Thursday, 5 May 2016

THURSDAY, 5 MAY 2016

THURSDAY, 5 MAY 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) on behalf of the Leader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday, 10 May, the Government will look to make progress on the Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax, GST on Online Services, and Student Loans) Bill, the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Overseas Investment Office—Application Fees and Reforms

1. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Land Information: Why is her Government planning to hike Overseas Investment Office application fees?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): The Government is planning to increase most Overseas Investment Office application fees in order to fund improvements for faster application screening by the Overseas Investment Office and more responsive monitoring and enforcement.

Ron Mark: What warning is a rise in fees sending to foreign buyers who are not of good character but who have the wealth to disguise the truth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The fees review is predominantly around giving investors greater certainty around the timing and the length of time that an application takes; currently, it is about 90 days. Investor feedback has been that they want that to be turned round faster, and we are looking at a 20 percent improvement.

Ron Mark: Why will the Government not tell foreigners that they must present straightforward applications in which the owner and their background are clearly detailed and authenticated?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Overseas Investment Office does work with applicants to ensure that they are clear about the 23 criteria involved, one of which is the good-character test. To give you an example of consents this year that have been rejected right from day one, 57 percent have been rejected.

Ron Mark: Why should a foreign owner who is later found to have lied not have to forfeit the New Zealand asset they purchased, without compensation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Overseas Investment Office legislation is clear. One of the conditions of consent for most of the approvals is that they must remain of good character. If the Overseas Investment Office finds that the applicant loses that good-character status, there are a number of enforcement actions, including forced sale—and we have seen an example of that up north.

Ron Mark: Why does the Minister not just admit that these changes fit more into the Government’s promise to China to speed up the rubber stamp than into the public’s desire for more transparency and better due diligence?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I refute that, and I want to give an example of the importance of foreign investment to regions in New Zealand, including Masterton, where Premier Beehive, which employs 150 staff in that member’s very area, was bought by Australians—over $1 million of investment into that business, which I would have thought that member supports. Foreign investment is clearly an important part of growing our regions.

Joanne Hayes: Can the Minister provide more information about the review?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The review that has been undertaken has been under way for quite some time, and it has been looking at both the balance of the time that it has taken to process applications—whether we need target exemptions—and the need to provide greater certainty about the status of applications. Law firms, Business New Zealand, and Federated Farmers, amongst others, have been consulted, and it is their feedback that we have taken into consideration with the decisions that have been made.

Better Public Services—Progress

2. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to deliver Better Public Services to support New Zealand families?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): The Prime Minister set 10 challenging targets for Better Public Services in 2012, and since then we have made some very good progress. Benefit dependency, for example, continues to fall. We have made significant progress on crime: we currently have the lowest crime rate in New Zealand since 1978. We have reduced the number of children and young people experiencing physical abuse. And immunisation rates continue to grow, with almost 94 percent of 8-month-olds fully vaccinated. This is a Government that measures success by the results we achieve, not necessarily by the amount of money that we have spent.

Alfred Ngaro: What progress has been made against Result 1, Reducing Long-term Welfare Dependence?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The number of benefit recipients has decreased by 7,245 over the last year, largely driven by decreases in sole parent support and in jobseeker support numbers. This is good news on two levels, because sole parents, in particular, are getting into the workforce and becoming more independent. In the last year we have reduced the long-term cost of benefit dependence by around $2.4 billion, through welfare reform and better support for people on benefits to get back into work. It is also helped by strong growth in the labour market, with over 200,000 additional jobs created in the last 3 years, and an employment rate in New Zealand that is in the top three of the OECD.

Alfred Ngaro: What progress is the Government making in achieving better results from the health system?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The health sector is a very key priority for this Government. Since 2008-09 annual funding for health has increased by around $4 billion—from $11.8 billion to $15.9 billion over 7 years. This has resulted in the number of patients receiving elective surgery increasing from around 118,000 in 2007-08 to 167,000 in 2014-15—that is around 50,000 more surgeries a year over the last 7 years. We have seen major improvements in rheumatic fever, and yesterday the health Minister announced additional funding for Pharmac, which will take its annual budget to a record $850 million—

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you often remind us that it is for the Speaker to determine the length of an answer, and that is correct. But it brings disorder when the Opposition feels that a different standard is applied to Ministers answering questions than to Opposition members, including Mr Peters, asking them.

Mr SPEAKER: The member was right with his first point; it is for me to determine. The answer, I hope, is now concluded, because it was certainly a very long answer.

Alfred Ngaro: How are improvements in results in the education sector supporting our young people?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again a fulsome answer, because education is improving under this Government. Spending has increased by $1.8 billion, which has contributed to the outstanding success of Result 5 of Better Public Services targets, increasing the proportion of 18-year-olds with National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. That has jumped by nearly 10 percent since 2011. We have also introduced a range of other initiatives to boost student achievement, including trades academies, the Youth Guarantee scheme, and Māori—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I make the same point of order. There are so many—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. [Interruption] Order! Both members will resume their seats. To continue to raise points of order like that is in itself creating disorder, Mr Parker.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Answers are meant to be concise. When the Minister fills them full of irrelevant superlatives—things that are not facts but are his assertions of how grand he and his Government is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not want any further assistance from either members, if both members want to stay for the balance of question time. I will determine when the answer has gone on for too long. If the Opposition does not like a particular answer and starts to make a lot of noise, that is not in itself a reason for me curtailing the length of the answer.

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I just need to make it very clear—[Interruption] Order! The member will just resume his seat. We have discussed the matter as to the length of answers and me determining that I will determine them. If the member now wants to raise a point of order that does not in any way address the matters we have just determined, I will certainly consider it. But if the member is going to continue to relitigate the decision that I have already made, I will then be asking the member to leave.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your answer addressed the length of questions. My second point of order is that they are full of irrelevancies in the answers that do not meet the prescription—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I covered that point as well by saying just because an Opposition member does not like the answer does not mean that I will necessarily curtail it. [Interruption] Order!

Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During three of the four points of order raised by the Hon David Parker, and during your ruling, the Minister continued to interject, and that is outside the Standing Orders, and he should be reprimanded—

Mr SPEAKER: That is certainly not within the Standing Orders. If there is a point of order being heard, it will be heard in silence. I did not notice the interjection; I was concentrating very much on what the member was saying. Is there a further point of order? [Interruption] I hope it is relevant to the House, and not in any way just relitigating the territory we have just covered, otherwise I will be asking that member to leave the Chamber. So I am just being very clear.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that if the Minister was quoting from an official document—and it certainly appeared that he was quoting from an official document, because he appeared to be reading his answer—

Mr SPEAKER: Easily resolved. [Interruption] Order! Was the Minister quoting from an official document? [Interruption] No, he was not. Question number—[Interruption] Order! I know it is Thursday afternoon, but we are still going to get through question time.

Health Services, Funding—Disability Support Services and Deficit

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Will core Crown health expenditure in 2016/17 meet all health demographic and inflationary cost pressures; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The member will be very surprised to hear that she, like everyone else, will just have to wait until Budget day. But what I can tell her in advance is that Budget 2016 will feature the highest ever new investment in medicines in a year—$39 million, bringing Pharmac’s budget to $850 million in total.

Hon Annette King: Will the Ministry of Health be forced in 2016 to make savings to cover cost pressures in the disability support services budget, given it was required to find $37 million this year to cover the shortfall in funding?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member will just have to wait—21 sleeps to go.

Hon Annette King: Will disabled people living at home with support bear the brunt of any shortfall in funding in 2016, as they have this year because the Ministry of Health cut $8.2 million from services by curtailing demand?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member knows the answer to that one—it is the same as for the first two questions—but what I would say is that she should stop promising everything to everyone, because it just does not work. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no. We will just have the supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Will Budget 2016 fully fund the recent sleepover settlement, having underfunded the settlement by $13 million this financial year; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I will tell you what it will not do. It will not double the health budget and cut 7,000 people—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No. [Interruption] Order! I want the question answered—I want an answer to the question that was asked. Does the member want to repeat the question to assist the Minister?

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you were standing on your feet and ruling, the Minister was saying it was stupid, and I think he ought to apologise to you.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear that. If the member wants to ask the question again, we can move on.

Hon Annette King: Will Budget 2016 fully fund the recent sleepover settlement, having underfunded the settlement by $13 million this financial year; if not, why not?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I say, 21 sleeps to go.

Hon Annette King: How much is he planning to put aside for deficit support for district health boards in Budget 2016, in light of his announcement yesterday that the deficits are “about $60 million”, up by $14 million in just 2 months and nowhere near—

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

Hon Annette King: —the $19 million he planned for the whole year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I can say is we will not need the $160 million of deficit support that Mrs King would have needed to fund her ever-expanding deficits as health Minister. We have got them down to about $60 million, and they are getting lower all the time.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, on several occasions, has made claims about when I was the Minister of Health. In fact, the dates that he uses for when I was the Minister of Health, I was not. I think it is important that he remembers it is 11 years since I was the Minister and I stopped being the Minister in 2005.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member feels she is being misrepresented can I refer her to Standing Order 359.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot allow the member to use a point of order to make a debating point. It is just not on. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No. I need no need further assistance. I certainly need no further assistance on this. The member in quite a long way suggested misrepresentation. She is entitled to do that. I have suggested the remedy she must then take.

Hon Annette King: When will he stop the smoke-and-mirrors routine with the health budget, especially for the people of Canterbury, where he was forced to put in $6.6 million for mental health services recently, while at the same time demanding the district health board make $15 million in cuts?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not accept that at all. There is $254 million of extra funding that has gone into that district health board over the last 7 years. We have put in an extra $86 million to support the district health board through the earthquakes, including, actually on top of that, another $20 million just recently for mental health. So I am afraid you are on the wrong track.

Overseas Trusts Review—Meetings with Overseas Trust Industry Representatives

4. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Revenue: How many times did the Minister meet with representatives from the foreign trust industry between 27 November 2014 and 14 May 2015, and what other stakeholders did he meet with during that time period to discuss foreign trusts?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): I am advised that the Minister at the time had one meeting with representatives of the foreign trust industry and one subsequent meeting with the advisers to the foreign trust group OliverShaw Ltd. That meeting was on a range of issues, one of which was foreign trusts.

James Shaw: Why did he not also meet with stakeholders from the international development community, the Tax Justice Network, the Law Foundation, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Transparency International, or tax experts like Professor Craig Elliffe or Dr Deborah Russell?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Not being the Minister at that time, I am unable to answer what was inside the mind of the Minister, but I am aware that those groups meet formally and informally. I would not have described them as experts in the foreign trust industry specifically, and, therefore, I do not have the information to answer that question.

James Shaw: Is it standard operating practice in his office to make rapid policy changes based only on input from industry lobbyists?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I contest the two prefaces in that question: that it was a hasty process and that it was on the basis of just one meeting.

James Shaw: Will the John Shewan review of foreign trusts be meeting with any other stakeholders besides those from the foreign trust industry?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That will be a matter for Mr Shewan, but the terms of reference are on the public record.

James Shaw: Why did the Minister tell the foreign trust lobbyists at his very first meeting with them, on 16 December 2014, that the Government had no intention of reviewing foreign trusts; and is that also standard operating procedure?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I was not the Minister at that time and was not in that meeting, I am not going to speculate on what was or was not said in that meeting.

James Shaw: What proportion of New Zealand foreign trusts does he estimate are being used for illegal activities like money-laundering or tax evasion?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is a very difficult question to answer because of the way in which it has been asked. The fact is that anybody who is embarking on illegal activity that is identified by the New Zealand tax jurisdictions will be held to account for that activity. I repeat that the New Zealand presence is of the trustee. The foreign trusts themselves, the settlors, and the transactions are all in overseas jurisdictions, and it would be they who would be interested in that activity.

James Shaw: Is he concerned that although the foreign trust industry itself estimates that there are about 20,000 foreign trusts operating in New Zealand, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) says that there are only 11,646 registered trusts, meaning that nearly half of all foreign trusts operating in New Zealand may be operating illegally?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have not seen that first figure. I would go by the number that are registered with IRD.

Housing New Zealand—Procurement and Conflicts of Interest

5. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand’s handling of procurement and conflict of interest issues in light of the Auditor-General’s report into the contracting of Andrew Body Ltd to advise on the sale of state housing?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): on behalf of the Minister responsible for HNZC: The Minister is satisfied that Housing New Zealand has accepted the recommendations of the Auditor-General’s report. It has already taken action to improve the procurement practices so, yes, the Minister has confidence in the current practice.

Phil Twyford: Is it acceptable for Housing New Zealand to fail to follow its own rules and not tender $2.3 million worth of contracts to merchant banker Andrew Body to advise on the State house sell-off, and is the Minister satisfied that Housing New Zealand’s assurances to the Auditor-General will be sufficient to ensure that these practices are not continued?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Minister has certainly had guarantees from Housing New Zealand that those practices are not occurring. Six out of the ten were over $100,000. Certainly its own guidelines said that it should have gone out. It felt it had reasons why it did not. It has accepted the findings of the Auditor-General and it has made changes since, and we accept that.

Phil Twyford: Is he concerned that the investment fund of one of Andrew Body’s clients, the UK company John Laing Group, is now part of a consortia shortlisted to buy more than 1,200 State houses in Tauranga after the Auditor-General found that Housing New Zealand failed to properly manage Andrew Body’s conflicts of interest in respect of his relationship with John Laing?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly, what the Minister has been informed by Housing New Zealand is that it was very aware of Andrew Body’s conflicts of interest, and they were raised. What it did not do well was record them, so he thinks they certainly did know of them. To the first part of the question, yes, the Minister is confident they are going to manage it well.

Phil Twyford: Is this why the Government changed the law to give him extraordinary unfettered powers to sell State houses to anyone he likes, on whatever terms he likes, so that he can flog off billions of dollars of State housing to speculators while New Zealanders in need miss out?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.

Phil Twyford: How can the public have confidence in his stewardship of State housing when he is selling off billions of dollars of State housing to merchant bankers and foreign companies, when New Zealanders are living in garages and camping grounds, and his Government cannot even follow basic rules about conflict of interest?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because, as per usual, the member is making it up and his question has no validity.

Building and Construction Industry, Auckland—Growth

6. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What does the latest data show about the growth in residential construction in Auckland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The latest building consent data for the year to March shows the fourth consecutive year of growth of over 20 percent. This is the longest and strongest period of growth on record. New construction of homes in Auckland bottomed out at 3,500 per year but is now over 9,500 per year. We have gone from an annual investment of $1.5 billion to now $4.1 billion annual investment in residential construction, which, in both real and actual terms, is the highest ever on record.

Jami-Lee Ross: What does the household labour force survey data, out yesterday, tell us about the growth in people working in the building industry in Auckland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yesterday’s data shows that 80,000 people are now working in the building sector in Auckland. That is a growth of 28 percent over the last year, and it comes on top of growth of 12 percent in the previous year and another 8 percent in the year before. It shows the level of momentum that there is in new house construction in Auckland. It means there are 29,000 more people working in the house construction and building industry than prior to the Auckland Housing Accord being entered into. One of the challenges with such growth is maintaining the quality of the building work. That is why we are responding with a big investment in additional apprenticeships and growth in investments in skills areas like engineering. But we also need to make sure that the building system and the regulations maintain the quality as well as the quantity.

Jami-Lee Ross: What is the latest advice on house prices in the Auckland market, and is he satisfied the market has cooled?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The market does remain quite volatile, but there is some reason for optimism. If we look at the latest Quotable Value values, which is the largest sample size, for the first time in 5 years they show no quarterly increase in the house price. The real estate data actually showed similar figures. I do express some caution about using just a single real estate agent’s numbers or just a single month’s figures, albeit we will need to get a sustained period of lower house price inflation for the Government not to maintain its rolling maul of measures to grow housing supply.

Phil Twyford: Why does he continue to trumpet the build rate in Auckland as some kind of success when a shortfall of 40,000 dwellings has built up on his watch and the current build rate falls far short of what is needed even to house the 52,000 net new arrivals in Auckland in the last 12 months?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When the rate of residential investment in Auckland has gone from $1.5 billion a year, which is what it was when Labour left Government, to $4.1 billion a year—

Phil Twyford: That was the GFC, Nick. You’ve forgotten that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, they have discovered it. They have discovered that there was a global financial crisis. But when the rate of residential investment has gone from $1.4 billion to $4.1 billion a year, only a whinger in the Opposition would take offence.

Literacy—Statements by the Minister of Finance

7. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with Hon Bill English that a lot of Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless” and “they can’t read and write properly”; if so, does she accept any responsibility as Minister of Education?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I think the House is better served by the Deputy Prime Minister’s full quote, with which I do agree, and it was: “The dairy industry has rightly said that a lot of the Kiwis who are turning up are pretty damned hopeless. They won’t show up. You can’t rely on them, and that is one of the reasons the immigration is a bit permissive, to fill the gap. But we can’t leave that problem unsolved, which is, in the long run—we can’t leave that problem unsolved. That is, a cohort of Kiwis that now can’t get a license because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable—you know, basically, young males. And if we don’t work together to get them working, then they’ll be with us a long time.” In regard to the second part, I do accept—

Hon Ruth Dyson: How about the question? Give it a passing run.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Perhaps I will finish the question. I do accept—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Perhaps I will finish answering—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Oh, I beg your pardon.

Mr SPEAKER: I just require a little more cooperation from this side, from one particular member. The answer was long, but it was completing a quote to give justification to the answer, so I allowed that. There were two parts to the question, and the member who asked the question deserves a response to the second part.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In regard to the second part, I do accept responsibility for my part as Minister of Education, but we all have a role to play—including the member—in encouraging educational success in all our young people.

Chris Hipkins: When Bill English claimed that a lot of Kiwis cannot read and write properly, was he basing that claim on a recent Tertiary Education Commission study that found that up to half the students meeting National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) literacy and numeracy requirements are not functionally literate or numerate; if not, what was he basing it on?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, I am not responsible for what was in the mind of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I would hazard a guess that he was basing it on the education system when it was run under that party’s Government.

Chris Hipkins: While we are on that topic, could Bill English have been basing his claim on the fact that although NCEA achievement rates for Māori and Pasifika students have shown modest increases, in the past 5 years the number of New Zealand European students gaining NCEA has fallen across the board, with an 11 percent drop in the number meeting minimum university entrance standards?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is either playing fast and loose with the statistics or just does not understand them. First of all, I do not know how 30 percent and 32 percent increases are modest in his world, but Māori and Pasifika have gone from 43 percent under that Government to 72 percent. Pasifika have gone from 51 percent to 79 percent under this Government, and students overall, including New Zealand Pākehā, have gone to 84.4 percent. It is not possible that there has been a drop in terms of NCEA. In terms of university entrance, yes, we took the decision to raise the standard of university entrance to ensure that when young people go to university, they are able to complete the degree. That is a service that we have performed, and we were prepared to do it, and we will continue to raise the quality of education of all New Zealanders.

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table a memorandum to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority board from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority staff dated 23 February 2016, which has the statistics I referred to, showing a drop for New Zealand European students.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular New Zealand Qualifications Authority board report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Chris Hipkins: Why should parents have confidence in this Government’s management of the education system when the Deputy Prime Minister describes Kiwi kids as “pretty damned hopeless” while at the same time, in his role as Minister of Finance, he has presided over funding cuts that have seen schools spending less per student in real terms than they were spending when National took office?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Parents should have confidence because they are not having to be barraged with the nonsense coming from the Opposition and, instead, are getting transparent data that is used appropriately in its context, that is not misused or misleading, and that is available to them every day, in real time, at every school.

Chris Hipkins: Why does this Government have such low expectations for the 64,000 young New Zealanders under the age of 25 who are unemployed, choosing to label them as “pretty damned hopeless”, as Bill English did, rather than training them and educating them to do the jobs that are available?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Before I came to the House at 2 o’clock, I was addressing a hui of about 60 workers who are focused on an initiative called Count Me In. Their job is to go out into the country and find the kids who have disengaged from education and reconnect them to education. In Gisborne we are running a pilot for year 9 kids who are likely to fall by the wayside because their siblings have, and we are ensuring they get a better education. Across the country, through trades academies, through vocational pathways, and through better relationships with industry, business, and employers, we are identifying the skill sets that young people need to have to make them more employable—the very kids who were the subject—

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

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —I will just finish—of the dairy industry’s concern. We are now making it possible for driver licences to achieve credits at school, so more kids can drive. Thank you.

Chris Hipkins: Why is this Government so out of touch with the reality of underfunding that schools face every day, overlooks declining student achievement, and labels the 64,000 young New Zealanders who are unemployed as “pretty damned hopeless” rather than educating them and training them to meet some of the most critical skills shortages New Zealand has ever seen?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is actually quite hard—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the answer.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is actually quite difficult to find anything in that rant that has a smidgen of truth to it that allows me to respond, but I am going to have a go. This Government has very high expectations for all New Zealanders—not for some, as occurred under that administration, but for all New Zealanders, at every stage of their education. That is why we introduced national standards, so that we would know, every year, how well kids were or were not doing. That is why we have introduced Better Public Services targets, because we are prepared to be transparent and hold ourselves accountable. That is why we have seen a 31 percent increase in Vote Education, while student numbers have gone up 4 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

David Seymour: Was the Minister aware that the year 13 Māori students at the partnership school Te Kura Hourua o Whangarei Terenga Parāoa achieved a 100 percent pass rate for university entrance last year and that Chris Hipkins wants to close that school? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Hekia Parata—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I was aware, and it would appear the member was too. She wants to join in the congratulations to those young people. I would like to commend kura hourua and the parliamentary under-secretary for his support and applause of success—something foreign to the member, obviously, but success for young people—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why will the Minister not fund alternative education properly to employ qualified teachers to help our most needy students so they do not become, to quote Bill English “pretty damned hopeless”, or does she agree with education expert Judy Bruce, who said: “This is the Ministry of Education’s dirty little secret.”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Again, I am sorry I am not aware of that particular expert whom the member is quoting—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Get on top of your portfolio.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Did the member want an answer? Alternative education is fully funded. It is currently under review because the outcomes from there are not as good as other parts that we are investing in, and we want to invest in success. So the member can be assured that it is very much on my agenda.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table a report indicating that alternative education students are underfunded by—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the report and the date.

Hon Damien O’Connor: It is a press statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. I used to think the member was better than that.

Human Rights—West Papua

8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he, or a Cabinet Minister on his behalf, meet with senior church leader and human rights defender Reverend Socratez Yoman from West Papua next week at Parliament when he visits; if not, why not?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): No; I will be travelling next week on official business, but officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be meeting with the Reverend Yoman.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: “Will he, or a Cabinet Minister”. He did not answer that.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, he did. He said “No” right at the start. [Interruption] Order! The member has raised a point of order, and I have addressed it. I think she now understands why. Now we can move to the next supplementary question.

Catherine Delahunty: Has he ever met with an indigenous rights leader from West Papua to discuss human rights abuses?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Not that I can recall.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he stand by his statement that he will “condemn human rights abuses wherever they occur”; if so, has he publicly condemned Indonesia for the arrest of 1,700 West Papuans in just the last 3 days for exercising their freedom of expression and assembly?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions. The member can address either.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have been following with some interest the reports of the arrests that the member refers to, and I have asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to report to me with further information, including information that it might receive from the Reverend Yoman next week. Can I tell the member that I routinely raise human rights questions with representatives of the Indonesian Government, and, further, at last year’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting the Prime Minister signed up on behalf of New Zealand to a joint statement that saw the forum take some steps to engage with Indonesia on precisely this question.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister to myself on 13 April 2016 in which he says that he will condemn human rights abuses wherever they occur, including in West Papua.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Catherine Delahunty: What evidence does he have that limiting his condemnation to polite conversations with the Indonesian Government has ever made a difference given the ongoing State-sanctioned killing and torture of West Papuans?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I indicated in response to an earlier supplementary question, I have been following the reports of arrests with some interest. The Government is concerned about these matters, and the Government wants to see an improvement in the situation in that part of the world. The Government does not believe that megaphone diplomacy will serve that objective.

Immigration Policy—Global Impact Visa

9. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made to help attract entrepreneurs to New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Last week I announced a new Global Impact Visa, designed to bring innovative global entrepreneurs to New Zealand. This visa will cater for high-impact entrepreneurs, investors, and start-up teams to launch global ventures from New Zealand, and will attract younger, highly talented, successful, and well-connected entrepreneurs who are at the start of their entrepreneurial career and able to establish their ventures here in New Zealand.

Melissa Lee: In what ways will the introduction of global impact visas contribute to the Government’s Business Growth Agenda? [Interruption]

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Father Jack over there. Global impact visas will help meet the Government’s Business Growth Agenda of innovation and investment objectives by lifting innovation in New Zealand, and will help expand the pool of smart capital by attracting individual investors and entrepreneurs to live here. The successful implementation it gives will create new jobs through the establishment of new ventures and access to global networks.

Tax Avoidance—Multinational Enterprises

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

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Ron Mark: When will he tell his Minister of Revenue to “get some guts” and tackle those multinationals shirking their fair share of tax, like Facebook, Methanex, Lockheed Martin, and Google, as opposed to hiding behind OECD directives?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure which statement the member was referring to, but in regards to multinational tax, we have put a lot more people and resources into the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) in recent years. The Government’s view is that we should be working with the OECD multilaterally, and we are asking our officials to look and see whether there is anything that the latest changes in Australia and the UK are doing that we might be able to apply here. It is important that all companies pay their fair share of tax, but you have to ultimately do it multilaterally because these are multilateral issues.

Ron Mark: Why do ordinary Kiwis have to pay tax, when 20 multinationals in New Zealand who earned $10 billion in 1 year paid only $1.8 million in tax?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is actually a bit misleading, anyway, to refer to turnover and the level of tax in relation to turnover because in this country we tax profit, not turnover. In terms of just quoting turnover figures for certain companies, no matter what their origin is, and then saying that this is what they should or should not be paying in tax—it should actually be on profit. I refer the member back to my earlier answer in relation to the work that is being done both within our IRD and also with the OECD multilaterally, because I share the view of the member, that everybody should be paying their fair share of tax, and we are working hard to ensure that that is the case.

Ron Mark: If the conservative Governments in the United Kingdom and Australia, you know, new besties—

Mr SPEAKER: Just ask the question, please. I just want the question. Start the question again.

Ron Mark: If the conservative Governments in the United Kingdom and Australia can adopt Google taxes in their own national interests, then why can we not do the same here now?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I note that in the case of Australia we are literally talking about an announcement that was made in the last couple of days and has certainly not been passed through its Parliament in any way, shape, or form yet. But, as I said in answer to the earlier supplementary question, we have asked our officials to have a look and see whether what Australia is proposing would work in New Zealand, and we are certainly open-minded about that. It is an important issue. But we think the most likely positive outcome for the New Zealand Treasury is in terms of the work that is being done at the OECD, and we are a very active participant in that.

Regional Cultural Facilities—Regional Culture and Heritage Fund

11. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made on funding for regional cultural facilities?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I have just this afternoon announced the launch of a more flexible replacement for the regional museums policy, which we are calling the Regional Culture and Heritage Fund. It will be funded at the same level as the old regional museums policy, an average of about $6.6 million a year, but it widens the eligibility criteria to include potential support for local performing arts venues, heritage buildings, and whare taonga. We have also removed the requirement for collections to be of national significance, to allow smaller museums and art galleries to potentially access that fund. As a supplement to support from local government, philanthropist, and community funding, this fund will be able to support more regional institutions, which may struggle to get the capital needed for major projects.

Jonathan Young: How do cultural facilities help with the regional development?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Some of the finest recent additions to our regional culture scene, such as the Len Lye Centre, in the member’s own fine electorate of New Plymouth, and the Toitū Otago Settlers Museum in Dunedin, have significantly befitted from the regional museums policy funding. They bring in tourism, jobs, and growth. They enable all New Zealanders to have access to the best of national and international culture. They encourage innovation, creativity, and personal development, and they inspire our children. The new Regional Culture and Heritage Fund will help to showcase talent, heritage, and culture across the country.

Employment and Skills Training—Skills Shortages

12. JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Is he confident in his oversight of the tertiary education sector, given that over the next 5 years there is estimated to be a 58 percent shortfall in the number of plumbers required in Auckland alone?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Overall, yes. The construction industry in Auckland is growing rapidly. There have been an additional 25,000 construction jobs added in the last 2 years. There has also been very big growth in training, as well. In regard to plumbers in particular, the figure that I have seen in the presentation I think the member is referring to from Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers talks of a need for around 600 more plumbers in Auckland over the period 2013-2018. I think that is entirely achievable because, for context, there are currently around 2,500 people doing plumbing apprenticeships or apprenticeship-type training around New Zealand in this area. There are also big increases in the first-time enrolments for plumbing, which reached 633 in 2014. So although the workforce in construction is growing rapidly, I am confident that the response from trainees and employers is also growing rapidly.

Jenny Salesa: Why is Auckland’s unemployment rate above the national average, at 6.6 percent, while at the same time companies in the construction industry are scrambling to find enough labourers?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure of the accuracy of the member’s statements, but in terms of the growth in employment just under half the growth of employment over the last 6 months has been in Auckland. We have also seen very big increases in the construction sector over that period. The member herself will be aware that we have a number of initiatives in place, including the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative—she has attended some of the presentations in regard to that—which is recruiting young Māori and Pasifika, in particular, into the trades, and that is proving to be successful.

Jenny Salesa: By what percentage has the annual number of apprentices participating in industry training fallen since 2008?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have the numbers with me since 2008, because they did reduce during the global financial crisis, as Mr Twyford referred to, but since 2013 we have seen an increase of 12 percent in just 1 year from 2013 to 2014, and today there are around 42,000 people enrolled in apprenticeships and apprenticeship-type training.

Jenny Salesa: After 8 years in the job as the responsible Minister, what does he say to Steve Fowler of Macrennie Commercial Construction, who says: “There’s a general shortage across the board and that’s all skill sets”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is very generous about my length of tenure in the job, but leaving that aside, for example we are seeing a rapid increase in the number of people working in construction. I remember very similar comments in the Canterbury rebuild back when we were told we would need to double the size of the construction workforce in Canterbury and it would not be possible. In actual fact, it happened, with increases in training, with people returning to the workforce, and in terms of migration as well. We are now seeing very rapid growth in the sector in Auckland. The training system is responding effectively, and the system is growing dramatically.

Jenny Salesa: Does he accept any responsibility for the skills shortage gap in Auckland, as the Minister responsible for skills training, or does he just agree with the people who have given up on relying on his Government and now say the best answer is easier access to foreign workers?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With the greatest respect to the member, the only people who have given up on this Government are the Opposition members, because they do not make any progress against it. In relation to the work that is being done, we are seeing rapidly increasing numbers of apprentices, rapidly increasing numbers of people working in the construction workforce, rapid increases in people in areas like Māori and Pasifika trades training—and those things are all contributing to a growth in the construction workforce to meet the needs of a rapidly growing demand for building houses in Auckland.

Bills

New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill

Second Reading

Mr SPEAKER: I call on Government order of the day No. 1. [Interruption] Order! To Kris Faafoi, when the Clerk is on his feet announcing Government order of the day No. 1, the barrage must cease. I apologise to the Clerk.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill be now read a second time. The effect of this bill is to allow for the term of the Southern District Health Board Commissioner to be extended from December 2016 until the triennial election scheduled for 2019. That provides the commissioner sufficient time to develop, oversee, and implement a financially sustainable plan for quality health services for the people of Otago and Southland. Without legislative change, the commissioner would have had less than 18 months to improve the Southern District Health Board’s position.

In June 2015 I dismissed the Southern District Health Board’s board and appointed a commissioner, following my serious dissatisfaction with the board’s performance. The board’s management of the district health board’s finances had caused me to lose confidence in its ability to deliver on its strategy for the region, including delivering much-needed capital redevelopments at Dunedin Hospital. Resolving the Southern District Health Board’s financial issues will take some time, and that is unlikely to be completely addressed by the end of the commissioner’s current term, on 2 December 2016.

The commissioner has developed a work plan that has begun to address the financial and service challenges that she has been consulting on with the district health board staff and the southern district’s communities. I note that the district health board is currently performing better than the forecast budget for 2015-16. These are the first steps in achieving sustained financial performance improvements. In parallel with the work undertaken by the commissioner on the district health board’s financial and clinical sustainability, the Government is working with the district health board on two streams of capital development. In September 2015 the Government approved $22.5 million for urgent hospital maintenance, as well as upgrades to gastroenterology, audiology, and intensive care units. These projects will ensure that the immediate demands around delivery of services continue to be met while planning for the major redevelopment progresses.

To ensure the robust oversight of this project, I also established the Southern Partnership Group in September last year. The Southern Partnership Group has been working closely with the district health board and the commissioner to oversee the redevelopment of Dunedin Hospital. The Health Committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed without amendment.

From public submissions the committee raised a concern that Ngāi Tahu felt that its access to decision making was diminished under the new governance arrangements. The committee strongly urged the commissioner to engage with Ngāi Tahu to ensure that Māori can contribute to district health board decision-making, and that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are upheld. The commissioner has confirmed that Ngāi Tahu will be engaged by the district health board’s iwi governance committee to provide nominations for Māori representation on the district health board’s statutory advisory committees. Furthermore, the commissioner has previously affirmed the status of the district health board’s Treaty relationship agreement with local iwi. Through this relationship agreement and other established communication mechanisms the principles of the Treaty will continue to be recognised and applied.

The Health Committee encouraged the commissioner to consider how its work can be made more transparent. It recommended that the commissioner set goals and targets and report on these to the public at the end of each year. The commissioner has confirmed that going forward the public will be able to attend statutory advisory committee meetings in the same way as at other district health boards. The 2016-17 district health board annual planning process is currently under way. Initial goals from the commissioner’s plan, published in December 2015, are expected to be included in this document. This is the key district health board accountability document, and the statement of intent, which forms part of it, is publicly reported on at the end of the financial year. The district health board’s annual report, which is also publicly available, provides information on the key aspects of the district health board’s performance.

Finally, the committee acknowledged some submitters’ concerns that the bill would affect their democratic right to elect a district health board, and considered whether a requirement to consult with the community should be added to the bill to overcome the perceived reduction in democracy. When appointing the commissioner, I noted my expectation that she work closely with southern district communities. This expectation will continue during the extended term. I understand that since her appointment the commissioner has held meetings and forums with a wide range of stakeholders and regularly updates the public on district health board issues through updates in local papers, on the television, via the radio, and via the district health board website. The committee considered that there are appropriate mechanisms for public consultation and so no change to the bill would be required.

I do not propose the cancellation of a local district health board election lightly. The bill, therefore, impacts only one election at the Southern District Health Board and will help ensure that the next board, to be appointed as part of the 2019 local body elections, will begin its term on a more secure financial footing. The appointment of a commissioner offers an opportunity to resolve the district health board’s financial challenges and to help secure most sustainable health services and health facilities for the people of the southern district. The commissioner has already begun to address the deficit challenge, and it is vital that she is given time to complete this important work.

It is challenging work, and I want to acknowledge and thank the commissioner, Kathy Grant, and her deputies Richard Thomson, Graham Crombie, and Dr Angela Pitchford for the work that they are doing. I also want to acknowledge the support of my colleagues based in the southern district, as well as the cross-party support for this bill. We all want to ensure the best possible health services are available for the people of Otago and Southland. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): The Labour Party supports this bill. As the Minister of Health said, this bill has been to the Health Committee. We had a number of submissions—not many, but a small number of submissions—on this bill, and the select committee considered them. We raised a number of issues, which I will go through in a moment, but we did not vote against the bill and we did not make amendment to it. It does not mean that we were not concerned about the issue of curtailing democracy in a district health board. We did our best, in terms of this bill itself, to raise the issue that this was to be a short-term solution for one triennial period of a district health board election. Our expectation is that there will be elections—the next one in 2019.

The reason we have supported this bill is that this is a district health board that has been in serious trouble for some time. In fact, from 2009 the Government had put in a Crown monitor. It had also put in intensive monitoring of this district health board. I do not blame the district health board for the problems it was getting into. If you go back and look at what was happening to that district health board, you will see there was a decision made—a political decision—by the then Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, to merge two district health boards: the Southland District Health Board and the Otago District Health Board. He merged them without the background work that was needed to see what the impact and cost would be on that region, and it became quite clear after a number of years that the funding formula for that part of New Zealand does not fit that particular, now-amalgamated, district health board. In fact, if you look at the funding formula—and I am sure the local members who are sitting here today will be aware of this—the funding per head of population for the rural component of the population-based funding formula is higher in South Canterbury than it is in the Southern District Health Board.

So this is a district health board that has been under financial pressure for some time and struggling to do what was required of it. It got itself into a position where there was a lot of loss in confidence in the board itself—a loss of confidence by the public, a loss of confidence by the staff. There was certainly—the Minister said—a lack of confidence in the board, which led to him dismissing the board. I have to say that a number of us asked why he was not taking action a lot earlier because of the impact it was having on the morale of the people and the staff in the Southern District Health Board. Then, having made the decision and put in a commissioner, the Minister followed up with this bill, which requires the district health board, as I said, to not hold an election in 2016 and to postpone that election and keep in place a commissioner.

We looked very closely at that decision, and one of the things we are keen for—if there is not going to be an election—is that there be far greater transparency and openness by the commissioners than there had been by the board. Unfortunately, there had been a loss of confidence in the board for some of the decisions that were seen to be made in private without the public being aware. The members from Southland will be particularly aware of discussions the board was having at that time to cut the budget in places like Ōāmaru, Maniototo, Queenstown, Dunstan, and Balclutha by up to 5 percent to try to save money. So there had been a considerable loss of confidence in what the board was doing. Now a commissioner has been put in, and we said: “Right, there has to be a lot more transparency and a lot more consultation with the people of the southern area so that they can have some confidence that the change process that is being put in place is going to work.” At the select committee—and we represented, at that committee, the National Party, of course, the Labour Party, the Green Party, and New Zealand First—we did ask questions about what that transparency would look like. In fact, we asked that it be written into the bill that there be transparency—that the commissioner must consult.

Interestingly, it was not that long after that that the commissioners themselves announced—actually, on 27 April—that they were now going to be more transparent. They were going to be holding district health board committee meetings in public from this month. This was due to the power of the select committee, I think, because we made it very clear that we expected more openness, more consultation, and more transparency. It was reported—in the excellent reporting, I have to say, done in the Otago Daily Times by Eileen Goodwin, who had done a brilliant job in holding the board to account as far as was possible but is now holding the commissioners to account—that they will be holding open meetings for the hospital advisory committee, the combined meeting of the disability support advisory committee, and the Public Health Advisory Committee. These will be held in public, so I am taking that as a win.

There was a submission from Ngāi Tahu. They wanted to know whether it was able to be provided for them, as a representative, to be appointed as a deputy commissioner. We received a letter at the select committee from the clerk of the committee. The clerk of the committee advised us that such an amendment, if we were to put it into this bill, would be beyond the scope of the bill as it was introduced. We did consider it, but on the advice of the Clerk of the House it was not possible to consider it and to put it into this bill, if we had decided to do that, so now we have got to the position where we have returned this bill without amendment and without any minority views.

We do not say that it is a good thing that we cancel democracy, but it is not the first time that it has been done, and what must be the overriding issue here is that we do return to open elections by 2019. The Labour Party will certainly be doing that in Government, but—heaven forbid—if we have to have a fourth term of this National Government we will certainly be saying that we will not tolerate what happened with Environment Canterbury, where a promise was made to hold elections and then delayed with some jiggery-pokery going on about how the Government wants to restructure the organisation of Environment Canterbury. We will not tolerate that, and we will make that clear in putting it on the record now.

It is until 2019 that this election is delayed, and in that time we would expect that in the budgets that are coming the proper adjustments are made to help the Southern District Health Board meet its obligations. There has been a review of the funding formula and, much to my disappointment, there is little or no change, so how it is going to address the funding problems of the southern area I am not yet quite sure. But I am sure—as the Minister said, 21 sleeps to go—we will be waiting to see exactly what is done to address one of the fundamental problems of that area: the funding and the funding formula for it.

We do support the second reading of this bill. I will be pleased when the Minister is in the chair for the Committee stage, for I want him to say on record that he expects and will guarantee that there will be elections in 1919—in 2019, not 1919, although he probably comes from that era when you listen to him sometimes—that there will be elections in 2019 at the Southern District Health Board, in line with every other district health board in New Zealand. So, yes, we do support the second reading of this bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on the second reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill. The second reading is the opportunity to speak to the select committee’s report, and in doing so I want to thank the Health Committee for its work. As the previous two speakers have indicated, this is a bill that has cross-party support, and I would like to thank all the members for that. This was one of the simpler agenda items that the committee is dealing with, and by its nature it was something that we were able to return to the House relatively speedily. As context, the actual select committee at the moment is dealing with four bills, four pieces of legislation, and I think at the last count we are up to 21 petitions that we are working through. So it is really good that we have had the opportunity to return this particular bill to the House.

It has been noted that it has come back with no amendment. That is not completely unusual, but I thought I would just point out, particularly for those following this with keen interest, that the reason there is no amendment is that, first and foremost, the drafting of the bill was excellent, and thank you to the Parliamentary Counsel Office, which was involved with that. But also the purpose of the bill is very, very simple, and I will touch on some of the elements of that as we go through.

It is very simple because, ultimately, we are saying that we are not to hold an election for the Southern District Health Board this year, in order that the commissioner may continue her work. May I echo the Minister of Health’s words in thanking her and her team for the work that they are leading there. The intention of this bill is to delay that election and to see that the Southern District Health Board will then go back—or rather a board would be re-elected by the public there in 2019. We had a number of submitters—not a large number, as you might expect. I want to thank those who wrote in and then submitted to us orally.

There were sort of three themes that came out of the bill. The first was around Māori representation. Those from Ngāi Tahu were very keen that there be a formally appointed person put in a position to work with the commissioner. We discussed this both in principle but also how you could actually make it happen. The advice was very clear that this was out of scope. The reason again is—coming back to, as I mentioned earlier, the simplicity of this bill—that the purpose of the bill was to extend or push out the next elections. It was not about who is appointed as commissioners, deputy commissioners, advisers, or whatever. The committee, being a hard-working, insightful committee, wanted to make sure our thoughts were clear on this and we have encouraged the commissioner and the team to engage with Ngāi Tahu more. I understand that that is beginning. It is certainly my hope that that is beginning.

There were a few questions raised around transparency. Look, we have heard already about the efficaciousness of the Health Committee—all nine of us. We wrote down in our report that we wanted to see more engagement, more transparency, and that is happening. I am not going to go through all the ins and outs. There are certain requirements of the commissioner when she is acting as the board, of what she can and cannot do in terms of public engagement. But it is also clear, certainly to the committee, that more could be done and I am very pleased that that is happening.

The second-to-last point is that some were encouraging more community engagement. They were quite concerned about democracy and the loss of a vote. I sort of understand that but the purpose of democracy is not simply to vote. You vote for a purpose and the purpose is good governance and, ultimately, with the Southern District Health Board there were issues around governance and I think it has been, and remains, very important that the commissioner is in play. Simply having elections so that people can exercise a vote for no other reason than exercising a vote does not make much sense to me at all.

Finally, I just want to acknowledge, particularly, my four colleagues down in the South Island who are part of this district health board: Mike Woodhouse, Jacqui Dean, Sarah Dowie, and Todd Barclay. I have appreciated the work that they have done in supporting their communities there. I have also been grateful for the advice and thoughts that they have given me—the times that they have just pulled me aside and given me some insights into what is happening. So to them, I say thank you for the work that they do supporting the community there and I commend this second reading of the bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Well, let me be very clear. The reason that we are here today is because this Government allowed the Southern District Health Board to get to the point where it could no longer manage. Jonathan Coleman, the Minister of Health, and the previous Minister, Tony Ryall, and their Government are responsible for this mess—the mess that has put the Southern District Health Board between a rock and a hard place. Its problems have been obvious for years, and we heard Annette King say that in 2009 a Crown monitor was appointed and the district health board has been under intensive monitoring by the National Health Board since that time. Annette King called for a commissioner to be appointed in April last year and was dismissed by the Minister, Jonathan Coleman. He dismissed it—and what happened a few months later? He all of a sudden realised that something had to be done quickly, and he dismissed the board and appointed a commissioner.

The Southern District Health Board is underfunded. That is what is wrong here. That is what is at the root of the problem. That is why we are in this mess. The previous board could not fix it because it is a fundamental issue out of its control. The existing commissioners are clearly struggling. There is no long-term plan to date. There is very little transparency. It is a big issue. It is a big problem. There is a huge deficit. They are in a hole and this Government and this Minister, Jonathan Coleman, are responsible.

The only reason we are supporting the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill—and I have to admit that it does gall me to do so—is because it makes Jonathan Coleman directly responsible for the fixing of our district health board and because it would be a poisoned chalice for any newly elected board right now. I am informed that there is support across the House from the other parties on this bill and that it is for those reasons. I am a standard-bearer of democracy and accountability. I love my city. I love my district health board. I love our region. I am immensely proud of our teaching hospital in Dunedin and the people who work in it and I am proud of the services across the region, but they are so stretched and so under pressure.

However, since the commissioners took over last June we have not seen a lot of action. There has been a turnover of senior management—of some senior management—and there has been a major listening exercise undertaken. It is a major listening exercise that has cost a quarter of a million dollars and it has come up with a set of draft values—things such as: “Our kindness fosters better care and better teamwork. We listen here and communicate openly and honestly with consideration for others. We bring a positive attitude and are always looking to do things better.” And: “Our success comes from nurturing and building on our strengths in the community.” Well, that is all very well, but if you are not properly funded you cannot deliver the services properly, and you end up in a hole with a huge deficit, and that is where our district health board is at the moment.

The district health board commissioners have been to see me recently. They have delivered the message that they have to come up with a plan where the district health board can live within its means. However, how they do that is still very vague. There are very vague statements being made. They could not tell me specifically what the deficit projection is for next year, even though there is a deficit projection on their website. I am now told that a business case for a new clinical services block will not be ready until mid - next year, despite in February the Minister saying that it would be at the end of this year. Why is it taking so long? What plans are being put in place for the board to live within its means? What the hell is Jonathan Coleman going to do about this situation? When is there going to be an acknowledgment that our district health board is seriously underfunded?

If these commissioners cannot do the job that they have been given to do because it is a poisoned chalice, what will happen then? Will they be dismissed and will we see new ones? Is not the fundamental problem underfunding? Why will the commissioners not say so, because the community knows it—and a very good example of this is the situation with Compass Group. Last year the Southern District Health Board was given the choice—no choice—to accept Compass as the contractor to provide food inside our hospitals across our region and for Meals on Wheels, and look how that has turned out. Half of the people receiving Dunedin Meals on Wheels have ditched Compass. Relatives are bringing food into the hospital because the meals are so bad. Staff are expressing serious concerns about the nutritional values and about the fact that they have to serve the food, that they have to care for patients who are receiving this food. This is frozen food that is being trucked in from Auckland.

This is a company that paid $2 million—just $2 million—in tax last year in New Zealand. Instead, it makes loans to its UK parent company, and those loans have gone up six times in the last 4 years, to $33 million in the last year—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill.

CLARE CURRAN: It is called tax avoidance, and it is amoral. But the big question is—which relates to this bill, because it is about the decisions that the district health board has been forced to make to save money—how did Compass Group get to be the preferred provider? Did the Government do any due diligence on Compass Group New Zealand’s tax affairs before insisting that the district health board sign a 15-year contract to deliver hospital food—a 15-year contract? Who signs a 15-year contract? Especially under these circumstances, with a community that was so opposed but we were being told “Oh no”—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill.

CLARE CURRAN: —there would be $6.5 million in savings over X number of years—15 years, I think it is. How is that going to pan out, given that most of the district health boards around the country refused to take Compass Group on because they could see what a problem it was? This is a huge issue in Otago and Southland. It is an absolute disgrace that patients who are sick and vulnerable are being forced to eat slops—and, yes, I will use that word, because that is what is happening. Four hundred people lined up outside Dunedin Hospital last Friday—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should come back to the bill. She has been given—[Interruption] Do not interrupt. Do not interrupt. Sit down. The member needs to tailor her debate to the bill. The member has been given a lot of latitude to cover the ground that she wanted to; she has done that, and now it is appropriate for her to move on.

CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you can see, I feel very strongly about this matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not the point. You have got a bill to address.

CLARE CURRAN: Compass Group was taken on by the district health board—a contract was signed—to save money, and this is the pressure that our district health board is being put under. The communities in Otago and Southland are absolutely opposed to this contractor—[Bell rung]—and have expressed their views on this contract, which was put in place to save money because of the pressures that our district health board is under.

Shortly after that contract was signed, the district health board was dismissed because it could not manage the financial situation that it was in. Four hundred people stood outside our district health board in Dunedin Hospital on Friday to protest. The commissioners have spent a quarter of a million dollars in a listening exercise, saying that they want to go out and listen to the community—well, 400 of them stood directly outside Dunedin Hospital last Friday telling the district health board that they did not like this contract; that they wanted Compass Group sacked, that they wanted to reinstate hospital food being prepared in our good hospital kitchens in Dunedin Hospital and Invercargill hospital, and that the staff want it, the staff are concerned, the staff are being gagged from speaking out about these issues—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is still talking about this particular aspect, which she has covered. There is plenty more in the bill, and if she wants to make a contribution and not have her call terminated, she should get back to the bill.

CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The bottom line for this bill lies with Jonathan Coleman. He is the Minister; he is directly accountable. This bill says he is directly accountable for the fate of the Southern District Health Board. He is directly accountable, he has got 3 years to sort out this problem, and he could start with an acknowledgment that the Southern District Health Board is underfunded. He could start with coming to our region, talking to people, understanding how deeply concerned people are in the Southern District Health Board region, and ensuring that there is a sustainable plan in place and that the district health board will not end up being underfunded.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is not about the food—it is not about the food. There are far more important issues around the Southern District Health Board than a beat-up around hospital food, which is being used by the Opposition to try to score points—as simple as that. I am not going to waste my precious time raving about something that is materially not important to the performance of the district health board. It is ironic, however, that the commissioners are appointed by the Minister of Health to bring the Southern District Health Board into shape for its patients, and all the Opposition can do is talk about the food. I would suggest that it has got its priorities in completely the wrong place.

I would also challenge the figures proposed by the member opposite, Clare Curran, as a fabrication, because the experience of people going to Dunedin Hospital and Southland Hospital in Invercargill is materially different from that which is described by the politically motivated opposite, who are whipping people up into a frenzy. The reality is that people do not go to hospital to eat the food. People go to hospital to get treatment. Here is the good news. Here is the progress that is being made by the Southern District Health Board—I am going to go through some of these good figures. The Southern District Health Board has made great progress on the new faster cancer treatment target, and that is that it has achieved 77 percent, up 10 percent in the last quarter. That is progress; that is what matters. Does food matter or does faster cancer treatment matter? I know which one I would vote for: for better clinical services each and every time, and that is what the commissioners are focused on. That is what the commissioners should be focused on.

The elective surgery targets were exceeded by 7 percent in the last quarter. That is the kind of target that I focus on: outcomes for patients, not politically motivated protests out in the rain of Dunedin about something that is, basically, immaterial—and I dispute the facts as presented by the other side. The target for shorter stays in emergency departments was exceeded by 5 percent on the previous quarter, and, also, further work and improvements are being made in immunisation coverage. I would say that those are the targets that matter; those are the issues that matter.

The New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill extends the time in office of the commissioners of the district health board. They have a large amount of work to do. This bill will enable them to get on and do it for the benefit not just of Dunedin Hospital—or, indeed, Invercargill hospital—but also of the rural hospitals and the rural healthcare that I care about so much in the Waitaki electorate. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Thank you very much—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, look, you two old—Kevin Hague has the call.

KEVIN HAGUE: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will reset. The Green Party supported Jonathan Coleman’s appointment of commissioners to replace the board members of the Southern District Health Board, and we did so with a heavy heart. It is not something that we readily do, and our reasons for doing so—for actually suspending the democratic representation of the people of the Southern District Health Board area—were different from the reasons that the Minister of Health had for appointing commissioners.

Our reasons were, primarily, twofold. We said that the members of that district health board had failed in their basic responsibility to represent the interests of the people who lived in that district. We said, for example, that that district health board was facing unreasonable financial requirements from the Minister, and that that board had failed to stand up for the interests of people living in that district.

The Southern District Health Board came about through the amalgamation—the forced amalgamation—of two districts, Otago and Southland. One of the things we know about the population-based funding formula is that although it tends to work fairly well for district health boards that are of a middling size, it does not work so well for district health boards with very rural catchments, because of the diseconomies of scale that they face. At the other end of the scale, it does not work well for district health boards providing tertiary-level services because, actually, they have an inherently higher cost structure in needing to be able to provide those more advanced services. The Southern District Health Board is an amalgam of both of those kinds of district health boards, so of course it was under extraordinary financial pressure, and the district health board failed to stand up to the Minister with his repeated requirements around breaking even. That was one reason.

We had another particular reason because of an issue that we had raised repeatedly, and that was the dispute between South Island district health boards and an organisation called South Link Health over funds that had been retained by South Link Health. The Southern District Health Board had the responsibility to try to get those funds back—whatever the more elegant word is for that—and, again, the Minister had gone to the district health board and said: “I don’t want you to take court action.” So, even though the district health board had clear evidence that South Link Health had retained funds inappropriately and it had legal opinions saying that, potentially, fraud had occurred, it took no action, because the Minister said that he did not want it. Again, we said at the time that the Southern District Health Board should have stood up to the Minister and done what was right for the people of that district.

I did not say at the time—but I could have done—that, actually, the district health board’s decision to contract with Compass Group for food was also a disastrous decision made under pressure from the Minister. We were very clear that the decision to actually make the food somewhere else was not in the interests of the health of the patients of that district, was not in the interests of the economy of the Otago and Southland regions, and was potentially disastrous in the case of some kind of natural disaster, where actually having a local service would have been appropriate in general. You know, it does not make sense to contract out a service that you actually need to use every day, all the time, like a hospital kitchen.

Those were our reasons for supporting the appointment of commissioners. Since then, under the watch of the commissioners, there has been more money that has gone into the district health board, with the Minister finally recognising—not enough, yet—that the district health board was underfunded. The district health board has now given up, under the watch of the commissioners, on regaining that funding from South Link Health, and we have seen both patients and community appalled and angry about the slop—and I agree with Clare Curran’s word—that is being served up to the patients in Dunedin and Invercargill hospitals. So there is some progress there, but also some things that have not improved, and we have also seen some things that have got worse.

The Health Committee’s report talks about this issue of transparency, and the Minister says that the commissioners have agreed to improve transparency by allowing the public into the advisory committee meetings. Well, that is not really what the people of Otago and Southland are calling for when they say they demand transparency. We heard from various submitters—and, in particular, from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—about the fact that the district health board’s statutory duty to honour the Treaty of Waitangi had, effectively, been suspended by the appointment of commissioners and by the way they had gone about their task. We have heard from the Minister today that there is good news: what is going to happen now is that the commissioners have agreed to work with the rūnanga to work out the appointment of representatives of Kai Tahu on to the advisory committees. Well, again, that falls short of the requirement that is actually in the law. So yes, the commissioners appear to be doing some very good work, but also some things seem to have got worse.

It is evident to the Green Party, and it should be evident to everybody in this House, that the people of Otago and Southland want their democratic right back. They want the right to be able to appoint their representatives on to the district health board. The Green Party will be voting to support that right. We will be opposing the bill at this reading and at subsequent readings. In refusing to agree to that demand from the people of Otago and Southland, the Minister, and the Government, is actually answering a question: to whom should the district health board be accountable? They are answering that question with the wrong answer, because they are making the primary accountability to the Government and not to the people of that district. That is the wrong answer.

Continuity of the work that the commissioners have begun is important, and it could have been achieved if the Government had picked up the suggestion by Dr John Chambers that the commissioners be appointed by the Minister, under the powers that he has, to the appointed positions on the board. That could have been done while retaining the democratic rights of the people of the southern region. That would have been the right thing to do.

RIA BOND (NZ First): It is a great privilege to stand here today, on behalf of New Zealand First, to speak to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill. This is a bill that is very dear to my heart. It is also very dear to the community that I reside in, having grown up there from the age of 14, and actually two of my children were born at Southland Hospital. I just want to touch on a few points that previous speakers have spoken about today.

I do want to say that the number of submitters was quite small. We heard from them and read their submissions. I think it is fair to say I can echo what the Hon Annette King said in her call about the issues that were worked through, throughout the Health Committee process, to ensure that all parties had their say throughout that committee process. I also want to touch on what Mr Hague said about the fact that Māori representation, or the voice of Māori, was actually forgotten about by the Minister of Health. I am quite pleased now that Ngāi Tahu will be the voice of Māori, to ensure that we do not get forgotten about in this bill.

I also want to address a statement made earlier by Jacqui Dean, when she said it was not about the food. Well, actually, it does not take a saint to understand that when you are in hospital and you have had surgery, you need a good, square diet—good food—to actually recover. If you are not getting fed good food that has nutritional value you are going to stay in hospital as a patient for longer. So I do not support that statement at all. I also want to make a point about the number of elective surgeries, which has been mentioned. Down in Southland where I come from, where my family has grown up, and in the community that I know best, I can say that I have had people come into my office to show me that they have been kicked off the elective surgery list. I have had to write letters to the Minister of Health to ask him to reconsider the treatment for those constituents.

We have all heard the Government members say so many times that this bill is about cost cutting and it is about efficiency. But I believe that this bill means so much more. I believe there is a bigger problem than this, and it is the fact that our community has a right to have a say. We deserve to have our voices heard, when it is to do with local health-care and how that is managed. Southlanders have had to ask themselves what their priority is—where does their priority lie? What do they believe in? Is it important that they actually get to have a say over what health-care services are dispensable or are being made dispensable in Southland?

Under the guise of fiscal responsibility, this National-led Government has decided it wants to suspend Southerners’ rights to vote for our health-care representatives. The Minister believes that he knows best. He appointed his commissioner and thinks that she knows best. Well, Minister Coleman, I can tell you now that Southlanders think that actually they know best how to vote for the people in their community, to ensure that they have the right to lobby those members on the board, at such time when they need to. In Southland we recognise that there is a deficit problem with our district health board. New Zealand First strongly believes in holding the district health board fiscally accountable for the choices that they have made. But New Zealand First does not believe in railroading the democratic processes, simply to fulfil a cost-cutting exercise.

Elections are often thought of as the heart of the political process. That is how the Minister got into Parliament, and that is how New Zealand First got into Parliament too. In New Zealand, democracy gives people the ability to be the owners of their own destiny. Think for a moment about some of the recent examples of New Zealanders standing up and sending a message. The Northland by-election is a good example.

So many constituents have been in contact with me. In fact, over the last week I have been to one public protest in Otago where—it has been echoed already—there were over 400 people attending. That was because they were not satisfied with the food that they were receiving in the hospital, or out in the community through the Meals on Wheels scheme. I have also been to one public meeting in Invercargill where the deputy mayor came to talk about the fact that we have a problem with this Compass Group contract and we deserve the right to have our say, to show our disapproval. We are certainly planning on more meetings.

The food that is being served to our patients at the Southland District Health Board hospitals is an issue. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that earlier you said to the previous speaker to bring it in.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bring it in.

RIA BOND: Thanks. But the issue is that the district health board has been forced to deal with a deficit. In that, it has actually been forced to take on a contract and it has to watch its bottom line, so that contract is part of that process. I asked the district health board members when they appeared before us in the select committee whether they would be prepared to actually put an independent food auditor in to spot-check the food to make sure that it had a nutritional value, and that just fell on deaf ears. That was actually really sad.

I will come back to an area that I am quite interested in—and people in Invercargill are too—which is that the ability for the people of Invercargill to be stripped of our rights to vote for our elected district health board as this all comes before the House is an indictment. In Southland it means that we cannot have the voice to fight for our rights; to voice against our absolute horror about the slop that is being served to our people. We do not get the right to actually hold our board responsible, and we absolutely lose the right to hold the Minister of Health responsible too. We will lose that right until such a time as the Minister sees fit to return to the people of Southland the right to vote for our district health board members. We heard that that could be in 2019. I have heard Annette King mention that she surely does hope that that occurs. New Zealand First is quite hesitant to actually completely, absolutely trust that that will occur, given that recently in this House another bill was put forward to actually extend a time for the Canterbury area to not have its democratic vote.

Before, I heard too from previous members that Southlanders do deserve the right to vote, and, actually, so do Otago people. In Otago especially, they deserve to have their input into the rebuild—or the overdue renovations—of Dunedin Hospital. They deserve to say what services they want for their community. When the Minister appointed the commissioner to run the Southern District Health Board, he was quoted in the Otago Daily Times in June saying: “The plan is really for the commissioners to stay on as appointed members of that board, and new elected members to come on at the local body election.” I still do not understand why this cannot be the solution. I am asking why there was such a big U-turn, Minister Coleman. Why cannot Southlanders vote for the remaining board members and then everyone actually gets what they want, which is really at the end of the day to have their say to ensure that the community is not lost in that. Stripping the votes from Southlanders by this National-led Government is placing all the decision-making powers in an unelected few, and that really concerns us.

This is the same Government that oversaw the merger of the Southland and Otago district health boards in 2010. It further streamlined a centralised agenda and it actually burdened our district health board, because we have the largest geographic area in New Zealand. That National-led Government watched from the sidelines for years as the district health board struggled, without giving any timely assistance. That Government has gone to great lengths to blame the former board management while it quickly undertook a review of the population-based funding formula. For me, if that is not a concession that it has starved our district health board of adequate funding, then I do not know what is. We know from Cabinet papers that the rural adjuster calculation did not adequately fund the Southern District Health Board and that the district health board missed out on the correct funding for many years.

When the district health board members appeared before the Health Committee I asked how much money they thought that it had actually missed out on that has continued to add to its deficit. Have a guess what they replied? They could not tell me. They could not give me a figure; they could not do that. I asked how responsible that was of that commissioner and his subcommittee members now, today—not the previous board who could have told us, but the commissioner that we have in place now.

More than 40 percent of the Southern District Health Board population lives outside the urban centres and this increases the cost of the delivering of services. With such a big region to service, it is no wonder it struggles to meet its service needs and its financial needs also.

In closing, I want to issue a challenge to the Labour Party members tonight. If they support the Real Meals Coalition for a call to stop the Compass Group contract, why are they supporting this bill that will strip Southlanders and Otago people of their democratic right to vote? Thank you. New Zealand First opposes this bill.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this short call on the second reading of this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill. I am actually very positive and very happy and very pleased to be taking this call because this is an opportunity for the good people of the Waitaki, and this is an opportunity for the good people of Clutha, for the good people of Southland, and of Otago, to get quality, sustainable, health-care provided throughout our district. That opportunity should not be sniffed at, and I am actually very, very excited about it.

The Southern District Health Board’s issues have been well documented for a number of years. In fact, for the last 13 or 14 years it has posted deficits. Despite the Opposition trying to rewrite history about that, we are now the Government that is getting to the bottom of these issues and making sure that the commissioner team will provide our people with a sustainable and quality health-care system moving forward. The penultimate of these deficits was forecast this year, at $42 million—despite the fact that the Southern District Health Board did receive extra funding of $134 million—and that is unacceptable. Although the Opposition wants to rewrite history, we are sticking to the facts.

When I first took office as the MP for Invercargill in 2014, my constituency inquiries with regard to district health board issues tracked at about 11 percent. And if you look at all of the Government departments that MPs deal with—the wide-ranging issues that relate to central government—that is quite significant. That is considerable. And it is certainly not a reflection on front-line staff—the good, kind doctors and nurses who are providing quality health-care on the front line—but it is to do more with system failures and administrative failures and that the district health board could not provide clear, sustainable management of its services. So something had to be done, and the Minister of Health, obviously, intervened and put a commissioner team in place—a commissioner team with skills—which would come in and look at the system and look to provide that sustainable health-care moving forward.

Despite Ms Curran’s analysis of the In Your Shoes workshops, I was happy to attend them in March in Invercargill; a series of workshops that the commissioners put together to hear from patients and from staff as to the failings of the district health board. I can tell you that, as I sat there listening to the patients and talking to the staff, there was a clear form of relief in that room—a strong sense of relief that these people were finally being listened to, and that the commissioners were taking on board what those failings were and had a clear plan to rectify the systems that needed to be rectified and provide quality health-care in the Southern District Health Board region. I want to pay tribute to Mr Tim Keogh, who facilitated those workshops. They were very well run, and it was fabulous to see people engaging and committed to that process.

Look, the ocean liner is starting to turn, the commissioner team needs more time, and there certainly is, in my region, a sense of optimism about where the district health board can go and where it can end up. I want to end by sharing a constituent issue. I spoke to a nurse who works at the district health board and she said to me that, in respect of the direction the commissioners are taking the district health board in, this is the first time that she has felt optimistic in 10 years. I think that is really good. That is wonderful for our people, and I cannot wait to see the result and see quality health-care being provided to all of the wonderful people of the Southern District Health Board region.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Metiria Turei—a 5-minute call.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party supported the appointment of the commissioners because we wanted to make sure that those responsible for the health services in the southern region were responsive to the community. It was clear the previous board was not. It was responsive to the desires of the Minister of Health, and that led to a very large number of very serious problems for the southern community. We are now in the situation where it is possible for the communities of the south to have elected representatives on the Southern District Health Board who will represent them—genuinely represent them—and their concerns, and we should be welcoming that opportunity. It is important that we have local democracy, and that is why we are opposing this bill, because this bill will take from the communities of the south their right to have local democracy and to have their representatives on the board.

This is no reflection on the current commissioners. I have met with Cathy Grant and Richard Thomson. I have a great deal of respect for the work that they have been doing to this point.

The benefit of the Green Party proposition that we keep elections for the district health board is that the communities of the south can have the best of both. This is a potential win-win for the communities of the south. I live in Dunedin. This is a community that I represent and work with. We can have elections for our representatives on the board who are responsive and accountable to us, and we can have the expertise and the experience of the current commissioners, who can be appointed to that board as well, to help maintain the good work that has been done and to manage the transition from the commissioners to a fully elected district health board.

This is a win-win proposition that the Greens are putting forward for the communities of the south, and it is amazing to me that the National Government wants to remove from the table that win-win for the south. But maybe it is not such a surprise because, of course, we know that National, at every point it has been able to, has removed from local communities their right to local democracy. We have seen that happen repeatedly in Canterbury, for example. There is no way that any community in this country can trust National when National says it is going to restore local democracy, because at every point it has had the opportunity to do that, it has chosen not to, and this is yet another example.

I want to echo the comment by Ria Bond, actually, that one of the reasons why people in the south deserve to have the chance to elect their representatives is that there are serious issues. Currently, two issues are major issues in the south. One is the food—well, you cannot really call it food. Let us just be—no, it is not food. The slop that is provided by Compass Group under the ministerial direction that this contract continues—that is a major issue for all of the communities in the south. The people of the south want to have advocates for their position on the district health board, and they deserve to.

The second issue that is currently significant in the south is the mental health services and mental health funding cuts. We have seen the Stop the Cuts to Southern Mental Health organisation activists be very clear that they want to retain the best possible mental health services, particularly in Dunedin and elsewhere. Those people too deserve to have their representatives on the district health board to advocate for their needs.

This National Government is stripping from those communities—from the patients in the hospital and those with mental health issues and their families in Dunedin—the right to have their advocates on the district health board, being accountable to them and arguing for their needs, for no reason except that National wants to keep control and remove local democracy from the south. The Green Party opposes this legislation.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): This bill proposes to exempt the Southern District Health Board from the 26 district health board elections, and this is not a bill that should be passed without rigorous scrutiny, because it suspends the democratic rights of the community for a whole electoral term. The usual rules supporting openness and transparency that would apply to decisions of the district health board do not apply to a commissioner. I have got to say, even though the Labour Party actually supports this bill, I would like to draw attention to a few points.

First, in the Ministry of Health’s briefing paper to the Health Committee on key aspects of the bill, it made note of the proposals to extend the Southern District Health Board commissioner’s term in order to provide sufficient time to develop, oversee, and implement a financially sustainable plan for quality health services for the southern district. Well, there is a short answer to that precariousness of the Southern District Health Board financial situation: give it sufficient money in order to enable it to run a decent health service. Figures that were released earlier this year showed that the Southern District Health Board has long been starved of essential funds. The Government must ensure adequate funding to ensure that the region’s health needs are not put at risk. It must develop a plan with genuine deliverables and sensible resourcing, that is robust and available to the public.

The pickle that the Southern District Health Board has found itself in is this Government’s responsibility. The Government’s failure to develop a credible path to financial stability over 7 years deserves condemnation. Going back to the Ministry of Health’s paper to the Health Committee, I presume that “quality services” referred to in that paper indicates a commitment to high-quality services. I wonder whether this ambition for high-quality services extends to nourishing food to support patients’ recovery and their long-term health. In February of this year, on this commissioner’s watch, Compass Group won a 15-year contract to supply food to the Dunedin Hospital—a money-saving move, presumably purporting to support the financial stability, with many of the meals served to the patients at that hospital being prepared in Auckland and Tauranga, frozen and then being trucked down to Dunedin and Invercargill, reheated, and then served to the patients. This includes meals that are served to the elderly folks on Meals on Wheels in the region; nourishing food that was previously prepared in-house by local workers and based on local ingredients is no more.

Secondly, the Health Committee expressed concerns in its report because Ngāi Tahu feels that its access to decision making has diminished under the new governance arrangements. This is an important issue, and it was the subject of many submissions to the select committee. Although it may not be appropriate to insert particular directions in this bill, the committee has strongly urged the commissioner to engage with Ngāi Tahu to ensure that Māori continue to contribute to the district health board decision-making, and that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are indeed adhered to. I endorse this strong comment, and urge the ongoing situation to be monitored to ensure that mana whenua rights are upheld.

Thirdly, some submitters on this bill felt that the commissioner’s decisions were being made behind closed doors, and they sought to increase transparency of the commissioner’s activities and decisions. Thank you.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to speak in support of this bill. Before I start, I want to acknowledge the Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman; the commissioner who has been appointed, Kathy Grant, and her team; and the Health Committee for facilitating this bill through the select committee process.

I think—just listening to all the contributions that have been made so far by the Labour Party, the Green Party, and New Zealand First—that if the biggest single issue in health in Southland and Otago is the quality of the food, then it really shows how out of touch those parties are with their constituents down there. I have been meeting with constituents from across my electorate—from across Gore, Balclutha, Winton, Queenstown, Te Ānau, and Lawrence—and the state of the food has not come up at all. What they are focused on are the optimistic opportunities that they see with the commissioner and her team coming into place to reform and reconfigure how health care is delivered across Otago and Southland.

There are systemic financial issues that have been facing the district health board, which were actually brought about by the poor mismanagement of the health portfolio under the Labour Government over a decade ago. That is why we are here. That is why the Minister of Health, Dr Jonathan Coleman, had to put in a commissioner to reform health care in Southland and Otago. We want faster, more effective, and more efficient patient care, we want a more sustainable financial organisation, and we want to reconfigure the systemic failures across the district health board and across the facilities.

There are hundreds of highly effective, highly passionate doctors, nurses, and care specialists across the district who are putting a lot of faith in the abilities of the commissioner and her team to be able to reform the health system in Otago and Southland. I know that the commissioner and her team are getting out and about. They are holding “walking in your shoes” sessions with staff and “walking in their shoes” sessions with members of the public, and I am holding a number of constituent clinics as well. What is broadly coming through, quite clearly, is a sense of optimism in that this Government has decided to take a stance and make a change to reform how health care is delivered there.

Clare Curran’s comments around the food are, I think, out of touch; so are Ria Bond’s. I do not think they are an accurate representation of the views of the people of Southland and Otago around health. I think it is actually quite misleading, and it is not fair on our district. We have got an opportunity to be able to restructure and reform, and I want to acknowledge the commissioners. I meet with them or talk to them regularly, and they are listening to people. They are passionate about what they are doing, and I think as they start forming a plan we will start to see more information coming through, and that will be starting to be communicated with the community. Each step of the way there is community consultation, so for the Greens to say that we need to do a complete about-face, disband the commissioners, and have local elections this year—it would just put at risk and would totally destroy all of the hard work and effort that have already gone into reforming the Southern District Health Board.

In closing, I just want to reiterate my support of this bill and the support of the Minister, the commissioner, and all the doctors, nurses, and specialists across the region who are doing their best to reform health care for the better for Otago and Southland.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I find it ironic that a former lobbyist for the tobacco industry gets up and preaches to this House about health. The member Todd Barclay seems to think that food is not important in the recovery of those who need the valuable services of a hospital.

Carmel Sepuloni: But Rothmans is.

PEENI HENARE: Ha, ha! Furthermore, as my people, the Māori people, see rising rates of diabetes and rising rates of obesity, I wonder, then, does that member truly think that food is not related to health?

I believe that in this country democracy in communities is a right and not a privilege. I believe that this particular bill will suspend those democratic rights that belong to the communities of the deep south. This House has spoken about the voices of the people. It is important that those voices are heard. We understand the need for good financial management—we understand that. We want to see our district health boards receive the money and manage the money accordingly, so that the communities those district health boards look after get the vital services that they need. That is very important, and we want to see that in the Southern District Health Board. However, it is with some apprehension that we support this bill, knowing that it will suspend the democratic rights of the people in the deep south. We believe that their voices are important in the ongoing conversation of their health needs moving forward.

This House has spoken about the submissions made by Ngāi Tahu. Members have also spoken about the submissions made by Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech the critical needs of the Māori communities, and it is important that groups like Ngāi Tahu and groups like Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu find a voice to advocate for their people’s needs in such important health management structures. Therefore, although we look at this bill and see that there is some pressure to be applied on to the commissioner to make sure that they do find a voice, we on this side of the House will be making sure that, indeed, that is what happens and that it is not simply a box-ticking exercise—one where we call a meeting, people come in, we have a 1½ hour discussion, we have a cup of tea, and the box is ticked. Conversations in that meeting stop right at the end as the cup of tea is being poured. It is important that voices like Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu are heard on the district health board.

I feel it timely to remind the House just how critical a hospital is to a community. The issues facing Dunedin Hospital have been well recorded. This side of the House, led by the members Dr David Clark and Clare Curran, has pushed hard to make sure that this Government realises that—to make sure that Dunedin Hospital is not just something that is planned on paper, but is actually seen by the people of Dunedin, and to make sure that the people of Dunedin can receive the services that they so desperately need and, in my opinion, deserve.

We notice that despite regular engagements by the commissioner with our external stakeholders, there are still some concerns about transparency. This goes back to making sure that the voices of the people are heard in the management of health services in the southern district. It is important that transparency is there so that the debate that is currently flying across the House with regard to the quality of food contracted for by the commissioner appointed to serve the people in the deep south is clear and transparent to the people of Southland, to make sure that they know the processes that took place and make sure that they are informed about the decisions made and the services that they receive. Although we understand that there will be pressure placed on the commissioner to make sure that those transparency measures are in place, we on this side of the House will be making sure that that is indeed what happens.

Whatever happens from here on out with regard to the suspension of the democratic rights of those people, we want to make sure—and we will be keeping a very keen eye on this particular process to make sure—that come 2019, those democratic rights are fully restored. Not partly restored, but fully restored, so that come 2019, the Southern District Health Board will be in a strong position to continue to deliver services to the people of the deep south.

To me, this is about doing what is right. It is about doing what is right by the community. It is about doing what is right by those who need the critical services to make sure that our elderly, to make sure that the young, and to make sure that the vulnerable get the services that they so desperately need. It is important, too, to make sure that the district health boards across the country maintain the confidence of the New Zealand public, and that can happen only when transparency is there and in place. It can happen only when the voices of the people are heard. It can happen only with strong fiscal management. It can happen only when democracy will be returned to the people of the deep south.

It is not just about the deep south. We on this side of the House hear regular concerns from across the country about the critical health services that people feel they are not getting, and it is important that this particular bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill, maintains that integrity so that the New Zealand public can have faith in the services that are available to them.

We on this side of the House have faith in the processes in this particular House, and it is with some surprise that we hear some of the challenges made towards the Labour Party, with one recently being made by the member from New Zealand First. So it is important that throughout the entire process—I understand that the Health Committee entered into strong, robust debate about this particular bill, which has made us arrive at the point where we on this side of the House will be supporting it. But let me remind this House, in conclusion, that we will be making sure that democracy will be restored to the people of the deep south. We will be keeping a keen eye on this Minister and on the bill to make sure that the people in the deep south get what they deserve. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to take a short call—the last call—on this bill. I think it is important and appropriate that the commissioner and her team stay in place beyond this year’s local body elections—12 months after their appointment—which is what the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill provides for. I say that for several reasons: first of all, it takes time for a new board, including a commissioner, to grapple with the complexities of health, let alone a district health board that is challenged. Over the three boards that I was lucky enough to be involved with, I made the observation that it takes about 18 months for a new board member to grapple with really complex terms like “case weights”, “DRGs”, and “inter-district flow”—they are really complex. At about 18 months in they grasped it, and the board members were really able to make good progress.

I think the second point is that the commissioners have set a target—a deficit target—of $35.9 million, compared with what was projected at $42 million, and they should be given time to meet their target under their own strategic direction. The third reason why I think this bill is a good bill is that it is very challenging for staff when there is a short turn-round of board members at a district health board. We had that in 2000-01 when the transitional district health boards were appointed—they were appointed for 1 year. What happened was that the whole organisation sort of went into watch-and-wait mode instead of act-and-move. So I think it is appropriate to have continuity there.

I also think there is a precedent. In my own region, the Kaipara District Council was challenged in 2012 and we placed a group of commissioners there, and the local body elections were in 2013—again, like this, 1 year later. In fact, we rolled them over. We have just reappointed them through to the current local body elections, and it has been effective. So there is a real precedent for this sort of thing.

I think, finally, there has been a lot of comment around public involvement, or lack of involvement, in the current positioning of the board, and I understand that the commissioner is re-establishing the advisory committees—the hospital advisory committee, the aged and disability support advisory committee, and combining that with the community and public health and advisory committee. I also understand that the commissioner and an iwi representative will be part of those committees. So I think there is ongoing public engagement in the new board and the new board structure, and I commend and encourage the board for the work it is doing and that it will do. I think this bill is correct and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 95

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

Noes 26

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill be now read a third time. This bill provides for a sensible transition from the commissioners whom the Government installed in Environment Canterbury back in 2010. It provides for a mix of both elected representatives and the continuity of commissioners through to 2019, from when the council will move to full elections.

The Government is very proud of the work and of the tough calls it made in terms of getting Environment Canterbury into a far better shape to be able to deal with the huge challenges of managing fresh water in Canterbury with the rebuild issues in that region, and with taking one of New Zealand’s worst performers in the local government sector up to being one of the very best. It would be uncharitable of me or Louise Upston and the other Ministers whom I have worked with to claim the credit for the success of the work out of Environment Canterbury, because it very much rests with the very skilled commissioners who were prepared to step up to the challenge and make a difference for that region.

I do want to take the opportunity in this third reading to pay tribute to Dame Margaret Bazley, who I think is one of New Zealand’s most outstanding public servants, and I am in awe of her ability to be able to deal with very complex issues—let alone with water—throwing in the complexity of the earthquake and seeing this organisation through the change. But, equally, I should pay tribute to people like Peter Skelton, a previous Environment Court judge; people like David Caygill, a former Labour Minister; and people like Tom Lambie, Rex Williams, David Bedford, and Elizabeth Cunningham, who have far exceeded the Government’s expectations in terms of providing a quality of governance for this important organisation.

There has been some debate about whether in October 2017 we should go cold turkey and simply to a step of full elections at that time. It is true that our Government has been cautious in that regard. The first key issue for me is actually around the issue of freshwater management. The truth is that the water issue in Canterbury is far bigger than in any other part of the country, with over 50 percent of the renewable electricity in New Zealand produced in that region, with over 70 percent of all the irrigation in New Zealand done in that region, and, I would also say, with the issues of water quality being more challenging in Canterbury than anywhere else.

If we go back to 2010, when the Government took the big call to intervene in Environment Canterbury, there was no water plan in place at all, there were no limits on conversion even though the impacts of that on water quality were significant, and it was also a council that had the worst record of all 86 of our councils in terms of meeting statutory time frames in processing resource consents. I put that in contrast to the situation today, where, not only in terms of processing consents, Environment Canterbury has moved from being one of the worst managers of water to actually being at the cutting edge internationally of how we deal with the very challenging issue of diffuse water pollution. What it has developed with the farming community around good management practices, around the red zones, and around the collaborative zone committees, in my view, sets a very strong foundation not just for Canterbury in terms of freshwater management but, indeed, for New Zealand.

I would also make the comment that in 2010—and I know this has been important for my colleague Louise Upston—every one of the 10 mayors in Canterbury asked the Government to intervene to sack the council and to put the commissioners in place. It is so interesting for us today to see the rebuild in the relationships, where every one of those councils are acknowledging that the commissioners have a far better relationship with Environment Canterbury. Getting the two units of local government working together has been absolutely critical in terms of the scale of challenges that region has passed through in terms of the earthquakes. I would also say that the very strong feedback I have had from Ngāi Tahu is that the relationships between Environment Canterbury and iwi in the region are, consequently, so much stronger.

The model that we have chosen in going forward is for there to be a majority of elected councillors from October this year: four from the city of Christchurch and one each from North Canterbury, from South Canterbury, and from mid-Canterbury. We are then saying that through to 2017 it will move over to a standard council model. The question around why we are not just going cold turkey is actually about the expertise of the commissioners being enabled to ensure that that good work is completed. Let me tell you how important it is. We do, thank goodness, now have a Canterbury water plan—a plan that is regulatory and that is operative across the full region. What we do not have yet are operative zone plans for each of the catchments across Canterbury. An enormous amount of work has gone on with those zone committees. The Government wants to back the continuity and that momentum so that that piece of work is completed by 2019, and that is why we are maintaining both the limited appeal rights and the work of the commissioners through to that process.

I have heard all sorts of exaggerated rhetoric around democracy from members opposite. I simply challenge these members opposite by saying what about when Helen Clark displaced the Auckland District Health Board? What about when the last Labour Government sacked the council in Rodney? In both cases members on our side of the House actually said that there was a strong case. Actually, good Minsters and good Governments will see problems where they exist and will address them, rather than sort of standing on the notion that they will never intervene. The truth is that this Government’s intervention in Canterbury has been necessary. It has been necessary, it has made a huge difference, and, actually, what is provided for in this bill—in a plan that has been worked on together by me and my colleague Louise Upston—is a sensible transition so that we do not have instability at such a crucial time in the history of not just the earthquake issues but the water issues in Canterbury.

I thank members, such as those from the Māori Party, who are supporting this bill. They are putting the interests of Canterbury ahead of cheap politics. They are ensuring that we are keeping this good work on track, and the people of Canterbury, the water of Canterbury, and the rebuild of Canterbury will be better for the practical measures that are in this bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): If there is any legislation that demonstrates the increasingly arrogant nature of this Government, then this legislation is a fine example of it. New Zealand and New Zealanders have been so proud for so long of being the country where women first won the right to vote. We are very proud of that. We boast about it at every opportunity, and so we should. The movement that won the right of women to vote was started in Canterbury. We had the first woman member of Parliament from Canterbury, actually from my electorate. So our region and our country have a very proud tradition in regard to democracy.

But here we have a Minister, Nick Smith, who not just today, not just once, but on many, many occasions, has misled the people of Canterbury, first of all, by misrepresenting the reasons for sacking the democratically elected Environment Canterbury councillors and, then, by telling us—not once, but twice, and now three times—that this was a short-term plan. In 2010 we were told that this was short term and we would get back our right to vote. Then it was extended again and we were to get back our right to vote, and now it has been extended yet again. Who could trust the word of that Minister with regard to restoring our democratic right to vote for our entire regional council in the same way that every other person in the country does?

The 2009 Creech report, led by the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech—a man whose work I respect, whose political views I do not always share, but whom I certainly regard highly in terms of his integrity—made it very clear that there was no dysfunctionality in Environment Canterbury. The members who believe what Nick Smith just said should read Wyatt Creech’s report of 2009, because it has not one reference to Environment Canterbury being dysfunctional. The Minister knows it, and the Minister knows the real reason why the council was sacked. It was solely to get more water out of Canterbury rivers and into irrigation—that is the sole reason for the Environment Canterbury being sacked. Actually, the Speaker himself confirmed that at a conference. The Speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, confirmed that on the public record at a conference for Irrigation New Zealand, where he said that the election of four councillors in the previous election—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a longstanding practice and a very specific Standing Order that a member shall not bring the Speaker into the debate on a bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, I hear what the member is saying. The member who is speaking, however, is referring to an event prior to the current Speaker being the Speaker, and in that context I am allowing it to continue.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The reason I can is that the presiding officer is aware of the contribution that the current Speaker, before he was made—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, no.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —the Speaker, made at the Irrigation New Zealand conference.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. You are now bringing me into the debate, and that is completely wrong. So just keep me out of it.

Hon RUTH DYSON: So, in April 2010, David Carter said to the Irrigation New Zealand conference: “We had to act [re EnCan] because the situation was untenable if we are to seriously make progress in delivering irrigation.” He said nothing about dysfunction, nothing about corruption, and nothing about mismanagement. As was the case in every other instance when the Government had to intervene to take away democratic rights, there was always corruption or mismanagement or dysfunctionality. This was about getting more water out of Canterbury rivers for irrigation—sole reason. He said: “I would have thought what happened recently regarding ECan would be a signal to all regional councillors to work a bit more constructively with their farmer stakeholders.” Well, I think they should work constructively with their farmer stakeholders, but that does not mean that irrigation should win every argument.

In Canterbury we have the greatest percentage of the total New Zealand water take. Our aquifers are polluted. The Canterbury District Health Board representative, the public health specialist, has said that in some parts of Canterbury newborn babies should not be fed with formula that is made with water that should be able to be drunk straight from our tap, because it could poison a newborn baby. This is in New Zealand in 2016, and yet Minister Nick Smith is continuing the drive of irrigation over democracy by not giving us our vote in Canterbury to democratically elect our regional council. He is continuing that drive of irrigation over democracy.

When challenged about his repeated change of circumstances, his misrepresentation of when we were going to get our right to vote back, he said that we are not going to return to a full election in Canterbury because it is too risky—it is too risky to give the people of Canterbury a right to vote. I wonder what the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for Women think about the fact that we are getting only half a vote in this bill. The country that was so proud of having women win the right to vote first is, in this Parliament, taking away half that vote for Canterbury.

We have got a complete gerrymander in the numbers as well, but that is not surprising. The people of Christchurch are going to have far less representation than people in the rural areas. Why would that be, I wonder? Where is the drive for irrigation? Does it come from Christchurch or does it come from the surrounding areas in Canterbury? It clearly comes from the rural community, where they will have a much stronger voice on the regional council because there are fewer voters required to elect a regional council member,

I think this is an outrage. It is a breach of the faith that people had in 2010. We have had misrepresentation about the reasons for it, and if any member doubts that, they should read the Creech report of 2009.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’ll be shocked.

Hon RUTH DYSON: They would be shocked because the Minister has said things about that report that are not true, and I think the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech deserves more respect from this House. He was a Deputy Prime Minister in this Parliament, and he deserves more respect than having his report misrepresented.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: And he totally supports what we’ve done. He supports the intervention.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I do not believe the Minister over what he just interjected. I challenge him to have that implication put in writing, and I bet he cannot deliver it.

In 2007 we had four Environment Canterbury councillors who were elected on a “save water” ticket. That was the wake-up call for the Government. That was the wake-up call to it that people in Canterbury were getting so upset at the draining of our rivers that we wanted to elect people who would put a stop to it, who would look at the water management strategy.

The other misrepresentation that the Hon Nick Smith makes regularly is to say that there was no water plan in place. In 2004—2004—that water plan was in draft form, and it is basically the same as it is now. It was prepared by the previous, elected councillors. He says that Canterbury was poorly managed and had lower outcomes. His own area of Tasman has poorer outcomes than Canterbury. Have its councillors been sacked? Have they been sacked? No, they have not, because there is no irrigation pressure there. There is no political pressure there.

This is not an argument about functionality, about corruption, or about mismanagement. It is an argument about the fact that we have had our democratic rights taken away. We also had our rights to appeal to the Environment Court taken away, and we had our protection—our special protection—for our rivers taken away. But there is no justification for that. If you have an elected body that has corruption or dysfunctionality or mismanagement, I do not think that there would be a single member in the House who would not support doing this—of course, reluctantly—until functionality was restored. But no such justification has ever existed in the case of Environment Canterbury.

I think this is a very sad day for democracy in New Zealand. It is a very sad day that this Parliament sees a move as serious as this being taken on the basis of misrepresentation. It was quite clear throughout the select committee process that the submitters understood what the real driver behind this was for. There were 1,167 submissions on this legislation and 1,152 were opposed. Just 15—one-five—submissions supported it and they were primarily from irrigators. I understand why they supported it. So 1,167 submissions with 1,152 opposed, and yet the Government, in its out-of-touch and increasingly arrogant way, rides roughshod over our democracy, rides roughshod over the submitters, and is going to ram this bill through.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister of Local Government): I wish to speak in support of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill in its third reading. This bill is, of course, a result of the ministerial review of Environment Canterbury’s governance and resource management arrangements led by the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and me. It has come about after significant engagement and consultation with Canterbury stakeholders, including each of the 10 territorial authorities, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, members of the public, and other organisations. I am pleased to see this bill pass through its final stages in the House after thorough consultation and debate in the Local Government and Environment Committee and a successful Committee of the whole House, which clarified an issue regarding the resource management provisions in the bill that was raised after it was reported back.

The legislation will put in a transitional mixed-model governance structure for Environment Canterbury of seven elected councillors, so I do want to put on record the correction of the speaker before me, Ruth Dyson. Everyone in Canterbury will have a vote—as they should. They will get a vote for the majority of their councillors. There will be up to six appointed—up to six appointed—members for the 2016 term of local government, and this will come after the 6 years of commissioners at Environment Canterbury who were appointed under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act of 2010.

I do want to put on record my disgust at the representations by the speaker before me of the Creech report. I was actually beginning to wonder whether she had read the same report that I had.

When the original Act was passed in 2010, the Government was hearing serious concerns about the ability of the council to fulfil both its statutory functions and duties but also, importantly, to provide clear direction on, and strategy for, how to manage the region’s unique and significant freshwater resources. Environment Canterbury reported meeting only 29 percent of its statutory time frames in the Ministry for the Environment’s 2007-08 survey of local authorities, which was the worst in the country by a large margin. The council could also not legally implement its strategy for freshwater management in the region, and the result was overallocation and mismanagement of water in Canterbury.

It is clear from the speech that we have just heard by the Opposition member that Labour is attempting to rewrite history. It also clearly demonstrates how out of touch those members are with the people of the Canterbury region. They are clearly not listening. They have clearly not been paying attention, and it is no surprise—actually, that is why National took some of those seats in the 2011 election, because that side of the House is completely out of touch with the concerns of the people on the street in Canterbury. Those members have completely forgotten the unprecedented step of 10 mayors—10 mayors—expressing their complete loss of confidence in the council. And it was not only the 10 mayors but also Ngāi Tahu and other major stakeholders. That is a significant issue, and this Government, of course, was going to take significant action to address it. But, just as importantly, it is about managing the transition back so that the people of Canterbury have complete confidence in the ability of Environment Canterbury to function well, beyond this point in time.

What we have seen since the commissioners have been in place is significant improvements at Environment Canterbury. In the most recent quarterly report, the council is now meeting 99 percent of its statutory time frames. Stakeholders, of course, such as Ngāi Tahu and the territorial authorities are also reporting considerable improvements in the relationships, which is a significant part of a region working successfully. The commissioners have also spearheaded the efforts to establish a freshwater planning framework in Canterbury by taking a collaborative approach through the region’s 10 zone committees to apply local solutions to sustainable freshwater management.

Although the commissioners have made considerable progress in their time at Environment Canterbury, I do want to remind the House that it is still a critical stage for the region. There is still work to do to complete the comprehensive planning framework for freshwater management in Canterbury, the majority of which is due to be completed by 2019—not 2016, but 2019. An abrupt loss of the knowledge and the expertise that has been brought by the commissioners at this single point in time would have a significant impact on the momentum that Environment Canterbury has made. It is also important, as I said before, to manage the transition so that the members of the community can be assured of continued success and progress.

There have been some amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill does not just continue the momentum of progress that we have seen but it builds on it by strengthening the partnership with Ngāi Tahu. The bill will require that two of the appointments to Environment Canterbury be made on recommendation from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, recognising their interests and guardianship role in the Canterbury region, its environment, and its natural resources. The bill also retains, as my colleague talked about, some of the special resource management arrangements put in place by the 2010 Act. However, some of the special powers will be withdrawn.

The bill being read today also incorporates a change brought about by Supplementary Order Paper 157 regarding the limited powers of appeal. Following the Local Government and Environment Committee’s report back, it became apparent that the provisions as drafted had the potential to cause legal uncertainty around plans, which would be subject to limited appeals. So the Supplementary Order Paper better clarifies the intention of the policy position, and that means the restriction of limited appeals to freshwater plans and policy statements.

I would like to thank all of those who took the time to provide their input and feedback into both the ministerial review and the resulting bill, including the 10 district and city councils of Canterbury, Ngāi Tahu, members of the public, and other organisations, as well as thanking the Local Government and Environment Committee for its work. As I said before, this work is important for Canterbury and the wider Canterbury region. I do want to put on record my personal thanks to the chair of Environment Canterbury, Dame Margaret Bazley, and the commissioners, who have worked incredibly hard over the last 6 years, as well as the officials from the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who have all worked incredibly hard on this bill before, during, and after its consideration by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tatou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill in the third reading. The aim of the bill is to provide governance arrangements for the Canterbury Regional Council to operate during 2016 to 2019, the local authority election cycle period. Its aim, also, is to replace the governance arrangements that have been in place since 2010 under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. It also aims to provide for the majority of members on the council to be elected by the people of the Canterbury region. Fourthly, its aim is to provide for the continuation of some of the modified resource management processes that have operated under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 to remain available to the council in order to further progress issues relating to the management of freshwater within the Canterbury region.

Labour’s position is that we cannot support this bill. Why? Because Labour stands for local democracy and the principles that uphold it. I thought, for the purpose of the House and particularly for the members on the other side, I would highlight what those principles are. Local democracy is local autonomy and decision-making where communities are able to contribute to decisions about issues directly affecting local communities, and for which they pay. The principle around local differences and issues is that they are best met by designing solutions at a local level. There is a principle about open and transparent processes, and a principle around local councils with the autonomy to respond to the range of different needs and priorities that exist in their communities.

I listened with intent to both the Minister for the Environment’s contribution and the contribution from the other Minister on the other side of the House as to the justification for why, 6 years on, we are still requiring the presence of unelected officials. I listened, and I heard that back in 2010 it was the worst-performing council and there was a need to change it. I also heard the Minister talk about a water plan already having been designed, but the zone action plans have not been completed. I also heard him talk about sensible transitions. But when I listened, I thought that if you designed fair enough water plans for Canterbury, that is probably the precise time when you want to transition out and leave the implementation at the local level to those who are best geared to implement those water plans. So I did not hear enough from the Minister to justify another 3 years of unelected officials.

I want to make it very clear that I acknowledge the expertise of Dame Margaret Bazley, of Professor Peter Skelton, and, of course, of David Caygill—whom the Minister acknowledged—but, at the end of the day, I too stand with the people of Canterbury and believe that they have the capability to run their own affairs. I sit here and think, why is Canterbury so special that for 9 years—9 years, which is what this bill is going to do—the people of Canterbury cannot manage their own affairs? It is unacceptable to accept that rationale for why we are extending this arrangement. Given that the Minister himself has said the commissioners have done some great work—they have put in the water plans—there is not enough justification, from what I heard the Minister say, to warrant continuing this arrangement for another 3 years.

I want to turn the House’s attention to the regulatory impact statement in terms of the first key risk, as noted in the statement. The very first risk that the Ministry for the Environment identifies is: “Public consultation was confined to a proposal for the preferred option of a mixed-model governance structure, rather than the range of options …”. There were no options that were put out for public consultation other than this model, so we have lost the opportunity to explore what arrangements the people of Canterbury themselves would have wanted to be governed under. Further down in the regulatory impact statement, another point that is made is that “the appointment of councillors is seen by some as an unwarranted intrusion into Canterbury’s affairs by central government”. I did not hear enough from the Minister to justify the appointment of this transitional and mixed-model governance arrangement. I did not feel that that—again, 6 years on—justifies that we have to have this arrangement. I believe the people of Canterbury do have the commitment and the tools to govern themselves. It is unfair to say that water management is getting better under this particular model, and those people most affected are left out of the process.

So I stand with members from Canterbury on this side of the House—who have objected from the first reading of this bill to this third reading—to say that it is not democratic. It is not what the people of Canterbury either want or deserve, and it behoves me to say that, yet again, the rights and the interests of the good people of Canterbury have been sidelined. That is why I stand on this side of the House, with Labour members, to say that we cannot support this bill. Thank you very much.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise in this third reading debate on the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill because, as a non-Cantabrian, I have come to understand how important the water and sensible governance of Environment Canterbury is to not only Cantabrians but all of us as New Zealanders. I listened very carefully to the speeches of my two senior colleagues, the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and the Hon Louise Upston. In their contributions to this debate, they gave very measured, careful, and thoughtful presentations on the justification and the rationale for this transitional legislation being presented to the House. Minister Nick Smith made it very clear that the Government is taking a cautious approach, and I would like to endorse that cautious approach because it is really important, as I said, not only for the people of Canterbury but for all New Zealanders that the governance of Environment Canterbury is absolutely stable and working functionally.

It was a pity, I think, for the House to have had to listen to two Labour speeches, now, from members who are clearly still in denial about the state of affairs that was in place at Environment Canterbury prior to the appointment of the commissioners in 2010. In fact, it is well-known that as late as the run-up to the 2008 general election, the then Labour Government, in its dying, death throes, absolutely knew that there was a huge problem with Environment Canterbury and refused to do anything about it. It refused to take a lead and work to solve what were enormously difficult challenges and problems with dysfunctionality. Simply, it was not so much that there were poor decisions being made; it was just that there were no decisions at all being made by the Environment Canterbury organisation. It was completely deadlocked and unable to move forward in terms of its planning for what is 70 percent of New Zealand’s freshwater resource. That is a situation that simply could not be allowed by a responsible Government to continue.

This bill establishes a sensible—in my view—mixed-model approach. It is a transitional model to ensure that when we go to the local government elections in October this year, seven elected and up to six appointed councillors will ensure that the momentum and the good, stable work that has been done by the commissioners—by the chair, Dame Margaret Bazley, and her fellow commissioners—over the time of their appointment since 2010 is continued and that their very good planning and structural work, not only in terms of fresh water but also in terms of the contribution that Environment Canterbury is making to the rebuild and regeneration of Canterbury following the earthquakes, is maintained and continued. I think that they need to be congratulated, as other speakers have done, and thanked for the very good work that they do.

I think that probably one of the great hallmarks of this time under the guidance and governance of the commissioners has been the rebuilding of relationships in Canterbury, not only with other local government authorities and territorial bodies but also, particularly, with Ngāi Tahu. At the Local Government and Environment Committee I was delighted that we were able to make a recommended change, which has been adopted in this bill, to have Ngāi Tahu nominating two representatives. Originally there was a plan that they would nominate one. Ngāi Tahu came to us at the select committee and suggested that they would like to nominate three. We agreed that probably there was a very good case for nominating two. So Ngāi Tahu will nominate two commissioners and they will then be appointed by the Minister. I think that is a very good and sensible approach to be taken.

Environment Canterbury was one of the country’s worst-performing councils, if not the worst-performing council, at the time the commissioners were appointed. It is really important for us as legislators that we do ensure that that momentum, the work and the task that the commissioners are doing, is continued. I am very pleased that we, as a select committee, were able to work our way through those issues. We took an opportunity to visit Christchurch—to sit in Christchurch in the council chambers, no less—and to hear from a range of very committed and passionate submitters, many of whom were, I think, making a point about how important it is that Environment Canterbury and its management and structure continue in the good way that it has been. Yes, of course they were making a point that they want to revert to fully elected representation, but I think that many of them actually did understand the need for a transitional phase, so that all these good things could be continued in a way that did not break that momentum.

As chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, it is a pleasure for me to support this bill in its third reading, and I commend it to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party strongly opposes the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I have called it an abominable bill in the past, and nothing that I have heard in either the Committee stage or the second reading has convinced me that it is otherwise. I expected, in this third reading debate, that we would be hearing some justification from National members and Ministers as to why, 6 years after the National Government removed regional democracy in Canterbury, we had to see that half-pie model that they are proposing, with appointed commissioners, continue for another 3 years. But what we have heard again is a whole lot of misinformation about where the regional council was at in 2010.

Having been on that council, I would like to correct some of that. There was a natural resources regional plan, which had been proposed and notified and was being used by the regional council. In 2010 the Canterbury Regional Council was receiving more applications for water consents than every other regional council in New Zealand put together. There was no national policy statement on freshwater to provide any guidance for the council. Christchurch had the worst air quality in New Zealand, so the council had focused, in previous years, on developing an air plan in order to clean up the city’s air and reduce the number of premature deaths from respiratory illnesses. So there are a lot of major resource management challenges in the region. The Government was doing very little, if anything, to assist in providing guidance there.

Last Saturday, 6 years on from the loss of regional democracy, a small group of people gathered in Cathedral Square to remember that loss of democracy. We put wreaths on a cairn that thousands of Canterbury citizens had come together to build on a very cold day in 2010, using stones from rivers throughout the region. That cairn stands today, and will not be dismantled until we get regional democracy back and until there has been a substantial improvement in water management in the region.

The Green Party stands alongside everybody in Canterbury who wants an elected regional council back to better provide for the management not just of water but of the coast, air, regional transport, pests, and biodiversity. There were over a thousand submissions on this bill and only 15 of those submissions supported this half-pie model that the Government is imposing on the region. Those interests that supported it were rural councils, irrigation interests, and Federated Farmers. Those interests went to the Ministers in 2010 and demanded a change in Environment Canterbury because it was an elected council with councillors who wanted improved water management and that had strengthened the flow regime for the Waimakariri River. Graeme Sutton, one of the directors of Waimakariri Irrigation, went and complained to the Minister. We had rural councils that did not want a regional council calling them to account on their sewage discharges in Hanmer and their water takes in other areas—a regional council that was actually trying to enforce the Resource Management Act. So it was those irrigation interests, along with rural councils, that lobbied the Ministers for an overturning of democracy. It has been those rural councils that support this half-pie model that we are getting back in October.

The Christchurch City Council, which represents the majority of residents in the region, strongly supports the call to return democracy to the region. It is very interesting. We have got 78 councils in New Zealand; none of them will be having appointed commissioners around their tables come October. Even Kaipara, where we had a massive over-expenditure by about $50 million in a waste-water scheme and a doorstop-sized report by the Auditor-General, gets to elect its council in October.

What National is saying—that we need balance and we need some continuity with this model where we are having six appointed commissioners—does not make sense. It seems to ignore the fact that there are staff at the regional council who could have provided that continuity. It ignores that there are other models where two of the commissioners could have been retained as consultants, rather than just giving Cantabrians this second-class model with half a vote.

It substantially reduces our representation. In Christchurch we are down to four elected councillors when previously there were eight. Each one of those councillors in Christchurch will have to represent 90,000 voters. In South Canterbury the elected councillor there will represent only around 60,000 voters. To me, this is gerrymandering when a vote in South Canterbury is worth much more than one in Christchurch. It is giving the rural sector much more influence.

That is what this bill is all about. It is actually giving the Government influence on Environment Canterbury to ensure its agenda of promoting more irrigation, having very loose controls on land use, and allowing irrigators to capture a community resource to generate private profits. That is why the Government wants to continue to appoint six commissioners at that council table. What we have seen under the commissioners is the promotion of irrigation. We have seen the chair of the commissioners writing to the Selwyn District Council encouraging that council to give an $8 million loan to Central Plains Water to enable it to go ahead with stage two of its scheme.

Citizens want an independent, objective regulator in Environment Canterbury, not one that is promoting more irrigation and more intensification. Under the commissioners we have seen the proportion of rivers in Canterbury that are suitable for swimming decline from 74 percent in 2010 now down to 64 percent. In the new regional plan we have seen nitrate levels set that are several times higher than those that trigger algal blooms in our rivers. We are not seeing the improved water management that the Minister claimed he was appointing commissioners to put in place. Why, 6 years later, if these commissioners have done the good job that Ministers claim, have they not finished developing zone plans for everywhere in Canterbury? That is because water management is challenging.

In the Green Party we believe that elected councillors would do a much better job in representing the view of citizens throughout the country that we need much more controls on land use. We need to focus on cleaning up our rivers, not allowing them to be further burdened with more faeces and with more nitrates from more agricultural intensification, and we need not to be burdened with locking farmers into the high-input, high-cost, high-debt intensive farming model that these big irrigation schemes like Central Plains Water promote. People in Canterbury want our water back; we want our vote back. That will be achieved only by returning to a fully elected council, not this half-pie model that the Government is implementing through this bill.

We have not heard any arguments that are credible from Government Ministers or Government MPs as to why, 6 years on, we cannot have our democracy back. That is because this National Government fundamentally distrusts local government. It distrusts citizens having access to the courts. That is the other really noxious thing about this bill: there is a different version of the Resource Management Act that applies in Canterbury to the one that applies everywhere else in the country. In Wellington, in Otago, and in the Hawke’s Bay, citizens there can appeal their freshwater plans to the Environment Court. In Canterbury, this bill denies citizens that right. It makes it much harder for citizens and groups like Fish and Game, and Forest and Bird to appeal plan provisions that are too weak and to appeal plan provision that do not provide for clean water.

Not only is this Government stomping on regional democracy; it is also denying citizens access to the Environment Court. We want our water back; we want our vote back. This bill fails to deliver that. The Green Party believes that Cantabrians can elect a competent council to provide much better water management than appointed commissioners will and to provide a much more credible system. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Nine years is far too long for a return to a fully elected regional council in Canterbury. Six years is easily long enough for the commissioners to have done the job that they set out to do, and they have done a good job. Others have said that, and I agree. They have overseen the establishment of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, but that job is done and they proudly say so themselves. The strategy properly balances economic development with sustainable freshwater objectives. There is no way of going back now. Actually, clause 23 of the bill says this: “In considering any proposed fresh water plan or regional policy statement during the transition period, Environment Canterbury must have particular regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy …”. That actually entrenches the strategy right now in this bill. So why would it be necessary to continue having the appointed commissioners to do just that when, in fact, that would have to be done in the bill by the elected members, if only they were elected.

Local government is fundamentally about local democracy, a representative democracy. Where commissioners are appointed, their term must be the shortest possible term, otherwise the representation completely disappears from local government, and that is what has happened in Environment Canterbury over the last 6 years. By having this hybrid model, you actually get the worst of both worlds. You get neither a genuinely representative body nor one that is free from either the actuality or the perception of central government’s influence, and those things are important. In addition to that you will inevitably get a them-and-us attitude arising in the council itself, and that will not be positive.

I want to move on to the question of Ngāi Tahu representatives, because New Zealand First opposes that provision in the bill, as well. Ngāi Tahu is to appoint two of the Government’s first three appointments out of a maximum of six. New Zealand First’s policy generally is that people must not be appointed to elected bodies, whether they are elected councils or other bodies. New Zealand First says that provision is just as bad as the one that requires the appointment of the other commissioners as well. Both provisions are undemocratic and should not be in the bill.

The Government claims that what it wants is a stable Environment Canterbury with specialist skills. If you look at clause 11, those skills are spelt out and they are listed, and one of them is the management of fresh water. That skill is not exclusive to appointed people and, in fact, in Canterbury there are a lot of people who could be, and will be, elected to Environment Canterbury who have those skills in great measure. Another one is local authority governance and management, but there are actually more people available in Canterbury with those skills than there would be available for appointment, and they would be just as good. In addition to that there is knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people, but, in fact, elected people are much more likely to have those skills than any who could be appointed. So when you look at that objective for skills, they are better fulfilled by elected people than they would be by appointed people. So the Government’s justification utterly vanishes for that reason.

In addition to that the Minister has said that he wants to see continuity. Well, what is the magic about continuity? The real issue is not continuity; the real issue is an appropriate mix of skills of the people to serve on Environment Canterbury and, as I have just said, that can be done easily and fully with elected people. In fact, the bill does not even mention continuity at all, so I do not even know why the Minister raised the issue. It is completely irrelevant, as, in fact, is the rest of his argument to try to justify the appointment of people to Environment Canterbury.

The Government is paying only lip-service to local democracy in the bill by having some of the members elected and the rest appointed. It is really a hybrid council that will result. It would not be in any way democratic, and democracy would be compromised by the fact that there are appointed members, even if they are not in the majority. A full return to democracy is essential after these 6 years finish this year—that is essential. Because Environment Canterbury has already lost its credibility as a representative body with the people of Canterbury, they just do not see it as their council any more. That has gone, and it is not going to be easy to get back.

This bill will make it worse and not better. It should not go on for another 3 years, to make it a staggering 9 years in total. It is one thing to dismiss elected councillors way back in 2010, but it is another thing altogether to allow it to go on for 9 years. As I have said, it should go on for the shortest possible time. The Creech report actually said that “the explicit intent is for the Commissioners to withdraw and to be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systemic issues are resolved.”—as soon as their task is achieved. That task, the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, shows that it has been achieved. Therefore, it is time for us to say to those commissioners: “Your job is done and, by the way, well done, but thanks and goodbye.” It is time for that.

And, lastly, the bill is seriously flawed in one other way. The legislation will be repealed under clause 6 after the 2019 local government elections, and by then Environment Canterbury will, under that clause, have to have decided what wards it will have, how many councillors per ward it will have, and so on, for that election to take place. But clause 29(2) says “Environment Canterbury must review”, and that means all of the members of Environment Canterbury, including the appointed members. The reason for the appointment of the commissioners was to look exclusively at water issues, not to decide what the future Environment Canterbury should be—not their job at all—and yet this bill makes it just as much their responsibility as it is of those who will be elected. That is totally inappropriate and it is not going to serve the interests of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury to have appointed people deciding what their regional council will look like after 2019.

It is a serious flaw in the bill. I have mentioned it in previous speeches, and the Government has done nothing about it. The Government is simply cloth-eared about all the serious flaws in the bill, and just wants this legislation passed, irrespective of what the people of Canterbury say, because, as Ruth Dyson said, they have virtually all submitted that they do not want this bill.

The people of Canterbury want their full democracy back, including those who actually supported the appointment of the commissioners in the first place, because they know their job has been done. They know it is time for them to go. They think they did a good job, but they want their democracy back, and that is what should be happening now, not this idiotic bill which will achieve absolutely nothing and which will compromise democracy in Canterbury for another 3 years. It is a bad bill, and it should not be passed.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I rise to support the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I think it is a very good bill. I do not agree with the previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke. I think that if you look back a little bit into the history of how the Government got involved, the district councils of the Canterbury region approached the Government—and it was Labour at the time—to do something in 2008 because there were some issues of under-performance by the councillors at the time. They felt that their regional council was not moving anywhere, it was basically going down, and so at that time, according to my reading, the then Labour Government decided to leave it until after the elections. So when National came in, National picked it up and moved with it, fulfilling the wishes of the people who actually put that issue forward to the previous Government. The National Government went ahead and did it—it is a Government of action. So we went through and appointed these, I believe, very highly experienced commissioners.

I think it is not very nice to hear the previous speaker basically denigrate the great work that these people have done, when he says they can leave and go, and he basically says, you know: “You’ve done a great job, but that’s it.” But I believe that their skills should not be lost, and so the transitional part of this bill, where we have some appointed members staying on there for the continuity—in other words, we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Actually, I think what we are doing is giving an opportunity for that bathwater to be sweetened by the appointment of the two Ngāi Tahu appointees. I believe that they will bring some great skills to that group, even if it is for the 3-year period, but I believe that, you know, they have just as many skills as anyone else who would be standing in the election process. Therefore, I think that the Canterbury people are very fortunate to be able to have such a very strong iwi put forward some—most probably, I would dare say—highly skilled people as appointees to Environment Canterbury. When I look around the country and I see the skill base and the work that Ngāi Tahu has done economically for the region of Canterbury, I think that Canterbury is very fortunate to have these two people who will be coming forward.

So my contribution is short. I think it is a good bill. I think that everybody else—the Opposition has been not very nice to the people who have worked hard to bring Environment Canterbury back to being a top-performing regional council, which it was not at the end of 2008. So I have no hesitation, and I am very proud to support the bill to the House. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take no pleasure in this grim exercise: standing to speak on behalf of our democracy and environment, knowing the Government has no regard for these fundamentals. The Government, of course, says we are wrong to assert such a thing. The Government cares about democracy. Government members were elected themselves, after all—they are honourable, all of them. They care about democracy, and they are returning partial democracy to Canterbury. Yet the New Zealand Law Society condemned what they are doing here, saying: “Representative democracy is a fundamental principle that gives legitimacy to government and the exercise of state power.” The proposed further suspension of full democracy is inconsistent with one of New Zealand’s core constitutional values—namely, a free and democratic society.

Government members care for democracy. They tell us Environment Canterbury was sacked because it was incompetent, yet an independent evaluation of Environment Canterbury established no such thing. Government members are honourable. They care for democracy, yet they do not believe that the people know what is best for them in Canterbury. These very same people who voted for them are not competent to choose a full council in Canterbury. Government members do care for democracy. They are returning it, at least in part, in this bill, yet the people of Canterbury strongly disagree with this bill. Of the 1,169 submissions on this piece of legislation, only 15 supported this bill.

On a matter of democracy, the Government will not listen to the people and will not return full democracy. Is partial democracy really full democracy? The people of Canterbury and the Law Society say it is not. Yet Government members are honourable. They know the importance of having an independent judiciary, and yet this legislation continues to disallow appeals on regional plans to the Environment Court, and allows appeals to the High Court only on points of law.

Government members are honourable. They know the importance of having an independent judiciary, and yet the Minister for the Environment stood in this House and said he would appoint a judge to Environment Canterbury. Being appointed by a Minister who can remove you if he does not like what you are doing is surely not judicial independence. Decision making at a council level is surely not the same as decision making in a court context.

Government members are honourable. They are Bluegreens. They care about the environment, yet this removal of a right of appeal will help silence those who seek to speak to give voice to their environment. Government members are honourable. They care for the environment, yet the landscape in Canterbury is covered by spawning, spraying irrigators, draining the water from some of our most precious and beautiful waterways. Government members care for the environment. They put in place commissioners to care for the environment, and they tell us they have done a wonderful job, yet an area that will experience increasing climate change and drought and that has some of the worst water quality in New Zealand has under their watch become the irrigation capital of New Zealand.

Government members care for the environment. The elected council did a terrible job, yet the frameworks that that same council developed the Government now touts as proof of the commissioners’ success.

Government members care for the environment. They put in place commissioners to care for the waterways, yet irrigation has increased and water quality has declined. Our precious waterways are sick, and our land and climate are being sacrificed on their altar for dairying greed.

Government members care for the environment. They are honourable, and yet they take the people’s rights and watch the rivers die and they stand here with pride. The Green Party deeply opposes this bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): As a Canterbury member of Parliament, I think that this bill comes down to a couple of fundamentals as part of the rationale as to why the Labour Party and other parties are opposing it. I think one of the most pertinent points that I am mindful of is a quote from the now Minister Nick Smith, in the The Timaru Herald, prior to the 2010 election, where he was wont to say that the reason that he sacked Environment Canterbury was that he was “worried about the outcome of the 2010 local body elections in Canterbury”.

Grant Robertson: Worried.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Worried. As my colleague Grant Robertson pointed out—I think I was in Cabinet at the time, and a number of other colleagues and I were quite worried in 2008 about the outcome of that election. I do note that the Prime Minister did not go to the Governor-General and request that she cancel the 2008 general election. It happened. There was a result—they won; we lost. That is called democracy. But it is a telling admission by the Minister that he was “worried” about the outcome of the 2010 Environment Canterbury elections, so he canned them. I suppose he then, of course, made a commitment that that would happen once, that full democracy would be reinstated, and then he went back on his word—to put it in the most charitable terms that we can. He went back on his word. It was a dishonest and disingenuous statement.

Then we come to this bill, of course. We are going to have a little bit of democracy, but at the essence of this bill, the one question that the Minister could not answer, or would not answer—I put it to him, many colleagues put it to him—is why he does not have faith in the credibility and integrity and skill of the people in Canterbury to step up to the plate and take charge of their own affairs. To be fair, his colleague Gerry Brownlee, through the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, was going to steamroll a pretty dictatorial piece of legislation through. However, to give him credit, he listened to the submissions that were made to him. He listened to the Labour Party and the Christchurch City Council’s submissions that pleaded with the Minister to allow local people of skill and integrity to have a greater say in their future and, to give Gerry Brownlee credit, he acquiesced and he put a pretty good piece of legislation through. In contrast, this Minister does not have faith in the people of Canterbury to elect from amongst their number skilled and motivated and responsible folk to take charge and provide further leadership in their region as we move through the recovery and as we move to—what we have got here is sort of a halfway house of democracy.

If he wanted continuity, then what he could have done is have commissioners, perhaps as advisers, to sit alongside elected people to provide counsel, or if he had great faith, as he says he does, in those appointed commissioners, those appointed commissioners of course have the right to fill in the nomination form and have a crack themselves and stand for election. But the Minister has never been able to tell us why it is that he does not have faith in the good folk of Canterbury. No one in Government has been able to give a justification for that. He brought them down once, said it would not happen again, said he would reinstate democracy, and said he sacked Environment Canterbury because he was worried about the 2010 election result—presumably about the water plan and what would be the outcome of that, and who would be elected—and then he went back on his word again, as we now have this piece of legislation.

So Cantabrians will sit there today and look at this and scratch their heads because their Government—and I will be interested to see whether there are any more Government members, maybe from Canterbury, who would answer where the Minister would not answer as to why they do not have faith in the leadership of Cantabrians. They spout a lot of weasel words about Canterbury—a lot platitudes—but at the end of the day it comes down to whether you believe that Cantabrians will elect from amongst their number responsible people of integrity and skill, as there are thousands in that province who want to step up, want to show leadership, and want to take Canterbury to the next step. That is the key question that I challenge the Government to answer.

NUK KORAKO (National): Mauri ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. One of the biggest political issues of the year is water, and quite rightly so. Water is one of the most valuable resources that we have, and one that requires well-considered public policy and careful management. This is why improving our management of fresh water is a top priority of this Government. But a lot of the responsibility for management of our water resources falls to local government, and in particular regional councils.

Seventy percent of New Zealand’s fresh water—the resource itself—is actually in Canterbury, and it falls under the responsibility of Environment Canterbury. You would think, given that statistic, that it would have been priority No. 1 for the Environment Canterbury councillors to get water management right, but apparently not. Ngāi Tahu are mana whenua, and have a significant interest in the management of water resources in the Canterbury region. You might think that Environment Canterbury would have seen its relationship with Ngāi Tahu as a key one, but no, it did not—no, it did not. I was on Ngāi Tahu’s governance board at the time, and I well remember the dysfunction that infected the relationship and the extent to which the iwi had to ensure that appropriate consultation occurred, often bearing the cost of that. The Creech report in 2010 found that Environment Canterbury had no established systems and processes for iwi input, or even for consultation. That was the background to the Creech report’s recommendation that the Environment Canterbury councillors be replaced with commissioners, and that is exactly what happened.

That was a decision that no Government would want to be put in a position to make, and one that I know was not taken lightly. But it was the right decision, and the result has been that environmental management in our region is back on track. Environment Canterbury is complying with the law—is complying with the law—in the issuing of consents. Also, it has a comprehensive plan to manage our water, which has been put in place. So, in fact, Environment Canterbury is not merely compliant with the law now; it has gone from being one of the country’s slowest and worst-performing councils to being one of the best. Strong relationships have been established with Ngāi Tahu and the territorial authorities in this region.

Now is the time to begin the transition—I agree with that—and now is the time to begin the transition back to fully elected council. All of those things that were just said—we hear all of this from the other side of the House, but at the end of the day this bill is a fantastic bill. It is actually going in the right direction, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Nuk Korako is a member of the Māori plutocracy, in favour of dictatorship rather than democracy. I mean, that is typical of the National Government, is it not? It really is losing touch when it thinks that after 6 years without democracy the answer is still “not democracy”. I think that that sort of says it all about the National Government—increasingly out of touch with what New Zealanders want.

I do not think this is unique to New Zealand. Actually, people around the world eventually march in the streets when they are denied their right to control how their lives are run through democracy. I look around this hall here, and I have heard other people say this before—but all the people who fought in these battles around the world, what were they fighting for? They were actually fighting for democracy because democracy, in the end, is what causes societies in the longer term to be prosperous and peaceful, because the sorts of accommodations that need to be made between people are made. The environment is actually better protected in democracies around the world than it is in countries that are not democratic.

So the aberration that we had in Canterbury, where there were problems with the management of resources, including water resources, justified only the shortest of interventions. I do agree that there were problems with Environment Canterbury. I also agree with Eugenie Sage that the problems were less serious by the time the Government put in commissioners than they had been earlier. The earlier regional council had been quite remiss in not having a water plan for the management of the resources. It is also true that the council was pressured by this huge change in the technology and economics of irrigation that meant there was a real push towards intensive land practices that were polluting the waterways. But the sadness is that 8 years on from this Government saying it was going to fix this sort of thing, including through its intervention in Environment Canterbury and through national policy statements, water quality in Canterbury is still getting worse. It is a terrible thing.

About 2 months ago I was fishing in the backblocks of Canterbury, in a pristine river. I was with a fishing guide whom a friend of mine was using, and he used to, until about 2 years ago, regularly take visitors to the mid- and south-Canterbury rivers—to the lowland rivers like the Ōpihi. He no longer does that. He has given up on that completely because they are too dirty to fish. They are sucked dry. The water that is left in them is dirty, and we have seen those photographs recently.

Those things have got worse under the National Government, and they continue to get worse because it has not grasped the nettle that needs to be grasped and it has made increases in land use intensity and land use. What is the cause of most pollution now? More intensive land practice and more irrigation. It is a higher-cost system. You need to have more output, therefore you need more livestock per hectare, therefore you need more fertiliser, and therefore you have more nutrient run-off and livestock effluent getting into our rivers. It is that simple. And the only way you can stop that is by having rules that say increases in land use intensity are no longer a permitted activity, because they have to be controlled in some way so that our waterways do not get dirty. The Government still has not done that, and, actually, with due respect to the commissioners in Canterbury, they have not done that either. Maybe elected ones would.

The other thing that this extension of this legislation does, other than make it so that there will be 9 years without full democracy in this region, is that it overrules conservation orders and conservation orders that were in process. The Hurunui River water conservation order had been made. It was going to go to the Environment Court eventually. The Environment Court has over the years in New Zealand made very wise decisions in respect of conservation orders, so that at least some of our rivers have been protected from damming and have appropriate minimum environmental flows and sometimes—not often, but sometimes—have some decent controls on water quality. The Government cut across that. It was clear that one of the reasons it was imposing these commissioners was to cut across it, because otherwise it would not have put these specific rules in the legislation about conservation orders; it would have just put commissioners in there and left the other laws intact. The Government cut across it because, in the face of this enormous pressure on Canterbury rivers, it is not even willing to allow there to be exploration in court as to whether there should have been a conservation order on the Hurunui River. And it pretends to be in favour of improving our water quality.

The Government says it is in favour of water quality, and what is its minimum standard? Wadeability. Wadeability—you can walk through it, but you cannot put your head under. It has all of these weird excuses from Nick Smith saying: “Oh, well, you know, rivers in flood can’t be swum in.” Well, they cannot be waded in, either—they do not even make the wadeability standard. No one was ever suggesting that that minimum standard should apply to rivers that are in flood. The next excuse from him was: “Well, look, some rivers are naturally dirty sometimes. Sometimes there are a lot of birds nesting on the bank.” That was one of the examples he used—seagulls on the bank of the Ashburton River. No one is suggesting that natural causes of river degradation can be regulated away; we are just saying human intervention ought to not be allowed to take dirty rivers to below a swimmability standard.

In truth, the objective of this Government—and it comes up with every National Government we have had in recent decades—is that it has got this two-class mentality for rivers. It is willing to protect a few rivers. They are generally large rivers that rise in national parks, and they are so big it is very difficult to put so much pollution in them—they get dirty anyway. The rest of the rivers—the small rivers, and particularly the lowland rivers—well, it lets them be polluted. It turns them into drains. That is what it has done in Canterbury, and it has stopped it being—and now I am going to hear Sarah Dowie get up next and defend the Government, and she will say what she said in respect of her last speech, which is: “In Southland there are all these wonderfully protected rivers.” It is not true—it is not true. I was counsel for the conservation orders on the rivers that have conservation orders in Southland. I regret that when I was counsel in those applications, because water quality was not a pressing issue, we did not get decent minimum water quality standards in those conservation orders. We got flow protection because the big threat generally was to flow; it was not to quality. Since then rivers like the Mataura have become filthy—filthy—and worse than they used to be. I have had people report to me that they come down and they walk across tributaries and drains that lead into the Mataura River and they are full of cow—what comes out of the end of a cow.

Grant Robertson: “Excrement,” I believe the word is.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Excrement—that is right. I was going to use a shorter word.

There are complex problems behind rising pressure on waterways. It has been driven by a change in the profitability of different farming types. Rising commodity prices meant that increasingly intensive and expensive farming systems became economic. More irrigation could be supported, more fertiliser, and more livestock. That is one of the problems, and regulation has not caught up with it. One of the other pressures has been changes in technology, things that were not there 30 or 40 years ago—you know, K-Line irrigation enabling irrigation of rolling country. We have had other causes—for example, we have run out of land to develop. We used to break in land that had never been farmed. We have done all that now. Therefore, if you want to increase output you have to further develop the land that has already been developed, and therefore you have more pressure on waterways. All of these factors are playing a part, but the sad truth is that 8 years after this Government came in, having killed the Judge Sheppard national policy statement, which would have controlled increases in land use intensity and stopped our clean rivers getting dirty, the National Government has allowed it to get worse.

To me, the most important river is the local river that I want to swim in. I think that is true for most people. And if their local river is clean and my local river is clean, then all our local rivers will be clean and all our rivers will be swimmable. We are a long way off that. It is going to take a generation to get back to that, but one of the ways that you get that back is to listen to the voice of the people.

Canterbury people are sick of their rivers being polluted. They want democracy. I pay credit to the existing commissioners. They have improved the plan. They have taken out a lot of the irrelevancies and they have made some progress in Canterbury rivers. But now, 6 years after they were appointed, it is time to go back to full democracy. I oppose this bill.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I am quite taken aback. I did not realise that I had such a connection with Mr Parker—that we had this sort of telepathic thing going on. I am quite taken aback, but it must be since I have come on to the Local Government and Environment Committee that we sort of have this unspoken bond. I am looking forward to exploring this more as we move through our careers this term on that select committee. So thank you very much for that tribute.

Just in response, I will say that there has been research done by Environment Southland, in Southland—and I am not suggesting that there are not pockets or water bodies that are not polluted—and we actually have an opportunity in Southland. What we have found is that it takes approximately 3 years for nitrates and things to come through the system. So although that poses some risk, it is also an opportunity. It is an opportunity for us to clean up those waterways that are not so good. Environment Southland is working through that issue and developing a plan, catchment by catchment, so that we can do that. That is an opportunity and I am really proud of that, and I am looking forward to Environment Southland moving that forward.

But I digress. I am going to speak about the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill.

The sustainable management of our natural resources is a premise of utmost importance to New Zealanders and, of course, Cantabrians are no different. This bill establishes a mixed-model governance structure for Environment Canterbury during the 2016-19 local government term. What that means is that there will be a council formed of seven elected councillors—that is, seven elected councillors—and six appointed councillors. The reason for that is to keep up the momentum that the commissioners have achieved in respect of water planning issues and to ensure the orderly transition of the institutional knowledge that the commissioners have, the stakeholder gains that they have made, and the relationships that they have built, moving forward.

This is a good transitional bill. It is a good transitional phase. Of course all Cantabrians want to move forward to a fully elected board model, but this is a transitional process to maintain that institutional knowledge and that progression. Therefore, I support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; United Future 1.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63, Noes 58.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 15 March.

Peeni Henare: Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh, I think the member’s time has expired.

Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding of the situation is that it is the split call that sometimes the Greens and Labour can take, and that Mr Henare took the first 5 minutes and was, therefore, entitled to the next 5 minutes as well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Had the member started the next 5 minutes?

Kris Faafoi: That is my understanding.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The notes that I have been—I am slightly embarrassed because I think I was in the Chair at the time. But the notes—

Kris Faafoi: Well, my understanding of the situation is that if he had not started the next 5 minutes, he would still have about 15 seconds to go and could then start the next 5 minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think what he will find is that the Green Party might want to use the other 5 minutes.

Gareth Hughes: My understanding is that Kevin Hague took slot 9A, so the second traditional Labour slot should still be available.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Kevin Hague took the first of the Green slots, which was the sixth call on the bill. Normally the Greens take, and are allocated, the first of the 5-minute slots. No one took it, so Mr Henare took it, and I think he would be entitled to go on if he had started the second half. But, actually, with the way the rules are, it is a 5-minute call. My time sheet says the member started at 9.55—unless it was 9.55 and a half, which I did not record. Then I think we are going to go on to a Green call, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I seek leave for the second 5-minute call to be taken by Mr Henare.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There appears not to be.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying on that cold Wednesday night back in August last year—and to refresh the memory of the House—I take this opportunity to remind the House that Labour does indeed support this bill. However, we support this bill with a tinge of sadness. That sadness is that in 2010 the Law Commission produced a report around alcohol sale and supply, and from that we know that the legislation in 2012 came out, and here we are today revisiting that piece of legislation to fix some of the technical and minor issues that have arisen from that bill and been noticed over the past wee while. This is why we come to this point in time and are now debating this particular bill. Why we express that dismay is that the report went quite a bit further with regard to alcohol harm.

One only needs to remember that in the not too far distant past there were some horrible scenes of brawls in downtown Auckland, and these brawls contained disturbing images broadcast across our country that showed male on male violence, and male on female violence. That is naturally of concern to all of us. We on this side of the House argue that this particular piece of legislation does not go quite far enough, and we would like to see, perhaps, the Government really confront this issue around alcohol harm.

I do believe I am correct when I say that most young people—in fact, most people in general—before they head out for a great night in town to catch the late night footie, a bit of league, bit of rugby, or maybe a bit of trans-Tasman netball are going to drink drinks at home. They are going to pre-load, which is what they call it. They are going to drink these drinks at home, and the reason that they are able to do that, and do it excessively, is that the prices are so dirt cheap. You can buy alcohol almost anywhere. A particularly huge concern in South Auckland is that on just about every corner where there is a dairy there is also an alcohol supply store. You buy this alcohol dirt cheap, you go home, you pre-load on Cody’s—otherwise known as a “court case in a can”—and then you head out into town. If you ask most people what the score was at the end of the rugby game, they will not even know. Those scenes were broadcast across the country recently and should be of huge concern to us.

In respect of fixing some of the technical and minor issues in the legislation, we in Labour are supporting the bill, so that low-alcohol beverages are advertised and sold only in those certain areas in the supermarkets where they will not be exposed to our young people, our kids, and those who are following mum and dad through the supermarkets. What was mentioned in the debate back on that night in August was that it was also fantastic to see a huge growth in low-alcohol beverages available to the public, so that those who do pre-load also have other options where they can perhaps take a more reasonable approach to their drinking—have one or two low-alcohol beverages—and, of course, these will be readily available to them in that certain area of the supermarket.

In conclusion, we support this bill. Once again, we are slightly dismayed that more of the recommendations from the report are not being considered. However, this particular bill is a sensible step to take around the sale of low-alcohol beverages, and we support this bill.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): This is to correct a vote for the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I have just had a call from United Future. It was opposed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave is required of the House for that change to be made. Therefore, I will put to the House the question of leave, and that is that United Future be shown as voting against the vote we just had on the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Speaking very briefly to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill and to the contribution of the previous member Peeni Henare in supporting the bill, I want to say that the comments are well made and noted around the harms of alcohol for some people in our society.

This sale and supply of alcohol legislation is new. It is a significant step forward in the legislation around addressing the harms of alcohol. It has had only a couple of years of bedding in—as a significant piece of legislation, it will need time to bed in—and, therefore, we now have the situation where we have an amendment bill come to the House because it is now obvious and apparent that low-alcohol beers, mead, and other non-alcohol beers should be able to be displayed for sale in the single area of supermarkets. The other provision in the bill worth noting is that the bill clarifies that any company, as defined within the meaning in the Companies Act, can also hold a liquor licence.

I would just note, in my brief contribution, that I do go to a lot of supermarkets and I would like to think that the spirit of this legislation is being carried out by supermarkets. I also see, occasionally, that supermarkets lose their liquor licence for a period of time for non-compliance, and I think that is a very good measure, as well. So I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. What I, essentially, want to highlight is that in 2012, when the sale and supply of alcohol legislation went through, Labour had a minority report, noting that there were four areas that we thought had not been addressed in that primary legislation. They were a lack of minimum pricing, availability of alcohol, advertising and sponsorship—and the fourth one is actually why we are here today, because it was about lowering alcohol limits for driving.

What I want to note is that post the introduction of that primary piece of legislation the Government did, in fact, enact a piece of legislation: the Land Transport Amendment Act, which came into effect in December 2014. What that piece of legislation did was to lower the blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. A consequence of that legislative change was that it inspired a change in drinking behaviour. So we are here because we did not put it in the primary piece of legislation, the Government then changed that particular lowering of the blood-alcohol limit, and now, because of that phenomenon, people have actually changed their drinking behaviour, and, because of demand, you have had alcohol manufacturers actually respond to that demand. What they have done is create alcohol beverages that are low-alcohol and, actually, zero-alcohol beers.

This actually speaks to, I think, a changed culture. When I look at, for example, the increase in light beer consumption in New Zealand, in the space of 2 years it has gone from 1 percent to 5 percent. In Australia it is now 24 percent. It is linked to legislative reform, it is linked to health and well-being, and it is linked to how we are drinking differently. So the inspiration for this piece of legislation comes from that. But I think, also, from Labour’s perspective, we would have thought that if we are going to reform the primary piece of legislation—that is, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—there could have been other things that we could have looked at, given that reform is going to take place. So I stand here, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, obviously in support of the legislation, and we look forward to the further debates at the select committee about what other changes or what other amendments are relevant. Kia ora.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I think this bill has been reasonably well covered for a first reading. I only want to add that, from my perspective, it is eminently sensible. I look forward to its passage through the select committee, and I hope that we will be able to bring this back reasonably quickly, I would imagine, because it is eminently sensible. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Just looking at the time and the state of play that we are in, I seek leave to adjourn the House early.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that occurring? No brave person.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.