Wednesday, 11 May 2016

WEDNESDAY, 11 MAY 2016

WEDNESDAY, 11 MAY 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Financial Systems—Stability

1. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the resilience of the New Zealand financial system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Earlier today the Reserve Bank issued its Financial Stability Report. It says that the New Zealand financial system remains resilient and continues to perform its functions effectively. Risks to the financial stability outlook have increased in the last 6 months as the global economic outlook has deteriorated. However, financial systems resilience remains high with capital ratios in our banks nearing recent highs and funding and liquidity buffers all exceeding required minimums.

Jacqui Dean: What are some of the risks to the outlook for financial stability identified by the Reserve Bank?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank points to the soft global growth, and the momentum in commodity production is contributing to weaker prices, particularly for dairy products, which have stayed lower for longer. Growth in China continues to slow, although the bank says that New Zealand will benefit from China’s reorientation towards consumption-led growth. The bank also says that housing constraints, especially in Auckland, are contributing to financial stability risks. Among other measures the bank recommends improving supply by reducing impediments to densification and greenfield development and addressing infrastructure constraints. It is worth noting that each of these risks, should they be realised, could possibly happen together rather than in isolation, with more serious consequences.

Jacqui Dean: What were the results of stress testing by the Reserve Bank on financial institutions in the dairy and banking sectors?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A stress test is when the Reserve Bank models the effect of severe economic downturns—for instance, a scenario with a 6 percent fall in GDP, unemployment rising to 13 percent, and residential property prices falling 40 percent. Despite modelling this series of severe shocks, banks remain sound. The bank also conducted stress tests on the five largest dairy lenders and found that although there would be a significant effect on loans written off, losses would be manageable for the banking system as a whole if dairy payouts stayed low until 2020. Although the results of the stress tests are positive, I would point out that under these scenarios there would be ongoing negative effects on the economy even if the banking system were able to absorb the pressure.

Jacqui Dean: What is the Reserve Bank’s view on how New Zealand’s improved external balances since 2008 are helping to reduce financial system risks?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Although the growth in house lending and low dairy prices have been increasing risks to the system, the Reserve Bank says that New Zealand’s current account deficit, currently at 3.1 percent of GDP, is well below levels seen prior to the global financial crisis. It notes that our net external debt has fallen from 83 percent of GDP at the end of 2008 to 57 percent, a significant drop. The bank says the composition of external liabilities has become more stable and lower global interest rates have improved New Zealand’s ability to repay external liabilities.

David Seymour: What role does foreign investment in the banking sector play in the resilience of that sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Technically our four main banks are foreign owned and therefore run by foreign investment. When the pressure came on in 2008—it is hard to tell, but it looks as if the Australian parent banks offered considerable support to their New Zealand banks. However, it is good to see, looking ahead, that there is further diversification in the ownership of our banks, with strong growth in New Zealand - owned banks and a wider range of offshore investors in our banking system.

Prime Minister—Statements about Overseas Trusts

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements in the House yesterday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and in particular my statement quoting Michael Cullen from 2005, when the current disclosure rules were being developed: “The government has sought to develop policy that works for all concerned, one that enables New Zealand to co-operate with other tax jurisdictions while not disrupting the legitimate financial transactions of foreign trusts.” [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wants to ask a supplementary question, I am happy that he rise and do so, but that level of barrage is unacceptable.

Andrew Little: In light of that answer, and returning to matters of relevance, why will he not give an apology to the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace, following his failed attempt yesterday to divert attention away from his support for the grubby foreign trust tax-dodging industry? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because what I said yesterday is factually correct. If you go into the database it is quite simple. A very quick search of Greenpeace International shows you that it is a beneficiary of the Exodus Trust. What this actually goes to prove is that all of the names of innocent New Zealanders that have been dragged across the TV sets and sullied by members of the House, all because they unwittingly ended up on this database, should be taken with a grain of salt by other New Zealanders.

Andrew Little: Was it appropriate of him as Prime Minister to attack an MP over her family trust in the UK, which allows her to stay in her grandmother’s house—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question is, at this stage, a legitimate question. I need to hear it, so the level of interjection from my right-hand side will cease. Would the member like to start the question again?

Andrew Little: I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. Was it appropriate of him, as Prime Minister, to attack an MP over her family trust in the UK, which allows her to stay in her grandmother’s house, in his, once again, desperate effort to distract from mega-wealthy foreigners using New Zealand as a tax haven?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Far from attacking an MP, the point I was simply making is that (a) it is in the member’s pecuniary interest and has been stated in the media, (b) it is a statement of fact that she is a beneficiary of a foreign trust, and (c) the very reason that foreign trusts can operate legitimately is that people use them all the time for legitimate reasons.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the inaccuracy of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Metiria Turei: Sir, it will take just a moment. The inaccuracy of the Prime Minister’s statement was dealt with in a personal explanation yesterday by Mojo Mathers. As a result of her personal explanation, the Prime Minister is not entitled to restate that false accusation in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance. I listened very carefully to the answer from the Prime Minister, and at no stage did I think he stated anything that is not correct. He actually referred to a member’s pecuniary interest. If the member involved feels she has been misrepresented, there is an appropriate place to go, but at this stage, there is nothing—[Interruption] Order! There is nothing that I can see incorrect in the answer that has been given by the Prime Minister.

Metiria Turei: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I have dealt with that point of order.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking some clarification from you about the Speaker’s ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not the point of a Standing Order or a point of order to seek clarification. I will give the member the benefit of the doubt.

Metiria Turei: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 152/3 says that “the member’s personal explanation may not be debated or otherwise challenged” in the House. So I would ask whether that therefore means that if a member in this House stands up and says that Mojo Mathers is the beneficiary of a foreign trust, that is a direct challenge to her personal statement as of yesterday and is not allowed in this House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a little perplexed that the Greens have brought this issue up. I would have thought that it might be discussed when the question was agreed between them and Labour this morning.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I need—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. When the personal explanation was allowed yesterday, it was done by leave of the House. Mojo Mathers gave a personal explanation. It was not challenged in any way yesterday. The Prime Minister is now referring to a question from Andrew Little. I do not think, in any way, that that breaches the personal explanation that was given yesterday by Mojo Mathers. If she thinks she is being misrepresented, her best course of action now is to study the Hansard very carefully and use Standing Order 359 if it is necessary.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very important that members have the ability to raise points of order that are genuinely points of order. It is also particularly important that the Leader of the House in his role should have the ability to raise points of order and is given some prominence in the point of order - raising process. However, twice in 2 days the Leader of the House has used that to raise points of order that are not points of order and are, in fact, attacking members or the whole Opposition. I ask you to actually pay attention to that and ensure that that right of members to raise a point of order is not abused in that way.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any further assistance whatsoever. In regard to the point of order raised now by Mr Brownlee, I think there is a little bit of substance in the member’s message. [Interruption] Order! It was not actually helpful to the order of the House the way it was asked. In regards to a suggestion that the same thing happened yesterday, I certainly did not detect it at the time and I did not detect it when I re-examined the Hansard last night.

Andrew Little: Why has he fallen back on his old tricks of deny, distract, and demean those asking questions rather than focusing on cleaning up the foreign trust industry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Government has been dealing with the issue in a number of ways. John Shewan’s review is an important part of that, and the work we are doing on base minimisation is part of that. For the last couple of nights New Zealanders have been on TV and their names have been there because they are in the database—they happen to be in the database along with a great many organisations, like Greenpeace. I think New Zealanders will now know that if they go into that database and they type in a name and they see a name, they should take that with a high degree of scepticism that it is real.

Andrew Little: If New Zealand is not a tax haven, as he has been claiming, why is an online gambling magnate, Calvin Edward Ayre, who is on the run from US authorities for money-laundering and tax evasion, able to use a New Zealand foreign trust to stash his assets?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I do not have those details, and the Inland Revenue Department will not be able to until it gets all of the data, which has not been released yet by the investigative journalist. But if it does, it will be able to look through that, and if that trust is true and the person has been established—and established by someone who is covered under the anti - money-laundering rules in New Zealand—then it will be quite clear, because that person who had established it will have failed in their obligations. Secondly, it is not me who says New Zealand is not a tax haven; the OECD says that. Interestingly, last night when I was watching Newshub, they went through asking the obvious question: “Was New Zealand No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, the answer is now going on for far too long.

Andrew Little: If—

David Bennett: Come on, Andrew. Pitch it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! My last warning to David Bennett: if he interjects again through question time, he will be leaving the Chamber for the balance of question time.

Andrew Little: If New Zealand is not a tax haven, as he has been claiming, why was a French investor able to move his holding company from Luxembourg to New Zealand and then tell the French Government that he owed it no tax because he had paid the zero-rated tax rate in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member makes the right point that there are mismatches around the world, and that is why New Zealand is working with the OECD. But when the member says—this is the whole problem, is it not—someone has moved something from Luxembourg, it is as if there should be a hiss across the House. That is the whole point with the database, because when I go into it I see that Greenpeace is a beneficiary of the Exodus Trust.

Andrew Little: Why does he not do what most New Zealanders expect of their Prime Minister: protect our reputation rather than protecting the foreign trust industry and demeaning the people who want to clean it up?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We have been absolutely protecting and defending New Zealand’s reputation in a great many ways, including the automatic disclosure legislation that is before the House, the changes we have made to shell companies and the like, and the work we are doing with the OECD. If anyone is to blame for sullying New Zealand’s reputation, it is people like Andrew Little and James Shaw, who on Saturday night were parading to the world that I was responsible for the Cook Islands, because one of their mates wrote something, when they knew it to be patently incorrect.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Again, the answer is long enough.

Prime Minister—Statements about Overseas Trusts

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): My answer reads “Yes”.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday that charities including Greenpeace and Amnesty International are named in the Panama Papers as beneficiaries of foreign trusts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think if the member checks the Hansard, you will see that I said “on the database”. They are in the database, and if you actually look at how this information is presented, you go to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. There is a single website link, and it says “Offshore leaks database”, and then it says: “Find out who’s behind almost 320,000 offshore companies and trusts from the Panama Papers and the Offshore Leaks Investigations.” Than you type in “Greenpeace” and it comes back with “Beneficiary of Exodus Trust”.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister recall answering a question from the Green Party about the environment?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think in 2008, when I became the Prime Minister, I got one, but since then it has been, you know, a little off radar.

James Shaw: When he made that statement yesterday, was he aware that those charities that he named were actually all found to have been victims of a scam where their names were used as a front by those seeking to use foreign trusts to avoid tax?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely not—absolutely not. But this is the point, is it not? This is the point—that so many New Zealanders are being implicated, and that member has been at the forefront of sullying the names of New Zealanders because they are in the database. So when Deborah Pead’s name was on TV last night, according to James Shaw, it is fine, but when it is his mate Greenpeace it is not fine. They are both in the database.

James Shaw: Does that not exactly prove the point that the problem that we have got is a regulatory regime that allows foreign trusts to be used for illegitimate purposes and that we need greater transparency and disclosure?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. No, it shows his lefty mates went and hacked into somebody’s website, put it up there, did not actually filter it out, and did not have the decency to protect everyday New Zealanders who might be implicated, and all of a sudden, when one of their mates is there, they do not like it. Well, actually, the truth is we do protect New Zealanders, and if the member had some decency about him, he would not have gone on the news on Saturday night and said I was responsible for the Cook Islands when he patently knows it is not true.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is just too much interjection occurring.

James Shaw: Can he tell the House why he chose to attack charities and my colleague Mojo Mathers rather than answer legitimate questions about the lack of disclosure in New Zealand’s foreign trust regulation?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sadly, the problem with question time is—this is the way it works. The member asks the question, and if it is to the Prime Minister, I have to answer it. Yesterday the member asked me a question about foreign trusts, with all sorts of implications that they were bad, and lots of questions about the database—apparently, if you are on it, you are bad—and yet my simple point to New Zealanders is this: next time you hear about this database, next time you hear about the Panama Papers, and next time you see James Shaw making these ridiculous assertions, just ask what is behind it. I am absolutely sure that the member is right: Greenpeace is unwittingly named as a beneficiary, but, nevertheless, it is in the database and it is a beneficiary of the Exodus Trust. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The specific member in the front row was the one I received the most complaints about from my emails yesterday. I will accept some interjection, but when it is continuous, I am going to have to deal with it.

James Shaw: Given that answer, why will he not apologise to Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Mojo Mathers for misrepresenting them in the House yesterday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not misrepresented Greenpeace. It is in the database as a beneficiary of the Exodus Trust. I do not like the fact that it is there, but it is there, so in what way am I misrepresenting it? I think the member should do this. I think he should get on his feet and he should say: “John, on Saturday night”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister will leave the Chamber. When I stand to my feet—it happened yesterday; I gave him fair warning—and call for order, he is to be treated no differently from any other member in this House. The Prime Minister will leave the Chamber.

Rt Hon John Key withdrew from the Chamber.

Overseas Investment—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties

4. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What reports has he received on the number of properties bought and sold by those with tax residency overseas and how do they compare with previous reports?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yesterday’s data provides us with tax residency status for every property bought and settled between 1 October 2015 and 31 March 2016, or 67,087 transfers. There were 1,692 buyers, or 2.5 percent, with offshore tax residency, and 1,695 sellers with offshore tax residency—i.e. there was a net reduction of three properties over 6 months owned by people with overseas tax residency. This latest data from Land Information New Zealand is actually very much in line with the Inland Revenue Department report that was published a year ago, estimating that 2 percent of properties in New Zealand are owned offshore, including by New Zealand residents or citizens who are tax residents offshore. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can have a supplementary question shortly.

Dr Jian Yang: What conditions apply to the data that need to be considered in how it is interpreted?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The data is preconditioned by four factors. Firstly, it is specifically for the 6-month period and does not include property agreements entered into before 1 October. Secondly, it is about tax residency and not citizenship or residency. A New Zealand citizen or permanent resident whose tax residency is in China, Australia, or the UK would be included in those numbers, although we would not usually describe them as foreign buyers. Thirdly, when there is more than one taxpayer, which is quite common on property transfers, if even just one of the five names on the property transfer is from a person who is offshore, the transfer is included in the numbers. Finally, the data includes non-residential properties where there are no houses, which make up about 10 percent. So these numbers are likely to overstate the number of homes that are owned by people beyond New Zealand tax residency.

David Seymour: Has the Minister heard any reports of conspicuously Australian people bidding at house auctions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No; they might be wearing a Wallabies jersey. But I think the member very astutely makes the point of the anti - New Zealand approach of attacking one ethnic group—be they Australians or someone else.

Dr Jian Yang: Does this data support the claims made last year that 40 percent of the buyers in Auckland are from China?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Minister, he needs to be very careful with his answer, in that according to Speaker’s ruling 197/5, it is not appropriate now to use this question to bring an Opposition party into the answer when the question has come from the Government. I will allow the Minister to presume—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. There is no possible interpretation of the data that would support the claim that 40 percent of buyers are from China. Only 444 of the buyers had tax residency in China, or 0.7 percent of the property bought and settled in the 6-month period. The Australian figure was about the same. The UK figure was about half. The data might move around a bit as we get a longer-term period, but anybody who claims that the figure is 40 percent is being deliberately misleading.

Youth Unemployment—Rate

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Will his expectation stated in Budget 2015 that unemployment would drop below 5 percent in 2016 be met; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): We do not know yet, because we will not know until February next year when the fourth quarter of the household labour force survey is reported, but given that we have seen more than 50,000 additional jobs in the last 6 months, it is still possible.

Grant Robertson: Why has the number of young people not in employment, education, or training continued to climb after 8 years of a National Government, with the latest increase in the rate for young men being the greatest since records began in 2004?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member does himself a disservice. The “neet” rate has recently been as low as it has ever been. In the last quarter it has jumped. We do not know why. We know that the quarterly numbers jump around, but what we do know is that between trades academies, Māori and Pacific trade training, strong expansion of the apprenticeship system, the youth services, and the vocational pathways, we are getting close to a time when we can tell whether each single young New Zealander is on a path to work or welfare.

Grant Robertson: How can it be, with all of those programmes and plans that he has just listed, that the number of young people not in employment, education, or training continues to grow, now reaching 82,000 people, or are they just pretty damned hopeless?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We just dispute the member’s assertion. The best general statistical description of what has been happening in the last few years is that it has continued to shrink until recently. In this last quarter it has jumped. It could be just a statistical artefact, actually. We will know in the next quarter and the quarter after that. In the meantime we will continue to focus on ensuring that our programmes show the feedback loops that indicate success in keeping young people on a path to work.

Grant Robertson: Do the latest household labour force survey figures show that the number of young people not in employment, education, or training has reached 82,000—26,000 more than when he took office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What it shows is a jump in the numbers this quarter, compared with what has been a consistent decrease in the previous quarters. We would like to know why it has jumped. In the meantime, we are getting on with the job, which is spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars on much-improved systems to keep these young people on track.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question about the increase in the latest—

Mr SPEAKER: And I listened very carefully to the answer. It was, without doubt, addressed—maybe not to the member’s satisfaction, but it was clearly addressed.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that in the latest household labour force survey the number of young people not in employment, education, or training is now 82,000—26,000 more than when National took office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually, you cannot necessarily agree with that. What we have is one quarter of a long-running survey, in which quarterly numbers often jump around. So, in time, we will find out whether it has actually increased or not, but even if it has, the Government’s programmes, which we have broadly in place, show that we are spending hundreds of millions in much more effective ways than in the past to get young people on a path to work, not to welfare.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You encourage us to ask specific, factual questions without any political innuendo. I asked that question twice, about the specific household labour force data that the Minister himself has referred to in the House, and twice in a row he has not addressed that question.

Mr SPEAKER: In the first question raised, I am absolutely sure that it was addressed in the way that it was asked. The second question asked was subtly different, and you started with the words “Is it correct”. As I recall the Minister’s answer he, effectively, said no, it is not correct. The member might not agree with that statement, but that is the way that the Minister chose to answer it.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned to get some clarification from you about what happens when a Minister needs—or a Prime Minister needs—to correct an answer that they have given, but you have ejected them from the House. I know that if someone has given an incorrect answer they need to come back to the House and correct that as soon as they are able to—

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

Grant Robertson: What are the circumstances when someone has been ejected as to when that occasion—

Mr SPEAKER: As soon as the particular member who has been asked to leave is then allowed back, and I determine that. And then it is over to the member who has been ejected as to whether he feels that it is needed to correct any answer.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is in the precincts of Parliament, but he is clearly not able to be here to answer this question. No other Minister wants to answer on his behalf. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The way forward is: the question has been accepted, I am going to let Ron Mark ask it, and if no Minister rises to his feet to answer it—

Hon Member: Her feet.

Mr SPEAKER: Or a female Minister, that is true. If no Minister determines to answer it—particularly in light of many Speakers’ rulings that this is question time, that it is the time to hold the Government to account, and that Ministers should answer questions unless it is in the public interest not to—then the public of New Zealand will judge the appropriateness of the course of action that Minister Brownlee is determined to take. That becomes a matter for Mr Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Do you want to talk to that point of order?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow Mr Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I would point out is that although you have outlined that this is the time for the Government to be held to account, you have also required the leader of the Government to be out of the Chamber and unable to account. Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable that the question is held over to another day, or the Prime Minister is allowed to come back to answer it later in the day, perhaps, or we simply do not answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: It should be very clear to the Minister—he sits very close to the Prime Minister—why the Prime Minister was asked to leave the Chamber. When I get to my feet, all members will immediately resume their seats. To carry on giving an answer when I am calling for order is completely unsatisfactory. A strong warning was given to the Prime Minister yesterday. He chose not to listen to that warning. He has got only himself to blame for the situation that has now arisen. I am going to proceed the way that I have said. Mr Ron Mark will now proceed to ask question No. 6. If the Government of the day is of a mind not to stand and answer that question, that becomes a matter for the Government. I cannot force a Minister to answer, but I am sure the public of New Zealand will judge this accordingly.

Overseas Investment—Overseas-owned Companies

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Ron Mark: How does he stand by his 2012 statement that says “we’re a relatively cheap and easy place to set up a company, but it’s obviously important that we preserve our international reputation.” when gunrunners and money launderers continue to register New Zealand companies and trusts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course the Prime Minister stands by his statement. There are actually probably quite a few New Zealanders whose backgrounds may be questionable who are quite legally able to register companies in New Zealand.

Ron Mark: Is Dunedin-based Incom Trustees Ltd and its sole New Zealand director, Nicolaas Francken, preserving our international reputation by helping to hide the assets of indicted gambling billionaire Calvin Ayre?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no idea. But in respect of New Zealand’s international reputation, there is no evidence for the assertions of the Opposition that New Zealand’s reputation for tax policy and transparency is in question; it is not. We have one of the tightest set of tax rules around foreigners in the developed world, and we are consistently rated very highly on transparency. But we are always keen to improve it where it is required.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am aware of the rulings in respect of the documents—

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

Ron Mark: To assist the Government, could I seek leave to table the New Zealand First research on Incom Trustees Limited and Calvin Ayre, which we conducted this morning?

Mr SPEAKER: No. I am not prepared to put the leave, and I ask the member to have a look at Speaker’s ruling 165/1. I did allow it yesterday. I had a look at the material that was subsequently tabled; I do not think it informed the House in any significant way at all. Speaker’s ruling 165/1 states: “The document must be from an authentic source. It is not acceptable in this House to seek to table members’ own views of the facts, or documents annotated to substantiate those views … documents prepared in parties’ own research units or documents prepared by members are not material envisaged by [Standing Order 377].”

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To assist the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to understand Mr Ayre and the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Ron Mark: Can I seek leave to table a newspaper report?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member cannot.

Ron Mark: What does it mean for our international reputation when the Government of Macedonia is trying to liquidate another Nicolaas Francken New Zealand company, Guardian Fiduciary Services Limited, a company with links to convicted money launderers and fraudsters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think their advice is that if there are any tax issues or transparency issues on which the Macedonian Government wants assistance, then the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) is ready, willing, and able to provide the information that is required. The only issue ahead of us is whether that should be done automatically and whether some of that information should be on some kind of public register or publicly available. But there is no question mark over New Zealand’s reputation.

Ron Mark: What investigations has the Prime Minister made in the 24 hours since we asked him for assurance that foreign-owned companies here are not involved in gunrunning, people smuggling, money laundering, or financing terrorism?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Any such investigations would be carried out by the appropriate authority rather than by the Prime Minister, and if there are taxation issues, that will be IRD. If Interpol raises issues with the New Zealand Police, they will be fully compliant with any requests, but it is not necessarily the obligation of our authorities to be policing Macedonian activities.

Overseas Investment—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties

7. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Land Information: What did the data, released by Land Information New Zealand, in the Property Transfers and Tax Residency report indicate regarding the tax residency of those buying and selling property in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): In the 6 months up to 31 March 2016, 2 to 3 percent of transfers involved buyers who indicated an overseas tax residency. In the same period 2 percent of transfers involved sellers who indicated an overseas tax residency. Land Information New Zealand collected this data to ensure that those involved in property transfers pay their fair share of tax.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister tell us more about the data?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The data is based on actual counts of property transfers and the tax residency indicated. Over the last 6 months around 67,000 transfers were registered. This equates to about 1,692 being overseas tax residents, and the data was collected for tax purposes. Land Information New Zealand also asked questions about the type of property, the person’s connection to New Zealand, and their intention to reside at the property. Ninety percent of the respondents indicated there was a home, and, of those, 97 percent were New Zealand residents, citizens, or on a work or student visa. The only area where there has been concern about the data is the third question about the people’s intention to live at the property. The way this question was answered showed Land Information New Zealand that in some cases people had misinterpreted whether the question applied to them, and Land Information New Zealand is working on better guidance to support that final question.

Melissa Lee: How does this compare with other data that the Minister has seen?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, I just caution the Minister in answering.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The data released by the Government yesterday is credible and puts into perspective our long-term objective to get accurate information on property transfers by tax residency. It is about ensuring those who earn income off property pay their fair share of tax. It is also about informing policy-makers and the public about housing. In comparison, I have seen data by others that is purely based on Chinese-sounding surnames and has got nothing to do with fact.

Phil Twyford: Why did she exclude businesses and trusts from her calculations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Unfortunately, that member does not understand what the report says. They are not excluded. Every single property transaction has been captured, with the only exception being those that were contracts entered into prior to 1 October, which is not captured by this legislation.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that was a very straight question, and to say the answer was obtuse would be under—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A very straight answer was given. The member asked why businesses and trusts were excluded and the Minister said they were not.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I may, they were excluded from her calculations. The calculation of the number that the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Listen—[Interruption] Order! The member is in danger. When I stand, the question has been addressed. If the member wants to try a different angle—but I listened to the question very carefully. The way I listened to the answer, it has been addressed.

Overseas Investment—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement in relation to data showing that 1,694 houses were sold into foreign ownership, excluding any bought via trusts or companies, that “the numbers are so small”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes, particularly compared with the member’s 40 percent buyer claims based on racial profiling of people with Chinese-sounding names.

Phil Twyford: Why should any offshore speculators be allowed to buy New Zealand homes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member continually uses the word “speculators”. My challenge to him is to go to any auction and to differentiate between those New Zealanders who are genuinely wanting to invest and those who pretend they are speculators.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very, very straight question, and he completely failed to address it.

Mr SPEAKER: No, he did not. The member asked why any overseas speculator should be allowed to buy, and the Minister said the difficulty is in defining who is buying at a particular auction, etc. That addresses the question. It may not be to the satisfaction of the member, but it certainly addresses the question that was asked.

Phil Twyford: How many sales to foreign speculators does he think represents a large enough problem to warrant action?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I draw the member’s attention to the data. During the first 6 months of properties that were sold—

Dr David Clark: Answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Give me a chance, mate. In respect of the sales data there were 1,692 buyers from overseas tax residents and there were 1,695 sellers. There was a net reduction of three in terms of the number of properties owned in New Zealand by persons that were tax residents overseas. That does not sound to me like a crisis.

Phil Twyford: Is he aware that when the exceptions the Government used to manipulate the figures are removed, the raw data actually shows that 8.8 percent—or 15,905 properties—are being sold to offshore speculators a year, and does he think that that is too small?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, the member’s claims are about as accurate as those on Chinese-sounding names. We have 100 percent data on every one of the transactions over that 6-month period that were purchased and settled within those 6 months. We have tax residency status for every single one of those. The number is 2.5 percent, and that includes New Zealand residents and citizens who are tax residents overseas but bought properties in New Zealand.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table calculations from my office showing that the actual number of offshore buyers is nearly 16,000 a year based on that Minister’s data—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I need to deal with this one first. I am certainly not putting the leave. I read out a particular Speaker’s ruling only about 10 minutes ago. I was hoping the member might have heard it. If it is information that is prepared by the research units or by your office, it is not authentic enough to be of information to members.

Phil Twyford: Why did he exclude businesses and trusts from the calculation of foreign buyers in the market in the time period that was used?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is incorrect. The tax residency status applies to every single transaction. If the property is owned by a trust, if the company is owned by a company, if it is owned by an individual, the tax residency status is noted. It is actually quite cautious. A number of property transactions involve a number of companies or a number of trusts or a number of individuals. If any one of those are overseas tax-registered, the transaction is listed as overseas tax resident.

Tax System—Overseas Trusts

9. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said the disclosure and reporting requirements for foreign trusts under IR607 were “extremely broad and deep”?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): Yes, because once a trustee has registered a trust through the IR607 they must keep detailed records in relation to that trust, including particulars of any settlements made on the trust and particulars of distributions made by the trust. The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) can get this information at any time from the trustee. The IRD can then exchange this with its treaty partners, either automatically or on request. I would point out to the member that those rules were put in place in 2006, and the Government is open to making changes around the disclosure rules covering foreign trusts, which is why we recently appointed John Shewan to conduct an independent review.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that according to section 59B of the Tax Administration Act, unless the settlor is resident in Australia there is no requirement to disclose to the IRD any information about the settlor, the beneficiaries, or their countries of tax residence?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I draw the member’s attention to section 22 and 22(7) of the Tax Administration Act. It requires that documents that evidence the creation and constitution of the foreign trust, and particulars of settlement made on and distributions made by the foreign trust must be collected by the trustee. All of that information is available on request or proactively by IRD.

Julie Anne Genter: Is tax law professor Michael Littlewood correct in his paper where he says that as a consequence of section 59B “if the settlor is resident anywhere other than Australia, the IRD generally have no idea of who the settlor is or of the country in which he [or she] resides. The IRD is therefore not able to inform that country’s revenue authority that one of their residents has set up a trust in New Zealand. And, of course, the other country’s tax authority is unlikely to ask,” because it would not know?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I certainly dispute the last two parts of the quotation in that question—that the IRD is unable to find the information and unable to provide it to the foreign jurisdiction, because the foreign jurisdiction would not know. It appears that the member is under the mistaken illusion that somehow the transactions that go on overseas in the procurement of assets and the transaction of business are somehow completely beyond the radar of those tax authorities because they are New Zealand - registered foreign trusts. That is simply not true.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that only 1 percent of the nearly 12,000 registered New Zealand foreign trusts have a settlor resident in Australia, and therefore 99 percent of New Zealand foreign trusts do not automatically disclose to the IRD information that would be necessary for us to share information with other jurisdictions’ tax departments?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, I cannot, but the member may well be correct about that. I go back to the point I have made earlier in this question, and yesterday, and last week, and the week before: there is plenty of opportunity for foreign tax jurisdictions to ask for, and the IRD proactively to offer, the information when it is necessary.

David Seymour: Has the IRD committed personnel to searching through the so-called Panama Papers to look for names and records of New Zealand taxpayers?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, but that is business as usual for the IRD. It does that as a routine process anyway, primarily to ensure that New Zealand tax residents are not using New Zealand resident foreign trusts to shelter income that they should be paying to the New Zealand taxpayer. This is business as usual for the IRD.

David Seymour: If the IRD is prepared to use those “stolen records”, as the Prime Minister described them earlier in question time, will the IRD start hacking the records of private law firms itself, or is it good enough just to receive stolen goods?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Marginal question—I will allow it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I can assure the member that the IRD’s investigations are well within the law.

Julie Anne Genter: Would it not make it easier for the IRD to provide information to our tax treaty partners if we collected more relevant information at the point of registration, as we currently do with Australia? If it is the case, why is his Government so opposed to having greater disclosure?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I note that is exactly the question that Dr Michael Cullen, as Minister of Revenue, asked in 2005 and 2006, and came up with the answer no. But that is the essence of the inquiry that is being led by John Shewan, and we will have further information on that in the next couple of months.

Housing Market, Auckland—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties

10. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by his statement concerning offshore buyers pushing up Auckland house prices, “The easiest trick in the book is to create a scapegoat that it’s these foreigners that are a problem”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes. Blaming foreigners is not only the easiest but the oldest political trick in the book, whether the issue is housing, employment, or crime. They are easy targets because they cannot vote and because it is easy to create misconceptions about people far away and of a different culture.

Denis O’Rourke: What information did the Government use to even consider a land tax if, as he claims, foreign buyers are not a problem for Aucklanders trying to buy a home?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: All that occurred was that the Prime Minister was asked whether he would rule out a land tax, and he said he would not rule anything out at this time.

Denis O’Rourke: How can he deny that his Government has stalled for years on collecting meaningful data on foreign buyers and has now resorted to flinging fictional flimflam in the face of angry Aucklanders trying to buy a home?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Last year I tabled in the House a report from the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) based on tax returns. It showed that the level of overseas people declaring rent was about 2 to 2.5 percent of properties in New Zealand. The data that was provided by Land Information New Zealand yesterday provides comprehensive data on the tax residency status. [Interruption] I suspect that the members opposite will not be satisfied unless we blood and DNA test every person at a housing auction.

Denis O’Rourke: What does the Minister say to Aucklanders turning up to house auctions to find that they are constantly outbid by foreigners with deep pockets, other than just peddling more dodgy statistics?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would draw attention to the head of one of Auckland’s largest housing companies, who said on the radio this morning that at those auctions there were many people of different ethnicities, but the vast, vast bulk of them were New Zealand citizens and residents, and it is simply the nature of the changing face of New Zealand. That is something I would hope most members of this House would welcome.

Denis O’Rourke: In relation to that answer, does he accept that, in fact, foreigners with student or temporary work visas, or who are otherwise here under the Government’s liberal immigration policies, are some of the people buying up Auckland houses, using foreign trusts, for their overseas mates and families?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would draw the member’s attention to the tax residency status data that covered every single one of the 67,000 transactions over 6 months and showed that only 2.5 percent of them had people overseas and that actually, surprisingly, there was a net reduction in the number of people who were tax residents overseas who owned a New Zealand property.

Students with Special Needs—Support

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made that will increase support to students with special needs?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Today I was pleased to make a pre-Budget announcement that an extra 1,250 students will get help from increased teacher-aide hours thanks to a $15.3 million Budget funding increase for in-class support. The operating funding increase, to be spread over 4 years, will ensure that students with a range of learning difficulties receive support tailored to their individual needs. Together with the increased funding in last year’s Budget, the Government is now funding an extra 550,000 hours of classroom support for students with ongoing learning difficulties. I know from my visits to schools that teacher-aides play an invaluable role in the classroom. They work alongside our teachers to enable students with additional learning needs to become more independent and confident learners.

Dr Shane Reti: What other support has this Government provided for students with special needs?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Supporting children and young people with special education needs is a high priority for our Government. We want every child to get a good education, and that is why we are working hard to ensure that the kids who need it get the right resources at the right time. For example, under this Government the $1.6 million upgrade to Blomfield Special School in Whangarei was opened in 2013, which provided for one of the more advanced and innovative special school facilities in the country. We currently spend over $590 million supporting children and young people with special education needs every year. That is almost 30 percent more than 6 years ago.

Chris Hipkins: Has the Government conducted any estimate of the total number of students who require additional special needs support but are not currently getting it; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No; the Government has not conducted a survey because it is responding to real kids in real time and providing the resources they need.

Literacy—Statements by the Minister of Finance

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Why does she accept some responsibility as Minister of Education for Hon Bill English’s statement that a lot of Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless” and “they can’t read and write properly”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): The member has incorrectly stated what I said in this Chamber last week. I said: “… 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.” I do hope the member is rising to affirm that.

Chris Hipkins: Does she agree with Bill English’s comment that there is a “cohort of Kiwis now who can’t get a licence because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable—y’know, basically young males.”; if so, is she confident that every student leaving school now, after 8 years of a National Government, is not adding to that cohort?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We are focusing on every young person in our schools. There are different levels of educational challenge, and all schools are doing their very best to meet that. Where we are very sure is that now that we have national standards in place we can understand much earlier in our system how well, or not, our kids are doing and intervene sooner, unlike the previous Government—and, actually, I think it is on record now that Labour would do away with national standards and go back to driving blind.

Chris Hipkins: I do not think even blind people are allowed to drive without a licence.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have the supplementary question.

Chris Hipkins: Why did she tell the House in March this year that she had full confidence in the minimum literacy and numeracy requirements for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) when she was advised by the Ministry of Education in May last year that the standards were not up to scratch and needed to change?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I said I had full confidence in teachers assessing the requirements for NCEA, which included the rigorous improvement from 2013 for the 10 credits for literacy and numeracy. At the same time—because we are devoted to continuous improvement—the Ministry of Education is working with the sector to understand what benchmarks would be more appropriate, has been investigating the use of the youth assessment tool that the Tertiary Education Commission uses, and has been working with the moderators on how best to understand what assessment is working. It is not perfect; the member understands that. But this Government is absolutely committed to continuously improving. That is why we have seen achievement rates go up so much under this Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that part is not helpful. Just ask the supplementary question.

Chris Hipkins: Do the current minimum literacy and numeracy requirements for NCEA meet the OECD benchmarks for the minimum level of literacy and numeracy required for life in a modern society?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I think the member is referring to the report published by the Tertiary Education Commission in December last year using 2012 information, so on that basis our literacy competencies are not completely aligned with the OECD, but we are absolutely confident that they relate to our circumstances. However, they do need improvement, and that work is being done.

Chris Hipkins: Does she agree that it is not the kids doing their best to complete their qualifications that are “pretty damned hopeless”, but the Government Ministers who, having been told minimum literacy and numeracy requirements for NCEA are not enough to prove school leavers are functionally literate and numerate, continue to sit on their hands and do nothing about the problem?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not agree with the member blaming kids at all.

Chris Hipkins: How is describing any New Zealanders as “pretty damned hopeless” evidence of her claim that the Government has high expectations for everyone?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not know whether the member just does not understand or whether he is just being wilful about it, but what the Deputy Prime Minister was doing was quoting what employers have said to him. I am aware that we do have young people who do not have the literacy and numeracy skills that they need to be successful, and that is why I told the House last week that we have introduced initiatives that are focusing on getting those young people reconnected. We have introduced credits for driver’s licences; we are taking a wraparound approach, because we are not prepared to sacrifice any one of our young people.

General Debate

General Debate

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. All of New Zealand has now seen that we have been drawn into the grubby, sordid world of international tax evasion, and what is worse is that we have a Prime Minister and a Government that just do not care—they do not care about the damage it is doing to our reputation, and they do not care about the fact that it is not going to help us stand on the world stage and ask the rest of the world to get the multinational corporates that are not paying their fair share of tax here to do so. John Key has lost touch with what New Zealanders expect of a responsible Prime Minister: a Government that actually stands with New Zealand and for New Zealanders. What we have got is a Prime Minister and a Government that are just about duck-shoving and butt-covering for the world’s mega-wealthy to get wealthier and wealthier, and for inequality to grow and get worse.

What New Zealanders want is a Government that is on the side of hard-working New Zealanders, who have just a few simple ambitions and aspirations: the idea that they can get the health care that they need when they need it—not a Government that runs down the health service to the tune of $1.7 billion and sees the nation’s elderly getting sicker and worse and in greater pain before they can get their treatment. That is what this Government represents.

What New Zealanders want is a Government to support New Zealanders to know that the schools they send their kids to, or their grandkids to, have got the support and the teachers and the facilities to do the job of helping their kids to be successful. That is not what we have got at the moment. We have a Government that is running down our education system, putting more of the cost on to parents and families, and running down the successful achievements of our schools. Now we are performing even worse in literacy and numeracy and in many other areas. That is what happens when you have a Government whose priority is standing up for the world’s mega-rich rather than looking after the aspirations of middle New Zealand.

And what about New Zealand’s regions, which are going through a tough time at the moment and which just expect a Government to understand that and to provide that extra little impetus, through decent road funding and through good public services and social services? But the Government is just spending its time running them down. We do not have a Government that is interested in the aspirations of middle New Zealand any more, and we should not be surprised that we have a Prime Minister who is not the least bit concerned about us now descending into that grubby world of tax-dodging foreign trusts that we are now in.

The reality is that that is what he has wanted for 10 years or more. This is what he said in 2010 when he could not get the Government’s departments, the Inland Revenue Department and the then Ministry of Economic Development, to get on side with his ambition for this international financial services hub. He was reported as having slammed what he described as “bureaucratic pinpricking” over his proposed financial services hub. That “bureaucratic pinpricking” was actually trying to preserve the interests of New Zealand but he rode roughshod over it, with the help of Bill English and with the help of Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce and the rest of that motley crew over there.

What John Key complained about was, as he described it, advice coming from the Ministry of Economic Development, which, basically, says that if you want to do this, you have to deliver the Magna Carta of documents. You do not want accountability and responsibility when you just want to run your sham project of trying to get grubby money into New Zealand at any cost, which is what he wants. He went on to criticise the Ministry of Economic Development for saying, in his words: “You’ve got to do all these things and need bipartisan support.” Here is the thing: the Ministry of Economic Development did not say that he needed bipartisan support. What it said was that he needed to build the political support for that whole idea. Once again, we see with this Prime Minister, as we have seen for the last 8 years, that he is not an intimate friend of the truth; he is a passing acquaintance of it.

Here is the truth about it. In just the last few years, under his and Bill English’s Government, the number of foreign trusts used for dodging taxes in overseas countries has grown like Topsy, from roughly 4,000 in 2009 to nearly 11,000 now—prolific growth over that time. We are marketed overseas by law firms and agents here as the great place to do business, because we are stable and we have a good reputation—but put your dodgy money here. New Zealanders deserve better. They want a Government with honesty and integrity and that will look after their things—helping them to get their first home and helping their kids to succeed in a good education system.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): If Mr Little and Mr Twyford were decent human beings, they would have come down to Parliament today and apologised to the Chinese community. The gall of that speech from Mr Little, to talk about truth and integrity when he has spent the last year telling New Zealanders that 40 percent of the people who are buying properties are Chinese when he knew and Mr Twyford knew that that information was false. It was deliberate, it was calculated, and it was an attack on one group—one ethnic group—of New Zealanders for cynical political gain.

The whole debate has been a shameful chapter in the once-proud history of the Labour Party. I have come to expect that sort of politics from Winston Peters. I have come to expect that sort of politics from the Donald Trumps, from the Le Pens, from those in Australia like Pauline Hanson, and from the United Kingdom Independence Party, but I did not ever in my career in this Parliament expect that sort of tawdry politics from the once-proud Labour Party. I have got no doubt that people like Peter Fraser and Norm Kirk will be spinning in their graves knowing that people like Mr Twyford and Mr Andrew Little are prepared to trash the heritage of the Labour Party as a party that is prepared to stand up for minorities and stand up for inclusiveness while, over the last 12 months, they have used such an awful argument to target that Chinese community.

Let us look at the data. We now know the tax residency of every single—every single—home purchased and settled in the 6-month period to 1 April. We know exactly the number—1,692 buyers were overseas tax residents, and 1,695 sales were from overseas residents. Is this some tsunami of foreign ownership that is coming over New Zealand? In 6 months there was a net change of three, and that is a reduction of three in terms of the number of overseas residents.

Hon Bill English: Were they Chinese?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member asks whether they were Chinese. Actually, we know exactly—444, or 0.7 percent, were tax residents in China, and I have already heard from a New Zealand citizen who is an overseas tax resident in China who bought a property in that 6 months and who is a New Zealander who is included in that number of 444. There is a power of difference between 0.7 percent and the claims of 40 percent by members opposite, and I ask again: who in the Labour Party has the courage of their convictions to get up and do the right thing and apologise to the Chinese community in New Zealand?

Hon Annette King: And when you—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know Annette King—Annette King knows in her heart of hearts that this is wrong. I know that some of the backbenchers are on record saying that this was wrong. I simply say to members opposite: let us move forward and have an intelligent, honest debate on housing. Let us focus on land supply, let us focus on the issues of the Resource Management Act, let us focus on the issue of building materials, and let us have a debate on the issues of infrastructure, but can we at least unite as a Parliament in saying that targeting and scapegoating one element of New Zealand—one group; the Chinese—is a disgrace, and this Parliament will not have a bar of it.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): It is actually that member, Nick Smith, who needs to apologise to the Chinese. It is that member who needs to apologise specifically to the Chinese Premier himself—the man who came to New Zealand and looked John Key in the eye and said: “You have to help us.” What was he asking for help for? The corruption, the money-laundering, the tax evasion, Mr Nick Smith—that is what you need to apologise for, because your Prime Minister and your Government are not doing a thing about it, and it is completely, absolutely unacceptable.

We are a small country. We are a proud country that punches above its weight in the rest of the world, and that is because of our integrity and our professionalism and the dignity with which we conduct our overseas transactions in trade deals, for example. When we go out and we support peacekeeping efforts, we are New Zealanders supporting the rest of the world, standing up with them. So how can the Prime Minister stand up and use the same tune as Sergeant Schultz and tell the world: “I know nothing. I know nothing.” He denies and he disclaims knowledge. It is unacceptable. In Schultz, it was endearing; it was cute. In a Prime Minister of New Zealand, it is abhorrent and it is absolutely unacceptable.

What we have been seeing lately is a Prime Minister under pressure, and when a man is put under pressure, you start to see his true colours. What we saw today, for example, was the nature of the man come to the surface. So what have we seen? What we have actually seen is the history of the Prime Minister coming to the fore. He is a money-trader, a player of the international markets, who held—well, I am not going to say that, even in the House. But the man was playing games with ethics, and we have to question where his stand is now.

The reality is that what was once endearing for the New Zealand public, who saw a self-made man making millions of dollars in this money market—now we see that it is unacceptable, and the man is, basically, selling the country down the river. He is a man whose instinct it is to defend the 1 percent—the 1 percent who use phantom corporations, shell companies, and zombie directors. He talks about a database, a list, but this party, New Zealand First, has shown National real cases of real convicted people in companies who are on this list, who are evading their tax obligations offshore. They are using New Zealand as a tax haven. The Prime Minister—listen to him in his interviews. He speaks vehemently in denial and in opposition to this country being a tax haven. Listen as he is pressed on detail, and goes: “Oh, hold on. No, you can’t ask me that. I don’t know. I’m not a tax expert.” That is his go-to answer. As a layman, it seems ironic and distressing that he would stand up against the world tax experts who actually use expert knowledge and fact to decry the very real reality that New Zealand is being used as a tax haven—experts who use fact against a layman Prime Minister who decries: “You can’t ask me that. I’m not a tax expert.” This is a farce.

New Zealand First simply says to the Prime Minister: “Act—act now. It’s not acceptable. You cannot just sit there and sit back and watch this happen.” New Zealanders are seeing that our reputation is being sullied in the world. They are not comfortable with this. This Government needs to fix up these tax-evasion problems so that the 1 percent—the money-launderers, the gun runners—cannot hide their money here in New Zealand. It is unacceptable, and it must stop right now. Thank you.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): It is time that the Labour Party members apologised for what they have said and done regarding Chinese Kiwis and house buying in Auckland. I attended a meeting at the time when Phil Twyford made the comments that he did—when he racially profiled in Auckland. I attended a meeting of a whole lot of Chinese Kiwis. They were hurt and they were upset, and they had every right to be hurt and upset. What I know in politics is that, in respect of the people who lead New Zealand and get support, it is when you actually tackle the real issues, when you actually understand that they are sometimes more complicated, and when you are actually truthful about what is really going on.

So what happened? What we heard from Phil Twyford was that 39.5 percent of the houses being purchased were being purchased by people with foreign, Chinese-sounding surnames. The reality—and we spent a lot of time working through an information regime to have a look at this—is that, actually, we may be dealing with, possibly, 2 to 3 percent. Even if you believe that data could be better, it is 2 to 3 percent. It is time Phil Twyford stood up in this House and said to a whole lot of people who were offended that, actually, he was wrong. He was wrong, and there are much more pressing issues in terms of housing for New Zealanders, around supply, around the issues of having special housing areas, and around Resource Management Act reform, which that side of the House is not supporting and which will make a greater difference to New Zealand than smearing a whole lot of Kiwis, some of whom have lived here all their lives, with the kind of half-baked information that Mr Twyford put up—another group of people who need an apology from Labour.

We have heard a lot about tax and we have heard a lot about the Panama Papers. The reality is—again, you learn in politics—that when people go on conspiracy hunts, when they do not have proper data, and when they have not thought through what they are actually looking at, innocent people can be hurt. We have an inquiry into whether there are genuine things that we can do to improve our tax system, and that is absolutely the right thing to be doing, so any question by the Opposition that we are not doing something is absolutely false and not true. But when you take hacked information and you start Googling through it, and other people’s names are then put on national television, the reality is, I think, that New Zealanders can see what it is. They can actually see that the people who should be running the country are the people who are focused on big issues and initiatives.

Yes, there may be genuine issues around some of the tax stuff, but, actually, again, using half-baked data, like with the Chinese surnames, does not command the confidence of a country that you can run the country. What that is about is the Opposition members trying to get air time—trying to be able to get enough time on the national news to be able to raise their profile. But what they are actually doing is destroying their credibility, because they are not being rational in terms of policy and they are not recognising that there are people who are collateral damage—whether it is Chinese Kiwis or whether it is other innocent Kiwis who have been brought through with this Panama situation.

The next area that I want to tackle is what our Government has been doing this week. What was our Government doing last week? It has been focused on some of our most vulnerable Kiwis. People can see it. When I was doorknocking the other week, what did people ask me about? They did not ask once—not one person asked me—about Chinese foreign surnames in Auckland or about the tax issues. What they asked me about were things like emergency housing. What they asked me about was what we are doing in terms of some of our most vulnerable, and medicines.

The reality is that this week has been a great week for the Government because we have announced real packages of support for those people. There is $39 million in terms of Pharmac, and 3,000 more emergency places in terms of housing. We have announced 1,250 more teacher-aide support hours. That means that we are now up to 550,000 more hours of teacher-aide support time. These are the issues that matter. I do believe it is time that the Labour Party members stepped up to the plate, started to focus on policy, stopped dragging people through the mud, and apologised, particularly to those Chinese Kiwis who were offended by Phil Twyford’s remarks.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I rise to address the issue of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It is just as well that I am doing so for 5 minutes in the general debate, because there is no other chance for any member of Parliament to address the treaty as a treaty.

Yesterday the Green Party proposed that the select committee report on the treaty, tabled 2 days ago, be subject to a parliamentary debate. The proposal was rejected. That is extraordinary because the TPP is one of the most important treaties to affect New Zealand in many years, yet the Government, unwavering in the belief that it knows best, feels no obligation to have the treaty examination by the select committee debated in Parliament. It is required under the Standing Orders to have debates—three readings, and a plenary Committee, in fact—on the implementing legislation but not on the prior policy issue of the merits of the treaty itself.

There is something weird about the way we do things here in New Zealand. You would think that the policy considerations of negotiating and acceding to an international treaty would be the most important aspect of a nation’s judgment on the issue. You might think that this matter needs to be settled through robust debate before we proceed to implementing legislation. And you might be forgiven for supposing that the technicalities of legislation—of 11 bills—to make our law compatible with the new treaty requirements would be a matter for legal technicians, perhaps a parliamentary subcommittee of MPs with expert advisers. That would free up the time of the House to debate the real issue, which is the merits and demerits of the treaty itself. But no; we devote about 10 hours to debating 11 bills, which total 78 pages, and are required by the Speaker to stay on message, part by part, and even clause by clause. It defies logic, even constitutional logic, to suggest that 10 hours should be devoted to the technicalities of draft law, judged by worldly but inexpert members of Parliament, but nothing to the general policy of the national interest on whether or not to negotiate, sign, and ratify a major international agreement that imposes unprecedented new obligations on New Zealand.

These reflections raise the underlying question of the role of Parliament in general when it comes to treaty making. The Cabinet Manual at least tosses off an honest appraisal. Treaty making, it says, lies in the hands of the executive. What a masterful understatement. The executive decides whether to negotiate. It decides whether the negotiated agreement is worth signing. The executive, in the form of the relevant Government department, drafts and submits the national interest analysis.

This is a useless document because it is, by definition, redundant. They who have just negotiated the treaty are concluding that ratifying it is in the national interest. Of course they will; they just negotiated it. It is fine for them to convey the reasons why the ministry believes it was worth pursuing. The document could have passing value as an explanatory review, but it is a classic misconception and is deceitful to the public interest to convey a descriptive pretence that this is an objective analysis of the national interest. Who do they think we are?

I hereby announce, in advance, to the Speaker that because of the decision of the Business Committee not to hold a debate on the committee’s report on the treaty examination of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, I shall be allowing myself complete freedom during the three readings of the bill to address the general policy aspect of the agreement. There is no other way to ensure that the people of this country are given their democratic right to witness not inexpert legislative oversight but informed political judgment based on natural contestation on the intrinsic merits of a major policy decision.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I am waiting. I am waiting for the apology from the Labour members. I do expect that I will be waiting quite a long time, because never before in the 8 years that I have been a member of this House have I seen such a despicable display as when a party in this Parliament has singled out one ethnicity—one ethnicity—and absolutely trashed them.

So as we have seen, the real facts come out. And no, not the figure of 39.4 percent of Chinese buyers in Auckland, which one of the Labour members so recklessly and shamelessly put out in the public domain; we are talking 2 to 3 percent—2 to 3 percent of all property transactions over a 6-month period, and of that 2 to 3 percent, a very small number, 1 percent in total, were from China. Mr Speaker, I do not know about you, but it is absolutely disgraceful, and the members of the Opposition party should be embarrassed for using and singling out one ethnicity in the country of New Zealand, where we have over 200 ethnicities. We are a country rich in our multicultural values, and our country embraces our place in the world.

Unlike the Green member who spoke previously, Dr Kennedy Graham, we actually believe that taking our place in international trade is an important part of that and brings benefits for New Zealand businesses and New Zealand employers, because, at the end of the day, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is about those who benefited by it. And if you think about hard-working New Zealanders of whatever ethnicity, actually, they are interested in a job that pays well, where they continue to have security, and to have a growing economy. Although this side of the House has an outward view that embraces our place in the world, we are seeing more and more examples of Labour members who are focused on their own navels and who are becoming completely insulated and losing touch with New Zealanders.

Let us have a look at some of the facts because, clearly, the members on the other side do not want to talk about facts. They want to make up some fiction. So if we look at the first 6 months of the data—and I want to put on the record that, yes, it is the first 6 months; it is too early to make definitive statements about it, so we will watch to see how the data continues—we have seen that 2 to 3 percent of the total property purchases were by those who are non-resident for tax purposes. But the second part of the information, and the data that is collected by Land Information New Zealand goes further than that, is the information that is useful for us in informing housing policy. The first part of that asks of the property transaction: is there a house on this land? Ninety percent said yes. And then, of those who said yes, the next question was around their connection to New Zealand. Only 3 percent were not New Zealand citizens, residents, or here on a work permit or student visa.

Unfortunately, on this side of the House, we are focused on the issues that matter. When it comes to housing, is housing affordability a concern for New Zealanders? Yes. So, actually, we are doing things to tackle it. We are looking at land supply, we are looking at building materials, we are looking at lowering compliance costs, we are looking at speeding up local government processes, we are looking at reform of the Resource Management Act, and we are looking at practical things that make a difference in the space of housing. All the Opposition can do is make wild accusations that offend a huge number of hard-working New Zealanders and offend them terribly.

This is a Government that is focused on the issues that matter. We are not focusing on desperate measures, like the Opposition. This side of the House uses facts to support our policy, whether it is about growing jobs through trade, improving education, keeping people safe, having greater access to medicines, or assisting them into their very first home.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [In New Zealand Sign Language]

Mr SPEAKER: I know it is an official language, but the member needs to also speak at the same time.

SUE MORONEY: I need to speak at the same time? I have just said “Thank you, Mr Speaker.” I am pleased that I am able to use New Zealand Sign Language to take this call. In acknowledging that, I would like to acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for her initiative in ensuring that New Zealand Sign Language became an official language of New Zealand.

Today the Prime Minister lost the plot. He completely lost the plot—and over what? It is almost unprecedented for a Prime Minister alone to be thrown out of the Chamber, but that is what happened. What did he lose the plot over? He lost it because he has been caught out. He has been caught out protecting the mega-wealthy who are using New Zealand as a tax haven. He has been caught out aiding and abetting them. That is why he has lost the plot. New Zealanders are asking themselves: “Who on earth is this Prime Minister running this country for?”. His behaviour over his need to protect the mega-wealthy has become so extreme. He is shrugging his shoulders at the idea that New Zealand is a tax haven, whereas most New Zealanders find that idea abhorrent. They are concerned about the reputation of New Zealand on the international scene, and so they should be.

The Kathmandu Post, I am informed, ran a headline this week that said “New Zealand prime place for rich to hide money”. The Kathmandu Post ran that headline, and New Zealanders living in Nepal are appalled because this is their country being run through the mud because we have a Prime Minister who just shrugs his shoulders—a Prime Minister whose Minister, when he was advised of the tax loopholes that were inviting this sort of dirty money to come to New Zealand, was then rung up by the lawyer of the Prime Minister, and suddenly the review to fix that problem was off. That is undeniable. That is why the Prime Minister has lost the plot. He has been found out to be donkey deep in this dirty little affair for New Zealand. So he has reacted in a way that we are not used to seeing him react, actually. But he got thrown out of the House today, and that is the reason why.

He said some years ago that his vision was that he wanted to see New Zealand become a financial services hub. We all know now that that has just been code for allowing the mega-rich to use New Zealand as a tax haven. That was the code that he used: a financial services hub. It is shocking to note that since 2009 the number of these foreign trusts that are operating in New Zealand has risen from around about 4,000 to 11,000. So it has mushroomed under John Key’s leadership, and it is no wonder.

We have got a situation where the Prime Minister will stop at nothing over this issue. He is prepared to take down the reputation of organisations like Greenpeace, like Amnesty International, and like the Salvation Army in his determination to continue to allow this process to happen in New Zealand. In his determination to protect the wealthy at the expense of the reputation of New Zealand, he is even prepared to take down some of our most reputable charitable organisations in trying to defend his position on that. It is indefensible, and the Prime Minister should be listening to what most New Zealanders say.

On that issue, most New Zealanders understand that we do have, in many of our cities, a housing crisis. Of course we have had one in Auckland; that is plainly obvious. Everyone knows it except for the current Government; it cannot seem to accept that. Because it has failed to fix the housing crisis in Auckland, because it will not even acknowledge it, now we are finding that that problem is landing in cities like Hamilton.

Here is what Nick Smith has to say about the housing crisis that is developing in Hamilton—we have had increases in house prices in the order of 34 percent in the last 12 months in Hamilton. That is what people are facing. Most New Zealanders know that there is something fundamentally wrong with that—well, not Nick Smith. He says that first-time owners need to play the long game; that is what he told the Waikato Times. How long do they have to wait to save up a deposit to get into a home, Mr Smith? The long game—well, the long game that New Zealanders know that they must play now is they must vote for a Labour Government next year. He also said that it is just a natural correction. So that is what the National Party thinks about the housing crisis that is developing in places like Hamilton. It has failed to fix it in Auckland, and it is failing to represent most New Zealanders.

ALFRED NGARO (National): There comes a time in a person’s life when they often have to face the truth. I can say—and I too have got a witness there, Mrs Sue Moroney—there were actions in this House that I was not proud of. At that time, I took the courage of my convictions. I went up to see the person—and Mrs Sue Moroney will know who that is; I will not name who they were—and I apologised. I apologised because I was wrong. I was wrong in my actions. I was wrong because I took the privilege of the House in a situation that I should not have. So when I stand up here in this House and I say that people should be held to account, I do mean it and I back it up by my actions. I believe the fact is that Mr Phil Twyford should apologise. He should say sorry, because what he did is he took the privilege of the House, he took a leadership position, and he turned round and used politicking as a way of making a point.

I want to talk about what I think is called the “Ng factor”. We are talking about the whole aspect of Chinese- and Asian-sounding names; it was called the “Ng factor”. So this is what he did: he went searching for evidence that would hopefully put him in a position where he could make a political statement, and, in his searching, he thought that he found the answer. What do we call that? We call it blaming. So what did he do? He began to blame what he thought was a statistic—that over 40 percent of Chinese who were buying houses were to blame for the issues of the Auckland housing affordability crisis. That is what he did. How do we know that? Because Keith Ng, who calls himself a Kiwi, turned round and wrote an article asking why he was blaming them, saying that, as Chinese, they are not foreigners and have been here for many years. Instead, Mr Twyford went along with the line of blaming. That is what he did, and what did it lead to? It led to shaming.

So how does shaming become real inside the Labour Party? Well, when you go to The Daily Blog, you do not often hear a lot of stuff that is supportive of where the Government is at, but every now and then you get a little gem. Here is where shaming makes a difference for the inside of the Labour Party. Young Labour wrote this: “Oh dear. Late last week, Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford caused outrage and upset … This was, predictably, pretty bad – and justifiably backfired hard on Labour. It’s not that we don’t have a problem … It’s just that a list of Chinese-sounding surnames doesn’t prove anything”—here is the punchline—“except the laziness of Labour’s Parliamentary Research Unit.”

That is what happens when you go searching, blaming, and in the end it becomes shaming. If you have got integrity, even in this House—like I said, I will back it up; I have done it—then how about Mr Phil Twyford stands up and apologises.

But in the short amount of time that I have, I want to talk about the “Ng factor”. It is called the “doing”. What are we doing as a Government? I could talk about blaming and shaming and all sorts of things, but what are we doing? If we are talking about housing, let us talk about the 3,000 emergency housing places—and that is right, for Māori—under Whānau Ora. And I also want to acknowledge the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and what he has been putting forward, in regard to meeting the needs of Māori in housing. I cannot know all the statistics; I know that he will know what they are. But this Government is doing the things that matter most.

What are we doing? Emergency housing: $41.1 million over 4 years to making a difference—3,000 places every single year. Yes, that is right. The other side can talk about people in houses, people in cars, people in caravans, but guess what? What are you doing? Absolutely nothing.

Hon Annette King: We’re in Opposition.

ALFRED NGARO: This Government is making the difference. Even if you are in Opposition, that is the laziest, lamest excuse I have ever heard. That member should know that even if you are in Opposition, this is what you can do: you can listen to the people, you can advocate to Housing New Zealand. You can make a difference, Mrs King, even when you are in Opposition.

Let us talk about the affordability of housing: the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme that was launched in April at the Henderson Baptist Church in west Auckland, in Te Atatū—nearly 12,000 New Zealanders, spread right throughout the country, have been helped into their first home. That truly is making a difference. It is projected that for the $435 million that this Government is putting through, 90,000 Kiwis will have their first home over the next 5 years.

This is not the party that is about blaming or, even, shaming. I will put it again, as I started—here is what it is: if you have the courage of your convictions, then stand up and apologise. I have had to do it; how about Mr Phil Twyford does it to the Chinese community. They deserve it.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): If we are talking about who needs to apologise, the National Government needs to apologise for the disgraceful actions that it has inflicted upon Māori in the past. Who remembers Don Brash in Ōrewa? Who remembers that speech? Who remembers the hate that was whipped up from that dog whistle, from that Government over that? We all remember it, because this is the Government of smoke and mirrors. It is the Government of smoke and mirrors, or, as Oscar Kightley performs it, they like to perform Jedi mind tricks. They like to distract, and deflect, and distract the population, especially, and the ringmaster is John Key.

Well, we know that those tricks are not working any more. He is under pressure, and his powers are weakening, and that is why the Government is under pressure today. Why have they been trying to say that Labour needs to apologise? We were merely seeking information as to what the true picture was in terms of overseas foreign speculators buying property in the New Zealand market. And what have we received? We have received absolute bogus data—bogus data from this Government. It is absolutely bogus. It is a mockery to mathematics—a mockery to mathematics. If anyone needs to apologise, the National Government needs to apologise to the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Greeks for absolutely destroying mathematics with their appalling so-called analysis of foreign-buyers’ data. That is who they need to apologise to.

How do we know—because the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand has even doubted the report himself. He is unsure of those figures. He says that you cannot trust this—you cannot trust these numbers. It is actually not very robust. So for this Government of smoke and mirrors and of Jedi mind tricks to try to say that “Oh, yes, this is our report, and the numbers are all good, and it was only 1,600 foreign buyers.”—hello! Forty-five percent of the sales in Auckland were excluded because they were in businesses and trusts and the like, so how can we actually get an accurate picture?

This is the Government that likes to be very selective only on what it drip-feeds out, and it tries to manipulate the population. As I said, the game is up for John Key. His powers are weakening. His powers are weakening because middle New Zealanders are wising up. They are wising up; they know whom John Key and this Government serve. They know whom they are there for; they are there only for the top. They are there only for the wealthy. They are not there for middle New Zealand. They are not there for the battlers. They are not there for the everyday folk out there who are working hard, who want to get their kids educated, and who want to have a good health system when they get māuiui. They are not there for them. They have been running down all those very institutions that are the absolutely pillars of our just New Zealand society. That is what this Government of smoke and mirrors has done, and it is an absolute shame.

Let us go to the Panama Papers. You know, a month ago I thought that Mossack Fonseca was a football player for FC Barcelona. How we have come a long way in one month—we have come a long way. What we have seen now is our reputation—our reputation internationally as Aotearoa—besmirched by the fact that we are labelled as a tax haven, that we are harbouring funds. Who knows where they come from, but our laws are permitting that. Our laws are welcoming the corruptness of the wealthy class from around the world. And the ringleader of all that and the chief sponsor of all of that is John Key and this Government. It is an absolute disgrace.

It is a Government of smoke and mirrors. But the good people of Aotearoa are waking up to that, and they are blowing the smoke away. We can see the pressure on the Government right now. That was evidenced by John Key getting kicked out of this House. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): On behalf of the current and all former New Zealand Governments, I sincerely apologise to all Babylonians who may have been affected at some stage, in a way that they find detrimental to their own well-being, by those Governments of the day.

On a more serious level, the previous member, Rino Tirikatene, made the comment that the National Party should apologise to Māori. Well, I want to say, particularly while both members of the Māori Party are in this House, that I am incredibly proud of the fact that this Government is unparalleled in its record of being not only apologetic but also committed to righting wrongs that have been done to Māori in generations gone past. And with the Treaty settlements process now well advanced because of the energy of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, supported by the Māori Party and our entire caucus, I say that our apology is absolutely sincere because we have shown it through our actions.

As other members have noted, this is New Zealand Sign Language Week. Unfortunately, I do not—I do not know whether “fluent” is the right term—have the ability to communicate in sign language. But I do acknowledge all the hearing-impaired members of our community, including in my own constituency of Hamilton West. I also thank all those wonderful people who work with them to help them to lead full and fulfilling lives, because those of us who are not hearing impaired can only imagine just how alienating that experience must be. Although, having said that, when you are a member in this Chamber, you can quite often feel utterly deafened by the babble that is going on around us. I just have to hope that none of us suffers long-term impairment with our hearing, although I am sure that it cannot be good for our mental health to be here for ever and a day.

Can I also note that last week two very exciting things happened on my home patch in Hamilton. The first was the opening of Rototuna Junior High School, the first new high school for all—other than a kura kaupapa—to be opened in our city for more than a generation. I think the last one was Hillcrest High School back in the 1970s. It is a wonderful achievement. I pay tribute to the hard work of the North-East Schools Action Group and my colleague David Bennett, who has lobbied on this issue for many, many years, and I celebrate with that school community this wonderful, wonderful thing that has happened, which was funded by the National Government.

I also want to acknowledge an outstanding festival that was held at our magnificent Claudelands—the venue for the Waikato and Bay of Plenty secondary schools Pasifika by Nature festival. A number of people probably do not think of going to events of that sort. I simply want to say that if you have an opportunity—you, Mr Speaker, personally, and all who are listening—go to Pasifika by Nature next year, because it was one of the most outstanding pieces of entertainment I have seen in a long time.

To all of the secondary schools that took part, I want to say a very big well done because they worked hard; they entertained us brilliantly. I was able to stay for four schools, three of which were from within Hamilton, and I was particularly proud of their efforts. But I want to single out Hamilton Girls’ High School, which won three of the six special awards and was judged the winner overall. What a fantastic effort that was—and also, honourable mentions to Fraser High School, Melville High School, Hamilton Boy’s High School, and Hillcrest High School. Boy, they were good.

The great problem for the Labour Party members—and they are demonstrating it again right now—is that they are obsessed in this House with beltway issues. We have been focusing today on a really important issue. We are still waiting for the apology that the Minister for Building and Housing invited them at the start of this debate to deliver, because—and I say this with my good friend and colleague Dr Yang right beside me—they owe an apology and they should be delivering it to the Chinese communities, the citizens and constituents whom we are all proud to represent in this country. That is because this is a party, this once proud Labour Party, that argued last year that people with Chinese-sounding names were responsible for 40 percent of Auckland property purchases, and that has been shown in the last couple of days, with some data that has been collected, to be utter bunkum.

There was no evidence for that outrageous suggestion; it was just a bigoted hunch on the part of Labour members for short-term, populist, political advantage. And boy, did it rebound on them, and I am so glad that it did, because now that the data has been produced, debunking that absolutely ludicrous assertion, what do we have? We have got Mr Twyford and his colleagues attacking the data. Well, how ridiculous is that.

On this side of the House, we are focused on the things that matter. In our recent pre-Budget announcements, there is the extra funding for Pharmac—really important, really welcome. There is support for teacher-aides, which has been given today, and a whole lot of other things: the Battle for our Birds from Maggie Barry. We are getting on with the things that matter, and I am very proud to support those efforts. Those things matter to New Zealanders.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Yes, it is a day of apologies, and lots of people have been talking about who should apologise to whom. Is it not ironic that in Parliament we should talk about such things? I will tell you who deserves an apology, and it is Andrew Judd, the Mayor of New Plymouth. Andrew Judd deserves an apology from his constituents there, and from Mike Hosking, who is surely the one who is out of touch. When a broadcaster uses his platform to belittle a man who stands up for minorities, a man who stands up for his moral obligation to Māori under the Treaty and is treated despicably by the people in his community for doing it—instead of congratulating him, instead of saying “Well done, you, for sticking up for the minority.”, instead of saying “Well done, Andrew Judd, for standing up for our commitment under the Treaty to Māori in this country.”, he said: “Andrew Judd, you are out of touch.”

Well, I will tell you who is out of touch, and it is that broadcaster. That broadcaster and this party are out of touch when they do not support Treaty rights, because this country was founded on a treaty of partnership. Anyone who thinks you get into local government based on a meritocracy is fooling themselves. Anyone who thinks you make it through just because you are good enough is fooling themselves. It is a popularity contest, and when the majority are the ones who are voting in that popularity contest, then the tyranny of the majority takes over.

Here is what that man does not have to contend with. If he thinks he is out of touch, I will tell you who he is out of touch with. He is out of touch with the Māori in this country. Yes—hello—the Chinese people have been belittled through the actions of the Opposition party over there, in the housing debate, but Māori have had to deal with that for 175 years. I say: “Welcome to our world.” Māori are not the marker by which all people are measured in this country. Imagine that! Imagine turning up and seeing: “Are you as good as us?”. That’s the marker. “Do you live as long as us?”. That’s the marker. “Do you have to claim back your language, culture, and identity?”. No, because it was never taken from you. That man is out of touch. He does not understand the racist bigotry that he has thrown out in this country.

The “Iwi/Kiwi” debate is not the thing that is uniting us; it is separating us. I will tell you where that debate comes from. It comes from the stealth of the wealth—the entitled in this country who can afford to take out full-page ads in the New Zealand Herald newspaper claiming that there is some sort of undeserved privilege of a minority of people in this country who are the indigenous race, who all other indigenous races around the country look to as the example of how to achieve within a country—the example of how to have representation in a country. Yet, in this country we still debate whether representation on councils is just, whether we have distributed democracy in this country.

Distributed democracy is what MMP is, and I call on all councils to follow the Masterton District Council and have iwi representatives with voting rights on the board. That does not take away—tell me what that takes away from councils. What fears do they have of having somebody voice the opinions and the attitudes and the obligations of indigenous peoples in this country? That is an irrational fear. It does not take away; it adds to. It is value-add to this nation, and it is value-add to our communities.

Māori will no longer sit on the sidelines and be ignored after being consulted about what they think about something. We should applaud Andrew Judd, and we should feel shame that he has to stand down from his position because he has been abused and belittled for standing up for minorities, for Māori, and for indigenous peoples.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): As the only Chinese member of Parliament, I would like to join my colleagues and demand that Labour apologise and demand Mr Phil Twyford and Mr Andrew Little apologise to the Chinese community. The initial data suggests that non-resident buyers make up only about 3 percent of New Zealand property transactions—only 3 percent. In Auckland, it is about 4 percent. And of the 3 percent, fewer than 30 percent are from China. So, in total, less than 1 percent of the New Zealand property transactions were made by people from China. This is a very small percentage. This makes nonsense of Labour’s call to ban Asians from buying and selling land. Remember what Labour said last year? I can quote what Phil Twyford said last year. He claimed that people of Chinese descent bought 39.5 percent of houses sold by a major Auckland real estate firm. “This is foreign money—this is foreign money.”, he said. That was typical Labour: desperate and lazy—desperate because the polls have been consistently low, and lazy, because its members have been fighting inside themselves—within themselves. So this is what Labour did to the Chinese community. Now Labour should apologise, and the Chinese community may accept the apology and then move on. But so far, Labour has not and refuses to apologise.

Look at today’s Labour—very depressing. Look at what it did. The Labour Party was the party that apologised in 2002 for the poll tax on Chinese. Labour signed the free-trade agreement with China in 2008, and this party has changed. Now it is targeting the Chinese community very cynically and shamelessly for political gain. This is the Labour Party today. The Race Relations Commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, slammed Labour and Phil Twyford’s claims and said that Chinese New Zealanders deserve better than this. Of course, the Chinese community has been in New Zealand for many years, since the 1860s, when we came as gold miners and we made a great contribution to New Zealand’s society and economy—basically, in all walks of life. The Chinese community has been law-abiding, hard-working, and has made a great contribution in all sectors of New Zealand. And, also, some weeks ago I went to the launch of a book entitled Chinese ANZACs. A few dozen Chinese Kiwis participated in the World War, fighting alongside other Kiwis. So this is the Chinese community—we are Kiwis, although made in China. That is what I said in my maiden speech: “We are Kiwis, although made in China.” We are genuinely Kiwis.

Also, it is important to note that the Chinese community has been a major force in property development—talk to many developers in Auckland. Although the Chinese buy properties, the Chinese also build properties. I have been talking to so many Chinese developers. They have become so important in Auckland, although people tend to forget that we have been contributing to New Zealand’s economy. Labour has forgotten that.

Also, I will say this Chinese-sounding name approach could do much harm to New Zealand’s economy, to New Zealand relations with China, and, actually, to our global reputation. We came to New Zealand because we love New Zealand as a genuinely multi-cultural society—an open, tolerant society. We came to New Zealand not only because of the environment but also because of the social harmony. But now Labour has destroyed that kind of reputation, so it is important for us to make sure that Labour recognises its mistake and apologises, and then we move on. Fortunately, New Zealanders do not share Labour’s xenophobic views. Look at the Chinese Lantern Festival each year.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

First Reading

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. Kai aku rangatira o Te Whare, tēnā tātau katoa! Tēnā hoki tātau i te āhuatanga ki ō tātou mate e hingahinga mai ana i ō tātau marae maha huri noa i Te Motu. Kua tangihia, kua mihia rātou kua ea te wāhi ki a rātau. I tō rātou matenga, mahue mai ana ko tātau hei pīkau i ngā mahi i mahia e rātau hei tohe, hei tohe tonu i ngā take i tohea e rātau. Waihoki, ko te tohe nui ko Te Ao Māori i roto i ngā ngahurutanga tau, ko te tohe o Te Whenua.

[And so my acknowledgments to us all, oh noble ones of the House. I greet us as well in the circumstance of our dead who have fallen on our many marae throughout the country. They have been mourned and tributes have been accorded to them, and suffice to say we have fulfilled that. As a consequence of their deaths, we have been left with the responsibility of carrying out the tasks they had set out for them to meet and debate, and now it is our turn to continue what they have put in place. Therefore and in like manner, the land has been Māoridom’s great debate for decades.]

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was arguably one of the most groundbreaking pieces of legislation of our generation because of the seismic shift it made in Māori land policy. This bill we are considering today is one of the most important measures for Māori that this Parliament will consider in our time, and I am proud and humbled to be the steward of it into the House this afternoon. Arā noa te kōrero: “Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua”—[there is the saying: “As people perish and disappear from sight, the land remains”.] This is one of the many whakataukī that illustrate our connection to the land. To Māori, land is everything. Land provides our sense of identity, of belonging, of continuity. Whenua is our link to our tūpuna and to the future generations.

It was the 1975 Māori Land March that completely changed the legal framework for Māori land. It shifted from one that assimilated and alienated Māori land to one that promoted retention. Along came Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The Act is far from perfect. We know that, because the first attempt to reform it started in 1998, 5 years later, and there have been at least six panels to consider the changes over time. It is inconsistent in how it treats the retention and utilisation of Māori land. Retention had a clear focus with detailed provisions about alienation. The utilisation provisions, however, are unclear and ambiguous. Its time has come—its time has come.

Over the years numerous reviews of Te Ture Whenua have emphasised that the law for Māori land needs to be an enabling law so that the participating owners can make decisions without having to get court approval; the law needs to be a protective law so that Māori land is retained in Māori hands; the law needs to give Māori landowners a clear and accountable governance framework for their land; the law needs to include better dispute resolution support for Māori landowners; and the law needs to have options to overcome fragmentation. This can happen only by replacing the current Act, not by tinkering with it.

This bill addresses those issues and responds to the 392 submissions; the views of technical experts and practitioners; feedback from numerous hui, workshops, and wānanga; and the advice of the ministerial advisory group. In that regard I want to acknowledge the advisory group: Linda Te Aho, Traci Houpapa, Spencer Webster, Sacha McMeeking, Matanuku Mahuika, Dr Tānira Kīngi, and their chairperson, Kīngi Smiler. E hoa mā, you have done a magnificent job of consolidating advice amongst yourselves and amongst Māori communities and organisations. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, ki tēnā ki tēnā! [My huge appreciation to each and every one of you.]

I also want to acknowledge the Associate Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who in 2012, with the support of the former Minister of Māori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples, initiated a review of this Act. I want to thank Minister Finlayson for his leadership and continued support. That support is hugely appreciated. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe. I also want to acknowledge the team in the gallery today, Te Puni Kōkiri officials, for the extraordinary effort on this bill. E hoa mā, you have done a magnificent job—ka nui te mihi.

This bill is underpinned by a set of significant and important principles that all decision makers will have to recognise: Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa; tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land; Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land; owners of Māori land have a right to decide how their land is used; owners of Māori land have a right to take advantage of the opportunities to develop their land for the benefit of present generations and future generations of owners, their whānau, and their hapū; and disputes involving Māori land should be managed in a manner that maintains or enhances relationships between owners and members of their whānau and hapū. This bill expressly defers to tikanga Māori on a range of matters such as the way associations with Māori customary land are determined, the way preferred recipients of Māori freehold land are determined, the way relationships of descent are determined, and the way disputes are resolved.

Another central feature of the bill is that it not only keeps Māori land retention as a primary focus, but goes further to strengthen those protections. Can I state absolutely clearly this: this bill will not lead to the loss of Māori land. The thresholds that have to be met to protect Māori land from disposal are as strict as ever. If owners want to make the thresholds even higher, the bill gives them the means to do so. There are also thresholds with clear safeguards. The court will have a critical role in preventing abuses of process.

One of the major features of the bill is its new governance framework for Māori freehold land. Under the bill, appointing and forming governance bodies is a matter for the owners themselves, through a process of decision making and registration. This will replace the current system that requires a judgment from the Māori Land Court—a process that involves an application, hearings, adjudication, with all of the litigation risk and cost that goes with that. This change is consistent with the principle of rangatiratanga. It contributes a new framework in which Māori land utilisation is determined by the aspirations of the owners.

Māori freehold land today is reduced to about 5.5 percent of all land in Aotearoa. Ninety-five percent of Māori freehold land is in the North Island and makes up approximately 12 percent of all land in the North Island. More than 180 previous laws dealing with Māori land have had a major role in the dramatic reduction in Māori landownership. Those same laws have led to a vast multiplicity of highly fragmented ownership interests. There are now more than 2.5 million ownership interests in Māori freehold land, where we have well over 14,000 ownership interests in one block and an average of nearly 100 owners for each of the blocks. This bill contains a range of mechanisms to try to stem the high rate of fragmentation. Any remaining Māori customary land will no longer be able to have its ownership individualised. It must remain in collective customary ownership.

There will be new dispute resolution support for Māori landowners. It is based on the concept of “mātauranga takawaenga”. This process will “assist people and groups to resolve disagreements and conflicts [based on] tikanga, values, and kawa” of relevant hapū and whānau. It is designed to reflect this principle of rangatiratanga and to enable parties to achieve their own solutions and outcomes rather than accepting an outcome imposed by the court. This does not mean that there is not a role for the court. The bill provides the Māori Land Court judges with a new power to hold judicial settlement conferences to assist parties to negotiate their own settlement.

Recently I announced a new Whenua Māori Fund—$12.8 million over the next 4 years. This fund supports owners and trustees who are looking to improve their existing operations, diversify, or prepare for new opportunities. I have also announced other new measures that will give councils more workable tools to deal with ratings of Māori land when it is unused and unoccupied. That will provide a more equitable approach to rates of exemptions for marae, urupā, and land that is set aside under Ngā Whenua Rahui covenants and will improve the rating valuation for Māori land.

We will be looking at solutions for landlocked Māori land, the effects of paper roads, and how the Public Works Act could work with the unique characteristics of Māori land. A new Māori Land Service will be developed to support Māori landowners in all of their land matters so that they can achieve their aspirations and so that they can take full advantage of the new legislative framework contained in this bill.

I want to conclude as I started, with the purpose of this bill. The purpose of the bill is to recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised, and continue to exercise, over their lands, resources, and taonga, in accordance with tikanga Māori and, consistent with the guarantees given to Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to protect the rights of owners of Māori land to retain control, occupy, and develop their land as a taonga tuku iho for the benefit of present and future generations of owners, their whānau, and their hapū. If we can achieve this purpose, then this will unquestionably be one of the most important measures this Parliament will consider for Māori in our time.

I am proud of the work that has been done. I am proud of this bill, which is available to the country after today. I hope that they will engage with the process to ensure that when this bill comes back it will be exactly what we want: the ability for our people to make the best use of their land and yet for it to be retained in the hands of our tamariki mokopuna. I commend this bill to the House.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Whatungarongaro he tangata, toitū he whenua—a man disappears from sight, and the land will always remain. Labour’s position is unambiguously clear: we will not be supporting this bill to first reading. As Labour’s opening speaker, along with my colleagues, I will highlight why we are taking this position: specifically the concerns we have around the substance of the bill, the process followed, and the clear risks to Māori landowners.

In my contribution, I would like to cover three particular areas in this debate. First, I want to provide a brief historic account of Māori’s relationship with whenua, rights guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi, and touch on the current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Then I want to make comment on the process that has brought this bill to the House, and if time allows I want to make some constructive suggestions for the select committee to consider, presuming the bill will be passed in the House today. Finally, I want to touch on the substantive parts of the bill, namely the significant change of the role of the Māori Land Court and the yet-to-be-established Māori Land Service, and make comment on the critical issues facing Māori landowners that this bill does not comprehensively deal with, namely landlocked land, paper roads, land acquired under the Public Works Act, succession, and ratings.

The importance of land or whenua to Māori cannot be overstated. Our whenua has cultural and spiritual significance and is recognised as taonga tuku iho—a treasure handed down from earlier generations to be nurtured and looked after for the next generations. For iwi, hapū, and whānau our connection to our land is a connection to our personal and tribal identity. Strong legislation applying to Māori land is, therefore, essential to Māori, not just in providing rules for governance of a key important resource, but for maintaining the connection of people to their land and identity. The Tiriti o Waitangi principle requires effective protection mechanisms and properly informed, broad-based support of Māori. This bill, I believe, has not fulfilled either of these requirements.

After over a century of struggling with the effects of bad legislation that disadvantaged Māori and led to the massive loss of land, a hard-won Crown-Māori consensus, informed by the 1975 land march led by Dame Whina Cooper with a catchcry of “Not one more acre”, resulted in our current law: Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Today Māori freehold land comprises of over 1.4 million acres—approximately 5.5 percent of New Zealand’s land mass. About 26 percent of Māori freehold land is in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. So in representing the many concerned landowners in my electorate, I have actively led Labour’s response to the Government’s Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

Why reform Māori land laws? The Crown asserts the current Act’s constraints have led to the underperformance of up to 80 percent of Māori land and believes new legislation will unlock hundreds of millions of dollars in returns for owners. This is exceptionally misleading. Under the Act many Māori entities are thriving economically. Wī Pere Trust, Mangatū Blocks Incorporation in my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and Tuarōpaki Trust in the Minister for Māori Development’s own electorate of Waiariki are some fine examples of economic success under the Act.

The current Act took more than 10 years to pass through the various stages of lawmaking. This shows the consideration required when attempting major changes to the relationship between Māori and their whenua. The New Zealand Māori Council and the Māori Women’s Welfare League were active political watchdogs of successive Governments, at the time, to ensure Māori land law had retention at its heart. The Law Commission also played a significant role.

This bill replaces that hard-fought principle of retention with a principle of utilisation that in effect removes the protective mechanism of the Māori Land Court and introduces the alienating principle of engaged owners. This is a fundamental shift in this bill. It looks nothing like the Act. Not only is it a complete rewrite, it takes the hard-fought principle of retention and overnight and without consultation, in the dark of night, replaces it with a corporate principle of use, abuse, and allows the elite, privileged few to benefit at the expense of the many. This is why Labour is not supporting this bill at its first reading.

Let us turn to the process. I have been critical of the process around the reforms because the Minister has not applied the necessary level of care. Since publishing the first draft bill in May 2015, the process has been characterised by a sense that the Minister is determined to rush through this bill, come hell or high water. In terms of process, let us look at the genuine lack of empirical research and problem definition. The Waitangi Tribunal found that the reforms have not been progressed with sufficient empirical research, meaning that the Crown and Māori cannot be fully informed on the rationale for changes or on the implications arising from some changes proposed. The Waitangi Tribunal further states that reforming this legislation without genuine consultation and broad-based support from Māori would be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal declared that the consultation hui in June 2015 breached legal standards.

There have been limited opportunities for Māori landowners to genuinely consider the newly proposed bill. I attended many of the hui, including over half of the 21 hui hastily organised this February, that forced the Waitangi Tribunal to release a chapter in advance of its final report. Many attendees at these hui were at a loss as to why so little time was given to absorb the details and implications of the bill. The Minister heard it for himself. By introducing the bill to Parliament, the Crown has failed to ensure fair and valid consultation processes, and that is why Labour is not supporting this bill to the select committee.

Policy made on the hoof—with over 110 changes made to the bill since the exposure draft was first published in 2015, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill represents policy made on the fly. A key issue is whether reforms can be effective when the bill has been subjected to such ongoing unplanned changes. Creating policy in legislative settings off the cuff is high risk, and it is concerning that it took a tribunal hearing to prompt further revisions to the bill from the Minister’s officials. The reforms now present as legislation being written on the go, without a clear analysis of impacts. The lack of empirical research on the existing Act and rolling, off-the-cuff policy changes to the bill mean that there is a lack of rationale for the reforms and no way of ensuring legislative solutions are fit for purpose. This is why Labour is not supporting the bill.

In respect of parts of the bill, I mentioned the role of the Māori Land Court. Because there has been no extensive research on the existing Act, it is impossible to say whether the removal of the Māori Land Court’s protective role will help good governance of land. In my view, the proposed changes to the role of the court are high risk. In the bill, engaged owners will be able to represent the interests of all owners for certain decisions, rather than the Māori Land Court making such determinations. Originally, this proposed shift in decision-making authority was linked with a compulsory shift in governance to new rangatōpū structures, which would have set governance plans. As the new rangatōpū governance structures are now optional—one of the many off-the-cuff changes made to the bill—there is no longer a quality safeguard in place. This means that if related parties—the engaged owners—are making decisions on behalf of others, they will be doing so with no set framework or quality standard of governance. In my view, an impartial court judgment therefore offers safer decision-making processes.

I move to the Māori Land Service. It is unfortunate that Māori landowners have not been given sufficient information on how this service will run, where it will be based, and, more importantly, what its role will actually be. It is not enough to say this work is in progress, given the expectation that succession and land development services will be provided by this yet-to-be-established service.

In terms of what the bill does not cover, at the 2015 hui and the hui held in February this year Māori landowners asked specifically that it cover access to landlocked land, paper roads, land acquired under the Public Works Act, successions, and rating. This bill does not deal with these issues in any comprehensive way. Labour supports the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, and we respectfully ask the Government to immediately replace the retention principle, including the protection mechanism provided by the Māori Land Court.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The time for the member’s speech has expired. Before I call the Hon Christopher Finlayson, I will say to Marama Fox that throughout that address she constantly interjected. That would be one reason for commenting, but, more importantly, she seemed to mix the member and me up, and she should not do that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): That was a most interesting address. I find it very difficult to believe that I am standing in this House following a member of Parliament who made a speech like that in opposition to what is a fundamental reform of Māori land law. I am very pleased to stand here today and express my admiration for the Minister for Māori Development and the phenomenal work he has done on what is a fundamental reform of Māori land law. It is incredible to have to say this in this place, but there have been more than 180 statutes relating to Māori land over the last 162 years—180 statutes over the last 162 years—and, unfortunately, that volume of legislation reflects a tendency to tinker with this important issue rather than deal with comprehensive reform.

The time for comprehensive reform is now, and this Minister—this Minister—has had the courage, determination, and intellect to pursue the issue. And let me say this to Meka Whaitiri and members of the Labour Party: we are doing exactly what Labour said it would do if was re-elected in 2008. Its policy in 2008 was this: “to help Māori realise the economic potential of Māori land by reviewing Te Ture Whenua Māori Act.” Then, in 2011, the same Labour Party said: “The most effective way to ensure the wellbeing of Māori is to grow the position of Māori in the economy.”—agreed. “Māori are no longer passive bystanders in the New Zealand economy—[they] are active participants.”—agreed. “Estimates of the size of the Māori economy range from $16b to $25b. The challenge for Labour is to grow this figure for the benefit of all Māori.” Then Labour proposed it would “review Ture Whenua land legislation to simplify the development options for multiply owned land.”

So what has happened that has caused Meka Whaitiri to have some kind of road to Damascus conversion to mindless and spiteful opposition? This is exactly what Labour would have done had it won a further term in office in 2008, and I take very strong exception to the comments made by Meka Whaitiri about process. The chronology matters, and so I will tell the House something about the chronology.

It was the late great Api Mahuika who spoke to me about these issues between 2007 and beyond, up till 2011—about the opportunities for developing land governed by Te Ture Whenua. So when I became the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs to Pita Sharples, I got together a group of experts to look at the particular issue: Toko Kāpea from Ngāti Apa, Matanuku Mahuika from Ngati Porou, Dion Tuuta from Ngāti Mutunga, and I particularly asked Dame Patsy Reddy whether she would look at it, because she had come across the issue in the course of working for me as a Treaty negotiator.

Everyone acknowledged that there were issues that needed to be addressed, and they went around the country, had many hui, and came up with the report. That report was consulted on, a further consultation was undertaken throughout 2013-14, and, in 2015, I took the most unusual step, as Attorney-General, of allowing an exposure draft to be released. The exposure draft was the subject of consultation, and then there were numerous other exposure drafts—not one exposure draft, but a number of exposure drafts.

There has been a glut of consultation on this issue, people have been consulted, and complaints about process are pathetic and they are wrong. I say to the New Zealand First member who intimated that he would be opposing the legislation at this stage, whatever that means—a lazy approach to analysing the legislation—that it was his deputy leader who took me around the Wairarapa pointing out urupā to which it was impossible to get access, and pointing out to me areas on the coastline of the Wairarapa where there had been cases to the Māori Land Court and there had been delays and expense in terms of the issues of landlocked land, and I said to him that these are issues that need to be addressed.

So we are biting the bullet, and we are not tinkering with the legislation and providing yet another amendment. We are looking fundamentally at the legislation, and at the very heart of it is the importance of land. I resent being told that this is some kind of Jesuitical plan to relieve Māori of their land. For 7½ years as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I have returned more land to Māori than any other Minister, because I am utterly committed to the issue of restoring iwi to their rightful place, and the preservation of land and respect for land, which culminated in the 1975 Māori Land March, is a fundamental issue.

Peeni Henare: Then it was given straight to the Department of Conservation.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have done a lot in the far north—far more than that member has ever done. He is very happy to talk about things but in this place you are judged not by fancy talk; you are judged by actions.

Peeni Henare: How did it go with Ngāti Kahu?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: We will get there with Ngāti Kahu. We will get there and we will even get there with Ngāpuhi because we are utterly determined to succeed. We are not going to be a “Sideline Sam” simply criticising; we are actually involved in changing people’s opportunities and improving the lot of iwi, so that is what this issue is about. To suggest that somehow we are interested in undermining the whenua is simply ridiculous. What we are wanting to do is provide mechanisms for better development of land. That is at the heart of this reform.

There is another suggestion that somehow we are wanting to undermine the Māori Land Court, which is nonsense. We are wanting to make the court more effective and relieve the court of a whole lot of administrative burdens that could be done through a Māori Land Service and leave the courts to focus on the judicial function. There is nothing novel in any of this. Exactly those reforms occurred in the High Court in the early 1980s, relieving the judges of the need to be responsible for every procedural step and letting them concentrate on judicial determination of disputes once they reached the courts, and leaving the parties to sort out a lot of things for themselves.

The current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was important because of its focus on land retention. It served an important purpose. But its over-reliance on oversight by the court has perpetuated a negative and unjustified perception that those Māori landowners who become actively involved with their land somehow cannot be trusted. And it has never addressed—it has never addressed—the fundamental policy issue that the law should recognise and provide for the mana and the tino rangatiratanga of Māori in relation to their lands rather than undermine those concepts.

So this is a very important reform. I am pleased that it—hopefully; assuming the votes go through—goes to the Māori Affairs Committee, because these are very important issues that we need to debate. This reform has been a long time coming. The process has been impeccable. There has been a glut of consultation. There are major issues that need to be looked at for the benefit of the Māori economy, and I must say I am so very disappointed that, whereas in 2008 and 2011 Labour was prepared to address this issue, the Labour Party in 2016 is adopting what can only be called a spiteful and pitiful approach to this legislation.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā rā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tuatahi, māku hei ‘hakapūaretia i aku kōrero e tautoko ana i ngā mihi ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, me te maumaharatia hoki taua kōrero, “rārangi maunga tuia Te Ao, tuia Te Pō, rārangi tangata, ka ngaro, ka ngaro, ka ngaro.” Nā reira, ko taua kōrero ka tū honohono i a tātou te hunga ora ki ō tātou whenua.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me in opening up my sentiments is to endorse the tributes accorded to those who have become immortalised as stars in the heavens, and for me as well to reflect upon that aphorism: “Mountains aligned bind the world and the void while people aligned will be gone, lost, and will vanish forever.” In like manner, that wise old saying is the element that will bond us, the living, to our lands.]

Therefore, I would just like to acknowledge, first of all, the acknowledgments that Te Ururoa Flavell made to our departed. He raised a whakataukī, and I also started off with another whakataukī that says: “A line of mountains will stand, day and night; a line of people will fall, will fall, will fall.” In that way, we acknowledge our connection, as those who are living, to the land.

As Meka Whaitiri has so eloquently said in her speech, the Labour Party is going to oppose this bill. Let me just say that we oppose it because somebody needs to speak for all of our constituents across Te Tai Tokerau, Meka Whaitiri’s constituents across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Peeni Henare’s constituents through Tāmaki Makaurau—many of whom are absent landowners—Nanaia Mahuta’s constituents through Waikato-Tainui, Adrian Rurawhe’s constituents through Te Tai Hauāuru, Rino Tirikatene’s constituents through Te Wai Pounamu, and even the Minister’s constituents through Waiariki.

I have seen, through a lot of the documentation, the claim that there has been broad-based support for this bill. There is broad-based support for this bill depending on who you are talking to in Māoridom. Let me tell you now about the consultation hui. There were 22 in February of this year, of which Labour had representation at 14. Let me tell you about the two that I attended, one in Kaikohe and one in Whangarei. The one in Kaikohe, there were about 100 people. I got there; the hui had already started, and all I saw was a line of officials talking at the people. The people around me did not know and did not understand what was being said. They could not comprehend it.

I believe that there were workshops where a 64-page document was handed over. This is separate from the consultation hui. The 64-page document did not include the 370-page bill, and I ask: how are the people of Tai Tokerau, of Tāmaki Makaurau, of Waiariki, of Te Wai Pounamu, of Tai Hauāuru—all our constituents—meant to understand what this bill means for them? They do not understand. They were spoken to—they were spoken at, I should say. And, of course, as could only happen in Ngāpuhi, the people who were there jumped up, criticising, yelling, shouting, and, basically, they told them—some guy behind me said “You can stick that bill where the sun doesn’t shine”. Of course, he was a ring-in from down south, because in Ngāpuhi we do not speak like that. But the reality is that is the extent of the feeling of the people in regard to this bill.

That afternoon I went down to Whangarei. The Minister turned up and he addressed the hui, and, I have to say, I rang him afterwards to say: “Good on you for turning up and fronting the bill.” The reality is the reaction at the Whangarei hui was no different to the reaction at the Kaikohe hui. There were about 120 people at the Whangarei hui and, again, there were motions from the floor asking for this bill to be thrown out, there were people jumping up and down—it was, basically, chaos. And those are the people—those are the people whom we are standing up and speaking for, who do not understand what this bill is going to do for them.

The thing is that the Minister has not articulated to them a case for change. He has not articulated it so that they understand what is going on. If a case for change is not articulated, how are people meant to understand whether it is good or bad for them? The way to do it would have been to go in, with the bill, and break the hui down into little groups and get people to explain. The way that the consultation hui were held was just one big forum, and people did not really have the opportunity to ask the in-depth questions and to get a personal reply. That is one of the things that needed to happen in order for people to understand exactly what is in this bill. But that did not happen.

How are people like forestry workers, freezing workers, linesmen, people working in The Warehouse and at Pak ’N Save, and beneficiaries meant to access a copy of this bill? How are they meant to spend time to try to go through it and engage with it, sit down with people and ask questions around it, and even just engage with their whānau? How are all the people up in Tai Tokerau meant to print out a copy of this bill and then pull it apart and really work out what it means? They did not have the opportunity, and having a bank of officials standing there, explaining why this is going to be so good for them, without them actually understanding how it is going to be good for them—or even if it is going to be good for them—just does not work. So we are standing up and we are talking for our constituents, the people who voted us in and whose voices we need to represent, and whose thoughts we need to reflect on this.

There has not been a case for change as to why the 1993 Act does not work because, as Meka Whaitiri said, there are any number of Māori trusts and incorporations that are doing perfectly fine. They are doing very well. We have got a $40 billion Māori economy under this Act, and all of these Māori trusts and incorporations that are doing really, really well. So if it is a matter of capacity and capability, why do we not address the capacity and capability? If it is a matter of leadership, why do we not address it? If it is a matter of governance, why do we not address it? Instead, we are changing this bill.

The Minister said that the bill requires a wholesale change—why could it not just be that the parts that needed to be amended be amended? Nobody is convinced—sorry, I should not say “nobody”. Those who are convinced that there is a need to change operate at that sort of Māori corporate level, but the people whom we represent, the vast majority of Māori, the broad base of Māoridom, the people at the bottom of the Māori pyramid—not the people at the top—do not understand what this bill is all about. They see it as a bit of a land grab—whether it is or not, that is how they see it. And that is why I say we are reflecting the voices of our people, because we mix with the people in the streets. The people in Kaitāia or Kerikeri, Kaeō, Kaikohe, Kaiwaka, Dargaville—

Pita Paraone: Mōtatau. Don’t forget Mōtatau.

KELVIN DAVIS: —they do not understand. The people of Mōtatau, they do not understand. If there were a handful of people from Mōtatau at the engagement hui—and Pita Paraone was at the engagement hui—would they understand? Are they any wiser after attending the consultation hui?

The Waitangi Tribunal came out with 16 recommendations. I have seen in here that five of those recommendations have been addressed. Māori have a lot of time for the Waitangi Tribunal; they have got a lot of respect for the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal does not always come out on the side of Māoridom, as we have seen recently with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, but Māori look forward to these recommendations and they would like to have seen these recommendations actually changed and enforced. But only five of them have had any changes made to them. It shows that the voices of the people are not actually being heard—not properly—and the real changes that people want to see have not been made.

As I say, there has not really been a case for change articulated. I disagree with the assertion that there is a broad base of support for this, because when we are talking to the people in our communities, out on the streets, they do not see the case. Therefore, I believe that this bill should not pass. I get the feeling that it will go on to select committee, and there I hope that everybody out there listening and watching who has concerns actually does submit and make the changes, so that it does meet their needs and that they can be satisfied that it is good for them and their whānau and their whenua. Kia ora.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā, mauri ora. Tēnei te mihi me te īnoi ki Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. [Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and good tidings to you. I wish and plead of this House, good tidings to you all.]

One of the most powerful concepts for Māori is tūrakawaewae. This is often translated as “a place to stand”. It highlights the fact that at the centre of our identity as Māori is our connection to the land. When the Europeans came to New Zealand, they viewed land as a commodity to be owned by people, and Māori viewed land as Papatūānuku, the mother who gives birth to all. Land provided an important economic base for Māori. It allowed them to provide all the resources they needed to feed and shelter their whānau. But land means much more than that to us. It is much deeper, culturally, and particularly within these connotations. Land represents our identity, our history, and our future.

Traditionally, Māori did not own plots of land. Rather, ownership rights of various kinds extended from the relationships between hapū and the resources of the land. The years since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 have seen huge and drastic changes to Māori land. We are all familiar with the massive alienation of land that occurred, with less than 5 percent of all land remaining in Māori hands by 1987. In fact, until 1993 Māori land law focused on providing a legal framework to transfer land out of Māori control. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act / Maori Land Act 1993 changed that, and put the focus on retention of Māori land. That Act also highlighted the importance of utilisation—how Māori land is used to maximise Māori economic development—but, actually, the focus of the law is on retention and on preventing any further alienation of land. That is what is being done under this Act.

Since 1993 we have seen a huge number of Treaty settlements progressed, mostly under the two National Governments to date. This has resulted in a great deal of land returning to Māori ownership—over 190,000 hectares by 2012, and largely under this present Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. There is now a need to update the legislative framework for Māori land and to correct the balance to bring a bigger focus on to the utilisation of Māori land. Retention is still important, but that is what we have seen already, and it has been done relatively well. It is the utilisation of our land where the current law has been letting us down. Many large areas of Māori land are underperforming because the current legislation does not give owners of that land the freedom or the decision-making powers they need to be able to use that land to its full potential.

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill has undergone a very extensive process before coming to this Parliament today. I want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who in 2012 put in place a panel to review Te Ture Whenua Maori Act / Maori Land Act 1993. I also acknowledge the members of this panel, consisting of Matanuku Mahuika, Dion Tuuta, Toko Kāpea, and Patsy Reddy, our Governor-General-in-waiting. I acknowledge the work of Te Puni Kōkiri, as well, and all of the other agencies, iwi, and hapū that have participated in the consultation process to date.

I want to particularly pay tribute to the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, the Minister for Māori Development. When I look at this Minister, I am reminded of Sir Apirana Ngata, another man who stood in this House as a leader amongst his people. In the same mould as Ngata, I believe that Te Ururoa Flavell will be remembered as a man of foresight, a man with the vision to see what could be achieved for Māori, and a man with the intelligence to choose the right solutions and the drive to carry them through. This bill may well go down in history as his greatest achievement. It is a groundbreaking piece of legislation with far-reaching effects on Māori well-being—on Māori well-being—in this country. At times the Minister has had to put up with a great deal of nasty stuff from our own people—from those who have perhaps not understood the great strengths this bill will bring to our people. Through it all he has captained this waka to this point, and I look forward to working with him to see this bill through the rest of the process.

As the two Ministers have already outlined, this bill has the potential to provide massive benefits to Māori, unlocking the commercial value of so much underutilised land. I hope that this House can be united in our desire to reform Māori land law for the benefit of Māori and of New Zealand. The Māori Affairs Committee looks forward to working on this legislation with our usual principled and pragmatic demur. As the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and also Meka Whaitiri, said: “Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua.” [The land remains while the people have disappeared.] I also say, with regard to the Minister, that this one is for the Minister: “He tuka mata anō tō te taoka.” [Fortune as well favours the brave.] On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri noa ki tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Yes, Māori have always known that whenua literally is life. Whenua is also placenta. “Whenua” is the word for land and is also the word for placenta. When Māori babies are born—indeed, when all of my babies were born—we return the whenua to the whenua, such is the inherent link that we maintain through whakapapa, through wairua, through tūpuna, and through rangatira. Whenua absolutely is our taonga tuku iho.

So this bill is incredibly important, then. Any law regarding ture whenua, any law regarding whenua Māori, is incredibly important—too important to get any part of it wrong. Māori land and the rules that govern it are too important to get wrong, and, for a long time, the Green Party has also acknowledged that we have had problems, starting right back with our land. Starting right back with the huge amount—we lost nearly all of it through confiscation, through straight-out theft, through administrative means, and through law. So it should come as no surprise, then, to this House that there is also widespread concern from Māori about ture whenua law. That should come as no surprise.

I do acknowledge Minister Finlayson getting quite upset over any opposition. Why? Why is he upset that there are any concerns about this law? Regardless of whether they come from the Opposition—but, actually, they are also coming from our ordinary Māori. Why should we be surprised at that? For far too long we have been done over in our whenua by many means—by straight-up theft and by administrative and legal means—so we have to take concerns seriously and not dismiss them as party politics and not dismiss them as raging up conspiracy theories. We cannot do that to our people. We cannot do that to our people, and for that reason the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. We are opposing its referral to a select committee. I stand here strongly, as our Māori development spokesperson, to talk about us opposing this bill’s referral to a select committee.

I want to talk about the opposition again. Yes, the Waitangi Tribunal itself did not consider the consultation efficient enough. I just want to stop there. The indicator of good consultation should have nothing to do with how many meetings were held there and for how long. The indicator of proper consultation is whether or not our Māori have broadly and collectively understood absolutely what is going on with reform. That is the measure of proper consultation.

Again, I do not want to be told about how many meetings were held, where, and how long we have had to look at a piece of legislation. I want to hear that Māori have broadly and collectively understood what is being proposed for our land—for our precious last bit of land that is left. For that reason, again, we cannot support this bill to the select committee. Yes, the point of these reforms was that they were supposed to address the underutilisation of Māori land. Again, the Waitangi Tribunal even agreed there has not been the proper research—the research by observation and experience to determine exactly what the barriers are to land use. That research was not done. Why would we rush ahead with reforms when we are not clear what the very barriers to land use actually are? And not just research, but research by observation and experience to tell us what those barriers are.

We know very well what one of the main barriers is. It is development funding. It is development funding. The amount of development funding currently proposed in this reform, as my Labour colleague Kelvin Davis said, is a packet of corn seeds for each hectare or so. The Green Party has policies that are simple and clear and address this part of the underutilisation of land. That is actually a simple reform—just that alone. Just investing in development funding alone would remove a barrier, without this controversial reform that is before us in the House right now.

There are clear principles the Green Party agree need to be upheld as we take any land reform law forward. It absolutely needs to be driven by Māori. I agree with the tribunal that it was not the Crown driving all of this change, but it certainly was not all Māori driving this change. I think we need to be very clear about that. The tribunal has even said and agreed this is not solely being driven collectively by Māori. That, in itself, should put the brakes on any reform. There is a whakapapa. Yes, Māori have long been demanding an easing up of admin for our land use and so forth, so that we can retain mana motuhake over what we do—absolutely. But the whakapapa of that starts to get a little bit muddy when we see at some point the Crown started having too much to do in there about driving those reforms.

I want to know, I want to be guaranteed, that when Māori way back were asking for reforms, that was not then picked up and exploited by the Crown to drive some changes, saying: “Oh look, Māori are wanting changes. Let’s do this as well.” I want to be guaranteed that is not what is happening. Not even the tribunal is clear that it is not. It needs to be solely driven by Māori.

I have got concerns, but one of the other concerns I wanted to raise today is the Māori Land Service. It is a critical aspect of this reform, but it is not included in the bill. The details of it are unclear. How can we put something before the House—something as critical as the Māori Land Service—when we know too little about it? The Green Party agrees with the Waitangi Tribunal that we cannot advance any law reform while something so critical to the running of this legislation has details that are unclear. The work on this has not been done yet, and that is clear. The Green Party cannot support this reform in light of such a critical aspect of the bill being yet to be done.

Again, the Green Party policies absolutely uphold the vision for Māori to maintain mana motuhake over our land. It needs to be driven by Māori, and the concerns need to be taken seriously. We have a right to be concerned about any law reform. We have historically been validated in our concerns about any law reform. So yes, mana motuhake for Māori land; not this bill at this stage. Thank you. Kia ora.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā hoki tātou o Te Whare nei. Ēngari te mea tuatahi, e kara, e Te Minita, kei te tautoko au i ngā mihi i mihingia e koe ki tēnā o ngā hunga i ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi i te rā nei. E tika ana kia mihi tonu ki a rātou, nā reira, kua ea, ka hoki mai ki a tātou ngā mahuetanga ō rātou mā, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us also in this House. But the first thing is to say to you fellow colleague and Minister for Māori Development that I endorse the tributes you accorded to that one of those who is lost from our view today. It is fitting that our tributes to them continue to be accorded, and in like manner that has been satisfied. And so we come back to us, the ones left behind by them. Therefore, I acknowledge, commend, and greet each of you collectively]

I stand on behalf of the New Zealand First Party to participate in this debate and to express a number of views that we hold in relation to this proposed legislation. One of the questions I want to ask is why it has been so important for the Minister for Māori Development to introduce this piece of legislation—as Minister Finlayson said, it is a fundamental land law reform—in such haste, given the number of our people who have expressed concerns about the introduction of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Although we might support the intention of this bill, i.e. to ensure the retention of the bill and to develop Māori land—the Minister made the comment that under this bill no land will be lost; no further land will be lost—I would like to ask the Minister, how much land was lost as a result of the present legislation?

Marama Fox: Much, much.

PITA PARAONE: No, no. You have got to be clear about this. OK, there was Māori land lost, but was it as a result of the present legislation?

Marama Fox: Yes.

PITA PARAONE: If you have got examples as to the reason for that, as a consequence of this present legislation, then why do you not just amend that part of the legislation?

Marama Fox: We have.

PITA PARAONE: But no, you have gone and introduced a new bill, and it is new, given that there are a number of concerns that certainly are not in the present bill, like tikanga Māori. We make reference to tikanga Māori, but this is one bill that does not include tikanga Māori in the interpretation. I wonder why.

Marama Fox: It’s in there.

PITA PARAONE: No, it is not in there.

Marama Fox: It’s in the first clause.

PITA PARAONE: You tell me what clause.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: I’ll go and get it for you.

PITA PARAONE: I will stand corrected if it is there. I could not find it. But anyway, that aside, if that is to be an important element of this bill, the question is how that will be ruled upon by both the Māori Land Court and the proposed entity that is yet to be established. I would suggest to this House that much of the intention that this present bill has can be done within the ambit of the present Act. I can recall when I worked in the Māori Land Court, and I am sure that there are very few people in this House who can make that claim, we were able to do things like help families deal with their succession—how they wanted their tūpuna’s land to be distributed amongst their whānau. So why do we have to introduce a new bill to establish a new entity to do all that?

The problem is that over the years the Government has not supported the Māori Land Court. It has not given the Māori Land Court the resources it has needed over the years to do the very thing that the Minister is wanting from this bill. And to be excited about a fund of $12.4 million over—how many years?

Meka Whaitiri: 4 years—peanuts.

PITA PARAONE: It does not make much money available for development, and in the north a lot of land is landlocked because of the geography of it—because of the size of those blocks—and, more importantly, because of the wish of the owners. They want to retain the land as it is. And I can recall a time when Māori owners were asked to clear their land of scrub—of mānuka, of tea-tree. Is it not ironic that today, in this day and age, economics are telling us to grow mānuka because honey is such an important commodity wanted by the world?

I am suggesting to the Minister that he should pull back this bill, like he did with his former colleague’s Te Reo bill—put it on hold—and then go back to our people.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: We’ve done that.

PITA PARAONE: Well, I do not know. In the north—Mr Davis made a comment about the hui that we attended, and quite clearly the people who attended those meetings were not happy and asked that consideration be given to putting this bill on hold.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: I went to Kaitāia, and they said it was all right.

PITA PARAONE: Ah! Yes, I wanted to make reference to that Kaitāia hui. The other hui in the north were all held at night-time so those who work—and in the north there are very few of my relations who do work—were able to attend and to express their opposition to the bill. But the Minister went to Kaitāia, and only because the people of the north said that they should have a meeting in Kaitāia because it was not planned originally. The Minister turned up, and all our kaumātua turned up as well, because it was held during the day. It was too cold at night. All the kaumātua turned up, as well as some young people. Some young people wanted to object, but under the tikanga, their kaumātua told them to sit down, and now the Minister has come away from that hui with the impression that the people in Te Aupōuri, in Muriwhenua actually support the bill, and, in fact, they do not. And so, Minister, I would ask you to seriously consider pulling this bill back and having a look at it, because at the end of the day, if you do not have the people with you, then we will be back in this House asking for amendments to the legislation.

Again, I ask the question: why the rush? All of this is against the objection of many Māori, particularly in the north. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was a major piece of legislation affecting Māori and their land. As the Minister said, the Act is not perfect, and so we had amendments to address that issue, but what the Minister is saying about this bill is that it is better, not easier. And I would suggest to him that time will show that this bill is not the bill that he envisaged. Quite clearly, the people who know about this bill are those who are operating in that corporate area. But the Joes, the Hōhepas, and the Heenis of Māoridom do not know the actual content and the implications that it will have on them and in terms of their ownership of their land—what this bill will have on that. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. Kia ora.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, nei te mihi atu ki a koe, otirā, ki Te Whare! [Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and, at the same time, to the House.] I rise to support the sentiments of my co-leader, the honourable Minister for Māori Development, Te Ururoa Flavell. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill provides the platform for Māori landowners to assert rangatiratanga over their whenua if they so choose. This bill shows that this party, the Māori Party, and this Government, in support of this party, have faith in our people—that they can be the determinants of their own destiny—by providing them with a vehicle by which to do that.

Yes, this bill will not answer all the issues of landlocked land, of ratings, of paper roads, but it is the vehicle and the catalyst by which we will do that in the supporting work programme. Now, the members of the Opposition know that, and yet they still choose to pull out the stick with which to whip us about in order to politicise this argument. I say that this argument is far too important for politicising and game playing. Yes, we can be concerned that we do it right, which is exactly—exactly—why you put out an exposure draft.

What other piece of legislation in this country in recent history—or if ever; I am not sure that I know of one—has had an exposure draft; puts out a draft piece of legislation and says “Here, pick it apart. Tell us what is wrong with it so that we can make the necessary changes to put it back into the House.”, and then, again, have further consultation through submissions? We welcome those submissions, as we welcomed the submissions previously that have helped refine this bill to the point that we have it at today.

This is about mana motuhake. It is about putting the power back in the hands of the people and not having a Government whip them into shape the way we whip up the conspiracy that goes on around the place—that, oh my goodness, we are doing this just so that foreign corporates can come and take our land. Why? Why would we do that? What foolish party would ever put its hand up and do that? And yet that is the very argument that has been purported by people who say we should not be politicising it, that we should not be talking about conspiracy theories, and who actually stood up and said the Māori Party was doing this to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Well, that is a load of hogwash if ever I heard it. But let us not get too defensive, because, actually, there are fantastic things in this bill. This bill is going to help realise the dreams and aspirations of our tūpuna—our ancestors—so that we can realise potential for our people to assert their aspirations in this country. The principles in the foundation of the new bill—mana motuhake, taonga tuku iho, and whakawhanake; this bill is supported by those things.

And here are some principles—six important principles. Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa. No one is taking that away. No one is trying to overturn that. We are upholding that. Tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land, and yet we debate and argue about how we are going to determine whether tikanga Māori can be adjudicated in a court of law. Well, I say: “Who cares, actually?”. Because it is about time that tikanga Māori did lead our law. It is about time we challenged the very nature of this Government through our tikanga, and not be apologetic for doing so, but find a new way. So have some faith in yourselves, people. That is what this bill is about.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land. Māori landowners have the right to decide how their land is used. Māori landowners have the right to take advantage of opportunities to develop their land for the benefit of present and future generations of owners and their whānau and their hapū, and that is a good thing. We should celebrate that. This last principle is that disputes involving Māori land should be managed in a manner that maintains and enhances relationships between the owners and the members of whānau and hapū. And this is what this bill endeavours to do.

Our people have mourned the loss of their land. Our people cry over the loss of their land. And, yes, I have been in those hui where our people have come in and told us story after story after story of how they have been disenfranchised from their land, but that did not happen under this new bill; that happened under the previous legislation, and that is why we are trying to change it. Actually, the very honourable Koro Wētere tried twice to change this legislation. My very own whanaunga Ben Couch tried to change this legislation, but the leadership at the time would not allow him to do it. Finally, we have a party with an independent voice and the guts enough to try to make the changes necessary so that our whānau can have real rangatiratanga realised through this bill. It is a vehicle. It is the beginning; it is not the end.

Now let us take a little walk down history lane. The first hui to discuss the changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was held with a wānanga of kaumātua in 1999—1999. Have we rushed into this process? I say no. That hui was attended by Annette Sykes, Api Mahuika, Ben Hona, Bishop Muru Walters, George Thomas, Harry Satchell, Sir Hugh Kāwharu, Joe Rua, Koa Murdock, Mārama Henry, Matiu Wiki, Mauriora Kīngi, Mike Smith, Naka Taiora, Piri Sciascia, Rangi Manuel, Rākihia Tau, Rikirangi Gage, Ruka Broughton Jr, Te Auē Davis, Toko Rēnata, Topsy Rātahi, Toro Waaka, and William Blake. That is a pretty awesome line-up.

I am going to quote verbatim the things that they said, for the benefit of this House. These are the things that they expressed 20 years ago: “In reclaiming the Māori land tenure system, it was recognised that the autonomy of whānau, hapū, and iwi must be respected. It is for those communities to decide for themselves how they will operate, and by what means they will control the development strategies for their land use.” As one speaker stated: “Waiho mā ngā ariki o ngā whenua hei kōrero mō taua whenua.” [Why not leave it to the aristocrats of the lands, for them to speak on our behalf about the lands that belong to you and me.]

“The recent trends of iwi to legislate their constitutions were considered to be attempts to have their mana over their taonga tuku iho recognised and enforced. It was felt that these attempted to ensure whānau, hapū, and iwi carry out their role as kaitiaki, and to ensure that this would override Pākehā law.”—I am still quoting. These are not my words, these are not Te Ururoa’s words, these are the words of our old people, who gathered to tell us what they wanted to be done with Te Ture Whenua.

Meka Whaitiri: That’s an old trick.

MARAMA FOX: It goes on. Should we dismiss them because they are old? I think not. “It was also considered that the Māori Land Court should recognise the mana of descent and kinship groups over their taonga tuku iho. Accordingly, the role of the court should be reduced in direct correlation to the strengthening and development of mechanisms to reconstruct a Māori land tenure system.” Not my words, not the words of Mr Flavell, but the words of our old people 20 years ago. We have debated, from that day to this, the changes that we propose under Te Ture Whenua.

Find a new stick, because this is too important for the politicising and game playing. Our people’s lives depend on whether or not we can support them into jobs, into employment, to pull ourselves out of poverty, to pull ourselves out of hardship, so that we are not co-dependent on this Government, but independent of it. And Ture Whenua land reforms are a vehicle only, and it is the beginning. Reading No. 1—you have still got 6 months, submissions, and the Māori Affairs Committee to pull it apart and make sure that it is the robust document that will help provide that future for our people. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Ko Rangi-nui kei runga, ko Papatūānuku kei raro, ko ngā tāngata kei waenganui; tīhei mauri ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Rangi-nui is above, Papatūānuku is below, and mankind is in between; behold the breath of life, acknowledgments, salutations, and greetings to you all.]

I rise to take the second call—a short call—for the Greens on this, the first reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I do that in the knowledge that we will be opposing this bill. The reasons for this were outlined in detail by our first speaker, Marama Davidson, but it is also because it breaches the very charter that the Green Party is founded on.

The opening comments in the charter of the Green Party say that “The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand; recognises Maori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand;”, and then it goes on to commit us to four principles. The third principle is around appropriate decision-making. Our charter says that “For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.”

The process that has happened to bring this bill to the House, we believe, does not meet our standards of appropriate decision-making, and we certainly would not want to see it continue through the legislative process. The second point is that we believe that this bill has the potential to create the kind of errors we have seen in the past from the Crown, where the Crown deliberately set up legislation that breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations’ address earlier today he stated that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act desperately needs reform. We are not necessarily opposed to reform in the right circumstances. He also outlined that over the last 100 years there has been something like 180 different pieces of legislation dealing with Māori land. Most of those, I would add—nearly all of them—were about alienating Māori from their land. It was not until the first Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, came into being that it actually put at its heart the retention of Māori land by Māori. So if we are going to, as a Parliament, reform this bill, then we need to look very, very, very carefully at how we do that before we even start.

The Greens agree with the report from the Waitangi Tribunal and with the concerns that it raised. Some of those concerns were around the fact that the consultation process has not been big enough or wide enough or sure enough to enable Māori to build support for this bill. We will not support this bill through the legislative process when it is not supported by Māori, because that goes right against appropriate decision-making principles, as outlined in our charter.

We are concerned that the governance of Māori land should be driven by Māori, not by the Crown. There is an unseemly haste to pursue this reform, when we still do not actually know—and the Waitangi Tribunal outlined it itself—what the barriers are to utilisation and economic development; what the barriers are with the current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. We believe there should be a slower process taken, and that there should be proper consultation; not consultation on the hoof, as happened with a shifting meal at every meeting, where different drafts appeared—in fact, where drafts of this appeared, which could not even be understood or digested at the time when the consultation was supposed to be taking place. So for these reasons we urge the Minister for Māori Development to pull this bill back and to think again, because we will be opposing it.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Labour makes no apologies for opposing the first reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill because it deserves to be put under a bright red-line test, which Labour believes is necessary: (1) to ensure that the protection of whenua is at the heart of the bill, and (2) to ensure that owners, big or small, no matter where they are throughout the country, have their interests protected. And we will be vociferous in our attention to the detail. We could get carried away on the emotions, but we will not, because owners deserve a thorough look at the detail of this particular bill, which we believe actually challenges some of the fundamental aspects of what Māori believe the protection of land is all about.

Let me just point to a couple of things. There is a subtle change in language. In the bill that is being proposed there is a great emphasis on retention and utilisation. However, at the heart of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 the presumption was around protection, albeit with a heavily framed role for the Māori Land Court, but the presumption was about protection—two very different meanings, if you care to look at the dictionary. We will be testing officials on this matter.

We also believe that certain questions should be asked. Are the provisions of the bill weighted in favour of protection to ensure that disposition, or sale, or, you know, loss of land will not occur? If I was to take on board Marama Fox’s contribution, it is absolutely not going to happen. Yet clause 140, which deals with disposition, actually allows land to go to an engaged recipient or a governance body—no mention of whakapapa. So we will put a brightline test on those types of positions.

The other areas where we have concerns are on decision-making thresholds and participation of owners. We would like to know whether there is an ability, all through the process, to re-enfranchise owners who may have previously been cut out of a process as promoted in the bill. It deserves attention, because if we absolutely believe that our Māori connection to our whakapapa and to our whenua is fundamental to who we are—our sense of identity—then it deserves questions, and we will ask them. We are not afraid to be challenged on that.

We will also say “Be careful what you wish for”, because this is a diminishing of the role of the Māori Land Court. Yes, it is re-engaging owners to make decisions, but we would like to know whether or not this is just a kick and a flick to the Māori Land Court and its role, because it has built a judicial body of knowledge that is very helpful, and which many people have to look to in terms of building a case to make their connections in terms of succession to land ownership and the like.

I do want to comment briefly on the points made by Meka Whaitiri. There are a number of issues that are not addressed by the bill. The select committee will give due attention to that because if we are looking at fundamental barriers to utilisation, rating and valuation of Māori land is absolutely necessary. Without a word of a doubt I have to follow the lead of my colleagues Meka, Kelvin, and Peeni because the great majority of interests affected by this bill are in their electorates. So we need to be sure and robust and give the absolute confidence to owners in terms of whether or not this bill actually achieves what it says it is going to. We have questions. We are not convinced. We do not believe it should pass the first test. We were concerned at the exposure draft, and some of the omissions noted along the way, as a result of consultation and concerns from people, started to get slotted in.

This bill deserves a whole heap of attention. It has undergone a number of iterations. The speaker for New Zealand First Pita Paraone made the comment around the reference to tikanga but no particular definition. I had another look at the bill as well. I could not see the definition in the interpretation clause. Again, it is a simple point made by a colleague, but it deserves to be addressed because, again, whether or not you would define tikanga and have it within the context of a bill is a question that deserves the attention of the select committee.

We will not be criticised for politicising this issue, because if members of the Māori Party wanted this issue to be totally non-partisan, they would have consulted with all parties in the House prior to the exposure draft going out for consultation, and they did not. They are politicising this issue; they are making this a wedge issue for Māori. We have demonstrated that we have been constructive through Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori. We will not be criticised for being political on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill—it is far too important an issue. Owners deserve better answers than what they are getting from the Māori Party.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand to support this bill, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Te toto o te tangata he kai, te oranga o te tangata he whenua. [The blood of man is sustenance, the welfare of man is land.]

The lifeblood of a person is food; the livelihood of a people depends on the land. For me, this sums up Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill as outlined by the Minister for Māori Development in his speech today. He said that to Māori land is everything. It is land that identifies us as Māori. The mountains, the rivers, lakes, and ocean coasts, the forests are all our landmarks—landmarks of the origins of Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. These can be heard in our mihi, in our tauparapara, along with our linkages to our tupuna.

Since the original Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was enacted much has happened—we know this. Much has happened in this House. There are a number of Treaty settlements that have gone through. There are the many, many debates that have gone on in this House, and people have come in from various iwi. They have come in, and our whole process for Māori land has moved on. So too must an Act—one that will reflect that; a more robust Act that brings into it the various changes that have happened over time.

But I have heard in my office the various dissentions around why this bill should not go ahead. We hear this from the benches on the opposite side opposing the bill. Some say that we are not ready. Some say that they do not like what is in it. That is what this whole process is about. This is about putting this bill here, passing it through its first reading, and bringing it into the select committee for the provision of submissions.

I have listened to the many contributions tonight around the role of the Māori Land Court. My experience with the Māori Land Court was not a good one. I went with an iwi so they could put forward a proposal that they actually decided, as an iwi, to do with some Māori land. It was to do with the establishment of an education institution, and they were stopped from doing that. It was through the Māori Land Court process that they were stopped from doing that. Today that building sits idle and decrepit. Nobody is looking after that building because the iwi cannot get to it. The bill that is going through its first reading today will actually help to resolve that for that particular iwi, as the Māori Land Court moves into a different phase of its role, and the Māori Land Service comes into being. This must be—it has to be—some relief for Māori landowners who have spent much of their time in the Māori Land Court fighting to utilise their land.

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I do look forward to the many submissions on this bill, from the many who attended those 70-odd hui. The Minister, through his hard work and his diligence, helped to make sure that we had as much input from whānau and hapū and iwi out there in our rohe throughout the country. It will be during this time, when the submissions come to us and the many concerns are brought to us, that the robust debate will be laid out in print for all of us to see. This will be the time—if the Opposition wants to put a “red line”, or whatever it is, test on it, that is the time. I am pleased to stand here to support our Minister. He has done an amazing job.

Ko au te whenua, ko te whenua ko au. [I am the land, and the land is me.] I commend the bill to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. E tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi kua tukuna ki te marea ka tau mai ki roto i te kaupapa o te pō nei. Ka tautoko anō hoki i ngā mihi ki ō tātou tini aituā, ngā mate huhua o te wā kua ngaro atu ki runga i ngā marae maha puta noa i Te Motu whānui. Kāti te wāhanga ki a au. Ki te pō haere mai, haere, ao ake ki a tātou e te hunga ora, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us all in the House. I endorse the welcome tributes accorded to the public who have arrived here to be among the matter at hand this evening. And, furthermore, I support the condolences extended on our myriads of mishaps and the very many deaths of the moment that have occurred on marae throughout the broad expanse of the country. But enough in terms of that from me. I bid welcome and farewell to the night, then, on the day that follows, cast my gaze upon us, the living, to acknowledge us all.]

Thank you for allowing me this contribution on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I want to begin by addressing some of the claims made by Minister Finlayson towards me. I want to start that by saying a classic Ngāpuhi whakataukī, which goes like this: He karoro ka tau ki te toka, ka tiko, ka rere! [A seagull lands on the rock, defecates, and flies away!]

I am sure, as you grab your earpiece, it might be able to translate that for you. But that member said that he has done more than I have in the north. If I had the time, I would regale this House with 126 generations of my people, back from the beginning of time to myself, and the jobs we have done to protect our whenua, the job we have done to protect our culture, and the job we have done to protect our taonga. I stand here today as an embodiment of the 126 generations of my tūpuna from Te Tai Tokerau, representing them here on this important take. I am not one who gets too angry, but I just want to address that fact.

To the bill: we on this side of the House will not be supporting the bill. I echo the sentiments of my colleagues here on this side and want to, in my contribution, reiterate some of the points they have made and discuss some of the ideas and thoughts that I have on this particular bill. I want to start by talking about the Treaty settlements, just briefly. This House is constantly told about the efforts of this Government to settle Treaty grievances. I want to quote Sir Tīpene O’Regan, one of the grandfathers of the early Treaty settlement processes—alongside the father of my esteemed colleague here, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—who said: “settlement on a basis of need rather than of right is almost certainly contrary to the Treaty itself, and is a concept that will eventually suffer review in the High Court.” I am afraid to say that this particular piece of legislation will suffer the same fate. We will see it being dragged through the High Court.

When we think of the judicial systems that will be there to adjudicate over such a piece of legislation, I want to acknowledge and address the words of tikanga that are found in this piece of legislation. Why should we leave the court to adjudicate our customs and our tikanga? You enter into a grey area when you start allowing a Pākehā construct to do that for us as Māori. No court will tell me on my marae what my tikanga is. No court will adjudicate over my ability to govern and to maintain my whenua.

I am reminded the efforts of my ancestor, a part of the 126 generations I have mentioned here, a man by the name of Te Kuhanga, who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. He later adopted the name Maihi Paraone Kawiti—the son of Kawiti. He was responsible within Ngāti Hine for establishing what is now known as Te Porowini, or the province of Ngāti Hine. What he did over 2 years, from 1875 to 1877, was consult with the people through numerous hui in Waiōmio, the mid-north. What he did was he gained the consensus of the people who lived on the land within the province of Ngāti Hine. He wrote a book that is known as Te Papa Toku o Ngāti Hine—the lands of Ngāti Hine, the ancestral lands given to him to care for, the ancestral lands that are now given to me and the members of Ngāti Hine to care for.

I want to talk briefly about the papatupu. The papatupu was put in place to protect the land. At the time, you will appreciate, a lot of land was lost, in part due to the pieces of legislation mentioned by Minister Finlayson. I want to acknowledge his efforts, and I want to make a commitment to him that that will not happen under my watch. As an administrator of land in Ngāti Hine this very day, I with my tuakana, member of Parliament Pita Paraone, are responsible for the administration of approximately 5,000 hectares of Māori land. We have dealt with the Māori Land Court—we have worked with it, we have argued with it and debated with it, and I have said in this House time and time again that we must ensure it gets the resources it needs to fulfil its job.

I am afraid this piece of legislation, and in particular the establishment of the Māori Land Service, will merely put the cart before the horse. What it will do is set up another process that will look at issues such as succession—succession of shares, succession of land. Running a parallel course to the Māori Land Service is everything else that the Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill that is being proposed today will bring. I do not believe that that is a strong, robust process. I believe we must fix those injustices of the past. I believe we must review the Māori Land Court. I believe we must resource the Māori Land Court to do the functions that it already currently does and does well. The deficit thinking of this arrogant Government is that there is far too much idle Māori land out there. I can tell you, as an administrator of Māori land, that our land is hugely productive. We have worked very hard over the past 40 years to make it that way. Is it perfect? No. Is it productive? Hell, yes.

This particular kaupapa, this particular bill, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, is something that gets us all passionate. We have heard the whakataukī, we have heard the expressions in this House about how important land is to us. Well, just as important is that we get it right. We must get it right.

Marama Fox: We offered to work together and you rejected it.

PEENI HENARE: We hear the member now spouting that we must work together. My colleague here, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has already stated that if this was done correctly at the beginning to gain full consensus of our people, we would not be voting against this. But here we are—but here we are. We are arguing and debating over this particular bill. We know that it will be going to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I say to members of that committee, of which I am a part-time member, depending on what food is being served at that meeting—I want to say kia mataara, kia mataara, kia mataara. Why? Because we on this side of the House will be challenging this bill. We will be picking it apart to make sure that the lines are drawn very clearly, that there is no grey area between tikanga l-a-w and l-o-r-e, because in those nuances land has been lost, and we will not see that happen again.

In conclusion, I want to endorse the words of my colleagues on this side of the House and implore the Minister for Māori Development to withdraw this bill to allow our people to digest it properly, to allow them to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. If we can wait nearly 200 years for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, I will tell you what, my tamariki and my mokopuna will be ready to do the same with Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I want the Minister to acknowledge the over 5,500 people who signed a petition asking this Minister to withdraw this bill to allow our people time. I can say to this Minister that 5,500 signatures on this petition are more than those who showed up to the hui over the past 5 years. We want their voices to be heard. We want their voices to be heard throughout this entire process, and you can bet your bottom dollar that we on this side of the House will be challenging this process all the way through. Kāti ki a tātau, tēnā tātau.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to take a short call on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I would like to commend the Minister for Māori Development and the officials for getting the bill here to this first stage.

I would like to contest what I have heard from those across the House today—that there is not a groundswell of support for this bill. I would reference Northland, Tai Tokerau, which is one of the regions most clearly set to benefit from these reforms. Let us test that support with statements from leadership in Northland. Far North District Council Mayor, John Carter, talking about the bill says this: “We have a whole lot of underutilised asset that is a liability for the owners, that is a liability for the community, and a liability for the community. … There are no losers. It’s all on the up and up, it’s great.” The chair of the Northland Regional Council Tai Tokerau Māori advisory committee is quoted as saying this: “This—[review of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act] coupled with ratings improvements—could provide significant economic benefits to both landowners and local authorities in regions like Northland.”

The Whangarei District Council, in its submission to the bill, made mention of the fact that 5 percent of its land is applicable to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—868 individual parcels with an average size of 16.76 hectares. Its summary was: “Council acknowledges the importance of Māori land for the wellbeing of not only our Māori population, but the general population … As such Council is supportive of the intent of the TTWM Bill, which generally appears to support the retention and use of Māori land by its owners, empower Māori land owners to pursue their aspirations for their land and enable Māori …”.

To be fair, the council did have other parts it put to that bill. It was interested in crossover legislation, how it interacts with the Resource Management Act, and it was also interested in the Māori Land Service. But across Northland I believe there is a groundswell of support. That is what I am hearing and I commend the Minister and this bill to the House. Kia ora koutou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

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

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of the Government’s programme of improving the quality of our older building stock. It is about making our homes warmer, our homes healthier, and it is about saving lives.

Just last night Parliament passed the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, by 120 votes to one, to upgrade our buildings in respect of earthquake risk—legislation that is expected to save the lives of 300 New Zealanders over the course of the next century. This bill too is about improving New Zealand’s building stock, but is focused on our rental properties.

The first important change is the requirement for smoke alarms to be in all of our rental properties by 1 July this year. Seventy-five percent of fatal fires are in properties without a smoke alarm and most of those are rental properties. We currently are going into winter, with 120,000 properties that are without a smoke alarm. It is estimated that the provisions in this bill will save three lives a year. That is about the same as the earthquake-prone buildings legislation, although it is interesting to note that where that legislation will cost $800 million, this bill is expected to cost only $4 million—emphasising just what a no-brainer smoke alarms are in our homes. It comes with a cost benefit of over $17 for each dollar of cost.

The regulations to implement the smoke alarm requirement have been consulted on and are in the public arena. We are requiring all smoke alarms—the new ones—both where homes do not have them or where they are replacing existing smoke alarms, to be the new, long-life, 10-year smoke alarms, because there have been too many tragedies where batteries have not been replaced, with a consequent loss of life. We are requiring in those regulations that those smoke alarms be installed to the manufacturer’s requirements. We are requiring that the smoke alarms cover the different floors of houses, that they cover sleepouts, that they cover caravans, and that they require the spread through a home to be able to provide that protection. I would be very surprised if there was a single member of this House who would question that very practical requirement.

The second very important change is in respect of the insulation of houses and it needs to be seen in the context of how progressive our Government has been in making progress on this issue. The first thing we did when we came into Government was say that a Government needs to get its own house in order. We had 30,000 State houses that were not insulated, and in our first term we got on and got those insulated. The biggest single item of new Government expenditure in the term of this Government has been the hundreds of millions of dollars that we put into the Warm Up New Zealand programme of providing a subsidy to insulate houses, and I acknowledge the Green Party’s support for that programme. We have done 290,000 houses with those subsidies.

The next step addressed in this bill is a compulsory requirement for landlords to insulate those 180,000 homes that are not insulated. The combination of these initiatives comes to a total of over 500,000 homes. I do find a bit rich the comments from the likes of Mr Twyford that these measures are inadequate and too little, too late, when—let me compare the numbers. They are 500,000 homes insulated in programmes by this Government, and fewer than 50,000 under the previous 9 years of the last Labour Government—that is, this Government is doing 10 times as much in terms of getting our homes insulated, and those benefits are coming through. This bill requires all social housing—that is, where the Government is paying a high level of subsidy—to have these insulation requirements in place by 1 July this year, and it requires them to all be done by 1 July 2019.

I do find it ironic that only last week we debated a member’s bill from Mr Little. That member’s bill has a timetable that is 4 years slower than the requirement for homes to be insulated under this bill. There is a debate about the insulation standard and some misinformation, and I want to make it absolutely clear, because we have published and consulted on the regulations to support this law about the level of insulation, that every new home has to be insulated to the 2008 standard. Any home without insulation has to be insulated to the 2008 standard. Any home that is insulated but the insulation is no longer in a fit state has to be upgraded to the 2008 standard.

The debate is on those properties, the hundreds of thousands of properties that were built after 1978 that have insulation and it is in reasonable condition—should they have to upgrade to the 2008 standard? I want to put forward a logical case as to why that is not included in the bill. Firstly, it is this: delivering on having 180,000 homes insulated requires 60,000 per year. The advice from the insulation industry is that it is going to push them to limit to get that job done by 1 July 2019. Secondly—and let me specifically give you the numbers—a home insulated to the 1978 standard has an 84 percent reduction in heat loss, to the 2001 standard it is 87 percent, and to the 2008 standard it is 92 percent. In other words, when we take an uninsulated home and we insulate it, we get a 92 percent reduction in heat loss—a massive gain. Actually, requiring a home that was built in 2007 to be insulated gains only an extra 5 percent reduction in heat loss, and the cost-benefit analysis is absolutely clear that it does not stack up.

Members on this side of the House do not live in that world where, when we impose costs on a sector—whether it is the rental sector or any other—it is a free good, because it is not. It is a cost that is passed on. If we pass on costs, particularly to those who are families struggling with the rental cost, then we are passing that cost on in rentals. So it is absolutely proper that when making these regulatory decisions we do look at the cost-benefit analysis, and, frankly, requiring every home to be upgraded today to the 2008 standard does not stack up in a cost-benefit analysis. Actually, we are imposing more costs than benefits.

I would also point out to members opposite that this Government is also requiring, from 1 July this year, a disclosure requirement in every tenancy agreement around the level of insulation that is in the walls, in the ceiling, and under the floor, because it is our view that the rental market will function better as a consequence of having this level of insulation there.

The last point I want to make on this bill is about the three extra requirements that we are making in residential tenancies. The first of those is in respect of giving my ministry the practical powers to be able to enforce the existing standards. One of the nonsenses in this debate around levels of dampness, issues of ventilation, and the safety of electrical, plumbing, and other fittings is that all of those are currently covered—including heating—in the existing regulations. The issue is not the regulations; the issue is enforcement. The two provisions in this bill to enable my ministry to be able to prosecute those slum landlords and ensure those properties are brought up to standard is an important practical step, and so too are the provisions around retaliatory provisions to support tenants where a landlord takes a retaliatory action by giving them notice.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just want to conclude by saying this is a sensible, practical bill that will make our homes warmer, it will make them drier, and it will make them safer. It provides the tools to ensure that abandoned properties do not sit vacant for ages. It strengthens, for the first time, the powers of the ministry to be able to go after those slum landlords and deal with those issues that, rightly, concern this House and New Zealanders. It is a bill that is based on good evidence and is part of this Government’s broader programme of practical policies that will work for New Zealand families. I commend the bill to the House.

For the information of the House, I do want to seek leave to table a diagram provided by my ministry in respect of the relationship between the “R” rating of insulation and heat loss, which is core to the debate about the level of insulation, to support the comments I made in my speech.

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

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

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I was listening to the comments by the Hon Dr Nick Smith about what a great bill this is. Oh that it were so! The New Zealand Herald only a few days ago described this bill as yet another grudging half measure from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is hard to disagree with that verdict.

I will come back to Dr Nick Smith, but before I go any further, I want to quote the Children’s Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills, who is someone whose word I place great store by—he came to Parliament to submit on this bill—pointing out that New Zealand hospitalises around 42,000 children every year with preventable diseases of poverty. Many of those are directly related to cold, damp, and mouldy homes. Dr Wills told Parliament that the standards in Nick Smith’s bill, which we are debating tonight, are inadequate. He said: “Government made a promise to [New Zealand] children … we will make your houses healthy.” Three years on from that Budget promise this bill, Dr Wills said, will do little for children living in cold, damp, and mouldy housing. It is, the Children’s Commissioner said, a wasted opportunity and a broken promise to our children. So I invite the House to reflect on those words from Dr Russell Wills, the Children’s Commissioner.

Let us talk about the problem that this bill purports to solve: 42,000 hospitalisations every year. In fact, in the latest research from Otago University, the team under Professor Philippa Howde-Chapman, which has done world-acclaimed public health research on these issues, estimates, actually, that the latest figures indicate that the rate of hospitalisation is more like 50,000 per year. What is the consequence of that? Generations of young New Zealanders growing up with permanent health defects; bronchiectasis, a permanent hardening of the lung tissue that leaves the people who have it with lifelong respiratory disorders and premature death; epidemic rates of asthma and rheumatic fever—and I could go on. There is a host of conditions—respiratory and infectious diseases that we should never even see in New Zealand in the 21st century. Many countries in Europe have not seen these diseases since the Second World War, and so many of them are closely linked with poverty, overcrowding, and cold, damp, and mouldy houses.

So Nick Smith, after obfuscating, denying, and diverting for so many years, finally brought this bill to the Parliament. He obviously thinks that we should be celebrating in the streets tonight. Well, we are not because it is, as Russell Wills said, a missed opportunity.

There are two primary defects in this bill. One of them is that it has nothing to say about heating. It is the simplest thing for anybody to understand—that if you insulate a cold, damp house, it is still a cold, damp house. Although the insulation might make it cheaper to heat that house, that is not much comfort for people if there is simply no affordable, modern heating source in that house. We also know from the research that there is a big problem with low-income families relying on unflued gas heaters, which are a health hazard and are an expensive and inefficient form of heating. What commonly happens, actually, is that all the members of a family will crowd into one room in the winter to try to stay warm together and, to avoid the expense of heating the whole house, they will heat only one room. That room then becomes a Petri dish for infection. So that is the first defect. The bill has nothing to say about heating standards or ventilation, for that matter—the other really important thing in preventing mould.

The second big defect in Nick Smith’s bill, which the Social Services Committee, by majority, has failed to address—and I want to stress that the Labour, Greens, and New Zealand First members strongly argued that the loophole in Nick Smith’s legislation standards should be closed. The proposed standards exist in draft regulations that have been released alongside this bill. What they say is that if a house has been insulated to the 1978 building standard, which would be as thick as this insulation sample, then under Nick Smith’s bill it does not need to be upgraded to the modern 2008 standard, which is as thick as this other insulation sample. So this is Nick Smith’s 1978 standard that he is legislating with this bill, which will allow, in his own words, “hundreds of thousands of houses in New Zealand” that have insulation to this standard, which could be 20 years or 30 years old—they will not have to upgrade to the modern 2008 standard.

I find that unbelievable. I find it unbelievable that in a bill that purports to be about improving the quality of New Zealand housing, the Minister Nick Smith is legislating to allow hundreds of thousands of New Zealand houses to continue with this redundant, old-fashioned 1978 insulation standard. One submitter after another—public health organisations, paediatricians, community organisations, the insulators who do the retrofitting work all around New Zealand, and community energy groups—came along to the select committee and told us that that was the most ridiculous thing to do. Yet the National Party members, supported by their Minister, voted to keep this loophole in the bill. It is a real shame.

I want to talk about a matter that the Minister addressed in his speech where the record needs to be set straight. Nick Smith is fond of crowing that the National Government has insulated 300,000 houses as if this was National’s idea and its initiative. He likes to point out that the last Labour Government insulated 50,000 retrofits. The truth is that the whole idea of retrofitting houses and rental properties, providing subsidies, and insulating them and providing a modern heating source is something that was developed under the last Labour-led Government. I want to pay tribute to Jeanette Fitzsimons, the then Green Party co-leader, and David Parker, who was the Minister of Energy under the last Labour Government. They decided that not only was insulation important but a clean heating device was also important, and with the help of New Zealand First, Greens, and Labour they brought in under the emissions trading scheme legislation a $1 billion fund in the emissions trading scheme Act to be used over the period to 2024 for improved energy efficiency and clean-heat retrofits—$1 billion to be spent insulating houses in the period through to 2024. That was legislated for.

But what happened when National came in? It abolished those provisions. It gutted the emissions trading scheme. It backed wealthy farmers, who were responsible for producing 50 percent of the carbon emissions that this country is responsible for. It gutted the emissions trading scheme, it got rid of this provision, and then it had to scramble to get some money together to fund the subsidy programme. So what National did was it backed millionaire farmers. It chopped up the scheme that would have put hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders into warm dry homes. It repealed that fantastic scheme, and its inadequate substitute that we see here tonight in this bill does not include a clean heating device.

That is a travesty, and Nick Smith should stop rewriting history and acknowledge that if the emissions trading scheme had not been gutted and these provisions for clean-energy home retrofits had not been abolished, then far more New Zealand homes would have been retrofitted and far more children would have been spared the unnecessary hospitalisation and diseases that are caused by these housing conditions.

Research by the University of Otago showed recently that insulating to the 2008 standard would cut emissions by about 3,000 children. Under Nick Smith’s—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in wholehearted support for the second reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. I am going to start my call tonight by just acknowledging our Minister for Building and Housing, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, for all his work that he does in this space, and the very credible work he does. I think he has brought a very credible bill to this House.

I would also like to acknowledge Alfred Ngaro, who is the chairperson of the Social Services Committee, which steered this bill through to this stage. I think it is fair to say there was lively discussion around the select committee table, and I think the slight and deft hand of Alfred Ngaro was able to administer this bill clearly to its second reading. I would also like to acknowledge the 715 submitters who took time to submit on this bill. We heard from 110 orally and, I must say, out of all the bills that I have sat on as a member of a select committee we had a very wide range of views and stakeholder groups, from landlords, tenants, low-income advocacy groups, and those with building interests around sustainability and environmental practices. I would just like to acknowledge all their time and say that they were heard, and their submissions have had input into this bill.

Most of all, I would like to acknowledge the advisers and the officials, because there is a lot of technicality about this bill. There is a lot of fact and data that we need to be informed by. This bill has become very emotive, and quite rightly. Let us be clear that where one person is injured, or where there is a fatality from fire, is one person too many. One person who rents a damp, cold house is definitely one person too many. But what we need to do—and I think the advisers and officials helped us through this—is come back and look objectively at the facts, and look at evidence-based policy and evidence-based legislation that will make a positive impact on low-income renters.

What we know is currently there is no requirement under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for insulation or smoke alarms, so it is quite right that we put this in. When we look at the about 270,000 private rentals that need insulation, 56 percent—or 150,000—of them are rented by low-income earners, and about 120,000 need smoke alarms. When you look at that, this is a much-needed bill. Base that on the history this Government has around retrofitting, spending hundreds of million dollars on rental properties already. There is some great work from organisations in my electorate—like Community Energy Action teaming up with the Canterbury District Health Board—working with rental property tenants who are presenting to accident and emergency around respiratory illness, and so forth. We know this method of insulating houses works and is making people safer.

The logical step now is to draw the next step, and that is around regulation. That is exactly what this bill will do. It will enact, from 1 July 2016, that all social housing income-related rents will be insulated, and private rentals by 1 July 2019. There was some question about why it was 3 years, but when we heard from the sector around scaling up to provide insulation for about 180,000 houses—about 60,000 houses a year—that very much fitted the capacity of the insulation sector.

I just want to focus, as well, around safety alarms, because that is where we need to look at the facts—just acknowledging the very hard-working volunteer firemen and women in my electorate, who are tirelessly out there advocating for free fire alarms and getting them into people’s houses. What we know is that with 120,000 houses, we have about one fire per every 400 houses and about 20 fatalities. Out of those 120,000 houses, by regulating for smoke alarms, that will save three lives every year—a potential of three lives saved every year. So it is great to see that will be brought in by 1 July 2016.

There are a couple of amendments that this bill has been brought back with. One is around increasing the penalty for unlawful acts. A lot of submitters quite rightly thought there was a power imbalance between tenants and landlords in asking for this requirement around insulation and smoke alarms. We felt that increasing the penalty from $3,000 to $4,000 was an effective tool in redressing that balance as well. We also realised, upon further exploration of this bill, there was a further amendment needed. Currently, landlords need to give 24 hours’ notice to come in and repair and provide maintenance. Now, under this amended bill, landlords will be able to come within 24 hours’ notice and fit smoke alarms as well.

I very much wholeheartedly support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to reiterate what my colleague Phil Twyford said earlier. We are supporting this bill, but it is a wasted opportunity to set decent minimum standards that would ensure that all rental properties are warm and dry.

I really want to start with the Children’s Commissioner’s comments, and I really want to talk about what the Children’s Commissioner said at the Social Services Committee. Matt Doocey, the member who just spoke, is on that select committee. Phil Twyford and I are on that select committee. We heard what the Children’s Commissioner had to say. When submitting on this bill he mentioned that there are 42,000 hospital admissions and that 15 children die a year due to living in cold, mouldy, and damp houses. He argued that these standards are inadequate to resolve that. He said the “… Government made a promise to New Zealand children: We will make your house healthy. Three years on from that Budget promise, this bill will do little for children living in cold, damp, mouldy housing. It is a wasted opportunity and a broken promise to our children.”

I think that members on that side of the House should be ashamed of themselves to hear from the Children’s Commissioner that that is the case. We hear them talk about children with respiratory problems, we hear them talk about their attempts to resolve them, but I do not know whether or not they really understand the reality of the respiratory problems that our children are faced with. I do not know whether they have been into an emergency ward in the middle of a winter’s night. Some of us have, and I have to say that some of us are not actually living in poverty and are not living in overcrowded houses, but we have children whom we have had to take to the emergency ward in the middle of the night due to conditions like bronchiolitis. I am one of those parents who has had to do that, and I have to say that the house I was living in previously was half a leaky home and had problems, and, since moving into a house that has the adequate insulation that we need—the HRV system, the heat pump, and everything else—all of a sudden that child is not sick any more.

It is disheartening when not only do you have to take your own child into the emergency ward at 2 o’clock in the morning because you get told by Healthline that, actually, 60 breaths per minute is too much—they have listened to your child and they have said: “Get in the car and take them to the hospital straight away.” But also, when you get to that ward, it is not just your child but a room full of—and I am going to say this—predominantly Māori and Pacific children in that emergency ward at 2 o’clock in the morning in the middle of winter, with respiratory problems. There is no blame on their parents at all, but, for many of them, it is because of the conditions that they are living in and also because, for some reason, our children seem to be slightly more susceptible to these respiratory problems. But it is made worse by the fact that so many of them are living in housing conditions that are inadequate. That is what we are here to address today, and that is what the Government should have been addressing.

As many submitters told the select committee, insulation without heating does only half the job. Insulating a cold, damp home will not stop it being cold and damp. But, again, for so many of those members across the House, they do not even have any understanding of what that reality is like. We believe on this side of the House, and many of the general public believe, that in 2016 it is completely unacceptable that children are still dying in houses that are unfit to live in.

According to the Children’s Commissioner, at least 15 children per year are dying because of the fact that they are living in inadequate housing conditions, and yet we had the Minister for Building and Housing, Nick Smith, saying earlier tonight that the cost of doing what Labour is attempting to do through Andrew Little’s healthy homes bill is too expensive. Actually, Minister Nick Smith and the National Government, the hospitalisation of 42,000 children a year in New Zealand due to cold, damp, mouldy homes is too expensive for this country. The cost of 15 children’s lives every year because of cold, damp, mouldy homes is too expensive, Nick Smith and the National Government. This is the wrong place to try to make cost savings, Nick Smith and the National Government.

We believed during the select committee process—and to this day, now that we are debating it in the House again—that a standard for ventilation should be enforced, and we should require an affordable, modern, and fixed heating source. We also believe that the 3-year phase-in period is excessive. We need to contrast what the National Government is trying to do with what Andrew has proposed, which, fortunately, will now go through to the select committee with the support of the parties in the House that have some common sense, which does not include ACT and National. Andrew Little’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—

Jono Naylor: What’s his phase-in period? What’s the phase-in period of Andrew’s bill?

CARMEL SEPULONI: —would provide that all new tenancies, after a year, would have to meet standards for (1) methods of heating, (2) methods of insulation, (3) indoor temperatures, (4) ventilation, (5) draught stopping, and (6) drainage.

All of these things are things that the National Government should be supporting, so when Jono Naylor is yelling out as if I am saying something outrageous, he really needs to reflect on his own set of beliefs and principles and on what he is willing to support. He probably needs to reflect on the fact that by joining National he has sold himself out. The Government’s standards, by allowing exceptions for houses insulated to old standards, leaves thousands of rentals not properly insulated. We believe that this is unjustifiable, and we think that all rental properties should be required to meet the modern standards.

Let us look at what the National Government is proposing. Insulation: it is proposing insulation like this. What is Andrew Little proposing? Andrew Little is proposing insulation like this. If we look at this, let us just reflect for a little while—42,000 children are admitted into hospital every year because of cold, damp, mouldy homes. Is it worth the cost to just go with this first type, or should we actually be paying for this second type? Fifteen children a year are dying because they do not have adequate housing, and the National Government still wants us to rely on this. It should be ashamed of itself.

The biggest issues coming through our office in west Auckland are about Work and Income and housing—usually housing is the major thing because of Housing New Zealand being situated at Work and Income. But we have people coming to us all the time with letters from their doctors, from their GPs, and from people at the hospital letting us know that they must be moved because of the housing conditions that they are in. Even when we are successful at rehousing these people so that they are no longer in those unhealthy homes, we know that another family, desperate for housing, is going to take up that same house that they have just moved out of because their children are sick. There is nothing we can do about it because of the demand for housing and the desperation that our people are experiencing. That is shameful.

I feel embarrassed as an MP that when we move this family out of that house because their children are getting sick and the hospital has provided them with a letter to say that that is the case, another family is going into that house—another family is going into that house—because of the fact that we have this housing shortage that has not been addressed by the National Government at all. We go round and round in circles talking about everything in the housing area—healthy homes, emergency housing, social housing, the cost of rentals, and the fact that people cannot afford to buy in this housing market—and all of it is interrelated. All of it the Government has an opportunity to influence, but it chooses not to, and it is shameful that it does not do anything to address it.

As I said, we have so many examples—I could write them up and publish them—of families who are in this situation. I just want to talk about one before I end, and it is a woman called Val, who contacted me to say they had just left the hospital to go back to their home after her daughter had been in hospital for over a week with respiratory problems. She wrote to me and she said: “I know we’re going to end up back in hospital because we’re back at the same house, and this house is making my daughter sick.” When we got in touch with Val, straight away she said to us: “I’m sorry, I’m back in the hospital.” That visit that we made to her, which was meant to be at her home, ended up being in Waitakere Hospital. It was the second time that her daughter had been admitted into that same hospital in 2 weeks because of the unhealthy home that they were living in.

We have no choice but to support this bill, because it does something—it does something. But it is far from enough, and, actually, what we need the Government to do is to support Andrew Little’s healthy homes bill, because that will actually make a dent—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired. [Interruption] Just stop a little earlier when I am on my feet, please.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am not even sure where to start with that talk. I am almost tempted not to bother. I will just challenge that particular member, Carmel Sepuloni: I am more than happy to double down on my experience in the social and community service with hers any day, in actually working and serving—

Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, really? Yeah?

SIMON O’CONNOR: Absolutely—absolutely. It does not matter whether it has been homeless shelters or drug addiction, the military, vocational training centres, prisons. Where else could we—homeless shelters. I think I have mentioned those. Hospitals, and just working with the people on the street, particularly around Hopetoun Street, and, actually, the homeless community within the likes of Auckland, and Brooklyn, New York. We might even mention Fiji.

Why I mention all of that is because we get constant accusations on this side that we do not care. Even worse are the accusations that we do not know what we are talking about. I somewhat take offence at that because, actually, as someone who has worked hard in this area, I know two things. One is that I actually have experience, and from that experience, including in areas like this, I know that there is still stuff that I can learn from. I am not presumptuous enough or arrogant enough to start preaching in this House that we know better. Furthermore, to fall into the sort of fallacious argument that all we have to do is more—“Oh, well, you know, it is great that we have got insulation, but then if we had even more fluff, it would just make the biggest difference. Oh, if we just put more smoke alarms in and if we spent more money, it will all fix things.” Actually, that is not the core of the argument.

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is a good bill. It is a step in completely the right direction. It fits perfectly with National policy, which is to actually balance the range of needs. You know, having worked in the social sector, I know that if you all of a sudden impose a whole lot of extra costs on landlords, there are going to be consequences for the very people you want to help. So, all of a sudden, all this talk about all this other extra stuff we should do will actually do far more harm. But we know, and I know from my own electorate work, where constituents do come in, that, actually, the idea of having insulation—up to New Zealand standards, importantly—will make a difference, and one of the great things has already been illustrated by the work that the Government has done with State homes.

The other thing is around smoke alarms. I mean, it is so basic. It is tragic, in a way, that we have not done that already, but it is great that it is now being addressed. It makes a lot of sense, and I am sure we will hear from other colleagues—you know, 75 percent of deaths in homes could have been prevented by the use of smoke alarms.

So this is a good bill. It is a proportionate bill. I do not think that having barbs and insults being hurled across the House that neither side knows what it is talking about is of much help at all. I think this is a bill that should be, rightly, supported by all sides of the House. I have certainly heard that Labour is going to do so, so kudos that those members are doing that, and I will be interested to hear later on what the other parties are doing. This is a good bill. It is a responsible bill. It is the proportionate thinking that is good for all New Zealanders and, in particular, for those who are renting. Thanks very much.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The problem, Simon O’Connor, is that the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is a useless bill, and if it was effective, then we would be having a very different debate. I do want to say that the Green Party really wanted to be able to support this bill. We supported it at its first reading. We were looking forward to the Government, in particular, seeing the evidence laid out before it that would show that a more comprehensive bill—maybe not exactly what I want, but something better—would mean that children’s lives would be saved and families would do better. I am not a Pollyanna, as Parliament knows, but I always live in hope that Parliament will act courageously for New Zealand, because it does happen some days in this place. We do do courageous and amazing things some days in this place, but, clearly, today is not one of those days.

Last week, in the debate on Andrew Little’s healthy homes insulation bill, I set out the ethical argument and the moral pathway that we can take, and should be taking, to improve the quality of New Zealand’s rental homes for children and families. That kōrero from last week was a popular one, and it came from a very deep frustration that I have felt in dealing with this Government bill on rental homes through the select committee process.

I was on the Social Services Committee, and Marama Davidson also heard some of those submissions. We—MPs from across this House—sat together over quite a few days and we listened as person after person, organisations, health centres, and child advocates came to tell us how we could make a real difference in people’s lives and how we could save lives. This was not by grandiose, expensive gestures, not by sweeping economic reforms that would take capitalism by its short and curlies and wrestle it to the ground, and not by banning some social evil or by spending billions and billions of dollars on some social good. We could save lives by simply saying that we want our families to live in homes that are built for the 21st century, not for 1978. That is simple—that is it. That is all that we need to do. Genuinely, it is all that we need to do.

We want our friends and our families and our communities to live in warm, dry, safe homes built for the 21st century, not 1978, and we can have that. That is right. We can have that for everyone if we make a very small change to this law to say that our homes should have an insulation standard for today, not for 1978.

The year 1978 was a long time ago, but I am sure you remember at least some of it. So what was happening in 1978? Well, I was 8 years old. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you were not much older. I was 8 years old. Rob Muldoon was Prime Minister in 1978. Precious McKenzie—do you remember him? He won gold at the Commonwealth Games in 1978. Iain Lees-Galloway was born in 1978. It was a great year—a great year.

Carmel Sepuloni: 1977 was better.

METIRIA TUREI: Ha, ha! What were the standards that applied to New Zealand in 1978? What were the laws and regulations that applied in 1978? Well, you could sell smokes to children in 1978—not just to teenagers, but to little kids. They could go to the dairy and buy lollies and milk and smokes for mum and dad in 1978. Children under 8 years did not have to wear a seatbelt. Everybody else did, but not little children under 8. They did not have to wear a seatbelt in 1978. In 1978 you could smoke anywhere you wanted to—in bars, in shops, on aeroplanes. No one cared, and few really knew about second-hand smoke and its effects then.

In 1978 you could divorce only because of adultery, desertion, or habitual drunkenness. You had to have criteria for divorce. Homosexuality was illegal in 1978. Corporal punishment was encouraged. The Māori All Blacks were still considered to be honorary whites when they toured South Africa. And in 1978 women were regularly refused mortgages unless their husband or their father signed the mortgage documents. In 1978 women could not get mortgages under their own name.

None of those standards apply today, do they? None of them would be considered the least bit acceptable today, like they were in—

Denis O’Rourke: Is Iain Lees-Galloway acceptable today?

METIRIA TUREI: Well, OK, except for Iain Lees-Galloway—he is cool. None of those standards—what was OK in 1978 is not OK now when you are talking about quality regulation that is about improving the health of families, communities, and children. So why does Nick Smith insist on having a 1978 insulation standard for New Zealand homes? Why? Why does—

Hon Member: We don’t.

METIRIA TUREI: Well, that is another part of the question. He does know that the 1978 standard will not save children from being sick, because he has in front of him research that proves it. According to Dr Lucy Telfar-Barnard from Otago University, having the modern standard of insulation in private rental accommodation reduces the number of children’s hospital stays by nearly 20 percent—by nearly 20 percent. Having the modern standard would save one in five of the children who have to go to hospital in a winter because their home is cold and damp. Having the 1978 standard will see thousands of New Zealand children still going in and out, and in and out, of hospital and getting sick, and for 15 of those families who see their children going in and out of hospital in a year, they will lose their child for good. Fifteen families will lose their child for good because—

Carmel Sepuloni: And they don’t care—they don’t care.

METIRIA TUREI: —those members do not care. They do not care.

The Children’s Commissioner said that this bill was a broken promise to New Zealand’s children. He came and said that to the select committee, to all the MPs there who were there to hear the evidence about how we could do better. The Children’s Commissioner said that it was a broken promise to children, and is that what the legacy of the National Government is to New Zealand? A litany of broken promises to children, some of whom will not live to see the year out—will not live to see the year out.

We can do much better than that. I will be putting forward Supplementary Order Paper 172 to this bill when it next comes back to the House for debate. This will show what New Zealand could achieve, if we wanted it to—what a comprehensive warrant of fitness would look like and how it can make homes warmer, drier, and safer for children and their families. Yes, it will certainly include glass visibility tape for glass doors—yes it will, my Supplementary Order Paper. Do you know why? Because 500 children a month are injured in this country by falling through windows and breaking through glass doors—500 children a month. Those are the statistics from ACC.

Those 500 kids—their lives matter. They deserve to live in a safe home. The 40,000-odd hospital admissions—those children all deserve to live in a warm, dry, safe home that does not make them sick. The 15 families who will lose a child in the next 12 months, they deserve to live in a warm, dry home that will not make their children sick or make them die. Every one of those kids’ lives matters. Let us make sure that their homes are warm and safe and dry. It is an easy thing for us to do. It is not going to cost the earth, so let us do it. Tonight let us just be a little more courageous for our kids and make no more broken promises. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This bill moves only modestly to improve the quality of tenancies by requiring smoke alarms and insulation. But what about the other things? What about heating standards? What about leak-proofing, earthquake resistance, minimum size of accommodation, and so on? Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper 172 has a long list of other items to ensure a healthy home. I disagree with a few, but certainly agree with most of them, and I would add a few more, by the way. But the point is that there needs to be a discussion on a broad range of minimum standards for rental properties in New Zealand. We have not had that, and this bill certainly does not reflect that.

This bill, in fact, really does only three things. First of all, it requires smoke alarms, and they do have an excellent cost-benefit ratio of $1 for a return of $8.80 to $21.40. That is a superb return and it is well worth the cost. The bill also regulates for the technical needs for smoke alarms and insulation, and for the chief executive to take cases direct to the Tenancy Tribunal for persistent breaches of the legislation and to authorise a search of a property to get evidence where a breach may have occurred. The third thing that the bill does is it streamlines the process for the recovery of possession where a property has been abandoned. All of those are very good things. So New Zealand First does support the bill, warts and all, but we think it should have gone a lot further.

The Minister tonight, in this House, admitted that properties with 1978 insulation standards would never have to be upgraded to 2008 standards. Just think about that for a moment. They would never have to be upgraded to do that. I acknowledge the argument for not requiring the upgrading to 2008 insulation standards, with the argument being that the economic cost is unjustified for what appears to be an improvement of only 5 percent in performance, but it may be a great deal more—I acknowledge that. But that is not a good argument for leaving all of those properties for ever not upgraded to 2008 standards and for ever to have only those very—I think—substandard 1978 insulation standards.

I would accept the need for a fair phase-in period of, say, 3 years to enable landlords to bring those properties up to standard. But New Zealand First would never accept the total cop-out that this bill will enact for those properties that now have only the 1978 standards of insulation. Furthermore, we say in our policy that there could be at least a tax incentive to upgrade to 2008 standards by allowing landlords to expense, for tax purposes, the whole cost of doing the upgrade in the year the expense was incurred. That would be a very good incentive and would help to make the process affordable. That has been New Zealand First’s policy for the last 5 years, and it is one that the Government should adopt.

In addition, New Zealand First is not satisfied that the standards for heating are at all adequate. There is not much point insulating a property that is not properly heated and not properly ventilated—there is just no point. I think Mr Twyford made that point as well in his speech. This is the major flaw in this bill, which is not acknowledged by the Government and it should be. The Government should be doing a lot more about that. In fact, Andrew Little’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) does require the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to set minimum standards for both heating and insulation. That is what the Government, in this bill, has precisely failed to do. The concept in Mr Little’s bill is to require tenancy agreements to state that the 2008 minimum standards are met, with significant penalties if that is not true. That is the prescription, I think, that the Government should be adopting. It is a pity that the Government and the Labour Party cannot get together to put their proposals into one bill, because if they did that it would improve both pieces of proposed legislation.

The Social Services Committee has recommended some welcome changes to the bill. We support the increase in the penalties, especially for not complying with regulations for insulation. These are increased from $3,000 to $4,000. It is still a relatively modest amount, I think, but it is a welcome increase. But New Zealand First disagrees with the recommendation for an amendment to clause 6(3) allowing a landlord to state in a tenancy agreement that despite making reasonable efforts, they have not been able to satisfy themselves of the extent of insulation in a particular property. That, we think, would be a cop-out, too. It is too easy to do and too easy to claim, and it should not be in the bill. Houses without provable and adequate insulation should actually be excluded from the rental market, in this legislation. People have to understand that if they are going to put an important service—which is what a rental property is—on the market, then, like so many other things today, they have to meet minimum standards. If they do not, then it is not marketable and it should not be allowed. It is as simple as that. However, New Zealand First does agree with the suggested change to clause 38 to widen the scope of materials for insulation, as long as they would still meet the 2008 standard for insulation. So that is a welcome change.

For all of the reasons I have given, New Zealand First will continue to support the bill, but we think it is very disappointing indeed that it does not do a great deal more, as I have said. Most particularly, we believe in having heating standards. The bill’s failure to address that absolutely vital requirement is such a serious flaw that the bill is hardly worth having—it is that serious. Also, there is a long list of other items that need minimum standards in order to have healthy homes. As I have said, Metiria Turei has set out some of those in her Supplementary Order Paper, and I have mentioned some in this speech. New Zealand First will also support Andrew Little’s bill to take up some of the slack, as I have said, that this bill does not even address. But the point is this. New Zealand First would do a lot more than what this bill does and what Andrew Little’s bill would do. I have mentioned some of those things. Many of them should be addressed in this bill, right now. This is the opportunity; not at some later stage.

New Zealand First will vote in favour of this bill, but reluctantly. We expect that a lot more will be done in the future, no matter which Government might be in power in years to come.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking this call to support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill in its second reading. As a member of the Social Services Committee I want to thank all the submitters for taking the time to make their views heard. The select committee received 715 submissions, and 110 were heard. For some submissions, it was difficult to identify whether they were from tenants, landlords, or just individuals who were interested in the issue.

There was one comment running through all the submissions, and it was that everybody agreed that we are heading in the right direction. We all agreed that warmer houses are important for healthy families. When I was listening to those submissions, I was thinking that in New Zealand we are really fortunate because our weather is not that extreme. Summers are not too hot and winters are not too cold. I do acknowledge that, yes, houses do get cold in some months of winter. Timber, carpet, curtains—those things do help, but insulation plays a big role in keeping houses warm.

There were some submitters who wanted to add heating and ventilation to this bill. I hope they will understand that tenants should be able to afford the cost of heating and should be willing to use heating devices. The evidence shows that insulation makes a huge difference, instead of adding heating to insulated houses. This bill is based on evidence.

Members from the other side showed insulation of two types of thickness and members from that side talked about the 1978 standards and current standards, but they did not talk about the cost-benefit analysis, and Minister Nick Smith explained really well that there is minimal gain in that. This bill is not a cost-imposing exercise; this bill is about seeing that houses are warmer.

This is a great bill. This bill builds on the Government’s $500 million investment in insulating social housing and in the Warm Up New Zealand programme, which has helped to insulate 53,000 residential rental properties. It is a great bill. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party, Marama Davidson.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I just ask whether there will be a bell at 1 minute?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, there will.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am standing on behalf of the Green Party to support my co-leader Metiria Turei in our opposition to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill because it is miserable. It is a miserable bill.

I am a renter, like many Māori. Māori are disproportionately represented as renters, as opposed to homeowners, so I have an interest in highlighting the unique impacts that rental legislation will have on Māori and Māori children and, of course, on lower-income people and families. They find it really difficult to live in warmer homes, drier homes, and safer homes.

The reason why this bill is miserable is that it gets right in the way of a more comprehensive warrant of fitness and minimum good standards. The Green Party is absolutely proud to support Andrew Little’s bill for healthy homes. Those are the sorts of standards that will make an actual difference to the lives of children, to the lives of our elderly, and to the lives of New Zealanders.

I sit here, listening to what is in this bill. I was also on the Social Services Committee, and I would have to challenge the statement of the previous speaker, Parmjeet Parmar, where she said that everybody agreed that this bill was going in the right direction. That is not at all what I heard at the select committee. There were many submitters who understood that this bill will do nothing to lower the impact on, especially, the load on our health system in lowering the illnesses that are directly related to poor and inadequate housing standards. I do not know why the previous speaker does not honour this House enough to be truthful about what she heard at the select committee—

David Bennett: Sit down.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: —no, I will not sit down—because that was not at all true. It was not true.

Many experts, many people who have worked with families for many years, and many social service advocates were very clear that this bill does not go far enough and will not rectify the cumulative impacts on people where they are not living in safe, dry homes. There are things that we can do, though. There are things that we can do that are not included in this bill. I note with pride Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper and the list of standards that she wishes to be maintained in rental properties, and how she and the Green Party have campaigned for many years to lift the standard of housing. I hope that this is the direction—this would strengthen the bill. Metiria’s Supplementary Order Paper would strengthen this bill and actually make it worthwhile and worth voting for.

I do not appreciate the fact that this legislation is being used to appease renters and to appease the public that the National Government is doing something. It is too important to appease renters—we need to get it right instead. We need to make sure the homes really are healthy and make sure the homes really are warm, because there is no cost more important than ensuring that all of our children and our elderly are not going to become sicker and are going to stay alive directly because of living in good homes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on our opposition to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill tonight, because it is miserable. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call, Poto Williams.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It used to be that we as Kiwis had a dream of homeownership. We used to dream of homeownership, but it was actually achievable. It was achievable. We used to be able to afford to buy homes. My father, who came to this country in the late 1950s, was a labourer who could not read or write and he was actually able to afford to buy a home so that his family could grow up and live well. A decent home, decent living—that is what the Kiwi Dream used to be about.

We have gone, in one generation, from being a nation of homeowners to a nation of home-renters—in one generation. In one generation we have slipped that far. And who is it who rents? Who is it who rents? It is not people who earn in the top income levels; it is those who earn the least. In general, it is the lower-income families. Through legislation this Government has introduced, the rights and the power of renters have diminished and been eroded time and time and time again.

Who would want to be a tenant in this country when the power rests with the landlords? Do not get me wrong—there are some good landlords. There are some great landlords, who actually invest in their properties, maintain their properties, and want to hang on to good tenants by making sure that they have got decent properties. But there are some not-so-great landlords. There are some landlords, and we know of them in Canterbury—and my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson will back me up on this—who have taken their earthquake insurance money, have not fixed up their earthquake-damaged homes, and have put them on to the rental market. We have got this happening in hundreds and hundreds of places in Canterbury. So there are some good landlords, but, my goodness, there are some bad landlords.

What does the research tell us about homes that are not insulated properly and do not have a good heating source? It says that if we insulated our homes to the 2008 standard, we could reduce hospital admissions across the country by 6 percent. That is 3,000 children. That is evidence that the standard that is in this bill could cost the health of at least 3,000 children. That is not good enough.

Nick Smith says that it is too expensive to actually get landlords to upgrade their properties to the standard we have been talking about today—the 2008 standard. Most of the submitters—and we have heard a bit about the submitters today—have said that insulation without heating does only half the job. We know that in most of these homes where the children are impacted on by poor health outcomes it is not only because the insulation standards are poor but because the heating standards are poor too.

When you live in an environment like Auckland, where in the wintertime there is an awful lot of moisture in the air, that promotes the growth of mould. We all know what mould, particularly black mould, does to the lungs of small children—it is one of the biggest causes of respiratory conditions for children. That is in Auckland, where, as Parmjeet Parmar says, the sun shines all the time and the weather is fine. Try taking that further south, where we get much colder conditions, and you are in a situation where you have got some dire health conditions sitting on your doorstep.

I want to get back to the point that I made about the quality of homes, particularly in the Canterbury region, where we have got hundreds, if not thousands, of homes that have not been repaired and that have been pushed out on to the rental market. We have got a cohort of landlords in this country who do not care about anything except collecting their rent from people. They are taking advantage of New Zealand renters, and this Government is helping them do that.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the last minutes of my colleague’s speech, the member David Bennett made an offensive remark in relation to a comment that Poto Williams made, to which I took offence. It was about me. It was offensive. I took offence, and I ask you to require him now to withdraw and apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment. If the member made such comment, and obviously the Hon Ruth Dyson has taken offence, he should stand, withdraw, and apologise.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I withdraw and apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just stand, withdraw, and apologise, please.

DAVID BENNETT: I did. I withdraw and apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Next call. [Interruption] Order! Let us see whether we can lift the level of debate.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I will do my best, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure for me to stand and talk to this Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill in its second reading. Although it was first discussed before my time as a member of the Social Services Committee, I am pleased to note the widespread support for this bill. There are two very basic reasons for that support: insulation and smoke alarm requirements.

The link between good health and a warm home is at the heart of this bill. This Government has taken a very practical view on the issue of insulation. The measures that are implemented will be transparent around the extent to which rental properties are insulated, and the emphasis will be on the landlords to insulate or reinsulate their properties that are currently occupied and are in a substandard form.

I would also like to touch briefly on the number of unsafe rental properties that are in breach of the current regulations and in need of addressing. I am pleased that this bill sets out to remedy this. The Hon Nick Smith’s policy of better enforcement, as opposed to having more rules, is a very practical way of addressing this issue. This ensures that the worst rental properties are brought into line with the 2008 building code. It will become the responsibility of landlords to meet their requirements under this legislation, and it will be enforced by new powers for the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. He or she will be able to take direct action against those landlords who are in breach with those residential properties that are rented out in a substandard form.

This is a very good, sensible, and practical bill. It focuses on the 450,000 households that are in rental properties, which represents 30 percent of households in this country. We do care about those people in those rental properties. I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill second reading. Minimum insulation standards and smoke alarms for private rental houses are a step in the right direction. However, this National Government can and should do more. This bill proposes a minimum insulation standard, but when you insulate a cold house and you do not require modern, efficient heating in that house, that will still leave our people, our families, and our children living in a house that is cold, and at high risk of respiratory diseases. The rental houses will not magically become warm, dry, safe, healthy homes without installation of modern, efficient heating.

This National Government does not stand up for the rights of ordinary New Zealanders. If this Government cared enough and wanted to do enough for our children—on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of families and, particularly, vulnerable children who live in both State houses and rental accommodation—we would see evidence of that care and we would see evidence of that commitment in this Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. We do not. This proposed bill makes some improvements for tenants living in rented accommodation, but it is not a comprehensive bill and it does not go far enough to address the issues for our families.

Emma-Lita Bourne—a name that we hear in this House a lot. A toddler from Ōtara, Manukau East, in my electorate, is an example of a toddler—an innocent child—who, unfortunately, passed away. She paid with her life because of the conditions of the house—a State house—that she lived in, which was freezing cold, mouldy, leaking, and unhealthy. The house that she lived in was not fit for a family—for humans—to live in.

I find it heartbreaking when I look back at this child. The information that we have got back from the Government told us that this particular family reached out many, many times—over 40 times—to Work and Income and to Housing New Zealand, basically saying: “This child is sick, and has been in and out of hospital with so many respiratory illnesses.” But the other heartbreaking thing is that if the processes of this Government worked, that family should have been moved out because her brother, who was 6 years old at the time, had rheumatic fever. Work and Income tells us that when kids have rheumatic fever as a condition, they will be moved to a healthy home. This family was not, and this child, Emma-Lita Bourne, paid for it with her life. It is something that should not have happened. But it is something that is still happening.

I give you another example, this time from a homeless family—a family that did not even live in my electorate because they were homeless. This child was a toddler too, about 12 months old. She had lived so much of her life—more than half her life—in hospital. She was in and out of hospital with all sorts of respiratory illnesses—bronchiolitis, pneumonia, you name it. This child, I am happy to report, is now living in a home. I visited this family last week and it was the first time that I actually saw the mother of this child, because I dealt with the father when they came into my office. The mother, this time—she was so emotional. She was so emotional because this child was discharged from hospital—from Middlemore Hospital, in my electorate—in March of this year, and that is the longest period of time that this child has spent outside the hospital. Why? Because the rental accommodation that this child had lived in before was not their own. They were homeless and living in someone else’s rental accommodation. But it was cold, mouldy, and unhealthy, and people in that house—they smoked. All of these conditions put together were the reasons why this child was in and out of hospital. So when I hear members on the opposite side say that it is too costly, that it is too expensive to do something to address this issue properly, I say that we are talking about children’s lives—children’s lives.

I would like to turn now to two submissions made to the Social Services Committee. I am not a member of this committee, but in just reading the submissions, I would like to talk about two, both from physicians. There were a lot of submissions from doctors but I would like to highlight two. The first is from the Children’s Commissioner Dr Russell Wills, someone whom I hold in high regard. Dr Wills stated that: “In Budget 2013, the Government committed to mitigate the negative health outcomes of poverty and poor housing.” Nice words. It would be nice if this Government, in this bill, actually addressed that promise. This is a bill that is full of broken promises.

In the Budget in May 2013—3 years ago—this promise was made. Have we seen that promise come to reality? No, and in fact, Dr Wills went even further. He said this bill is a shameful bill. It is shameful because it has not kept up that promise. It is shameful because, as my colleague Phil Twyford spoke about before, it has not ensured that we would even ensure that the insulation is to today’s standards—2016. We are talking about insulating homes to the standard of 1978. It is shameful that we think it is too costly to try to save children’s lives.

Dr Wills told us that at least 15 children’s lives are lost each year because they have pneumonia, bronchiolitis, and other respiratory diseases. We should do something in this House to ensure that we save children’s lives.

I would like to turn to the second submission, from another physician. She talked about how she was going around a children’s ward, a children’s ward that was full, mainly of poor children, Māori children, and Pacific preschool children. The mother of the first child that this physician saw was someone who was familiar to her. Why? Because she had served this mother, but with the older child, the year before. The older child had pneumonia; the child that she saw on this day also had pneumonia. The next child she saw was in a similar set of circumstances. She saw yet another mother whom she was familiar with because the child whom she was in hospital with had permanent lung scarring from too many infections, from too much pneumonia—from being admitted in and out of hospital too many times. She saw this mother and served her the year before, with her older child.

This is a bill that should be delivering on a promise to our children. What this legislation does, like much of the legislation that we discuss in this House, is it sends a message. In this case, it sends a message to our children. In the words of Dr Wills, he stated: “The message is: you are not important enough for us to set a standard for heating for your house and to check to make sure your house is healthy.”

Our children deserve more. As members of Parliament, we need to do more in this House so that our children live in warm, dry houses. The bill that Andrew Little has submitted, and which has passed its first reading, will deliver this. It is a much more comprehensive bill that would ensure that our houses are warm, dry, and healthy, and that we are saving children’s lives. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): As the last speaker in this debate, I feel it is beholden on me to actually get a little bit more truth out there and talk about what exactly this bill is going to achieve.

This bill will save lives. At the moment in New Zealand, 75 percent of house-fire deaths are as a result of houses not having smoke alarms. What we know is that a huge number of those places are rental properties, so we are going to save lives with this bill simply by the smoke alarm provisions alone.

The thing that has concerned me most, and what I have been hearing in terms of the rhetoric this evening from the other side of the House, has been this infatuation with saying that the Government is settling for 1978 standards of insulation. In fact, what the Opposition keeps forgetting is that if a house was built before 1978, it will have to be insulated up to the 2008 standard. If a house was built pre-1978, it will have to have 2008 standard insulation put in, which is going to increase the warmth of those older houses, particularly, and ensure that they are going to be healthier and warm.

Over the last few years I have lived in two different houses. One was built in 1982. Its insulation was adequate, but not necessarily that great. But I also lived in another house, which was built in 2006. With the kind of talk that has been going on here this evening, you would think that insulation has not changed at all between 1978 and 2008. What we do know is that in houses that have been built over that time, insulation has been improving over the years. What we have said in this bill is that the minimum standard is—if a house was built from 1978 onwards, its insulation is the minimum standard it can be. If it is older than that, it must be brought up to the 2008 standard.

This is a good bill. It is going to save lives, it is going to improve the health and well-being of people who are living in substandard rental accommodation across New Zealand, and I commend it to the House.

Amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 14.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Health (Protection) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Infectious diseases

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): This bill has two main parts to it. The first part deals with infectious diseases. The second part deals with sunbeds. Obviously one part of it is more important for the Labour Party than the other, in terms of the debate. I want to say to the Minister in the chair that Labour will vote for the bill, but we do have Supplementary Order Paper 80, which I have had tabled for quite some time, and I would hope that perhaps the Minister may have taken time to read it.

This bill has been a long time in gestation. In fact, some of the original parts of this bill started when I was Minister of Health 11 long years ago, although you would think when you listen to the current Minister of Health that it was just the other day because, obviously, I am responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong in health. But I have to say that when I was Minister of Health, some of the work that is in this bill came out of the rewrite of the Public Health Act. So we have had a long wait to get this bill to the stage it is now. It was first introduced into this Parliament on 31 July 2014, we reported it back from the Health Committee on 1 May 2015, and we had the second reading of the bill on 27 May 2015. So it has been almost a whole year since the second reading before we have got to where we can actually start to debate what it is all about.

The first part of this bill will increase the range of infectious diseases that are notifiable to the medical officer of health without identifying information of the patient or diseased person. It will include HIV infection, gonorrhoea infection, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and syphilis. It is a long overdue and very welcome update of a bill. We had a large number of submissions on the bill—very, very good submissions, in my view—and we had them from the most pre-eminent organisations in New Zealand, whether they were district health boards or whether they were sexual health organisations, medical associations, and so on. People took to this bill with seriousness in terms of how we could improve it.

I would like, at this point, just to pay tribute to Kevin Hague, who I know would have liked to be in this debate. Kevin Hague, because of his experience as a former director of the AIDS Foundation, was very valuable in the debate and discussion at the select committee when we looked at Part 1 of this bill. He was able to look at the practical implications as it would deal with patients who would be affected by it.

One of the changes that he recommended in this part of the bill—and one that I also want to give credit to the current Minister of Health for—was to put forward an appeal mechanism that allowed an appeal to the High Court after a decision by the District Court. The bill did not have that in it. The committee discussed it and we decided that it was a good suggestion to have this additional appeal ability, and it was taken from the committee by the health officials—taken straight to the Minister of Health—and within a very short time there was agreement from the Minister of Health to include that change to Part 1 of the bill. I have to say that I do not believe that would have happened under the previous Minister of Health, Tony Ryall. We probably would have waited a long time and he would have said no. But this Minister, perhaps because of his understanding also as a medical doctor, could see that this was a very good change indeed.

We did make quite a number of amendments to Part 1 of the bill, and the amendments are on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 127. We have agreed to all of those amendments. There is no dispute from the Labour Opposition on this part of the bill. We believe that we have brought it back to this House in good form. I will not go through all the parts of it as I do not think that is necessary. I will save a lot of my discussion for Part 2 of this bill.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Artificial UV tanning services

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon Annette King, again.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Yes, Mr Chairman. This is the part of the bill where I do not agree with the Minister of Health’s decision. In fact, we have a minority report from Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens in relation to this part of the bill. In Part 2 of the bill as it was introduced, the Minister wished to ban sunbeds for young people under 18 years of age. We had many submissions on this part of the bill, and practically every one of them thought that we could do much better. They thought we could do much better because of the very strong evidence that sunbeds are very bad for the health of New Zealanders. In fact, we believe—well, we do not believe; we were told—that sunbeds increase the risk of people getting melanoma by 75 percent. They increase the risk of getting melanoma by 75 percent, so you have to ask yourself why we would continue to allow the commercial use of sunbeds in New Zealand. Do we not, in a public health approach, try to minimise the risk to New Zealanders? Is that not the very approach we have taken with tobacco and with requiring people to wear helmets when they are on their bikes? Think of the range of measures that we have put in place to protect the health of New Zealanders.

What we did at the Health Committee was to put in a minority view that said we believed that sunbeds should be banned in New Zealand, except for medical purposes. That is what my Supplementary Order Paper 80, which has been available for quite some time now—in fact, since 20 May last year—does. What it does is to ban the use of commercial sunbeds, except for medical purposes. The reason we did that was that it was based on the evidence that was provided to the select committee. I can see no good use in having sunbeds for commercial purposes for New Zealand at all. In fact, I brought down one of the submissions that I think was important because of the submitter’s dealings with patients, and that is the submission from the New Zealand Medical Association. It said: “the NZMA is supportive of a complete ban on the use of commercial UV tanning services for cosmetic purposes and we ask that the Committee gives this recommendation serious consideration during its deliberations.” Well, in fact, the committee members did give it serious consideration and three parties said: “We want to ban them.” Unfortunately, that was not the view of the Government members or the Minister.

I have to say I have great respect for our Ministry of Health officials—they do a great job—but their regulatory impact statement is a great disappointment to me. When you read their regulatory impact statement, you would have to think that it is more important to the Ministry of Health to ensure people’s rights to a tanning machine than to ensure the health of New Zealanders, because it sets out its objectives against which the policy options could be assessed.

This is what the Ministry of Health says its objectives are. It developed these objectives, against which policy options could be assessed, and they included, first, preventing and reducing the risk of public harm from commercial sunbeds. Tick—you could not disagree. Next is that any new controls or interventions for this purpose need to be “risk- and evidence-based,”—risk- and evidence-based—and “good international practice;”. Risk- and evidence-based was a reason provided to the select committee as to why these are not good for the health of New Zealanders. Of course, as we know, the World Health Organization itself has made its own comments on this. It believes sunbeds are carcinogenic. The third objective is that it be “appropriate to protect health and safety, while still enabling the use of medical UV devices for the treatment of certain skin conditions …” Tick—agree. Then the next one states that options should not impose “unnecessary or unjustified compliance costs,”—well, if they are banned I doubt whether there is a hell of a lot of cost, or a need to have inspections or to have codes of conduct. They are just banned.

The last objective—and this is the one that I really found offensive—says to not “unnecessarily restrict access to services desired by well-informed adults, unless there is good reason.” Why do we have legislation, regulation, and taxation on tobacco, because, surely these are well-informed adults? Surely they want to keep smoking? That is their choice, if you were to read this—why restrict access? You see, it does not add up.

I am going to say this—and people might disagree—I do not believe that this is what the Ministry of Health thinks. I also know officials in the Ministry of Health. They are good public health people. I do not believe this is what they wanted. This is what is provided, but it is certainly not good public health practice. It is certainly not what a forward-looking Government would put in place.

It is interesting that in Australia, a country that I do not believe usually outstrips us when it comes to health policy—in fact, it is a slow follower of New Zealand, in the main—they have banned the commercial use of sunbeds. The ban took effect from 1 January this year. One of the things that we were told at the select committee was that used sunbeds from Australia were heading to New Zealand so that we can give melanoma to our people, because they do not want it over there.

It is also an irony to me that the Government has announced $39 million of new expenditure for Pharmac, much of which, the Minister said, is going towards a new melanoma drug called Opdivo, when at the same time it is not prepared to ban sunbeds, which, as I said to you, increase the risk of getting melanoma by 75 percent. It does not add up. Why have we not got the courage of our convictions to say we will ban them? My Supplementary Order Paper allows 3 years to phase them out. It gives the commercial operators the opportunity to change what they are doing. It is not unreasonable, but it is a good public health measure.

I feel strongly about this, and so do so many people who have contacted us, particularly those who work in public health, including doctors, nurses, and specialists. It is a mystery to me as to why we have not gone the whole hog. Instead what we are doing is that we are banning it for those under 18 years of age. Melanoma does not just stop for those under the age of 18 years. Unfortunately, melanoma is actually a problem for young people—yes—but those who are older than 18 also get melanoma.

I am very sorry that we have not been able to achieve an ultimate outcome in this bill. We certainly did an excellent job in Part 1. This is a disappointment—from Part 2. I do not care whether there are those who say a Supplementary Order Paper such as mine is the nanny State. I am over this nanny State stuff. I am over putting that up as an argument when we should be protecting the public health of New Zealanders, rather than allowing the continuation of a practice that, when used, leads to 75 percent of New Zealanders being likely to get melanoma.

We will vote for this bill. Now I see the Minister of Health arriving in the chair. He probably missed the slight praise I gave him a wee while ago, so I am happy to repeat it. He did act quickly on Part 1 when we made an amendment to it. But he has not been moved to change the position on sunbeds—to ban them. I urge the Minster to rethink it so that it is not his legacy that he finishes as the Minister of Health—

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased tonight to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call in the Committee stage of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. In this call I specifically want to address, in Part 2, clause 13, which inserts New Part 5 in the Act. I will say that this bill does not nearly go far enough towards fighting skin cancers and melanoma here in New Zealand. There have been a lot of calls taken in this House on the first and second readings that outlined good, solid reasons why this Government should ban sunbed use outright here in New Zealand. Our minority report, as mentioned by the Hon Annette King, showed strong dissatisfaction that we did not go far enough to ban sunbeds here in New Zealand.

Under the orders of Minister Coleman, the Ministry of Health sought public views on artificial tanning safety measures, with its consultation document entitled Reducing Harm from Commercial Sunbeds: Consultation document. I found that rather interesting, that document, which called for public submissions. I could not quite determine whether or not the commercial element was really given the same amount of consultation to submit from those people’s business perspective on the issues that they could see in the regulation of sunbeds or regulation becoming stronger in ruling the sunbed industry. So tonight, throughout this call in the Committee, I am leaning heavily on my experience as a business operator in the hair and beauty industry, where the very equipment that we are addressing in Part 2 is actually what I used in my business.

In my business we sold suntanning concession tickets to people, but we had the good practice of ensuring that every client who came through the door who wanted to have a suntanning experience actually met my requirements. They had to have the correct skin tones and they were scored through a consultation process. And I can tell you that at times it was a really unpleasant situation, and one that not only I but my staff were put through from mothers—mothers who wanted their 12-year-olds, their 14-year-olds, and their 16-year-olds to get browner. I used to sit there and think: “This is crazy.” As a parent, I would never allow my child under the age of 18 to be on a suntanning bed. So New Zealand First completely supports the call to ban any users under the age of 18 from suntanning services.

It is quite prevalent too, in what we have seen since 2009, when the World Health Organization released its finding that sunbeds were in fact carcinogenic. I can say it caused a pulse, a shudder, throughout the New Zealand suntanning industry. All of a sudden I saw, in my industry, disclaimers being written up from salon owners and tanning bed owners to ensure that none of the blame came back on them should those tanners who were not correctly assessed develop skin cancers or melanoma in the future. I found it rather disheartening for that to be a big part of the industry. I could understand on one hand why operators quickly scrambled to try to protect themselves—that was because of the level of investment in the suntanning beds. Some salons invested only about $10,000 in second-hand beds that were here in New Zealand; other salons throughout New Zealand made a big investment of from $80,000 to $140,000.

So what that did for the industry—and I am sure that the Government advisers themselves know this—was it forced a quick concession of sales that were deemed and called 1-month unlimited suntanning sessions. These were available for a cheaper price than under any other fixed sessions and started, mostly—depending on what area you lived in, in the country—for $30. So you could suntan any time, any day—whether you wanted to go once or twice—for that whole month with unlimited sessions. And, certainly, you may be surprised to know that mostly men took up that opportunity—men did. That is reflected in the fact that men have been known to have a 40 percent increase in skin cancers and melanoma, especially on their backs, because often they do not check their backs. It is really good, now, that the industry is actually telling their clients that their wives must check their backs for any dark spots. We are trying to encourage men to not only get other health checks but ensure that they also get their backs checked.

I want to add that women in New Zealand have a high incidence of skin cancer melanoma on their legs, and that is because, predominantly, we know that we tend to like the sun and we sit outside and we sunbathe quite a bit. So this particular part in this bill really interests me because it was—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ria Bond.

RIA BOND: Because it was—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You do not need to put your hand up.

RIA BOND: Oh, sorry. Ha, ha! I have just got good manners, Mr Chair.

So that is why it was essential for me to come down to the Chamber tonight and talk about this particular part of the bill. From my 26 years in the industry, I have to say that I stopped selling sunbed services in my business because I, for one, could not actually sit there with the thought that someone may in the future develop skin cancers and melanoma from a service that I offered to members of my community. I am quite proud of the fact that I recognised that that was not a good long-term thought to have.

I also want to say that to be brown is sold to the industry as being sexy. We get reps who come into our salons and they contravene what the Cancer Society tells us—they do. The reps tell us that the Cancer Society will always oppose what the solarium society says, which is that it is actually safer to suntan inside on a solarium bed because it has a controlled release of UV. They say that that is safer than suntanning outside. That is how they get their beds inside those industries, inside those tanning clinics, and inside those salons—and they make it easy for you to pay it off—and that is a concern because now, many years later, I know that that is not true. I started to investigate the true facts myself, which led me to believe that I should not sell those services in my salon.

I do want to say, also, that the whole sexy factor of being darker, tanner—we see that in our reality shows on TV now, and in the show Geordie Shore, where even now they actually get to promote their own tanning products, and that is affecting our young ones. It is also affecting women and men because they want to look better and, I guess, to have a little bit of brown or nice brown—it does sell sexy and that is the wrong message to send. It is the wrong message for our consumers, and it is the wrong message for our community.

I also want to say that the Dermatological Society states that it is really disappointed that the Health Committee decided not to ban sunbeds outright in New Zealand. I have to say, as a former user, that I certainly support that as well.

I want to address the second reason why I had to come down to this Chamber today. I want to address the fact that this bill in no way whatsoever covers UV nail technicians or the nail industry—that is what has made me come down to this Chamber. We put our hands inside UV lamps when we get our nails done inside nail salons and we are exposed to UV. I am quite concerned about that—so concerned that I am hoping that the Hon Annette King would support me to make small amendments to her Supplementary Order Paper 80, which is a great Supplementary Order Paper, by the way, as it futureproofs up our UV exposure in this country.

My amendments that I seek to table tonight to amend Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon Annette King are to clause 13, in new Part 5, to replace new sections 113 and 114. Under new section 113, “Interpretation”, I would like to add in the simple words “UV nail lamps” after the word “sunbeds” and before the word “sunlamps”, and to add the words “UV nail” after the word “tanning” and before the word “services”. In proposed section 114, I would like to add the words “UV nail” after the word “tanning” and before “services”. Under subsection (1) I would like to add “artificial nail services using UV”. In subsection (2) I would like to add the words “or UV artificial nail services”. My explanatory note for that is, simply, that throughout this bill the nail industry has completely been forgotten about, but consumers are still exposed to UV lamps on our hands and feet, and that is just as important as on our bodies.

I would like to commend the Hon Annette King for her Supplementary Order Paper. It in no way at all should be considered nanny State; it should be considered responsibility. It should be considered responsible to minimise the harm that UV exposure is causing here in New Zealand. We want to decrease the incidence of skin cancers that we have, and also melanoma. So I would like to get support from the Labour Party, the Green Party, members across the Committee, and the Minister to support my amendment of the Supplementary Order Paper of Annette King.

I want to add to that that when I started as an apprentice I actually performed nail services in my salon, and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr the—no. The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): No, I am not Lockwood. I was just very impressed by the outbreak of bipartisanship that we have had across the House two nights in a row. So I would thank Mrs King for her comments, and, of course, the Committee came to a unanimous conclusion on the first part of the bill, but now we are discussing the second part. I would thank, also, Ms Bond for those interesting cultural insights into the world of Geordie Shore. She made some good points, actually, about UV tanning and exposure to the hands. That is something that was not actually considered, but it is a good point indeed.

The wider point here is that we are talking about whether or not we should have banned sunbeds for people over the age of 18. People were unanimous on the Health Committee about the need to remove that exposure for children under the age of 18, but then you get to the issue of people aged 18 and over, and this is where the philosophical differences really do come in. Mrs King was very adamant, and she has expressed it here with Supplementary Order Paper 80, that the sunbeds should be banned.

Well, there is no doubt that melanoma is a problem in New Zealand and sunbed exposure is a risk factor for that—there is no question about that—but there are all sorts of things that people choose to expose themselves to on a daily basis that are a risk for all sorts of cancer. There is eating fat—that is a risk for all sorts of nasty cancers—there is drinking alcohol, and there is actually exposing yourself voluntarily to sunlight. So if we are saying that we want to remove all risk, there would be a lot of things that the Labour Party would be wanting to ban, including, I should think, letting you go to the beach in summer. Obviously, that is completely impractical, but you have got to get the sense of proportion—

Clare Curran: Silly man.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —around the problem here. Do you know how many of these sunbeds there are in New Zealand? OK, so Ms Curran is calling me a silly man. Can Ms Curran tell me how many sunbeds there are in South Dunedin? No. The village idiot of South Dunedin—she can interject but she cannot make a constructive contribution. Well, I can tell her that—

Hon Annette King: Hey, we were being nice to each other.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Sorry, we are being nice.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member—

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: OK, I withdraw and apologise in advance. I am not wanting to break my flow, so, sorry, Ms Curran. But what I would say is: do you know how many there are—[Interruption] Look, listen up. Listen up, Labour people, you will learn something. There are 260 sunbeds in New Zealand, and dropping. Fewer and fewer people are going to these things. We have taken this considered approach, and you look at the by-law brought in in Auckland, where a year ago it implemented this by-law requiring quite strict registration requirements for sunbeds. Sunbeds have dropped by 20 percent over that time. So I think we already have in place a sinking lid on sunbeds, because the regulations that will follow on from this bill are going to make it really pretty tough if you want to continue to operate a sunbed. You are going to have to have your operators registered. You are going to have to have the sunbeds themselves registered. You are going to have to take notes in the manner that someone practising some branch of medicine would have to. You are going to have to have patient-care notes. You are going to actually have to screen out high-risk—

Hon Annette King: Bureaucracy.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There will be a lot of bureaucracy—that is the point, Mrs King. So I do not think that you will find too many people who are going to want to continue to operate sunbeds. They are going to have to screen out high-risk skin types. So people like me—I will not have any chance of going to Paul Goldsmith’s sunbed-tanning clinic, you know, because I am one of these Anglo-Celtic types. They will say: “No. There is no way we are going to let you under a sunbed.” There is going to be a lot of compliance burden on those who continue to want to offer this service, but, it being a democracy, there will still be the option for those who do want to provide this service to actually do that.

What you will also find, I think, is that with all this form-filling, all the hassle that the clients are going to have to go through, and the way these things are going out of fashion, I reckon in a few years’ time there will not be very many people going along to a sunbed. There will be fewer and fewer.

Hon Annette King: Give a lead, Jonathan. Give a lead.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Mrs King is just itching to ban this, but I want to hear the list of other things she wants to ban. We are not a party that bans things.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Listening to you—I want to ban listening to this speech of his.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Mrs Dyson—she wants to ban listening to me. In fact, she does not even have to be here. She has the choice to leave now of her own accord, but no, she chooses to stay because actually she knows there is a real point here.

So Part 2—look, it has been a good debate on the bill overall. I would like to thank the officials for their excellent regulatory impact statement. They did a great job on that. I think Mrs King has been way too tough on them. They understand the perspective of the Government. I think this is the exact right move. I think you will see very many fewer of these beds in the next few years, and this is the right approach.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving me the call—for allowing me to speak. I was a member of the Health Committee through the majority of the deliberations in terms of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill, and I just want to reiterate what my colleague Annette King said about Part 1 of the bill. I thought it was incredibly collegial. I think we worked through quite diligently, and, actually, you would have seen that there was only one speaker on our side because it was such a succinct debate—there was nothing, really, for us to add.

But Part 2 of this piece of legislation has been completely different, and that, really, was because we tried to implement some evidence-based action for a piece of health policy. That evidence was provided by many submitters who came to the select committee, including the Cancer Society, many specialists, and cancer survivors. There were people who had detrimental effects not only from using sunbeds, or tanning machines, or solaria—whatever you want to call them—themselves but also because they worked in industries that, as Ria Bond has articulated, provided those services. But then some members of the industry saw how destructive this piece of equipment was.

I really wanted to give some numbers to this whole debate, because in New Zealand we have over 2,324 diagnoses of melanoma every year, and we actually have 354 deaths. That is the context of my colleague Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper 180, and the rationale from our side to actually ban these devices. It is also congruent with Australian statistics. Australia has over 2,000 deaths per annum, and 80 percent of its annual cancer diagnoses are skin cancers. So Australia was very much led by the evidence—it was led by these sorts of statistics—so it was incumbent on the Government and the states of Australia to ban sunbeds, and they actually did so to protect the health and well-being of their citizens.

It actually costs us over $25 million per annum to treat people with cancers, which is a lot of money, and I would have thought that rather than treat people every year who get diagnosed with melanoma, we would want to stop people getting melanoma in the first place. So if sunbeds are proven—which they have been, through numerous studies. There are the World Health Organisation and American studies, Brazilian studies, studies from France and the EU, and the reason I bring up all these countries is that they are having discussions themselves about banning sunbeds. Based on evidence—based on medical evidence—we have already seen sunbeds banned in Brazil, but France, EU countries, and the United States are going to ban them as well.

I was just googling before about the cost of premature deaths. Can you put a value on—what did they call it here? I actually did find a table. It is the value of a statistical life. So these are people who die prematurely, and if we have these 354 deaths every year from melanoma, does that equate to something? For New Zealand, the value on a statistical life is $3.35 million, so for us, at that death rate, that is a $1.17 billion cost to the country from having people who get melanoma and then die from it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: And it could be prevented.

LOUISA WALL: And it could be prevented. That is why this is an incredibly frustrating Committee stage debate to have, because I think the proposition in Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper enables the industry and gives it a bit of time to decommission its sunbed machines, and it will recoup any losses. In Australia, it was interesting. It actually compensated the operators $1,000 a sunbed.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I did not actually think I was going to be efficacious in taking the call at this point, but, look, I want to acknowledge what other speakers have been saying around this issue in Part 2. I would dispute one part. I am not sure whether it has been frustrating—that is just my opinion—but I think it has actually been quite informative. I am not supportive of the amendments to Part 2 to ban sunbeds, and I would like to elucidate that a little.

This Part 2 actually does two things—well, it is all about sunbeds. Importantly, just quickly to highlight for the Committee, it is also introducing infringement notices. This is a small but significant change that the Health Committee recommended. The initial draft of the bill had what were, effectively, criminal provisions—that you could be fined—and I think it is important to raise here in the Committee of the whole House that the select committee thought it was important to have an infringement notice approach as well, partly for the reason of proportionality. You do not want to always just go straight to a criminal prosecution. It is not always appropriate, and it can sometimes be too heavy-handed. I think that proportionality is what also reflects, certainly in my decision, not wanting to ban sunbeds, and that is because there is actually a very small number of sunbeds, or solaria, in New Zealand—around 200 or so, and declining.

It was intimated by the Minister of Health that it is also a philosophical approach, and that it is one around actually allowing people to make choices—sometimes those we would think unwise, but they are their choices, nonetheless. Look, the science on this is incredibly clear, OK? Sunbeds are bad for your health. The increased chance of skin cancers including melanoma—there is no doubt that the use of solaria will cause greater harm. I think it is really important too when we are talking about solaria and skin cancers to know that melanoma is just one form of skin cancer—there are many, many types. Just the simple use of a sunbed and what it might do—there are squamous cell carcinomas and basal cell carcinomas, and solar keratosis as well. So there are a whole lot of negative effects.

I want to be very, very clear—and I have been, I think—in the constructive discussions that the select committee has had and in this debate. There is no doubt about what the science says. However, in this case, does it mean that it absolutely has to be banned? No, I do not think so, because of the analogy of something like smoking. The science, in my opinion, is pretty clear too around smoking, and although some of us might like to see that banned as well, we do not think, from this side of the House, that that is the appropriate response either. You know, human beings make choices. We have heard from other speakers as well that eating certain types of fats has an effect. There is the use of alcohol. I know there is debate at times around the smoking of, or the use of, marijuana. There is no doubt scientifically that that is a harmful substance, but there is not necessarily the universal call in the House for that to be banned too. So it is just trying to take a consistent approach.

I really appreciate the work that the member the Hon Annette King has put into her Supplementary Order Paper 80. I actually think that this is a really good and constructive one; it is just that I cannot completely agree with it. In principle, I understand where it is coming from, but philosophically, again, I do not think it requires this House to ban sunbeds. I think it is actually a prudent approach, and, as we have done within Part 2 and within the provisions, we have said that for under 18-year-olds it should be banned. The evidence is, again, abundantly clear that it is a much, much higher risk to someone under 18 years of age, so I think that is an appropriate step.

I think, too, when we heard from Ria Bond—and she was drawing on her own experience in a salon; she shared some of that—you got an indication of how people can make their rational choices either to be requesting the service or, as she explained in her own case, to be choosing at many stages to allow that to happen but, eventually, saying no. I was quite interested by her amendments to the Supplementary Order Paper around nails. Personally, I would need to go away and understand that a little bit more—it was something that never came up in the select committee. I am no doctor; I am no scientist. It would be interesting to know whether the difference of, I think, keratin in your nails versus the skin—whether that makes any difference. Again, it is a pity it did not come up, but I think it is worthwhile. I think the other element—

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to just bring, also, some other aspects into the discussion, particularly around the use of UV tanning services for treatment in hospitals. This bill sets about giving permission to provide artificial tanning services for people over the age of 18, and there is an exception to that age requirement if the person is receiving treatment at a hospital.

I have a family member who is receiving just such a treatment for a particular skin condition, and the reason I want to talk about this is that it is a carefully, closely managed treatment. The UV treatment is delivered in very, very short bursts, it is managed by well-trained clinicians, and it occurs in a hospital setting where blood tests are taken, the condition of the skin is monitored very closely, and medication is also applied. There is very, very close regard given to the health of the person as they are undertaking this UV treatment. This is UV treatment that is very similar—but given in very light doses, very small doses—to the type of thing that you would get sitting in a sunbed for 10 minutes.

With the types of times that I am talking about when you are actually using this as a therapy, we are talking about seconds. We are talking about tens of seconds, perhaps 30 seconds; we are not talking about minutes. Only when your skin has been conditioned over several weeks and you have been closely monitored by these very well-trained clinicians—your blood tests are taken and you are very closely monitored—is it possible to actually have the treatment go to anywhere like a minute and a half. This is a clinical treatment, versus what is going to be available to the general public over the age of 18 in a suntanning clinic, using a sunbed for several minutes at a time.

So there is an obvious risk that is identified by clinicians in the use of UV as a treatment for skin conditions, and that has not necessarily translated in this bill to be determined as a risk for people over the age of 18 who are taking this risk with their health. It does concern me that we are not considering actually outright banning the use of sunbeds.

It is interesting that we make reference to the work that is happening in Australia, because in Australia they take much higher regard to the risk of melanoma through exposure to the sun and through sunbeds. In fact, as an interesting point, I had always thought that in Australia they had higher rates of melanoma, but for certain melanomas, we beat the world. I was really surprised to hear that. The Australians not only have taken the view that sunbeds themselves are dangerous but have also taken the added step of, if you are a worker who works all day in the sun, you are required by your employer to wear personal protective equipment, which means long sleeves, long trousers, and a hat, and to actually apply sunscreen. Their measures to protect people from the damage that the sun can effect far outstrip anything we do in this country, and yet we lead the world in rates of certain melanomas.

So this legislation could have gone so much further. In fact, you could say we are actually quite negligent.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of this bill. I do want to speak in support of the Hon Annette King’s Supplementary Order Paper 80, and I am very disappointed that the Minister of Health will not be supporting her Supplementary Order Paper, because this was an opportunity for us as a Parliament to draw an end to the use of suntanning beds. We could have gone far and we could have done things for the public good, for public health, but, sadly, it seems that we are not going to be heading that way.

I would like to go into the provisions of Part 2, and, in particular, clause 13, which inserts new section 114, “Ban on providing artificial UV tanning services to persons under 18 years”, as part of new Part 5. In particular, subsection (2) says: “The owner or operator must not provide artificial UV tanning services to a person under the age of 18 years.” That is the age limit that has been applied, but I am really surprised that when we look further, to subsection (5), there is provided within the legislation a defence—a defence to a sunbed operator administering or providing services to an under-18-year-old.

I would have thought that if we are going to make it an offence under this part of the legislation, let us make it a strict liability offence. Let us not provide a defence, because we are actually letting that operator off the hook. We are letting them off the hook because there is a statutory defence. They do have a defence for putting an under-18-year-old on a sunbed, but I believe that this needs to be much more strict. Even though the defendant has to prove that defence, it still should not apply, because the harm that we are hoping to prevent through this legislation—well, the sunbed operators can get away with it. They can get away with it, effectively, so we should make it a strict liability offence. There should be no defence. If an under-18-year-old is put on sunbed, then is an offence—that is an offence—committed by whoever is there providing those services. So I think that is a shortcoming.

There is even the idea of infringement notices, if we carry on through the new Part 5. To me, infringement notices seem like a slap on the back of the hand with a wet bus ticket. That is what they are. If we look at who actually issues these infringement notices, well, it could be an environmental health officer. Do we really expect local authority officers to be going around and issuing these infringement notices—actually making the relevant inquiries necessary to be sure they are able to issue these infringement notices?

The whole suite of provisions around these so-called proportional measures is just an outright nonsense. It really is. Really, what it is doing is providing people in the suntan industry with a lifeline. There is no real, strict punishment. It is allowing them to carry on and, effectively, do what they do. As I mentioned, it even allows them to continue to provide their services to under-18-year-olds and, effectively, to be without fault. I think we need to send a much stronger message—we have the opportunity to do that with Mrs King’s Supplementary Order Paper—because those measures are not effective.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I will take just a brief call because I think Ria Bond deserves a response to her amendments to my Supplementary Order Paper 80. I have spoken to Ria Bond to say that I think she has made a very good suggestion. In fact, Simon O’Connor said that he thought she had, as well, but that it was not possible to support it, and this is the reason. With a change like that, if the Government did vote for it—which, obviously, it probably will not—we would not have given the public an opportunity to make a submission on it. It would not have gone through a process; it would have been totally out of the blue. There would have been no opportunity for the public to make a submission, and what we want to do is to ensure that they do have the opportunity to make a submission on something that changes a whole industry. I did suggest to Ria Bond that maybe it is something that New Zealand First might like to submit as a member’s bill at some stage. So I thank her for her thoughtfulness, and also for her ability to put forward a very practical approach to this whole bill from her experience as a businesswoman in this area.

There are just a couple of other things. I was a little disappointed in the Minister of Health’s response, I have to say, in that he believes the way that we will get rid of sunbeds is by having a lot of bureaucracy and that, in the end, everybody will get sick of the bureaucracy and they will finally pull out. I would have thought that the Minister could man up—you know, he once told me that I should man up—and take the final step, which is to ban these sunbeds. As much as I respect the chairman of our Health Committee, I do not accept his argument that allowing it to continue is a philosophical issue. It is a health issue—it is a health issue—which we were trying to address here tonight.

So those are the few comments I wanted to make. It does not look hopeful that my Supplementary Order Paper is going to pass, but at least we can go out—New Zealand First, the Greens, and Labour—hold our heads up high, and say that we did our best to try to prevent the unnecessary deaths of young New Zealanders, in particular, who are attracted to sunbeds because, as Ria Bond said, they want to look beautiful because they are brown. So we have done our best. We have put our best foot forward. If it does not succeed, then it certainly does rest on the Government’s shoulders.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Just to finish my contribution, I want to say that this bill is called the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill, and that word “protection” is really interesting. When you look at the definition, if you google it online, it says “the act of protecting, or the state of being protected”. So, in Part 2, we are saying that only people under the age of 18 deserve to be protected by the State. If you are over 18, then you get no protection. You are on your own, it is up to you, and you make a choice, and I just find that not to be a philosophical debate. It is actually one that is based not on evidence and not on what makes sense, but, obviously, on a philosophical perspective that those members on the other side of the Chamber just cannot see past. They cannot see past that philosophy and cannot be guided by clinicians and other people who are incredibly passionate about this particular issue.

I have had a quick look, just for people’s interest, and in Australia the campaign to ban sunbeds actually started in 2007. It was started by a young woman called Clare Oliver, who was diagnosed with melanoma. She died at the age of 26. She had melanoma for 4 years so, essentially, during the last 4 years of her life she campaigned to ban sunbeds. It was picked up by agencies—the Cancer Society, and the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. A really interesting fact is that the Federal Government health Minister at the time was Tony Abbott. His contribution at the time was that we needed to regulate, and there are no finer regulations across Australia. Actually, Western Australia was the last state to ban sunbeds. That came into effect on 1 January 2016.

We can make law when we have leaders who are passionate about issues. It seems to me that we have no leadership on this issue on the other side of the House. We have people who have had melanoma, who through the Cancer Society have advocated—in fact, the Palmerston North City Council changed its law because one of its young women constituents got cancer. People who have power get moved by real stories, real lives; it just seems that here in New Zealand this Government is not moved. It is not moved by the—and I will repeat it—354 New Zealanders who have died from melanoma each year. It is not moved by the over 2,300 New Zealanders who are diagnosed with melanoma each year. It just makes no sense to me, and, I think, makes no sense to us on this side of the House, that the Government would not act to ban sunbeds. Kia ora.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Ria Bond to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to:

to insert in new Part 5, new section 113, “UV nail lamps,” after “sunbeds”; and

in new section 114:

insert “UV nails” after the word “tanning” and before the word “services” in the heading;

insert in subsection (1) “or artificial nail services using UV” after “tanning services”; and

insert in subsection (2) “or artificial UV nail services” after “tanning services”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Noes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 58

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

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Annette King’s proposed amendment to clause 2 is now ruled out, because of the loss of her Supplementary Order Paper.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Progress to be reported presently.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the Committee report progress.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? I will report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill with amendment, and no progress on the Coroners Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to adjourn until the next sitting day.

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

The House adjourned at 9.51 p.m.