Thursday, 12 May 2016

THURSDAY, 12 MAY 2016

THURSDAY, 12 MAY 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 24 May, the Government will look to make progress on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day. On Wednesday morning the House will sit under extended hours for the second reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill and the first readings of the Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill and Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill. Budget 2016 will be delivered on Thursday, 26 May.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Tax System—Overseas Trusts

1. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Revenue: Would greater disclosure requirements in our foreign trust regime reduce the potential use of foreign trusts for tax evasion and money laundering?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): The question is a hypothetical one, and it is not possible to say what impact such an action would have, because we know that people use trusts for many, many reasons. But, as the member knows, the Government has asked John Shewan to conduct a review of that disclosure regime, and I will await the outcome of it.

Julie Anne Genter: Is the Minister really saying that it is not possible to know whether greater disclosure would help reduce the abuse of foreign trusts?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It may surprise the member to know that I cannot see into the future. So, yes, it is possible.

Julie Anne Genter: So, just to be clear, the Minister does not think that greater transparency would enable the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) to ascertain whether New Zealand foreign trusts were being abused or not?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That was not the question I was asked. In fact, the member did ask that question yesterday, and I refer her to my answer then.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister think that if we had greater transparency and disclosure around our foreign trusts, corrupt Maltese officials, one of America’s most wanted fugitives, the disgraced former chief executive officer of Petroecuador, and the indicted Speaker of the House in Brazil would have been able to use New Zealand foreign trusts or shell companies to shield their illicit activities?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That question is best directed at the subjects named in that question.

Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure why the Minister thinks the question should be directed to the—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the difficulty was the length of the question and the incorporation of names, but, on this occasion, I am going to invite the member to ask the question again. Maybe I can get a better lead on where the question is going and then judge whether the Minister has adequately addressed the question. Julie Anne Genter to repeat that question.

Julie Anne Genter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we had greater transparency around our foreign trusts, would corrupt Maltese officials, one of America’s most wanted fugitives, the disgraced former chief executive officer of Petroecuador, and the indicted Speaker of the House in Brazil have been able to use New Zealand foreign trusts or shell companies to shield their illicit activities?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I cannot see into the minds of the people who have set up those trusts, and therefore do not know what their purposes are, I am unable to answer the question.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister not think it would be helpful to have more information available—for the IRD to have more information so it can clearly determine whether a trust is legitimate or not, thereby helping his Government avoid embarrassing mishaps such as linking Greenpeace and Mojo Mathers to the likes of Panamanian tax avoidance firm—

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

Julie Anne Genter: —Mossack Fonseca?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I did answer that question yesterday, the day before, and, I think, last week, but I will remind the member that the IRD is very satisfied that when it needs the information, a full description of the activities of the trust is available on request, and proactively if necessary.

Julie Anne Genter: Will he broaden John Shewan’s review to look at the use of trusts, shell companies, and look-through companies as vehicles for tax evasion given they have all been used by Mossack Fonseca to dodge tax and facilitate corruption?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I see no reason to do so, particularly given that the issue of look-through companies and shell companies for use as vehicles for some purposes that might not be consistent with tax law has already been fixed.

Julie Anne Genter: Why will he not broaden the terms of reference for that inquiry given that New Zealanders deserve to know that his Government is going to do the right thing, not just what is in the interests of the foreign trust industry and its lobbyists?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I refer the member to my answer to the previous supplementary question.

Budget 2016—Economy and Government Financial Position

2. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy in the lead up to Budget 2016?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The economic context for Budget 2016 is reasonably positive. For instance, although the dairy sector is struggling, New Zealand has a diversified economy, and total exports increased by almost $2 billion last year despite the fact that dairy exports decreased by $3 billion. The labour market is relatively robust, with over 200,000 new jobs in the last 3 years, and the annual average wage rose 2.3 percent in the last year to $58,000. These factors are among the many signs of sustainable, solid economic growth, which in turn supports the Government’s finances.

Melissa Lee: How will Budget 2016 reflect the Government’s continued commitment to responsible fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait till Budget day to see the details, but the House can expect the Government to continue to build on the significant progress so far: an $18 billion deficit in 2011 was turned into a small surplus last year, and we are working to maintain and grow surpluses. We also want to focus on reducing debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

Melissa Lee: What steps will the Government take in Budget 2016 to repay debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The new spending allowances we set out last year for 2016 and 2017 have been rearranged. A portion of spending previously earmarked for Budget 2017 has been brought forward, and another portion of spending previously earmarked for Budget 2017 has been used to reduce debt. These changes to the allowances will reduce spending by around $1.2 billion over the next 5 years, helping to further reduce debt and meet the Government’s debt target.

Grant Robertson: When he said today that additional investment will be funded by “reprioritising within the Crown’s large balance sheet”, what does that actually mean?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It means that where we have capital that we do not believe the Government can manage to best effect, or should continuously own, including—

Phil Twyford: Like State houses, Bill. Is that right?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —well, including State houses—financial instruments, the Government is willing to free up capital from those assets to spend it on necessary infrastructure.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can the Minister of Finance assure New Zealanders that he will not be selling off any more State houses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No—in fact, probably the opposite, because we believe that having thousands of houses of the wrong size in places where they are not needed is not a good use of taxpayers’ money. We focus on meeting the needs of tenants, not holding on to—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford, a little interjection is acceptable, but when it is a barrage like that, it is not.

Melissa Lee: How do the changes in Budget allowances affect the Government’s priority of reducing taxes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Lowering income taxes remains a Government priority. In particular, we want to address the higher marginal - tax rates faced by low and middle income earners as this economy continues to deliver moderate but sustained increases in incomes. However, as we have always said, tax reductions remain dependent on fiscal and economic conditions. With continuing tight fiscal conditions, we do not currently have an explicit provision for tax reduction in the fiscal forecast. However, we will consider these, either in Budget 2017 or after, as and when the fiscal situation improves.

District Health Boards—Funding

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What advice, if any, has he received on cost pressures facing community health providers because of underfunding?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I have received a range of advice, including that Mrs King met with selected health sector representatives on Monday, where, to paraphrase the Dominion Post, a wish list of items was presented. I would remind the member that in 2 weeks the Budget will be announced, and that will include, as always, more funding for the health sector.

Hon Annette King: Is the Home and Community Health Association, whose members provide vital home support to frail older New Zealanders, correct when it reported this week that its sector has not been compensated by the Government for 8 years for increases in the minimum wage?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, what I can say is that district health board expenditure in aged care is forecast to be over $1.6 billion in 2015-16. That is an increase of almost $400 million on the $1.229 billion spent back in 2008-09. The Government has increased funding for aged care faster than it has increased overall health spending, so there is plenty of money—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! But that was not the question, so I am going to invite the Hon Annette King to ask the question again.

Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Home and Community Health Association, whose members provide vital home support to frail older New Zealanders, correct when it reported this week that its sector has not been compensated by the Government for 8 years for increases in the minimum wage?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There is a huge amount of money that has gone in, including the $150 million for in-between travel over 4 years, which benefits 24,000 low-income workers. So there has been plenty of money in there to compensate for increases in the minimum wage.

Hon Annette King: When he has been listening to those working in the community sector, did he hear the home and community care providers tell him that because of years of underfunding, their sector has now lost confidence, that the providers are at the wall, and that the quality of services has dropped?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, they are not saying that, and, as the member well knows, there are cases before the courts around a number of these issues.

Hon Annette King: Are mental health providers correct when they said this week that the $672 million of efficiencies taken out of district health boards’ budgets is resulting in “funds being mined from vital community mental health services.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not seen that quote, but I am sure someone probably did say that to Mrs King. Who it was, I think she should say. But the only fact here is that spending on mental health has gone up by $300 million under this Government, from $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion per year.

Hon Annette King: When he meets with Grey Power—

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: With whom?

Hon Annette King: —with Grey Power. I presume the Minister has heard—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we will just have the question.

Hon Annette King: When the Minister meets with Grey Power, has he explained why—[Interruption] We have got one of the aged people over there—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us start the question again without any interruptions from either side.

Hon Annette King: When the Minister meets with Grey Power, has he explained why an older person needing a hip replacement in the Canterbury District Health Board needs 90 points to qualify, while an older person in the Bay of Plenty District Health Board needs 55 points? Where is the equity he talked about?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As the member well knows, the system has not changed since last century, when she was appointed Minister of Health. It is the same one.

Hon Annette King: Has the $672 million taken out of district health boards as efficiencies had an impact on the number of nursing graduates finding a job as a nurse in the district health board or the community sector since 2012?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, it has not, actually. About 980 nurses graduate each year, and within a year virtually all of them have a job in the sector.

Dr David Clark: That’s not true.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is true, actually.

Benefits—$25 Increase, Coverage

4. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes, when taken in context.

Darroch Ball: Why did she say “I cannot provide the member with the relevant information.” when asked in a written question: “How many families on a benefit with children began to receive $25 a week more after 1 April 2016 as a result of the Budget 2015 child hardship package?”

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: From memory, the difficulty we had was the timing of when that information was requested. I can provide that information now if the member would like to put it down in writing.

Darroch Ball: Why was the Minister’s answer to my written question not just “All of them.”, like she and Bill English have stated in this House multiple times?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because the member was asking for particular numbers, and the difficulty we had was that some people went off benefit and some people were being sanctioned. So we were trying to get the accurate number for the member in order to answer the written question.

Darroch Ball: Why is it that a year after Budget 2015 she, as Minister for Social Development, still cannot answer exactly how many beneficiary families receive $25 more as part of the child hardship package, when surely these calculations should have been completed prior to Budget 2015?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: At the time of the announcement for the Budget last year, there was an estimate made of about 100,000 children. But it came into effect on 1 April this year. So, as I say, the number of people on benefit had changed. We were trying to get for the member an accurate number of those who have received the amount. If the member did not want that accurate picture, he should have just asked a general question.

Darroch Ball: Of the as-yet-unknown number of beneficiary families with four or more children who will actually receive $25 more a week, how is 50c per child per day, in her own words, “a real and meaningful difference.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: From memory, the figure is something like 94,500 who are receiving it—[Interruption] Because we know that now; we did not know it at the time that the member asked the question. I have had people come into my electorate offices and say that it has made an enormous difference to them—every week an extra $25 in the hand. This Government is the first Government in 43 years to raise the level of benefits.

Roading—Auckland to Coromandel and the Western Bay of Plenty Route

5. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government’s commitment to improving the road link between Auckland, Coromandel, and the Western Bay of Plenty?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was my pleasure to announce, alongside the MP for Coromandel, that the Government is investing $278 million to upgrade State Highway 2 between Pōkeno and the State Highway 25 intersection near Mangatarata. This 32-kilometre section of road is the main connection between Auckland and the Coromandel. It is a popular holiday route and supports strong tourism movements in the region, but it has long been a source of frustration for motorists. That is why the Government is stepping in and widening the road, with two lanes along the route for traffic heading towards Auckland. Work will get under way this year on the design, consents, and property purchase, with construction set to start within the next 2 years. I thank Scott Simpson for his representations on this work programme.

Scott Simpson: How will the upgraded roading link on State Highway 2 between Auckland and the beautiful Coromandel improve the journey for motorists?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This popular holiday route is a notorious black spot. The series of improvements announced by the Government will make dramatic safety improvements, with the long-term goal being to reduce death and serious-injury crashes by 80 percent over 20 years. At the same time, though, the new road will allow the speed limit to be safely increased from 90 to 100 kilometres per hour. All up, motorists can expect a safer, more reliable, and quicker drive, particularly for people travelling north after a weekend on the Coromandel.

Todd Muller: What other announcements has he made recently that improve road safety, particularly in the Western Bay of Plenty?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It was my pleasure to announce recently, alongside MPs Todd Muller and Scott Simpson, a $520 million roading package that will transform State Highway 22 between Tauranga and Waihī. The package includes the long-awaited $286 million Tauranga Northern Link, which will connect Tauranga to the west of Te Puna and support expected strong future growth in Tauranga and the wider Western Bay of Plenty. A further $150 million has been earmarked in the package for a future extension of the link road extending out to Ōmokoroa. Finally, the stretch of road between Tauranga and Waihī—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister will resume his seat immediately. I will determine the length of answers; no one else. But if the interjections continue, particularly from my left-hand corner, then I will also be determining how long a particular member stays in the Chamber. Would the Minister complete his answer.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Finally, this stretch of road between Tauranga and Waihī is overrepresented in fatalities, so a further $85 million will be spent on a wide range of safety improvements along the road, which will reduce death and serious-injury crashes. I appreciate that the Opposition hates this much good news from the Government.

Marama Fox: When can residents of the East Coast expect to receive announcements to improve the road links of Te Tai Rāwhiti, such as State Highway 35?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I thank the member for her vigorous representations in this regard. There has been some very good work on the East Coast on State Highway 35—passing lanes, which I have seen with the member, and also Mōtū Bridge, coming later this year. And I thank also Anne Tolley. We were in good discussions with the council as regional economic development Ministers—Minister Joyce and I, and others—around issues such as State Highway 35 and State Highway 2. And I hope that we will be able to make good progress on those roads over time.

Marama Fox: Given the Minister’s enthusiasm for improving the links around the East Coast region, can we expect the Minister to consider funding rail links to ease pressure on the roads from the Gisborne-Napier rail area?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As the member well says, I am an enthusiast, and I can say that I very much back the transport connections around the East Coast in relation to rail. It is primarily—in fact, it is entirely—a commercial matter between the parties. There are talks going on at the moment, and let us see where they go.

Question No. 4 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I seek leave to correct an answer I made earlier.

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

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In answer to the member’s question, I inadvertently mentioned the figure of 100,000 children to whom the benefit changes were addressed. I should have said 100,000 families.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

Housing—Homeownership and Availability

6. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does the Government plan to introduce new policies to reverse the decline in home ownership; if so, how long will it take to reverse it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes, although homeownership has been in decline in every census since 1986, spanning a period of 30 years, four Governments, and 12 housing Ministers. The answer is in long-term, evidence-based policy reform. Solutions include keeping interest rates low, freeing-up land supply through Resource Management Act reform, better city plans, infrastructure investment, building technology innovation, and upskilling the sector. Our supply initiatives in Auckland took 3 years, to the point where rents have now declined in the last year by 3 percent—when they were growing by over 20 percent. In Auckland, as a larger market, it will take longer.

Phil Twyford: Has he sought $2 billion in the Budget for his surplus Crown land fund given that to secure the first 13 hectares of the 500 that he promised cost over $50 million and has yet to deliver any houses?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have sought funding in the Budget, and it will be found out whether that has been successful—

Grant Robertson: How much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —or not on Budget day. Only a few more sleeps, Mr Robertson, and Mr English will reveal all. In respect of the Crown land programme, all of the funding that was provided in last year’s Budget will be extended for that programme, and in the coming weeks I will be announcing the specific developments that will deliver the houses that are so crucial to the solution for Auckland.

Phil Twyford: Will this Budget be announcing a replacement for his soon-to-expire special housing areas in Auckland, which, after 3 years, have produced only 700 houses, against a deficit that has built up on his watch of 40,000 dwellings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member completely misses the fact that before you build a house, you need a section. What we know from those special housing areas is that they are bringing tens of thousands of new sections on stream, and that is one of the reasons why the house build rate in Auckland is progressing so quickly. In respect of his Budget question, he will need to wait.

Matt Doocey: How many houses were being built per month in Auckland when National came to office, and how many are being built now?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Auckland was building 200 houses per month in late 2008—200 per month. We are not building 200 houses per month, as under Labour, but 800 per month currently. Residential investment in the last 12 months in Auckland was $4.2 billion. It has never before been over $4 billion. Only 4 years ago it was $1.5 billion. The Government initiatives to grow supply are bearing fruit, and building activity in Auckland is booming.

Phil Twyford: Will he be adopting a large-scale, Government-backed - affordable home building scheme in the Budget to deliver what New Zealand really needs—more affordable homes—instead of tinkering and fiddling with the building tariffs in the last Budget, which, according to his own officials, has had zero impact on building costs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The irony is this: if you take the KiwiBuild initiative that the member who raises the question put out, and if you look at the schedule that he thought was the maximum growth rate that you could deliver in new houses, the growth in new homes being built in Auckland is actually at twice the rate of what KiwiBuild was going to be able to provide—twice the rate—which shows that if you provide the incentives to the private sector, it will get on and do the job. I am never of the view that the State building every house is the answer.

Phil Twyford: Why should middle New Zealand have any confidence that the measures in this year’s Budget will be anything more than token, given that all of his Budget housing initiatives so far have done nothing to stop the increase in house prices and have continued to back speculators at the expense of first-home buyers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What total rubbish. A simple initiative last year, HomeStart, saw 12,000 Kiwi families, first-home buyers, all over New Zealand getting more support from the Government—[Interruption] Twelve thousand. It saw more of them getting support all over New Zealand as a consequence of the most generous support provided in a generation for first-home buyers. I challenge the member to look at Hobsonville, a development on which not a single house was built during Labour’s 9 years. It turned the first sod—

Phil Twyford: We started it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yeah, you turned the first sod—

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

Pest Control—Velvetleaf

7. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What further advice does he intend to provide to New Zealand farmers on the Government’s ongoing response to the invasive pest plant velvetleaf, otherwise known as China jute, butter print, and Indian mallow?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The Ministry for Primary Industries is leading a nationally coordinated approach to contain and reduce the geographical spread of this pest and to move towards elimination where possible. The focus of efforts is now on developing a long-term management plan for velvetleaf. This will involve key stakeholders, including local and regional councils as well as farmer groups. The current advice to farmers who have planted fodder beet seed this season is to check their crops and report any sightings to the Ministry for Primary Industries. A comprehensive farm management plan is now available.

Richard Prosser: What steps has the Minister taken to mitigate the impact that this velvetleaf incursion is having on New Zealand’s ability to export weed-free seed crops, which has already seen a North Island farmer lose a multimillion-dollar export contract?

Hon NATHAN GUY: If the member had been listening, he would have heard in the primary answer what we are doing in terms of the response, in providing reliable information through to farmers. What we have also been doing since we found this issue here in New Zealand is we have got tough new border inspections at the border. We have actually banned four seed lines from coming in from European countries. Import consignments now require sign-off by one of the Ministry for Primary Industries’ two technical officers before they can be released, and there is actually wider laboratory testing. We are doing a lot about this issue.

Richard Prosser: Is the Minister aware of any link between imported grains fed to poultry and the 21 Waikato properties infested by velvetleaf that have never had suspect fodder beet but that did apply poultry manure sourced from poultry companies using imported grains?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member should be aware that velvetleaf was first known to be present in New Zealand in 1948. In regard to his specific question, I am aware of the particular allegations. The Ministry for Primary Industries did a thorough investigation in 2011, and it is highly unlikely that it was the source of the Waikato incursion.

Richard Prosser: Will the Minister revise import standards for animal feed grains that allow prohibited weed seeds to be present, like the 176,000 tonnes imported in 2015 from countries with velvetleaf—an increase of 72 percent on 2014 volumes?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member would be aware that last year there was an extra $27 million in Budget 2015 for biosecurity. As a result of that, we have got more people working on the front line and we are reviewing the import health standards. We are doing an awful lot in this space, and I find it a little bit hard to take the member at his word, because yesterday he was saying that possums are not actually a pest at all and that he thinks the chilled-meat deal to China is not a good one. I am not sure that this member realises the importance of the primary sector to the New Zealand economy.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a Waikato Regional Council situation report dated 6 May, outlining the current state of velvetleaf incursion.

Mr SPEAKER: Where did the member source the document from?

Richard Prosser: It is from the Waikato Regional Council. It is an internal document.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it off its website?

Richard Prosser: No, it is an internal document.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table the Waikato District Council report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Student Loans—Overseas-based Borrowers

8. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government ensuring overseas-based New Zealanders repay their student loans?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): This week the Government passed the Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax, GST on Online Services, and Student Loans) Bill, which includes an information-sharing agreement with the Australian Taxation Office to provide the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) with the contact details of borrowers living in Australia. This agreement is an important part of the initiative run by the Government since 2010 to ensure overseas-based student loan borrowers repay their loans. With the majority of overseas-based borrowers living in Australia, this new agreement will be a significant step forward in speeding up the repayment of the estimated $3.25 billion borrowed by those who are now living offshore.

Stuart Smith: What measures are included in the overseas borrowers initiative?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Before the current initiative began in 2010, overseas-based student loan debt was in the too-hard basket. We do still have a way to go to get the repayments to the level we want, but in addition to this information-sharing agreement, we have brought in fixed repayment obligations and higher repayment thresholds for overseas-based borrowers, introduced a border arrest system for the most non-compliant overseas-based borrowers with high levels of default on their student loan repayments, and put in place ongoing information-sharing between the IRD and the Department of Internal Affairs, to collect contact details from passport applications. These are all having a positive impact, with the current target of lifting extra payments by overseas-based borrowers by $100 million a year on track to be met in this financial year.

Stuart Smith: Why is it important for overseas-based borrowers to meet their obligations?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is important that all borrowers meet their obligations to taxpayers, who have supported their tertiary study, and, therefore, allow the same level of support to be available for the next generation of students. Through this initiative, we have made it easier for borrowers to contact the IRD and make payments from overseas. It is really important for borrowers to know that just being overseas does not mean the loan goes away, and they are encouraged to get in touch with the IRD and get on top of their student loans.

Police—Crime Prioritisation and Burglary Resolution Rate

9. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: What criteria do Police use to decide whether or not to respond to a call from the public about a crime that has been committed or is being committed?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Police): I am advised that all calls to Police are coded by priority. In general terms, there are four categories: those requiring an immediate response, a timely response, a managed response, or no attendance required. I would go into the detail of them, but then I would have Mr Robertson screaming at me that I was giving a speech.

Stuart Nash: Why should the people of Russell have to put up with exactly none of the 32 burglaries in their town being solved in 2015?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The issue would be whether the calls were lodged and whether they were matters requiring attendance. I do not know—

Grant Robertson: They’re burglaries, Chris.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not know the particular details, Mr Robertson, of what goes on in Russell at a particular time. If he wanted a particular question on Russell answered, he could have put that down.

Stuart Nash: Does she think the people of the Clive community, just south of Napier, have grounds to feel pretty annoyed that the year after their community police station was closed only three of the 76 burglaries reported were solved?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is getting a long way away from the primary question, which dealt with response times and priorities given to calls. Again, I do not know the particular circumstances of what goes on in Clive at any one time, and I suggest that if he wants precise answers on Clive or any other part of the Hawke’s Bay, he could put that down as a written question.

Stuart Nash: Does she believe her party has lived up to John Key’s 2008 commitment to “Crack down on the serious end of crime.” given that over 90 percent of burglaries in the country went unsolved last year?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That is much easier: yes.

Stuart Nash: Is the reason police simply do not have the resources on the ground to respond to and solve crimes, like burglaries, that her Government has underfunded Police by over $300 million, as acknowledged by the Police Commissioner himself?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, that is completely wrong. Since 2009 the Government has boosted the annual Police budget by $200 million to increase police numbers—

Grant Robertson: An amazing amount of information available now.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —what—by 600 to a record 8,907 sworn officers. [Interruption] Well, it is no surprise that I could answer this question.

New Zealand Sign Language—New Zealand Sign Language Fund

10. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Disability Issues: How is the Government continuing to support, promote, and maintain New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): Happy New Zealand Sign Language Week. The Government invests $1.25 million into the New Zealand Sign Language Fund every year, and that provides funding for New Zealand Sign Language community-led projects. Since the New Zealand Sign Language Fund started in 2015, it has supported 28 projects across New Zealand, and these projects will help develop a vibrant, healthy, and flourishing deaf culture for current and future generations of Deaf people and support other New Zealand Sign Language users.

Barbara Kuriger: How do the projects funded by the New Zealand Sign Language Fund help Deaf children and their families?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: This year’s grants have nine projects focused on supporting Deaf children and their families across the country. These include New Zealand Sign Language holiday programmes, immersion courses for families, a national Deaf youth camp, and after-school art classes. These projects will all help bring Deaf children and their families and communities together to build relationships, share experiences, and strengthen their New Zealand Sign Language skills.

Overseas Investment—Overseas Investment Office and Land Information New Zealand Vetting of Prospective Buyers

11. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Land Information: Does she stand by all her statements regarding Land Information New Zealand and the Overseas Investment Office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): Yes, especially my statement in the House yesterday that in the 6 months to 31 March 2016, 2 to 3 percent of transfers involved buyers who indicated an overseas tax residency. This is in stark contrast to the report that suggests that 39.4 percent of land sales in Auckland are due to a particular ethnic group. That data was released by the Opposition’s spokesperson on housing—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need that part of the answer.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does she stand by her statement that the Overseas Investment Office’s failure to brief Ministers on the Grozovsky brothers’ 2011 pollution case was a “one-off”; if so, is she aware of any previous issues relating to the Grozovskys?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I reported last week, that is an issue that is now under the investigation of an independent quality assessor that the Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand has appointed, and I will wait till the outcome of that review.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the question was quite specific in asking her whether she stood by her statement that it was a one-off—

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! The difficulty was that the member asked not one question but two supplementary questions.

Hon David Cunliffe: Was the Minister advised—and, if so, on what date—that the Grozovsky brothers were not only held criminally responsible for toxic pollution from their tannery in 2011 but also implicated in a 2007 toxic pollution case at the Aguilares sugar mill, which allegedly caused fatalities?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The matter that the member raises is an allegation that was made, and the Overseas Investment Office is now investigating that particular allegation. As I have stated in the House before, if there are any breaches of conditions related to an application, there are options that the office can take.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked: if she was advised, on what date was she advised? She did not address that.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member can hope to get the date as well, but to expect the Minister to actually have known the date—the essence of the question was whether the Minister was advised; clearly, in the answer given, the Minister had been advised.

Hon David Cunliffe: When she signed off on the overseas purchase of Radius Properties Ltd last year, did the Overseas Investment Office advise her that the majority investor in Radius Properties had been involved in a 2014 United States regulatory investigation and had been fined and permanently banned from trading as that firm in the US?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I do not have the details of that particular application in front of me. I am happy to provide an answer if the member would like to put that down in writing.

Dr Jian Yang: What does the 3 percent figure released by Land Information New Zealand include?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The 3 percent figure related to tax residency includes all property transfers, including those made by individuals, trusts, businesses, and companies. In the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2016, the breakdown of the 3 percent figure by buyers who provided an overseas tax residency showed that there were 1,158 transfers where at least one of the property buyers provided an overseas tax residency. This equates to 320 transfers from China, 312 from Australia, and 99 from the UK.

Hon David Cunliffe: On what date was the Minister first advised that the Grozovsky brothers were involved in an alleged 2007 toxic pollution case related to the Aguilares sugar mill?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my previous answer, there are allegations that have been made about the applicants involved, and an investigation is currently under way to do with those issues.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—which one? Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: Mr Cunliffe’s question was very specific about the date. Even if the Minister does not know, she has the ability to say that she does not know.

Mr SPEAKER: It is certainly a very specific question, but can I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 191/3 and 191/4. A very general primary question was asked: “Does the Minister stand by all her statements?”. Subsequently, as we have proceeded through the supplementary questions, they have become more and more specific. The Minister is not expected to hold those sorts of details. In fact, to guess the answer, I suggest, might get a Minister into more trouble than it is worth. The question has been addressed.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon—oh, sorry. Grant Robertson.

Grant Robertson: One day soon, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, you live in hope.

Grant Robertson: I respect the ruling that you have made. The point is that the Minister did not address the question of the day. She could say: “I don’t know.” She could say: “I haven’t been informed.” In one of her earlier supplementary answers, she acknowledged that the office was aware of the allegations. Therefore, she is obviously aware of the allegations. So it is following on from a previous supplementary question. I do not think that it would be unreasonable for the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am in a generous mood on a Thursday. What I am going to do is allow the question to be asked again, but it will be perfectly acceptable for a Minister to say: “I don’t have those details.” I invite the member, the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On what date was the Minister first advised of the incidents related to the 2007 Aguilares sugar mill pollution?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said previously, there is an issue—there are two issues, actually. The first is a review regarding the applicants of that particular place that you are referring to. The second is that there is an allegation that is being investigated, and, actually, I do not believe there is any value in commenting further until that investigation is complete.

Dr Jian Yang: What other statements has the Minister made?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a very general question. I will try to control the answer.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I absolutely stand by my statements in the House yesterday that in a country where we have over 200 ethnicities, it is absolutely disgraceful that members opposite single out one ethnicity and blame them wholeheartedly for rising house prices. I am waiting for an apology. Maybe that is what Mr Little is doing at 3 o’clock. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford. [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford, I am on my feet. There was an example yesterday that the member might well recall.

Hon Annette King: He couldn’t see you.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, to suggest that he could not see me when he is looking at me does not wash too well with me.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does she still have full and complete confidence in the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely, and I said on the record last week that I do have full confidence in the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand. There was an issue with one particular application, which, I understand, is a one-off and a full apology was made by the chief executive related to that one matter.

Pest Control—Battle for Our Birds

12. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: What announcements has she made on a response to the threat posed by pests to our native wildlife?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): The Battle for our Birds is all on, and it will be the largest pest control operation in New Zealand’s history. On Saturday the Prime Minister and I announced that the Department of Conservation (DOC) will receive $20.7 million in new funding as part of Budget 2016. It is needed because of the extensive beech tree seeding last summer that will trigger a plague of millions of rats and tens of thousands of stoats, which breed to eat the rats. DOC scientists predict that these plagues of pests will cause the extinction of at least 10 breeds of vulnerable and rare native birds, including the kiwi, the kea, and the blue duck. DOC will use aerial 1080 poison, backed up by expanded trapping, across more than 800,000 hectares of forests in the North and South Islands.

Sarah Dowie: What innovations will be piloted as part of Battle for our Birds 2016?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: DOC is taking a knockout approach followed by a hold down approach to kill the pest plague. Two pilot projects will use gas-powered self-resetting traps, which have been developed in New Zealand, to hold down rat and stoat numbers after they have been knocked out by aerial 1080 drops. In the Hawdon Valley of Arthur’s Pass they will protect kea. In the Haast region, the goodnature traps will protect the tokoeka kiwi. DOC has improved and refined its use of 1080; instead of needing around 20 kilograms per hectare, as it used to, it now uses only 1 to 2 kilograms per hectare. Biodegradable, water-soluble, plant-based 1080 remains the most efficient weapon in our arsenal to save our birds from extinction.

Sarah Dowie: What evidence has she seen that widespread beech tree seeding is a threat to our wildlife?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Beech trees flower in response to temperature, and if a summer is 2 degrees hotter than the previous summer, as it was last year, it triggers a mast, and this one is huge—a mega-mast. When the seeds drop, an estimated million tonnes of food falls to the forest floor and an estimated 30 million rats will breed in response to the bounty; so will the stoats, which eat the rats. So when the seed rots or germinates, the starving plagues of rodents will eat our defenceless wildlife. Widespread and extra-heavy flowering was very obvious to DOC scientists last spring, and it began to plan for the response. In the battle to save our birds, 1080 will do the job for us.

Eugenie Sage: How much conservation land that is home to species threatened with extinction will miss out on additional pest control available through Battle for our Birds?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The extra $20.7 million will be well spent and well targeted on the areas that now have a beech mast—that is, up to 900,000 hectares. The member can do the maths around other predator control; this is specifically a battle for our birds in areas where beech trees have masted, seeded, and there will be a plague of rats and stoats. That is a very specific targeted project.

Eugenie Sage: Will any of this funding help bring back to life what Forest and Bird has described as the ghost forests of Northland, which are collapsing on conservation land because of possum damage?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: For the information of a member who I thought would have this information at her fingertips if she knew anything about conservation and the environment, she would be very well aware that there are no beech trees in the areas that she speaks of. I come back to the point—and the member is well advised to listen to it—that it is a beech mast, it affects beech trees, and we will target the areas where beech trees have flowered and seeded and will provoke a plague of rodents in the battle to save our birds.

Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister saying that there is simply not enough funding or not enough political will to save Northland’s rātā, tōtara, pōhutukawa, and pūriri forests?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: DOC and this Government as a whole—and that is proven by the fact that the Prime Minister was with me for the announcement—are very focused on getting rid of predators and pests. We would appreciate the cooperation and support of parties that purport to stand for the environment and conservation and yet ask no direct questions about it. The forests, the birds, and the creatures that live in our biodiversity and make this nature of ours unique need to be saved, and it is a priority of this Government to do so. DOC takes it very, very seriously—much more seriously than that member or that party.

Points of Order

Tabling of Documents—Mother’s Day Cards

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table Mother’s Day cards signed by Hamilton and Wellington people asking John Key to support 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not about informing members; that is an attempt to make a political point. [Interruption] Order! The member will lower that immediately. [Interruption] Order!

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just seek some advice from you. When these cards have been—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order; I intend to hear it.

SUE MORONEY: When these cards have been signed “To the Prime Minister” and the Prime Minister will not make himself available to accept them, what other way can they be presented to our Parliament? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will have to seek some advice from the Clerk. I have got no idea, but I know that the purpose of tabling a document is about informing members and not about making a political point. So my ruling is that I am not prepared to put the leave now. Do some further homework; the member might get an answer to her question. [Interruption] Order! If I see those being raised again, either of the members raising them will be asked to leave. I have given a warning, and it has just been defied. I will not put up with it.

Bills

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): I move, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. A report to be presented by the committee later this year will be a significant step for New Zealand in completing our domestic procedures necessary to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The amendments introduced by the bill will take effect only from the date that the TPP agreement enters into force for New Zealand.

New Zealand needs to trade with the rest of the world. We will not become more prosperous or richer simply by selling to ourselves. Taking what we do best to the world—high-quality primary products, innovative solutions and technologies, and the world’s best place to travel and study—is what provides for our Kiwi standard of living. Improving access to international markets is part of the Government’s wider plan to create a stronger economy with more jobs and higher incomes for all New Zealanders. This Government strongly believes that with an open, innovative economy we can succeed in the global market.

Successive New Zealand Governments have pursued free-trade agreements to support New Zealand’s global connections and maximise opportunities for exporters. The TPP agreement is the latest in this legacy. I want to acknowledge the previous Labour Government and the foresight of Helen Clark and Phil Goff for kick-starting the negotiations that led to this very good agreement. I equally want to recognise the courage of David Shearer and Clayton Cosgrove for standing up for free trade. They appreciate that New Zealand’s future lies in being an open, confident country on the world stage.

The TPP is our largest free-trade agreement to date and it places us centrally in a region encompassing nearly 40 percent of global GDP. The TPP will deliver benefits to New Zealand and, ultimately, to all New Zealanders. The 12 TPP countries total 800 million people, who already buy over 40 percent of New Zealand’s exports—that is, $20 billion in goods and $8 billion in services. The TPP is New Zealand’s first free-trade agreement with the US, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Peru, and together these countries buy around $12 billion of New Zealand’s goods and services annually.

Tariffs will be eliminated on 95 percent of New Zealand’s trade to these five countries once the TPP agreement is fully phased in, and, in total, it will see savings of around $274 million a year on goods exports, around half of which will accrue immediately when the agreement comes into force. This is around twice the savings initially forecast for the China free-trade agreement. With the exception of some dairy products to some markets and a reduced tariff rate on beef to Japan—where the rate falls from 38.5 percent to 9 percent for beef into Japan; the lowest ever agreed—all New Zealand - originated exports to TPP countries will ultimately be duty-free. The TPP will also reduce non-tariff barriers to trade and ensure fair access for New Zealand firms doing business in these 11 other countries.

The real strength of the TPP, however, lies in the fact that it is a regional set of rules greater than the sum of its parts. The TPP will help New Zealand exporters build regional supply chains, trade across multiple markets under the same rules, and build new partnerships, and ultimately it is estimated that the TPP will add at least an additional $2.7 billion a year to New Zealand’s GDP by 2030. Some will say that this is an insignificant amount. Well, it is $2.7 billion worth of additional economic activity, securing jobs in all of our regions.

The reasons for New Zealand becoming a party to the TPP are both economic and strategic. It is important to note that as a founding member of the TPP, New Zealand will gain an opportunity to exercise influence on the development of rules that the agreement will set for the region. This is both in respect of its present form and, more significantly, in the future, as membership may well increase.

The Asia-Pacific region is the world’s fastest growing and offers immense opportunity for New Zealand. Through agreements like the TPP, we will be exceptionally well placed to take advantage of those opportunities and shape future trade liberalisation in our region. A counterfactual scenario, where New Zealand is left out of such an agreement, puts New Zealand at risk of marginalisation and decline in the region. As a former Prime Minister said, it would be unthinkable that New Zealand would not sign up to the TTP—a real visionary for the Labour Party of old.

Over the past few months I have been talking with New Zealanders in large numbers at events around the country, including at TPP roadshows and hui, and it is clear that people understand that trade is critical to New Zealand’s prosperity, but there is some misinformation or misconceptions out there. The TPP preserves our core interests and it meets publicly stated bottom lines by those no longer pro - free trade. The TPP does not change the fundamentals of the Pharmac model or the standard, 20-year length of patents for medicines. Consumers will not pay more for their subsidised medicines as a result of the TPP. The TPP will not change the Government’s ability to make good law and regulations. Investor-State dispute settlement exists in many New Zealand agreements, and the risk of an investor-State dispute settlement case being taken against the Government, let alone it being successful, is extremely low.

In the TPP the Government has preserved the right for a future New Zealand Government to restrict the purchase of residential land by non-resident foreigners. Flexibility remains to impose new discriminatory taxes on purchases of residential property by TPP investors, and this could be extremely helpful for a future Government that wants to further restrict the 1 percent of foreigners who are buying homes in New Zealand.

Nothing in the TPP will prevent the Crown from meeting its obligations to Māori. The TPP includes a specific provision preserving the pre-eminence of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. The Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the claims concerning the TPP, which came out last week, found no breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The TPP delivered meaningful gains in tariff reductions and market access, with total savings of $274 million a year in tariffs for New Zealand exporters and tariff elimination on 95.4 percent of New Zealand’s exports to new markets in the US, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Peru.

This is a good trade deal for New Zealand, negotiated by the very same people who negotiated the China free-trade agreement. All of those bottom lines have been met, so the question must be asked—and it must be answered—has the Labour Party really turned its back on trade? If, as I suspect, it was higher in the polls, it would be voting in favour of the TPP, because it is clear that if Helen Clark or Phil Goff or David Shearer was still the leader of the Labour Party, they would be supporting the TPP.

This bill is the latest step in New Zealand’s domestic processes, with the TPP text and national interest analysis having just been examined by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The committee utilised a substantially longer period for its examination than is specified by the Cabinet Manual, and received public submissions both in writing and in person.

New Zealand is already an open, transparent, and trade-friendly country, so most of the TPP’s obligations are met by New Zealand’s existing domestic legal and policy regime. However, a number of legislative and regulatory amendments are required to align New Zealand’s domestic laws with certain obligations. This bill is an omnibus bill, which makes all of the domestic legislative changes required to comply with New Zealand’s obligations in the TPP, except for obligations relating to plant variety rights, which New Zealand has a 3-year period following the TPP’s entry into force to consider and then implement. It is necessary for New Zealand to pass this bill before it is able to ratify the TPP.

The key amendments contained in the bill enable the application of a preferential tariff rate for imports originating from TPP countries, the increase of New Zealand’s overseas investment screening thresholds for significant business assets from $100 million to $200 million for certain non-government investors, and the implementation of the TPP intellectual property obligations. This follows a consultation carried out in March by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the proposed implementation of certain intellectual property changes to New Zealand law required to ratify the TPP.

The TPP provides for an initial period of up to 2 years for all TPP countries to complete their respective domestic processes necessary to ratify. To make the economic opportunities of the TPP a reality for the people of New Zealand, we must progress our domestic ratification process, allowing New Zealand to bring the TPP into force along with our trading partners.

The TPP is our biggest and our most valuable free-trade agreement to date and it places us centrally in the world’s fastest-growing region. It will deliver immense opportunity for New Zealand businesses. It will level the playing field for our exporters, whom this Government backs to succeed and to grow. It gives me pleasure and pride to commend this bill to the House.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This National Government has destroyed a bipartisan approach to trade that has existed for decades. It has destroyed a convention that saw the leading parties in Parliament work together in the long-term interests of this country, and it has done that through its wilfully arrogant approach to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. This Labour Government over here is a Government—sorry, this Labour Party over here, not yet a Government, is a party that supports free trade. We always have. The first Labour Government pushed for increased access for trade in Europe. But we wish to protest, in the strongest possible terms, the current Government’s failure to effectively represent the long-term interests of New Zealand in the TPP negotiations. As it stands, we cannot support the ratification of the TPP agreement.

The legislation before us is an attempt to codify in the law an agreement that, through a wilfully arrogant approach, has failed to represent New Zealand’s long-term interests as well as it could have. As a result, our sovereignty is being unnecessarily curtailed for an agreement with dubious benefits. It is consistent with a National Government that has lost its way. It is increasingly arrogant and out of touch. It is ignoring the big issues facing everyday New Zealanders: the housing crisis, health cuts, jobs, wages, and rising education costs. It is too focused on those at the top—the mega-rich—and it is not looking out for middle New Zealand. Well, a Labour Government will look out for those in middle New Zealand. We would restore the Kiwi Dream.

The Government’s chief negotiator could not give any confirmation that it had sought to preserve the right of future Governments to legislate for a ban on non-resident foreign speculators in New Zealand’s housing market, and then in this House the Minister stood up and said that the Government never asked for one. It did not ask for a ban on non-resident foreign speculators. The Minister confirmed it in the House, in February. It was so arrogant that it abandoned the previous approach to trade that has served this country for decades. That is the nature of this Government. It abandoned the consensus model that has worked for decades, and as a consequence we have got a worse deal. We have not got the best deal that New Zealanders could have got, to consider in this Parliament.

Other countries preserved the right of their sovereign Governments to legislate in the national interest. Let us not forget when we look at the annexes in the TPP agreement that Singapore, Viet Nam, and Australia, to name three countries, sought wider powers to legislate that could, would, and should, if they wanted to, include a ban on non-resident foreign speculators in their housing market. Our country did not get that. But worse, it did not even ask for that right, despite it being the policy of one of the major parties in this Parliament for a couple of years. It was introduced by David Shearer. It was confirmed by Andrew Little as a clear policy that we in future wanted to introduce a ban on non-resident foreign speculators in the New Zealand residential housing market because they are distorting our economy. But the Government is not interested in that. It is interested in protecting the interests of the wealthy few. At least it is consistent.

But it is a great shame because the agreement that has been put before this House for consideration, the legislation that it is based on, which we are looking at today, is not as good as it could be. It is not in New Zealanders’ interests in the way that it might have been had the approach been taken that previous Governments have taken, where they included unions, businesses, and academics in the shaping of the negotiating documents. I have learnt that other countries in the TPP process have included those bodies in the development of their negotiating documents in a way that this Government did not do.

The Government thought it was above consulting with New Zealand businesses. I have heard from businesses in New Zealand that are not happy with the way that this process has been conducted. The Government thought it was above consulting with unions on the development of this deal because it thought it knew better. The Government thought it was above consulting with academics on putting this trade deal together in New Zealand’s interests, because it is arrogant. It is increasingly out of touch with middle New Zealand, and it is increasingly saying that it is above the interests of specialists in this country too. And, of course, all of this leads to a situation where the Government has not even asked for the things that would help New Zealand’s future economy to shift away from the speculative sector and towards the productive sector, which we know will be in our long-term economic interests. It is, essentially, the mark of a Government that seems prepared to manage decline in our economy. It used to speak of aspiration; it does not any more. Now it is just about being a part of the club.

The Labour Party believes that the ability to act in the interests of New Zealand residents and citizens is a principle that builds faith in participative democracy. Unnecessary weakening of sovereign State powers achieves the opposite. We are opposed in principle to this deal.

We also want to register our protest at the shameful curtailing of the processes that led up to this point. In the select committee process that I participated in, we had a 6,000-page document, negotiated over 5 years with corporates in the room. We were given a matter of weeks for submitters across New Zealand to work through it, come to their views, and share what might be in New Zealand’s wider interests, because they had not been a part of that wider consultation period that previously existed. So these people expected New Zealanders to come to terms and give good advice in that very short period of time. Of course they did their best.

Then the Government changed the process again, so that the parliamentarians receiving the submissions did not have the time previously allocated to work through them to make sure that we could make the best recommendations back to this Parliament. That is the arrogance. That is the increasingly out-of-touch nature of this Government. It knows better. It knows better than the experts in New Zealand. It knows better than the businesses. It knows better than the unions. It knows better than the academics. It is determined to ram this process through before Christmas because it does not want to be dealing with this in election year. It knows that the transparency of sunlight—the wider examination—is not going to be popular with the public when they see what this Government has traded off in order to get a deal done to be a part of the club.

We have already seen some warnings, too, in the material that has come through from Treasury. We have not seen it all. The regulatory impact statements were revealed just a couple of days ago, out from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—very late in the piece. We have scanned through them, of course, quickly. We have seen little titbits of advice from Treasury—of course not publicly released. There is more secrecy than needs to be in this process, and it continues. But Treasury says: “the timeframes for decisions have not allowed for a full assessment of the potential impacts or risks involved in some of the proposals. Further work is needed with stakeholders to ensure the proposals are workable and any unintended consequences are mitigated if Ministers wish to reduce the risk of substantive amendments being required as a result of information emerging at the select committee stage.”

Of course, when all of that happens, those decisions will be made on the fly, too. This is not the way to make good legislation in the national interest. It has not been, the whole way through. It is the sign of a Government that is increasingly arrogant and out of touch, and interested only in being a part of the club. It is not working in the interests of middle New Zealand and it is not working in the interests of future sovereign Governments by regulating in the national interest.

We saw also in the previous examination processes that the modelling was flawed. Submitters pointed out that one of the calculations involved in the modelling for the national interest analysis was out by a factor of 300. I have never seen such a thing in economic modelling in all my time, and yet we are supposed to rely on that as an indication that this deal is good for New Zealand. On top of this, the Government has not supplied proper, thorough analysis on the employment outcomes, the income distribution outcomes. What analysis is available comes from overseas and suggests up to 6,000 job losses as a result of this agreement by 2025 and a drop in the proportion of income that goes to wages, as opposed to capital, over time. That should concern all New Zealanders.

Tim Groser said he would pull out of the deal if there was nothing for dairy. Well, there is $90 million by 2030 for dairy, in terms of increased output. Traditional modelling would say that all of that value would accrue to consumers overseas, so we have no value to New Zealand in that—perhaps nine jobs. That is the output of three large dairy farms—perhaps nine jobs by 2030. If that is what Mr Groser thinks is the big deal for dairy, then we have really seen how far ambition has fallen under this Government.

We know that the modelling is very rough. We have had it pointed out to us that gains, on a very optimistic model, as a result of the tariff barrier reductions would amount to 0.05 percent of GDP by 2030. Normal growth, without this agreement, in the New Zealand economy on historical averages over that time would be 47 percent—47 percent without the TPP and 0.05 percent with—

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

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I have some sympathy for the member David Clark, who has just taken his seat. That was a real struggle for him. If actually you have a look and try to find the substance in that speech, you will struggle. It was a whole lot of flimflam, and that is what we saw during the select committee process as well. There was a heavy focus on process. So let me very quickly just address the process side of things, because I want to acknowledge that we have got Dr David Clark as the trade portfolio holder who subbed on to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. We did not see him for all the hearings—

David Bennett: Didn’t see him for any of it.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, that is probably true. Dr Kennedy Graham from the Greens, of course, will probably focus on process as well, and I will acknowledge Fletcher Tabuteau from New Zealand First.

The process—what we did first of all was we doubled the amount of time for people to be able to make submissions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The text itself was publicly available in November of last year, and, of course, we had the national interest analysis as well, which was available to people. We also, as a committee, made a decision that we would accept late submissions and we did that, and we worked with submitters who came to us. Professor Jane Kelsey is a high-profile example of someone who was also working on the Waitangi Tribunal hearing around the TPP, and she requested additional time. We accommodated her, we gave her additional time, and she came along and she was able to make her submission.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did you win her over?

MARK MITCHELL: To be honest with you, we were surprised at her submission. It was very low-key and there were not any major issues that were raised during her submission that the committee had not already heard.

I want to address some of those issues, but one thing I do want to raise—and I find it very interesting looking across at the Labour benches. I know there are free traders in the Labour caucus. I do not see any of them in the House today. Maybe “Stuie” Nash—Stuart Nash, maybe. Stuart will have a great feeling in terms of how important it is for the manufacturing businesses in the primary industry—very strong primary industries—that he has in his electorate, and he will understand the importance of the TPP to them. So let us see if he takes a call. I will be interested to see who takes a call.

It was great to see Grant Robertson come on to the committee. It was great to see him come on to participate in the deliberation, because what he did when he came on to the committee was he highlighted some points that were actually very positive and that were very, very good. He highlighted things that were great about the agreement that actually had not been picked up. You did a great job of that, Grant. We actually appreciate your input. It might have been helpful if you had spoken with David before you came to the committee, but, anyway, I do not want to dwell too much on that.

What I want to dwell on is the bottom lines—[Interruption] No, that is right. Let us dwell on the bottom lines that Andrew Little gave us, because there is something here that needs to be addressed. So let us go through the first one: “Pharmac must be protected …”—Pharmac must be protected. Let us go to our committee report. “The PHARMAC model will remain unchanged under TPP, including PHARMAC’s ability to prioritise which pharmaceuticals get listed for reimbursement … and its negotiating practices. However, there would be some additional transparency requirements associated with PHARMAC’s processes, and this would involve potential costs of $4.5 million … and $2.2 million of ongoing costs per year.” So the Pharmac model is protected. Tick—let us tick that one off. Pharmac is protected, Grant. Great news.

The second bottom line is that “Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest …”. So this goes back to investor-State dispute settlement. Let us see what the committee uncovered in terms of investor-State dispute settlement: “The ISDS mechanism in Section B of Chapter 9 provides for the settlement of disputes between foreign investors and the government of the country in which the investment is made. If a dispute cannot be settled within six months through consultation and negotiation, the investor may submit the issue to arbitration. The ISDS mechanism applies only to the investment provisions in the TPP. Despite ISDS, governments retain the right to regulate in the public interest under TPP. Important safeguards include protecting discriminatory regulatory actions by the New Zealand Government to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, and the environment.” It could not be any clearer.

It also says: “We note that the ISDS provisions enable protection for New Zealanders who may be operating in countries with a different legal system from New Zealand. We also note that there is no way in which TPP affects New Zealand’s sovereignty and New Zealand’s right to legislate in the public interest.” We could not be any clearer. Let us tick that box. Another of Labour’s bottom lines is that “The Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld …”. Well, we have seen the recent findings from the hearing that was held around that. Let us tick that box. Another is that “Meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access …”.

What I find very interesting is that we are not going to hear from the Hon Phil Goff. Why? As a past trade Minister, he supports this agreement, along with another past leader, Helen Clark. She also supports it and says that we cannot afford to be out of it. The interesting thing is the Hon Phil Goff has no economic portfolio and no trade-related portfolios. We have got David Shearer, who made a very good contribution on the committee. Again, he has no economic and no trade portfolios. Where is he? I do not know if we will hear from him.

The Hon Damien O’Connor—a free trader. He is a free trader. He holds the primary industries portfolio. Let us see who came and made a submission to the committee and who said this agreement was critically important to their industries and the future growth of New Zealand. We had the Meat Industry Association and we had Beef and Lamb New Zealand, the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association, New Zealand Winegrowers, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, Fonterra—of course—Export New Zealand, ManufacturingNZ, Horticulture New Zealand Inc., the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority, Federated Farmers—I could go on and on. I would be very interested to see whether the Hon Damien O’Connor, as the primary industries portfolio holder, will come to this House today and stand up and say—

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, I doubt it—I doubt it.

MARK MITCHELL: —Labour is not supporting this free-trade agreement. I doubt that we will see that—I agree with you. I do not think that we will see that. Let us tick that box.

The other thing that I am very interested for the next speaker to get up and address is this. When we had the five bottom lines put out by the Labour Party, by the Labour leader, the wording around the restriction of farmland and housing was just that—the “restriction”—“The restriction of foreign sales on residential properties and farm land.”

Dr David Clark: No, it was a ban.

MARK MITCHELL: No, it is not. No, it was not a ban.

Dr David Clark: It was clear in our policy.

MARK MITCHELL: No, it was not a ban. The ban has been introduced. This is very clear—the fact that it was a restriction. We have the right settings. We have the ability right now, and we manage the restriction on foreign ownership of our farms and residential property very, very well.

If you have changed your position, and if you are trying to—this is an omnibus bill. You guys are faced with a big problem. How are you going to back yourselves out of your position? That is what you are doing right now. You are—

Grant Robertson: Hey, Mark, thank you so much for the advice, eh.

MARK MITCHELL: I am sure that there are some interesting conversations going on in your caucus room. Grant, how are you going to back yourselves out of this position? You know it is a very poor one. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I have the 2 minutes that Mark Mitchell didn’t take?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just get into it.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Earlier in my working life, I had the honour of being an adviser in the office of Helen Clark. During that period of time, one of the jobs that I had was to work on the China free-trade agreement, and, in particular, one of the jobs that I had was to work with stakeholders across the community on their views on the China free-trade agreement. There were people with very, very strong views coming to the table—people from industry, from primary industries, from manufacturing, from the union movement, from the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, and from environmental groups. The Labour Government took seriously the job that we had on behalf of the people of New Zealand to have a discussion with them about trade, about what New Zealand could benefit from in the China free-trade agreement, and about the challenges and the risks within that free-trade agreement. That was an important job—a leadership role that the Government could show. So as we worked our way through the China free-trade agreement, public support for it grew. By the time it was signed, yes, there were still people with concerns about it, but, fundamentally, it enjoyed public support, and a big part of that was because we took New Zealanders with us. We were not so arrogant as to think: “We know everything, and we don’t need to bring the public with us.” That is the approach of this National Government to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Tim Groser is a bit of a figure of fun sometimes in this House, or he has been. I am always reminded of the quote from Mike Moore that the problem with Tim Groser is that he did not get enough credit for splitting the atom. That is the kind of thing people have said about Tim Groser. But today, for me, the humour that was sometimes generated by Tim Groser goes into the background because of how he has let down New Zealand with the way this process was undertaken: in secret, without conversation with New Zealanders, and without bringing New Zealanders along with him.

One of the main concerns about the TPP that members of Parliament—right across this House, I would judge—have heard from people is the feeling that somehow or other the interests of corporations are more important than the interests of citizens. That is what people have been saying. [Interruption] I do not expect Mr Muller to agree with me on that, but I am saying to him that that is what he will have heard, because that is how New Zealanders feel when there is this inside route, this inside access, that gets you influence over the Government, be it Ken Whitney on trusts or be it people on the inside of these negotiations. Most New Zealanders—ordinary citizens of New Zealand—have not been brought along with this agreement, and that is the responsibility of the Government, and that is the responsibility of Mr Groser.

As my colleague David Clark said, the Labour Party is proud of the trade agreements that we have been a part of, right back to the first Labour Government—right back to Walter Nash and Peter Fraser, who said: “We know that we need to support our exporters.” We agree, and we have fought for that. But the fundamental point about the TPP that the Government does not want to acknowledge is that it is not a trade agreement. It is not a trade agreement; it is an agreement about investment and regulation, and, ultimately, it is an agreement that, on this side of the House, the Labour Party, regretfully, cannot support. We would have wanted to support an agreement that opens up market access and that gives our exporters a greater chance on the world stage. But then, when we contrast that with the agreement that sits in front of us today, we cannot support it.

My colleague David Clark has gone into the fact that, actually, it is a poor agreement in many ways, particularly in the case of dairy, the very sector about which Tim Groser stood up and said: “If there’s not a good deal for dairy, we’re walking away.” That is what he said—“If there’s not a good deal for dairy, I’ll be happy to walk away.” And he ends up with a deal on dairy that is worth the output of three farms—there you go. He is prepared to trade away all sorts of things for the output of three farms. He told New Zealanders that. He told New Zealanders that if it was a bad deal for dairy, he would walk away. It is a terrible deal for dairy.

Hon Member: It’s not a terrible deal for dairy.

GRANT ROBERTSON: It is a terrible deal for dairy. But all that is dwarfed by a fundamental concept for us in the Labour Party—that is, the ability of a future Government to make a decision in New Zealand’s national interest to limit offshore buyers from buying existing residential property. This is Labour Party policy. It has been Labour Party policy for several years. That is the policy that we have taken out to New Zealanders, because they are rightly worried about having an out-of-control housing market in which buyers from offshore exert a disproportionate influence on the housing market. They come with deeper pockets, and they push up the prices. People are worried. Labour has got a clear, direct policy to deal with that: a ban on offshore buyers buying existing residential property. The Australians do it. The Australians are in agreement. They have protected their right to do it. Viet Nam has not actually implemented the policy yet, but it has protected its right to do it. But the New Zealand Government went into these negotiations and failed to do that.

This is the issue that upset us, but you can take this issue more widely. Why have we all come to this House as MPs? We have come here on the basis of saying that we want to do things to improve the well-being of New Zealanders. Our job as parliamentarians is to come here and make laws, pass policies, and pass Budgets that will do things for New Zealanders. Today the Government expects us to vote for a piece of legislation that, effectively, enables it to stop us from doing that—to stop us from putting in place a policy that we believe to be fundamentally important. That is why the Labour Party cannot support this bill, because, fundamentally, it should be the right of this Parliament to make the decision to put a ban on offshore buyers buying property. This Government has failed to do that for us.

The Government seems to think that its big, exciting ploy here—Mark Mitchell’s entire speech was to go through and read out all about what different Labour Party members might think about this or that. And then, you know, his clever little tactics, which he is putting up here—stop playing games, Mr Mitchell. Stop playing games and give an honest speech about why you think New Zealanders should support this agreement, because that is what people want to hear—that is what people want to hear. They do not want to hear your speculation about the Labour Party. Stop playing political games with this bill—stop playing political games. Stand up and explain to New Zealanders why it is that you have taken away the right of a future Government to legislate in New Zealand’s interest in respect of the offshore buyers of existing residential property.

That is what this comes down to for those of us on the Labour Party side. We have a fundamental belief in the importance of the democratic process. We have a fundamental belief in the right of New Zealanders to make laws for themselves and in their interests. That is what we should do.

We support exporters, and we support good quality free-trade agreements. What we do not support are poor agreements signed off in secret by a Government not interested in taking the New Zealand people with them. This Government knows today—its members think they are being clever; they think they can play little political games about this—that it is more important than that. This Government should be bringing to this House an agreement that New Zealanders have been brought along with, that New Zealanders have an understanding of, and in which New Zealanders know that their rights and interests are being protected. Instead, most New Zealanders find themselves asking whose side this Government is on. Is it on the side of ordinary New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders—or is it on the side of the very fortunate few who got the inside access and who get the inside running with this Government?

We need good-quality trade agreements, ones that create jobs, ones that support New Zealanders’ rights, and ones that fundamentally uphold democracy. Sadly—tragically for New Zealand—this Government has failed that test.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to bring a couple of items to the notice of the House. The first is Speaker’s ruling 68/5, and the second is Speaker’s ruling 69/2, which is about interjections. The debate on this bill is going to be wide. You are going to be given a lot of latitude to be able to draw attention to the issues that members wish to do so. But there is not going to be a whole lot of latitude for people constantly interjecting, repeating phrases, and asking questions of the person who is on their feet. I remind the House of the findings of previous Speakers, particularly—my personal favourite—Speaker Hunt, who said that interjections should be rare and reasonable and, hopefully, witty. So a barrage that comes from either side, depending on who is on their feet at the time, is not in order.

Grant Robertson: “Courtesy is contagious.”

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Courtesy is contagious, and so are a number of other afflictions.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): The only party in this Parliament that is playing political games is the New Zealand Labour Party. It is a party that is playing political games with $28 billion worth of New Zealand exports to Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries, because that is what it comes down to. That is the bottom line: $28 billion of exports go to TPP countries; 40 percent of New Zealand’s total exports go to TPP countries. This agreement gives New Zealand exporters access to a third of world economic output—800 million consumers—and that is what this bill is all about. It is implementing the agreement that this Government has signed up to, the TPP agreement, and New Zealand’s obligations under it.

What a good day for the Government. It is a good day for the Government because the Government is standing up and supporting New Zealand exporters. The Government is standing up and supporting those who wish to help to grow the economy. It is standing beside those who are productive in this country and wish to export more goods to other nations around the world. Undoubtedly, trade agreements improve New Zealand’s access to other nations, and that means we sell more goods to other nations. That means we grow faster as a nation. That means we build more jobs and have greater growth in this country.

The speeches from David Clark and Grant Robertson show us that the Labour Party has now abandoned New Zealanders and has abandoned free trade. I thought it was against the Standing Orders to misrepresent in this House. A statement saying that the Labour Party supports free trade is misrepresenting. It is misleading the House. Labour Party members are showing by their very actions, by their very statements, and by their very speeches in this House that they no longer support free trade. What is their argument—what is their argument for opposing the TPP? Their argument for opposing the TPP is that they came up with a policy that they believe is important, and the Government did not go and consult the Labour Party and ask whether we should put in place, in the trade agreement, provisions to allow it to implement its policy. It is a policy that the Labour Party did not have when it started negotiating the TPP. It is a policy that is not necessary, based on the figures we have seen this week, but it is those members’ only reason for opposing the TPP.

Labour members cannot stand up and say that it is bad that New Zealanders have greater export opportunities. They cannot stand up and say it is bad that greater job creation and greater growth for New Zealand should be in place. They cannot stand up and say that we have not met their bottom lines, because we have. Pharmac must be protected—done that. Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulation in the public interest—done that. The Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld—done that. Meaningful gains are made for our farmers in tariff reductions and market access—done that. Residents from overseas can be restricted if they wish to buy a property—can do that, too; done that. Every single one of Labour’s bottom lines we have met, because you can restrict those who wish to buy from overseas. It can be done—it can be done. We just cannot ban them, which is not what its bottom line was. Labour’s bottom line was not that foreigners be banned—

Dr David Clark: Yes, it was.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —it was that a restriction can be put in place. Well, Mr David Clark, let us have a look at the press releases that Labour has put in place. The press releases Labour put in place said that “restriction” is what should be looked at. But why are we even having this debate over Labour Party policy? This is a trade agreement. This is about getting better access for New Zealanders. Overwhelmingly, those who are in the business of helping to grow this economy, those who are in the business of helping to grow exports, and those who are in the business of helping to sell goods and services to overseas markets support this agreement.

The New Zealand National Party, alongside our support partners—with the exception, I think, of the Māori Party—is standing beside New Zealanders and working towards greater exports. The Labour Party used to believe in that. In fact, under the China free-trade agreement, which Grant Robertson referred to, New Zealand has seen year-on-year 20 percent increases in exports. We know through previous trade agreements that when we do implement them we see greater export growth compared with countries that do not. That is why the only successful Labour leader of the current generation recently said this: “What always haunts one as the New Zealand Prime Minister is: will there be a series of trade blocs you’re not part of? Because that is unthinkable for New Zealand, an exporter and small trading nation. So of course New Zealand has to be in the action with the Trans-Pacific Partnership”.

Hon Member: Who said that?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: That is from Helen Clark, the only successful Labour leader of the current generation. Labour should be listening to her.

The New Zealand Government is doing what is right for New Zealand exporters and for New Zealanders. We are going to see more jobs, we are going to see greater growth, and that is what New Zealand deserves.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Every once in a while there is something that occurs in national politics that becomes a seminal moment. In 2016 the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has highlighted, to a considerable extent, the political misjudgment of this Government and the shortcomings in our constitutional system of governance. In the general debate yesterday I highlighted the shortcomings of the procedural observance by the Government in the select committee process, and even our constitutional shortcomings in according full powers to the executive and no real role to the legislature in the examination of major international treaties such as the TPP. I shall not rehearse these views here, other than to repeat that because, by a majority decision, there is to be no parliamentary debate on the treaty itself, I am left with no alternative but to have complete freedom to address the policy considerations of the treaty. There is no other way to record due respect to the people of New Zealand, who have submitted in large numbers and with deep passion before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and who oppose—by 39 to 26 percent—ratification.

I turn now to the substance of the treaty, setting aside the content of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill, which will be referred to us in the select committee. The Green minority view, which is part of the committee’s report, identified the substantive shortcomings of the TPP agreement. They can be read online, but here is a summary. First: “The Government is adopting the wrong criteria for judging the national interest. Even applying its own criteria, the net economic benefit is weak; the Government’s commitment to TPP is essentially political, and its political judgment is contestable.” Second: “The TPP is portrayed as a ‘free-trade’ document which it demonstrably is not; it envisages partial economic integration with provisions on investment, land ownership, and public health policy that are invasive of recognised levels of national sovereignty, potentially intimidating for our national legislature.” Third: “The TPP provisions, as with other contemporary FTAs, is inimical to the imperative of sustainability, relegating environmental protection measures (particularly climate policy) to ‘clip-on’ status rather than having them as central and integral to public policy.”

These three criticisms come together into one overall critique when we search for the reason why this Government attaches such high importance to the TPP itself, and also to rushing it through with unseemly haste. The fundamental question to be asked of the Government, the bottom line of the whole complex debate, is this: what is the basic rationale for determining that ratifying the TPP agreement is in the net national interest? The explanatory note states that this is an omnibus bill introduced under the Standing Orders because it deals with “an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy.” So what is the single broad policy the Government is pursuing with this bill, which seeks to amend 11 existing Acts? This is nowhere specified. The explanatory note asserts that there is a single broad policy, but it does not say what that policy is.

So we are left to turn to a press release by the Minister of Trade, who, unsurprisingly, advances the ministerial view that the TPP is important for New Zealand because it will remove trade barriers for exporters. That is as close as we get to the single broad policy identified by the Government for this massive, ominous, mysterious, and altogether intimidating legislation. But that is not a single broad policy; it is a specific national policy—the promotion of New Zealand exports. If that is a single broad policy, it is insufficient in itself. It ignores other economic considerations. It ignores broader political considerations, and there are many of those, as identified by the huge majority of New Zealanders who sent in 3,000 written submissions and the 255 who testified before the committee. Yet, in the name of the export interest, the bill will change New Zealand legislation in the following areas: agriculture, health, copyright, customs, hazardous substances, the internet, overseas investment, patents, trademarks, and horticulture.

The national interest analysis, prepared by intelligent people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, runs to 277 pages. It is a useless document because it was prepared by the negotiators even as the ink was drying. It therefore lacks any pretence of objectivity. In fact, it should be, naturally, viewed with suspicion for that reason. But let us peruse the national interest analysis for its content. “The reasons for … becoming a Party to TPP”, it says, “are … economic and strategic. Trade is critical to continued growth and prosperity,”. There is the goal of growing exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. Key to this is the removal of barriers to trade and investment. Standing aside from TPP “risks marginalisation and decline for New Zealand in the region.”, as we heard from the Minister of Trade. Our competitiveness would be “eroded, and trade and investment would be diverted away”. Joining TPP, therefore, provides “a significant net advantage for New Zealand, resulting from increased exports and greater regional economic integration.”

That is the stated rationale used by the Government for ratifying the TPP. With respect, it is wrong. The fundamental mistake is asserting that “Trade is critical to continued growth and prosperity.” That is incorrect. The World Bank statistics show clearly that there is no close evidential correlation between a country’s percentage of exports to GDP and national wealth. Of the 161 countries ranked by the World Bank, New Zealand is ranked at 105. We are at 29 percent. Above us are some very poor countries. There is Maldives at 108 percent, Viet Nam at 66 percent, the Republic of the Congo at 73 percent, Cambodia at 62 percent, Guyana at 51 percent, and Benin at 36 percent. Below us are some, quite richer, countries. The UK is below us, so are Australia and Japan, and so is the United States of America, at 13 percent. The fundamental assumption that underpins the whole edifice of “New Zealand Inc.” is based largely on myth—the higher the export to GDP ratio, the wealthier a country becomes. That is not necessarily correct.

Comparative advantage underpins trade, but a blind devotion to trade at any cost does not necessarily underpin the global public good. Clearly, exports as a fraction of GDP are not, as alleged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the national interest analysis, the critical driver to growth and prosperity. There is nothing wrong with trade per se; it depends on the terms. There was not one submitter who opposed trade. The Green Party supports having a healthy trading regime for New Zealand that meets the strict standards of sustainability and fairness required of our 21st century global society, of which a sound global economy is a legitimate part. But we must be honest with ourselves, whether in Government, Opposition, or the public. Let us not delude ourselves that export growth is the Holy Grail to national riches—something to which this Government, locked in the grip of “New Zealand Inc.”, pays humble obeisance.

The Green Party does not accept the underlying rationale for the TPP, and will oppose its ratification and this implementing legislation.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Most New Zealanders are tired, to be honest. They are tired of this Government just ignoring them. They are tired of the simplistic and dishonest spin campaigns that suggest to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is to oppose trade. This is not even called a trade deal.

Hon Simon Bridges: Big night out, was it?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: They are tired, and they resent this Government for not listening, just like that Minister over there. They are tired, and they want to be heard. They wanted to be consulted, in fact. Members of the public were not engaged with. They were not consulted or listened to. Instead, they were told extensively and repeatedly that the consultation process was the most prolific and robust in the country’s history. Yet despite the great spin from the Government, the stark and frightening reality is that just about every submitter noted the lack of consultation, and that is the true reality of the situation we are in today.

Did I mention they were tired, Mr Bridges? They want to be heard as submitters. As submitters spoke to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, this Government was writing the select committee’s members’ report for them. Before submitters had finished—in fact, before some of them had even started their submission—the report was being written for the Government. That is the quality of democracy that this Government holds to heart. No wonder it has no qualms signing our democracy away: the Government holds no value in it. How can it be giving democracy and sovereignty away if it is already gone?

Apparently in the Government’s world—its little quasi-dictatorship—you do not need to listen to the people, but you do need to be seen to be going through the motions of listening to the people. You have got to have hearings across the country, but to write down what the majority of submitters actually said in their submissions—apparently that is just way out of line for this Government. It is not necessary for the report to actually reflect the submitters’ collective wisdom. Well, thank you, National Government.

As to the enabling legislation, let us be honest: this is perfectly good legislation if the intent of this Government is to sell us up the river. Actually, we do know that now. That is exactly the intent of this Prime Minister and every other MP sitting on the other side of this House, sitting there like adoring sycophants, nodding their bobble heads, saying: “Trade—trade is good.” They have bought into the rhetoric from the 1 percent: make the top incredibly wealthy, and somehow everyone else will benefit from this. It just does not work that way.

Hon Simon Bridges: What a load of nonsense.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I want to take this opportunity to educate Mr Bridges and other members on the other side of the House on the consolidation of corporate welfare and entitlement. It is a huge problem in the US right now. Given that those entitled corporates wrote the trade agreement that we are debating now—at least, 605 of them anyway—I think it will be hard to argue that their very simple intent is to expand that entitlement around the world and here into New Zealand, because right now their profits are not as good outside their borders as they are inside them. By passing this legislation through the House, all that this Government is doing is enabling corporate power and corporate dominance.

Do you know why the World Trade Organization trade talks have stalled? Do you know why it has taken decades for them to make progress? It is because those discussions are the ones that local businesses, local small to medium sized enterprises, think they are getting from the TPP. The trade facilitation agreements, the Doha rounds, are the ones that are truly seeking to remove barriers to trade. They are not making good progress because most of our major trading partners, including the major players in the TPP, do not want to fully open their borders or liberalise their economies to outside trade. No, what they want is the TPP.

What the TPP gives New Zealand businesses is this supposed carrot in the form of tariff removals that even our Government’s own analysis says will benefit the country by less than 2 percent in about 25 years from now. Other more reliable and independent research says less than 1 percent, and they are very careful not to say that it will benefit the country, because they are clear in their estimations and their projections that this trade deal will, again, only benefit the few.

As the presidential wannabes in the US move around the country, they can see that the investment settings in their trade deals have gutted the country of its businesses and meaningful employment for Americans. That is the truth of the situation. That is what the TPP will do for New Zealand. Objective analysis has shown this to be true. History has shown this to be true. If it was just a trade deal, then I would support the few businesses that came before the select committee and told us how it would benefit their industries. I believed them and I agreed with them—tiny, but a good start. That would be true in isolation. So I thank those submitters who came before us to tell us how good tariff reductions are—no argument from me and no argument from New Zealand First on that. But it is the role of this Government, and most certainly today the role of the Opposition, to advocate for and act in the best interests of all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders.

I pointed out before that the TPP is a partnership agreement. It does not even pretend to call itself a trade deal. That would be too audacious. It is a partnership agreement. It is only the political salespeople on the other side of the House who have decided the best pitch to the country and the masses is to call it a trade deal: “Trade—trade is good.”

In the US right now a debate is raging, mainly because of the response to some outsiders who have upset the mainstream presidential candidates. The debate is on the power of the giant corporates. This is not a fringe debate; it drives to the heart of the American Dream, and I suggest to everyone here that New Zealanders are of a similar inclination. A person of skill and talent who is prepared to put in the hard graft should be rewarded for that. The problem is that corporate America is making that harder by the day. They are shutting out competition, stifling innovation, and building moats around their own companies. This is what the intent of the TPP is—not to enable big New Zealand business to do the same here, but for international corporates to export their entrenchment, their entitlement, their privilege around the world and into New Zealand.

I end with several quotes: “The ability of big firms to influence and navigate an ever-expanding rule book may explain why the rate of small company creation in America is close to its lowest mark since the 1970s.” This is what we are signing up to. This is not the New Zealand we know, nor is it the New Zealand we want. We are a country of small businesses, of entrepreneurs, of battlers.

In the 1990s adventurers from around the world piled into America, with the share of output from foreign-owned subsidiaries rising steadily. But since 2003 foreign firms contributing to the US economy have been flat, at about 6 percent of private business output. So I do not expect huge gains for New Zealand businesses in the US economy. They may be reducing their tariffs by 1 to 2 percent, and I am not understating the case. They have their moats built around them and they have their Government subsidies to protect them. We all know this is true for Japan and Canada too. So New Zealand First says on behalf of all supposed trade advocates that we cannot expose our New Zealand businesses to this type of competition, to this type of privilege.

As I said at the start of my contribution, this enabling legislation does exactly what it sets out to do, concisely and effectively, as far as I can see at the moment, and it is for that very reason that New Zealand First cannot support it. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will benefit New Zealanders and will benefit Māori. Listening to the many public submissions, several themes came through and today I want to focus on one primarily; that is, TPP and the impact on and for Māori. I want to discuss that under several headings: first of all, Māori engagement and consultation, Māori economic benefits, and then Māori protections. As we look at specific TPP engagement and engagement with Māori, engagement started way back in 2008 with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade when it put out public submissions. It also did the same in 2011. Back in 2008 Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation was one of the first to reply to public submissions, followed over the time with meetings with the Federation of Māori Authorities and Te Ohu Rata o Aotearoa. Specific TPP engagement clearly occurred with Māori, but the ministry had wider engagement with the Māori business community, which, of course, took into account TPP as well. In fact, as part of that wider outreach programme the ministry had engagement with Miraka Ltd, Tuarōpaki Ltd, Sealord, Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd, Waikato Milking Systems, Te Ohu Kaimoana, Te Awanui Huka Pak Ltd, Tainui Group Holdings, Ngāi Tahu Holdings Corporation, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and Te Tumu Paeroa—the Māori Trustee. Clearly, a wide spread of Māori businesses were engaged in a general capacity with the ministry in quite a short time frame—between 2013 and 2015, so quite contemporaneously. So I would make the case that, where we heard from some submitters that Māori engagement and consultation did not occur, quite clearly it did.

I want to move on to Māori economic benefits. Business and Economic Research Ltd’s Māori Economy Report 2013, commissioned by Te Puni Kōkiri, valued the Māori asset base at $40 billion. Significant amounts of Māori assets are orientated towards the primary sector and the export sector; therefore, Māori can expect to benefit from a free-trade agreement like this. In fact, Māori own between 10 and 40 percent of key primary sectors, including red meat, dairy, kiwifruit, forestry, and seafood. Māori will benefit from this free-trade agreement, from tariff savings and from the other benefits that come from it.

Turning to Māori protections, the Treaty of Waitangi carve-out, TPP Article 29.6 states in clause 1: “nothing in this agreement shall preclude the adoption by New Zealand of measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Māori in respect of matters covered by this Agreement, including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” Clause 2 further goes on to say: “The Parties agree that the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions of this Agreement.”—that is, investor-State dispute settlements. As we also look at further protections, the Waitangi Tribunal looked at this agreement and made several statements. Its findings, of course, were generally in favour: “The Treaty of Waitangi Clause in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) should provide a reasonable degree of protection to Māori interests”—straight from the Waitangi Tribunal—and that “The inclusion of Treaty clauses in the TPPA and earlier trade agreements was to the credit of successive New Zealand Governments.” The Tribunal did note other issues, I accept that, but they made no findings against them.

I have focused on just one part of the TPP, primarily of importance to Māori, and Māori are, in a global context, generally seeking distribution of assets and their own self-autonomy. To that end, we had a submitter who said something quite poignant, I thought. We heard him in Christchurch, and it may not be his original quote, but it is a good one, so I want to quote it back: “Before you can distribute wealth, you have to create wealth.” This agreement does that. This creates wealth, it creates wealth for Māori, it creates wealth for New Zealanders, and I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Is the Green Party taking the 5-minute call? I am calling David Seymour—5 minutes.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I proudly rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. This is a great day for the trading nation New Zealand, because it connects New Zealand in more intricate ways with our trading partners in the Pacific who, together, have $27 trillion of GDP—40 percent of the world’s GDP.

I would say to the earlier speaker, “Professor” Tabuteau, that when he says this is a way for companies to do business across borders he is absolutely correct. This agreement is sophisticated, and it does allow people to do sophisticated business across borders. It is about supply chains. For instance, this is about a company like Icebreaker, which grows wool in Otago, which has it manufactured in Asia into clothing that was designed by talented designers here in Wellington, and which you can then find in the stores of North America. That is an example of an outstanding, successful , innovative, value-adding New Zealand company that will do better under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

It is interesting, given the amount of controversy that we heard about in the lead-up to the signing of the TPP agreement, how mundane the provisions in this bill turn out to be. I have got to say that I am a little bit disappointed. We are going to have to, for instance, amend the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act so that we can allocate export licences so that we know how much milk we are sending into the United States. I would prefer that the Americans got rid of all of their barriers, but the fact is that they have lowered their barriers and they have allowed some products from New Zealand into their country, so we are going to have to make a technical amendment in order to allow that to be administered from within New Zealand. We are going to have to amend the Customs and Excise Act. We are going to have to change the way that the Customs Service values imports when they enter the country.

This is not exactly the end of New Zealand sovereignty, as we had heard ad infinitum from the Opposition leading into the signing of the TPP agreement. As it turns out, we are no longer allowed to call artificially frozen wine “ice wine”. The Canadians appear to have had a bit of a French moment, as the French people did with champagne, and they will not allow us to call wine made from grapes that were not frozen on the vine “ice wine”. That is a concession and I think that is actually a shame for the very innovative and very brilliant New Zealand ice wine industry. But there is give and take in trade wherever you do it across the world.

You might pause to reflect on what the debate over the TPP has said about New Zealand, because there are people on the other side of the House who go on and on about Mr Trump in the United States and how they would never, ever become anything like Mr Trump. I mean, the guy from New Zealand First who spoke a moment ago, Fletcher Tabuteau—I think he thought he was in the US presidential election. The people on the left generally say “We would never become anything like Mr Trump.”, but we have a Trump movement here in New Zealand. It consists of Opposition members who, whenever anything happens remotely connected to global commerce with foreigners involved—and especially with wealthy people involved—they do their bananas. They did it on the TPP, they did it on foreign buyers of housing, and most recently they have done it on the Panama Papers.

But in every single case, including the case of this bill, what we find is that when the facts are revealed and all of the hysteria and the xenophobia and the tall-poppy syndrome and the hatred of global commerce from the Opposition dies down, what is left is a set of very, very sensible and minor enactments that will allow New Zealanders to benefit from being a bigger part of $27 trillion of global GDP and 40 percent of the world economy.

Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): It is great to have the warm welcome from the Government, and an opportunity to speak on this bill, which is a really, really significant moment in terms of the history of this country. There are many coherent arguments that have been articulated for months and months about the concerns around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, including those related to the environment, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, pharmaceuticals, the idea of genuine benefit to New Zealand businesses—the list goes on and on—but I think it is really important to acknowledge that this is not just about us; this is about a global movement of opposition to unfair trade. Every country that is associated with the TPP agreement has got its people’s movements, its challenges to Government, its legal challenges, where people have made every attempt to point out that this is not a trade agreement; this is an investment agreement, and it is an investment agreement to benefit the United States of America more than its own Government—more to do with its own corporates.

The global corporates, which are beyond Governments, will benefit from this so-called free-trade deal. But the reality is that for people on the ground, in ordinary life, they are legitimately raising issues about whether their medicines will become harder to access, whether, in fact, they will have the right to defend the environment, and whether the deal will have real benefits to New Zealand - owned businesses that cannot compete with large-scale multinationals. This bill is the first step in what is a very, very damaging process of further undermining the sovereignty of this country.

If we think, first, about the environment, a good example of why people are against the TPP agreement in this legislation is to do with investor-State dispute settlements: an extraordinary process that involves courts, which are not conducted by judges, in rooms that are not open to public scrutiny, so that the powerful can talk to the powerful about their right to sue the Governments that dare to stand up to them. I will give you an excellent example of that: OceanaGold, which happens to have large gold mines in Reefton and Macraes Flat, and also in my area of the Coromandel—it now owns the former Newmont mine. It is suing, under a free-trade deal with very similar provisions to the TPP agreement, the Government of El Salvador for $301 million for daring to say that it should protect its water. Their communities asked the Government to stand up and say “No”, but because it had signed the deal it was impossible. We have major problems with this deal. We have major problems with it in terms of the risk to the environment.

Also, listening to Shane Reti’s speech, I just have to disagree about the interpretation of the clauses around the Treaty—all of those clauses say that the Government, the Crown, will decide whether the Treaty is being breached. Hello—that is not Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Crown does not get to decide. If it was a genuine negotiation, and if the clauses in the TPP agreement said that tangata whenua will decide whether there is a Treaty breach, and they would advocate for that Treaty breach, that would be one thing. But the Crown will decide. It is clear—Mr Reti read out the clauses—who gets to decide. It is clear that investor-State dispute settlements will not apply if the Government decides they should not apply, but the Government is not tangata whenua and the Government is not the Treaty partner on both sides of the agreement.

That is why we have real concerns about the Treaty clauses, and that is why some of our most senior Māori leaders—not the businesses that were apparently consulted, but some of our most senior Māori leaders in terms of constitutional law and Treaty law—went to the Waitangi Tribunal and have raised issues, supported by thousands of tangata whenua.

David Seymour: What did the Tribunal say?

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: The Waitangi Tribunal got it wrong, because what it said was that the Crown’s protection is sufficient. The Crown’s protection is not sufficient. The articles of the Treaty must be honoured in actuality, not through the Crown defining—

David Bennett: It says “sovereignty of the Crown”.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: There is not sovereignty of the Crown when you are talking about the articles of the Treaty. It is a shared sovereignty arrangement, but that is a little bit deep for some of the members here.

We need to look at the long-term effects of a trade deal that will not be about trade. It will be about very, very minor access to a few other markets, and for all the hype, for all the claims, it turns out to be a very, very, very serious erosion of sovereignty—in exchange for what? And that is why the Greens will keep fighting it. Kia ora tātou. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This debate, it is quite intense. There are some frictions on either side, and we understand that, but I ask that each member respect the rights of other people to have their say, and to respect that.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is a trade agreement, and today we are hearing a number of excuses from the left around why they will not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill through the House. We have heard from the Labour Party members that they do not believe that they will support this agreement because they want a ban on the ability of foreign buyers to buy land and property in New Zealand. The Labour Party members never went into the negotiations with this agreement, when they talked to the Government and to the Minister, seeking a ban. All they wanted was a restriction on the ability of foreign buyers to buy land and property, and that is what the agreement provides.

The Labour Party members have conveniently come to this stage of debate in the House and asked for a different requirement now to enable them to have the ability to not support this bill through the House. That is pure politics being played by the Labour Party members. They have changed the wording to enable them to have the ability to pull out of supporting this agreement. It goes against the history of this Parliament; it goes against the history of that party. Labour signed the Chinese free-trade agreement. Did it put “ban” in there? No, and if it is saying that banning was its policy, for ever and a day, why did it not put that in the agreement? Why did it not require that in the Korean agreement?

No, that is not what the requirement of Labour is. It is a convenient excuse used by the Labour Party members to try to weasel their way out of supporting something that they think is against the public opinion. I can tell you why the Labour Party members are doing that. It is because the party is captured by the union movement—it always has been and it always will be—and they are representing the far left of that party. It is a shame that the members of that party who have got an interest in trade—members of that party like Phil Goff, David Shearer, and Stuart Nash, who is sitting here today—do not have speaking rights in this debate on this bill, when they have sat through hours of submissions on this bill. The reason is that the Labour Party has told David Shearer and Phil Goff not to come into the House today. They have been told not to be here—

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The current speaker is reflecting upon the absence from the House of various Labour members, and he should not be doing so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is a very good point. I will ask the member to confine his comments to the first reading speech. You cannot refer to members who are not present in the House.

DAVID BENNETT: OK. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

We look at the New Zealand First Party. Well, we know that the New Zealand First Party is just against trade. It is just against any links with the real world. The New Zealand First Party wants to take us back to the 1950s. It is the “Don Trump Party” of New Zealand politics. It does not believe in having any connection with the world, and especially the Asia-Pacific region, which we live in. The New Zealand First Party is totally against that, and that is why it is against this bill. It knows that is good for trade, but it is against it. I bet you that during the next election campaign the New Zealand First Party will roll through every region in New Zealand saying: “We are there to support farmers. We are there to support farmers.” Well, I say to every farmer who is listening to this over the next year: remember who voted against giving you farmers access in trade. The New Zealand First Party voted against New Zealand farmers having access to trade.

Then we have the Green Party. The Green Party is actually a principled party when it comes to trade—it just does not believe in it. That is fine. That is what the Green Party has always stood by. That is OK. It will never vote for a trade agreement like this. That is fine, and its arguments are those that the Green Party members always support. But the Labour Party members have no excuse, apart from playing politics today, and the New Zealand First Party—it would be very rich of you to go out into the public and try to explain—

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member referred to the Speaker just then in a most disparaging way—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look, I am the judge of relevancy and reflection on the Speaker.

DAVID BENNETT: It is a common practice for Opposition members to try—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No—

DAVID BENNETT: —to do points of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. There is to be no comment on a ruling that I have made, and we shall continue on with the first reading speech.

DAVID BENNETT: OK, if we look at trade—and the argument, basically, that the Opposition is putting out there is that trade does not work and that New Zealanders will not benefit from trade. Well, let us have a look at some of the benefits New Zealanders have got from previous trade agreements. Australia: 735 percent absolute export growth since the trade agreement. China: 341 percent export growth since the agreement. That is what trade does for New Zealanders. It is what it has done for all New Zealanders over time, and it is what it has done for other countries.

Sue Moroney: How does it compare with the merits of this one?

DAVID BENNETT: How does it compare with America? Well, you have got open access to a lot of American markets, and if we look at it—

Sue Moroney: No, with the merits of this one—debate this bill.

DAVID BENNETT: OK, kiwifruit—open access for kiwifruit. Look at other products that have got open access. Sue Moroney should be supporting the Waikato producers who will actually benefit from this agreement. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): At the beginning of this whole process, Labour set out five bottom lines before it would support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and one of those bottom lines was that Pharmac must be protected. Pharmac is a model that, as members know, is set up for the negotiation, the purchase, and the subsidisation of medicines for New Zealanders, and it has been supported by this Parliament since its establishment in June 1993.

Over time there have been some minor changes to Pharmac. It actually started off as a joint-venture company owned by four regional health authorities, but by 2001 it became a Crown entity. There have been changes in things like reference pricing and multi-product tendering, and changes to the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee and the Consumer Advisory Committee. There have been changes to operating procedures, and, quite recently, Pharmac got the right to buy medical devices. There has even been the rare political Government interference in Pharmac. Who could forget John Key saying in 2009 that stepping in to fund a 12-month course of Herceptin was his proudest achievement during National’s first 100 days?

I would say that in the main we have had cross-party support for this agency, so we were keen to watch and wait to see what the secret negotiations under the TPP would do for Pharmac. I have to say that we got the first indication when a number of Labour MPs were briefed by the then Minister of Trade, Tim Groser. He briefed Andrew Little, Phil Goff, me, Grant Robertson, and David Shearer. I questioned him about Pharmac; at that point he became very obtuse. He was very slow to understand the questions—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: That doesn’t sound like him.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, it might not. You can be very sure, Minister, that he was, first of all, very obtuse, very slow to understand our concerns. When we pressed him about the negotiations in relation to the patents on data exclusivity as they affect biologic drugs, he became very collusive—very collusive, indeed—and, finally, he became constructive. He called the TPP approach to Pharmac and the patent period for biologic drugs “constructive ambiguity”. “Constructive ambiguity”—those are the words of the former trade Minister. And this was what he said about the patents: “What we’ve put in place”—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Don’t forget, it was a confidential briefing.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, it was not. Wait a moment—can I address that issue, because the Minister is waving at me and saying that it was a confidential briefing. We asked at that briefing—and if those members and my colleagues who were there would like to back me up—“Can we quote you on this?”. What did he say? And you were not there, Minister. You were not there.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: No; he told me about it, though.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh no, you were not there, so do not make it up. He said: “Yes, you can.”

“Constructive ambiguity”—these are the words the then trade Minister said about Pharmac, and ambiguity is exactly what we have got.

No. 1: “The TPP will not change the Pharmac model.”, thundered Todd McClay.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: That’s right.

Hon ANNETTE KING: But the agreement does change the model, Minister.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It doesn’t.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Of course—when Mr Mark Mitchell was speaking, I asked Minister McClay. I asked him questions, because he said there will be administrative changes and increasing transparency for the big Pharmac companies. How, Minister? How will that administrative change work? Have we been told how the administration changes giving more transparency will work? No—not one word on it.

The second administrative change, we are told, is that there will be a setting of a time frame for considering funding applications. How long? What sort of time frame? How will that work? No, we have not been told that.

The third one is that there will be a review or an appeal process when Pharmac declines an application. How will that work? Who will make that decision? How will the review work? What sort of an appeal will it be? Where will the appeal go? None of that has been provided. We still have ambiguity going on around this issue.

We were then told that the best guess of the cost was $4.5 million in establishment costs and $2.2 million a year in operating costs, but, you see, I do not believe that because I believe what Treasury provided when it released its papers. This is what Treasury said: “the impact of the agreement on the cost of pharmaceuticals is uncertain”—I am quoting directly from the Treasury paper, for the members opposite—“and will only materialise over time. This makes it difficult for the current government to make credible commitments on funding.” Minister, that is what Treasury said. “In particular: the costs associated with transparency provisions (if they eventuate) will be unpredictable and lumpy. The estimate provided (average annual cost over the long-term) is essentially a quantifiable risk, rather than a precise costing that can be funded”. That is what Treasury said. When we get the flannel from the members opposite—not one of them has answered the questions that I have put to them and that Treasury raised around transparency and the way it would work.

Then we got the grand statement from Minister McClay that the TPP is going to have a minimal impact on New Zealand. This is where Mr Groser’s constructive ambiguity was mentioned: “The term of the patent currently on biologic drugs for the data exclusivity is 5 years.” But what was negotiated was deliberately ambiguous. It was ambiguous.

Hon David Cunliffe: It was ambiguous.

Hon ANNETTE KING: It was ambiguous—the whole thing is ambiguous. I have to say, it was deliberately done to have ambiguity. [Interruption] That is it; that is what he said.

Grant Robertson: That’s what he said.

Hon ANNETTE KING: While Mr Robertson is here—Minister Coleman has been disputing that we are allowed to use the words “constructive ambiguity”. He said we were not allowed to use them because the previous Minister would not let us. That is totally untrue—he said that we may.

We will get back to the biologic drugs. These drugs are produced from a variety of natural sources—from humans, animals, or micro-organisms—and they are cutting-edge technologies. They are expensive. New Zealand needs to be able to have access to these drugs as soon as possible, and if the patent on the data exclusivity of these drugs is not 5 years, but some other number that is tied up in ambiguity—

Grant Robertson: Eight.

Hon ANNETTE KING: —like 8, or 12—thousands of sick New Zealanders will have to wait a long time to get medicines for life-threatening conditions.

I then looked at the Cabinet paper—Minister Coleman, you may have read it; we could not read most of it. Can I just show the Minister why most of us could not read it. This is the Treasury paper on the biologic drugs. It is full of what you call redacted information. As I would say, it is blankety-blank, blankety-blank-blank, and blankety-blank-blank. That is what we got from this Government opposite around the biologic drugs.

Then we had the real oil come out, when the trade negotiator from the US, Michael Froman, said that the administration is developing ideas for how to resolve complaints by congressional Republicans that the TPP’s required market exclusivity period for biologic drugs is too short. They sent down some trade envoys to give us a tutorial on what we ought to be doing in New Zealand. They are saying that they do not want 5 years; they want 12 years—but there is somewhere in the middle, which could be around 8 years. What we have got in this constructive ambiguity is for New Zealand to say: “Well, look, it’s going to be 5 years, but along with other measures that deliver a comparable outcome.” What does that mean—5 years, plus other measures to deliver a comparable outcome? Comparable to 12 years? Or comparable to 8 years? It is 5 years plus—plus—so it is not just 5 years. This is where the dishonesty has been about Pharmac. That is why—

David Bennett: Oh, come on. She can’t say that.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I can. That is the dishonesty about Pharmac and how it is going to work. I am going to oppose it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Every now and again in this House we get an opportunity to debate something that talks to the defining difference in philosophy of the political parties that are represented here. Over the last hour and a half I do not think we could have had put more clearly the choice that sits in front of us, in respect of this legislation, and, indeed, in front of us as a country.

In this document we outline a framework that talks to the way we believe, as the National Government, we should engage with the world. It is an opportunity to back our exporters, to ensure that we are a part of a global world, and that we are there, successful and delivering for our exporters. There are others who see this as an opportunity to pull up the drawbridge—“Fortress New Zealand”—because they do not believe, they do not back our exporters, and they want to pull New Zealand out of what is the largest trading bloc, which will be created once this bill is passed.

When you think of whom we are sent here to represent, you see that this is a country of traders, and we have always been a country of traders. But we then have a set of parties that hold the view that it is better for New Zealand to step out of that emerging trading bloc, a trading bloc that has seen the future of globalisation and the challenges of investment and regulation and tariffs, and say, actually, they have got a framework here to reduce them over time, and stand in this House and say: “We back exporters, and we want to pull you out of that agreement.” The Labour members and the New Zealand First members and the Green members should come up to Tauranga and have that conversation with the small businesses of my community and say to them that the opportunities that are listed and outlined and enabled in this document should be spurned. It is their capital they put at risk.

I wonder sometimes whether anybody on the other side of the House has any idea of what it takes to put your capital at risk, to hold a view, and to create a service or a product and sell it on the world market. All we have heard this afternoon is process and academic treatise. Quite frankly, I would ask any one of them to come to Tauranga in the Bay of Plenty and try to hold that view in front of a community that is incredibly globally connected, has the most efficient port in the country, and has an absolute focus on ensuring that it is delivering to the world market. That is the future of this country, not the fortress, isolationist, academic nonsense we have had to listen to over the last hour and a half.

Last year, while David Walker and his team, who should be commended for the Herculean task they have delivered on behalf of this country, were out negotiating and regularly updating, there was a party in this House whose members decided they would spend the year reflecting on the future of work. They had a navel-gazing exercise around globalisation and the forces of talent and capital moving and what that was going to mean for this country. Well, I could have saved your angst, Grant Robertson, because this document is the future of work. This treaty is the future of work. This treaty connects our small businesses and middle businesses and exporters to 40 percent of the global output.

That is the future of work, and every single entity, every single sector, every single company that is exporting talked about the opportunities and the jobs that will come from this agreement. But, instead, all we get from the other side is politics of the short term, as opposed to backing people who win for their country and win for their community and family, like this Government does. I support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; New Zealand Labour 1; United Future 1.

Noes 59

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

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

Third Reading

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill be now read a third time. I thank the House and the Health Committee for the speed with which it has considered this bill, and I would also like to thank the parties, including the Labour Party, that supported this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge the officials at the Ministry of Health for their dedicated work in preparing the legislation. But, most of all, I would like to thank commissioner Kathy Grant and her team for the work they have done so far in the southern region.

This is an important bill. The effect of it is to allow for the term of the Southern District Health Board commissioner to be extended from December 2016 until the triennial election scheduled for 2019. That provides the commissioner with sufficient time to develop, oversee, and implement a financially sustainable plan for quality health services for the people of Otago and Southland. Without this legislative change, the commissioner would have had less than 18 months to improve the Southern District Health Board’s position.

Back in June 2015 I dismissed the board of the Southern District Health Board because of my dissatisfaction with its performance and, in particular, with its management of the finances. I had lost confidence in its ability to deliver on its strategy for the region, including delivering much needed capital redevelopments at Dunedin Hospital. The Government needs to be able to invest with confidence in the health infrastructure of the southern region.

The commissioner has developed a work plan that has begun to address the financial and service challenges, which she has been consulting on with the district health board staff and Southern District Health Board communities. At the same time, the Dunedin Hospital redevelopment is being quickly progressed through the new Southern Partnership Group. I note the district health board is currently performing better than budget for the 2015-16 year. These are the first steps in achieving the sustained financial performance improvements, and I look forward to the continuation of such improvement over the commissioner’s extended term.

In parallel with the work undertaken by the commissioner on the district health board’s financial and clinical sustainability, the Government is working with the district health boards on two streams of capital development. This includes $22.5 million for urgent hospital maintenance, as well as facilities upgrades in gastroenterology, audiology, and the intensive care unit. These projects will ensure the immediate demands around delivery of services continue to be met while the planning for the major redevelopment of Dunedin Hospital progresses.

The Health Committee examined the bill and recommended it be passed without amendment. From public submissions the committee raised a concern that Ngāi Tahu felt their access to decision making was diminished under the new governance arrangements. The committee strongly urged the commissioner to engage with Ngāi Tahu to ensure Māori can contribute to district health board decision-making and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are upheld. This concern was also raised by some members in the debate in the second reading of this bill.

I understand that the commissioner is currently in consultation with the chair of the district health board’s iwi governance committee regarding the provision of nominations for Māori representation on the district health board’s statutory advisory committees. The commissioner has previously affirmed the status of the district health board’s Treaty relationship agreement with local iwi groups. Through this relationship agreement and other established communication mechanisms, the principles of the Treaty will continue to be recognised and applied.

The committee also encouraged the commissioner to consider how the district health board’s work can be made more transparent, and recommended the commissioner sets goals and targets and reports on these to the public at the end of each year. Public meetings of the district health board’s statutory advisory committee meetings have now been advertised by the commissioner, and the first of those meetings will be held later this month.

Although welcomed, public meetings are not the only contribution to transparency. The 2016-17 district health board annual planning process is currently under way. Initial goals from the commissioner’s plan, which was published back in December 2015, are expected to be included in this document. This is the key district health board accountability document, and a statement of intent that forms part of it is publicly reported at the end of the financial year. The district health board’s annual plan is also available on its website. The annual report, which is also publicly available, provides information on key aspects of the district health board’s performance.

At its second reading, some members raised concerns that the bill would affect local democratic rights to elect the board of a district health board. The select committee considered whether a requirement to consult with the community should be added to the bill to overcome the perceived reduction of democracy. I understand the concerns about democracy, but I do not propose the cancellation of a local district health board election lightly. This is a serious case where correcting the financial situation is important to allow for quality health services to be delivered in a more sustainable way to the local population. That needs to happen sooner rather than later. The bill, therefore, impacts on only one election at the Southern District Health Board, and will help to ensure the next board, to be appointed as part of the 2019 local body elections, will begin its term on a more secure financial footing.

I agree there is a need for the commissioner to work closely with local communities. When appointing the commissioner, I asked her to ensure that she was working closely with all stakeholders in the district. This expectation continues during this extended term. I know that since her appointment the commissioner has held meetings and forums with a wide range of stakeholders and she regularly updates the public on district health boards through updates in local newspapers, on television, via the radio, and via the Southern District Health Board website. I note that the committee considered that there were appropriate mechanisms for public consultation and that no change to the bill would be required. The introduction of public advisory committee meetings provides additional opportunity for the public to better understand how decisions in their local district are being made.

Continued work by the commissioner offers an opportunity to resolve the district health board’s financial challenges and helps secure more sustainable health services and health facilities for the people of the southern district. The commissioner has already begun to address the deficit challenge, and it is important that she is given time to complete this important work. I want to thank Kathy Grant for that work. I also want to thank Richard Thomson, Graham Crombie, and Angela Pitchford—the other commissioners—for the role they are playing. I think we have got a very well-balanced team. I especially want to thank, actually, the people who work at the Southern District Health Board—that is, the doctors, the nurses, the non-clinical people, and the administrators. It has obviously been a time of stress and change there, and they have been very supportive and welcoming of the installation of a commissioner.

As I say, it was not something that we did lightly; it was a step that was taken once all other options had been exhausted. We had had the district health board under intensive monitoring. We had had a Crown appointee on the board. In the end, it had got to the point where everyone across the district, regardless of political affiliation, decided this was the right step. So I want to thank my National Party colleagues in the region for the support they are giving the commissioner. I also want to thank, actually, local MPs David Clark and Clare Curran for the support they are also bringing to bear down there. We may not agree on everything, but we are very keen, across this Parliament, to see long-term, sustainable health services restored for the people of the southern district. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): We, on this side of the House, will be supporting the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill, as the Minister of Health indicated. But that, across there, is a Minister under pressure.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Not from you, buddy.

Dr DAVID CLARK: The clock is ticking, Dr Coleman—the clock is ticking. He says: “Not from me.” He makes it personal. This is actually an issue about the people of the south being able to access adequate health-care. That is why, on this side of the House, we are putting the politics aside for a while to give the Minister the opportunity to make real progress, because his Government, unfortunately, has let the situation become so dire in the south.

This problem that exists in the Southern District Health Board—where it has struggled to meet its financial targets, where the building of a substitute hospital has been pushed out and pushed out and pushed out, and where the Government itself has failed to commit fully to a rebuild—is an ongoing matter—and it did not start last year. It started with this Government years ago. It has had a Crown monitor on the board for 6 years. It appointed the previous board chair, and five of the 12 board members. This Government has been all over the Southern District Health Board for 6 or more years, and is worried about the status of the progress down there on the issues that matter for the south.

Of course the Government must take some blame. The failed Health Benefits Ltd proposal, which dragged capacity out of the south in terms of financial planning, was an initiative of this Government. It failed in producing what was promised with that initiative, and, eventually, it folded. But the damage was done. The capacity, the management capacity, the planning capacity that existed in the south—some of that was leached away during that period. The Government has only made the situation worse so far. And, finally, the Minister has said that this is starting to reflect badly on him—goodness knows why it took him so long to come to that conclusion—so he has appointed some commissioners to step in, to try to rectify this situation.

Of course some of the fundamentals that contribute to it, the Government is not going near. The underfunding—this Government has underfunded health by $1.7 billion. That is independent analysis using Treasury figures, which have determined that although the costs of health have been rising, this Government has not funded it adequately, and so health care around the country is suffering. That $1.7 billion is no trifling amount, and it is no wonder that Kiwis are struggling to get the health care that they normally would get. Middle New Zealanders are suffering while the Government is more focused on the interests of those at the very top—the very wealthy, the mega-rich. Middle New Zealand is suffering.

So here we have, finally, an intervention that says: “Well, maybe we do care about health.” It has come late, and we support the fact that the Government is saying that it is going to do something. But it comes, of course, with strings attached. Our support is there because we want to see progress. Our support is there because we want to see good health-care for the south. The Minister is now under pressure, the clock is ticking, and we have not seen much progress to date—we have not seen much progress to date.

In the Health Committee the issues of transparency were raised. On this side of the House we want to see measurable progress. We want to see measures put in place that we can measure progress against. So far the commissioners have produced a one-page strategic planning document that looks more like a Christmas card than a plan. We have got a partnership group in place that is supposed to be designing the new hospital, and from it we have seen very little. It has been asked to produce very little, to be fair to the group, and it has obliged thus far. We have not seen real progress on the hospital rebuild. We have not seen a commitment from the Government in terms of capital and a start date for a rebuild. All we have heard about are some amorphous kinds of projections that a new hospital will be there in 10 years’ time. Well, for goodness’ sake, that is pushing out the obligation to a future Government.

This Government does not seem fully committed to health care in the south, but here is the Minister saying that he is going to do something about it. He has appointed his own people. They have been in place now for coming up on a year—it will be a year at the end of June; it will be a year—and then we will expect to see real progress. So far we have not seen much. So that is why that Minister is under pressure and he is feeling the heat, and so he should be. Annette King has him under pressure every day in the House. The Government is failing to deliver, and it is that $1.7 billion of underfunding that means that it is going to continue to struggle to deliver. But Mr Coleman has nowhere to hide. He is now tied to the commissioners he has appointed—he is now tied to those commissioners.

Of course, we know that the situation came about because, in part, when the Southern District Health Board came out of the merger of two health boards, $30 million was lost with the removal of the boundary. We will hear shortly the member for Clutha-Southland, Todd Barclay, get up and say the funding is adequate. He will ignore his constituents who are concerned that they are not getting the operations that they ought to be getting. He is not concerned about middle New Zealand. He is not concerned about the people who need the health care but who are no longer getting it. He is not hearing those concerns. He says all his rich mates can get every operation they need whenever they need it. They can get private health-care if the public health-care system is not delivering. That is the increasingly out-of-touch Government we see opposite us.

We know that funding matters and we, on this side of the House, also know that democracy matters. In the select committee stage the Hon Annette King—the formidable Hon Annette King—put forward a wonderful amendment that would have given the Government the opportunity, through an Order in Council, to restore democracy sooner if it thought real progress was being made. Government members declined that opportunity. They did not want to have that opportunity put in play. They wanted the full term. They will have the full term with this commissioner in place, and we expect real progress as a result.

We want to see the finances coming under control, but we also want to see the delivery of services. We want to see structure and capacity rebuilt. We want to see good governance in our local district health board, and we want to see capital commitment from this Government—capital commitment and a credible time frame that starts with a rebuild start date. When will the first sod be turned? Will the Government commit to a tertiary-level hospital of the same quality that Dunedin has historically enjoyed? And will we have services such as training restored? That has been removed because our buildings are decrepit and no longer fit for purpose. They were designed over 50 years ago, so it is no wonder—modern hospitals are different. We would expect something different. It is Dunedin’s turn. It is the last major metropolitan centre in New Zealand to get its hospital rebuilt, and this Government seems shy of committing to it.

We know that the funding formula is flawed. It needs a deep and full review. For example, the southern district covers an area roughly the size of Belgium, but it does not have a sufficient rural funding component. South Canterbury has a much bigger one. How can that possibly be? It makes no sense. There are some anomalies that need a proper and full review. We know that older styles of building require more money to run because they are less efficient. The operations that are run are less efficient than the modern practices. There is no compensation for that in the case of the south.

The major tertiary hospital is out of date, and people are forced to make do. We know that leads to stretched staffing ratios, and we know that leads to stress in the workplace. So we want to see some progress on the hospital rebuild and measurable time frames put around that, and a commitment of capital up front. In the meantime, we have got problems with asbestos in our local hospital, and we have got concerned citizens who recognise that they are not getting the same service that those in other district health boards around the country are. This is a Minister under pressure. He is not addressing these issues as quickly as he should be.

But we are supporting this bill. My colleague Clare Curran said—I read her comments in the newspaper the other day where she said them, and she will correct me if I am wrong—that it was somewhat galling to have to support this bill. I think that captures it, because here we are with a situation where democracy has been taken away from the people, the citizens in the south, because of this Government’s failures. It is very hard to support democracy being taken away, even if only for a short period of time. It is hard for us to do that, but we are doing it because we think it ties the Minister so closely to the outcomes.

The Minister is under pressure—the clock is ticking. We want to see real progress on planning, on financial stability, on capacity, on governance, and on a rebuild. We need these commitments from the Minister, and we need to see real progress. He is being watched in the south. Health care affects every New Zealander, and it affects people in the south no less. For decades this hospital has been moving closer to its end date, and the regional neglect of this Government is something that has only contributed further to that. In conclusion, I want to say that people in the south pay their taxes and the Government cannot for ever put off the commitment to making sure the services that are desired and needed and reasonably expected in the south are delivered.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take what will actually be a short and somewhat symbolic call because this is a very simple bill. In fact, the purposes of the bill are so simple that all we have heard from the other side is the repetitious, hollow rhetoric, which we are getting used to, and which is a bit disappointing, because, again, this bill is simply about removing—

Dr David Clark: So arrogant and out of touch.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, and there we go—the usual tired lines. Look, this is a very simple bill. I have certainly spoken on this many times in the House, so no further clarity is really needed. There are just two points I want to make. One is to say thank you to all of those involved throughout the select committee process and the officials, and to thank, particularly, the Labour Party for its support of this bill.

I want, really, in many ways, to provide more time to my colleagues from down south, Todd Barclay and Jacqui Dean, to speak. I think it is going to be important to have that local voice, which is symbolic, in many ways, of the local voices that we heard when engaging on this bill. In fact, I am looking forward to being down in the South Island this weekend talking on health issues and, importantly, hearing about health issues. That is going to be fundamentally important.

It is a simple bill. It is allowing the commissioner to continue her work through to 2019, to sort things out with the Southern District Health Board. I really just want to thank, as I have before, all the staff within the district health board, from the doctors, to the nurses, to the porters, to the cleaners, to the administrators—all of those people, and more—for the important work that they do and to assure them, from this side of the House, that we have got their back and will continue to do our best to support them.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I think that all of the people listening to Parliament this afternoon, particularly if they come from Otago and Southland, certainly do not believe—and they will feel insulted to have heard the member who just spoke, Simon O’Connor, get up and say that the local MPs who are sticking up for them and for their regions are spouting hollow rhetoric. That is our job and that is what we are elected to do, and I would remind any of the MPs from Otago and Southland that what they are elected to do is to stick up for their constituents and to stick up for making sure they have got a proper and adequate health service in our region. That is what they should be doing, instead of getting up and spouting out-of-touch and hollow rhetoric of their own across on that side.

We in Labour have reasons for supporting this bill, and I will repeat that it does gall me to support it, because it is a bill that removes democracy from our district health board elections for a period of time and that is a really difficult thing to support. But we have a serious situation for our health services in the southern area and it has to be addressed—and that is why we are supporting the bill—because of the pressure that followed the amalgamation of the two district health boards and the lack of work that went in at that time, under this Government, to establish what the financial implications of that were; the ongoing deficit issues it has had, which have been unable to be fixed and instead have got worse; and the appointment of a Crown monitor. For almost the entire period that this National Government has been in power there has been a Crown monitor on that board and it has not been able to fix it. These problems have got worse.

The issues led to a lack of confidence by the people in Otago and Southland in the district health board, and then led to the Minister of Health’s lack of confidence in the district health board. Ultimately, the call and the issues lay with the Minister. He did take action, finally, after being urged to do so by Annette King, our spokesperson. We have to support this bill, much as it galls us to do so, because if the commissioners who have been put in there are to do their job, then they have to be given the time to do their job. The Minister, ultimately, is accountable and becomes much more visibly accountable. That is what this bill does.

However, along with that goes a set of responsibilities and accountabilities to the Minister and those commissioners that there has to be a plan, that the community can accept the plan, and then that the plan is implemented. That has to be done within the time period that has been set down for this bill, which is 2019 for the next round of elections. One of our concerns is that it may get pushed out again, and we cannot support that because the only reason we are supporting this bill is that it does set a time limit.

We utterly understand the concerns that some in the community have about the loss of democracy. The Labour Party fought very strongly to have democratic elections return to Environment Canterbury. In previous parliaments when Labour was in power, when a district health board has been dismissed and a commissioner appointed, we have reinstated democracy as soon as possible. That is why Annette King put up an amendment during the Committee stage to try to ensure that democracy could be returned as quickly as possible by trying to insert the word “postpone”, rather than “cancel the election”, so there could potentially be democracy restored by 2019, because it may be that that is the case. Unfortunately, that did not get the support of the Government.

We are supporting this bill, but that is where it ends. We need a plan in the Southern District Health Board region and we need that plan to be expressed. At the moment, as my colleague David Clark said, we have something that looks like a Christmas card—really, just a bunch of platitudes—and we need a financial plan. We need a plan for the new build of the hospital and the clinical services building. We need to know what the management structure is going to be. We need to know the situation for the tertiary-level status of our district health board as a teaching hospital. We need a commitment to increased reporting, and we need that to be publicly increased reporting—and that needs to be real reporting and not just platitudes. We need time lines and we need them now, because right now we are not getting them. We are getting very vague statements. We are getting things told to us that are then getting pushed out. I have been told recently by the commissioner, Kathy Grant, that the business case for the new build of the clinical services building is now not due until mid - next year. Well, earlier this year it was going to be the end of this year, so now it has been pushed out another 6 months.

Todd Barclay: These things take time, Clare. These things take time.

CLARE CURRAN: Well, what does that tell us about what lies ahead? So there are concerns.

The MPs on this side of the House, who represent their electorates well and represent our region, will be speaking out. We will be making demands. I read the member Todd Barclay’s speech in the Committee stage, and there were two things in particular that he said that really concerned me. He said that this was “a long-term piece of work, with a long-term goal”. That rings warning bells for me because that is sort of like acknowledging that it might take longer than until 2019 that we will need commissioners. On this side of the House we will not be supporting that. The other thing that concerned me was Mr Barclay’s insistence—ill-informed insistence, because clearly he does not speak to many of his constituents in his work—that the Southern District Health Board is not underfunded. He himself admits that a district health board that services 290,000 people across an area the size of Belgium is a very difficult thing to do, and the population-based funding model is not fit for purpose in our region. When is he going to acknowledge that? And when are the other National Party MPs who represent our region—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just going to ring the bell, but I am going to ask the member for the last 2 minutes to come back to the bill.

CLARE CURRAN: The bill is about removing democracy from our region and giving the commissioners a job to do in a limited period of time that requires a plan. Part of the issue is a financial sustainability plan. And if the commissioners cannot acknowledge, and the National Party MPs cannot acknowledge, that one of the core issues that underpins the situation that our district health board is in is that the population-based funding formula is not fit for purpose for our region, then we cannot have a financially sustainable plan that will actually get us out of this hole. And what we need through this process is for that acknowledgment to be taking place.

I do want to express some concerns about the tasks that lie ahead. The commissioners have had almost 1 year. They have got 3 years more. They are being vague. They have spent $240,000 on a listening plan. Well, they need to start taking some actions and putting some plans out there for the community to see. We need to see that they can manage contracts appropriately, such as the contract with Compass Group, which is providing the hospital food that is so controversial in our region, where there are so many question marks about how that contract was drawn out; where there are still no key performance indicators, even though that contract is now in place; and where we have questions about the level of governance around the management of that contract. There are so many questions. We have to keep monitoring the situation.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): In June last year the Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman, wrote to the Southern District Health Board saying he no longer had confidence in the board. The board had a forecast deficit of $27 million, a figure that had doubled over the previous 6 months, with larger deficits over time projected to go to $42 million. As a result, the Southern District Health Board had proposed a 5 percent cut in funding for the three small hospitals in my electorate, Ōāmaru Hospital, Dunstan Hospital, and Maniototo Hospital in Ranfurly. All of those hospitals are community-owned and loved, and all were performing well and within budget. Those communities rose up.

For my electorate of Waitaki the news of the appointment of commissioners was greeted with relief and with hope—relief that the board’s plan for a 5 percent funding cut was halted, and hope that the commissioners would be able not only to tackle the increasing deficit and reintroduce financial stability but also to refocus on health services to patients, not only at Invercargill and Dunedin hospitals but also in our rural communities.

My position has always been very clear. In the many meetings I have had with the previous board, management, and now commissioners, my focus is on the Southern District Health Board providing funding and support to rural hospitals so that they can best serve their communities. The answer never was a 5 percent cut in funding across the board, and I want to thank the Minister for listening to the many representations made by community leaders, MPs, and rural hospitals that led to his decision. The commissioners are now making good progress, but the job is not yet complete. The commissioners badly need to redevelop Dunedin Hospital. They need to look up, they need to look out, and they need to seize the opportunity to better utilise the high performing rural hospitals.

It is time to focus on what really matters here. The Southern District Health Board has made good progress on the new, faster cancer treatment target, which is up by 10 percent. The Southern District Health Board has surpassed the elective surgery target by 7 percent. There are some good health outcomes being achieved, so it is time to get in behind the commissioners as they tackle some very significant issues. It is time to support the clinicians, the medical staff, the nursing staff, and the management of Invercargill and Dunedin hospitals who look after our parents, our friends, and our families.

There is always a place to highlight deficiencies in this service—this is, after all, a publicly funded service—but there is also a need to support the district health board as it works towards our expectation of having an improved deficit position and, more importantly, a cohesive, region-wide delivery of good quality health services. I commend the bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill, on behalf of the Green Party. The Green Party is continuing to oppose this bill at its third reading on the basis that it denies southerners the right to vote for their district health board in the 2016 elections. This is another piece of legislation that the Government has put before the House removing or compromising people in the South Island’s right to vote.

I am a born and bred Southlander. My roots and family link strongly into Southland, Otago, and Canterbury, and so, to me, this is an issue that affects my family. I believe passionately in people’s right to their democratic rights. I understand the issues that led to the appointment of the commissioners and the removal of the district health board, and I will speak to that a little bit more. Our core objection is that although we understand the value of the continuation of the commissioners, we believe that those commissioners could be ministerially appointed alongside an elected board. We have not heard any reason given by the Government as to why that could not happen. It has said that it is not legal, although it has the power to appoint people to the board. It does not seem to make sense to me that they could not be appointed.

I do object to this Government’s inference that southerners do not know what is best for them—you know, I sometimes have cause to doubt that belief when I see National Party members elected in some areas while removing their rights—but I keep on going back to the fact that, actually, people do know what is best for their communities. Sometimes, particularly with district health boards, that can get confusing. It is hard to know who people are and to know who you are voting for. But the answer to that is not to remove people’s right to vote; it is actually to put more resource into supporting those democratic conversations and the connection between the democratically elected representatives and the people. We need more resources put into that in the country. I do think that although the system may not be perfect, it is the best system that we have, and it is what gives all of our processes legitimacy.

So I would like to speak a little bit to the reasons that have been given and the focus of the work of the commissioner, which is around the financial stability of the Southern District Health Board. It was thrown into instability and deficit, and the Greens did have concerns about the district health board’s lack of strength in advocating to the Government for more resources and challenging the decisions that were being made from Wellington, particularly when the district health boards were merged.

These are massive areas, you know—I think it was said in the example given earlier that there are 290,000 people over a land mass the size of Belgium. The board is working under a funding system set up by this Government of population-based funding. We know that population-based funding works quite well for medium-sized populations—relatively dense populations. There are two key areas where it does not work so well. One is rural populations, where the population is well spread out and you do not have that density of population. It makes sense. It is kind of obvious that it is going to be difficult to provide those core services across those areas under a population-based model. The other area where it does not work so well is in the tertiary-level service, like our training hospital in Otago, in Dunedin.

In terms of the two things that compromise population-based funding, the Southern District Health Board experiences both of those. It is affected by both of those core factors. So although we can put in commissioners and say that it is going to solve the problem and that that justifies denying the people the right to vote, unless the Government addresses the core reason behind the financial instability, we are not solving the problem and we are not serving the people.

Everyone in this House knows that when you do a survey of people about where they want their taxes to go, health and education come up every time. I just think of my dad, living in a rural community in Otago. He has been given a diagnosis of glaucoma, which is something that needs early treatment. He is waiting for his appointment. We do not know when that is going to be, and while he is waiting that damage is accruing and it is irreversible. Health care and health services matter to every single family in the southern region, in the cities and in the rural areas, and it does not just affect the people who are facing illness or disease; it affects their entire family. As a country we need to do better.

The Green Party does not believe that appointing commissioners and denying people the right to vote or to engage in the process of decision making around the funding and the use of funding is the best way to solve those problems. We believe that the best way to solve those problems in the south is to make sure that their funding model is appropriate to the region, to have the experts sitting alongside the elected representatives, to put more effort into transparency and engagement to make sure that those decision makers are delivering a service that meets the needs of the community, to open up more pathways for people to be able to express what their needs and concerns are, and to listen to these people and respond to them. Removing a level of democracy and saying “Actually, we think Wellington’s vision of what is important and of what the needs of this community are is more important than yours.” is not the way to shift that system and make it more responsive to the needs of the community. It just does not make sense. If you need the expertise and you are concerned about potential deficits in expertise, you put the experts alongside those elected members to be able to help. You do not remove that democratic right or that democratic process.

So it is very unfortunate, considering the massive issues facing the region and the importance of health to those communities—and to all of us—that the Government is sticking with its approach of: “We know best. We’ll sort this out. Don’t you worry your pretty little heads, southerners, we’ll sort it.” It has not worked so far, and we do not have confidence that it will. Thank you.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and speak on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill. This is because I reside in Invercargill, I live in Southland, and, on behalf of New Zealand First, it passionately opposes this bill. For those people at home or in their cars listening to this debate in the House tonight, this bill seeks to cancel the 2016 triennial general election of the Southern District Health Board in order to provide, until the repeal date, for the continuation of the term of office of a commissioner for the Southern District Health Board.

I have maintained throughout this process three main objections to this bill. First, this bill is an appalling affront to southerners’ democratic right to vote for their own district health board representatives. Secondly, we knew very little about the work done by the current commissioners back then but we were expected to take it on trust that they would do a great job, and now it is expected that they will keep that job until 2019. New Zealand First does not believe in railroading the democratic process simply to fulfil a cost-cutting exercise that has already shown weaknesses in two areas: the lack of transparency and the questionable capability of the commissioners has not gone unnoticed. Thirdly, the real culprit for the state of the Southern District Health Board’s fiscal woes is the Government’s terrible population-based funding formula and the amalgamation, under that Government, of the Southern District Health Board and the Otago District Health Board.

New Zealand First believes strongly in holding the district health board fiscally accountable for the choices that it has made. New Zealand First objects to the Government taking away the power from the people—to the stripping away of votes from Southlanders by this National-led Government and the placing of all the decision-making powers with an unelected few. That really concerns us. New Zealand First respects democracy, and this bill is an appalling affront to democracy. One of the basic principles in this country—look up and listen, National—is the right to vote. That is what New Zealand First is protecting in the House tonight—the right to vote.

This is another example of this Government putting all the power in the hands of a small, unelected few because it believes it knows better. I maintain that the good people of Southland and Otago know their communities better. New Zealand First refutes the need to strip back democracy when an alternative solution exists. The Minister knows this himself—it was in the Minister’s original plan when he sacked the board. The Minister is quoted in the Otago Daily Times from a press conference he held on 18 June 2015, and, again, I feel the need to actually quote the Minister: “The plan is really for the commissioners to stay on as appointed members of that board, and new elected members to come on at the local body election.”—in other words, Minister Coleman, a new board. So what happened? What happened to that? What happened to your plan?

The Minister said in the Committee of the whole House that the Government is not legally responsible to follow through with his original plan that would have allowed the commissioners to be appointed to the board and the remaining number of board seats voted on in local health board 2016 elections. He said that there were no provisions in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. New Zealand First refutes that, because this is a new board and the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 provides the Minister with the authority to appoint members to a board—a new board—to positions that would otherwise be held by elected members. So I want to put that myth to bed, and I want to say that my amendment would have given the commissioner, the Minister, southerners, and the good people of Otago a win-win outcome but that the Government voted it down. This would have addressed the complex issues facing the Southern District Health Board and would have wiped out the need for this National-led Government to strip away the vote from the good people of Southland and Otago.

There is a real fear—a real fear—in our communities that the Minister will not follow through with his promise and allow us to vote for our health board in the 2019 elections. Southerners refuse to be another Environment Canterbury case study under this Government—to be given empty promises that are not fulfilled and to be forced out of voting for 9 years, just like the good people of Canterbury have had to swallow.

New Zealand First questions both the transparency and capability of this commissioner. This commissioner claimed in her letter to the team leader of district health board relations at the Ministry of Health that her aim was to engage with the communities in which it operates across the district. She claims to have held meetings with staff throughout Dunedin, Southland, and Lakes District hospitals, community and health leaders, all major staff unions, MPs and mayors throughout the district, Mobile Health Solutions—and the list goes on. As a list MP for New Zealand First based in Invercargill I was not invited along to these meetings, and nor was the public allowed to attend or observe any board meetings. So I refute the claim that the commissioner has been absolutely transparent. You can sit there and laugh, Mr Barclay, but this is not a joke—this is not a joke. I actually want to remind the Minister that the commissioner was appointed in June 2015, yet she failed to engage in any meaningful way with our communities until she was put under pressure by the Health Committee—and that was recently, too—and then all of a sudden, here she is getting out there holding all sorts of public relations sessions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I have done it to two members previously—this is quite a narrow debate on this bill. It is not a debate to go over all of the issues, and I know we cannot do that in the time anyway.

RIA BOND: OK. I do want to point out that southerners are totally fed up with the slow process and the secret dealings behind closed doors that we have had to date. The real culprit for the state of the Southern District Health Board’s fiscal woes is the Government’s terrible population-based funding formula and the amalgamation, under that Government’s watch, of the Southland District Health Board and the Otago District Health Board. We know from Cabinet papers that were released that the rurally adjusted calculation did not adequately fund the Southern District Health Board, and that the district health board has missed out on the correct funding for many years. The population-based funding formula does not support regional health care and it is the real culprit in terms of why the district health board and so many others are struggling to stay fiscally sound.

With such a huge geographical region to service, it is no wonder that the Southern District Health Board struggles to meet its services’ needs. What constituents are telling us, and what they are telling me, is that they are being bumped off the elective surgery list. That is one way to cut back the deficit—forget about looking after our elderly. And God forbid that you are slightly overweight and need a knee replacement, because you will have to go home and lose the weight first. Another way to cut the deficit is to contract meal services out to private contractors like Compass Group, with a 15-year contract to feed our patients in hospitals and members of our community through the Meals on Wheels contract. Despite the outcry from members of the public in Dunedin and Otago, from doctors refusing to eat in the cafe—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member again and advise her that she has to at least—it is a third reading; it is quite a narrow debate—somehow tie her comments to the bill.

RIA BOND: OK. Well I will do that. This contract will not bring the $7.6 million needed originally to save the district health board. In a report released by the Medical Council just yesterday—it was printed in the Otago Daily Times—it stated that house officers at Dunedin Hospital were overworked and lacked supervision, which has put the accreditation training of intern doctors at risk. I ask, how is that competent?

In closing, this is a bad, bad bill. It is bad for Southlanders, it is bad for Otago people, and it strips away our democracy. There are decisions that have been made behind closed doors, and it does not deal with the real issue, which is inadequate funding. In New Zealand First we have stuck to our guns and we have opposed this bill from start to finish. Two wrongs do not make a right. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a short call. This is not about removing democracy. This bill simply extends the term of the commissioner and her team. Turning round the board and achieving financial stability is a long-term process. It gives the commissioner time to implement the plans that are being developed, and since the team has been out consulting, constituency concerns have actually dropped considerably.

This afternoon it is my very big pleasure to stand here and take a short call on behalf of the Health Committee, and I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I am going to begin by qualifying my knowledge of the health system across Otago-Southland. I was born in Roxburgh hospital, which existed then—formed at the time when the power dam was built there. I was raised in Dunedin. I suffered a serious head injury when I was working on Stewart Island in the early 1980s, and was flown to Invercargill hospital, and from there to Dunedin Hospital. Some people say that is why I joined the Labour Party, but I deny that. So I know the importance of Invercargill hospital. I lived, for a period, in Queenstown in the 1980s. I was the member of Parliament for the Otago electorate in the early 2000s, and—

Hon Annette King: Best one they’ve ever had.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —oh, thank you, Annette King—I had a lot to do with health services in the three regional hospitals that were in the area that I was the MP for Ōāmaru, Queenstown, and Dunstan Hospital, near Alexandra. While I was there the Labour Government funded the rebuild of the Dunstan Hospital. I lost that seat, and since then I have lived, at least some of the time, in Dunedin.

I believe that there are some ironies in this bill. Members do not have to have been here very long to know that Richard Thomson, one of the commissioners, was removed from his post by the last National Minister of Health when Tony Ryall chose to blame him for the computer rort that had been outed by Richard Thomson, as chair, who brought it to the attention of the authorities and caused the individual to be prosecuted—that was the Swann fraud. For doing his duty as chair, he was removed as chair. None the less, the then Minister appointed a chair from out of the region—from South Canterbury, from memory—to be the chair of the board—

Hon Annette King: Joe Butterfield.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —Joe Butterfield—to sort out the finances, which got worse. Not only did the Minister appoint the chair but the Minister also appointed Crown monitors. Stuart McLauchlan, I think, was the Crown monitor who was appointed, and that Crown monitor could not sort it out either.

I want to explore why it is that the rural population-based funding model, which lies behind the funding deficit that led to this appointment and the extension of this appointment, is wrong. New Zealand has forever been an outlier in the international statistics on the outcomes for rural people. Somehow we have been miraculously able to deliver health outcomes for rural populations as cheaply for rural areas as we can in city areas, despite that not being achievable anywhere else in the world. And that feeds through to the rural adjuster, because the rural adjuster assumes that it is not as expensive to service rural populations as, in fact, it is. Why is that? It turns out that it is because the way in which New Zealand collects statistics for rural populations is different from the rest of the population, and the rest of the world—and it is wrong.

So how does it work? Well, small towns in New Zealand are classified as “urban”, despite being serviced by rural hospitals. What that does is understate the cost of servicing rural populations, because those rural townships are not included in the statistics for rurality. Instead, they appear in the city population statistics, and they average down the appearance of the—[Interruption]

I have got the other call, Mr Assistant Speaker. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise if this has not been done properly, but my understanding is that the Greens are not taking the other 5-minute call. Therefore, I seek leave—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, I had not picked up that you were doing both calls. In fact, I saw a signal otherwise to your deputy leader earlier. I am not sure of the rules here as to extending calls—I know you can pass off calls, but I am not sure you can extend them. I think probably the easiest thing to do—

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, can I seek leave—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will, because I am not sure of the rules. I seek leave of the House for the Hon David Parker to take a 10-minute call, being the 5-minute call that would otherwise be available in the next call to the Labour Party, as well as this one that was available to the Greens. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, I appreciate the way you handled that.

So the cost of rural health is underestimated because our rural populations are included in cities and, therefore, it slightly averages down and hides the cost of rurality. The second point is that the rural people who live in lifestyle blocks around cities in New Zealand are counted as rural when, in actual fact, they are generally wealthy people who are getting their services from cities. So that is the second reason why we have mistakes in the rural adjuster in respect of truly rural populations. So the rural adjuster is problematic, and the consequences of that are that district health boards that service rural populations are underfunded. And there is nowhere that that problem is greater than in the southern region, in Otago-Southland.

The second point I would make in terms of the issues that we have in the South is that there are some really important decisions that the commissioners have to take. Population densities are changing across Otago. We have strong population growth in Queenstown-Wanaka, we have low population growth in Invercargill and Ōāmaru, and it is not that high in Dunedin, either—it is a bit higher than in Invercargill and Ōāmaru. The difficulty there is that decisions have to be taken now as to what is the future shape of tertiary hospitals in the South. I think it is obvious that whichever way you cut the numbers, even though Queenstown is growing, Queenstown is never going to be, in the foreseeable future, as large as the Dunedin centre of population. That means that the tertiary services in the South, in Otago-Southland, will still need to be provided from out of Dunedin.

The worst of all outcomes is if we start to spread some of those specialist tertiary services to Invercargill, Alexandra, Queenstown, and Dunstan, because none of them will be big enough to support quality tertiary services. We would undermine the quality of tertiary services in Dunedin, and, increasingly, those tertiary services would then be serviced from Christchurch, which is not in the interests of anyone in the South. So I urge the commissioners to make that decision, to give long-term direction to all of the hospitals in the South. Some people say you should count Wanaka and Queenstown together. You should not. That is a poor form of care, because having Wanaka people going first to Queenstown means they would be going further away from the tertiary hospital in Dunedin, to which they may need to be transferred. So the best route of care goes Wanaka, Dunstan, and Dunedin, for those people who need it.

Those decisions have to be taken. If they are not taken, the viability of not just Dunedin Hospital is threatened—and there are some terrible things that have happened in Dunedin in recent years. It has lost its teaching status for things like the intensive care unit. I had an eye infection about a year ago—I had to go into the eye clinic—and my doctor sent me down there. The place is—you know, I am amazed at the quality of service that they give out of a building that is very run down and shabby. It is under pressure from the number of people who now need eye services, both because of improved technology but also because the ageing population means that there are a lot more people in the South needing eye interventions than used to be the case.

So I am supportive of the extension of term. I do think that this is not going to be cured unless the rural adjuster is looked at. I also agree with some of the other speakers who say that teaching hospitals probably are not properly compensated either; and that is felt to be most pressing if you are in a small centre, where you cannot spread the cost of teaching over as many people—which, again, reflects the Dunedin problem. Underfunding because of the rural adjuster, in particular, I think is the main cause of the problems.

There will, though, be a need for an update of some clinical practice in Dunedin. I think that, over time, for some of the specialist services outside peak times there is going to have to be a slightly different model in Dunedin for the delivery of those services, including more cooperation with, probably, the Canterbury District Health Board in respect of after-hours telephone cover for the registrars who are rostered on out of hours. That is the way in which people in Invercargill, Queenstown, Alexandra, Dunstan, and Ōāmaru currently get support and services delivered—through the telephone from specialists, as well.

So with those comments, I support this bill. I do share Clare Curran’s concerns that it is bad that we have unelected representatives, but I do not think there is any way of avoiding that. We have got to give these commissioners time to finish the job.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): I rise to give my third speech on this particular bill, and I am in support of it. Having spent a lot of time going around meeting with constituents and with health providers and other stakeholders in the southern region, it really makes me wonder how much work some other members in this House have been doing with regard to that. What everybody in the South is finally saying is: “Good on the Government for taking a stance and taking a position to reform health care in this area, and giving some certainty to us as constituents with regard to the health care that it is providing.”

The extension of the commissioners’ term is absolutely critical to allow them to continue their piece of work. It would be absolutely untenable of us to put in commissioners—Kathy Grant, Graham Crombie, and Richard Thomson—and to ask them to fulfil a huge piece of work under huge public scrutiny, and then after a year turn round and say: “No, that’s it. Now you have got to report back.” We are extending their time, giving them the ability to complete their piece of work and to reform the provision of health care for the better in this area. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Can I just say to the member who has resumed his seat, Todd Barclay, that less than 6 months ago David Clark and I did a tour of his electorate, and I think probably crossed into some other electorates as well. We started in Timaru, and then went to Ōāmaru, Maniototo, Queenstown, Dunstan, and Balclutha. We visited all the small hospitals there. They had not seen the member—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! That member will sit down. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Todd Barclay: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon ANNETTE KING: —and they had not seen the commissioners at that stage. We beat them on the tour of those small rural hospitals. I can tell that member that we have a very, very good understanding of what is happening in rural New Zealand. I have to say what a very erudite speech we got from David Parker, setting out the background to the problem of that amalgamated board of the Southern District Health Board. It was a decision made by a foolhardy, petty, highly political former Minister of Health, who did not look at the costings or the savings, or the service delivery.

The big loser in that amalgamation, I have to say, was Invercargill, because of the rural adjuster that should have been put in there, as noted by David Parker, who set it out very well and understands it—which I see quite a lot of members opposite do not. In fact, I do not know why the member who resumed his seat did not speak about how disappointed he was that the rural adjuster for his area has not been changed. I do not know whether David Parker knows, but the Ministry of Health has now done a review of the population-based funding formula. It was delayed because of the Christchurch earthquake, and it does the review only after each census. So, because of the earthquake, there was no census, so it did not do the population-based funding formula review. It has now been done.

Has it changed things for the Southern District Health Board? No, it has not. It is a very disappointing review indeed. I think the commissioners who have been put in there to fix the problem are really going to struggle. One of the good reasons why there is not an election for this district health board is that the accountability for what it comes up with sheets straight back to the Minister of Health—straight back to the Minister of Health for the accountability of what it comes up with.

I just have to say that we have supported this bill. We have supported it because we understand that this district health board is in serious trouble, and has been from 2009 when a Crown monitor was put in and when it went into intensive monitoring. I understand that very well, because district health boards that have to have Crown monitors and intensive monitoring are in serious trouble. The board could not balance its budget. It was running a deficit—a big deficit; it was up to about $42 million. Joe Butterfield was the chair, and Joe chaired the South Canterbury District Health Board right through the years that I was Minister of Health. He is a good man. He could not balance the budget. He could not, in the end, hold together the attitude and the feelings of the people of the South about what was happening to their health services.

We did call for a commissioner much earlier. Maybe if the Minister had listened to what we were saying, the board would not have had to delay this election, because the commissioner would have had the time to work on whatever they were going to put in place to fix this problem in the Southern District Health Board. But he dithered and he dallied around, and finally he put in a commissioner.

That commissioner has been there for less than a year. It will be a year in June—next month. That is insufficient time for the commissioner, accompanied now by three other commissioners, to come up with an implementation plan to be able to fix the problems in the Southern District Health Board. So, reluctantly, we have to give it time to do that. I did put up, in the Committee stage of this bill, a Supplementary Order Paper, and I thank New Zealand First and the Greens for supporting it. It was a sensible Supplementary Order Paper. It suggested that we postpone the election, rather than cancel the election until 2019. We proposed to postpone the election of the district health board until the plan was implemented—which could be within a year, it could be within 18 months. It could have, by Order in Council, had an election. It would not have cost any more, because if you are delaying an election, you have not spent the money, and if you have it you would spend it. When it gets to the next election, of course you spend for that election. The Minister was very charitable and smiled nicely, but did nothing towards looking at it seriously.

I pick up the points made by New Zealand First and the Greens. They opposed the bill at the first reading. We worked hard on it in the Health Committee—and I think, perhaps, there was some misunderstanding as to what came out of those deliberations, because none of us opposed it at the select committee. But they have stayed with what they believed in. We have too—tried to amend it, we have tried to make it better—but at the end of the day, we do have to support it because we cannot leave the people of the southern part of New Zealand with health services that are not working and with plans that are not in place, and then just put in elected members so that the Minister of Health can blame them. That is what it got into with the Southern District Health Board: a blame game.

So these commissioners now have got a big lot of work to do. At the select committee we asked for greater transparency from the commissioners. We said that they have got to be much more open. Part of the problem for the Southern District Health Board is that it got more and more entrenched in its problems. It closed shop. It did not want people to see how bad it was. It is what happens when there are big issues. So we have said: “You cannot continue with that approach. You’ve got to be more open. Involve the public—they will understand and they will help you.” We at the select committee said that there ought to be more openness, transparency, and involvement of the public. Within days of us saying that at the select committee—and I have to say, it came from the Opposition benches—the commissioners then announced that there would be more openness and transparency. Actually, if they had read the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act they would have known: even though they were commissioners, they were required to have the statutory committees. They have then decided that they will have the statutory committees and open them up to the public. So I welcome that. But we are going to keep a very close eye on the transparency and openness and involvement of the public as the commissioners make their deliberations and they put forward their plan and implement that plan.

So we just put them on notice that that is what we will be doing, because we do feel that the right of people to have an election for their district health board is a really important one. We also understand that sometimes you have to do things that do not allow you to have an election at that time. But we are suspicious of this Government, which is why we were trying to put in safeguards. I look at the Minister Louise Upston looking at me quizzically—the reason why, Minister, is that a promise was made to the people of Canterbury that they would have an election for Environment Canterbury. A promise—made by a Minister—written down, said orally, said on the television. And what happened? It postponed the election. It postponed it again, and so trust in the Government’s word on whether elections would be held is very, very low indeed.

I can assure the people of the Southern District Health Board that when we lead a Government, come 2017, we will be putting back in place a governance board; we will be ensuring those locals will be back again until they can have an election, and they will certainly be having an election under a Labour-led Government. We brought back the democracy into district health boards. It was the National Party that got rid of elected area health boards and replaced them with a whole lot of outfits that had funny names: CHEs—big CHEs, weak CHEs, round CHEs; it had HFAs, and RHAs, you name it—acronyms for Africa. But it took away the right of locals to have a say on their health services. One of the first things that Labour did as a new Government, the fifth Labour Government—we brought back elected district health boards. Seven members elected, four appointed, and that has been in place to this day. The people of the Southern District Health Board deserve to have that back, and I can promise you that they will get it back.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I commend the bill to the House.

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

Ayes 95

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

Noes 26

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 95, Noes 16.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I understand that there has been an agreement, because of the good progress this week in the House, that the House will now adjourn. Is there any objection to that?

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.