New Zealanders or to suppress wages, or to buy all of our homes. Only someone knowing that that is exactly what is going on—what is happening right now—would use the occasion in order to defend the lack of economic and social planning and the mess that is developing around him. Others claim not only that it was simplistic but also that the message itself was dishonest. He would have everyone believe that the opposition to the TPP is opposition to trade, full stop.
Ninety percent of submitters prefaced their submissions with the statement: “We support trade.” But this is not a trade deal. New Zealand First, in its founding principles, has always said that we must be a trading, export-based nation. But we know that this is a partnership agreement, not a trade agreement. Most New Zealanders now see that there is a very big difference between the two, and they do not like it one little bit. We know, despite the spin from National, that to oppose this deal is not to oppose the benefits of trade; it is actually to oppose the 1 percent—to oppose locking in corporate entitlement. It is opposition to empowering foreign corporates ahead of good Kiwi business. That is what we are opposing today.
For 6 years—
Brett Hudson: Fortress New Zealand.
FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I cannot even remember your name. For 6 years, National has got away with secret negotiations. Over the last few months, National, in its role in Government, has undermined the select committee process, and it has undermined democracy. It has shown contempt for everyday New Zealanders, experts in international trade, and experts in international law who came to submit before the select committee. The fact is that the unnecessary, inappropriate, and undemocratic time constraints meant that the Government was writing its report while it was listening to submissions. That is wrong. We cannot accept that.
New Zealand First has been vocal and strong in our opposition to this partnership agreement. We have stood in this House and decried the secrecy. We have decried the lack of consultation and meaningful engagement. We have decried the investor-State dispute settlement process, and we have said that the claims made around the supposed trade benefits are absolutely farcical.
I have been subjected to a select committee process that has undermined democracy for the sake of an imaginary race to be the first to ratify. I say “imaginary” because everyone here knows that in the United States you have every frontrunner in the presidential race saying no to the TPP. They, like New Zealand First, know that the TPP will actually cost jobs and will simply mean more money for the 1 percent. I stand here proudly in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): What a great day for the Bay of Plenty—what a great day for the Bay of Plenty. The household labour force survey is out today. Unemployment is down to 5.1 percent in the Bay of Plenty. This is the greatest drop anywhere in the country and is now the lowest unemployment rate in the North Island. We have had just under 8,000 new jobs over the last year. This is not some aberration. This is not something that has occurred out of the blue. It is part of a deliberate and planned approach by this Government to build a productive economy. What we have seen in the Bay of Plenty over the last 8 years is a significant change in circumstances for our community. Let me just talk through some of those.
Firstly, under export markets, the Government has an absolute clear objective to improve access to export markets. We have just heard a superb outline from Jami-Lee Ross of the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—that is $6,000 per kiwifruit grower in the Bay of Plenty. In the free-trade agreement with Korea it was $8,000. That is $14,000 per grower—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Psa costs?
TODD MULLER: There are some—including a curmudgeon from the north—who will say that $14,000 per kiwifruit grower in Northland and the Bay of Plenty is not sufficient, but in my experience, having been part of the community for 40 years, it is real and it is something that should be embraced. Not only are we talking about trade in terms of building and export markets but also when you look at infrastructure—a key component of our Business Growth Agenda—what a story we have got to tell in the Bay of Plenty.
There has been huge investment in roads. The Tauranga Eastern Corridor link, which links the Hon Anne Tolley’s area with mine, opened a year ago. The Tauranga Northern Link was announced a week ago. This is a Government that understands that you need underpinning infrastructure to set free the people’s aspirations in a community, and that is what is going on in Tauranga at the moment. We have the greatest population growth, we have the greatest employment growth, and we have a Government that is committed to putting the fundamentals in place to enable you to succeed. For all of those on the other side who constantly carp and constantly see the world through a negative lens—
Grant Robertson: How are the avocados?
TODD MULLER:—including you, Mr Robertson—get out of Wellington and come up to the Bay of Plenty and meet people who are making a difference. Meet people who are making a difference and who are actually succeeding. What you will find when you go and listen to them is that they actually have quite a different set of ambitions and aspirations to most of the people who sit on the other side of the House. You are lost in a time warp. [Interruption] You go and talk to these people who are working hard and delivering for their families in their communities, particularly in Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty, and you see people who are succeeding, who are aspirational, who see opportunities—and you have tin ears to their aspirations.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I sort of let it run for a while because I thought that the member might listen to the interventions that he has been getting from across the House. I think that if he can stop using the second person and get back to speaking within order, it would be a good idea.
TODD MULLER: Labour and the Greens and New Zealand First have tin ears to the aspirations of the people of the Bay of Plenty, and I am very delighted to be able to support what we are doing as a Government.
In terms of infrastructure, a couple of months ago we announced the completion of broadband. It is fantastic. There is already a 23 percent uptake of ultra-fast broadband in Tauranga, about 25 percent above the national average. Again, we are talking about a community that is connected with the global market and understands the importance of underpinning infrastructure to enable it to happen.
But, of course, there are challenges. We understand that there are times when we need to acknowledge that housing is under a bit of pressure and that we have got families who are struggling, particularly in terms of the domestic violence context. I want to acknowledge the work that this Government is doing to talk honestly and openly and “real-ly” about some of those challenges, and is putting plans in place to make a difference. I want to acknowledge people like Heather Beddie, who is the family violence coordinator in Papamoa, Trish Ives, and Colin Gardiner from It’s Not OK in Papamoa, who, as NGOs, walk alongside this Government’s commitment to make a difference—it is not just rhetoric—and actually make a difference with structures, investment, and a commitment as a whole-of-Government and a whole-of-community response to issues that have bedevilled this country for decades and have had terrible impacts in terms of individual families. I want to acknowledge today—
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): New Zealanders have been thinking for a while and feeling in their guts that there is something just not right with this Government—that it is arrogant, that it is increasingly out of touch, that, more and more, it is looking after the mega-rich, not most Kiwis, and that it stands for the influence of big money and not for the Kiwi Dream of ordinary New Zealanders. Then, once or twice, along come some little nuggets where the average Kiwi can say: “There, that’s what I have been feeling. That’s what I meant. That’s what is wrong.” And this week we have seen two of them.
Very briefly: the Prime Minister said to his personal trust lawyer “Go and fix it with Todd McClay.” around the enduring secrecy of foreign trusts. He did that, and the very next day Mr McClay went cap in hand to see the same personal lawyer of the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister recuse himself from that? No. Did he declare it? No. Did he maintain the standards required? No, he did not. Now we find that the same trust lawyer has been donkey deep in dodgy deals, defending known bankrupts, and, effectively, witnessing documents that were not even signed in New Zealand. That is the sort of thing that ordinary Kiwis say is just not right.
Of course, in the last week, we have talked about the Overseas Investment Office. That is the body that we as New Zealanders rely on to keep us safe from international tax evaders, scammers, and people of questionable reputation who want to buy New Zealand land and assets but in so doing would bring into question New Zealand’s international reputation. In the last 5 years, the Overseas Investment Office has approved 99.85 percent of all applications put before it. It has turned down only one solitary application, and that was after it spent weeks in the media: Lochinver Station. The Prime Minister had the gall to say that the problem with the Overseas Investment Office is that it takes too long to give the wet bus ticket and should be sped up.
Bring on the case of Onetai Station. That is the case that turned up because it was linked to those infamous Panama lawyers Mossack Fonseca in the Panama Papers—the case the Minister would not tell us about; the case that she did not want you to know about. Louise Upston would not name them, but we found them. We also found that the owners of the shell company Ceol and Muir, who bought the Onetai Station in Taranaki, actually had criminal convictions. They have criminal responsibility for the toxic waste pollution of their local river in Buenos Aires, even though environmental considerations for water purity—wait for it; it is hard to believe—were part of the consent to come to New Zealand. They had carcinogenic chemicals in their river at home, and they got a conviction for that, but the Overseas Investment Office missed it.
How did the Overseas Investment Office miss it? Firstly, it relied upon a thing called a statutory declaration. That is where the lawyer says: “My client’s clean. See, I’ve signed this.” You know what that was worth—absolutely nothing. But, routinely, that is what the Overseas Investment Office relies upon to keep us all safe. That is just wrong. Secondly, it could not even do a proper Google search. It said that it had tried a Google search. Initially, it said that it did not find anything, and later it said that a junior staffer who no longer works there found something but did not tell anybody. Well, it took the Labour Party half an hour to find those criminal convictions, which should have prevented that transaction from going ahead.
Sadly, there is more. One of the directors of the shell company that purchased Onetai Station is, according to UK companies office records and Florida court documents, associated with a director of another company that was associated with an alleged major tax-evasion scandal involving a national soccer coach, Mr Scolari. That case was settled out of court, but it called into question the bona fides of the lawyer concerned, who was one of the Panama lawyers who set up the company that bought Onetai Station. I will shortly be tabling the documents that substantiate that sorry story. Thirdly, Overseas Investment Office documents show that the Overseas Investment Office’s lawyers could not even be sure who the final owners were. That adds up to a tale of woe of an organisation that is not keeping New Zealand safe.
I seek leave to table several documents that pertain to the matters just raised in my remarks. First, I seek leave to table the Overseas Investment Office’s report to the Associate Minister of Finance and to the Minister for Land Information dated 10 December 2013, which recommended that Rafael—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): We do not need the recommendations; just a description of the document and, with it, an assurance from the member that it does not come from the website.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No. This was obtained under the Official Information Act.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a certified translation of media reports from Argentina dated 22 March and 28 March 2011, which report that the Grozovsky brothers were found criminally responsible for toxic dumping in Argentina in 2011.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think we will make the exception, given the fact that it is a translation rather than given in Portuguese. [Interruption] Rather than just a direct media report.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is certified by one of the Department of Internal Affairs’ official translators.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think it will be easier for members to access the translation, so I am willing to put that. Is there any objection? There is none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thirdly, I seek leave to table court documents from Argentina dated 12 March 2007 and 29 March 2012 that show the Grozovsky brothers were found guilty of toxic dumping, causing serious health risks, including lung disease and cancer.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There appears to be none.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table several documents from the UK companies’ office and the Florida Southern District Court that show that Gustavo Daniel Chaves Mantaras, a director of Ceol and Muir, was also a director of Chaterella Investors Ltd from May 2005 to September 2015.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There is none.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table documents dated 30 May 2005 that show that Mr Mantaras was appointed as a director and secretary of Chaterella Investors Ltd on that date.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that document being tabled?
Tim Macindoe: Can we have the source of those documents?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That is the UK companies’ office. [Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Hang on, I had better put it—is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a document dated 8 July 2014 that shows that Chaterella Investments Ltd changed its name to Inmax International Ltd on that date.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before the member goes on, can we maybe do the British ones together if there are any more?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Sure. One more British one, and that is a document dated 30 September 2015 that shows that Mr Mantaras was terminated as a director and secretary of Inmax on 30 September 2015.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Finally, I seek leave to table a court document from the Florida Southern District Court dated 5 May 2014 that states that the Portuguese tax authorities “have reason to believe that Chaterella Investors Limited was used as a vehicle for alleged tax evasion by Mr Scolari”, a national soccer coach between 2003 and 2008. In so doing, I note that that matter was settled out of court.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. Are there any further documents?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): That is all, Mr Assistant Speaker.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Bills
Wellington Town Belt Bill
Third Reading
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the Wellington Town Belt Bill be now read a third time. At the outset, can I please thank all those involved with the progress of this legislation through the House. In particular, I want to acknowledge the Wellington City Council, Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, and councillors, particularly Councillor Helene Ritchie, who has led this work in recent times. I do want to acknowledge the staff of the Wellington City Council, who have done extensive work over the years to ensure that the Wellington town belt continues to be the jewel in the crown of Wellington’s environment. But, in particular, I acknowledge Michael Oates from the Wellington City Council, who has been the person who has led the work on this piece of legislation and, indeed, on the advancement of the Wellington Town Belt Management Plan. Mr Oates has done a huge amount of work and deserves a lot of credit for this legislation. Can I also acknowledge the role of a large number of Wellingtonians who have acted as guardians, effectively, of the Wellington town belt over many, many decades.
The history of the Wellington town belt is such that from time to time there has been tension and controversy over its protection and its use. There have been a number of individuals and organisations that have worked hard to protect the original intent of the town belt, which is that it be a public recreation ground for the use of all Wellingtonians. I want to particularly acknowledge the Friends of the Wellington Town Belt. I want to acknowledge today one member of the Friends of the Wellington Town Belt who cannot be here, and that is Joan Quinn. Joan has done an enormous amount of work on protecting the town belt and on documenting the history of the town belt, and I know she would very much like to be here today. She has been here during previous readings. But I want to put it on record that she exemplifies the commitment of a number of other Wellingtonians to this important part of our city.
I also want to thank MPs from across the House for their support for this legislation. Fingers crossed, touch wood, they will continue with their universal support across the House for this piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee and its chair, Scott Simpson, for the good work that the committee did on this legislation, and all MPs who have supported it through to this stage.
The Wellington Town Belt Bill has been a long time coming. For me, as somebody who raised this in my maiden speech in Parliament about 8 years ago, it is great to finally be here today seeing it pass into legislation. But there were many people who came before me who saw the need to clarify and to make sure for generations to come that we protect and enhance the town belt. I want to acknowledge my predecessor as the MP for Wellington Central, Marian Hobbs, who began the process of drafting legislation, and there are some words still remaining from that legislation that was put forward about 15 or so years ago. This legislation comes with a long history to it.
The history of the town belt itself goes back a very long way. In 1839 John Ward, who was the New Zealand Company secretary, instructed the company surveyor who was responsible for the laying out of Wellington thus: “It is indeed desirable that the whole outside of the Town, inland, should be separated from the country by a broad belt of land which you will declare that the Company intends to be public property on condition that no buildings be ever erected upon it.” That was the instruction given to the surveyor.
From the very foundation of Wellington, the importance of open space and green space has been recognised. It is worth noting that the New Zealand Company’s motives were not entirely about having green space. It was quite interested in pushing up the value of the land that could be developed for housing, as well. But, whatever its motivation, the end result has benefited generations of Wellingtonians.
It is important to note that the provision of public parklands was a welcome novelty for those emerging from the stratified class system of Britain, where such parklands were privately owned by the wealthy. From its earliest days, the Wellington town belt has been about giving all citizens and inhabitants of Wellington the same rights to enjoy the great outdoors. It is also fair to say that from its earliest days, there have been tensions between keeping that town belt land free of development and the practical uses that it might be put to if there were development.
By the time the town belt deed was signed in 1873, around 190 hectares had been lost from the original town belt that was proposed, and over the years there have been some comings and goings in terms of land—more goings, unfortunately, than comings—and it has reduced in size by about one-third since 1873. For the most part, this has been for public purposes such as educational facilities, hospitals, prisons, and roads.
While on that note, one thing I would urge in the passing of this legislation today is that the current Government and future Governments think about why this legislation is being put up today and how significant the town belt is to Wellingtonians, and that if there are proposals to use the town belt for public works, that is done only when it absolutely has to be done and where other alternatives are looked at closely, so that the respect that this House is showing for the town belt is shown by those future Governments if they do believe there is a public work that they need to undertake.
One of the things I am most proud of today is that when this legislation passes, 120 hectares of land will immediately get added to the town belt—the most substantial addition of land to the protections provided by the town belt since 1873. For Wellingtonians listening, that consists mainly of what is called the old Telecom land on Tinakori Hill, Polhill Gully, the former chest hospital, and Vice Regal Park, which is part of the Government House land. They all return to the town belt today, and Wellingtonians should be proud and happy that that has occurred today.
I want to make clear that the purposes of this bill are largely around bringing together all of the legislation and the rules and regulations on the management of the town belt into one place that everybody can understand and see as the way to guide the future use of the town belt. We also wanted to make sure that we were making clear for the Wellington City Council what its responsibilities and powers were to protect, manage, and enhance the town belt.
Although it would be true to say that many people involved in the management of the town belt over the years have understood the primary purpose of the town belt—to for ever use it as a public recreation ground—the definition of what public recreation is, under clause 8 of the bill, has not always been clear. That is defined today in this legislation.
The bill defines “public recreation ground” as an area for “(a) recreation, sporting activities, and the enjoyment of the public, with an emphasis on the retention of public access, open spaces, and outdoor activities; and (b) the protection of the natural environment and historic heritage.” That is important. It is important because the primary focus must be on giving access to the greatest number of Wellingtonians to the use of the town belt.
In the select committee process, and then in the Committee of the whole House process, we were able to clarify that the maximum amount of land to be available in the town belt for leasing or licensing at any time will be 8 hectares. I understand from the city council that at the moment, and on average over the last few years, it has been around about 6½ hectares of land that has been used. Eight hectares, with the exclusion of the zoo and the chest hospital, is a limited part of what will now be over 500 hectares of land. Again, the Wellington City Council is aware from the submissions that have been made that it does need to ensure that the granting of leases and licences is temporary and does in no way undermine the ability of Wellingtonians to use the town belt for the purpose that it was intended.
The third and final element of the purposes of the bill that I want to mention is around the importance of the town belt to mana whenua and the inhabitants of the city. The town belt, through its management plan, will be managed in consultation with tangata whenua. That is appropriate because it is important to acknowledge that when the town belt was established, there were iwi groups that had control of lands that are contained within it, particularly those from Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Ruanui, Taranaki, and Ngāti Tama—the group collectively known as the Taranaki Whānui—and also Ngāti Toa Rangatira. The Treaty settlement process for both Taranaki Whānui and Ngāti Toa Rangatira has recognised the breaches of the Treaty in relation to the Crown acquisition of lands within the town belt. Part of acknowledging those breaches is to recognise the status of tangata whenua in this legislation and in the management of the town belt, and I know the Wellington City Council takes that seriously.
I am delighted that we will finally pass this legislation today. It will immediately see the town belt increase in size. I also believe it will have the effect over time of raising its status and of ensuring that the Wellington City Council manages it in accordance with its original intention. The Wellington town belt is a jewel in the crown of Wellington City, and today we take major steps to protect and enhance it.
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has considered this bill through the select committee process, I want to place on record my pleasure in supporting this third reading of the bill, and to confirm that it is the Government’s intention to support the bill, as we have done at the first and second readings. The member who has just resumed his seat, Grant Robertson, the local member for Wellington Central, is I think rightly proud of today’s situation in terms of bringing this bill, which has taken so long but is so worthwhile, to fruition. I would like to join with him and others in congratulating Her Worship the Mayor of Wellington, Celia Wade-Brown, her councillors, and her dedicated and professional staff members, who have helped guide this bill before it came to Parliament. They did an incredible amount of work prior to it being presented to the House. I also want to acknowledge and thank, as did Mr Robertson, those many, many people, past and present Wellingtonians, who have over the years supported the original intent of the trust deed in terms of protecting and enhancing the Wellington town belt as the wonderful, green, natural environmental asset that it is in an otherwise urban environment.
I am fortunate to come from a part of the country—the Coromandel—where we take access to our bush and our natural environment almost for granted, and where we have easy and regular access to beautiful, pristine walks and beaches and environmental jewels that are literally on our back doorstep every day of the week. That is not necessarily the case in many urban environments around our country or, indeed, around the world, so this Wellington town belt has absolutely become something of a jewel in the crown of the Wellington urban landscape. It is a very unique and historic horseshoe-shaped area of open space around Wellington’s inner city. When the concept of the urban belt was first developed and first mooted 170-odd years ago, how far-sighted were those original people? No matter their primary objective, the fact that they had the foresight and the wisdom to set aside an area of land as large as it was, and is today, for the benefit of the citizens of and visitors to Wellington I think shows considerable foresight and is something that they could be very grateful for and proud of today as we consider this bill.
The town belt provides a beautiful, scenic backdrop to Wellington’s urban environment. It offers obvious and natural recreational opportunities for tens of thousands of people every year, and on a daily basis I am one who, when I am in Wellington, takes an opportunity to walk in the early morning through the Wellington Botanic Garden, which forms part of the Wellington town belt. As a mere visitor to Wellington, I too get an opportunity to enjoy what has been and remains today a beautiful environmental attribute for the city.
Its genesis was back in 1839, when, as Mr Robertson said, the secretary of the New Zealand Company, one John Ward, gave instructions to set aside a belt of land not to be built upon around what was then the relatively small township of Wellington. The intention was to create a green and open space to improve the health and well-being of citizens. Those are worthy attributes, and ones that we still aspire to. After the New Zealand Company’s land passed to the Crown, the Governor of New Zealand at the time gazetted the belt of land as reserve in 1841. The land was again further transferred in 1865 from the Crown to the then superintendent of the province of Wellington, and it became known at that stage as the Crown Grant. It has often been referred to in history books and writings as the Crown Grant in days since.
It was when, in 1873, the trust deed was originally created that the mayor and councillors of Wellington became the trustee for the town belt. Wellington City Council is trustee of the town belt today, and it acts on behalf of the inhabitants and citizens of Wellington. The council is, of course, a guardian and manager, as well, of the town belt, and so it falls to the council to ensure that on a day-to-day basis the town belt is maintained and enhanced, that suitable provisions are made to ensure that public access is available, that maintenance occurs, and that correct planting, arbour work, tree pruning, and all those sorts of things that go with managing an area like this take place.
By the time this bill came to Parliament for its first reading a very significant amount of work had been done by staff and supporters of the town belt at Wellington City Council. It was some years of careful development and stewardship by council staff and councillors that shepherded the piece of legislation that was brought to us into a form that was presentable to Parliament. That process started with the approval of the creation of guiding principles back in mid-2011. That process formed the basis of what we now understand and know as the Wellington Town Belt Management Plan, and then the development of the drafting instructions took place in 2013. Final council approval for this bill took place in February 2015, and then it was presented to the House by Grant Robertson later that year. During this process, Wellington City Council received feedback from over 300 individuals and organisations, each of them with an interest, with a stake, with a—
Paul Foster-Bell: How many?
SCOTT SIMPSON: Over 300 individuals and organisations, Mr Foster-Bell. Each of those individuals and organisations had a passionate interest in the town belt and its well-being and its future maintenance. They were all concerned that the integrity of the original trust deed should be maintained but that a modern, usable, manageable context should be provided by this legislation in order that for the next 100 years, or whatever, the management and operation of the town belt could be easily understood, could be easily guided, and could be sorted in a way that did not create the confusion and, sometimes concern amongst citizens and, indeed, council staff, that the current arrangements have done.
Wellington City Council’s obligations and power as trustee stem today—until this piece of legislation is passed later this afternoon—from a range of sources. Those sources include the original Town Belt Deed of 1873, the Reserves Act, and also a number of even older statutes than the Reserves Act. The relationship between many of those sources of trust authority are actually complex, they are detailed, and in some cases they are not clear or certain in terms of what the intent is. So it has been difficult for council staff and members of the public to actually interpret some of those original source documents and those source powers that have been designated to council. This piece of legislation tidies all of that up. This piece of legislation makes the future management, the future day-to-day operation of the town belt, and its future benefits to all Wellingtonians and visitors far easier to understand, a lot simpler, and far more meaningful in today’s legislative and practical context.
The bill also enables land to be added to the existing town belt. I want to just reinforce the point that as soon as this bill passes, a further 120 hectares will be added to the existing 390 hectares. That represents a very significant piece of land, and it is going to be a hugely significant benefit to future generations. The council has in this new piece of legislation a single, easily understood, easily interpreted reference point for how it is able to manage and look after the affairs of the town belt for the future. The Wellington Town Belt Management Plan will give the public, stakeholders, and council staff the tools they need to ensure that the foresight of the deed’s original authors are maintained and enhanced for future generations.
The Local Government and Environment Committee received 31 submissions and we heard from 21 submitters, each of them passionate and vigorous. I think the process has been a very good one. I am delighted to be able to stand on behalf of the Government and commend this third reading of the bill to the House.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I have great pleasure in speaking in the third reading of the Wellington Town Belt Bill. This is a bill in respect of which modesty has prevented my colleague and friend Grant Robertson from highlighting the work that he did to get this bill into the House, and today it is being passed. But I want to acknowledge the work that he has done. It was not an easy piece of legislation, and it took a lot of work and a long time to get it to the right stage with the right changes in it. Mr Robertson persevered, he worked with people, and he showed how you can work with a local authority as a local MP and bring forth a bill. Although you might not agree with absolutely everything that came in, you got to a position of a compromise where you are happy with what is now passing through Parliament. So I want to acknowledge Grant Robertson’s contribution.
He did it on behalf of not just the Wellington Central electorate, because what people forget is that the town belt is also in the Rongotai electorate and partially in the Ōhāriu electorate. So it in fact covers a large part of the three Wellington electorates—all used to be red once. Never—well, it is a long time since they were blue. But we do have Peter Dunne, who I know was supportive of this bill as well. We have worked together behind the scenes, not doing the grunt work that Grant Robertson has done, but ensuring that whatever we could do to make this bill go through the House, we would.
I want to thank the Wellington City Council too. The Wellington City Council, I know, has been very keen to have clarification of what has been some confusion around its role in the stewardship of this town belt, and it has wanted that for some time. I also want to thank Councillor Helene Ritchie, who has always had a great interest not only in the city but also in the environmental aspect of our city and in how unique our city is in terms of this town belt. As Grant Robertson said, the staff are often overlooked when it comes to giving credit, but I want to ensure that credit is also given to the staff of Wellington City Council.
In Grant Robertson’s contribution, he mentioned Joan Quinn, and I too want to talk about Joan. Joan is actually a constituent of mine, and she and Cynthia Wainwright shifted from Nelson very soon after I was elected. One of the first meetings I had with Joan was about the town belt. You might wonder why someone from Nelson was suddenly interested in the Wellington town belt. It was because Joan had done her Master’s thesis on the town belt. She had an enduring and long interest in this unique green encirclement of Wellington. So for many years, along with other friends and guardians, Joan Quinn has worked to have this day. I too am sorry that she cannot be here to witness it, but I am sure that Grant will send her the transcript of the excellent debate that is taking place for the third reading.
It is a unique part of Wellington. It is unique because it is a horseshoe-shaped green and open space, and it runs from the border of Wellington Central and the Rongotai electorates, across Mount Victoria, and it goes right across to Wadestown and to the borders of Ōhāriu. We cannot be like Christchurch, where, in the middle of that city, they have Hagley Park. You know, they are so proud of Hagley Park in Christchurch because of this big green open area, playing area, trees, recreation—a fantastic place is Hagley Park. We are a city on the side of a hill on a harbour. It is very difficult, other than having the Basin Reserve as a big green area in the middle of our city. But what we have had, and we have it now for the best part of 170 years, is this horse-shaped green area—
Paul Foster-Bell: Horseshoe.
Hon ANNETTE KING: —that has become so popular and so important. Horseshoe-shaped—horseshoe-shaped. I see Mr Foster-Bell is getting a bit confused over there. It is a horseshoe-shaped town belt, Mr Foster-Bell. Come and have a look at the Rongotai part. You probably have not been over there.
This is a very unique part of Wellington, and I will tell you why: the public love it. They value it. It is a public recreational area. And for those who do not live in Wellington, I just want to tell them that on any day of the week if you go and look at the town belt, you will see people out there walking their dogs, pushing pushchairs, jogging. This is an area that a city right on the edge of a harbour can use for recreation and green space. It gives us the feeling that we have a lot more space than actually exists in the Wellington area. It is unique. I think it is probably unique in the world to have this town belt and the protection of it. So it has been really important that it has been protected.
I think one of the problems that Grant Robertson pointed out, right from the beginning when he introduced this bill, is that there has been a lack of clarity on some of the core aspects of the role given to the council under the deed that was set up for the town belt. We really—and, I think, the council and the residents of Wellington—wanted that to be fixed. What the bill does do is give very clear definitions as to what the roles are. I think that is really important—that the different roles the council has are clearly, clearly set out.
I think one of the things that has excited me about this bill has been the ability to add more land to the town belt, because time—[Interruption] Yes, I am going to talk about that in a moment. Time has been frozen—it goes back to the original creation of the town belt in 1873, and it has been frozen in terms of adding extra land to the town belt. This bill allows it, and I think I heard Grant Robertson say that an extra 120 hectares will be added. Think about how often that happens in a city—where you are able to add more open land in the entire city surrounds. It is very difficult when you have more houses being built and urbanisation, but this will enable another 120 hectares to be added.
I do want to just mention one area that was able to be added, and that was the old chest hospital. The old chest hospital—you can access it from Alexandra Road, if you have not been to it—is now the home of the SPCA. It was derelict. It sat there for years with nothing happening and, as Minister of Health, I was responsible for handing the chest hospital over to the Wellington City Council for $1. That has now become a really important activity in that old chest hospital, but it is part of the town belt. If you go up there on a Saturday, you will see dozens of people walking up to look at the SPCA and its activities, and enjoying the town belt. So it was able to be added, but that was not the case for the Telecom land, and so this bill will enable it to be added.
I am delighted that we have reached this stage of the bill, and we will certainly be having a celebration tonight for the work that has been done. I noted that Scott Simpson, when he spoke, said that the Local Government and Environment Committee had heard from 300 individuals and organisations through the submissions. That means a lot of people had a lot of interest in it, and this is their day to celebrate as well. I would have grave doubts that there were many who opposed us keeping the town belt in Wellington.
Can I say, in conclusion, to Grant Robertson, well done. Well done, Wellington City Council. Well done, the councillors and the staff of Wellington City Council. This is a red-letter day—a day when we are passing legislation that is going to enshrine our town belt for ever for the people of Wellington.
PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. It is reasonably rare in this House that we on this side praise our opponents sitting opposite, but I do want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on having introduced and stewarded through in this House all three readings this bill, the Wellington Town Belt Bill, which is to the member’s credit and of great use and value to the people of Wellington. I want to join others in offering my congratulations to the hard-working officials—the staff of the Wellington City Council—but also the parliamentary officials, the advisers that we had, those who have assisted with the drafting of the bill, and all others who have been involved in advancing this important and very timely piece of legislation.
As someone interested in history, I want to touch on some of the background to how we got to where we are today. Wellington is not unique in New Zealand in having a town belt. Of course, Dunedin is the other town belt that we think of today, although Wellington’s is by far the biggest and best, I have to say, at 625 hectares, which was originally established in colonial times, compared with 225 hectares in the Edinburgh of the South. But those two cities were not alone either in having town belts, and I think we should remember today that New Plymouth, Christchurch, Invercargill, and Port Chalmers also had town belts. This land was deemed too valuable by the early settlers to be retained as recreation and undeveloped space and was developed very quickly. I am very, very grateful that this was not the case here in Wellington. We decided it was too valuable to lose to development, and retained it for that reason.
This is a local bill promoted by Wellington City Council, and it aims to protect the land of the Wellington town belt, modernise the governance arrangements—the 1873 trust is being modified in this legislation—and to preserve the land hereafter for the benefit of the people of Wellington. The select committee process that was followed, in my view, was excellent, and I want to put on record my congratulations to the very fine chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, my colleague Scott Simpson, the MP from the Coromandel, who did an excellent job of ensuring that the 31 submissions from interested groups and individuals were heard and given due consideration and that we took on board some of the issues that were raised, because it is fair to say that there have been some amendments to the initial draft of the legislation. These amendments are actually very important for the people of Wellington.
A significant issue that was raised with the original draft of the bill was the removal of the applicability of the Public Works Act. This was an issue that was brought up by the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, among others, which called into question the wisdom of removing the applicability of the Public Works Act and, in particular, introducing special consultation provisions around the use of town belt land for absolutely essential infrastructure or, in fact, emergency use. Another submitter that did take exception to this part of the original drafting was the Wellington Electricity Lines company, which pointed out that in the event of an emergency situation—for instance an earthquake—the ability to temporarily erect high-tension lines through the town belt to power Wellington Hospital over in Newtown, for instance, would be something that would either require some sort of special emergency empowering legislation or could be done via the Public Works Act.
So I think it was actually wise of the committee, having taken on board those suggestions, to make the amendments to this bill. It avoids the controversy of this bill being seen to block crucial infrastructure projects. Too often Wellington has been set back by crucial transport infrastructure—like the Basin Reserve, for instance, and the bypass there, which would have actually brought that up to date and to where it needs to be, given that is a traffic intersection that is at over 100 percent capacity. It is at something like 105 percent capacity at the moment, and getting worse. We would not have wanted legislation that would prevent that kind of important infrastructure, which is absolutely essential to enable our capital city to continue to thrive and grow and develop, so I was very glad to see that was dealt with in the amendments that were adopted during the committee stage, and have been very well gone through during the Committee of the whole House here, as well.
I do agree with the comments made by Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, who said the most important thing was getting a bill before the select committee, where the feedback and changes could occur. Like other members of the committee, I was listening to submitters, including Land Information New Zealand, which also backed up the points made by the chamber of commerce and the electrical lines company around the issues to do with not having the Public Works Act applicable to the town belt.
This is now a very good piece of legislation. It does protect the town belt as it currently is and also gives the provision to add in or reclaim parts of the town belt that have been alienated. In fact, it now is a condition that the council finds itself imposed with that it is not in a position where it can alienate land from the town belt without having to use the proceeds from that to further enhance the town belt by the addition of new land.
The point has been made by members opposite that some of the land that has been taken in the past is being put to public use. So it is not the simple planted slopes or the forest land that the majority of the town belt is, which is available for the public to walk through. I think that is a very, very important part of the town belt.
The Vice Regal Park, which is added on to the back of the Government House grounds, is a public amenity. It is something that is enjoyed by people when they are visiting Government House, and I think we should note that His Excellency the Governor-General, the Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae, has really opened up Government House, more so than any previous Governor-General, with the addition of a good visitors centre and more frequent school visits, and has also opened up the house itself to visitors during occasions such as investitures of those New Zealanders who have achieved a royal honour. So those going to visit the house have an opportunity now to explore the house and the grounds more than they ever have in the past, and this is something that I think is a welcome development. It is also using that land that was once part of the town belt and now forms part of the viceregal residence and grounds for a public purpose, even if it is not a walking track that might be openly available for every member of the public to walk through at will. So it is certainly not a case of town belt land being privatised or being used for commercial purposes.
I agree with the comments made by Grant Robertson that it is actually a good thing that there are limits to the amount of town belt land that can be even temporarily rented out, leased, or given some usage rights for the operation of, maybe, a sporting type facility. It could be recreational facilities or it could even be an ice cream stall or a public convenience of some sort—an amenity of that kind. That limit of 8 hectares of town belt land that can be used for these purposes, I think, is very reasonable, and that was something that I am pleased to say there was cross-party support for. So I want to add my voice of praise for the town belt to the voices of colleagues who have spoken so far.
The inner town belt—the 625 original hectares, which has now been whittled away to around about 400 hectares—is in a horseshoe shape, Mrs King. We could call it a boomerang shape or a half-moon shape. It is certainly not in the shape of a horse, as the member alleged earlier. That horseshoe-shaped piece of land that stretches from Mount Victoria through to Te Ahumairangi Hill in the north-east is actually supplemented by a larger, outer belt. There is almost 5,000 hectares of green space that goes from the south coast around to Colonial Knob in Tawa.
Scott Simpson: Where?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Colonial Knob, Mr Simpson, in the Tawa area. So that wider or that outer town belt is a collection of national park, conservation space, private space—both protected and publicly available and also private lands—that does form a beautiful adjunct to the central town belt. That is in a roughly horseshoe/circular shape.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!
PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise to support this bill and it is with great pleasure that the Green Party is supporting this local bill in the name of Grant Robertson, the MP for Wellington Central. It is fantastic that we are finally here tonight. I do not need to remind members—it has been well canvassed in the debates—that it has taken an awfully long time to get here when you consider the original visioning of the town belt from 1839 through to the town belt deed in 1879, to more than a hundred years later when Grant Robertson, I understand, first got involved all the way back in 2001, and to the official process kicking off in 2010. Here we are in 2016 in the third reading of this legislation, and it is fantastic to be here cleaning up the various statutes, reserves, and deeds that relate to what is a very special part of our city—I believe a taonga—not only for Wellingtonians but for all New Zealanders, being in our capital city.
First of all, I would like to thank and acknowledge the many people who have been involved. First of all, Grant, I think this is a testament to perseverance in politics. It has taken a long time to get here, but it is a fantastic achievement. Obviously, the Wellington City Council has played a pivotal role in this legislation—
Paul Foster-Bell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I believe it is the convention in this House to refer to members by their surname or their electorate.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Thank you.
GARETH HUGHES: From the member who gave an embarrassing Star Wars speech before—incredible stuff.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. Mr Hughes, can you resume your seat. I treated the point of order in the way that I thought it deserved. You cannot refer to it.
GARETH HUGHES: I would like to continue the thanks and acknowledgment for the work that has gone on for the bill from the Wellington City Council, the various officials who were involved, the 250 submitters in that process through to the 30 submitters in the select committee process through our Parliament, and, of course, the Local Government and Environment Committee chair, Scott Simpson. It is great that so many people have come together to protect what is a taonga for our city.
Reflecting personally, it is every day that I scooter with my kids to school past the botanical gardens part of it. In my student days my flat backed almost on to Mount Victoria, and I will not share any student stories with the House tonight. In my married days we lived in the Aro Valley and we would often walk up Polhill Reserve to the Brooklyn wind turbine. Through to today, in my days off one of my favourite things is walking with my dog, Joe, the German shepherd, up Te Ahumairangi Hill—up to the top there, to the radio mast. It is an incredibly special place, and I am sure all Wellingtonians have their own unique, special stories about this part of our capital city, which we love.
It is fantastic that we are passing legislation unanimously. As often is the case with local bills, it is passed unanimously, often non-controversially. In a later part of my speech I will touch the single concern that we have with this legislation. But, first of all, it is a real improvement to the status quo. What the area has been operating in is a hodgepodge of the Reserves Act, the original 1879 town deed, and various other statutes—the Public Works Act, for example. It is good to sort of rationalise this in one place.
A key problem has been that it has been impossible to add land into the town belt. Land has previously been taken out, but it has been impossible to add it in. So to, I guess, introduce a dieting methodology, we have actually been tightening the belt with this legislation. We are protecting and strengthening particularly the powers under the Reserves Act and, critically, more land will be introduced to Wellington’s town belt as a result of this third reading and the consequent signature by the Governor-General to add 120 hectares of land to that.
Crucially, it recognises the history of mana whenua and also a co-management role when it comes to managing this incredible part of our city. I would like to acknowledge Te Atiawa, Ngāti Ruanui, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama—which together comprise Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika—and Ngāti Toa Rangatira. It is an incredibly positive step for New Zealand to be acknowledging their historical role but also a role going forward—which, I am sure, will be much longer in length than the existence of the town belt—together in a partnership. When you just look at the principles of the legislation, you get a sense of what Parliament is achieving tonight, which is protecting the landscape character of the town belt, enhancing it, supporting healthy, indigenous ecosystems, and making sure that the Wellington town belt is accessible for all to enjoy, including for a wide range of recreational activities.
My final point, which is not to take away from the very positive step that this legislation represents, is the concern we had about clause 23. Obviously, the original legislation was amended in the select committee—clause 23, which relates to the Public Works Act. The member Paul Foster-Bell, who spoke before me, I believe introduced an incredibly weak and, I think, false argument that this needed to change because of the potential earthquake risk and insecurity of the supply of electricity to the hospital. That is a smokescreen. The reason for this, of course, is that the Government is determined to try to ram through a seven-lane motorway on the Hātaitai side of the Mount Victoria tunnel, down Ruahine Street. No one in Wellington, I wager—and I think it is a reasonable assumption—would object to an emergency electricity supply. Can any member envision that scenario happening? Yet that is exactly the argument Paul Foster-Bell is using when the select committee removed reference to Wellingtonians as interested parties with the ability to object to acquisition under the Public Works Act. I believe it is a ridiculous scenario and example—that some Wellingtonian would object in the event of a major earthquake to maintaining electricity supply to the hospital.
Of course it was a political argument—right? The argument was not really about that. It was because the member could not say the words that he really meant, which were that the Government wants to ram through a seven-lane motorway and it wants to eat into the town belt to achieve it. This is exactly why the clause was amended in the select committee.
However, on the whole, this legislation is a considerable improvement, despite this. The way we are going to protect the houses in that region and the way we are going to make sure Wellingtonians get better transport choices—including light rail through to the airport and better bus services, which do not require a seven-lane motorway—is, of course, the general election next year.
This legislation is a considerable improvement on what is a very special place for Wellingtonians and for mana whenua, and that is why we are very proud of and privileged to have the work that Grant and the rest of the team have put into it, and we are glad that we can support it with our votes in Parliament tonight. Kia ora.
BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this Wellington Town Belt Bill at its third reading. I will commend the sponsoring member’s efforts in this, but today, as has been mentioned earlier, is May the fourth, and may this day always be with us. It is also known to the many fans as Star Wars Day. This is a very serious and important debate. The lead up to it was somewhat quite interesting, because as I watched some of it on television and some of it in this Chamber, there were a few references to Star Wars Day going around. A colleague on my side was suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition was Palpatine—some evil emperor. I think he was trying to portray the persona of a young Obi-Wan Kenobi. Then Mr Tabuteau was also making certain references, which I could not quite make out, but I am a Star Wars fan and the character that sprang to mind for me was Jar Jar Binks.
But we move on to the Wellington Town Belt Bill. I would like to commend Grant Robertson for his exemplary, excellent work and commitment to seeing this local bill introduced and passed through the House with unanimous support. Mr Robertson raised the town belt in his maiden speech, and it has stuck with him, not only as words in his speech but as actions. He was clearly committed to doing something about it. Along with commending his resolution and dedication to this, I will also acknowledge the elected councillors, the mayor, and the officials of Wellington City Council for their perseverance and also, quite frankly, their willingness to compromise and accept that it is better to have a bill pass through the House that strengthens the Wellington town belt and protects it for all of Wellington than to spend more years arguing—perhaps from an ideological basis and some sense of pure vision—about a bill that might not receive sufficient support in the House to be passed.
Here we are, at this point, and the bill was introduced into the House only a few short months ago. Although it has taken a long time for the bill to come to the House, it has gone through the proceedings of the House in fairly short order. Here this evening we are all, I think, very, very confident that this bill will be passed in this third reading unanimously.
Just as we work through this, I think it is important to also give some consideration as to how and why this belt is so important to Wellingtonians. As has been mentioned, it is a horseshoe-shaped ring that, basically, frames the city from around Mount Victoria through to, as has been mentioned, Te Ahumairangi Hill, which ends at the edge of the Ōhāriu electorate. In a very real sense it frames the city, and you could say—and what I like about it—it harnesses in many respects the good qualities and the energy of this fine city, particularly as we seek to project ourselves into the globe and build upon our creative industries and our ICT, as well as our traditional light manufacturing and primary industries. As Wellington seeks to retain its status as a thriving, vibrant, and growing powerhouse within New Zealand, we have this belt that helps to showcase our city. I think it is actually a quality, a characteristic, of the city that the inhabitants—both long-term and perhaps more transitory—actually see real value in it.
That brings us to why we have reached this point today, and why Wellingtonians would see it as so important and worthwhile to protect the town belt into the future. It is because its status has never been perhaps quite as certain as members and inhabitants would have liked. As has been pointed out by members in the debate so far, it actually started off as a larger holding than it is today. It was in excess of 500 hectares, but today it is roughly around about 400 hectares, so there have been points in its history when, despite the trust deeds and despite the nature in which it was first gifted, the land within the town belt has not always been so sacrosanct to the governance within the city that it might not be pared off for other purposes.
What this bill will do is not only ensure that the 400 hectares that comprise the belt today are protected but—as members have pointed out; both Grant himself, the Hon Annette King, and my colleague Paul Foster-Bell—it will give the ability for the council to add to the town belt. Around approximately 120 to 130 additional hectares of land will be added to the belt following the passing of this bill. Not only does it give the inhabitants of Wellington absolute certainty as to the protection and status of their town belt but it actually does not prevent the town belt from expanding, in time, in ways that might be appropriate to the inhabitants of Wellington as expressed through their elected officials—the mayor and councillors of the city.
But I think the value of the town belt is more than as a simple visual pleasure or a continuance of a green space in Wellington. It is actually used for a number of worthwhile activities. One of the uses of the town belt is as a sport and recreation facility. For many, many years there has been a velodrome in the Hātaitai section of the town belt, and it is also home to a Wellington rugby club. From my personal perspective particularly, my daughter plays netball at the netball facilities at Hātaitai Park very regularly through each winter, and not alone—many, many hundreds of Wellingtonians—
Carmel Sepuloni: You can’t play netball by yourself.
BRETT HUDSON: —play netball in that fine facility. It provides a space for many teams to play simultaneously on separate courts. I am afraid not all members quite understood that very clear reference, but I am happy to educate them and help their understanding a little. One does understand on this side of the House that they are often much in need of that.
However, the town belt itself is used for many, many good purposes for Wellington residents, with sport being one of them. That is actually important—the ability to do not only those particular activities but activities that the inhabitants of Wellington would deem worthy. It is very important that those activities are protected, because throughout this process, as people have pointed out—there were about 300 submissions to the council and there were 31 submissions made to the select committee here, of which about 21 or so were heard in person. Amongst those submitters—because some certainly came to see me—there were people with very well-intentioned motives, but if their particular wants had been translated into the bill, they might actually have prevented some of those activities that, as I have said, the inhabitants of Wellington value within the town belt. They may have seen those activities curtailed, if not completely removed. They really wanted an absolutely pure green space.
But what the bill is going to do, as it does pass into legislation following this reading, is it is going to protect the power of the council to grant either leases or, most likely—as council members have themselves expressed—licences for activities to occur, including some commercial activities in the belt. For instance, in the sporting facilities that I mentioned just a couple of minutes ago, parents—most often parents—while watching their children play sport are now able to actually go to the cafeteria. They get a coffee, get some food—healthy food, too, I might add—and enjoy that while they are watching their children play sport. Their ability to do that is actually because the council can offer licences—more likely licences than leases. The council can offer operators the ability to provide certain services in the town belt and, if some submitters’ wants had been expressed in the legislation, those services may—in fact, would have been—curtailed. That would not necessarily be the best thing for Wellington.
I think that actually brings us to the heart of what is most important about this bill, not necessarily in terms of the text of the bill, but in terms of what it is seeking to achieve and, I believe we all agree, will achieve—that is, it is going to protect a green space for the inhabitants of Wellington. They will get to choose what that space will be used for over its lifetime. Through their elected officials, through the council, and through the officials within the council, the will of Wellingtonians as to the green space that can be protected in their environment and how it can be added to and how it can be used as an amenity for the values of the citizens, the inhabitants, of Wellington—this bill protects that.
I think it is an incredibly important piece of legislation for this city and its environs. I think the value of it stretches beyond just the inhabitants within the city council area but also to people in the Hutt Valley, to Porirua, even to the Kāpiti coast—to the region as a whole. It is an absolute privilege to stand in the House and speak in this third reading, and I commend this bill to the House.
RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is an unusual thing when unity and harmony break out in the House of Representatives and you have a situation where not only is the House unanimous in its support for a member’s bill but also it is actually speaker after speaker, even on the Government’s side—yes, I say that. Even the Government’s side has today been generous towards all people who have worked on and contributed towards what will be the passage of this piece of legislation.
I will start, on behalf of New Zealand First, by giving our congratulations, firstly to Marian Hobbs, an old friend of mine from down in Christchurch. I do remember the days when I stood for Labour against Ruth Richardson, the architect of the black Budget, the “mother of all Budgets”. That was in what was known as the Selwyn electorate, and Marian Hobbs succeeded me to stand for Selwyn in the by-election that saw the Hon David Carter enter Parliament, because I chose not to stand for Labour, actually. I do note that Marian came third in that one, whereas I actually came second, but never mind—a close second. But never mind, that was history. It is funny how history goes.
But also I want to pass on congratulations, most sincerely, to Grant Robertson, and I thank the Hon Annette King for the support that she has steadfastly given him throughout what has been a long, arduous process to bring us to this point here and now. Thanks also to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the way in which, I think, all members have tackled some of the issues that have vexed some members of the community. But I am very confident that New Zealand First is lending its support to a very worthwhile piece of legislation, and we look forward to maybe celebrating this a little bit later on.
I think sometimes when you get to this speaking slot—I have said it before—almost everything that needs to be said about the legislation and the process has been said, so I am going to try something different. Firstly, I am going to acknowledge the advisers to the select committee, the Department of Internal Affairs and Land Information New Zealand, which provided not one, not two, but three reports to the select committee during the passage. What started out as a very simple report on 6 November 2015, I note, blew out quite substantially. For those who are listening on the radio, you cannot see it, but I am holding up a very slim document, which consisted of only eight or nine pages—four pages, backed. This blew out to be quite a substantive document. I see Mr Grant Robertson is having a good chuckle there, because come 3 December 2015 the issues were somewhat more complex, one should say.
That was followed up by a further supplementary report from the two departments, which was given to the select committee on 8 February 2016. For anybody listening who thinks that there was not due, solid consideration given to the many technical issues that arose, have a read of those three departmental reports. That might enlighten those people somewhat.
I also want to recognise some of those people who came before the select committee: Friends of the Wellington Town Belt, Wellington City Youth Council, Mt Victoria Residents’ Association, Craig Palmer, Transpower New Zealand—interesting—Joan Quinn, Judith Graykowski, John Christopher Horne, the Wellington City Council—and, I know, the mayor specifically—Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, Mike Oates, Nick Chapman, Adam Holloway, and, particularly Councillor Helene Ritchie, who put a lot of effort into the production of the bill and getting it into the process whereby it might pass. Wellington Water presented, and the New Zealand Transport Agency, of course. Mt Victoria Historical Society made a submission, as did Tim Bollinger, Ellen Blake, Wellington Botanical Society—of course, you would naturally expect to have a good submission from the Wellington Botanical Society—and Victoria Lamb. The one comment from Victoria Lamb that stood out for me was that this process had been well consulted with the public, and by “this process”, I am referring to the consultative process taken up by the Wellington City Council and the select committee. Wellington Civic Trust submitted, as did Action for Environment and the Greater Kelburn Progressive Association.
I do want to pay particular attention to the efforts of Councillor Helene Ritchie, and she is here in the gallery today—hi, Helene. I had the joy and the pleasure of sitting with Helene on district health boards in my time out of the Chamber, and I know the value and the amount of work and effort that Helene Ritchie puts into the community and into trying to enhance the lives and well-being of people in communities. Whether that is on the health board, whether it is at city council, that has been her long track record, and I just want to compliment her on it.
If I go back to the report of 3 October 2014, when the decision was made to raise the bill, to have a bill brought to Parliament, a number of comments were made by Helene Ritchie. I think in that report she talked of: “In the words of the Queen’s Counsel who provided legal opinion: ‘the Bill better expresses in a complete way the basis upon which the Town Belt is to be made available and managed, better defines the council’s powers and provides for improved transparency in its decisionmaking’.” That pretty much sums up what the aim was from Wellington City Council, and particularly from Helene Ritchie, at that time.
The report went on to state that a significant amount—well, I will leave it for you to read that. It was an interesting report that came through. It listed some 10 different points that the bill would aim to achieve, and stated: “This is the culmination of four and a half years’ work, and a great public contribution from hundreds of constructive, passionate Wellingtonians. As Portfolio Leader leading the process, I”—that is, Helene Ritchie—“have endeavoured to ensure meticulously word by word that through this Bill/Act, the Town Belt is and will be protected to the highest possible level for current and future generations. It has been one of the most rewarding, and sometimes challenging, roles in my time on the City Council.” That is a quote from Helene Ritchie, and I think it deserves to be read into the Hansard.
But looking at the passage of this bill, or the pathway that Wellington has walked to get to this point, one cannot help but reflect on a couple of things. One of the things I will reflect on is the comment in the speech earlier on from, I think, Scott Simpson, who said that green spaces promote the health and well-being of citizens. Could not agree more—could not agree more. I just do not understand why this Government removed health and well-being as those key things that local government is meant to consider in governing—
Hon Member: So they’ve stopped, have they? They needed to be told.
RON MARK: Well, I was there, Minister. I was there, at Local Government New Zealand at the time, and I unanimously opposed that change by this Government. But do not worry, the next Government will put it back. I will say that again: the next Government will put it back.
But I agree with Scott Simpson that health and well-being is an issue and those things can be enhanced by having green spaces and green belts such as this. I do lament, if we go back in history again and look at Christchurch and the situation that it faced back in 1991, when we had the Greenbelt Protection Society, which fought so stridently to retain the green belt—something that is lost but, ironically, might well be restored as one of the consequences of the planning that is going on down there in the aftermath of the earthquakes. But, again, how ironic that one of the people who sought to undermine the green belt and actually bring about those changes that saw land loss was a National Minister of Finance by the name of Ruth Richardson.
Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, and I just say that because, in this air of unanimity and conviviality, we do sometimes need to take a reality check and remind ourselves of our track record—and it is not all roses. But this point is a high point.
I want to note a couple of submissions in particular, and I will cut through—looking at the time—to a submission from the Wellington City Youth Council. There is a paragraph there, the third paragraph, that states: “We support the changes to the legal framework surrounding the town belt to modernise the future management. Given the historical problems with land development along the Town Belt, this new framework is well overdue to create a new legal precedent for future decisions which is modern and relevant.” This is a very pertinent paragraph and summary from the Wellington City Youth Council, and for that, we as a committee thank it.
New Zealand First supports this legislation. We congratulate everybody who has been heavily involved in its production and passage, and we will be supporting it with our vote.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): They used to call that medium-paced trundler for the Black Caps Gavin Larsen, “The Postman”, because he always delivered. Ron Mark is a bit like that with his speeches—he always delivers. That speech really was extraordinary. It had everything. It had philosophy, quoting Santayana. It had the ode to Helene Ritchie. It had the hubris—you know, the promise from the Opposition cross benches that a future New Zealand First - led Government will bring back health and well-being in the Local Government Act. It had the grandiloquence that always comes with Mr Mark’s speeches. It had the history, the stories of the past—the failed selection attempts, or the failed campaigns down in Canterbury. But it happened to be very boring at the same time. What an extraordinary speech. Who knows how he does it, but Ron Mark always delivers.
I have been offshore for a few weeks—
Grant Robertson: Who are you—Ewen Chatfield?
CHRIS BISHOP: A good Hutt Valley man, Ewen Chatfield—a good Hutt Valley cricketer. Still playing club cricket, old Ewen—I played against him for the parliamentary team earlier this year. A great guy.
I have been offshore for a few weeks, and I was eagerly watching the House and wondering what bill I would speak on first when I came back from being offshore. I was wondering: “Will it be following the redoubtable David Bennett on a finance bill, having to rebut some of the things that Grant Robertson said and having to deal with the things that Grant says to David? Or would it be following Mr Twyford on a housing bill, and listening to the flecked anger that comes across the House? Or would be the Wellington Town Belt Bill?”.
It is the Wellington Town Belt Bill that I have to speak on, and it actually is a pleasure because, as I said in the second reading debate on this bill, the Wellington town belt is a taonga of Wellington. Wellingtonians probably actually take it for granted, in some ways. They do not probably ever turn their minds to the legal status of the town belt, and, as I said in the second reading, it is hard to imagine Wellington without that 500 hectares of open space that is available for all Wellingtonians to enjoy.
I want to pay tribute to a few groups and people. I want to pay tribute to Grant Robertson, the local member who has shepherded this bill through. Actually, it was not until Grant was speaking about the bill that he made reference to Marian Hobbs. I was not aware that Marian Hobbs—I mean, I should have really thought about it. Of course Marian Hobbs would have been involved as the former local member but also as a former Minister for the Environment, although that, to be fair, was a slightly unhappy tenure for her. But she was a former Minister for the Environment and a noted lover of green spaces.
One of the first rugby matches I ever attended in my life at Athletic Park was with Marian Hobbs. It was that South African test in 1998 when Carlos Spencer missed about six goals in a row, and we lost in that terrible season of 1998. Marian Hobbs is an old family friend, and I want to pay tribute to her—watching, no doubt, from wherever she is at the moment—for the work she has done on this bill, and to Grant as well.
I want to pay tribute to Mayor Celia Wade-Brown. These are exciting times in Wellington at the moment. I think we are up to seven declared mayoral candidates for the local elections later in the year. These are exciting times, with the Labour Party splitting asunder with various candidates, and, it is fair to say, with the centre-right splitting as well. So, anyway, these are interesting times in Wellington. Mayor Celia has been a champion of the Wellington town belt for many years and, I know, has worked with Grant on this bill.
I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee—
Scott Simpson: For shame.
CHRIS BISHOP: Well, indeed. As my good colleague Scott Simpson, the chair, points out: “For shame.” It was a shame, but look, you cannot be everywhere at once, and no doubt there were other matters occupying me at the time.
I want to pay tribute to the Wellington City Council, to Helene Ritchie—who I see is here in the gallery—and also to the people on the Local Government and Environment Committee, who worked really well.
I was reading some of the history of the Wellington town belt in the preamble to the bill, and I was slightly interested to discover that the Basin Reserve—you know, that famous ground down at the end of Cambridge Terrace and Adelaide Road in Wellington. It is the scene of some of New Zealand’s greatest sporting triumphs, and some of our lowlights over the years as well. I was interested to discover that way back in the day, some years after the New Zealand Company turned up on the shores of Pētone in 1839, the Basin Reserve, along with the town belt and the Canal Reserve—the Basin Reserve was part of the town belt by dint of the execution of the Town Belt Deed. The three parcels of land were known as the town belt, the Canal Reserve, and the Basin Reserve. Of course, over the passage of time the Basin Reserve has been removed from the town belt, which is probably for the best, and is governed in other ways.
But it is just a fascinating aspect of history, really. It is interesting to note that great sporting vista that is the Basin—it is not really ever known as the Basin Reserve by Wellingtonians; it is just known as the Basin, and it is somewhere where I have spent many a summer’s day on the embankment over the years—used to be part of the Wellington town belt.
But just to return to where I started this somewhat rambling speech—
James Shaw: Where was that?
CHRIS BISHOP: Indeed. Just to return to where I started, about how the Wellington town belt is a treasure—
Alastair Scott: Ron Mark.
CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I started with Ron Mark, but, look, I do not think that any speech that starts with Ron Mark and ends with Ron Mark is going to go down in Hansard as a champion speech. So I probably will not end my speech by talking about Ron Mark, but I want to end my speech by talking about the subject of the bill—always a novel concept in Parliament on a members’ day—which is the Wellington town belt.
I want to talk about what a treasure it is and talk about how, actually, most people probably never turn their mind to the legal status of the town belt. They never think about the way in which it is governed. They probably never think about the legal niceties. They never think about some of the complications that come with reserves and things like that. They just know that it is there, and they want it to be there because every day and every weekend, and particularly on the weekends, not only Wellingtonians but also people from the Hutt Valley, where I hail from and am based now; people from farther up the Hutt Valley; and people from Wairarapa, where Alastair Scott hails from, and Ōhāriu, where Mr Hudson, my colleague sitting here, hails from, enjoy the Wellington town belt in all of its munificent glory. It is great that we have unanimity in the House tonight on the passage of this very important piece of legislation.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. I call James Shaw—5 minutes.
JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): It is a great pleasure for me to rise, as a Wellingtonian and as a member of Parliament based in Wellington, to speak on behalf of the Wellington Town Belt Bill as it goes through its final reading and enters into law. As many of the other speakers have done, I would like to start by congratulating a number of people, starting with the Local Government and Environment Committee—in particular, the chair, Scott Simpson—on shepherding this bill through and doing so, I thought, in a very even-handed manner with a very fine hand on parliamentary process.
I also congratulate the officers who supported this bill, both the officers of Parliament and also, and in particular, the Wellington City Council officers, who delivered to Parliament before the first reading a near-perfect bill, pretty much ready to sail through. They had done a colossal amount of work in getting the bill ready for entry into Parliament—a bill that was messed with in only a few, but very important, ways, which I will refer to in a minute. I think that they did a terrific job of getting it to the starting line of parliamentary process.
I also want to pay tribute to the member for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, whom I have had the pleasure and privilege of standing alongside at a number of elections—
Phil Twyford: “Standing against”, I think you meant.
JAMES SHAW: —alongside, alongside—in recent years. Although the bill has been in development since 2010 officially, Grant informs me that his first consultation with a key stakeholder on this bill goes back as far as 2001, when there was another MP in place at the time and when the idea that he might become the MP for Wellington Central was merely a glint in Mr Robertson’s eye.
Most of all, however, I want to congratulate the people of Wellington. Whether you were heavily involved with this as a city councillor or as an officer or as someone who was involved with a local community organisation that made a submission on the bill, or whether you are a Wellingtonian who had nothing to do with the bill at all—you may occasionally use the town belt, perhaps quite infrequently, but gazing out upon it often—congratulations on the passage of this bill, which does secure the future of the town belt and its expansion and its health and its good management into the future. I think it is terrific that we are passing this bill, and I am delighted that the Green Party is able to support it.
Given that this is a debate, I do want to debate a few points from an earlier speech given by another Wellington-based MP, Mr Paul Foster-Bell, who I think painted an interesting picture of why it was that clause 23 was swapped out from the original bill and replaced, so that it would be subject to the Public Works Act. I think that Wellingtonians will be delighted to learn from Mr Paul Foster-Bell that the Government’s changes to clause 23 were entirely because of the probability that at some point in the future, in an emergency, we will need to string some electricity lines over to the Wellington Regional Hospital and they had nothing to do at all with the Government’s intention to put a seven-lane motorway along the Ruahine Street side of the town belt. I am sure that Wellingtonians will also be delighted to learn that the Government’s changes to clause 23 were entirely because of the submission from the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, and had nothing to do at all with the Government’s intention to put a seven-lane motorway through the Ruahine Street side of the Wellington town belt. It was a disingenuous point and, as my colleague Gareth Hughes said earlier, one weakly made.
The town belt is a huge asset in the natural capital of Wellington, and I think we can look at it as if it was just a patch of land cloaked in green, surrounding the city, but it is so much more than that. It is a huge part of the natural capital that makes Wellington what it is. It adds to our social capital. It makes Wellington what Sir Paul Callaghan called “a place where talent wants to live”. It is an absolute delight to be able to stand in support of the bill as it makes its final way through the House. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Meka Whaitiri—5 minutes.
MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. In late August 1974, as a 9-year-old, I travelled with my uncle, leaving the metropolis of Gisborne called Manutuke, to Wellington to spend some time with my older cousin, a former member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga, a former representative rugby player for Wellington, one of the Māori All Blacks, and a member of the All Blacks. His name was Tūtekawa Wyllie, or informally known as Tū Wyllie.
Ron Mark: A good New Zealand First MP.
MEKA WHAITIRI: And, of course, a member of New Zealand First. It was on that trip that I got the opportunity to attend a lot of his rugby practices with the Wellington rep team. I have got to say that the people whom he played with—Stu Wilson, Bernie Fraser, Allan Hewson, and Paul Quinn—were almost the All Blacks back line. I recall attending one of his practices at the old Macalister Park. When his practice was concluded—back in those days we had what were called carless days—Tū, I, and his partner at the time, Margaret, returned to their home in Brooklyn via the park behind Macalister Park.
I share that story because it has a couple of significant milestones for me. First and foremost, it was my first visit to Wellington. It started a passion that meant I knew I would come back and reside here. I ended up living here continuously for 7 months short of 25 years. Secondly, sport. I was a proud representative netball player for Wellington for many, many years, along with my colleague Louisa Wall, and represented this country. Thirdly, it got me into the very place that is the subject of this bill, which I am pleased is passing through this House, which is the Wellington town belt. Not only did I go through that part of Wellington up to Brooklyn but there would be many suburbs in my 25-year association with Greater Wellington that I am proud have helped me in terms of exercising but also recreational sport. I am talking mainly about places like Boundary Road, where the botanical gardens are; parts of Highbury; and, of course, just today—I get up when I can get up—I travelled up to the Mount Victoria walkway. It is something that I like to enjoy before I head into this place of Parliament.
I am pleased and proud that, finally, the Wellington Town Belt Bill is getting passed to protect the very thing that many—not only Wellingtonians but all New Zealanders—have come to appreciate, which is the Government’s protection and modernisation arrangements for the Wellington town belt.
Those members who have spoken previously have talked about the important parts of the bill. Can I please, in the time that we have available, talk about the preamble. I think the preamble is an innovative way in which we tell our colonial history through legislation. To those who had the foresight to include the whakataukī and also acknowledge the mana whenua, the tangata whenua, can I mihi to you all. As a former Treaty negotiator, I say that we have some rich history, both good and bad, but it is a history that is, none the less, our history and it needs to be told. So I want to acknowledge the people who were behind the foresight in the preamble and the whakataukī, and the acknowledgment of the mana whenua.
There has been a lot of acknowledgment of people’s efforts in presenting this bill. I too want to join in acknowledging those who put the bill together. There was mention of former MP Marian Hobbs. I want to acknowledge the Wellington City Council, the staff of the Wellington City Council, the Local Government and Environment Committee—which I am proudly a member of—and all the staff who support us and the officials.
But I too want to join with our deputy leader, the Hon Annette King, in acknowledging the role of our colleague here, Grant Robertson, for persevering and, finally, 8 years later, getting this bill across the line. The way in which he has got all members and all parties across the House to support the bill is testament to Grant’s resolve to see this bill pass. I do not have much more to add, but I say congratulations to Grant and to all the city councillors on seeing this bill pass its third reading. I commend the bill to the House.
ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): It gives me great pleasure to speak for the first time on this bill. I am very pleased to support it. Like the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, I will also reflect on some of the experiences that I have had in the town belt. But, first of all, I would like to reflect on the aesthetics of the town belt. We all fly into Wellington regularly, and on a blue-sky day, coming across the—is it a horseshoe-shaped harbour, or is it a lagoon-shaped harbour? What is the shape of the harbour? It is a beautiful, round harbour.
Scott Simpson: A crescent moon.
ALASTAIR SCOTT: It is a crescent moon harbour. It is framed by a U-shaped, rather than horseshoe-shaped—
Dr Megan Woods: This is a debating point, surely.
ALASTAIR SCOTT: It must be a debating point. I am going to call it a U-shaped green belt. You are absolutely right—it is a debatable point. When one looks at a map, it is not quite U-shaped. It is a bit of a mishmash. But let us just agree—
Scott Simpson: A horseshoe shape.
ALASTAIR SCOTT: It is more or less a horseshoe shape. Coming across and landing at Wellington Airport is always a pleasure on a blue-sky day, and, as we know, on a windy day, which is often the case, it is maybe not such a pleasure.
Can I say that the aesthetics of the town belt are something to be cherished. I would also like to reflect on the fact that this is maybe not a unique situation but certainly an unusual situation, where a community can add green space to an already green space—the addition of 120-odd hectares in a capital city of the world. It must be quite an unusual situation that we find ourselves in.
I would also like to reflect on and acknowledge a few people. To start with I would just like to mention John Ward, who was the secretary of New Zealand Company and who had the foresight to set up what was a 1,500-odd acre town belt. He said at the time that it should be “public property on condition that no buildings be ever erected upon it”. Of course, with hindsight we now know that that was not the case. Nevertheless, that man had huge foresight, really, in understanding that this was going to be a major city—not the capital at the time, but a significant city—and that green space was important. Green space was important for the social make-up and benefit of the community.
So, reflecting on that man’s foresight, at this point I would like to acknowledge Grant Robertson’s foresight and acknowledge his initiative to ensure that the Wellington town belt is protected, managed, and enhanced. That is what this bill does—it secures the town belt. I suggest that that foresight is similar to, and reflects, the same sort of foresight that John Ward had so long ago, back in the day—there is no date; you will have to help me out here—probably in 1871 or so. So it is a very unique and unusual situation that we have, and thanks to Mr Robertson’s foresight we are here today at the third reading of this bill.
I did not really appreciate the town belt as a teenager. I was a student at Wellington College back in the day, and was using that town belt regularly—
Grant Robertson: What for?
ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well, we had an unusual physical education teacher. His name—
Grant Robertson: It’s getting better.
ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well, he was unusual in that he created a whole lot of cross-country champions out of Wellington College and, believe me, I was not one of those cross-country champions. His name was Brien McCrea. He was also unusual in that he was a founding member of the Bulldogs Allstar Goodtime Band.
Hon Jo Goodhew: Really?
ALASTAIR SCOTT: Absolutely. He was a tough guy—he always carried a cane around with him. He made us run from Wellington College down to the Basin Reserve, all the way along Adelaide Road and up Riddiford Street and Constable Street—which meant that we were then back in the green belt of Mount Victoria—and then along Alexandra Park and back down what we called the gut-buster. It was called the gut-buster, and it cut through, right between, Wellington College and Wellington East Girls’ College. If you know the place, it is a really steep climb going in reverse—which is what you got if you argued with the guy. You had to climb this thing called the gut-buster.
Of course, I did not know that I was walking across quite a unique green piece of dirt—this piece of dirt, this town belt—which, until today, was at risk. It was at risk of continuing to be eroded by those people who had managed the town belt since the early days of John Ward. So that is one of the things that I participated in in the town belt.
Of course, there is always the top of Mount Victoria. How many of you are going to admit to being parked up in a car at the top of Mount Victoria at sunset? How many people are going to admit to that? It is beautiful sight, and with a special person in a car at the top of Mount Victoria, looking out across Wellington City at sunset, you cannot beat it. Again, this whole experience is now protected because of the actions and initiative of Mr Robertson. So for generations people can continue to enjoy the Mount Victoria green belt, whether it is in the day, when running, or whether it is in the evening in a special place with a special person—
Todd Muller: In a special car.
ALASTAIR SCOTT: —in a special car. The other part that is often used—it is not part of the town belt, but it may as well be—is, of course, Wellington Botanic Garden. That is a place where a lot of people get a lot of use—not the same use, but a lot of use—a lot of cultural use, a lot of reflection, and a lot of exercise. I am not going to ask for a show of hands of those who go running through any part of the green belt at a regular time, but Meka Whaitiri has mentioned that she uses it a lot. I use the botanical gardens and the Thorndon hill. It is a fantastic place to exercise, and it is really not very far from here, members. Let us hope that this bill encourages us all to participate and use the facility that is right on our doorsteps.
It is a wonderful place—it is a wonderful place—and I will continue to use the time that I have to promote it and to exude the enthusiasm that I have for this fabulous place, this fabulous town belt, and this fabulous city. The framing of it does accentuate it—I mean, just imagine. It is a beautiful colour when you are looking from here. How many of us have sat somewhere in this building looking out across the Thorndon hill and seen the contrasting deep green colours of the native trees and the darker colour of the pine with the beautiful blue of Wellington’s sky, which only Wellington—only Wellington—can produce on one of those blue-sky days.
It seems that we have had endless days like this—is it endless days—when one has been able to enjoy this town belt. I cannot count on two hands—it is more than two hands’ worth—the times that I have enjoyed the town belt this summer and this early autumn, going into winter. On a winter’s day it is tough to enjoy, but I will continue to use it, and on the back of that final comment, thank you, Mr Robertson, for your contribution. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is absolutely my pleasure to take a call on the Wellington Town Belt Bill, and to say, what else really is there left to say about this piece of legislation? Clearly, for the member Alastair Scott, who has just sat down, the Wellington town belt is a very special place for him, and I think we will leave it at that.
As tempted as I am to get drawn into the debate about whether this is a horseshoe-shaped or a U-shaped piece of land, I really have only one thing to say, and that is to commend the local member of Parliament for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, for his endurance in bringing this bill to the House and to echo Labour’s support for the Wellington Town Belt Bill. Thank you.
NUK KORAKO (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, ā, e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa huri noa i Te Whare nei, tēnā koutou.
[Mr Assistant Speaker, acknowledgments to you all throughout this House, and thank you.]
It is my pleasure to be able to be the last speaker on the Wellington Town Belt Bill, and to also acknowledge those who did a lot of work, particularly through the Local Government and Environment Committee. This particular piece of land will shortly, with the final reading, be put into law to be protected in a lot of ways.
I want to start off first by acknowledging the tangata whenua, which has already been done before, but I think it is important in the final speech because it is the beginning and also an important part of the finish. The whakataukī “Tumutumu parea, rākau parea, whānui te ara ki a Tāne”, which opens the preamble of this bill, was uttered by the Te Atiawa chief Te Wharepōuri Te Kakapi-o-Te-Rangi when he observed the arrival of the New Zealand Company ship, the Tory. The translation, pretty much, is “ward off post and weapon, so that the expansive path of mankind is opened up”. This is about the journey of life, overcoming obstacles and issues and focusing on the main tasks at hand. This is an important part of this bill, particularly because it is an important part of that preamble.
As we know, the New Zealand Company’s dealings with Te Atiawa and local iwi proved to be deceitful, and the Crown provided little assistance as well. One of the things that the Crown and the Company did between them was to reserve this large town belt between the planned urban and rural areas of Wellington. This was done originally with no compensation for, or even consultation with, Māori. But the breaches of the Treaty that occurred within the environs of Wellington City have now been settled with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and Ngati Toa Rangatira.
I want to acknowledge the instigator of this bill, Grant Robertson, because during the select committee process there was very, very good and excellent engagement, actually, with the questions that were asked about the Port Nicholson settlement and how it affected tangata whenua. Also in the redress of those settlements there was the acknowledgment of the special relationship of mana whenua, particularly around some of those areas of the town belt. I think the important thing too was that the place names were also changed, including that area of the town belt that rises behind Parliament now known as Te Ahumairangi Hill. Mana whenua had an interest and a relationship with areas that now make up the Wellington town belt well before the New Zealand Company arrived. That has been recognised in previous settlements, and particularly through this bill.
What was very clear in the submissions process we undertook on the Local Government and Environment Committee was that the town belt has also come to mean a lot to the residents of Wellington. Generations of Wellingtonians have enjoyed the botanic gardens, the many recreational activities available, and the natural beauty of other reserves and walks in the town belt. It is appropriate that this area continues to be managed and administered by the Wellington City Council on behalf of the people of Wellington.
Other parts of this bill, particularly around the legal status of the Wellington town belt, which has in some ways never been entirely clear—and with that has come some of the uncertainty about how protected the town belt actually is and the authority of the council that manages it on behalf of Wellingtonians. This bill, to me and to us all, provides that certainty that is definitely needed.
It replaces the Wellington (City) Town Belt Reserves Act 1908 and the Wellington City Exhibition Grounds Act 1959. It provides one principal source of the council’s powers in relation to the town belt. It also clarifies the legal status of land that is not currently part of the town belt but is managed as if it was. Under this bill, there are 400 hectares of town belt and the further space of 130 hectares that is managed as if it is the official town belt, or part of it.
The interesting thing about this bill and the important thing about it is that it modernises how the town belt is managed by the Wellington City Council. The council must adopt a management plan. I think this is important because it will futureproof and give assurances about the ongoing management of the town belt through this bill. So what we see is that it will adopt the management plan and review it. I think this is important. The town plan is reviewed every 10 years. Also what that includes is a public submissions process, so you have that real kotahitaka going on, or that collectiveness between the council and also the Wellington ratepayers.
The other part is that there are also wider consultation provisions that apply when the council seeks to build or extend the structures, imposes charges, grants leases and consents, or adds land to the town belt. In relation to leases, one of the changes that came out during the submissions, which I think was really interesting—it was a recommendation by the select committee in the end and was agreed to by this House—was to put a limit on the leases that may be granted within the town belt Again, it is a certainty around futureproofing. The council may grant leases on no more than 8 hectares in total of the town belt, which is another excellent way of protecting it.
For me, this is a sensible limit that allows some third-party use of areas within the town belt but ensures that no future council could allow more than this small percentage of town belt land to be occupied. In looking at all of that, the council is also required to direct any moneys earned from the leases on the town belt towards contributing to management costs, which, again, is about ensuring that not only is it protected and managed properly but there are revenue streams to ensure that it is ably managed. I think the other part is that the council has also limited the business activities within the town belt. This received, particularly through the chamber of commerce—actually, this was an interesting part of the submission process.
In saying all of that, I want to close by just saying well done to the Wellington City Council for recognising the need for clarification of the status of this land and the modernisation of the management regime. I want to also acknowledge the many Wellingtonians who took an interest in the process and made submissions to the select committee. These are so important, not only in this bill but in every bill that comes before a select committee—the submitters are a really important part of it. Also I want to acknowledge Grant Robertson, the MP for Wellington Central, because it was Mr Robertson, as we have heard before from many speakers, who shepherded this bill through the House on behalf of his local council.
The Wellington town belt is a unique and distinguishing feature of this city. To me, and to all of us, it is the pūkahukahu o te pā—it is the lungs of the city. It really does, truly, need to be protected, and this bill will do that. On that note, kia ora also to those councillors who are here in the gallery—e mihi atu ki a koutou—and I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Bill read a third time.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break and resume again at 7.30.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Bills
Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3)
Third Reading
ALFRED NGARO (National): I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. Before I do, I just want to take the opportunity—I know my colleague David Bennett stole the limelight this afternoon when he was acknowledging academic awards, and I know my colleague across the House here Mr Phil Twyford would also want to go on record in acknowledging that fact. I want to start off with a little whakataukī that says “The wealth of a country is not judged by its oil and gold but by the knowledge of its sons and daughters”. On that note I want to acknowledge that Oxana Repina from Rutherford College was awarded the top academic award, and that was great. Also, too, there is Danisha Dadley—who actually is the granddaughter of the Hon John Carter—who also won an academic award as well. So I just want to go on record just acknowledging them as well.
Returning to the bill at hand, first of all, can I just acknowledge that it is a real honour for any member, I think, to be able to take a member’s bill through. I know from talking to my esteemed colleague over here to the left, the senior Government whip, it is the object of his desire as an MP to be able have a member’s bill. It is, I think, a real honour for any MP to be able to have a member’s bill come through the House.
With that, I would like to start off my remarks by, first of all, just acknowledging that this bill did begin with the Hon Maggie Barry. After she introduced this bill in the House, she then transitioned on to become a Minister and, therefore, I took over the custodianship of this bill and was honoured to be able to—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we going to hear what it is?
ALFRED NGARO: I am honoured to take on this bill. Can I also just acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee, through which this bill traversed, and the chairperson, my colleague Scott Simpson, and all the other members. I just want to thank them because I too was subbed on to that committee to hear the submissions throughout that whole passage, as well as being able to then progress the bill back into the House with a number of changes, mainly technical in nature.
Inside that bill, I want to mention Supplementary Order Paper 418 in particular, which introduced new clause 6, which I think is quite significant and important, and I just mention it because it was not included in the initial drafting of the bill. But the intent of that was to ensure that when the bill is gazetted and comes into force and into law, the current membership and the existing membership of local boards will not be affected by this bill. So I just wanted to mention that as well.
I was listening to the debate on the previous bill in the House, and I want to acknowledge Grant Robertson for his bill as well.
Carmel Sepuloni: Already run out of things to say on it.
ALFRED NGARO: No, well, actually, the member Ron Mark made a quite important remark when he said that often when you have gone through all three readings of the bill and the Committee stage, you end up at a place where, actually, a number of the technical issues have been addressed.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can I just remind the member that he has now got only 6 minutes and 29 seconds left. He has not mentioned the name of the bill, any of the terms of the bill, or what it is going to do yet.
ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must say that I think I did introduce the bill in its third reading to the House. I am not challenging the Speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was mentioned once. I dare not challenge or trifle with the Chair—I dare not challenge or trifle with the Chair.
The intent of this bill is around closing a loophole—there we go. In the legislation, it is a minor loophole, but it is a loophole that covers two things. When we talk about democracy in regard to local government, for which this bill is actually intended, the fact is that at the moment the loophole exists where you can have both multiple candidacies and also multiple memberships on a number of different local boards. So really that is the heart of the intent of this bill. What this bill will do, when it gets passed through with the support of others, is close that loophole and ensure that there can still be multiple candidacies, but there can be only one form of membership on one local board.
I know there have been some remarks and people have talked about whether this is a democratic process, and I know others have challenged that. I just want to make a short remark on this. When we talk about democracy and the ability of people to be able to engage with a system of governance—in this case, local governance and the local body and local boards—we talk about representative democracy, but we also need to talk about participating in democracy too. I believe the role this bill will play is that it will increase the ability to have not only greater representation, but also greater forms of participation.
Currently, we have in the Auckland Council 21 councillors, but there are 149 current local board members. So that is quite a significant number, which covers over 21 different electorate boundaries for the different wards that currently exist in the Auckland Council. The intent of this bill is to ensure that the fact is—and people have said: “Well, is there an issue here for us that warrants us to make this change?”. We know in the first elections of 2010 there were three candidates who were on two or more boards. That has increased, and in 2013 that increased to five members. So we know that the trend is heading up. Our intent for this bill is to ensure that others actually have a greater role of participation and representation into the local boards as well.
I want to acknowledge those who are on the local boards. They play quite an important role. I know that our local boards are involved in managing local facilities, parks, and local events and they draw up local board plans, promote local leadership, identify and propose local bylaws, and input into our council-controlled organisation and economic development plans. They play quite a significant role.
Being that it has now been almost two terms of this local government under the new local laws, what has also now happened is there has been a greater sense of interest in participation. By way of example, this week alone, for instance, I had a gentleman who came up. He had seen my truck outside my office and was admiring this truck, and then knew that I would be up in the office. He came up to the office and came to ask me about what it would be like for him to engage to be able to put himself forward as a local board member. So we sat down and we had a cup of tea and talked about this, and again, to me, this is the interest that is coming out. I have had two other people locally who have come to talk to me about this very issue.
So to me I think that this bill is important. I think actually it does draw on the opportunities for greater participation that people can have into local boards in particular.
I want to just then mention a couple of remarks, because there were 17 different submissions that were put through, around five of which were oral submissions. Out of that, only three were opposed. Obviously, the three that were in opposition were from those who are currently on two or more local boards. There was some justification that they gave. There were the boundaries that had changed. They had previously been councillors under the seven territorial authorities that were there, so, for them, they had had this sense of connectivity. I think, though, that what it also came to, when it was really clear, is that now we are evolving, I suppose, in our sense of understanding around the role of the Auckland Council, its executive of 21 councillors, and its 149 local board members. People are beginning to see the importance of their ability to participate in that.
I want to just then read a couple of submissions that came through that I think are really important and highlight and support the intent of this bill. I would like to read from the submission of the Auckland Council, for instance, which clearly is in support. In fact, in its recommendation it says it “supports the prohibition on local board members serving on multiple local boards at the same time”. It did make this comment, and I know it has been raised before, where it said: “Membership of more than one local board at a time has the potential to create the perception of conflicts of interest …”.
I think this bill goes, also, to the heart of the aspect of that. What we want to do is not only have greater participation and greater representation but also reduce those conflicts of interest that do exist for a number who are on there. For instance, there are examples where current members on those boards are on two or more local boards. They are actually boards that are bordering on either side of those wards. So when it comes to the issue around bidding for financial bids, to be able to bid for—whether it be issues around parks or reserves and so forth, there are conflicts that do exist and cannot be said not to exist. We know that they are there, and we think that that is really important as well.
I just want to then close my remarks by speaking on a couple of submissions that talk about the equality of opportunity. On this, I think that is really important. One of the submitters talked about “by limiting members to only serving on one local board, I believe that the bill will also improve fairness in the local electoral system by creating a greater equality of opportunity for a wider range of people.”
So I finish my remarks. I do thank all those who have been involved through the passage of this bill, those on the select committee and also those who have submitted. I do commend this bill to the House.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It would be unkind to say of my fellow Te Atatū resident and colleague Alfred Ngaro that he is all preamble and no substance. So I will not say that, because that would be unkind, but I do have some unsolicited advice for the list member Alfred Ngaro: life is all about getting the ratios right. Whether you are making a hamburger or doing any other task in life, it is all about the ratios. So have a think about that.
Not all members are lucky enough to have a bill drawn out of the ballot, and I am sorry to have to rub it in for other members in the House that I have had five bills selected in the short time that I have been in this House. It is hard work, actually. It is hard work for a hard-working Opposition to keep up with the flow of members’ bills coming through. But this is such a listless, diffident, do-nothing Government and its members have so few ideas of their own that they actually rely—they come to us for ideas for their members’ bills—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, back to the bill.
PHIL TWYFORD: The member sponsoring this bill, Alfred Ngaro, has acknowledged in the House that this bill actually was inspired by work that I did in my first term in Parliament here. The Western Leader, which is a great newspaper that serves our community in west Auckland, reported, in May 2011, my calling for a law change to prevent people from serving on more than one local board. I rest my case.
This is a problem that is worth fixing. I always think of this bill as being the “Warren Flaunty bill”. Mr Flaunty lives in west Auckland. He is a very successful pharmacist, and at the time that I made my statement to the Western Leader, back in 2011, Mr Flaunty was serving on five local boards: three elected local boards that were part of Auckland City, plus the licensing trust board, and the local district health board. As wise and effective as Mr Flaunty is in serving his community, many of us took the view, I think, that it was not really possible to do justice to three distinct, geographically contiguous local boards, covering the best part of a population of about 300,000 people, or perhaps closer to 400,000. I think that was the genesis of this bill.
There are some good reasons for it. Just to touch on them briefly, I think that it is quite hard for someone representing three different local boards that, inevitably, will at times be competing for funding and will be competing for different development projects, and so on, to avoid potential or perceived conflicts of interest. I think also that there are real questions when a member of a local board in Auckland is paid a salary of about $50,000—it is basically a reasonably substantive part-time job, and I know some people actually would put in the equivalent of full-time hours serving their communities in this position. It is very hard for someone to actually put in that time as a really effective and hard-working local board member when you are on three elected local boards. They are—it is really important to remember, I think—different from an elected governance board in the commercial arena, where you might attend the occasional board meeting, read papers, and answer emails, but the time commitment falls far short of being a half-time or full-time position.
So Labour is supporting this bill, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3).
I wanted to just finally pay tribute, in this election season, to the fantastic people who are putting themselves forward to represent and serve our communities—people like Shane Henderson, Will Flavell, Paula Bold-Wilson, Tiaria Fletcher, Georgina Papa, Matt Grey, Brian Lythe, Mike Williams. These are fantastic people in the community that I represent. They are the Labour team for the Henderson-Massey Local Board, and they will do a fantastic job for their community.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are really pushing it there.
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I too want to join with others—well, Phil Twyford—in congratulating the member Alfred Ngaro, who has been shepherding this bill through the House to what is now the concluding debate, in its third reading. As the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered this bill, it was a great privilege to get to know the bill well, to understand its genesis, and to get a feel for what it is all about. Those of us who do not live in Auckland are not really familiar with the creatures that are known as local boards. Local boards were created at the time that the Auckland City was established by statute, and they are a kind of hybrid that is something more than a community board but something less than a membership on the governing body of the council. They have evolved and established themselves as an important and integral part of the Auckland City governance model.
This bill, as the member Alfred Ngaro indicated, was originally put into the ballot by our mutual friend and colleague the Hon Maggie Barry, who, upon her elevation to the executive, passed the bill over to Alfred Ngaro, who has done, I think, a very good job in working it through the select committee process. He sat on the select committee hearings, he heard from submitters, and he has been very involved in the process since he took over responsibility for it. I think he has done a very good job and should be congratulated on it. As Mr Twyford said, it is not every member of this House who has the good fortune to, firstly, have a bill drawn from the ballot, but then to have it successfully work its way through the legislative process that is the parliamentary legislative system to the point of being read a third time with a high prospect of success. That is no small feat, and I know that the senior Government whip is looking forward, with an aspirational ambition, to achieving that same kind of goal in the not too distant future before he too, I am sure, finds himself in a high place in this Parliament.
Tim Macindoe: Thank you. I love you too.
SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, that is very good, Mr Macindoe. I am greatly concerned now. However, that said, this bill really is largely of a technical nature, but it is an important one, because it goes to what is a fundamental foundation stone in terms of creating and maintaining the credibility of democracy in our local government system.
I think that members and the general public would agree, I am sure, with Mr Ngaro in his proposition that, as a rule, it is not possible for one person to effectively and responsibly—and without the potential prospect of conflict arising—represent more than one constituency at a time. I want to just raise the prospect, for instance, of the possibility of a citizen standing for election in two parliamentary constituencies and then perhaps having the good luck or good fortune to be elected to two parliamentary constituencies and trying to represent themselves in the Parliament—or, indeed, in a fair and equitable, unbiased way representing both of those constituencies. That is exactly the situation that has occurred. And if I am correct in hearing Mr Twyford, I think he said—or maybe it was Alfred Ngaro—that there are currently five people who are on more than two local boards in Auckland. I think that is problematic for the voters of Auckland, the people who make those voting decisions to put people into elected representative positions. They expect them to be able to, without fear or favour, represent the geographical region in which they have been elected. I just cannot see how it is that someone can really effectively represent two geographical areas simultaneously at the one time and do justice to both those roles or, in some cases, potentially, more than two areas.
Mr Ngaro made mention of a technical change that was made by way of Supplementary Order Paper 418 as the bill progressed through the House.
Simon O’Connor: Supplementary Order Paper?
SCOTT SIMPSON: Supplementary Order Paper 418. That introduces into this bill new clause 6, and new clause 6 means that current and/or existing members of local boards will not be affected by the provisions of this bill, and the provisions of this bill will, if passed tonight, kick in and become effective at the elections to be held later this year.
So what is it that this bill seeks to do? The bill seeks to remedy a loophole in the current legislation that does allow people to stand for multiple local boards and then, if they are successful, to go on and represent more than one board, and that, I think, is not a position this House or, indeed, the voting public in Auckland are particularly supportive of. That is, really, in no way a commentary on the ability or the integrity of the people who have found themselves elected to more than one board, because I think it goes without saying that they are people of good intent and high integrity, and they are people who, in their minds, feel they are doing justice to the multiple roles they are representing.
For me, the risk, really, about this is the risk of perception. Those of us who are actively involved in politics and in representing the public in our elected roles know all too well that in politics, perception is reality. Even though a board member who represents more than one board may feel in their heart and in their mind and can justify to themselves on a rational basis that they are doing a good and effective job, it is the perception of conflict, it is the perception of not being able to do justice to both boards, and it is the perception of, in some way, having to discount one against another that creates the problem. So that is why I think this bill should go through.
Alfred Ngaro, in his third reading speech given just a few minutes ago, made the point that we are fortunate to live in a participatory democracy. It is one of the great hallmarks of being a New Zealand citizen and a voter in our parliamentary system and our local government system that we actually have a very high level of participation. That is a participatory democracy that involves citizens—fine, upstanding citizens—nominating and putting themselves forward for election, and the very basis of our participatory democracy relies on good folk nominating and putting themselves forward. Equally, so it is that the participatory democracy that we so enjoy relies on people going out and voting. In local government elections they do it by mail—by postal ballot—and that means that if they are to have credible faith in the local government system, then they need to be confident that the people they are electing will be fine, upstanding citizens who can do justice to the job they are elected to. It is this participation and the prospect of conflicts of interest that goes to the very core and integrity of our local government democratic process and system.
I want to just mention the submissions, because there were some 17 written submissions in total. The majority of those submissions—10 of them, in fact—were in complete support of the bill. We received those submissions from people who had given the bill very careful consideration, and I was grateful, as committee chair, to receive them and to give them consideration because I thought the submissions had all been well thought through, they were well presented, and they presented cogent and logical arguments in favour of the bill.
There were, however, three submissions that were opposed to the bill, and, ironically—and, I guess, maybe not surprisingly—those three submissions that were opposed to the bill all came from people who currently sit on two or more boards. That, in itself, in a way, goes to backing up my assertion that, in fact, it is the perception of a conflict, it is the perception of self-interest, that is actually the issue here. Whether or not they are, in fact, physically and intellectually capable of doing the two jobs simultaneously is almost irrelevant—it is the perception that is important.
I found, as we went through this bill, that the more the select committee considered it, the more we got to a point where we found that the arguments put forward by Mr Ngaro in this bill were very cogent, they were rational, and they were worthy of the support of this House. I commend this bill to the House.
MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) and commend the National list member Alfred Ngaro for his inspiring, informative, on-point third reading speech. I say to the member that he has really done his bill justice in expressing why we should be supporting this bill in the House tonight.
The bill will amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to prevent candidates serving on multiple local boards. The bill provides that candidates standing for multiple local boards must provide a written notice to the Chief Electoral Officer specifying the local boards they are seeking election to and the ranking, in order of priority, that would apply if the candidate were elected to more than one local board. Candidates must also identify this priority in rankings in their candidate profile statement. The bill further provides that if a candidate is elected to multiple local boards, he or she becomes a member of the local board that is ranked as a higher priority in his or her candidate profile statements and positions on local boards ranked lower in the candidate profile statement become vacant.
Like the previous speaker, Scott Simpson, said, the issue was actually brought to the attention of the House by one of the hardest-working members in this House, the member for Te Atatū, Phil Twyford, who mentioned way back in 2011 that we cannot have people serving on multiple boards. So I do want to acknowledge—
Carmel Sepuloni: And it is his birthday.
MEKA WHAITIRI: And it is his birthday, absolutely—the young, 45-year-old Mr Phil Twyford.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, he looks older than that.
MEKA WHAITIRI: Very, very young—very young. So we say happy birthday to you, Phil. It did then lead me into thinking of the opportunity that passing this bill in the House is, in terms of allowing new leadership, succession, and diversity to come through in local government and, obviously, stopping monopolisation of individuals holding more than one position.
Later this year we have the local body elections coming up, and it is well-known that we have very poor voter turnout. So it was with dismay that I heard this Government reneged on a promise of introducing online voting trials. That, to me, goes to the heart of what would have given effect to this bill around allowing not only new leadership but succession and, like I mentioned, diversity. It was with disappointment that, for the reasons the Minister has outlined around security—but that is why it is called a trial. It is why this Government stood up in this House in 2013 and talked about its commitment to bring online voting to New Zealand in this year’s election. So it is disheartening that it is not happening, because it would actually have given life to this particular bill, not only in terms of ensuring that you get to choose which community board or which local government you want to stand on but also in terms of allowing the opportunities for other individuals—and so it is a lost opportunity. It is something that, in terms of the general election coming up next year—particularly in low voter turnout—would have given us some very good information around how we engage with voters.
It is with pleasure that I support this bill, and I also want to acknowledge those who are putting up their hand, too, to stand in the local government elections. I want to particularly mention Dina Awarau, a community person from Pōmare, who has put her hand up to say in the Hutt Valley northern ward—a person who works with communities in Pōmare as a health and community advocate, very grassroots, and I wish her all the best. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we move on, this is not an opportunity to start giving personal endorsements for various candidates. The very slick-tongued birthday boy may have got away with it, but just because the Deputy Speaker was negligent in pulling him up on that occasion does not mean he is going to be negligent again.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I will not be making any personal endorsements, but I am looking forward to running the campaign of another team this year, as I did last local body elections. It is my first opportunity to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3), and I wish to congratulate Alfred Ngaro on bringing this so far through the House. I must admit, when it was first discussed between Alfred and me and other members, I was a little sceptical, but I have to say the list member based in Te Atatū—soon to be the member for Te Atatū—is a very persuasive individual. He has brought me around. I am pleased to say that I am happy to support this bill, along with my colleagues here tonight.
It is interesting, if you just give me an opportunity, to reflect back a little bit on the history of how local boards came about and their predecessors, because I think it is worthwhile considering those matters when we talk about the process used for electing members of local boards. As some of my colleagues know, I was a member of the Manukau City Council and the Auckland Council very briefly. For my sins I was elected to the Auckland Council. I found a better place to come to—
Hon David Parker: Double-dipper.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: Oh, only for about 1 day, Mr Parker, then I resigned from the Auckland Council. But I found a better place to come to: Parliament. I was a member of the Manukau City Council, but back in the day before we had local boards, city councillors actually were appointed to community boards. So I was in the position where I served on a city council and also served on a community board. Some might ask themselves whether there are some similarities there between members serving on one local board, two local boards, or three local boards all at the same time. I think there are some differences though.
I have heard this argument before about how it is that up and down the country members can sit on a city council and then sit on a community board as well, but now a member on the Government side is trying to pass a piece of legislation saying people cannot sit on two local boards. I think the difference is the fact that when it comes to members of a city council sitting on a community board as well, they are representing the same area. So the decisions that they make, and the decision-making processes that they go through internally when they come to a decision on how to vote on a matter before the council or a matter before the community board—they are taking into account the interests of the same people. Whether they are sitting as a member of a community board or sitting as a member of the local authority, they are still representing the same people who voted for them.
The difference when it comes to local boards and a member sitting on more than one local board is that at all times when they are making decisions, they have to weigh up—and this may be difficult for some of them—the competing interests of different local boards. So if a member was, for example—just to use my local area—a member of the Howick Local Board and a member of the Manurewa Local Board, I could imagine situations where there were issues that could cross the borders, or issues where the two local boards were working on decisions or working on projects together where a member could be in a position where they were unable to do justice to one particular local board. Of course if they are on three local boards, as we know has been the case—they may be on a district health board as well; maybe a licensing trust, too—there are so many competing interests that a member is having to take into account. So, after discussing issues like this with my friend and colleague, the future MP for Te Atatū—sorry for the birthday present there, Mr Twyford. When I have discussed this with my friend and colleague, the future MP for Te Atatū Alfred Ngaro—hey, hey, hey! He does not have a Chinese surname, Mr Twyford, so just do not go laughing, Mr Twyford. When I have discussed this with Alfred Ngaro I can see the logic. [Interruption] What was that?
Ron Mark: David Bennett will call you a racist.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: No, no. David Bennett is a friend of mine. I am on the same committee as him—two of them, actually. For my sins I am on two committees with David Bennett. It is an enjoyable Thursday—and Wednesday—morning for me.
Getting back to the point, when discussing this issue with Alfred Ngaro, I can see the logic in what he is suggesting, in that it is important that when members are on local boards, they are sitting there representing a particular community and can do justice to that role and can ensure that without fear or favour, without competing electoral interests. This is because at the end of the day, when one is sitting as a local board member, one will inevitably—as politicians do—have a little bit of an eye on the next election. We would not want local board members to be sitting in a local board meeting making a decision as a local board member with an eye to an election in a different patch, a different area, that could influence their decision making on the local board they are sitting on at that point in time. So I can see the logic in this bill.
I think it is also worthwhile considering the breadth of issues that local boards now deal with. Local boards are very different from the community boards of old. The community boards of old were very good as representation areas, where local issues could get representation and get a hearing at a local level and where community boards could be the eyes and ears and the voice of their community. But my experience has been that the local boards that we now have in Auckland have a much greater role to play in the governance of Auckland than community boards did. Of course, the model of Auckland Council right now is very different from the old model in Auckland, where community boards were almost subservient to the territorial local authority. Now local boards are actually part of a co-governance model. It is co-governance between the governing body—the councillors and the mayor—and the local boards. When we look at an organisational chart, they are not underneath the council; they are next door to the council. They are co-governors of Auckland, so the breadth of issues that local board members now deal with is much greater.
That leads us to the argument that it would be more difficult for a local board member to sit on more than one local board, given the roles and responsibilities that they now have to deal with. And, given that the local boards now deal with such greater roles, it is important that greater transparency around the electoral process is in place too, because I think it is fair and reasonable that when a voter goes to vote and they go to consider their voting form, they have greater transparency about whether a member is standing for more than one local board.
Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, knowing that you have read every word in this bill, you will know that the way in which the bill is structured is that people can stand for more than one local board, but they have to rank which local board is of most interest to them and is their higher priority. That will, of course, create some interesting electoral situations for people where if an individual does want to stand for more than one local board, they would have to actually say to a community that the other community is more important to them. Imagine if you were a voter in a local board election and you saw that Mr X, Y, Z—Joe Bloggs—had ranked your local board area as their third priority. I have to say that if a member was going to say to me, as a voter, that I would be only their second or third or fourth priority in the community, I would be rather disappointed by that, so greater transparency around the interests of members is also something that is going to be welcomed through this bill.
As an individual who has had experience in local government in the old system—the good old days of Manukau, Auckland, Waitakere, North Shore; back in the old system—and having had experience there as a community board member, as a city councillor, and briefly sitting on the Auckland Council too, I can say that I see this as being a model that is going to be beneficial for Auckland. I thank Alfred Ngaro and I thank Maggie Barry for bringing this bill to the House. I also thank the other members across the Chamber for their wholehearted support for such a change as has been proposed here. I commend this bill to the House.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be relieved to know that this is going to be quite a short contribution on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) in the name of the member Alfred Ngaro. I would like to offer my congratulations to the member on getting a bill drawn and seeing it through this process in a way that seems to have very strong support across the House. That is a very rare thing and I am incredibly envious.
This is a bill—and I know that there is a party in the House that is opposing it—that is quite a constrained bill. It is not going to change the world. The effect of the bill is that new people standing for council or local boards in Auckland will not be able to be appointed to two or more local boards. They can run for more than one local board, but, as has been previously mentioned, they will need to indicate that to the voters and rank the order of preference for those boards.
So it seems that the intent of it, as stated and as supported by most submitters, is to remove a perception of conflict of interest and to connect people to their local representatives and connect the local representatives to a community. It is to ground them in a community, and that is something that the Green Party supports. We believe strongly in appropriate decision-making and decisions being as close to ground level as possible.
I have heard the arguments from some other members and from one of the submissions that actually this bill is not necessary. You know, there are people on district health boards, on licensing boards, and on a whole range of boards and that is not a problem. In this world, when these are not full-time jobs, people can manage those different interests. Well, I think it has been pointed out—and it is a view that I share—that local boards are different. Part of their role is advocating to Auckland Council for resources and also for policy positions.
I can imagine the situation where the community I was living in, say, had a very strong position on an issue and another community had a very different position. You could argue that a representative who was on both of those local boards would then be able to say to Auckland Council “Well look, there are these two perspectives.”, and you could say that is helpful for Auckland. But I would say that is actually diluting the voice of the local people and that it is the role of Auckland Council to hear those two pure, unadulterated voices of those communities and then for the council to make that assessment of difference and make its decisions on the basis of that.
But for that person to be introducing the compromise and the tensions, I do not think that helps represent the people of their communities. I think that dilutes the voices of their communities. So we are absolutely supporting this bill to ensure that the local board members represent one community in Auckland. Thank you.
RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I start off my contribution from New Zealand First on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) by reading something to you that I think is very poignant at this point in time, for it sends a clear message. I will insert the words “This party”. It says: “[This party] seeks a safe, prosperous, and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams.” That is a political party in New Zealand. It espouses that New Zealanders should be assisted in reaching their personal goals and dreams. “We believe we achieve this by building a society based on the following values: Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles, and our Sovereign as head of State;”—we will put that off to one side because it tried to change the flag—“National and personal security; Equal citizenship and equal opportunity; Individual freedom and choice; Personal responsibility; Competitive enterprise and reward for achievement; Limited government; Strong families and caring communities; Sustainable development …”.
Well, let us go through those. These are the principles that the National Party stands for. I see some shocked looks over there because most of them have actually never read this, so obviously this is new information for people like David Bennett. OK, so let us go through that. “Equal citizenship”—does this bill promote equal citizenship and equal opportunity? No, it does not because it denies a person who is popular and has the credibility within the wider community to be elected democratically to a position—nay, possibly to two. Why? Because the competitors are not up to it. But this is a party that espouses freedom and choice on one side of its mouth, and then passes legislation like this in the House that restricts freedom and restricts choice. I will not use the word that is reverberating in my head, because it is unparliamentary.
“Personal responsibility”—how great a personal responsibility that a person whom these people seem to very envious of, Mr Flaunty, puts himself up for election in not one board but two. And he gets elected, not appointed like the Government does in respect of its district health boards and many other appointments. And let us talk about that. If the big issue for the National Party members and to Alfred Ngaro’s work ethic—and he has not got it—is that the National Government does not believe that people have the work ethic to take on two jobs, then pray tell me why the Government continues to appoint Wira Gardiner to Government board after Government board after Government board, serving on all simultaneously, in the same land, in the same decade, in the same year, and at the same time. I mean, Wira Gardiner has had so many appointments by this Government that have all been simultaneous, it makes a mockery of the speeches we have just had to sit here and listen to.
New Zealand First is not just opposed to this bill; ironically, we are opposed to the National Party betraying its members by walking away from its fundamental values and principles. Here is a laugh: “Competitive enterprise and reward for achievement”. So what the National Government is saying today by supporting this stupid bill—and here is another point. We have just had an admission tonight that it was a Labour bill—a Labour bill. It is like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement revisited. Labour brings some nonsense to the House and the National Government picks it up and runs with it with both hands and claims it as its own. It is like the National Government running around and telling everyone it is building the cycleways. That was a Green Party policy. It is like the National Government running around and telling everybody: “Oh, look at all the homes we have insulated.” That was not a National Government policy; that was a deal it did with the Green Party.
David Bennett: You’re a liar.
RON MARK: Say that again. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not be called a liar by that lying little shit over there.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He knows that he has quite a valid point to make in respect of something that might have been called out by another member, and he had the Standing Orders with him. But he then decided to flagrantly abuse that by not only using the word that was unparliamentary but adding another unparliamentary word to it. He has been here well long enough to know that he is completely outside the Standing Orders.
RON MARK: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, to you. It is nonsense that this party would advocate competitiveness and reward for enterprise, and then Alfred Ngaro—and all those wonderful speeches on the election trail telling people about personal responsibility, enterprise, and reward for achievement—[Interruption] Tim Macindoe—is now walking away from it under this guise of, what? Perception? Nowhere in any of the speeches tonight—shake your head as much as you like, Mr Ngaro, this is going out to the world. Nowhere in any of the speeches tonight, and I doubt we are going to hear it in any that are going to follow now, has there been any evidence—evidence—of a perception.
We come into this Chamber every day, and the Speaker reads out the prayer. The Speaker says “putting aside all personal advantage”, and we comply. Members sit on that select committee, and where they find a conflict of interest they declare it and walk out if they have to. So now we are saying that Auckland citizens cannot be treated the same way. If we wanted to talk about conflict of interest and bring a bill to the House that deals with conflict of interest, then why did the member not bring a bill to the House that would stop MPs serving on the Canterbury Regional Council while they were a member of Parliament in the National Government? Well, who was that member? Who was the National Party MP who sat in this House, year after year, as a member of the Canterbury Regional Council—and do not tell me there was not a conflict of interest there; there were massive conflicts of interest in there—and is a member of Parliament? It is Nicky Wagner.
Where was the bill? Where does this bill change that? Nowhere, because the root, the nub, of this issue is, one, politicking for populism, pandering to someone who cannot get elected—and beat Mr Flaunty—and because the National Government does not think people can work at that rate.
So, conflicts of interest—how about we look at the other situation, where a person who is a board member of two boards that border each other is able to advance the interests of both of those boards, where they agree on something, both synergetically, against the Auckland Council. No, none of that. So we get all these platitudes here tonight, and we get all this nice fluffy stuff, but the truth of the matter is this: New Zealand First opposes any move to undermine democracy. This is about an individual, if they have the chutzpah, if they have the courage, the tenacity, and, dare I say it, the financial wherewithal to put money up and fund the campaign and lose on both of them or win on one or win on two—who is the National Government to come in over the top and take that away from the people who cast those votes?
This is not just “that word”; it is bizarre that it would come from a libertarian party like the National Party. It is even more bizarre that it would be supported by a neo-libertarian party like the ACT Party. It is nice to get carried away with the moment, and to make wonderful speeches congratulating each other and patting each other on the back, and no amount of scaremongering about perceptions without evidence, no amount of imagining, like Jami-Lee Ross did before—“Oh, I imagine a situation …”, “I imagine a circumstance …”—is any substitute for raw evidence. There was no evidence—not one instance, not one moment in time that any submitter could point to in the select committee or that the members themselves in this debate tonight can point to—that says there is proof of a conflict of interest. This is a sham, and New Zealand First stands proudly in opposing this bill.
SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise after such a spirited contribution from Mr Mark, and I am sure he will not need to go to the gym tonight, with all that riling. But I understand from the Local Government and Environment Committee chair, Mr Scott Simpson, that none of this was actually raised in the select committee, which is the appropriate place to discuss the pros and cons of this bill. But anyway, I digress. It is a pleasure for me, as I said, to rise and take a call as the newly elected deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is also a pleasure because as a southern MP—one of the two MPs who represent Southland; remoter communities and only 97,000-odd people across an entire region—it is interesting, in turn, to study a bill in respect of local government administration in the super-city in contrast with the goings on in Southland.
Of course, this bill is the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3), sponsored by Mr Alfred Ngaro, and the prime aim of this bill is to prevent candidates serving on multiple local boards at any one time. The premise is to have only one person on one board at any one time, and the basis for it is to mitigate potential conflicts of interest and, basically, spread the load and get the representation of different local boards securely in the hands of locals so that they get better decision-making and better outcomes for their community. I think that this comes off the back of the Auckland demographic that I think we need to take time to discuss because it does present a unique set of challenges for administration of the super-city, and, of course, this bill is tailored specifically for that. So if you look at Auckland, it contains 1.5 million people—1.5 million people—and one-third of New Zealand’s population lives in that region, compared with 97,000 people who live in the district of Southland.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Size isn’t everything, Sarah.
SARAH DOWIE: Well, it is not everything—it is not everything—and we certainly have our benefits and our strengths down in Southland, but you could not really get two more polar-opposite communities compared and contrasted right now.
Auckland is one of the most culturally diverse communities, with a lot of migration, not only from Pasifika and Asia but also from further afield. That is a strength in itself, but it goes to show that there does need to be strong representation from our local community boards to get the best outcomes for those diverse pockets of people and communities. As I said, compare that with Southland. Invercargill holds only 50,000 people, and we certainly cannot boast the same migrant statistics as Auckland does when we talk about diversity. In fact, if it was not for the 2,000-odd Filipino farm workers who came to Southland last year, our population would be going backwards. So we are very grateful for that diversity, but it is certainly not in the same vein as what Auckland experiences. As I said before, Auckland is a very diverse community. It has pockets of different ethnicities, different ages, it is quite a varied demographic, and we need to get the best outcomes, via local boards with diverse representatives on those boards.
Local boards in Auckland should not be controlled by a select few individuals. On those local boards, of course, they are responsible for a number of functions, but the issues of administration range from things such as transport, infrastructure, event planning, and even some social issues, so when you look at the broad scope of duties that those representatives must administer, it would be very hard to find a person who could tick all the boxes to represent all of the community and effectively manage and deliver on those tasks. Because Auckland has a large population and because there are really strong and wide-ranging education and employment opportunities in Auckland—that is a real asset—there really is no need for one individual to be on multiple boards. Again, we come back to that concept: one person on one board at any one time.
I actually think that this is a real opportunity for Auckland if this bill passes, because it is an opportunity to bring through our aspiring young leaders. I think that Auckland has a really good talent pool available there, and if you can bring those young leaders through, it means that there are fresh ideas coming to the fore, there is a richer contribution of ideas and better problem-solving, and that, of course, brings about better solutions and delivery of the functions that are required within Auckland.
I understand from the select committee process that there were 17 submissions, with the majority in support of this bill—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How many submitted?
SARAH DOWIE: Seventeen submissions, and one submitter, of course, was the Auckland Council. The key basis of its submission was threefold: firstly, to mitigate the conflicts of interest of representation between constituencies; secondly, to have local interests truly represented—that is what I was talking about before. Given that Auckland is so diverse and has diverse communities and pockets of people throughout the city, locals should be making local decisions. But on a practical note—
Hon Ruth Dyson: Tell us about the worst day of your life, Sarah.
SARAH DOWIE: I miss you, Ms Dyson.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I miss you, too. What was the worst day of your life?
SARAH DOWIE: I miss you and the Government Administration Committee. I have been brought on to local government and I am really enjoying my charge here. I am loving my contribution to this bill, actually—it is fascinating.
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SARAH DOWIE: I do, I do—I am very earnest about this. I am earnest about it. But the third point brought up by the Auckland Council—it is quite a practical point—is that it recognised that board members’ workloads were actually quite heavy and that those workloads needed to be shared so as to be more effectively managed. That means sharing the workload across different people so that they can bring about better decisions and better delivery of solutions for that community. So, again, one person on one local board at any one time.
I think too that this presents another opportunity for Auckland in that it can start to bring through more women to boards, which is a fantastic opportunity to encourage more women to come on to boards, to utilise their skills, and to grow in a leadership capacity. You do not have to go far to look for research that supports the idea that the more diverse a board, the better the decision making, so that contributes to more meaningful gender equality. Creating space on boards will do that, and that is a positive progression not only for women but for aspiring young leaders.
One of the main points, as I said before, is that this bill is tailored for Auckland, and I think that that should be noted. In contrast, if you look at a place like Southland—in fact, I would dissent a little, and I wonder whether it would work there. We have a limited number of people in Southland, and often there are time pressures on the people who put their hands up for civic duty, so what often happens is that some of the people who put their hands up for that civic duty end up wearing two hats. Although local boards are unique to Auckland, we in Southland still have varied roles in our community boards, different licensing trusts, and other boards that are out there. One person will often put their hand up twice or even three times.
Notwithstanding the pitfalls that have been described here that could occur in Auckland, Southland’s strong sense of community often rides through, and that creates a really unique opportunity for us as well. Given that we are tight-knit and there is a real desire to move Southland forward, often those individuals who are wearing two hats almost evolve with their statutory duty and their capacity and skill, and that does give them the ability to serve on multiple boards. With all of the information at hand, I support this bill.
JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I am glad this bill is proceeding through the House in time for the local body elections. I would like to congratulate Mr Alfred Ngaro on his work on this bill, and I would also like to acknowledge my friend and colleague Mr Phil Twyford for his wisdom and his foresight in relation to this bill. Labour supports this bill. Thank you so much.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I was so stunned by those comments that it took me just a few seconds to rise, but can I actually start by acknowledging Mr Phil Twyford, seeing that today is his birthday. I think it is always good to show some comity, if we will—not comedy; comity—across the House, so I acknowledge his birthday.
I am very pleased to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) in the name of Alfred Ngaro, and I will come to him quite happily in a moment. But, like a few members, this is my first call on this bill, and I am very pleased to take it, for two reasons—the first being that I am an Auckland member of Parliament and very involved and interested in the activities of the local board. In my case, it is Ōrākei, which is part of the Tāmaki electorate. Secondly, I am all for good electoral and constitutional structures, so I think it is a timely bill. I want to acknowledge particularly Maggie Barry, who initiated this bill, and as the member who now holds it acknowledged at the start, she handed it over to him when she became a Minister. Alfred Ngaro, being the man he is—a lucky man—had it pulled from the ballot and has now had the opportunity to take it through all three stages in the House.
I understand, bar one party, we will see this passed through Parliament tonight, if that is not presumptuous on my part. To Alfred, I want to say thank you for bringing this here, and for the leadership that it takes. I have often reflected, on these members’ days, that it is actually a rare event to get your own bill drawn out of the ballot, and rarer still—
Iain Lees-Galloway: Have you?
SIMON O’CONNOR: I actually have had one bill drawn from the ballot, very happily: the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. I am not going to torture the Opposition by describing what the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill did.
Scott Simpson: Oh!
SIMON O’CONNOR: Look, I would love to, Mr Simpson, but I am occasionally a generous man to the Opposition. I am grateful for the opportunity to go off on that slight tangent.
To Alfred, thank you for leading the bill through the House. It is a rare opportunity, but one that should be rightly taken. I want to acknowledge, as well, the chair of the select committee. I do not actually sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee—I primarily chair the Health Committee—but to Scott Simpson, fine member of Parliament for Coromandel, thanks to him for his leadership. I think it is useful that although he is a man of the Coromandel, lives in the Coromandel, and serves the Coromandel, he does know about Auckland and knows about the council structures, having been engaged in Auckland, particularly through matters of politics over the year.
To get to this bill here tonight, we have had around—sorry, I have to check my notes here—17 written submissions come in. I have to say that is quite a goodly number of submissions, particularly for a bill of this nature. Ten of those were in support—
Kris Faafoi: What’s in it?
SIMON O’CONNOR: Those members are asking what is in it. Look, I am going to elucidate that for you, Mr Faafoi, in a few moments. [Interruption] That is right; you can even move that I get extra time.
Kris Faafoi: You’ve been going for 5 minutes.
SIMON O’CONNOR: I know, and I think there are 5 minutes more. The excitement is palpable.
So there were 17 submissions, with 10 of those in support, and my colleague Sarah Dowie—who has changed seats with my colleague Brett Hudson—had noted that, actually, one of those is the Auckland Council. Notably, three submissions were against, but, quite tellingly, they were from people who are actually already in the situation of being on two or more boards. A generous interpretation of that indicates that they have insights into that, but it also plays into what a number of submitters supporting the bill indicated, which is that there is a potential conflict of interest and a perception of a conflict of interest.
So now that we have done the preparatory work of describing the starting elements of this bill, we need, for the sake of some members opposite, to touch on what the whole purpose of the bill is. Ultimately, this bill is about not holding two local board positions. I think to most people in this House, and certainly to those listening in, it is an intuitive understanding that, actually, if you are going to serve your local community—in particular, in Auckland—you should sit on just one local board. I have to say that when I think about the work done by the seven members of the Ōrākei Local Board in my area, and in that space I am just thinking of their dealing with the number of various parks in my electorate, residents associations, business associations—
Hon Member: Landslips.
SIMON O’CONNOR: —landslips occasionally—not so often in Tāmaki, fortunately. But what I am trying to indicate is that when I think about the work that those seven individuals do, it is actually an enormous job in just that singular ward of, in this case, Ōrākei. When I think of the number of parks, it really is a job that can be satisfactorily done, in my opinion, by, well, only one person in this particular space. The idea that the people responsible for the parks or for engaging with the residents associations in Ōrākei would also have responsibility for other area—it becomes a little bit unwieldy, shall we say.
We also have, on the other side, conflicts of interest that can arise. A little bit of my electorate takes in the ward of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, and when I look at those two areas, they are actually slightly different in their priorities. Just for the sake of example, in the Ōrākei ward, in the main area of my Tāmaki electorate, the area of intensification of housing, infrastructure, transport, and so forth is a somewhat fraught area of discussion at times, whereas if I move into the south of my electorate and, in this case, into a different ward—that of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki—the issue of the development of rail links, infrastructure, and infill housing is actually quite acceptable. So it is the difference, if you will, between Ōrākei and St Heliers and between the likes of Glen Innes and Panmure.
So if a person was able to sit on two boards—and let us say for argument’s sake that it is the Ōrākei Local Board and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board—how would they manage those conflicts? How would they actually bring a singular perspective across those two boards? I am not convinced that that is possible. I think what is important to draw out, though—and it is a subtlety that I think shows the quality of thinking that Alfred in particular and that the select committee has brought to it—is that this bill is actually not banning someone strictly from standing for more than one board; it is just that they cannot ultimately sit on more than one board. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. So ultimately a person is able, in the upcoming elections, to put their hand up for more than one local board if they so choose. But fundamentally, and quite importantly, they are going to have to prioritise. A speaker—I think it might have been Jami-Lee Ross, the MP for Botany—touched on that a bit earlier. That is going to be quite a strong statement to the communities they seek to represent. If a person standing for the local board is prepared to rank and say “Hey, in my case”—let us say, again coming back to my local areas—“the Ōrākei ward is the first priority, Maungakiekie and Tāmaki are second, and Waitematā is third.”, it could potentially be a brave person—[Bell rung] For whom does the bell toll? [Interruption] That is right. It is for thee; for thee, people. Oh, gosh, where are the classical literalists when you need them? It is actually going to be a very brave person who does that.
Fundamentally, this bill is simple in so far as it is asking for, effectively, a singular action, and it makes perfect sense to me that someone should not be standing for two roles. We have heard some vitriol, particularly from a New Zealand First speaker tonight, drawing out what he thought were some contradictions. I would not normally go there, but I do have to point out to that member and that party that one of its members was elected a member of Parliament and chose to remain on board appointments. So I think we just need to put out that if you are going to start pulling punches, if you will, at one side, you need to make sure you have got things on your own side in order.
Secondly, and very importantly, and I think most members in the House will relate to this, if you are going to stand up in a third, second, or first reading—granted, going backwards in this case—you need also to have your voice heard in the select committee. That is the right place for members of this House to raise their objections to a bill like this one around local government, to voice that strongly in the select committee, and then of course, even if you do not get agreement, to then bring that back to the House. It is a little bit rich—
Tim Macindoe: Pontificating in the House, after being silent.
SIMON O’CONNOR: Exactly. You cannot easily be silent in the select committee and then come here, on some moral high horse, in the Parliament as a whole.
In conclusion—and I know that is going to bring great sadness to many on the other side; I can feel it from here—I say that this is a good bill. To Mr Ngaro I say thank you for taking the time to develop this bill, to work with this bill, and to shepherd it through Parliament. I think this is a good bill. Again, I particularly notice it has been welcomed by the Auckland Council. The final encouragement is actually when it comes to elections, regardless of one’s political views, to have a number of people stand for local body elections—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is tragic, but his time has expired.
PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the member of the House with 11 community boards in his electorate, I commend this bill to the House.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) in the name of Alfred Ngaro. I am taking this call to support this bill. Having seen the process that members’ bills go through, I have to say that Alfred Ngaro is very fortunate, first, to have his bill drawn from the ballot and, second, to see his bill go through the parliamentary process. I am the final contributor to speak on this bill, so I want to congratulate Alfred Ngaro on this.
I see that this bill was considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee has recommended that this bill be passed with some amendments. I am not a member of the select committee, hence I missed the opportunity to hear submissions, but when I read through the submissions, I saw there were 17 submissions. One submission was in two parts. Overall, 10 submissions supported this bill, five submissions supported it with some amendments, and three submissions opposed the bill. The interesting common thing in the opposing submissions was that those people are on local boards—more than one local board—so, obviously, those people opposed this bill. But the majority of submitters supported it, including the Auckland Council. The Auckland Council supported this bill, which is a very important thing. The Auckland Council supported the prohibition of local board members being on multiple boards at the same time.
My colleagues have already spoken about the importance of local boards. Especially in Auckland, in a super-city structure, local boards have immense importance. It is really important that they are effective, that they are able to deliver results for ratepayers, and that they are working in a fair manner. It is very important for us to see that representation is fair and that representative practices are improved as and when possible. This bill is to fix a loophole in the current legislation that allows an individual to be on more than one local board in the Auckland Council area at the same time. This is about accountability; this is about priorities. But this bill is very fair, because it does not stop anyone from running for more than one local board. Yes, a candidate can run for more than one local board, but what they will be required to do, according to this bill, is provide a written notice to the electoral officer about the local boards that they are running for. They will be required to provide a ranking of those boards, in the order of priority. They will also be required to provide that information in the candidate profile statement.
I think this is a very fair process. It is great because, yes, it is the people’s right to stand for local boards, and they should be able to stand for as many boards that they would like to. Ron Mark, the member from the other side who spoke before, spoke about equal opportunities. This is about equal opportunities. No one is stopping people from running for as many boards as they would like. This is also about freedom of choice and about personal responsibility. It is about being transparent, because, yes, although people have the right to stand for more than one local board, ratepayers need to know where their loyalty is. It is about being transparent from the start. If a candidate gets elected to more than one board, then that candidate will be a member on the board that is ranked as his or her highest priority. He or she will cease to be a member on any other local boards listed. Those wards and local boards will operate as if he or she never stood.
As central government is responsible to taxpayers, local government is responsible to ratepayers. There are expectations of local boards—they are the voice of ratepayers. What I have experienced—and this is not once but many times—is that sometimes it is hard for members of the public to differentiate between the role of the local council and the role of central government. This has happened to me not once but many times. Just last weekend I had a meeting in Mount Roskill. Some of the attendees asked questions that were more to do with the local council and not central government. I want to urge local boards and local councils to make ratepayers more aware of their roles, because their roles are really important at local levels and ratepayers should know what their roles are so that they can ask those questions of the local representatives on their local boards.
Since Auckland became a super-city, the importance of local boards has also gone up. It is important that local board members are able to act in a fair and consistent manner, leaving their personal interests aside. My colleague Scott Simpson gave an example of someone standing in two electorates to be a member of Parliament—it cannot work. Similarly, this should be applied to local body elections too, so that people should not be able to stand for two local boards. If we look at a local board, it is just a mini-unit of the democratic process that we have in the country. It is about fairness. It is about accountability. It is about loyalty.
There can be many reasons for a conflict of interest when people stand for more than one local board. People I know who are on local boards work really hard. Some of them have full-time professional jobs and are on their own local board too. Local board work is seen to be more like part-time work, but I know that a chair’s role can be close to a full-time role. It is a huge commitment; it cannot be taken lightly. It is a huge commitment to their local ratepayers, and we are very keen to see that our system is delivering for both ratepayers and taxpayers. As an Aucklander myself, I am really keen to see that the super-city structure functions well without putting an excessive burden on ratepayers. It is important that people have trust in their local board.
As a Government, we are very keen to see that all sectors, private and public, are working well and that government at different levels is working well. We want to see businesses doing well. These things need to apply to us and to local government, too. Government is like a business because we are running schools, hospitals, law enforcement, and many other sectors—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am now going to invite the member to go back and speak to the third reading of the bill.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you. I have been talking about the importance of members staying on one local board in the Auckland Council, and why they should not be on more than one local board. When I am talking about government, it is local government that I am talking about. Why can the things that apply to central government not be applied to local government? There are responsibilities that central government is delivering, and, similarly, we expect that local government should be able to deliver things too.
Local boards have huge responsibilities. They have to manage their budgets, local facilities, events, parks, inputs to council-controlled organisations, economic development plans, and their board planning. There is a huge expectation of local boards and their role cannot be taken lightly, so we want people to be fully committed to the board that they are standing for. Yes, they can stand for more than one, but once they are elected they have to be on the board that they have indicated is their highest priority.
The important thing is fairness to people. People should know that the person who is there on the board to represent them is there for only their board, or that the person is standing for more than one board. That is about transparency, and that transparency is needed from the start.
As I said, even the Auckland Council supported this bill. It suggested that “elected members should be able to sit on one local board only at a time and support the proposed amendments to the LGACA to reflect this. This would ensure full representation in all local board areas. Candidates should still be able to stand for several boards but would have to choose which board to sit on if they were elected to more than one.”
So this bill received huge support. It is a great bill. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.
Ayes 108
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.
Noes 13
New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1.
Bill read a third time.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the House to rise for the evening after the vote on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2).
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to ask a question about whether that leave would extend the House if the House is still going at 10 o’clock.
Chris Hipkins: No.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The answer is that it would, and do members understand that? The question is that leave be agreed to for the House rising after the vote on this next bill. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Unfortunately, the strict rules of the House are that once leave has been put and rejected it cannot be put again. I am going to say that I was a little deaf and I did not hear the member coughing. All right? There is no objection. The House will rise at the conclusion of the bill.
Bills
Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)
First Reading
ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.
It sometimes looks from the outside as if much of what we do in this House does not look like it has a lot of significance, or at least you do not get to see the significance of it. And sometimes it feels that way too when you are sitting in this House. But the bill that we are considering now will help thousands of New Zealanders, and most importantly it will help thousands of young New Zealanders.
This bill does some very important things to improve the lives of New Zealanders, many of whom are on low incomes, and many of whom are presently in substandard housing. The principle that sits behind this bill is a pretty simple one: no New Zealander, adult or child, should have to live in a house that makes them or their children sick. It is that simple. Every Kiwi kid deserves to grow up in a home that is warm, safe, and dry. As parents, and as a parent myself, I would not accept anything less for my own child.
This bill does a number of things. It sets standards for private rental housing, and, in fact, for public rental housing too. Standards must be set within 6 months of the bill coming into effect, and then new leases that are in existence 12 months after the legislation comes into effect will have to comply with the standards that have been promulgated. Then, 5 years after the legislation comes into effect, every lease would have to comply. The bill would require the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to set standards for heating and insulation. The standards will have to describe what constitute adequate methods of heating, adequate methods of insulation, adequate indoor temperatures, adequate ventilation, adequate draught-stopping and adequate drainage. The regulations will have to describe suitable measures for each of those points. The legislation will allow for exemptions to be provided for in the regulation.
I make those points to be very clear, because some of the objections that have been registered by the Government—or at least its Minister for Building and Housing—in the last 24 hours have misled New Zealanders about what, in fact, the bill does. However, it is interesting to note the change in position that the Minister has taken. Two days ago, the Minister was concerned that the bill “requires properties to be insulated at a pace that is totally unrealistic”. A day later, he said that the bill was “slow in timing”, and that “it has a timetable four years slower for insulating rental properties than the Government’s Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.” I am looking forward to the Minister’s contribution tonight because I would like to know the third position that bumbling Nick Smith is going to take on this particular bill.
When the Children’s Commissioner, Russell Wills, was making his submission on the Government’s legislation, which merely requires rental housing to have the 1978 insulation standard complied with in 4 years’ time, he said that right now 42,000 New Zealand children a year are going to hospital for respiratory infections, bronchial problems, asthma, and things associated with unhealthy homes—unhealthy homes that are unhealthy because of dampness and a lack of ventilation that allow mould spores to proliferate. That is the problem that we are trying to fix. It is reasonable to demand in the 21st century that New Zealanders in rental accommodation have a minimum standard that at least keeps them healthy. The idea that we continue to allow 42,000 Kiwi kids to have to go to hospital for avoidable and preventable infections is just totally intolerable. The Children’s Commissioner also said that up to 15 deaths of children a year are at least partly attributable to unhealthy homes. That is a disgrace. We can stop that, and tonight’s vote will be the first step towards doing just that. Every rental property should be insulated, should be weathertight, and should have adequate heating. I do not think it is too much to ask.
I have had a lot of correspondence from a lot of New Zealanders in recent weeks and days. The mother of a child who has been repeatedly unwell because of the house that they live in wrote to me. Her name is Estelle, and she was living in Auckland at the time. She told me in her email that her house had no insulation; it was damp. Mould was growing on her son’s toys. He got asthma and he had to go to hospital. And what she told me was that she carried the guilt of her unwell son with her until she was able to move out of that house. She felt so guilty that she could not keep her child well. She is on a low income; she got the best house that she could afford, but it was an unhealthy home, and she should not have been put in that position. No parent in New Zealand should be made to feel guilty about the conditions in which they are often forced to accommodate their children. And no child in New Zealand should be in a position where they have to get sick like that.
This matters to all of us in New Zealand because we want to be part of communities that are strong and vibrant and where everybody gets a fair chance. You see, when a child lives in a home that makes them constantly sick, that means they have to take days off school, and that means that mum or dad might have to take time off work as well—and that affects the household and it affects that child’s future. And if we are serious about being a country that fulfils our commitment and that basic Kiwi Dream that no matter the circumstances into which you are born we will have a country, an education system, a health system, and housing that means that you can lift yourself up and be the best you can be throughout the rest of your life—when young children live in houses that make them sick they are denied that opportunity. This is about fairness and justice and equality.
It is hardly surprising that we have ongoing problems with housing and accommodation in New Zealand when we see what is happening with houses and home affordability in New Zealand. In the city of Auckland, the average price of an Auckland house is now nine times the average income. We have the lowest homeownership in 64 years—that is a symptom of the fact that more and more people are dependent on rental accommodation. This bill is about standing up for those New Zealanders. This bill gives voice to New Zealanders who have been suffering and struggling in silence for far too long, and this is about doing the right thing and the decent thing. It is about doing the Kiwi thing.
It is sad that the National Party, so far, has expressed its opposition to this bill. My colleague Phil Twyford is going to go through some of those objections. But it is interesting that the Commissioner for Children had this to say in relation to a Budget promise made a few years ago by this Government that undertook to make homes healthy again. He said that the Government’s bill that was currently going through this Parliament failed to meet that promise. He said that the Government made a promise to New Zealand children that it would make their houses healthy, and 3 years on from that Budget promise the Government’s bill will do little for children living in cold, damp, mouldy housing. It is a wasted opportunity, and a broken promise to our children.
I urge Government members to fulfil their promise, vote for this bill, and make a pleasant life, a safe and healthy life, in rental homes in New Zealand a reality for the children of New Zealand and their parents. It is that easy for this House tonight to do that, and I urge the Government to support my bill.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The problems with Mr Little’s bill are, firstly, that it would have New Zealand homes insulated at a far slower rate than the Government’s policy; secondly, that it lacks the details and does not match up to the exaggerated rhetoric that we have just heard from Mr Little; and, thirdly, its impractical provisions will not work in practice. The bill is a poor substitute for the robust and practical measures that this Government is taking to make our homes in New Zealand warmer, drier, and safer.
There is no disagreement in this Parliament that making our homes warmer and drier provides substantive benefits for children’s health, for reducing days lost at school, for workers being able to stay at home, and savings in families’ energy bills. It is for these very reasons that the Government has had such an active programme addressing insulation in homes. Mr Little and Labour are johnny-come-latelys on this issue when you look at the record. We insulated 30,000 State homes in our first 2 years. In our first Budget, we announced a programme, Warm Up New Zealand, to insulate 290,000 homes. The bill we currently have in its final stages would insulate another 189,000 homes—that is half a million homes altogether. That 500,000 figure compares with 50,000 under the last 9 years of the previous Labour Government. It is absolutely true that this Government has done ten times more in respect of getting homes insulated.
Now this debate is over the detail, and I welcome the opportunity to engage and expose the flaws in this bill. The first irony in this bill is that, for all the rhetoric of caring more about healthy homes, it will take 4 years longer than the Government’s approach to getting uninsulated homes upgraded. Let us optimistically assume that this bill would be passed through the House by the end of the year. Clause 2 specifically says that the bill would take 12 months to come into legal effect. The later clause says that beyond that point the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment would have a further 6 months to set the standard. That means the very first home to get insulated under this bill would be in July 2018, and the last home to get insulated would not be until July 2023. That compares—
Andrew Little: You’re making it up.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Read the bill. Read your own bill, because the Government’s approach provides that social housing must be insulated by 1 July this year, and all homes that are rented must be insulated by 1 July 2019. Even if you take into account the provision in this bill to require newly tenanted homes to be insulated, that will provide about 30,000 homes per year. So let us take the numbers: on 1 July 2019 this bill would have only 30,000 homes insulated, and National’s would have 180,000. Those who are supporting this bill are actually saying they will have 150,000 homes that are currently uninsulated still uninsulated by 1 July 2019.
And then we have the exaggerated claims about this bill requiring a better standard of insulation. That is complete rubbish. There is nothing in this bill about the standard of insulation. All clause 6 says is that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will be required to publish and prepare a standard. I am more than happy to have a debate about the insulation standards the Government is proposing, because they make good sense. We are requiring all uninsulated rental housing to be insulated to the latest 2008 standard by July 2019. The debate is over whether homes insulated under an older standard should be upgraded. This does not make economic sense. Those homes built after 1978 have insulation that reduces heat loss by 84 percent, and those built after 2001 by 87 percent. The cost of upgrading this insulation to the 2008 standard of 92 percent is not justified, because the cost would exceed the benefits. The idea that you are going to have tens of thousands of children not going to hospital because of a few percentage points’ reduction in terms of insulation and heat loss does not withstand scrutiny.
It is true that in setting these standards the Government has been influenced by robust cost-benefit analysis. This is important because every cost that we impose on the rental sector is, ultimately, passed on in rents. Insulating an uninsulated property provides $1.80 of benefit for every $1 that is spent, and it makes good sense. But to gain a few extra percentage points of insulation by requiring those properties that are insulated—but not right up to those last few percentage points of the current standard—to upgrade actually imposes more costs on the very families whom we are trying to help than there are benefits. In our approach, we are requiring that where insulation is no longer in a reasonable state of repair then it has to be upgraded. And we are also requiring that all tenancy agreements disclose the level of insulation so that, over time, tenants are better aware and we get those upgrades.
The second issue that needs scrutiny in this bill is the claim that there is currently no requirement for heating, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping. That is false. The existing regulations provide for all of these. Let me quote directly from the Housing Improvement Regulations. “Clause 6—Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating.” And in clauses 14 to 16, it states that every house shall have an efficient drainage, shall be free of dampness, and that it shall have a proper sanitation system. On ventilation, clause 11 requires “Every room … shall be provided with … adequate lighting and ventilation …”. These are the existing regulations. It is just garbage for Labour to claim that these issues in this bill are not addressed in the current law. The only issue not covered in the current regulations but proposed in Mr Little’s bill is the proposal requiring that landlords have to meet a minimum indoor temperature. That is impractical and stupid. A landlord cannot reasonably be expected to maintain a minimum temperature where the tenant controls when the heater is turned on and off—
Hon Member: Whether the windows are open.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —whether wood is put on the fire, whether curtains are opened or closed or, as my member interjects, whether windows are opened or closed. The Government is not saying that there is not a problem over slum properties that are not fit for renting. But what we are saying is that the issue is the enforcement and not the standards. That is why the Government’s bill focuses on strengthening enforcement by giving the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, for the first time, the proper powers to be able to prosecute some landlords directly. This is an important change not covered in this Labour bill that will actually make far more practical difference to the actual issue of standards and slum properties that concerns this House.
My point about this bill is that it is a fake. It does not guarantee healthy homes. It will actually take longer to insulate homes than the Government’s approach. It does not set any standard for insulation, and claims in that respect are just puffery. The Government will oppose this bill. I would actually welcome the fact if it goes to the select committee, because I tell you that when it comes under select committee scrutiny it will be shown for the fraud that it is and it will become an embarrassment for the Leader of the Opposition. This bill is a very poor substitute for the Government’s detailed and practical measures that will do a far better job of making our rental properties warmer, drier, and safer.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): This morning’s New Zealand Herald commented in its editorial that Nick Smith’s bill—which is the counterpart to the bill that we are debating tonight—the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, was a grudging half measure and introduced as a sop to public opinion. Tonight Parliament has the opportunity to do the job properly. New Zealand is ready to bring our rental housing into the 21st century. It is no longer good enough in this country of ours that there are 42,000—in fact, the latest figures indicate 50,000—preventable hospitalisations of children with respiratory and infectious diseases. Most of those are directly attributable to poverty and cold, damp, and mouldy housing.
I want to start by quoting the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills, who told Parliament that National’s bill is “shameful” and a “wasted opportunity, a broken promise to our children” that will “do little for children living in cold, damp, mouldy housing.” The Minister should be paying attention to the fact that the Child Poverty Action Group, which has been one of the most dedicated and tireless groups campaigning on this issue, has come out enthusiastically in support of Andrew Little’s bill.
Nick Smith has been going around the country saying that Andrew Little’s bill will add unsupportable costs to landlords and drive up rents. That is absolute rubbish. A heat pump, which Nick Smith’s bill will not require in rental housing but Andrew Little’s bill will, will cost the landlord $2,000. That cost will last a lifetime of, let us say, 15 years for an asset that will generate hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue for that landlord. But more importantly, Dr Smith, for that small investment it will save lives and prevent unnecessary hospitalisations. The Minister knows that when we are talking about a cost-benefit analysis, $1 invested in retrofitting rental properties will save the taxpayer $6 in public health expenditure.
Andrew Little’s bill is comprehensive. It includes heating. Nick Smith’s bill does not. It only includes insulation and smoke alarms. Everybody knows, except the Minister, that if you insulate a cold house it is still a cold house. Andrew Little’s bill will require, under the standards that will be promulgated under regulations, a modern, affordable, and fixed heating source. The other deficiency in Nick Smith’s bill, which Andrew Little’s bill fixed, is that it will mandate legislation standards to the state of the modern building code. Nick Smith’s bill will allow houses that are retrofitted, that are already insulated to the 1978 standard, which is this standard—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s a lie.
PHIL TWYFORD: Nick Smith’s bill will allow hundreds of—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. Nick Smith will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will now leave the House. It is the second time. He knows how to withdraw properly. He will leave the House.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Sorry, what did I do wrong?
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member knows he makes no further comment, and he did.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr Smith, just come back. If it was a genuine mistake on your part and you give me that assurance, the member may stay.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I genuinely apologise.
PHIL TWYFORD: Andrew Little’s bill is comprehensive. It does not include the giant loophole that Nick Smith’s bill does. Andrew Little’s bill will require modern insulation standards set to the 2002 standard in the building code. Nick Smith’s bill will allow houses that are insulated to the old 1978 standard to continue with this old standard and not have to be upgraded to this newer standard. That is why Andrew Little’s bill is a better bill.
Nick Smith says that his bill will be implemented faster than Andrew Little’s bill. That is rubbish. Andrew Little’s bill has a 12-month grace period for landlords. But when every tenancy turns over it requires the landlord to sign up to the new standards and guarantee that it meets the standards in Andrew Little’s bill. Nick Smith’s bill will allow landlords to have a phase in period of 4 years—Nick Smith allows a 4-year grace period in meeting the insulation standards. So he is quite wrong when he says that his bill will be implemented faster.
We are leaving the children of this country with a terrible legacy. Children who grow up in cold, damp, mouldy homes—many of them end up with permanent lung damage called bronchiectasis. It consigns them to a lifetime of respiratory infections and premature death. Andrew Little’s bill will guarantee that every rental property in this country is warm and dry, and that kids growing up in those houses get a decent start in life. We have diseases in this country that have not been seen in Europe since the Second World War. It has to stop. Andrew Little’s bill will enact the most important public health reform that this country has seen in decades.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). I would normally like to start by acknowledging the Leader of the Opposition’s good motives—or at least acknowledge the motives that he would like people to think he has when he brings a bill such as this to the House. It is a parade of faux compassion, by bringing a bill that is supposed to help vulnerable children in cold and damp homes, but has none of the mechanisms required to actually do that. You only have to start to ask a few basic questions of Mr Little’s bill to see why that is the case. We might ask Mr Little whether he thinks that people, particularly people with very limited incomes, do not know what proportion of their income to spend on housing. Are they spending too little on housing and not enough on things such as food, transport, clothing, and other necessaries of life?
If he thinks that people have that basic budgeting wrong, then perhaps one thing that would be helpful to them would be to have more income. That might very well be the answer. But there is nothing in this bill that will increase the incomes of the poorest New Zealanders whom he purports to help. So then you might say that it would be helpful to them if the cost of warm, dry housing became more affordable, but, of course, there is nothing in this bill that will make warm, dry housing more affordable. So if it is not going to increase the proportion of people’s income that is spent on housing, if it is not going to increase the amount of income that people have overall, and if it is not going to make housing more affordable, then who is going to pay the costs involved in increasing the quality of housing, the temperatures, the heating facilities, and the amount of insulation that these houses have?
The answer is that Mr Little has no answer, because, unfortunately, this is a bit of vainglorious political showboating, and all the worse for the faux compassion involved in his bringing this bill to the House. But, ultimately, it comes down to confusion between the intentions of the policy and the outcomes. Everybody in this House actually agrees with the intentions—agrees with the idea that people should have healthier environments in which to live. Everybody understands that there are health problems that come from being cold and being damp. But I have argued that there is no answer in Mr Little’s bill to how that will actually be achieved, other than by imposing additional costs on the very people who cannot afford them.
The real problem is that there is no problem definition in Mr Little’s bill. He cannot explain why it is that people are not already purchasing the best possible housing that they can afford, and that landlords are not already providing the best housing that they are able to, given the costs that they face, and there is no explanation of why people who rent houses have their spending priorities wrong. Unless Mr Little can answer those basic questions, then nobody in this House should be voting for this bill.
The fact of the matter is that this is a very real problem facing New Zealand. The shortage of housing is a challenge for New Zealanders from all walks of life right across this country, but, unfortunately, by bringing a bill that does nothing more than parade faux compassion, offers no real solutions, and leaves the very people whom it intends to help actually worse off, then we end up in a situation where people lose faith in the political class, and, hopefully, faith in the Labour Party for bringing such a poor solution to the House. I proudly oppose this bill. Thank you.
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I am proud to be in one of the compassionate and responsible political parties in this House that will be supporting the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) tonight. I would just like to suggest to the country that you completely ignore everything that you heard from the little fellow over there, David Seymour. This is a man who has no idea what it means to live in this country with an income where you cannot make sure you pay your rent, buy your food, and pay your power bill. This is a man who has never lived in a house where you have to bring all of your kids and all of your blankets, your socks, and your jumpers and all sleep in the lounge room, because that is the only room in the house where you know you can keep your kids warm and dry. This is a man who has never been in a home with children who have spent months and months and months sick—sick in hospital, at home sick, back in hospital, at home sick. Not a single experience from that young man about what it is really like to live in this country.
I challenge National members to think about what they are doing tonight in refusing to support this bill. You know, National knows that there are 42,000 hospitalisations of children because of cold, damp homes. National knows that there are 1,600 extra winter deaths in this country because of cold, damp homes. National knows that there are 15 children who will die this year because of cold, damp homes. What will it take to convince you to act to save these lives? Why do these lives not matter to the National Party? I know they do not matter to ACT—he is irrelevant. Why do they not matter to National?
What will it take? Do you need to go and have a sleepover in one of those homes? Do you need to sleep in a home where the beds have to be pushed into the middle of the room because the cold, wet walls make the blankets damp and mouldy? Is that what you need to do? Do you need to go to the hospital and see the kids who are sick—the babies—puffing and on ventilators? Is that what you need to see? Do they need to see the toddlers who cannot play in hospital, who are lying listless on their beds, because every single breath is a painful labour? Do you need to see that? Or maybe the only option for the members on the other side, in National, is the invitation to the funerals. Because we are talking about—
Hon Nicky Wagner: For God’s sake!
METIRIA TUREI: Do not argue with me, Miss. We are talking about New Zealanders who die because their rental homes are cold and damp.
This is a piece of legislation that will save lives, and National is refusing to allow it to proceed. How could that be? That is what the consequences of National’s actions are. New Zealanders will die—babies will die—because their homes are cold and damp, and National has a chance to save those lives and will not. This is the reality that you must face, because New Zealand families have to face it every single day. These are the New Zealand families who cannot afford to make sure that their homes are warm and dry, who cannot afford the power bills, who cannot afford the flash houses that perhaps National and the ACT Party members can afford, who have to choose every day between decent food and warmth for their kids. These are the realities faced by the people whom you are supposed to support and be here to work for. Some of them will die this winter because you have failed to act.
I am not ashamed for one moment to put this reality on the floor of this House. It is necessary for us as legislators to be confronted by what is really happening with our families, because that is the reality. Here is a solution right in front of us, available to us tonight—to do something real for those families whose kids and whose grandparents, whose grandfathers will suffer over this winter. So I urge members: think first about the people who need us the most. Think first about the most vulnerable, who need us the most, and act for them. We have the privilege, we have the power, we have the opportunity to save lives—so let us take it. Thank you.
PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. In following on from that stream of histrionic, emotive invective, which emotionally played on the heartstrings, I suppose, of some viewers of the debate tonight, I say that any rational analysis of the argument of the member Metiria Turei would actually bring, I think, a slightly different response.
On this side of the House we acknowledge that there is a problem with under-insulated homes in New Zealand, and that is why the Hon Dr Nick Smith has advanced a very practical, a very balanced, a sensible, and workable bill, as opposed to the bill advanced by Mr Little. Forty-two thousand hospitalisations—if that is the number, and there can be a debate around the number of people who are going to hospital due to insufficiently insulated, insufficiently warm, and damp homes—that problem can only be made worse by increasing the cost of housing for the most vulnerable in society, and that is exactly what this bill will do.
Once again, and as with Mr Twyford’s bill in the last year, we have a bill that seems to indicate that the Labour Party believes that it can, by fiat, decide what the standard and level of housing will be, with no cost passed on to the tenants. We know that is simply not the case. If a landlord was obligated to undertake the kind of insulation that Dr Smith was referring to, the marginal 2, 3, or 4 percent of insulation standard, to bring it up to the required code—at an unreasonable cost, at a cost that is not reflected in the level of added benefit provided to the tenants as well as to the landlord, then of course there will be a cost passed on to the tenant. In some cases, that cost will be more than that tenant is able to bear.
I am proud to be part of a Government that has a superb track record on the insulation of homes in New Zealand. We have seen 320,000 homes insulated, and I actually want to pay credit to the Green Party—not the current Green Party, but to the Green Party of Jeanette Fitzsimons, where we actually had a memorandum of understanding, backed up by a Government that was prepared to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that those 320,000 homes insulated under the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme went ahead, with a further 180,000 homes to be insulated under the next tranche of improvements put forward by Dr Smith. That gives a total of 500,000—half a million New Zealand homes, compared with the mere 50,000 that were insulated during those 9 long, dark, cold years of Labour Government misrule in New Zealand.
This bill is abhorrent. This bill sets down, with maybe some good intentions, a set of clauses that will have the effect of putting up the price of housing for those in New Zealand who are most vulnerable. On the Government Administration Committee, as Dr Smith has said, we would look forward to having the opportunity of scrutinising this bill because I believe it would, under scrutiny, collapse very, very quickly. But, better still, let us save the time of the committee and of the House and reject it at this first reading stage. For that reason, I will be voting against it.
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This Government has made an unutterable mess of every aspect of housing policy in New Zealand, resulting in a dangerous price bubble for Auckland and excessive rent increases—
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: We let you have two letterboxes.
DENIS O’ROURKE: —in the main centres and a continuation of poor quality rental houses. That member’s mouth is more like a letterbox, and he should close it.
Last year I read Shamubeel Eaqub’s book Generation Rent, and I was impressed by the differences it described between New Zealand’s rental market and legislation, and those of other developed countries, which have much better developed rental markets and much better legislation than we do. There were three essential differences that it described. One was fair rents—and this Government does need, actually, to pay attention to that, and there does need to be regulation to ensure that rents are fair, as is the case in other countries and as is not the case in New Zealand. When you look at the situation in both Auckland, where the severe housing crisis there has resulted in unaffordable rents for many people, and Christchurch, where you get the same situation, mainly because of the long-term effects of the earthquakes there—in both of those situations the market actually failed. Rents exploded, people were hurt, and this Government did absolutely nothing whatsoever about it.
Secondly, the other point the book made was that New Zealand does not have secure tenancies—and I am coming to the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), Mr Assistant Speaker, in the third point. But the second one is that New Zealand does not have secure tenancies. Our tenancies tend to be short term with very little protection against eviction, and it is too easy to get rid of tenants in circumstances where they have nowhere else to go. The third point is one that this bill addresses, and that is the question of the quality of rental properties. There are far too many damp, old dumps in New Zealand that are being let to people on low incomes who cannot afford anything better. Some of those properties should actually be ineligible to be rented altogether. Those who wish to continue to rent them out need to bring them up to standard or just get out of the market.
The Government, again, needs to do much more to improve the quality of rental properties so that people who cannot afford to buy their own homes have a genuine alternative, and we are not seeing that, as a result of Government inaction and its Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which Dr Smith is so proud of. It makes only some minor changes, requiring smoke alarms and insulation, but does little else. It actually still uses a 40-year old insulation standard that dates from 1978. There were dozens of submissions on that bill imploring the Government to apply much higher standards, especially than the standard that is regarded as the 2008 insulation standard, which was the one that would be adopted in this bill.
That is an important distinction between the Government’s very poor effort and this bill, which actually goes a hell of a lot further. We are not seeing improvements in heating standards or insulation standards in New Zealand, because the Government has not done anything, and because the Government has not given any signals about that in its proposed legislation. In addition to all of that, we are not seeing improvements in weatherproofing and in damp and draughty homes, and all of that needs to be attended to as well.
This bill makes a valuable contribution by requiring the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to set minimum standards, and that is what is missing in current legislation, and it will have to do that within 5 years, effectively. But that may be too long and New Zealand First will wish to question at the select committee whether that can be reduced to 3 years. We would also like to take a close look at clause 6 to see whether that could be expanded to do other things, such as to require earthquake resistance, fire resistance, and attention paid to minimum sizes of homes for families, single people, and for couples, and so on.
Finally, this bill is a good start. I believe it needs to go the select committee so we can all have a good look at it, make the improvements that are needed, and pass it, because that is what this country really needs.
BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in opposition to this bill, and what can you say about it? It is a bill that is long on promises, very short on detail, and very, very slow, actually, in any form of delivery at all. If we look at the bill in its substance—if I can stretch the meaning of that term to its fullest possible extent—the bill is going to hang around for 12 months before something has to be done, once it is enacted. Then the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will take 6 months to create a standard, and then, finally, 18 months after enactment, some houses might be required to have some level of insulation. We do not know yet, because that is another part I will get to. So within 3 years, I think—we have heard of calculations tonight that would suggest that maybe if the House were gracious enough to permit this bill to pass through all stages, about 30,000 homes may have met whatever that standard of insulation is in the 3-year time period. In the same time period, under the changes this Government is currently putting into place, there will be 180,000 homes—
Chris Bishop: How much?
BRETT HUDSON: —180,000 rental homes that are not currently insulated that will be. That is six times as many—six times as many. This is a Government that takes real pragmatic action. That is an Opposition that promises a whole lot, has no substance behind the promise but does make a whole lot of promises that we do not know how it is going to back up. So let us get to that, because the substance, such as it is—there is no standard at all in this bill, not one. Not for insulation, not for ventilation—there is not a single standard.
There is a promise that Labour will have the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment create standards. What is more, one only has to read the wording of the bill—the ministry is creating standards. So they are not standards that exist today; the ministry is going to create and publish a standard. There are no minimums. There are no specifications. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that can give anyone any confidence, other than the confidence that we have in the ministry on this side—nothing that can give the public any confidence as to the specifications and the level of those standards.
But on the positive, because there is a positive in this bill—in fact, in the reading of the bill from the Leader of the Opposition tonight, the real positive is that in putting the bill forward with this wording, the Leader of the Opposition has just expressed his utmost confidence in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to get it right. And that is one thing where we can absolutely agree with him. But he might want to have a chat to his colleague Dr David Clark. I sit on the Commerce Committee with Dr Clark, and Dr Clark has clearly shown that he does not have that confidence in the ministry. So he might want to have a chat to his colleague because the Leader of the Opposition is claiming that he can rely on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: “I don’t need to set some standards; MBIE will get this right.”
Once again the Labour Government has put up a member’s bill that is long on promises and short on detail. It is asking this House and the public to believe Labour when, at the last count, at the last poll, less than 28 percent of the country were prepared to believe what he says. I oppose this bill.
KEVIN HAGUE (Green): When we hear the word “home”, we think of belonging, security, warmth, and safety. The Green Party believes that every person in this country has the right to those qualities—the right to a home. We have campaigned on this issue for many years now, and we are proud of the role that we have played, both in partnership with Labour and then subsequently with National, to try to ensure that we could get as close to that as we could. We have done so because we recognise that those qualities are the ones that are necessary, absolutely necessary, if a person is to be able to go on to fulfil their potential as a human being. That is surely the fundamental responsibility of a Government. That is the very first thing that a Government owes its citizens.
I want to quote from someone who wrote to me and said: “For what it’s worth, I have one of the better and more expensive rental properties in Porirua East, and mine would meet just one of the criteria, which is decent ventilation—as in, the kitchen windows don’t shut flush. It has broken toilets, cracked guttering, old wiring with broken power points, and blown light fittings. No internal heating—there’s a broken heat pump that the landlord won’t fix—no underfloor insulation, and mice holes in the walls and ceiling. This was the best I could afford after a month of hunting and applications.” The health consequences of poor housing are manifold—and others have already spoken about them—but they are of two sorts. One is a consequence of a shortage of affordable supply, and that is the consequence of overcrowding, with its consequences of rheumatic heart disease, of respiratory infections, and of skin infections. The other type of consequence is the consequences that come from poor quality housing: cold housing, draughty housing, and mouldy housing.
In the Government’s recently announced health strategy, one of its actions is to support families, especially those with newborn babies, to have healthy housing—warm, dry, and smoke-free—and address crowding issues to reduce transmission of infectious diseases, infant mortality, and family stress. But I do not actually believe it. I do not believe it because that poor quality housing actually serves as a safety valve for National’s complete failure to actually supply affordable housing in sufficient quantity. That is why Nick Smith’s legislation is such a pale facsimile of what is actually required, with its failure to address many of the significant issues and with its inclusion of obsolete insulation standards. His claim to the House this evening that many of the issues, like home heating, are already dealt with by existing law and regulation is disingenuous, because he knows that his Government does not enforce that law and does not enforce those regulations, and he has not taken any of the opportunities that have been available to him to actually change that.
Minister Smith said that he would welcome the opportunity for this bill to be debated in select committee. Paul Foster-Bell has said the same thing. Well, that is a traditional way of dealing with disagreements about some legislation and improvements that could be made to legislation. Why, then, is National not voting for this bill tonight? It is not voting for the bill tonight because, fundamentally, it wants to protect that safety valve for itself. In doing so, it fails that basic test of a Government, that basic duty it owes every person in this country to a warm, safe, healthy, and secure home.
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I wish I had more time for this call but I will try to make the most of the time that I do have. I just want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, because I think that he is genuinely passionate about this issue; it is just that he has been armed with a very poorly written bill.
I do want to address the comments that Metiria Turei made, because she looks across the House at us, and because we are aspirational she somehow feels that she can accuse us of not actually having any feelings for the people who are in these positions. I just want to say that, as a young man growing up, my parents bought our first home at 7 Morton Avenue in Sunnynook. My dad had left the air force and he was working two jobs to try to achieve a Bachelor of Commerce degree, and my mum was working for Mill Valley and doing some seasonal fruit-picking. We were in a small house. I had a brother and two sisters; we shared a room. The house was not insulated, it did not have double glazing, it was cold, and it was draughty during the winter—
David Seymour: This can’t be true. You’re in the National Party.
MARK MITCHELL: That is right. Somehow, I do not know how, my mum found a way to keep us healthy and to keep us warm and dry. I remember the condensation forming on the windows, and I also remember clearly when dad had actually saved enough to put our first insulation in. It was the old Pink Batts, and we helped him install them in the roof and the ceiling. My brother and I made a fatal error because, on opening the first pack, we thought they looked like fun to jump around and roll around in. We made a big mistake and mum spent the next 2 or 3 hours hosing us down with cold water for some relief.
I am going to back our Minister for Building and Housing, and the reason for that is that this Government has already insulated 300,000 homes, and he has actually got a very good plan that is going to deliver a further 160,000 homes in a much shorter time frame than what this bill offers. So I want to acknowledge the Minister and the Government, and the work that they have already done. I am the first one to acknowledge and say that we have got an old stock of rental homes, that we live in a golden age in terms of the products that are available now to be able to upgrade them and to be able to insulate them better, and that we must be focused on continuing to do that. But I am going to back our Minister on this one in terms of the plan he has got that is going to deliver that quicker and more efficiently than the bill that the member of the Opposition has put up. Thank you.
ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I appreciate the contributions of members tonight—well, most of them. This bill is very simple, and, in fact, it is drafted in a very similar format to the Government bill, so the complaints about lack of specificity or substance, if they are going to be levelled at all, need to be levelled at the Government bill too. It provides for regulations to be promulgated for standards in these particular areas, and it goes beyond insulation. As other members have said, there is no point in having a well-insulated house in the depth of winter if there is no source of heating. Nor is there any point in having insulation if the windows do not open, there is no air circulating, and the mould is allowed to build up. It is pretty simple.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Already in the regulations.
ANDREW LITTLE: These will be the regulations that have led to 42,000 kids being hospitalised every year for respiratory diseases and bronchial infections. If the Minister for Building and Housing has not got it yet, his regulations are not working—they have to change. I think he does accept that, because his own legislation actually calls for a change in the regulations. My bill is no different; it just does a better job than the Minister’s.
I was intrigued by the honourable member David Seymour’s contribution, and I suppose I summarise it by saying this: the latter-day libertarian has a particular principle they live by now, which is: “Do as you wish, be as greedy as you like, because in the end, the State will pay.” That is what his contribution amounts to. It is not about people picking and choosing how much more they want to spend. The truth is that most of the people who have written to me are already struggling to make choices between putting food on the table and meeting the medical costs of their children. If he is concerned about where cost is going to be imposed—Mr Seymour, it is already being imposed on you and me and every other New Zealander, as we see 42,000 children admitted to hospital every year, having their respiratory infections and bronchial conditions attended to. It is very simple.
I want to say this to Mr Foster-Bell too, who was concerned about—or at least tried to trumpet—the great achievements of his Government and its insulation programme. The question he must answer, and, indeed, the Government must answer, is why, on achieving office, did National cancel the $1 billion programme that had been legislated for by the previous Labour Government—
Chris Bishop: Oh, what rubbish. It was not legislated.
ANDREW LITTLE: —and supported by the Greens, which was about insulating and installing heating devices in the houses that needed them? It is all there in black and white, Mr Bishop. It is all there for you to see. We know it is true. I can tell by the size of your reaction that it must be correct, because you get agitated only when we are right about something, and you have confirmed that.
So we come back to what this bill is about. It is about New Zealanders standing up and saying, in the 21st century, that we want decent minimum standards for rental housing in New Zealand, and we want a standard that is going to protect the kids in those houses from getting sick, from getting unwell, and from getting unhealthy—and actually, at the same time, making sure their parents are OK as well. That is all this is about. Let us do it for New Zealand. Let us do it for those who do not have a voice. It is not about those who sit in Epsom—the leafy suburbs of Epsom—and tell the rest of the world what is good for them; it is about this House now taking this opportunity to say we can do better. We can do better for the children and their families in this country, and have decent, healthy homes—warm, safe, dry homes. It is nothing less than any citizen in a modern country like ours, in the 21st century, should expect. I look forward to the House’s support for the bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I ask members—I know there is a lot of feeling about this—for the vote to be taken in silence, other than as appropriate.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.
Ayes 61
New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.
Noes 60
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
The House adjourned at 9.54 p.m.