Wednesday, 25 May 2016

WEDNESDAY, 25 MAY 2016

WEDNESDAY, 25 MAY 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister, Statements—Housing

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This question is to the Prime Minister and asks: does he stand by all his statements—sorry; does he still stand by—[Interruption] Well, it is obvious—“still” being the operative word.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by all his statements; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, because I find them more accurate and more coherent than the member’s questions. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have just the supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which of the following statements does he stand by: “Slowly rising house prices in Auckland are not good.”, “The Auckland housing market has been rising a little faster than the Government would want.”, “We take responsibility. We need to do a better job of it.”, or, my favourite, “There is not a housing crisis.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: All of them, in the context that they were made. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we will have the supplementary question in line with the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister how he can say he has confidence in Nick Smith undertaking “a wide range of initiatives when it comes to housing” when there is now an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who simply do not agree with him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is a statement of absolute fact that Minister Smith has done a great deal in the housing area, including seeing $34 million a week used to subsidise New Zealanders into housing, seeing 40 new houses a day built in Auckland, seeing 154 special housing areas created in Auckland, which will release up to 56,000 homes, seeing Crown land released, and seeing 12,000 families being able to access the KiwiSaver HomeStart, along with the tax changes that have been made. The changes have been very significant.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in a Minister who makes Maurice Williamson look like Keith Hay Homes, or describe him as being “outstanding” and, further, “doing the best he can”—or is it a case of “Don’t blame John, Nick did it. Don’t blame Nick, John told him to.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is probably true that Maurice Williamson started his political career living in a Keith Hay home, but that member started his living in a log cabin. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There is just too much interjection. I invite the Rt Hon Winston Peters, if he has a further supplementary question, to ask it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with an infamous New Zealander who said: “We are facing a severe home affordability and ownership crisis. The crisis has reached dangerous levels in recent years and looks set to get worse.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that he was the one who said that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not when I was in Government, I did not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister able to remember any promise an hour after he has made it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes; my memory is not going.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister remember saying that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement would bring $5 billion to this country by 2025, when there is not one other expert in the world who agrees with that, and which country was he talking about when he said that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister remember warning New Zealanders that he did not want them to become tenants in their own country, and that being the case could he tell us what his discussions were with the leader of the Chinese communications arm of the Chinese communist Government yesterday? Did they concern, for example, the takeover of Silver Fern Farms, rising foreign ownership in this country, or being treated as though he were a head of State?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I did not raise those particular points, but nor was it some sort of secret meeting, given that I put a picture on my Facebook site of meeting the man.

Budget 2016—Better Public Services

JOANNE HAYES (National): My question is to the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

2. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking in Budget 2016 to deliver better public services—particularly for the most vulnerable New Zealanders? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is simply too much interjection coming from one quarter to my left. I will deal with it if I have to.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The member will just have to wait till tomorrow for details, but the Government is, in Budget 2016, investing in a growing economy that delivers more jobs and higher wages, and one that delivers sufficient revenue to give us choices. Where we do spend money, we will be focused on getting better value for money where we can make a real difference to the most vulnerable New Zealanders, rather than just increasing the amount of funding.

Joanne Hayes: How will Budget 2016 continue to build the Government’s investments in health, education, and other core public services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will build on a lot of good work in health, education, and other core public services by focusing on getting more outcomes, not just spending more money. As we saw a decade ago, it is possible to spend more in health and deliver fewer health services. It is possible to increase Government spending by 50 percent in 5 years only to see social statistics go backwards. We saw that happen under the previous Labour Government; it is not happening under this Government.

Joanne Hayes: What initiatives has the Government announced, particularly relating to supporting more vulnerable families into accommodation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is important to understand that any initiatives come on top of the $2 billion that was spent this financial year—over $2 billion—to support 300,000 people on the accommodation supplement and 60,000 households on income-related rent. That is in addition to the Government’s $20 billion worth of houses. It owns one in every 16 houses in New Zealand. There have already been announcements of a $41 million commitment to support around 3,000 emergency housing places, and there is the Government’s HomeStart programme, which has supported 12,000 people into first homes.

Joanne Hayes: What other steps is the Government taking to get more houses where they are most needed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is taking a number of steps, which I will outline, but no land becomes available, nor infrastructure relevant to that land, nor houses built, without the Auckland Council agreeing to every single step. There is something of a misunderstanding that the Government can somehow bypass the council and local communities; it cannot. It has to follow the process. The Government is in the process of building 7,500 houses in Tāmaki; 3,500 houses in Hobsonville; a thousand houses in other Auckland locations; and 300 houses in Weymouth, in addition to almost a thousand houses that will be delivered in Christchurch under the Christchurch Housing Accord.

Housing—Affordability and Availability

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements with regard to housing that “we take responsibility; we need to do a better job of it”, and “we need to do more”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement on housing, which went on to say “To say we’ve done nothing in the last few years is absolutely not true. Just think of the things we’ve done in the last 2 years alone.”, and then I listed them.

Andrew Little: Given he has stated that the public’s concerns about housing are due to his Government’s failure to explain its policies, how has his Government’s failure to explain its policies caused building materials to be more expensive, investors to buy 80 percent of houses in some places, and homeownership among under 40s to plummet to just 25 percent?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is making things up. But what he may like to know—

Phil Twyford: All facts.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —because he would not want the facts to get in the way of a good story, from his point of view—is that we are building, on its own, 40 houses every working day in Auckland. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: How has his Government’s failure to explain its policies caused house prices to rise at over 20 percent a year in many places, deposit inflation to run at $500 a week, and homeownership to plummet to its worst level in 65 years?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, the member is making things up. It is quite true that from 1986 to 2014, the year of the last census, homeownership rates have declined, but that has been across successive Governments. If you look at the Government programme, which has been very extensive, of everything from releasing more land to having more people building houses, over time the supply side will actually fix the issues, just as it did in Christchurch. If the member does not believe that, why would the member now support the Government’s policy of releasing more land?

Andrew Little: How has his Government’s failure to explain its policies caused children to live in cars and motels because there are not enough State houses and for families in rental houses to too often find them cold, mouldy, and unhealthy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has done a substantial amount to help the least well off, including, I might point out, replacing 134 tenants and their families into social housing every week. We are building 17 new social houses every week. We will be the first Government in history to give people money as they move into emergency accommodation. On top of that, the Government spends nearly $10 billion a year on supporting the least well-off in New Zealand, including $4.4 billion on benefits, $2.4 billion on Working for Families, $1.2 billion on the accommodation supplement, $800 million on income-related rents, $277 million on hardship assistance, $143 million on recovery assistance, and $340 million on improving other conditions.

Andrew Little: If it is all just a failure to explain, which of his three housing Ministers has had the worst failure—Nick Smith, who says homelessness is a figment of our imagination; Paula Bennett, who announced $41 million for emergency housing, and then had to admit it did not buy a single new bed; or Bill English, who says “crisis” is overstating it, when homeownership is plummeting to its worst level in 65 years?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, the member is making them all up. But one thing we can be sure of—if any one of the three of them was the Leader of the Opposition they would be polling better than 8 percent.

Andrew Little: Does he really think that kids living in cars and a generation shut out of homeownership is just a political problem for him to spin his way out of?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There has been an international decline in homeownership rates, but, still, 65 percent of New Zealanders own a home. There are varying reasons why—because of societal changes, some of them are different, including people living in retirement homes. But if you look overall at the assistance that the Government gives to the least well-off New Zealanders, this is the most assistance any Government has given.

Andrew Little: Does he not think it is just grotesque of him to talk about a $3 billion unfunded tax cut election bribe, when kids are living in cars and a generation is being shut out of homeownership?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier, if you look at the amount that we are spending, which is more than any other Government in the history of New Zealand has spent, we are spending $10 billion a year on helping the least well-off. I might point out that the issue of homelessness and people living in cars is not a new issue. In 2008, when Michael Cullen did cut taxes, the situation was the same.

Andrew Little: Will he promise that by the time of the election next year, the homeownership rate in New Zealand will be rising and every child will have a warm, dry, healthy home; if not, why is he so lacking in ambition for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I will promise is that the Government will keep delivering for New Zealanders in the way that it has, including more assistance to low-income New Zealanders than ever before. That includes free GP visits for under-13s, $10 billion worth of assistance for the least well-off, breakfast in all schools that want it, social workers in all low-decile schools, the Youth Service for young teen beneficiaries—I could go on. They are very comprehensive responses to New Zealanders’ needs.

Economic Programme—Spending

4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with all of this Government’s spending choices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, where the Government is making choices about new money, I do. But it is important to recognise that $77 billion of current Government spending represents the accumulation of decisions over many years. The Government is committed to high-quality decisions where it is allocating new spending, and also trawling through the baseline spending to improve the effectiveness of much of that spending that has been found to be less than effective.

David Seymour: Does he then agree with the recent decision to give $600,000 to Jane Kelsey so that she can study “transcending embedded neoliberalism in international economic regulation”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be relieved to know that Ms Kelsey’s academic peers made that decision, not the Government.

David Seymour: Which of the following does he believe was the best use of taxpayer money: Find Me A Māori Bride 2 at $590,000, X Factor 2 at $800,000, or Grand Designs 2 at $1.2 million?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with my colleagues, because The X Factor is a wonderful showcase of the talents of young New Zealanders. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection is simply too high. If you want me to mention a couple of names I can, and they will then be on a final warning.

David Seymour: Does he believe it was a good use of $1.2 million of taxpayers’ money to fund The Ultimate Waterman stand-up paddleboarding event, and does he know whether Steven Joyce tried out this paddleboard; if not, can he speculate as to why?

Mr SPEAKER: Three supplementary questions, of which one can be addressed.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is nothing I have seen Minister Joyce have a go at where he does not prove himself to be a master of the required skills.

David Seymour: In light of these patchy answers to my previous supplementary questions, does the Minister truly believe that there is not a cent to afford tax cuts for hard-working Kiwi families this Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I share with the member his respect and regard for the fact that the only reason that the Government has billions to spend is that people who got up early this morning, made the lunches for the kids, got them on the bus, and then went to work—probably their mother—pay their tax at the end of the fortnight. That is how we end up with billions. The difference between us and the other side of the House is that the other side of the House does not respect that whatsoever.

Budget 2016—Health Care Research

5. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What new investment is the Government making in health research?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Last week health Minister Jonathan Coleman and I announced that, as part of Budget 2016, the Government will increase funding for health research by $97 million over the next 4 years. The annual amount available for health research through the Health Research Council (HRC) will increase by 56 percent, up from $77 million this year to $120 million in 2019-20, which will be the biggest increase. The HRC supports research that leads to improved health outcomes and more effective delivery of health care for New Zealanders. That research brings economic gains for New Zealand.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why is the Government investing more in health research?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is investing more in health research because it brings a range of benefits, firstly to our health system and to New Zealanders and their health, but also to our wider economy. Health research creates economic benefits by supporting the cost-effective delivery of services. It generates high-value, knowledge-intensive companies like Pacific Edge Biotechnology, which is now listed on the NZX and has had support for its research into genetics and epigenetics of cancer; Avalia Immunotherapies, which is a joint venture between the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research and Victoria University, which is commercialising groundbreaking vaccines for some cancers; and PREDICT software, which is an electronic tool for the prediction of cardiovascular risk.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What sort of research will be supported by this increase in funding?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government’s National Statement of Science Investment identifies health research as a priority for investment, and that is why it has committed this very significant increase as part of Budget 2016—it is the largest ever funding increase for health research in this country’s history. It will fund more research like the famous Liggins-Howie discovery for preventing lung disease in newborns, which is estimated to have directly saved the lives of about 10,000 New Zealand infants, and the national New Zealand Cot Death Study, which identified changes that parents could make to reduce the risk to their baby and is credited with saving more than 3,000 New Zealand children’s lives over 20 years.

Health Services—Funding Levels

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What dollar increase in core Crown health expenditure is required to meet all demographic and inflationary cost pressures in 2016/17?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The technical costs of population ageing and inflation for any given year are never known until that year is completed. The member should know that core Crown expenditure is a different measure from Vote Health, which is the main measure that is used for health spending. Vote Health funding shows that health is up by $4 billion under this Government, which is above population growth and inflation. The member knows that there is not a single health service that has not improved over the last 8 years. I suggest that Labour focuses on services and outcomes rather than calling for more spending and higher taxes.

Hon Annette King: In light of his answer that we have to wait until the end of year, what percentage for demographic cost pressures did he use to give district health boards their funding indication for 2016-17?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: You are just going to have to wait until the Budget—one sleep to go. You know that.

Hon Annette King: In light of the public criticism last week by General Practice New Zealand at the chronic underfunding of practices, will he ensure that General Practice New Zealand receives the extra $20 million to $26 million it is seeking to meet all inflationary pressures, or is he happy for doctors’ fees to rise?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Unlike the member, I get around a lot of general practices, and I am getting very good feedback from doctors who are actually doing the work on the ground, as opposed to Labour Party members who might work in the health sector.

Hon Annette King: Will the Budget address the concerns of the Orthopaedic Association, which said recently that patients waiting for surgery were sicker than once was the case, and that they had two options: pay up or wait until their hips and knees got worse?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The orthopaedic surgeons are actually very happy, because we are doing an extra 6,000 orthopaedic operations per year compared with when we came into Government—an extra 2,000 hips and knees. There are an extra 110,000 appointments right across the system and an extra 50,000 electives to go with the extra 6,000 doctors and nurses. So, actually, the feedback from the orthopaedic specialists has been very, very good.

Hon Annette King: When he said last week that people were getting access to the mental health and addiction services they need, was he aware that he was using misleading data, because 70 percent of 44,500 young people in 2015 did not receive help in 3 weeks, as he claimed, and it was 70 percent of 15,000?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The master of misleading data is Mrs King. The fact is that in 2015, 70 percent of young mental health patients were seen within 3 weeks and 91 percent were seen within 8 weeks. Four years ago only two-thirds were seen within 21 days. So, actually, we are seeing more people, we are seeing them quicker, and the service is a lot better than when Mrs King was running it.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a Ministry of Health document taken off its policy priority web page entitled PP8—very hard to get access to.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, if it is available on the website—

Hon Annette King: Well, the Minister did not see it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If it is available on the website, members can get it.

Hon Annette King: If he used the demographic cost pressure of 2.7 percent and inflation of 0.4 percent as of March, would the increase in core Crown health expenditure need to be at least $600 million in Budget 2016-17; if not, what should it be?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member is confusing core Crown health expenditure with Vote Health. Core Crown health expenditure includes various elements of ACC, part of the workplace and safety vote, bits of the health vote—actually, she fundamentally does not understand the structure of the vote. It is very surprising after 30 years in Parliament.

Health Targets—Progress

7. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made towards achieving the Government’s national health targets?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): This week the Ministry of Health published the health targets results for quarter three, 2015-16. They showed good progress overall, with the elective surgery target again being achieved, with 146,000 elective surgical discharges provided for the year to date. That is nearly 8,000 more than were planned. We have delivered around 50,000 more surgeries over the last 7 years. The target for heart and diabetes checks was met for the third consecutive quarter. Around 1.2 million people have had their cardiovascular disease risk assessed in the past 5 years. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! To the Hon Annette King, you have interjected on every question. We are now on question No. 7. If you interject again I will deal with it severely.

Simon O’Connor: What changes will be made to the national health targets?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: From 1 July a new childhood obesity health target will replace the heart and diabetes checks target. By December 2017 we want to see 95 percent of children who are identified as obese in the before-school check referred to an appropriate health professional for clinical assessment and intervention. Heart and diabetes checks will still remain an accountability measure for district health boards to ensure that the gains made are not lost.

Simon O’Connor: What reports has he seen on the numbers of doctors and nurses in our hospitals who are helping meet these targets?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Our dedicated health workforce has been crucial in meeting these health targets, and we now have a record number of doctors and nurses working in district health boards across New Zealand. At the end of March this year there were over 7,880 doctors and 22,500 nurses employed by district health boards. That is almost 2,000 more doctors and nearly 4,200 more nurses compared with 2008.

Housing Affordability and Availability—Government Measures to Address

8. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Tū ai a ia i runga i te mana o āna korero katoa?

[Does he stand by all his statements?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Is it possible that, contrary to what the Prime Minister said on The Paul Henry Show this morning, New Zealanders have registered all of National’s failed housing policies, because they are the ones being outbid at auctions by speculators, living in cars and garages, and waiting desperately for a State house?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think what is true is that the Government has had a very extensive response to housing issues in Auckland. There will be more coming in that area, but that is a lot for anyone to comprehend at one time. People in this Parliament might hear those things, but I doubt that the average New Zealander would know the full list of all the things we have done. The Government’s job is to continue to communicate that.

Metiria Turei: Well, is it not true that, despite this full list of his, not one single measure of his has reduced house prices for families or housed the more than 30,000 New Zealanders who are living today in severe housing deprivation; every one of his half measures has failed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is quite incorrect. If one looks at a whole bunch of things—for instance, over 600 people have left a Housing New Zealand home because of renewable tenancies, and that has allowed other New Zealanders to go into those homes. There are 134 tenants and their families moving into social housing every single week, and 17 new social houses a week are being built. The Government has announced that $41 million will be available for emergency support and, starting initially from 1 September but on an annual basis, it will be brought forward on 1 July. It is simply not true that the Government is not addressing those issues for New Zealanders. Along with the $10 billion of support it provides for low-income New Zealanders every year.

Metiria Turei: What is the point of kicking out a family from a Housing New Zealand house and then making them rack up $100,000 of debt to Work and Income for a motel?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: People who leave under renewable tenancies do so because they are in a position to pay market rent, and, actually, I think that makes—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not the issue raised in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The—

Metiria Turei: Kicking a family out of a Housing New Zealand house is not dealing—

Mr SPEAKER: The question was heard. I heard it, and now we will allow the Prime Minister a chance to answer it.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: So the reason that people leave a Housing New Zealand home on a renewable tenancy is that they are able to pay market-related rents, and that is a very sensible policy because (a) they are in a better financial position to be able to pay their private rent and allow a more needy family to move in. There is also the reason that people leave because they do not need the size of the house, but I might add that this Government has done what no other Government has done, and that is to extend income-related rents to social housing providers to allow even more New Zealanders to access a cheaper home.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister still did not answer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. I think on this—[Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister certainly addressed the question, though clearly not to the member’s satisfaction. The way to progress the matter is to ask further supplementary questions.

Metiria Turei: What is the point of having beneficiaries racking up huge debts to Work and Income for motels, when they could be being housed in proper State homes and paying rent, and is that not yet another obvious failure of his housing policy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. It is one of the reasons why the Government has allocated $41 million that people can access for emergency support. It is, in fact, now a grant, not a loan.

Metiria Turei: Is it not true that that grant is for only 7 days in a motel and that families are having to spend months and months racking up huge debts to Work and Income because his Government is failing to provide them with a decent house?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the last part of the question, no, that is not correct.

Budget 2016—Spending

9. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Why has he brought forward spending previously earmarked for Budget 2017 into Budget 2016?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Partly because of increase in population and partly because the Government has a range of positive opportunities to invest in strengthening the economy and in delivering better services.

Grant Robertson: After 8 years, will he now accept that his positive opportunities are, in fact, a social deficit that has led to a housing crisis, a huge shortfall in health funding, and parents bearing a greater cost of their children’s education?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Absolutely not, and I would refer the member to the regular reporting of the Government’s Better Public Services results, which show reducing welfare dependency and significantly higher pass rates in our schools, particularly for Māori and Pacific students. I refer him to the results that show increasing skill levels among our young people, reductions in rheumatic fever, and higher immunisation rates. I might say, it is a much better record than the previous Labour Government’s, which increased spending by 50 percent and left almost all social statistics in a worse state.

Grant Robertson: Does he believe that 1 year of focus on spending in health, housing, and education will deal with the problems built up over the last 8 years; if not, will he rule out offering tax cuts in 2017?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. This Government has focused on doing the Government’s job better since the day it was elected. The Labour Party might wish that there was some kind of widespread breakdown in public services, but it is absolutely not the case, which is why around the country we are finding enthusiastic NGO and Public Service staff working very hard to do a better job for New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: Will part of the spending brought forward from 2017 fund an extension to paid parental leave to 26 weeks, as the Labour bill being debated before Parliament tonight proposes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait and see. The Government’s stance on Labour’s bill has not altered. The Government extended paid parental leave, I think in the last Budget, in two tranches of 2 weeks in successive years. We believe that given the range of demands on the Government purse, that is a fair and balanced outcome.

Grant Robertson: Does he believe that 18 weeks’ paid parental leave is sufficient?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is what the Government is funding, and relative to all the other needs, of which the member is regularly reminding us, whether it is housing or health or education or anything he can think of, we think that is pretty balanced.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that for his future tax cut promises, he will be relying on Treasury forecasts that economists regard as overly optimistic, and which he has previously dismissed, saying that “Treasury can barely tell what is going to happen before Christmas, let alone forecast years ahead.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economists have not seen the forecasts. I am sure that some of them will disagree with them—that is the nature of economists and the nature of forecasts. What we do know is that, within reasonable variation around those forecasts, the economy is growing, we know that—2 to 3 percent per year—and the Government books are in surplus, and those surpluses are likely to rise.

Injury Prevention—Initiatives

10. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for ACC: What initiatives are being delivered to reduce the number of people injured in New Zealand?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): ACC has improved its commitment to injury prevention by increasing its budget from $30 million to $50 million per year. In the last 12 months alone, we have announced new partnerships and investments across priority injury areas, including reducing falls, sporting injuries, and treatment injuries. Initiatives include a $15 million to $20 million partnership with the health sector to reduce medical injuries, including a world leading surgical training programme, a $1.1 million partnership with St John Ambulance to prevent injuries to children, and a $2.3 million investment in Plunket.

Melissa Lee: What work is under way to specifically reduce injuries to children?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Last week I was pleased to announce a new partnership between ACC and Plunket to reduce the number of injuries to children under 5 years old. ACC is investing $2.3 million to support Plunket to further develop its injury prevention capability and better deliver educational initiatives to support parents. Each year more than 110,000 children aged under 5 are injured at home and in the wider community. This includes 60,000 children injured due to falls, and 4,000 injured as a result of burns. This funding is all about ensuring fewer Kiwi children are injured, and supporting more parents to keep their children safe at home and in the community.

Melissa Lee: How many families and children will be reached by this funding, and what other work is expected in this area? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon NIKKI KAYE: This funding will help Plunket nurses reach more than 270,000 families with children under 5 years old. These Plunket nurses will be focused on ensuring new parents are better prepared and more aware to prevent injuries. Who better to do this than Plunket nurses, who have supported New Zealand families for generations. This investment of tens of millions of dollars more in injury prevention, combined with billions of levy cuts, has seen an increase in public confidence for ACC. In the last fortnight I announced that ACC’s public confidence is the highest ever recorded in New Zealand’s history.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Flawed Carbon Credits and Emissions Increase

11. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Did she make a bid for Budget 2016 to cancel Government-held carbon credits to compensate for the past use of “dubious” credits, in order to meet New Zealand’s climate commitments?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The member will just have to be patient and wait until the Budget tomorrow—one more sleep.

James Shaw: Why would anybody trust a country that, as New Zealand has done, covers up its rising emissions by using fake carbon credits and then refuses to do the right thing and pay them back when it has the chance?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those units, as the member knows, were surrendered to meet our Kyoto obligations. Of the total that we submitted, they made up 26 percent, so the other 74 percent actually had environmental integrity. The units that we have left are all of high environmental integrity and so, as a consequence, we are drawing a line in the sand and moving on.

James Shaw: By what percentage did New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions—net greenhouse gas emissions—increase between 2008 and 2014?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am not sure about that particular time line. What I do know about is the report that came out just last week, which said that they had gone up by 1 percent, in that 2014 report that we have just put out.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table calculations by the Parliamentary Library, based on the report out last week, showing that emissions increased by 19 percent under National.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! Listen, we do not need to have the conversation from this side. Leave was put; leave was denied. That is the end of the matter.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Parliamentary Library’s analysis was not publicly available.

Mr SPEAKER: I need to determine whether the information would be useful. I determined that it could have been, I put the leave, and it is then the ability of any member to decline it. They do not have to give a reason. The leave was put, it has been declined, and that is the end of the matter.

James Shaw: Will she concede that her Government’s decision to flood New Zealand with cheap, dubious carbon credits contributed to the 19 percent increase in emissions under this Government?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly the advice that I have had is that it is not surprising that we have had an increase in most recent years as the population has gone up. We are looking at more cars that are on the road, which means that transport has gone up, but, actually, if you went on a percentage basis as to the level of population that has gone up and the actual emissions, they have actually decreased slightly, but not overall, because of our population increase.

James Shaw: Given that our emissions are the highest that they have been since 1990 and have risen 19 percent under this Government’s tenure in the time that we have had an emissions trading scheme, if she is not going to fix it in this Budget—when?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have said, he can find out what is in the Budget tomorrow, but what I would also say is that we have the highest population in this country that we have ever had.

Fisheries—Illegal Dumping of Fish

12. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Was he aware in 2013 of the pervasive illegal dumping of fish from inshore trawlers, as documented in the MPI reports on Operation Achilles and Operation Hippocamp?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): As I do not receive the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) criminal investigations, I was not made aware of those specific cases. However, it is well known that a small degree of illegal dumping in our fisheries has always occurred. The ministry was disappointed that it was not able to take a prosecution in these particular circumstances, and there is now a Queen’s Counsel (QC) reviewing this decision. However, MPI takes over 300 prosecutions per year and we have doubled the number of observers on vessels. Yesterday I also announced that we will accelerate the roll-out of cameras and electronic monitoring on all fishing vessels. This will provide greater transparency and improve public confidence that our fisheries are being well managed.

Rino Tirikatene: When did he first become aware that MPI investigators had uncovered fishing vessels openly discarding substantial quantities of prime inshore quota fish?

Hon NATHAN GUY: If the member had opened his taringa to the answer of the primary question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer just will not help the order of the House. Can the question just be answered please?

Hon NATHAN GUY: If the member had listened to the primary answer he would have known that, in fact, politicians do not get involved in criminal investigations. If there are any policy changes that need to be made as a result of criminal investigations then they are fed through to me, and, as the member should be aware, I have an operational review under way.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a relatively straight question from my colleague Rino Tirikatene about when he became aware. It was not about the particular criminal investigation; it was when he became aware of the practice.

Mr SPEAKER: The best way forward is to ask Rino Tirikatene to re-ask the question.

Rino Tirikatene: When did he first become aware that MPI investigators had uncovered fishing vessels openly discarding substantial quantities of prime inshore quota fish?

Hon NATHAN GUY: As I alluded to in the primary answer, MPI has ongoing investigations happening all the time. I also said in my primary answer that MPI has 300 investigations. I also said that discarding and dumping has been a concern for a long period of time. As a result, the member should be aware that we have rolled out 100 percent camera coverage in Snapper 1, and yesterday I announced that we are going to do more.

Rino Tirikatene: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked when the Minister was aware—

Mr SPEAKER: I know. I agree that the question has now been asked twice. It has been answered twice. I am none the wiser as to when the Minister was aware. The way forward is that I will allow the member an additional supplementary question.

Rino Tirikatene: When did he first become aware that MPI investigators had uncovered fishing vessels openly discarding substantial quantities of prime inshore quota fish?

Dr Megan Woods: When?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need the assistance of Dr Megan Woods. The answer from Nathan Guy.

Hon NATHAN GUY: I became aware of the nature of these reports last week when they entered the public domain. Following on, as I have just answered in the last two questions, if there are any policy changes that need to be made as a result of this, then they can be fed into the operational review. Since these reports in 2012-13, we have made sure that the 100 percent roll-out of camera coverage in Snapper 1 means that we can use that footage in a compliance nature if we need to.

Rino Tirikatene: Has the Ministry for Primary Industries been undertaking a 5-year work programme since 2008 called Better Information Better Value to address fish dumping; if so, why did the Government launch an investigation into fish dumping only last Thursday, almost 3 years after the programme was ended?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I refute those allegations. That member has a cheek coming into the House because he is actually—[Interruption] Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member wish to hear the answer, because he needs some assistance from his colleagues—

Rino Tirikatene: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is being very slippery.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. And that is not a point of order. Now, does the Minster wish to complete his answer?

Hon NATHAN GUY: By the line of questioning from that—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is little point in going on. The left-hand side is to be quiet so that we can hear the answer; I am not getting any cooperation. Are there any further supplementary questions?

Rino Tirikatene: What happened between Wednesday last week when the Ministry for Primary Industries denied that there was fishing quota misreporting, and Thursday, when it launched an independent inquiry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: As a result of those two criminal investigation reports becoming publicly available, it was then an opportune time for MPI to get a QC involved—as a result of it not being able to get a prosecution because of the scientific nature in which these cameras were used—to see whether indeed it could. I think it is very appropriate that a QC is now reviewing this. I also think that there is an opportunity, as a result of the operational review that I kicked off last year, to ensure that any policy changes that may come about from this can be fed into that, because ultimately this is about the public confidence in our fishing system, and I want to ensure that we are doing absolutely everything possible to ensure that that is happening.

Rino Tirikatene: Does he agree that just monitoring the problem will not make it go away; if so, what is he doing to address the underlying causes of fish dumping?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Nathan Guy—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon NATHAN GUY: If the member had listened to the answers that I have given this afternoon, he would have realised the programme of work that we have got under way. I cannot believe that the member’s line of questioning this afternoon is implying that the hundreds of people who are out there collecting fish—mum and dad businesses—are all crooks. The member has not even acknowledged that we have made a law change with foreign charter vessels. This Government is doing a huge amount and will continue to do more.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This week is, of course, Budget week 2016. By this time tomorrow, Bill English will have delivered his eighth Budget, and it will be a fine Budget indeed. By tomorrow afternoon, he will have almost reached the number of Budgets that he has children.

As a public service in Budget week, I thought it would be appropriate for me to go in search of an alternative budget from the Opposition. It has been saying a lot over the last few weeks, and I thought it would be helpful to draw it together into a cogent narrative as to what the alternative budget would be in 2016. [Interruption] I think we could start. There would have to be a budget story, and I was thinking it would probably say there was a crisis. I think it would be a crisis, because it has indeed been a crisis for the Opposition every year since this Government has been in office. Manufacturing, exports, the regions, Christchurch housing, milk prices, fresh fruit and vegetables, too many people leaving, too many people arriving—these are the crises that the Labour Opposition has been seeking to deal with in its budgets, and I am sure it will come up with one tomorrow in the alternative budget.

The Opposition will also need some statistics. Unfortunately, those members are not proving to be particularly good at statistics. For example, on Sunday Andrew Little went out and said that New Zealand households’ share of GDP has dropped dramatically—except that he was wrong. He was wrong. If you look at households’ share of GDP, it is higher under this Government than it was under Labour. Then, of course, in his latest today, the Labour Party is talking about homeownership. It is saying that homeownership is dropping under this Government. Well, here is an interesting statistic: according to Statistics New Zealand, homeownership in New Zealand has actually risen slightly over the last 5 years. So that is rather fascinating. But that is OK; they will move on.

Labour members cannot do statistics; they will have to talk about, maybe, tax. There is an interesting subject, because, presumably, Labour must have a coherent position on tax. That would be a good thing. After all, in 2014, when Andrew Little became Leader of the Opposition, he took the capital gains tax off the table. He cited it as “the reason people didn’t vote for us.” Well, not to be put off his plan, finance spokesman Grant Robertson this week slapped it back on the table. “We need to look at a range of options.” says Robertson. “A capital gains tax clearly has to be one of those options.” Well, he obviously has not told Mr Little.

But, then, what about personal tax? Well, on Monday Grant Robertson said Labour is planning to announce tax increases before the next election to help fund its spending plans. That is what he said. When asked what Labour’s tax increase for the top rate of personal tax would be—I think it was on ZB—Andrew Little said it would not be as high as 39c in the dollar. That is what Andrew Little said. But Annette King and I were on the radio this morning, and she was asked about tax and said: “We’ve made no decisions on tax.” This is about as consistent as Phil Twyford on the metropolitan urban limit: “That’s what we’ll do, but that’s all right. We don’t know what we are doing on tax, except we know we are putting it up in the alternative budget.”

What about spending? What is the plan with spending? Well, it is interesting. I have not had time to go back through all the press releases, so I have just done the Labour and Green press releases from the past few days. So what do we need? We need half a billion dollars for the police. Right, OK. We need 26 weeks’ paid parental leave by April 2018; anything less is not good enough. For the Greens, it is a billion dollars nearly, to electrify rail between Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga.

Then there is the health budget. The health budget is an interesting one. Robertson says it needs to be at least $600 million, according to the Greens and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions it needs to be nearly $700 million, and according to Andrew Little there needs to be $1.7 billion. Then there is conservation funding. The Greens want a lot more money in conservation. And then, of course, Bill English has to stop disciplining Housing New Zealand. So that is another couple of hundred million. On top of that there is the KiwiBuild programme, which is billions and billions of dollars.

So all we know is what we have always known: the alternative budget is: tax more, spend bucketloads, and send the country down the road to rack and ruin. And that is why tomorrow this Government gets to deliver its eighth Budget.

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): We have had 8 years of Mr Joyce speaking to his own backbenchers rather than to the country. We have had 8 years of crowing and self-congratulation rather than talking about how this Government plans to solve the great challenges of our time. Seeing as Paula Bennett raised it in her response to my questions in question time earlier today, let us talk a little bit about the population of New Zealand.

In 1973, when I was born, the population of New Zealand was just shy of 3 million people. Today, 43 years later, it stands at a little over 4.5 million. In other words, we have added half again to our population in the time that I have been alive. By the time I die—and there are some benign assumptions in this equation—our population will have doubled. In other words, we have gone from being a country where we could pretty much carry on as we liked—we could take whatever we wanted from our forests, our rivers, our aquifers, and our seas, confidently believing they would replenish themselves naturally—and we could dump our waste into our atmosphere, into our rivers, into our oceans, and into our land with little visible consequence.

Today we have a Government that carries on as if that were, somehow, still true—as if it ever was true. It stopped being true some time ago. For 8 years now we have had a Government that has actively invested public money in the pollution of our rivers, our aquifers, and our oceans. For 8 years now we have had a Government that would rather run a Budget surplus than save our endangered birds. For 8 years we have had a Government that believes stopping climate change will be more expensive than living with deeper droughts, worse storms, and rising seas.

Tomorrow, just as Mr Joyce did now, the Government will sit and crow as it delivers its second-to-last Budget. There will be the usual smattering, I guess, of headline-grabbing announcements designed to make it look as if it is doing something whilst doing absolutely nothing at all—or as little as possible, rather than everything possible in order to solve the actual challenges that face us today. When I say that we have a Government that has put public money into the pollution of our rivers, our aquifers, and our oceans, I am speaking of its active involvement in converting New Zealand farmland into intensive dairying, which has led to a situation where two-thirds of our rivers are now unswimmable without the risk of catching some horrible disease. I expect that in tomorrow’s Budget the Government will crow, as Mr Joyce has just done, about some minor clean-up programme but that in another year our rivers will be just as polluted as they are today, if not more so.

When I say we have got a Government that would rather deliver a Budget surplus than save endangered birds, I am speaking of its consistent underfunding of the Department of Conservation (DOC) for the last 8 years. In every year of the National Government’s tenure, Government funding for DOC through Vote Conservation has been, on average, $55 million less than the last Labour Government’s. That is $336 million that DOC has had to manage without for the last 8 years. As a result, 142 species have had their threat status increased towards extinction over the last 8 years of this Government’s watch. DOC huts, bridges, and tracks are in disrepair. I expect that in tomorrow’s Budget there will be another gimmick designed to make it look like the Government is doing something about it, but in another year’s time our endangered birds will be just as at risk of extinction as they are today.

When I say that we have had a Government that believes stopping climate change is more expensive than letting it happen, I am talking about the fact that New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions are 19 percent higher since this Government came to office and since we put in place an emissions trading scheme, the purpose of which is to reduce our emissions. Every year the news carries stories of record storms, floods, fires, and droughts. The 2013 storm—the worst in 60 years—left 30,000 Wellington houses without power and $31 million of insurance claims. The same year’s drought wiped $1.5 billion off our economy. Last year there was catastrophic flooding in Whanganui and in South Dunedin.

This year the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment mapped out tens of thousands of properties that will be at risk from rising seas over the coming decades. In tomorrow’s Budget, I expect yet more platitudes from a Government that wants to be seen to be doing something whilst at the same time is continuing its polluting industries. After 8 years of “a brighter future”, we have declining water quality, more at-risk endangered species, and more greenhouse gas emissions. Change is coming.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Just for anyone who was watching, that was Mr James Shaw. He was pretty much saying, if I sum it up in one sentence, that New Zealand would be a better place if only it were not for the people—damn the people, damn the businesses, damn anyone who—[Interruption] And damn the cows. Damn anyone who—

Richard Prosser: And the birds.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: And damn the birds—no, they like the birds. What we hear, of course, from members of that party is that it is kind of easy to sit there and make all of those grandiose statements and then not actually have the means to put them into play or to raise the kind of revenue for the kind of spending that they would like to do. And, of course, it is all rubbish.

What we have got from this Government instead is, of course, the kind of pragmatic and fiscal responsibility that is actually driving this country forward. We see rising wages all the time. Middle New Zealand is doing better than ever before. We are seeing an increase in jobs that is pretty outstanding, and things are really moving along there. As you can see, we are getting 40 houses a week built in Auckland alone. In Auckland alone, there are 40 new houses a week. There are 17 new social houses coming on board in any given week. In any given week, on average, the Ministry of Social Development places around 134 tenants and their families into social housing. Yes, there have been changes. There have been changes in the way that we place those people, where they are, and how long they are there for: the right person in the right place, for the right duration, and at the right price.

Yes, we have introduced tenancy reviews. I heard the Prime Minister mentioning them today. I heard the Opposition and the uproar about how dreadful it is that we might be moving tenants out of their social housing even though they are paying market rents and even though more than 10 percent of them—more than 10 percent of them—have gone on to purchase their own homes. In respect of those we spoke to about paying market rents and about the need to free up their houses for someone who is more needy than they are, more than 10 percent of them have gone on to purchase their own homes. This is not surprising when you have got numbers like—what was it—12,000 families going into their first homes through KiwiSaver HomeStart grants. That is outstanding. That is 12,000 families that have had their lives turned round. A portion of them have moved out of social housing and into that kind of homeownership. That, ladies and gentlemen, is aspirational.

Yes, just a week ago we announced $41.1 million more going into emergency housing. We wanted to step in for some of those operators who were saying they were going to have to close their doors unless they got certainty of funding. Anne Tolley and I also announced the special-needs grant and the fact that you could see that too many were having to borrow. That is simply unfair. The computer systems and the technology that were needed behind it meant that it was not going to be available until 1 September, but what we can announce today is that from 1 July we can start doing some of those things manually, to make sure we can give those grants at that point.

The other thing we have talked about today, which I think is quite important, is relocating people out of Auckland. The reality is that we have got quite a lot of people who have said voluntarily—and it is voluntary—that they would like to live in other parts of New Zealand. We see it for people who are not in social housing. They are making the decision to move to some of our fabulous towns and cities around the country—

Hon Anne Tolley: Like Gisborne.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —like Gisborne, says the Minister from Gisborne—and understandably they want to move. I think there are people who are in social housing right now who want to move but who do not have the savings or the means to actually do it. So today we have made the announcement that they can get a grant of up to $5,000, depending on their circumstances, the size of their family, and how far they are moving. They can get that kind of assistance to move out of Auckland and into the regions. Some will have retired and will be looking at other opportunities in other parts of the country. Others may or may not be looking for work. There is quite a cross-section there. It is voluntary, and I think that is really important—before the naysayers all get too upset about it.

The world does not stop and start at Auckland. We have got a wonderful country, and we are opening up those sorts of opportunities for people—making them available. You might ask where. A quick TradeMe search tells me that in Whangarei there are over 50 houses available to rent. You can get accommodation supplement assistance of up to $120 a week, which makes it quite affordable for those who are in those circumstances. There is always more we can do, but this Government is making a huge difference for our most vulnerable.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): There we have it. The Government’s solution to the housing crisis in Auckland is to give up. It is to give up and say: “We can’t solve the housing crisis in Auckland, so we’re going to pay people five grand to get out.” Well, newsflash, Minister: all of those places you are sending people have State house waiting lists. Where are you going to put them, Minister? The Government cannot wish the problem away, write out a cheque for five grand, and say: “We’ve solved the housing crisis.” That is an admission of defeat from a Government that is thoroughly out of ideas and out of touch.

This morning I thought that maybe, just maybe, the Prime Minister had worked out what was happening in New Zealand. He told Paul Henry this morning that he slept like a baby. If, by that, he meant waking up every hour, crying his eyes out, then he was right, because that is how he should be feeling about New Zealand today. He is like a less cool version of the Fonz, who could never say the word “sorry”. He used to go “s-s-s”. He could not say “sorry”. John Key cannot say “crisis”. He just cannot get the word out. Well, there is a housing crisis. Everyone in New Zealand knows it, 75 percent of New Zealanders have come out and told the National Government that it is failing on housing, and 61 percent of its own supporters have told the Government that it is failing on housing. And yet this Government will not open its eyes.

We have the lowest homeownership rates in 65 years and there is a shortfall of 40,000 houses in Auckland, and all Nick Smith can give us is a cemetery and an exploding substation. It takes nine times—nine times—the income of a typical person to buy a home in Auckland. We see the crocodile tears on the other side of the House about homelessness. Well, what would have been done had the Government not sold off 2,676 State houses since it has been in office? And every single time that a Labour-led Government comes into office, we have to make up for the National Party degrading social housing. There were 13,000 homes sold in the 1990s, and another few thousand have been sold under this Government. This Government has an appalling record on housing and is refusing to face up to what every New Zealander knows. After 8 years, there is no one else to blame. It is the National Government’s fault. It has got to take responsibility instead of trying to look back to the past. Its members should be the ones fronting up to New Zealanders about what it has done.

There might not be a fiscal deficit in tomorrow’s Budget, but there will be a social deficit: people living in cars and garages, people for whom it takes 6 years longer to get an operation than it used to, mental health in crisis, 300,000 kids in poverty, 144,000 people unemployed. Anne Tolley might want to answer to the people of Gisborne, where unemployment is now 10.9 percent. More than one in 10 people in Gisborne, Mrs Tolley, are out of work under this National Government. Around the country, 87,200 young people aged between 15 and 24 are not in employment, not in education, or not in training. That is the future of New Zealand that National is creating. That is the problem that a Labour-led Government will have to clean up, because this Government is letting a generation down.

There are four things that should be in the Budget tomorrow, and one of them is very simple—Jonathan Coleman will get this. Three words, Mr Coleman: build more homes—build more homes. That is what this Budget should be focusing on. We should also be funding health properly to keep up with the demographic pressures, not playing around with the numbers—not denying reality, as Dr Coleman would do. We need a real commitment in this country to a free education system: the bedrock of opportunity. Parents are facing more and more costs. Tertiary students are in more and more debt. We need to invest in decent work opportunities. Wherever you live in New Zealand, there should be the chance to earn a good living and raise your family.

One more thing: should we not see a Budget where everybody pays their fair share? Like a lot of New Zealanders, we on this side of the House are sick of the Government standing up for the tax evaders and the tax avoiders. It is time for every New Zealander to pay their fair share so that every New Zealander gets a fair go. This Government is out of touch. It is arrogant. What New Zealanders need in this Budget is hope and opportunity, and that is what the Labour Party stands for.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): What a lot of bluff and bluster from Grant Robertson. That is all it is: the usual lack of substance. No work done all year, and all he has got is to try to shoot down the Budget tomorrow. And, of course, he does not even know what is in it. The one fact that we got out of that speech is that Labour will raise taxes. He said it there. He is going to raise taxes for all New Zealanders.

What I think is going to be very interesting when you see Grant Robertson produce some alternative budget—which, of course, he has not bothered to do—is to total up those spending promises, because Annette King has already said that Labour is going to put $1.7 billion in over the next 3 years, if it gets the chance, before it even puts new money in. So if you listen to its figures where it is saying $600-700 million of new money, it is talking about $2.4 billion into health. Frankly, that is unaffordable. There will be no surplus; there will be ongoing deficits. It will be bad for New Zealand internationally in terms of our credit rating. And I can tell you what: the voters will not like it. Because the only way that Labour can fund that is with higher taxes.

The problem for Labour is that it is just about more money. It is not about results. It is not about doing things better. In the health portfolio, all it did was spend more and more and more, and yet, at the same time, it delivered 2,000 fewer operations over that period. It was sending people to Australia for cancer care, waiting lists were blowing out, Annette King was acting as a one person - culling machine, people were kicked off lists—it was a mess. What we have done is bring the health system back to where we are now focusing on results. So, yes, there is more money going in—$4 billion more under this Government—but, more important, we are focused on the results that that actually delivers. So you can see an extra 50,000 operations a year, another 110,000 appointments per year, no one going to Australia for cancer care, and over 6,000 more doctors and nurses. More money has gone into mental health. More money is going into the disability sector. We have had a focus on consistently providing more services to more Kiwis.

I am not sure whether members saw the TV news on Sunday night, but at about item 6 it flashed to a gathering of what looked like an old Socialist Unity Party meeting from 1981. There, amidst the pompom hats, the nylon raincoats, and the mugs of tea, somewhere in the back there, you could see the odd Labour MP. Annette King was too smart to be there. Kris Faafoi, of course, found himself in the front row. Trevor Mallard was trying to hide behind an umbrella in the fourth row. And then, on came a man who looked nothing like a Prime Minister—he could not even get a tie on. I can tell you, to describe Andrew Little as dull does not do justice to the experience, because, frankly, he had that crowd in a catatonic thrall. They just could not get away. All that came out of that speech was, actually, that Andrew Little thinks that Kiwi families are $50 a week worse off.

Well, the facts just do not bear that out, because wages have been growing faster than inflation, unemployment is below 6 percent, tens of thousands of jobs have been created, and export sectors—the wine industry, the IT industry, tourism—are taking off like a rocket. These are actually great economic times for New Zealand, providing great opportunities for New Zealanders. If you get out and you talk to the average person in the street, they know that. We focused on what matters. You will have heard James Shaw before, you know, calling for all sorts of restrictions and taxes and all sorts of things, and it is just ironic that the people who want more spending on health and education and all public services are the same people who want to limit the ability of the economy to grow. Fundamentally, that is the problem that the Green Party has.

We have spent our time in the last 8 years focusing on what is important to New Zealanders. It is the economy. It is economic growth. It is jobs. It is the health system, where people are getting access to the treatment that they need. It is the education system. We have brought in national standards where parents can actually understand what their kids are getting out of the education system. And it is law and order, where, actually, we have done a very good job on bringing down serious crime. So when you get outside this Chamber and speak to real New Zealanders who talk about the things that matter to them, they tell you that the National Government is delivering. And we will continue to do so in Budget 2016.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): That Minister, Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, was talking about another member in this House being dull, and I actually think that that Minister needs to go back and re-watch his speech to get the true definition of “dull”.

I want to concentrate today on the issues that we have with emergency accommodation and with Work and Income New Zealand debt, but to set the scene, I just want to point out how out of touch that National Government is, by touching on some of the statements it has made around housing. John Key says: “If you’re homeless, go to Work and Income New Zealand. They’re going to resolve all the problems.” Nick Smith says: “Homelessness is a figment of their imagination.” And Paula Bennett says: “Get out of Auckland. That’s the answer. We can’t fix it here, so we’ll pay you to get out.” That goes to show that, actually, they have no plan for the housing crisis that we are facing, and they have no plans to address the homelessness that we have in Auckland or in any part of the country.

I think that that side of the House has underestimated how much middle New Zealand actually cares about this issue. It is clear that it is the most vulnerable New Zealanders who are in this situation, but everyday, middle New Zealanders—the ones whom National members are chasing for votes—are confronted with this issue. They are confronted with this issue because there are 305,000 children living in poverty, and some of those middle New Zealand children are attending school with them. They are confronted with this issue because some of those parks that middle New Zealand goes to visit early in the morning have cars with people sleeping in them. They are confronted with this issue because every day they go to their shopping centres, every day they go to the mall, and they see people begging outside. They see homelessness, it does affect them, and that side of the House has underestimated to what extent.

I got some numbers back recently that showed that debt for Work and Income New Zealand clients has gone from $377 million in 2011 to $417 million now. Our poorest New Zealanders are being thrown into debt by Work and Income New Zealand, and we know that a large chunk of that debt is because of emergency accommodation. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the ministry can do this, the Minister and the ministry refused to pull that information apart so we could find out exactly how much the Government has had to spend on emergency accommodation, at least in the last 2 years. It says it is not willing to commit the resource and the time to collate that information, but this is a matter of public interest. This story has been running on Radio New Zealand and in other forms of media for the last 3 weeks at least—non-stop, consistently—and it will not stop, because there is public interest in this.

It is disappointing when we see in the Official Information Act request that I have here, received in January, that that Government was made aware back in September last year of the incoherency in respect of emergency accommodation. Those members were told that they needed a plan, they were made aware of it, and since then, they have done nothing. It is only now that it has come to public light that they are starting to act on it. Meanwhile, what we have seen is increasing numbers of New Zealanders showing up homeless to our electorate offices, having gone to Work and Income New Zealand seeking emergency accommodation. And what do they get? They get told that there are no social housing places: “There is no State housing for you, but we will put you in a motel. Unfortunately, you will have to pay it back.”

Darroch Ball: Stupid.

CARMEL SEPULONI: It is stupid, Darroch Ball. In one of the cases that I have seen recently, a couple with four children now owes $26,000 to Work and Income New Zealand, and a big chunk of that is because of the motel accommodation that they have been put in. For 2 months—2 months—they have been in motel accommodation. Another family that I had come into our office is $45,000 in debt to Work and Income New Zealand, and when they were told that their only option in terms of accommodation was going to be motel accommodation, they said they would rather sleep in their car with their children. That Government should be ashamed of itself. We are hoping for some big announcement tomorrow around emergency housing, but, unfortunately, we think that all we are going to get are more pitiful announcements like Paula Bennett’s admission of defeat—that people should be paid $5,000 to get out of Auckland because that Government has no plan to solve the housing crisis.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well, what an exciting week to be a member of the Government. There is a Budget to look forward to—a Budget that will set the trend for the next 3 years and beyond. It is a very exciting time to be a part of this Government. We live in a country with local communities that are seeing a lift in provincial activities. Small towns are turning round. Populations are now growing, albeit slowly—a considerable change from 3 years ago. To listen to James Shaw, who has a very jaundiced view of our rivers, and Mr Robertson, who has clearly read the Mary Poppins serials too often, in that he is perfect in every way, you would think that the country was coming to an end.

We are doing better and are competing effectively, because we are an economy that is based primarily on food production and tourism, in a part of the world where we have unique advantages that we must protect. Our isolation gives us some valuable protection from air- and land-borne pests that may enter the food chain. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has a vital role in ensuring that these are not carried into the country by those tourists who are the other part of our economy’s current strength. The other considerable advantage we have is our “100% Pure New Zealand” slogan and the magnificent environment that underpins this. We must continue to protect and enhance this through great science and investment in new and sustainable farming practices, investment in pest control in our conservation estate, and continued investment in the freshwater clean-up. Doing so will ensure that our tourism industry, which relies so heavily on the environment, will continue to prosper and grow.

There is another strong driver of our economy, and that is the IT sector; whether it is innovative new products coming to the market, such as Orion Health or Xero’s accounting packages, or people and families who are able to work from home, running very successful businesses both internationally and locally because of the Government’s drive to improve rural connectivity—one of the great secrets of New Zealand’s future prosperity. It is also important in our ability to grow our rural populations, which is absolutely essential, and we need those people in the workforce in order to support our tourism industry and the agricultural food production sector. This year’s Budget will provide some $14.4 million to further promote apprenticeships, enabling a further 5,500 people to train in a vocation that will lead to work opportunities. The very exciting thing about the growth in apprenticeships can be seen clearly in places like Taumarunui, where Universal College of Learning has invested in providing a certificate in carpentry to young people, getting them started on the pathway to an apprenticeship and work. It is resulting in a near 100 percent success rate.

This leads me to the opportunity we have, as a country, to enable people to live and work in more isolated parts of this beautiful country. We already have the infrastructure—not perfect in some cases, but there. We already have the houses—again, not perfect, but there. We now have the opportunity for work, and in many new areas as a result of worldwide demand for quality food, tourism, and lifestyle opportunities. Only this morning in this House, we heard the first reading of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill, which will further increase the opportunity for work and, consequently, for people to return to live and work in places like Pipiriki and Taumarunui, on the river’s edge. It is very exciting for provincial New Zealand. If we concentrate on providing environments that people want to live in, opportunities for jobs and the tools they need to work, we do not need to continue to follow the route to urbanisation that the rest of the world has followed. We do not need to continue to fight to live in Auckland. The policies of this Government will give people the incentive to live and work in provincial New Zealand. This, in turn, will eventually take the pressure off the enormous growth that Auckland, Tauranga, and Hamilton are seeing at present.

Tracey Martin: How many people are going to leave Te Atatū, do you think? Where are they going to go?

IAN McKELVIE: Go to Northland and have a look—go to Northland and have a look. I am pleased to report that the house prices are moving in the Rangitīkei. There is opportunity for new work. New Zealanders are seeing opportunities to move back home, not only from the two great A’s—Australia and Auckland—but also from other parts of our great country. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Using the Mary Poppins theme, that speech was meant to be supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, but the sound of it was really quite atrocious. To use the Rolling Stones theme, it was enough to make a grown man cry. This is meant to be Wednesday’s backbenchers’ debate, but National led off with three of its Cabinet Ministers—all from where? Auckland. Why? Because Auckland is in crisis. As for the cling-ons in the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and the United Future Party, they did not want to hear the debate—not at all.

Tomorrow what you will see from the Budget will be like a smattering of snow on the Southern Alps. It will appear to be good, it will appear to have substance, but when it is subjected to some sunlight, it is going to evaporate away. It is quite sad to be in this House to see the backbench in the National Government shut out, dejected into despair, watching these polls and knowing that their obituaries have been written for them. They know that.

This Budget will lack substance. It will be full of spin and well-managed public relations on a plethora of statistics, as a misconception that all in New Zealand is well. We all know that this country is cowering at the feet of foreigners these days. We know that China sets the tune and National dances. In the Budget tomorrow National will ignore the regions and the provinces. It will be obsessed with the nightmare it has created in every area in Auckland. Roading, rail, houses, hospitals, schools—everything is under stress in Auckland.

National is panicking at last, and the backbench knows it is too late. Out in the provinces, which National represents, there will be no money. There will be a dog-whistle. It might even announce a motorway all the way to Whangarei, but it has not yet put in 1 metre of the Pūhoi to Warkworth highway—not 1 metre after 8 long years, which is the time that Mr Mitchell has been here. This begs the question: Mr Mitchell, when are you going to stand up for Northland?

The Budget will ignore the fact that a foreign corporate like Facebook, for example, pays a lousy $42,000 a year tax—$42,000 a year tax for that massive international corporate—and Tegel pays 0.38 percent. Not 1 percent—no, 0.38 percent. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to ask this question: will it stop a tsunami of money flooding out of New Zealand? Will it stop foreign corporates taking our water to make millions of dollars in profits? Will it stop this country being a tax haven for the mega-wealthy—a tax haven for money-launderers and criminals, putting our nation’s reputation at risk? No.

Will it stop our society becoming more fragmented, more dislocated, and the gap between the rich and poor becoming an even greater chasm? Will it stop middle New Zealand suffering to an extent we have not seen in generations? And on the question of law and order, will it have more police so that at least three out of 10 burglaries—not just one—get an investigation when nine do not? Will it do anything for the thousands now living rough in New Zealand, on streets, in parks, in cars—not as a lifestyle choice but because John Key’s Government can offer them nothing? Will it do that? No.

I want to say very clearly that after 8 long years this country wants a vision from the National Government tomorrow. We have waited long enough. The Government has said enough. Crikey, it has cut down more forests to print its propaganda than for building homes in this country. It has cut down more forests to put out its propaganda than for building homes in its own country. The public has had a gutsful of wishful thinking, overoptimistic forecasts, and this man who always says that he is aspirational—“Mr Spray and Walk Away”. You have had 2 days of classic examples: he makes a statement and he gets asked “Did you say that?”, and he says “No.” It is his quote. [Interruption] Do I have a minute to go?

Mr SPEAKER: No, a lot less than that—14 seconds.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Fourteen seconds? Well, in my closing 14 seconds, I want to say this: every Budget should contain facts that are counted against the numbers that they apply to. This Budget will not. Last of all, let me say this: the so-called rock star economy is now well and truly a snowflake melting away before our very eyes. The great news for New Zealanders out there, though, from the meetings we have had in places like Pukekohe—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take this call in the general debate. To be honest, I do not feel, as a National backbencher, that I have been left out and that I have been cut back, because I feel like I am at the front of all the Ministers, thank you very much.

So because the hot topic is around the housing area, I want to focus my contribution today on the things that are actually happening in Christchurch to do with social housing, because it is really, really important. It is really important, because I am focusing on the area that I am based in, which is Christchurch East. Did we know that Christchurch East has received over 108 social housing homes in the Aranui area? There are over 108 social housing homes in Aranui, which suffered from the amazing number of homes that were destroyed—that is Housing New Zealand homes that were destroyed—because of the earthquake.

Recently, the Minister for Social Housing, Paula Bennett, went to Aldershot Street, which is in Aranui, if you know where that is, and she opened 15 of those houses—15 of those houses—which will house a number of families and which are three-bedroom, four-bedroom, and two-bedroom homes. In Christchurch 970 homes will be delivered there—970 homes. That is an amazing number of homes, and 600 of those new homes will be based in Riccarton once legislation has been completed. This is amazing—amazing for a city that was virtually brought to its knees, and the housing issues there were absolutely astronomical. I cannot say that we will fix everything, but we are moving along.

I can tell you that housing issues in this country have been here for many years, within this Government and within the past Governments, but it has been this Government that has addressed, and is addressing, the situation of homelessness. It is doing an amazing job. The announcements that the Minister has made about making $5,000 available to relocate homeless people from Auckland to the provinces: that is not a horrible thing to do. Recently, I was in the Bay of Plenty and there were some people whom I met there in the Bay of Plenty who had moved from Auckland to Tauranga. They thought that by moving there they would be able to save a little bit more money and be able to invest it in the education system for their children. They love Tauranga—they absolutely love Tauranga—and they said to me that they wished they had done it earlier.

When we start looking at these housing areas, I start to look at the Māori Housing Network, and this is getting an amount of $12.6 million over the next 4 years. Do we remember when the Opposition members ever gave funding for Māori housing? They did not give money for Māori housing. This Government has given $12.6 million to the Māori Housing Network, to be delivered over 4 years so Māori whānau too will be able to have safe and warm homes in which they want to live. Housing New Zealand in Christchurch has carried out over $150 million worth of repairs to homes that tenants are currently living in, as well as spending $200 million on building 700 new homes. To date, 300 of those are ready to be moved into. By 2017, 700 homes will be completed.

As I said at the start of my contribution, there have been many things to do with housing going on with this Government. We are responding. Opposition members have never responded to the housing issues that this country has faced in the past. In fact, as I sit here and I listen to the contributions from the Opposition members, you would think that they have a monopoly on poor people in this country. It is disgusting that they would want to bandy around and punch around poor people. I can tell you, we have a lot more respect for the people of this country than to use them and bandy them around this House like they are just absolutely nothing.

So, in closing, I just want to say that this has been a good opportunity here for me to speak about the housing issues in Christchurch and the remediation work that we have been doing for the people of Christchurch, because they are important to us. The people of Christchurch East are important to us, and I can tell you that I am looking forward to that Budget tomorrow because I believe there will be some amazing things that will come out of it. Thank you.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Look, every Kiwi family knows that setting budgets is about making choices. And for most Kiwis, it is a pretty simple task; we want pretty straightforward things. We want a good job, we want a home that we can call our own, we want a good school to send our kids to, and we want health care if we get sick. It is not rocket science, but this Government, unfortunately, has lost its way.

People in the middle cannot rely on this Government to support their priorities. It is increasingly arrogant and out of touch, and we have seen it with the Panama Papers, where it has looked to defend the interests of the ultra-wealthy and where it has looked to defend the interests of those who are speculators from abroad. Its instinct has not been to stand up for middle New Zealand. It has let down its guard, and New Zealanders see that its priorities are different to ours. This Government is too focused on those at the top. It is now sticking up only for the super-rich, and in the meantime, for middle New Zealand, the Kiwi Dream is slipping away.

This week some research has brought to light the fact that economic development under this Government has not shared the gains that have been made. There has been very little gain, but what little there has been has been shared unfairly, too. Under the last Labour Government, more than 50 percent of the gains from the economy went to working people. Today, that proportion has slipped to just 37 percent. Again, we see where the priorities lie for this Government, and they are not with the people in the middle in New Zealand. It works for those who are ultra-wealthy and who are speculating from offshore. Under National, that Kiwi Dream is slipping away. We can see it in so many areas, not only where the housing market has become a plaything for speculators, locking a generation of Kiwis out of homeownership, but also in the health sector, where $1.7 billion—$1.7 billion—has been cut from the health budget over 6 years. That is from independent analysis.

We have an education system that is burdening our young people with debt; an education system that offers only debt and no promise of homeownership and involvement in society. Labour, of course, has a plan for that: our scheme to have 3 years of free education or training would see middle New Zealand have the opportunity to get ahead—and, of course, we know that that kind of common sense would pay itself off quickly. We know that a nurse, for example, who goes back and trains would pay 16 times the value of those course fees over the course of a lifetime in taxes and so on through increased earnings. We know that kind of situation makes sense, but this Government is not acting in the interests of middle New Zealand. It is too busy defending the interests of the mega-rich.

So when we see this happening—when we see the housing crisis, where New Zealand has the lowest homeownership rates in 65 years and where we see that house prices have shot up by 90 percent since 2008—we ask what the Government is going to do about it. Tomorrow is the big day. We will see whether those members have a plan to stop New Zealanders living in cars and garages, whether they have a plan to tackle the housing crisis, or whether they can even say the word “crisis”, because we know it is getting worse.

We know it is getting worse. GDP growth per person in the last year has been zero. The only thing that has funded growth in New Zealand’s economy is immigration—that is the only thing that is pushing up our income figures as a country. On a per person basis, as one Westpac economist describes it, the economy is “sluggish”. We have 40,000 more Kiwis out of work than when this Government took office in the midst of the global financial crisis—40,000 more. We have 26,000 more kids out of employment, education, and training—26,000 kids who are the workforce of tomorrow.

This Government has no plan, and it has no idea. It is out of touch with middle New Zealand. We put down the challenge to the Government to deliver on it tomorrow, but I fear we will not see the solutions that middle New Zealand deserves to see.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I am very much looking forward to tomorrow’s Budget, and I just want to reiterate a point that my colleague Ian McKelvie mentioned before, which was that small towns are turning round. He talked about Taumarunui, and he and I share the King Country together. I have been in Taumarunui with him recently, and we have been looking at some fantastic options around health, which I am going to touch on in a minute because I am going to talk today about health.

But before I do, you know, small towns are turning round, and I am really excited because we have got a fantastic road happening right in Taranaki - King Country that is going to open up a lot more tourism, productivity, and people coming through between Taranaki and the Waikato. We have also had a pre-Budget announcement of 80 more beds on the Timber Trail, at a little place called Piropiro. It is a wonderful place in the Pureora Forest—that, again, is going to enhance tourism.

But today I want to speak about health, and I want to speak about small towns turning round. Recently we had the Prime Minister in Te Kūiti, and the Taumarunui Community Kokiri Trust came across and talked about the work that it was doing in health. The work that it is doing is an indication of how primary health care close to home is changing in our electorates. So what it is doing is it is actually becoming a group of navigators who are able to help people not only with their health but also with their social housing and with directing them to all sorts of places that they need to go for their health and well-being.

If I look at what is going on now, we have got extended free GP visits and prescriptions for under-13s and we are immunising more children, but there is even better than that to come because $39 million is going to be invested this year to enable Pharmac to provide more New Zealanders with access to new medicines. The biological examples that we are starting to see now—like Opdivo, which has come to the fore in the debate around melanoma and the advanced melanoma treatments—are starting to do some wonderful things for people, so I am really rapt to see that there is $39 million that will be invested this year, and an extra $124 million over 4 years. I actually have a very dear friend called Sarah, who was on trials of the Opdivo drug, and she was not supposed to be alive—she was not supposed to be alive for probably about the last 18 months to 2 years. Sarah is thriving and well, so I am really pleased to see that we have got extra money to go to Pharmac, which is going to allow it to look at these new medicines that are really coming to the fore.

I am also really chuffed to see a $97 million extra increase over the next 4 years for health research, because health as we know it is changing, and not only in the way we provide essential health services and medicines but also in the way we deliver it. It was a real buzz a couple of weeks ago, in the last sitting week, to have all the health buses lined up on the forecourt of Parliament. A lot of those things like breast cancer diagnosis, small, 1-day operations—there is dentistry, there are kidney stone buses. But the exciting thing about this is, as we start to look at the way health is delivered now, we can start to do more diagnostics. So I am really excited that this money that is going into health research is going to be able to help us find new ways to deliver health that may not be focused around the hospital. It is a big effort for some people to travel a very long way to hospital, so if we can get the health care to come to them, that is going to be fantastic. It is going to be great for the regions.

The other thing we did, we had the Rural Health Alliance down there. There is a whole collective of people coming together, and we had some fantastic opportunities—I think, right across the parties in this House—to interact with those people. They did a whole lot of strategising, and they have been to our offices and talked about that. So there is a vibrant community out there.

The mental health work is going on with the extra half a million that was given last year. I am really excited about the regions, and I am really excited about the way we are starting to deliver health care to those regions. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Here in Aotearoa New Zealand we have got the know-how and we have got the resources to reduce climate pollution, to clean up our rivers and lakes, and to stop intensive farming making them any dirtier. We can protect our wild places and the threatened species that we love, but that is not what we will get in National’s Budget tomorrow. We have got climate change—the greatest issue facing humanity—yet in the last 7 Budgets the Minister of Finance has not mentioned it once, and I doubt that it will be any different tomorrow.

And that is because National takes nature for granted. It fails to recognise that a healthy environment is the basis of life itself, is the basis of our economy here in Aotearoa, and is a key part of our identity for so many New Zealanders. National’s agenda, which we will see in the Budget, is one of extractivisim. It is handing out millions of dollars to irrigators, subsidising the deep-sea oil drillers, but just giving crumbs to conservation. We have got legislation like the Resource Management Act, which is supposed to protect the environment while allowing use and development. Yet here is National gutting the Resource Management Act, throttling public participation, and overriding councils with the new ministerial powers to make it easier for high-impact development.

And National is also failing to protect the environment by failing to enforce our laws. We have seen that just in the last week with the release of the Simmons report, which showed massive dumping and misreporting and wastage of fish in the commercial fishing industry. It showed that by 2013 New Zealand commercial fishing boats were dumping around 20 percent of their catch on average, and foreign-flagged vessels around 50 percent of their catch. What did the Minister for Primary Industries say? He said he was “very, very sceptical” of the Simmons report, and that is despite three top-flight universities being involved in that report, over 300 interviews with stakeholders, industry experts, and official information contributing to that. So we had the Minister saying he was sceptical.

That means he must have been mightily embarrassed when Operation Achilles and Operation Hippocamp—and the reports of those two investigations—were released to the media, because they showed that between 20 and 100 percent of the catches in the inshore trawl and set-net fisheries were being dumped overboard. The reports talked about substantial quantities of quota fish being discarded in those boats operating out of Timaru and Ōāmaru—in excess of 30 percent of elephant fish and all of the small gurnard.

Fisheries are a precious resource. We have got a $1.7 billion industry. To safeguard that, to safeguard our oceans and their health, the law needs to be enforced. The Ministry for Primary Industries had clear evidence of substantial dumping. It should have rung alarm bells. Yet, what happened? It was just dismissed. Certainly, the Minister has announced an inquiry, but he and the ministry have got very deep questions to answer. What is the point of speeding up the roll-out of video cameras on fishing vessels when there was video evidence in both Operation Achilles and Hippocamp that would have allowed those fishers who were dumping substantial quantities of fish to be prosecuted? No prosecutions were done. What is the point of having observers if the information they see is not used to enforce the law?

So what we have got is the Ministry for Primary Industries either shutting its eyes to illegal activity or being too close to the fishing industry and just not wanting to enforce the law. The Green Party, if it was in Government tomorrow with opportunities to have a Budget, would make sure that there was more research into how a marine system functions so that we have thriving oceans. It would ensure there was deep-sea marine protection—not like this Government, preventing that happening through its changes to the marine protection legislation—and it would ensure that it was enforcing the law so that we have a thriving fishery, not one where the Ministry for Primary Industries ignores illegal dumping.

Mr SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired. Honourable members, the Wednesday general debate is meant to be a debate, not an opportunity to come into the House and read speeches. We are now halfway through this parliamentary term, and I think everybody has had a fair chance to become accustomed to delivering a speech in the general debate without having to read it. If members want some guidance, I suggest they refer to Speaker’s ruling 53/4 and 53/5. This is the second occasion that I have mentioned that I want the general debate to be a debate, so I am issuing a warning to all members, and particularly to party whips, that if any member comes into the House and simply stands to read a speech throughout that 5 minutes, I will be terse, tempted to terminate the speech immediately, and simply invite the member to seek leave to table his speech if it might be of information to the members. I hope we can see the general debate now become indeed what it is designed for—a general debate.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time—for a second time, because this is a bill that has, essentially, been before this Parliament before, a bill that was drawn out in 2012. So for 4 years—for 4 long years—we have been debating in this Parliament a bill to get paid parental leave to 26 weeks and we have had majority support for this bill passing, and yet the Government has continued to play political games for those 4 long years with families’ lives to try to prevent it from passing. Well, I hope that this is the final time that I will begin a second reading speech on this bill, and I hope that the Government will see sense and remove its threat of a financial veto for a measure that, after all, is asking for children in Aotearoa New Zealand to get the best start in life. What could be less controversial than actually getting it right in the early months? What could be less controversial than that?

I suspect that we are about to see—or are we about to see—the male backbenchers from the National Party rolled out to oppose this bill when, in fact, tomorrow in the Budget we will see the National Government actually propose an extension to paid parental leave. Are we about to witness that—that they are going to put the backbenchers up as fodder to actually argue against it and oppose it, while Bill English has in his back pocket a plan to actually extend paid parental leave? I believe that is exactly what we about to see played out. But we will wait and see for tomorrow.

It would be an extremely foolish measure of a Government that has become arrogant and stopped listening to New Zealanders to continue to oppose this measure. Why do I say that? Because as the Government has continued to play politics with this issue, as it has tried to buy people off with the idea of a couple of weeks here or a couple of weeks there, the passion for this has just got stronger. The passion for this has got stronger not only from the Labour Party but it has got stronger from the New Zealand public. How do I know this? Because the first time round, this measure in this bill had around about 3,800 submissions made on it. That is a substantial number of submissions on an issue. But the second time round, after the Government had been forced to increase paid parental leave to 18 weeks, that number grew to 6,800—so it nearly doubled the number of people who were making submissions on this bill. But that is not the end of the story, because the numbers supporting it grew also. Of those 6,821 submissions made this time round on this bill, 99.94 percent of them were in favour—99.94 percent were in favour.

But the Government is completely out of touch on this issue. It does not get what most New Zealanders get. Most New Zealanders understand that it is just smart economics to put a little bit of investment in, in those early months of a child’s life, in order to get the bonding and attachment right between parent and baby and in order to support good breastfeeding regimes, so that as taxpayers we do not continue to pay an ever-increasing amount of money on hospital admissions, on bad education outcomes, and even on building more prisons. All the evidence and research says that if we do not get this right, if we fail to invest and give children the best start in life, we as a country are going to end up spending more and more money on bad outcomes. We on this side of the House, we in the Labour Party, want to invest taxpayer money in making sure that we are giving children the best start in life and that we do not continue to spend money on bad outcomes. That is what this bill is all about.

I said that this was the second time that the second reading is happening on this bill, and that is true. That does not happen very often in this Parliament, but it is happening on this occasion. I just want to reflect on the last time that the second reading came before this House, because I have talked about the political games, and, boy, was that second reading ever the pure demonstration of the amount of politics that the Government was prepared to play just in order to deny parents this level of support, which is afforded in so many other countries—so many other countries. That is the sort of politics that it has been playing.

So what happened? I just want to recap: last time round the Government actually stopped talking on a bill before mine in order to try to make sure that the second reading speech could not continue. That is what it did. It was foiled in that attempt because another one of my good colleagues got up and took the call and we were able to continue, but that was not the end of the political games.

What happened next was that I discovered that one of the parties supporting the bill, the Māori Party, had one of its MPs called out of the House urgently because his daughter was giving birth to one of his grandchildren. Te Ururoa Flavell was called out urgently, and we sought leave from the Government to have his vote counted on the second reading debate. And do you know that miserable Government denied leave for that to happen? Here we were, talking about paid parental leave and the importance of it—the Government was trying to convince the country that it thought it was important too, and it denied leave to Te Ururoa Flavell to actually go and attend the birth of his grandchild and have his vote counted. That is what the Government did. Then what happened next was that the Government incorrectly cast the Māori Party vote against the bill, which meant that on the night it was defeated. But, fortunately, the Māori Party corrected the vote on the bill the next day in Parliament and it was allowed to proceed on its way, but that is the level of political games that the Government has been prepared to play over this.

Tim Macindoe: No, this is the level of dishonesty of this member.

SUE MORONEY: I still recall, Mr Macindoe, on that night, watching Pita Sharples come down to the House to correct the Māori Party vote, being taken out of the Chamber by you—by Mr Macindoe, not you, Mr Assistant Speaker—and stopped from correcting the vote on that night. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I know there is some heat in this, and there are some accusations that are being made. There is an opportunity for rebuttal, and I would just ask members to tone it down.

SUE MORONEY: It seems that nothing has changed on that count. But I really do hope—and I am pleading with the Government for the political games to stop now. It is time to give it up, because even the ballot goddess is against the National Government on this one. The ballot goddess made sure that this bill got drawn out again so that we could debate, once again, some of the things that are important for families in this country, and put their interests firsts and prioritise their needs.

Some other things have changed since the last time we were debating this bill. This time round, the thing that really struck me about the submitters who came in and told us their stories was the number of young women—and by that, I am talking about women in their 20s and 30s, so anyone younger than me is a young woman. They came and told their stories about how, under John Key’s Government, they were having to make decisions about whether they paid off their student loan, whether they saved for a house, or whether they had a baby. These are the sorts of decisions that young people are having to make under this Government. They are having to decide, with the huge housing costs that they are facing, whether they are going to spend their lives trying to get into homeownership or whether they are going to have a family. Those are the very serious issues that confront today’s young people in making these decisions.

I never had paid parental leave when my children were born, but I will not be one of those people who say: “I never had it, so neither should anyone else.” Instead, I take the view that we need to make progress as a country. We can do better. We now have the research and evidence in front of us that tells us that this is a wise investment, and we should not pretend otherwise. Tomorrow the bill that I am proposing would cost just 1.27 percent—1.27 percent—of the amount of new spending that that Government is going to propose in its Budget. It has said that it is going to propose at least $1 billion of new spending, so it cannot argue that this bill is unaffordable—1.27 percent of Budget 2016 is all this bill would need in tomorrow’s Budget, so I do not want to hear the members opposite get up and pretend that this is unaffordable. It is simply about priorities, and the priority should be families and giving children the best start in life.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema. In rising to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney, I want to begin by rejecting some of the suggestions that Ms Moroney has tossed across the House. We on this side do not need to be lectured by that member on playing politics. This is, after all, the member who brought a funerary urn into this Chamber to play politics over a tragedy, something that was actually offensive to members on this side and to many Māori people, by violating decency—common decency—and the tapu of this House.

I want to talk about the positive things that this Government has been doing in this space and why this bill is not actually required in the form it has been presented to the House by Ms Moroney. This bill intends to amend the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. There is a certain irony in this, in that, once again, we have had a lecture from the other side on what a miserable Government this is—well, it turns out that in 2007 the Families Commission gave the then Minister of Labour Ruth Dyson a report recommending that paid parental leave be extended to 13 months by 2015, including a month for fathers. Having the power, as it did at that time, but also running a surplus, Labour still chose not to implement those changes. It chose to do nothing while it had the opportunity to do it; rather, it plays politics with it once it sits on the Opposition benches.

This is a Government that is committed to giving children the very best start in life—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am actually trying to hear the member, and there is barracking on both sides. Barracking is fine, but it should be reasonable, and I actually want to hear what the member is saying.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We are a Government committed to giving kids the very best start in life, and that is why, in our view, this bill is neither necessary nor affordable. Under the watch of John Key and this National–led Government, we have actually extended paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks over the next 2 years, as was announced in the 2014 Budget. We have consistently said that we are prepared to extend paid parental leave in a way that is affordable for the taxpayers of New Zealand, as fiscal conditions permit, but also affordable to the employers of New Zealand. The last thing we would want are measures that create greater unemployment in this country. We want as many New Zealanders as possible to have access to high-quality jobs. That is why we believe that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment estimate of the cost of this bill, which is $445.8 million over the next 4 years, is unaffordable. We have extended paid parental leave in a way that the country can afford, and this bill is just another example of Labour writing cheques that it knows it cannot afford to pay for.

The other provisions in this bill that were examined in the Government Administration Committee and to which I paid particular interest were around the suggestion of contact hours. No doubt this was a well-intentioned provision by the member, but it was somewhat superseded by events, in that on 17 March in this year the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Act 2016 received the Royal assent. That legislation provided for keeping-in-touch days—which are, essentially, the same as, or very similar to, contact hours—that allow an employee to stay in touch with their workplace and to keep up to date with changing practices in order to maintain that network without invalidating any of their entitlement to paid parental leave. This is actually a sensible and logical measure. It was championed in the previous Parliament, and before that, by my former colleague Katrina Shanks, the then National list member, who actually introduced the concept, I recall, as a remit at a National Party conference. This was a positive, sensible, logical concept, and it has actually already been implemented by the Government. So the select committee made the sensible—

Chris Bishop: It was resurrected.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: It was resurrected by the Government, but it was a sensible step to take this out of the actual legislation, given it had already been passed.

In the select committee we listened very carefully to a wide range of evidence. I took particular interest in the submissions from officials from the Ministry of Health around breastfeeding. We know that the research of the Nobel Laureate Professor James Heckman shows that the investment that you make in children from preconception to the age of 3 is the best possible investment you can make. It pays maximum return. We know that children who are breastfed exclusively for as long as possible will have the best possible health outcomes. However, the evidence submitted from the Ministry of Health failed to show conclusively that, in the New Zealand instance, the extension of paid parental leave to the extent that the member is proposing would have that equally positive effect—particularly among Māori and Pasifika communities, which have a lower than average rate of breastfeeding, and particularly exclusive breastfeeding, than the general population.

There are considerable costs to this bill. There are potentially benefits from extending paid parental leave, but, because of that lack of conclusiveness to the evidence—the scientific research and empirical studies that were referenced in the material provided by the Ministry of Health—members on the Government side are not entirely convinced that it would have a benefit that would outweigh the significant financial costs to both the taxpayer and indeed to employers, and ultimately to the employees, if those jobs were extinguished from our labour market.

National has done much to increase the duration of paid parental leave, certainly much more than the last term of the previous Labour Government ever achieved. We have done a number of other things that help parents, including Home for Life carers. We have whāngai parents, grandparents, and permanent guardians who have all had their entitlements extended.

I want to pay tribute to my opponent—but friend—Tracey Martin, who came into this House with a very sensible, pragmatic bill that extended a clothing allowance to orphans. That was something that this Government could pick up and run with, because it was done in a way that was not political. She did not play petty politics with that. She came in with a sensible bill and we were happy to back it, phase it in in a way that was affordable, and make that extra entitlement available to some of the most vulnerable children in the country and their parental and, actually, grandparental guardians—often it is grandparents or immediate whānau members who are the guardians—when previously they had access to no such entitlement. So I am quite proud of the work that the Government has done in that regard.

We are also extending paid parental leave to Kiwi workers who previously were not entitled to it under the penny-pinching and miserable scheme offered by the previous Labour Government. We have, for instance, those who are self-employed, but we also have casual, seasonal, and contract workers. We know that some of the most vulnerable in our workforce are those casual, seasonal, and part-time workers, who previously did not actually get that opportunity. The seasonal workers who come in to do the vital work of picking fruit in the orchards, helping out on the dairy farms, and helping in our tourism industry, which is very seasonally variable—those people are often on lower salaries, and extending paid parental leave to them offered them a considerable improvement over the miserable scheme that the previous Labour Government left in place.

Another area where I am quite proud of the work that the Government has done is in extending paid parental leave to the parents of pre-term babies—that is, babies who are born early—giving an extra week of paid parental leave for every week that a baby is born pre-term. I know that there is not always exact certainty over when a baby is due, but given that we have many babies in this country who are born a month or even 6 weeks before term, their parents need that extra support. I am quite proud that this is a compassionate Government that John Key leads—a caring Government—and that we have come in and brought in that entitlement where none existed under the previous miserable scheme offered by the last Labour Government.

Also, the extension of parental tax credits is a very positive measure. We have extended paid parental leave but also increased the parental tax credit, to give parents more choice about what is important to them during what is a very important time in any parent’s life. I think for all of these reasons that this is a bill we should not be supporting, and I personally will be voting against it. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Well, that was a typically long, rambling, and incoherent contribution from the member Paul Foster-Bell, and it sounded very much to me like someone on the defensive—someone who knows that his party is on the wrong side of this debate. Just like so many other issues at the moment, the National Party is firmly on the wrong side of this debate. It is trying to tell us that Sue Moroney’s bill to extend paid parental leave by just 8 more weeks—that is all we are talking about, 8 more weeks—is neither necessary nor affordable. So let us explore that.

The first question is: is it necessary? Well, the only way in which you could argue that it is unnecessary is if you believe that the 18 weeks that we have at the moment is sufficient paid parental leave. If you look around the world and look at the other countries that we like to compare ourselves with—Italy, 26 weeks; Germany 156 weeks; the UK, 39 weeks; Belgium 32 weeks; Ireland, 26 weeks; Portugal, 30.1 weeks; and Japan, 58 weeks. In fact, the OECD average is 26 weeks. So all we are asking with this bill—all we are asking—is to make New Zealand average. I know that the Government is usually pretty happy with that. It does not like being out in front. It does not like being the leaders. It likes to be the mediocre, average, fast-follower. All that this bill would do is make New Zealand average, rather than sub-par, below average, and behind the pack, which is where we always end up under this National Government. So is the bill necessary? Well, if you believe that the other countries have got it right and that we, perhaps, need to catch up, then, yes, it is absolutely necessary: 18 weeks is not enough. So that destroys that argument from the National Party.

The next question is: is it affordable? This is why National has always opposed paid parental leave. I know it had a road to Damascus moment a couple of years ago when it realised that it was so far on the wrong side of public opinion, and Labour and Sue Moroney had done such a good job of articulating the merit of extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks, that it finally decided that it would get on board with paid parental leave—15 years after everybody else in New Zealand did. The National Government finally got on board, but every time—when Labour first introduced it, when Labour extended it for the first time when we were in Government, when Labour extended it for the second time when we were in Government—the National Party opposed it, because it said it was unaffordable.

Brett Hudson: That’s true.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: “It’s true.”, says Brett Hudson. It is true that the full cost of this, after full implementation, is $107 million a year. That sounds like quite a lot of money, but just the other day the Prime Minister said “$3 billion worth of tax cuts”. That is affordable, apparently, but not $107 million worth of paid parental leave. The Prime Minister comes out and says that at a time when people are living in their cars. At a time when health is so stretched that people cannot even get on the waiting list, at a time when people are paying more for their children’s education than they ever have before, the Prime Minister says that paid parental leave is not affordable but $3 billion worth of tax cuts is affordable.

We know this Government does not like its mates having to pay tax. It stood up for the tax dodgers. It did not stand up for working people who would benefit from paid parental leave, the people who pay their taxes through PAYE, who do not have foreign trusts, who do not have the opportunity to avoid their taxes. That is not who this Government stands up for. It stands up for its rich mates, and it wants to give its rich mates more tax cuts. I do not know whether they even pay any tax, but the Government wants to give them more tax cuts rather than funding something that actually gives working families a hand up, that actually gives kids the best possible start in life and the best opportunities to get ahead.

What a miserable Government. What a miserable Government, which is prepared to spend outlandish and ridiculous amounts of money on tax cuts at a time when they are utterly unaffordable but cannot find what is, in the Government’s terms, the tiny amount of money to extend paid parental leave only to the point where New Zealand would be average. Does that not tell us so much about where the National Government’s priorities lie?

Dr David Clark: Disdain for middle New Zealand.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: They lie not with middle New Zealand, not with children, not with working people, but with the very, very few at the top who will be the beneficiaries of those tax cuts if John Key gets his way and is able to roll Bill English, who, of course, told us that tax cuts were off the agenda.

Labour has always been consistent on the issue of paid parental leave. As I said, we introduced it. We extended it once. We extended it twice. We always knew the time was going to come when the extensions in time were going to be required and the extensions in terms of who was going to be eligible for it were going to be needed. But, of course, we started carefully because we faced so much opposition from the National Government and its supporters. So we started carefully, we bedded it in, and we extended it, and now is the time to extend it to 26 weeks.

It is thoroughly affordable. It is well within our ability. We simply have to make it a priority, but children and families, warm, dry homes, security, jobs—those are not the things that are priorities to that Government over there.

Of the submissions that the Government Administration Committee heard, 99.94 percent were in favour of increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Submitters cited the importance of longer leave for enabling good bonding and attachment between parents and baby. I hear so many times, particularly from groups in society who tend to support that party opposite, not ours, about their concern about the breakdown of the family and the breakdown of society. Actually, one of the most important things we can do to support families is to give working parents the opportunity to actually bond with their children.

Paul Foster-Bell is nodding, despite the fact that he is going to vote against this legislation. Paul Foster-Bell also actually pointed out the return on investment that we get if we invest in children from conception, or even pre-conception, through to 3 years of age. This policy has an incredibly good return on investment. It was part of the recommendations that the cross-party Health Committee report recommended. Dr Paul—we miss him; we miss Dr Paul—led that inquiry, the National Party’s MPs agreed with us, and this recommendation was in that report. Yet National still consistently opposes an extension for paid parental leave.

Some submitters also said it will support families by providing income stability. Is that not something that families need more and more of today? As our working environment becomes more and more unstable and as people face insecurity of work, insecurity of income, and insecurity of accommodation, we need to do everything we can to make sure that babies are born into secure environments. Being able to give parents an opportunity to take time off work but to know that there is still enough money to come in, pay the bills, pay the mortgage, pay the rent, and put food on the table—that is what babies need. And when those babies grow up in that secure environment, they go on to thrive. They go on to do well. They go on to be successful. Is that not what every single one of us is in this House for—to ensure that Kiwis grow up to be successful?

So come on, National members. Drop the ideology. Drop the silly arguments. You are on the wrong side with this one. You are on the wrong side of public opinion, you are on the wrong side of the evidence, and you will be on the wrong side of history again. Change your minds. Vote for this legislation. Do not use the veto. Get alongside working New Zealand families.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very pleased to stand to take a call on this, the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Sue Moroney, and I would like to just make some opening comments about something that she said in her opening comments in the House today. She looked across the House and she said: “The National Party is going to get a whole lot of their male MPs to get up and speak to this bill.” The inference from that is that we as males and fathers and parents somehow have got no skin in the game, and cannot actually comment on this. I just want to highlight a point that I made, actually, through the Government Administration Committee and hearing process, as well: the fact that my own experience as a parent was as a single parent raising my daughter. At the time, I was a police dog handler—

David Seymour: Sorry, mate. You’re disqualified. You’re a man.

MARK MITCHELL: Exactly—exactly, David. I was also a proud member of the armed offenders squad, and therefore I had some fairly heavy demands on my time. But I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed my job. I thoroughly enjoyed being a father. I was very lucky that I had support, both some paid support and also some family support, to raise my daughter, but I cannot help but feel a bit offended for the men in this House who are parents, who were somehow diminished in our role as a parent. So that is the first issue that I wanted to raise with you, Sue.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has said that he is offended. I am wondering whether he is saying that he is personally offended and asking for your intervention. Is he?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not a point of order.

MARK MITCHELL: Thank you. The second point that I wanted to raise is around the fact that most of us in this House—I look around the House; most of us have been raised—[Interruption] I will come back to you guys shortly, all right? I am not going to forget about you. Most of us have been raised by parents—in fact, all of us have been raised by parents who did not have access to parental leave. They did not have access to parental leave, right? I feel like I bonded with my parents quite well.

I do not feel that parental leave needs to be tied back to how we bond with our parents, or the relationship we form with our parents. I do not believe that parental leave can be tied back, as Ms Moroney says, to the fact that we need to build more prisons to accommodate people who are going to offend because they are unable to bond with their parents. Effectively, what you are saying is parents who choose not to have parental leave or have access to it are not going to be good parents and are not going to be able to bond with their parents. The next Labour speaker can get up and they can clarify that issue for us in the House, because that is certainly what I heard in your opening address, Ms Moroney. So that can be cleared up.

The other point I would raise, and I will be very interested to hear from a member of the Opposition—and Mr Lees-Galloway raised the issue—is that it is only $107 million a year. Well, actually, that is a fairly significant amount. What I am really interested in—and, actually, if we go back to 2011 and we think about the general election campaign and the debate that took place down in Christchurch, I think it was, between the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Phil Goff, and our Prime Minister, when our Prime Minister challenged him on it, he said: “Where are you going to get the money, because you’re spending like a drunken sailor?” I do not know whether everyone in the House can remember, but there was a moment there when the look on Phil’s face was that of a stunned mullet. He looked like a stunned mullet. He was not expecting to be asked: “How are you going to fund it? Where’s the money coming from, Phil?”. He was caught out by the PM. He did not have an answer. It was terrible. It was so embarrassing. I mean, I felt sorry for him, watching it.

So what I would ask a member of the Opposition to do—because this seems to be a massive Phil Goff moment that is going on—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The constant barracking is out of order, and I want you to tone it down.

MARK MITCHELL: Someone from the Opposition has to stand up and explain to us where the money is coming from, because all of us understand when we are running our household budgets that if we take money from somewhere in our budget, or we are going to use it somewhere else, we are making a sacrifice somewhere or we are giving something up. What I would like is I would like a member of the Opposition to stand up and walk us through where the money is going to come from and how you are going to fund the policy.

In relation to paid parental leave, do we think it is important on this side of the House? Absolutely, we do. Absolutely, we think it is important and we think that in this modern world if we are able to provide that, then we should provide it. At the moment we are providing 18 weeks and, actually, under this Government, there has been the biggest increase in paid parental leave than under any other previous Governments.

I go back to 2007. This will interesting, too, to get some comments on this. In 2007 the Families Commission gave the Hon Ruth Dyson—I want to acknowledge Ruth because she is a very good chair of the Government Administration Committee—who was then the Minister of Labour, a report that recommended that paid parental leave provision be increased to 13 months by 2015, including a month for fathers, which, you can probably work out by now, I would support. Labour chose not to follow—

Sue Moroney: Because we weren’t the Government.

MARK MITCHELL: —these recommendations, even though the Government was running a surplus. Oh, you were not the Government then? Oh, in 2007 you were not the Government?

Hon Annette King: No, you said 2015. You said 2015.

MARK MITCHELL: No, I said—well, if I said 2015, I apologise. I will correct that—2007. Let us go back to 2007 when you were the Government.

The next question I have got is: why did you not follow these recommendations? Even though you were running a surplus, even though global economic conditions were very, very good and you were in a position where you had a surplus—please get up and explain to me why the then Minister of Labour, the Hon Ruth Dyson, decided not to take these recommendations and extend it. There is probably a very good reason for it.

The other thing I would be very interested to hear is why, over the 9 years that Labour was in Government, it did not progress paid parental leave.

Hon Annette King: We did—2007, twice. Twice.

MARK MITCHELL: Well, unfortunately—I acknowledge you did it twice, in small incremental changes that when we came into Government we increased significantly. It would have been nice if you had actually taken the same approach that we have and you had actually given it a real proper nudge and had a real go at it.

Let us go through some of the things that we are doing. Not only has National increased the duration of paid parental leave in the last 12 months but we have actually widened the eligibility and increased the range of care arrangements. Home for Life carers, grandparents, and permanent guardians have had their entitlements extended under the paid parental leave scheme. We have built that in. We have extended paid parental leave to more Kiwi workers, and I come back to what my colleague Paul Foster-Bell said about casual, seasonal, and contract workers, as well as employees who have more than one employer.

I think the other thing I need to just highlight is that we cannot ignore employers in the legislation that we pass in this House, because they are the ones who actually create the jobs. They are the ones who create the wealth. We do not do it. We do not do it. We rely on them. So, actually, their voice is pretty important and pretty significant in this debate.

When we talk about the submitters who came in front of the select committee, we did hear some compelling submissions from employers in terms of how this type of legislation can impact and affect their business. The Government also extended paid parental leave to eligible parents of pre-term babies.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I want to just acknowledge the previous speaker, Mark Mitchell, and his remarkable contribution of mansplaining. I found it quite interesting. But, more seriously, I want to congratulate our colleague across the House Sue Moroney on her hard work and her persistence and her patience with this bill, and also on her luck. It is quite unusual for a member to have one bill drawn out of the ballot—like a lucky dip—but it is very unusual to have two. So here we are, again.

Carmel Sepuloni: Phil Twyford’s had five.

DENISE ROCHE: Five bills! Well, this is the second one on the same issue around paid parental leave, and here we are again voting on and debating another bill around paid parental leave.

I am disappointed because, actually, we could have passed this bill in 2014, the last time it came up. Actually, the fact that the National Government did not support it then means that thousands and thousands of New Zealand babies and their mums and families have missed out on extended paid parental leave. So this is an opportunity, I think, for National to be on the right side of history. We have seen National do its usual adoption of an Opposition policy, and do it half-heartedly, by raising paid parental leave last year, first from 16 weeks to 18 weeks. Actually, 18 weeks is better than 16 weeks, but 26 weeks is better than all of that.

As with the last time, this bill received near unanimous support from the public submissions and the wider public. I filled in for my colleague Mojo Mathers on the Government Administration Committee and was part of the proceedings. I want to thank both the committee and the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, for having me on the committee. It was very interesting. This bill received 6,755 submissions, which, as others have said, is twice the number that were received on the last paid parental leave bill in Sue Moroney’s name.

The submissions were actually really well received, and the evidence was of a very high standard. They were all calling for 6 months, or longer. I acknowledge the submissions made by quite a wide variety of groups—from the Council of Trade Unions, Family First, the University of Auckland, and the New Zealand Police Association, for example. The diversity of groups that support the bill indicates that this is something that lots of families are crying out for.

This bill is an example of smart investment in our families that will make a practical difference for many working families. As I said in my speech in the first reading of this bill, it is actually really crucial that we invest in our young people. It is cost-effective. The return on the benefits of investing in our young people between the ages of zero and 3 years old is something like between $1.80 and $17 per dollar invested. The investment that we make now gives a return further down the track in savings.

We are also supporting this bill because we know that policies that enable women to participate in the workplace, unsurprisingly, help to address the pay gap between men and women. The reality for many women in New Zealand is that the pay gap is between 11.8 percent and 14 percent, and women are still facing barriers in the workplace—not just in the pay gap but also with leadership in both the public and the private sector. The recent report from the Ministry for Women said that only 43.4 percent of women are in senior positions at board level in the public sector, and in the private sector it is only around 14 percent.

I think we also need to acknowledge that there is a lot more that we could be doing to support families and the most vulnerable in our society. Our policy is for 13 months’ paid parental leave, and it was nice to hear that side of the House mentioning that this is the recommendation from a 2007 Families Commission report. Thirteen months would certainly be better for the family, but we also need to look at other things, aside from paid parental leave, that we could be providing.

I want to acknowledge the submissions from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Children’s Commissioner, who both said that parents of 30,000 babies—nearly half of all babies born annually—will not be eligible for the paid parental leave benefit because it depends on sustained labour force attachment as the criteria for eligibility for the scheme. So that means that some of our most vulnerable babies are still being born into households where they are unable to access any kind of support, and they need our help too.

We could be doing more. We could strengthen the power of workers in this country to bargain collectively, so that there are higher wages, and frequently that leads to higher productivity. We could invest in high-quality housing stock so that we do not have babies and families living in cold, damp, and unhealthy housing. We could invest in the smart Green economy, with integrated transport, with clean energy, and with liveable cities. We could be making things better.

For those who say that we cannot afford to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks, which, as others have said, is only $107 million—to those who say we cannot afford it, I say to them that that is what the opposition said when we wanted equal pay for women, and that is what slave owners said when we abolished slavery. I think the time is right for this Government to show its support for families and to approve this bill and vote for it.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. This National Government supports parents and supports greater paid parental leave. We do not support this particular bill.

I would like to acknowledge Ms Moroney’s heartfelt and honest views on the subject—the various instances when she has raised this bill or variations of it, and had them drawn from the ballot. I would also particularly like to note the very constructive working relationship in the Government Administration Committee, even though it was apparent to members on that committee that we would not all be voting the same way on the final bill. We did work very constructively. Submitters were treated with respect. They were heard, and were allowed to express their views, irrespective of what those views were.

But I would note one of the comments that my colleague Mr Mitchell made, when he charged that Ms Moroney was perhaps, this afternoon, undermining the role of males as parents in the comments she made. I will not relitigate that particular statement or offence, but I would note the real-time nature of the media, both in this place and with the advent of social media. During the speech that Mr Mitchell gave, Annette King has been reported in the media already as having said to Mr Mitchell that the purpose of this bill is to promote breastfeeding, and men cannot do that.

Well, I acknowledge the veracity of that statement. It is very true. It would be something of a medical miracle if men were suddenly able to breastfeed. But what it raises is a deep, concerning point. Ms King—and I also note she is the Labour health spokesperson, so therefore presumably, from a health perspective, she speaks for Labour on this matter—thinks this extended parental leave is all about breastfeeding. So what does that mean for women who cannot or do not want to breastfeed? One can only take, from her own statement in the House, that they are somehow less worthy.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not make a statement in the House. I responded to the comments being made by other people.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! These are debating points. [Interruption] It is a debating point.

BRETT HUDSON: Such comments and interjections may be reported by members of the press gallery, as that one was. So Ms King must now live with the comments she made in this House, as she should. Therefore, one can only interpret from her own words that women who cannot or do not wish to breastfeed are somehow seen as being of less import to the Labour Party and this bill. I think that is an absolute shame. Not all women can and not all women want to breastfeed, certainly for perhaps a 6-month period, and some have other choices that they make that actually are supported by this National Government in the flexible way that we have dealt with paid parental leave, but which, presumably, is of less significance to the Opposition.

The bill in question, as it is reported back to the House, if it were to pass, would extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks—22 weeks from 1 April next year, which was a constructive change that the select committee made. Originally it was going to be 22 weeks from 1 April this year, and of course that date has already passed. So that was a good example of the committee working together at least to report a sensible bill back to the House. It would then be 26 weeks from 1 April 2018.

A very worthy part of the bill as it stands, I think, is allowing for work contact hours. In respect of the way the bill is reported back, I think that is quite a sensible approach. If you happen to be on paid parental leave for 22 weeks or more, you can have up to 42 hours of paid return-to-work time. Taking in the extended period, you could be on parental leave, much of it unpaid—a total of 156 hours could be taken in paid return-to-work contact hours and the person returning to work would not be deemed to have ended their parental leave, paid or otherwise. In the context that the House was going to progress a measure such as this, I would make the point that I think that is a very sensible provision to have.

When we come to the Government’s stance on this particular bill, it is a consistent one. Before I move on to what the Government has done around paid parental leave—the Government’s position has been clearly stated all along. It is that the total cost of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is unaffordable in the present circumstances—the total cost. It is not the incremental cost. The Government has never made a statement that an additional $1 of paid parental leave was unaffordable. In fact, the Government has increased paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks, across two 2-yearly steps. So the Government was not of the view that a single dollar extra in paid parental leave was unaffordable. It remains the Government’s position that it is the total cost of the scheme as proposed by Ms Moroney that remains unaffordable, given current economic conditions.

That is backed up by data that the committee requested from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). I quote from a very recent document for a specific question that members on the committee asked of MBIE, and it has made an assessment of the costs of the implementation of this bill through to the financial year 2020-21 of $466 million over and above the cost of the plan that this Government has already put in place. That reinforces the point that the Government has maintained all along. It is not that an additional dollar of paid parental leave is unaffordable; it is that the total cost of the plan is unaffordable.

I have to say that I feel that a number of submitters did not grasp that specific element. They appeared before us and just said “Well, you’re almost there. You’re almost there. You’ve already spent this amount. What’s a little bit more?”, which does, quite frankly, miss the point. It is not the little bit more that was the problem. It has always been that the total cost of such a plan would have been—and still, in current conditions, remains—unaffordable. The Government has done what, within our fiscal envelope, has been possible, and that has been several things.

One is, obviously, as I have pointed out, that we have increased paid parental leave to 18 weeks from 14 weeks. But even more than that, because I think it is very relevant, and it captures elements that are not considered in Ms Moroney’s bill, it is extending paid parental leave to other caring situations and other work arrangements. We have extended it to include life carers, whāngai parents, grandparents, and permanent guardians. Different parenting arrangements, arrangements that suit families where both parents presumably may be returning to work, and also broader family structures—we support that and we have ensured that paid parental leave entitlements can be gained by people in those situations.

We have also extended and addressed an issue where Kiwi workers who may have been working for more than one employer or might have been under casual arrangements, seasonal or contract workers, and those who may have limited or no eligibility in the past, can now be eligible for paid parental leave. So what we have done is ensure that what we are able to afford to do is now able to benefit a broader range of New Zealand parenting arrangements and workers across the country.

Beyond that, we have also understood that not all parents choose to want to have an extended period of time off work. Some parents—and I know of several myself—have made the choice that they do wish to return to work earlier. So the Government increased the parental tax credit. It not only increased the tax credit by $70 a week to $220 but also extended the eligibility from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. So we are supporting parents who make a different choice, which, again, leads to a Government that is supporting a broader range of circumstances across the country.

I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of David Seymour, who came to this House with a proposition that suggested that parents with pre-term babies are in a particularly challenging circumstance. No one chooses to be pre-term. No one chooses to have a pre-term child. So Mr Seymour put up the proposition that perhaps we could extend additional weeks of paid parental leave to parents in those circumstances. So we were happy to support that very sound measure and have extended 1 week of paid parental leave, in addition—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Barracking across the House is unacceptable. Speaker’s ruling 69/2 states that you can only interject on the person with the call. You cannot do that across the House. I brought this up earlier on. The Speaker’s ruling—I suggest you look at it—is 69/2.

BRETT HUDSON: We support one additional week of paid parental leave for each week the baby is born pre-term. That is a very sensible measure, and I would like to congratulate Mr Seymour on bringing that to the House. [Bell rung] I am very proud to sit in a Government caucus that supported that measure.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry. You have got 15 seconds remaining.

BRETT HUDSON: Oh, is that right, Mr Assistant Speaker? We do oppose this particular bill, but we have done much for parents and will continue to do so. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise to take a call and speak to Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of New Zealand First, to strongly support this.

I am going to have some time to talk about that and tell some stories. But I have to acknowledge, first and foremost, the enjoyment that I had—with much due respect, in fact, to Mark Mitchell, whom I do hold in some sort of regard, who did get completely and utterly punked by Denise Roche when he was caught mansplaining, which I thought was very, very funny, and I think very, very apt also.

It was only 2 weeks ago that we had Mother’s Day here in this country and around parts of the Commonwealth, where we took time out to spend time with our mothers, our matriarchs, our wives or our partners, and actually acknowledge the great job and the great role—a very important role—that they have in all of our lives. I too took that day out with my wife—unfortunately, my mother lives in Australia so I was not there, but it was fair to say that contact was made and we certainly wished that we could have been together. We value our mothers. They are extremely important.

I cannot sit here and listen to this Government rhetoric that puts down the fact that we cannot afford to increase paid parental leave. It is not just about mothers—I will get to that in a moment—but it is largely to do with paid parental leave and that engagement that mothers have in early childhood learning. I cannot sit by and listen to this Government’s rhetoric that we cannot afford it, because we cannot afford not to do this.

As I get further into my speech I will give you facts and figures and talk about the OECD and what an impact—in a positive manner—that that is having in extending paid parental leave and paying adequately those parents to support them so that they can raise their children. I find myself, like probably everybody in this House, in a very privileged position to be in a position to be able to raise my family. My wife, who looks after our kids full-time, does not have to go to work, and that is a choice that we made.

It used to be, many years ago, that one income was enough to raise a family by itself. Invariably it was the father who would go off to work, as it was in the early years of my childhood until my mother and father split up. And then my mother—without paid parental leave—was forced to go out to work. That was not a choice. She would have much rather stayed home to look after and raise her kids to make them the best that they could be. I could have actually probably been a little bit better had she stayed home—some of you might have a comment to make on that, or not—but, who knows? I could have risen right to the top. Do not look so surprised there, Alastair. Anyhow, I say that in jest, but the reality is, you know, very severe, because we are not doing enough for our mothers at home.

I call it not just good luck, but I almost call it divine intervention—and some certainly would—that Sue Moroney has had this bill drawn out of the ballot twice in 4 years, and we sit here now in the second reading of this very similar but slightly different bill, which actually involves work contact hours, to get that through. Of course, earlier this year we had the legislation arising from the Employment Standards Legislation Bill that went through the House, which had full cross-party support. New Zealand First also supported the amendment put forward by Sue Moroney to increase those paid parental weeks to 22, and then on to 26 weeks, and it was obviously lost in the House. Of course, we know the story: last year in February 2015 the third reading failed to go through for the very same thing. So it is more than luck; this is meant to be. I do not necessarily believe in divine intervention, but I do believe that things happen for a reason. This bill is meant to go through. This bill needs to go through.

Let me just draw your attention to how the rest of the world values our mothers and values our families and values the importance of those family nuclei. In Austria, they give 60 weeks in paid parental leave; Canada: 52 weeks; Czech Republic: 110 weeks; Denmark: 50 weeks; Estonia gives 166 weeks; Finland gives 161 weeks; Germany: 58 weeks; Hungary: 160 weeks. It goes on. What do you think the average number of weeks of paid parental leave is in the OECD? It is 54.1 weeks. That is the average. We are talking about—no, no let us get this right—the total paid leave available to mothers. The total leave available—it is not just paid maternity leave; you have to look at the total.

There are only seven countries in the OECD that are below what we in this country consider fair and reasonable for paid parental leave, which we have only in the last 6 weeks put up to 18 weeks. Seven countries, but get this—let me just list those countries. Those countries are Israel, which gives 14 weeks; Mexico, which gives 12 weeks; the Netherlands, which gives 16 weeks; Spain, which gives 16 weeks; Switzerland and Turkey, which give 14 weeks; and then we have the United States, which gives no time at all. Interestingly, when you look even further, despite Israel giving only 14 weeks of paid parental leave, it pays paid parental leave at 100 percent of the earnings of that person, of the median income.

We pay out only 47 percent of our median income—$409, on average—to our mothers whom we value, to whom we send flowers and chocolates, to whom we take time out to give kisses and acknowledge their sacrifice. They sacrifice their bodies, they become selfless to our needs for our entire lives, and those members can sit there and say that we cannot afford it. Well, I challenge you, and I think it was a comment that was raised by Iain Lees-Galloway: show us the money—show us the money. I will show you where the money is. Let us talk about the $27 million flag referendum that nobody wanted. What about the $16 million for the Saudi businessmen to build an abattoir in the Middle East that nobody asked for? What about the $126 million that this Government found to go and invest into China’s infrastructure and not even invest in ourselves? What about the estimated $7.5 billion in corporate taxes that is not collected by this Government? Goodness me, people, there is a lot of money, and we have only just scratched the surface of how we can make this affordable.

This is a cost-benefit ratio of which you have to look at the upside. We have got a degradation of our communities. We have got high unemployment. We have got a social disconnect—a dysfunctional society in many respects, and it was even acknowledged by Paul Foster-Bell in a current study that was put out. It is irrefutable. It was impartial; the facts are the facts. I just want to take a moment to read some of that out. The scientific report identifies health and behaviour risks for kids in care: “A boom in daycare is seeing children spend up to 10,000 hours in care by the time they start school. A major childcare report shows increased risks of childhood respiratory illness, obesity, aggression, and hyperactivity. The new generation of babies placed in childcare face behavioural and health risks, says a major new scientific review.” It goes on to say: “Brainwave Trust researcher Keryn O’Neill said they don’t want to make parents feel guilty, but can’t fudge the facts for fear of making people feel bad. … ‘One of those is that while there can be benefits for children from three years old, there can be risks for children under three. Those risks increase the younger the child is.’ ”

We have to implore this legislation to be passed. We have to support Sue Moroney’s member’s bill. We need to make sure that we value our families and our society because, at the end of the day, it really comes down to where we are headed, and we are heading for the weeds if we do not spend more time inwardly looking at what is going to make a huge impact for the positive future of our communities. Our families grow into growing our economy and making it a safer environment for us to live in, and certainly a happier one. I hope the National Party has a change of heart and we get some support for this bill in the House today.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Just when the Government Administration Committee thought that they had seen the back of me, I rise to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. I just want to take it down a notch and pay tribute to Ms Moroney. This side of the House agrees with the spirit of the bill, and I have had the pleasure of working with her on the Government Administration Committee for this bill for a short time before I was moved on under the able chairmanship of Ms Ruth Dyson.

Hon Ruth Dyson: We miss you—we miss you.

SARAH DOWIE: You do miss me, and I miss you too. The Government Administration Committee actually does—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am not involved in this and do not want to be drawn into it. Thank you.

SARAH DOWIE: Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. We do get some very interesting bills, including this one, and I also have had the pleasure of sitting with Ms Moroney on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which heard the Employment Standards Bill that extended the paid parental leave concept as well. I do have to pay tribute, as a mother of two premature babies, to the concept of paid parental leave and to the benefits that it provides for women, for parents, and for dads—connecting them to the workplace and, of course, allowing time to bond with baby without the financial stress that often having children can bring.

Before I begin, I think it is probably important to talk about the history of paid parental leave because, if you think about the evolution of it throughout time, it started as an almost primitive concept. When it first came on to our law books—I think it was in 2002—it was simply providing protection for somebody’s job, and that was the extent of it. Since then it has evolved and we have seen financial assistance. We have seen it extended to more than just the mother, and that has been a good thing.

It has slowly evolved. It has been a long row to hoe in respect of the lobbying but, as part of that, as each Government has extended it, what both Governments of the day had to do was look at a suite of measures in managing this fine country. You have to prioritise, given that you have limited funds and limited taxes to go around and spend on social initiatives. You have to decide what you spend it on. On this side of the House we are about providing a suite of measures to best provide for children—to allow them to thrive in our community and grow—and for families. As such, we do oppose this bill and the extension that it sets out.

But I come back to the benefits of paid parental leave. We have heard from some of the previous speakers that it is about breastfeeding and, yes, certainly that extra time and alleviating the financial stress on parents allows a mother, the biological mother, to bond with the child. It does alleviate the stress, which allows a mother to breastfeed, and of course breastfeeding is acknowledged as providing the right mix of vitamins for baby. But also I acknowledge that breastfeeding is pretty hard, so having that time to bond with baby and do that—hey, that is brilliant if you can actually breastfeed, and that is wonderful. But if you cannot, the time still affords some benefits through bonding with baby. It helps mothers’ and carers’ mental health when the new baby comes into the home. It prevents postnatal depression in women. Postnatal depression can have really devastating effects on families and family members, so it is quite a significant thing to overcome, and to have that time, and the financial stress alleviated really does make a difference. There is the physical health of the mother—they do not call it labour for nothing.

Paid parental leave certainly allows mum to rest and come back to physical strength after having a baby, and it allows for a connection with wider community as well. That is one of the things that I want to focus on because a connection in isolated areas with the wider community is something that paid parental leave allows and enables. I had the privilege of attending as the MP for Invercargill the Mums ‘n’ Bubs Expo in Invercargill recently. That was an initiative—an inaugural event—that was put together by two young mums to bring people together with their young babies and families to discuss the challenges of having babies in the modern world. One of the risks that was identified was actually isolation in a community. So if you are away from family members, if you do not have the support of your wider whānau, paid parental leave allows you that time to get involved with community groups and to strike up camaraderie with other mothers or fathers, or families who have young children and learn from them. Again, it alleviates the pressure or that psychological stress of having children.

I talked about this in the first reading—that one of the things I did as a young mum was to join the Supporting Parents Alongside Children’s Education (SPACE) group, which was facilitated by Playcentre. That was a group of first-time mothers who came together with babies aged between zero and 4 months. We met weekly, and it allowed us to form great bonds together as our children went through the same developmental processes, but also it facilitated learning about those processes, as we had guest speakers come in to speak to us about different things, different aspects of a child’s life. So not only did we have the education about children, as mothers and fathers—because there were some fathers who did that course as well—but the camaraderie really was a great support for me and for others in that group. As I look back on that course—it was one of the courses that I recommended at the Mums ‘n’ Bubs Expo—some of those people with whom I went through that SPACE group are my best “mum-friends” now, moving forward, and we still have that connection and the children still have that connection.

As I come back to the bill, although this Government opposes the extension as it is set out, we do believe in having a suite of measures that we need to put in place to support children. It is not just about paid parental leave. Some of our policies, such as free doctors visits and prescriptions for under-13-year-olds, go to the heart of making sure that our families are well taken care of and that our children get the medical help that they need early on in the piece. So we are taking that financial burden off families so that they can get their children to the doctor early if there is some sort of health issue, get them taken care of, get them the medication that they need, and get them well to set them on the right path to thrive and become productive members of society. There are many other policies that we have in place that look to care for children and families—some of our key performance indicators in respect of immunisation, making sure that the information is out there for parents in respect of the pros and cons of immunisation, and making sure that the bulk of our kids go through being immunised against some of those really serious diseases so that the effects of that are avoided and mitigated.

So, look, this is a Government that definitely cares about children. It cares about families, but it is about a suite of measures, not just paid parental leave. Despite and notwithstanding the benefits of paid parental leave—which are recognised by this Government, given that we have extended it from 16 weeks to 18 weeks; or 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then to 18 weeks—we do need to look at the raft of different measures, the suite of different measures, that need to be put in place to care for our families and our children. So I certainly support the concept of paid parental leave and acknowledge Ms Moroney’s tenacity in raising this again in the House. It is an important debate to have but, look, at the end of the day, we have competing priorities, and as such we oppose this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on this, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill put forward by Labour member Sue Moroney. I am not sure that I have spoken more often on any other topic in this House in my 4 years here. I think this is the third piece of legislation, and the second member’s bill from Sue Moroney, that I have had the great pleasure of supporting on this topic.

The Green Party supports the public view that extending paid parental leave is to the benefit of us as a country. For me, one of the main reasons that I support this bill—and there are so many, as has been outlined by the previous National speaker, Sarah Dowie—is that I think it helps us update our employment settings and our workplace legislation. It is 2016 and still so much of our employment legislation treats our society and our people in the workplace as if we are still in the 1950s—as if there is one breadwinner who is there earning and providing for their family, who is nicely nurtured in a nice warm, dry house. That is just not the reality of this world. In families, both parents are so often having to work—and so many parents both want to work—but they also have children. We actually need our employment settings to recognise that.

It was really interesting to me that we heard, in the last term, that on the bill to extend paid parental leave to 6 months there were 3,795 submissions, 99.6 percent in support of it. This time around, with a very, very similar bill, there were 6,755 submissions, most of which were in support of this bill. So the public support—having heard all of the Government’s arguments about affordability, about the other measures that it is putting in place—for having 6 months parental leave has increased. People have heard the arguments, they have made their decision about priorities, and I think this Government should listen. The people of New Zealand are saying that it is time for us to update our employment legislation—that it is time for us to support our families, particularly in those first 6 months. I do not think you can argue with that.

The submitters, as has already been stated by my colleague Denise Roche, were from a very wide range of groups: from Family First, to the Council of Trade Unions, to a lot of employers and employers’ representatives. We have heard from the Government side that it has to consider business and what business needs, because business is really what provides the money that drives this society—it is nothing to do with the people doing the work or the family supporting that work. But even then the Government got it wrong, because businesses were telling us that for them 6 months is easier to manage than 18 weeks, because 6 months is a length of time that enables them to get somebody else in to fill the position. Below that level, they are often juggling and just infilling, which puts pressure on the remaining workers to be covering those jobs, and it is not good for their workplaces or their staff.

This bill is good for babies. There is no question about that; all of the evidence tells us that. It is good for women’s employment and keeping them in jobs and ensuring their ability to progress, and for closing the gender pay gap. It is also good for employers, in managing their workplaces and supporting all of the workers in those workplaces. To be opposing this on the grounds that it is unaffordable, when booming economies like the Czech Republic and Estonia seem to be able to afford up to 3 years of paid parental leave—and we have only been able to increase paid parental leave from 12 weeks in 2002 to 18 weeks now, despite very, very significant increases in our GDP—just does not ring true. If our economy is going to grow, we need to share it and support our families.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. I would like to warp back to a couple of the contributions we have already had in this debate, in particular to Clayton Mitchell, who really took us back to the 1950s, making his entire contribution about mothers. He spoke about mothers so much that it was getting somewhat Freudian. Well, perhaps he has missed the point—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

DAVID SEYMOUR: —that this is about paid parental leave for fathers and mothers, rather than just mothers. We heard from Sue Moroney a rather veiled inference that, somehow, men are not eligible to speak in terms of this debate. She was nowhere near as explicit or as bad as Clayton Mitchell from the 1950s. She did not mean it to come out, but it came out.

So let us be clear that this is a debate about parental leave. Iain Lees-Galloway, in his fine King’s College debating form, said that the questions are: is this bill necessary, and can it be afforded? His argument was that it is necessary because other OECD countries have, on average, longer paid parental leave periods. Well, if this Parliament made laws on the basis that we should always regress to the OECD mean, then we would never ever have voted for women to be able to vote in general elections, or for a large number of other policy innovations that this country has made. We also would have adopted a number of very bad public policies, and it would be an example of that if we were to adopt Sue Moroney’s bill.

But then he made the argument that it is affordable. Well, this has always been about politics for the Labour Party. Funnily enough, Jacinda Ardern in an earlier debate actually betrayed the Labour Party and showed us just how political this has always been. Jacinda Ardern told us that when there was a $2.5 billion surplus in 2002, that was when the Labour Government, under pressure from the Alliance party, first introduced paid parental leave—2002 was an election year, remember? Then, in 2004, when the National Party’s polling went up and the surplus was $5.6 billion, Labour decided to introduce extensions to paid parental leave. Then, when there was no surplus at all but the Labour Party did not have the burden of governing, those members were keen to further extend paid parental leave. When it suits them, they make the argument about fiscal responsibility, and when it does not suit them, they do not talk about fiscal responsibility at all.

But the reality is that the current situation is not one of the Government having a large surplus. It is not time to consider such large spending increases, and when the Labour Party is in Government, it knows that very, very well. Why is this purely political? The fact is that paid parental leave is not a reality for half of New Zealanders who have children. In this country, every year, there are 60,000 babies born, give or take a few, and how many people actually sign up for paid parental leave? Fewer than 30,000. So this cannot be necessary. If it is necessary, then what do we say to the half of parents who have children yet do not take advantage of paid parental leave? The fact of the matter is that this is purely political, it is purely posturing, and it is purely vote-buying on behalf of the Labour Party.

But there is one small innovation in policy in this area that I would like to take a little bit of credit for, because one thing the State should do, and one reason we pay taxes, is to give people financial compensation in times of unexpected need, such as when they have babies prematurely. I am pleased this Government has introduced additional paid parental leave for people who find themselves in unexpected situations, but I am also pleased to be part of a Government that opposes wholesale vote-buying that affects only half the population, that is based on the shonkiest of research, and that will make no difference to most people except for the Labour Party and its polling. Well, folks, you are going to have to work a lot harder to make this work. I oppose this bill. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I just note the comments that were made by David Seymour, the previous speaker. The figure is that, annually, it is about 26,000. So he is absolutely right. It is even lower than that—lower than the 30,000. He is absolutely right that on average, per year, that is the number that actually applied for paid parental leave.

But I want to start my remarks by taking up a point that my colleague and friend Mark Mitchell got up and talked about in his speech, which is the importance of the role of fathers. It is just as important. I know that Denise Roche spoke about that and called it mansplaining. Clayton Mitchell then went on and started bandying on about this and saying that she was absolutely correct. I have to say that that really does take away the essence of what Parliament is actually about, which is the equity of all to have an opportunity to debate this issue. I think that that is really important—

Sue Moroney: That’s why it’s called parental leave.

ALFRED NGARO: —just as it is for Mrs Sue Moroney to be able to do that, and I respect that. I just think that there needs to be a little bit of respect that he had a view, he was not mocking anyone, and he was giving his explanation, and I think that is just as important.

I will just say straight out that, along with the Government, we do oppose this bill, but we do support the intent of the member. I absolutely agree with what the member is saying around paid parental leave, but it is not about the aspect of—because paid parental leave is an opportunity. It is a tool that is used by the Government to provide support where it is most needed at that point in time. The member has shared her own story that when she was raising children, the provision was not available then, so I think that in 2002, when it did come in, I would have supported it, and I believe that that was actually the right thing to do. The workforce had evolved, changes had happened, and so, therefore, the needs and the demands on families were at the point where in most cases, and even today, mums and dads were both having to work. Caregivers have to get into a situation where they need to provide for their family, such is the consumer society we live in, and those are some of the demands.

So the intent is what I actually do support. I think it is absolutely right to give the support that we can give. I am not one of those who say that, well, just because we did not have that provision, others should not have it. I actually support the member in her comments that as time moves on, changes happen, and, for our own children and for our grandchildren, we hope that they will evolve to meet the demands and the needs that are there. I think that is absolutely correct, as well.

I would like to just make some comments about that, because I think it is right. Look, people talk about finances and they say that it is all about the money, but the reality is that in all of the families that we come from, budgeting is something that we do every single day. We make choices as mums and dads in our homes. With the work that we are part of and the income that we bring into our homes, we make a choice as to the types of food that we buy, the type of accommodation that we have, the vehicles we have, the things we do on holiday, and the types of clothes and shoes we have. We make decisions as families every single day on the budget that we have.

It is disingenuous for the other side to say: “You don’t care because you don’t want to give the money.” Well, if it was the case in everyday homes that children would turn round and say “We need to have the latest shoes. We need the latest technology.”, then, I tell you what, they could have the debate and say that it is disingenuous. This Government is being cautious and careful. It has not disagreed with the intent of the member, but it is saying this: as we budget for what is appropriate, we budget appropriately. This Government has done that.

Sue Moroney: You’ve got $1 billion extra that you’re spending tomorrow.

ALFRED NGARO: It has gone—and let us just see where it went. The Hon Ruth Dyson is here, and we know that in 2007, she was also faced with a report that came from the Families Commission on which she had to make a decision. I know that she is a wise person who had to make a decision with the constraints that were before her, and she realised that, in actual fact, the Families Commission wanted to extend it all the way through to 13 months—13 weeks. So, to 13—or was it? To 13, yes. So, anyway, it was an extension—I will find it here. But the member was correct—here it is, 13 months. That is right, it was 13 months. [Interruption] I need to get it correct. It was 13 months. But the honourable member, as the then Minister, by—let us see, what was that—by 2015.

Sue Moroney: Yes.

ALFRED NGARO: By 2015, right? So let us talk about 13 months, right? Let us talk about this point: the honourable member made a decision on the basis of what was affordable at that point in time, even though I know that the member over here, Mr David Seymour, talked about the fact that the Government had a surplus. It had the ability to extend when it had the opportunity, but it did not. Why? Because it made a calculated and a rational decision. So for the member to turn round and say to this Government, when we do not have the excess of that surplus, that we should make that decision—we are making the same decision as that member made when she was the Minister. She made a rational decision to go by incremental steps.

Let us look at those incremental steps. In 2002 it was 12 weeks, in 2004 it was 13 weeks, and in 2005 it was 14 weeks—14 weeks. So let us just take that into consideration. It means that the member knew that by incremental, by learning, by developing, and by knowing what is affordable, we should make our decisions. So for those who are listening on the outside, who would try to take the comments from the member and criticise this Government, saying that it does not care, it cares just as much as that member did in 2007 right the way to 2009, when it made the decisions that were appropriate, being fiscally responsible, as Sue Moroney thought was appropriate as well. That is very important.

Here is another bit of information, because the member has also talked about the nation speaking. In fact, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway talked about the fact that New Zealand is on our side. He talked about the weight of submissions. The member said we had doubled the number of submissions since 2013. This comes from the departmental report, page 4, and here is what it says in the top paragraph, “Overview of submissions”: 6,755 submissions. But out of that, 5,129 were form submissions. In other words, they were generated off the 26 websites that were set up there. That takes us down to 1,626. That seems to be substantive, does it not—1,626? So we have gone from 6,755 down to 1,626, but then the report goes on further to say that out of that, those other individual submissions had little bits added to the sentences that made them slightly different. So how many were classed as individual submissions? Sixty-six—66 submissions.

Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, my gosh, Alfred.

ALFRED NGARO: I am just reading from the report.

Sue Moroney: So you think the people that filled in the form did not care?

ALFRED NGARO: I was not in the select committee, I have to say; I did not hear them. But when one reads from the report, it has to be factual. The report says there were only 66 submissions that could be classified as individual. Let us break it down a bit.

Carmel Sepuloni: What!

ALFRED NGARO: Well, it is in the report. Let us break it down. Sixty-two submitters expressed support for the bill, two submitters opposed the bill, but then alongside that there were also another two. But here is what gets interesting: one of those submitters was the Child Poverty Action Group. The Child Poverty Action Group neither supported nor opposed the bill.

Sue Moroney: Right.

ALFRED NGARO: Yes, that is right. I am being factual—from the report. But this is what they said: until there was enough evidence they were taking into account the adequate recognition of the needs of all new-borns. So, to turn around and say that there is the weight of 6,755 submissions, all the organisational support—you just have to say that that may not be quite true, when it got down to 66, when it got down to 62. And what was interesting was that the Child Poverty Action Group actually neither opposed nor supported this. You have to question whether there is anything in this.

In my few remaining comments I just want to deal with the facts—I just want to deal with the facts. The member then talked about the fact that even the businesses support this. But I am reading from another report, and it is from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. It is the officials’ report, and, surprise, surprise we have comments here from Business New Zealand, which opposes the bill—and also the New Zealand Retailers Association—not the bill as a whole. What it wanted to do was talk about the different parts that it feels are not appropriate. So the bill as a whole, the intent, it supports. But the parts of this bill that extend the leave to 26 weeks are not what it would not support. There are parts around employment protection that it thinks are absolutely important. I want to put that on record, because some of the comments that have been made have not been quite factual. On behalf of the Government, we do oppose this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Jacinda Ardern—a split call.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I find it appalling that the Government would not only stand up and use the kinds of excuses that I have heard from that side of the House to oppose paid parental leave, but that at the same time it dismisses the thousands of submissions that were made because, in Alfred Ngaro’s eyes, they were not important because they were built around a set of preformed ideas. The idea that someone who is perhaps a parent or a mother might not have as much time as someone else to construct an individualised submission does not seem to have occurred to that member. To cast out those thousands of submissions, out of hand, I thought was insulting. If form submissions are meaningless, if form submissions do not count for something and are not paid attention to, then I suggest that we send a form letter back to those thousands of submitters, and in that form letter I suggest that we include the transcript of Alfred Ngaro’s speech. Let us see whether or not that form letter sparks a reaction from those submitters, because I would wager that sharing his dismissive attitude with all of those individuals would get a response, and rightly so.

We have heard a lot from that side of the House around how this is a political bill, that Sue Moroney and Labour are supporting this bill because it is political.

David Seymour: Don’t lie, Jacinda.

JACINDA ARDERN: I would like to substitute the word “political”, Mr Seymour, with the word “values”, because that is the reason this side of the House has chosen to support this bill, because we see the importance, based both on evidence and research but also on the moral arguments around paid parental leave, of supporting it. To put up the argument that because half of new mothers miss out that is a reason not to support it—actually, that is a reason to do something for them as well, which is why we have already announced Best Start. We recognised that that was a problem we wanted to address too. We do not have to say that we are not able to do both, when we can if you prioritise.

On the issue of prioritisation, another point I want to raise for Alfred Ngaro, who tried to argue that we should not implement this bill because the fiscal headroom to do it was not available—that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Not only does the first phase of this bill cost half of what the Prime Minister spent on his flag referendum—you cannot tell me that was a higher priority than supporting new mothers and babies—but actually what is being proposed here costs 1.27 percent of what that Government will spend tomorrow in its Budget, 1.27 percent. This is not about whether it is possible; it is about priorities. And on this side of the House we are prioritising children, mothers, families, and, yes, fathers also. It is about priorities.

In fact, we have been so responsible in the phasing in of this, and this is something that Sue Moroney has gone to great lengths over, that she has proposed phasing—18 to 22 weeks from 1 April 2017, moving from 22 to 26 weeks in 2018. It is obviously not just about cost-benefit analysis, but if that side of the House consistently wants to return simply to dollar value, then I ask you this: what is the cost to society of a child with poor attachment? Well, it could potentially lead, if you listen to your own science advisers, to issues around conduct disorder. What does conduct disorder cost us? A million dollars per child—a million dollars per child. What is the cost of a poor start in life? New Zealand currently pays $2 billion per annum for that.

I could give you every single fiscal argument you could possibly want if you want to justify this bill. But here is what I want you to consider instead of just the fiscal value. My friend recently fell pregnant—a very exciting time for everyone. She is a small-business owner. It is paid parental leave or nothing for her. That is what this bill is really about. It is about the individuals. It is about the fact that those 8 additional weeks mean the difference between a mother starting to see her child verbalise little sounds that make sense—the ability to smile, to move to solid foods. Look beyond the fiscal, because this bill is about people, it is about relationships between caregivers and their baby, and it is about investing in the future.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a great pleasure for me to stand, once again, in this House and support the proposal to extend paid parental leave for New Zealand parents. I want to give some members opposing this bill some facts, because they seem to have been lacking, and I think that is a very sad thing in a debate that is as important as this.

This is about extending our existing scheme by 8 weeks. It has got some faults, and I do not think we should ignore that fact, but this is about extending what we currently have. It would cost about $12.7 million in tomorrow’s Budget, which is less than 1 percent of the $1.6 billion that the Prime Minister has announced will be in the Budget tomorrow. This is an affordable proposal that we know would benefit new parents and their new babies, and I do not see why we should not have that as a priority. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has just given very good financial reasons. The Government Administration Committee heard overwhelming social and community-based reasons, as well.

The “Brains Trust” from the ACT Party talked about the difference between the number of new mothers and the number of people who applied for paid parental leave. He may not realise that the criteria restricts eligibility. He was not in the House when the legislation was originally introduced in 2002 and became the law, when we first ventured into paid parental leave. He should read the criteria and understand that a whole lot of new parents are not eligible for it. He should also know that a number of new fathers will not apply for this, because the paid parental leave payment is so darn low that a lot of men miss out on having that time with their newborn baby because they just cannot afford that drop in salary. So there are some deficiencies and there are some reasons why some people are not eligible, and there are some reasons why some people do not apply. But he should argue on the basis of fact, not on the basis of made-up Epsom logic, which does not translate into facts, at all.

In 2002, when we first introduced paid parental leave in New Zealand, members of the National Party said that the measure would create dependence on the State in new parents, so it voted against it, despite the fact that every other civilised, developed country that we would like to compare ourselves favourably with has paid parental leave and says it is one of the best investments for maintaining a connection to the paid workforce and for ensuring that new babies have the best possible start in life. In 2006 we were one of the first countries—perhaps the first country; it is debatable—to extend entitlement to paid parental leave for self-employed new parents, and I think that is one of the best things we can do. We know that a large percentage of the labour market in New Zealand is self-employed—we are innovative; that is what we do—so an entitlement for paid parental leave will make so much difference for those people.

But we are still stuck at a time that is not considered best practice in terms of health outcomes. Too many women—and it is mostly women who get paid parental leave, much to my disappointment—still go back into their paid job far too early. We need to offer more financial support, and this bill says we should give another 8 weeks. It is sensibly tranched so that we do not blow the Budget—less than 1 percent of the new spend in tomorrow’s Budget. Remember when you are clapping your Minister of Finance that this bill could have gone through at less than 1 percent of the new spend, and we could have had an additional 8 weeks of paid parental leave.

I want to conclude by saying that I was absolutely disgusted at the response that Alfred Ngaro gave to over 6,500 submitters on this bill. I had the privilege of chairing the select committee that received those submissions. They were accepted as submissions by a unanimous decision of that committee—6,821 submissions, and 6,817 of those submissions supported the proposal to extend paid parental leave. That is 99.94 percent of submissions that supported this bill. I think that is a very clear message, and I hope it is a message that the National Government will get.

This is a move that New Zealand is ready for. It is one of the best investments we can make to support new parents and their new babies, and it is about time we progressed it.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney. This bill is to extend the period of paid parental leave to 26 weeks and to have work contact hours for those who are on parental leave. This bill proposes that it should be done in two stages, the first stage being increasing to 22 weeks from 1 April 2017, and then increasing to 26 weeks from 1 April 2018.

This bill was considered by the Government Administration Committee, and I am not a member of that select committee but I understand that the select committee recommended that the work contact hours provision be removed from this bill for a simple reason, and the reason is that this National Government has already provided for keeping-in-touch hours. I can see that this bill is driven by the importance of bonding and various other factors that the member listed before, but we have increased paid parental leave already from 14 weeks to 16 weeks last year, and then we have increased it from 16 weeks to 18 weeks this year.

When we amended the principal Act, it was not just about the length of paid parental leave; we also looked at making this whole scheme modern and practical. What we did is we widened the eligibility criteria for those who can avail themselves of this entitlement. Casual workers, seasonal and contract workers, and those who work for more than one employer can now be entitled to paid parental leave. We also increased the kind of care that is entitled to paid parental leave. We introduced the concept of primary carer, and with that people can, without going through the process of formal adoption, look after a child, have paid parental leave if they are eligible, and No. 3, which is very important, is that parents of pre-term babies can be eligible for longer paid parental leave, depending on when the premature baby is born. The gestation period is 37 weeks, and if a baby is born before 37 weeks the parent receives weekly payments for that many weeks, depending on how early the pre-term baby is born. For example, if a baby is born at 27 weeks, then the parent will receive payment for an additional 10 weeks, making a total of 28 weeks. With our current 18 weeks’ paid parental leave, we are in line with the OECD average.

Having a child can change a lot of things in a family, and having a pre-term child can actually bring more changes in the family. It can create more mental and physical strain because you are looking after that child for the first few days and weeks from a distance. Generally speaking, pre-term babies are kept in medical care before they are sent home with the family. We also increased the parental tax credit from $150 to $220, and we extended the period for that from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. So through giving more parental tax credit, through extending paid parental leave, and through making more people eligible, what we did is we provided choice for people—it is about providing choices.

This theme that we have introduced, this National Government, is about giving more access and about flexibility. In looking at the family structures, how they are changing, how the family needs are changing, and how their work needs are changing, it is really important that we are able to cater for all of that. We are committed to supporting children so that they can have the best possible start in their life. We recognise that families and employees have to plan their personal and financial lives, and that, on the other hand, businesses should be flexible to adapt to changing demands. We also want to see that parents are able to stay in touch with the labour market. This is not just for the wider economic and social good, but it is good for them too.

Every parent goes through different experiences, so I do not think it is fair to generalise those experiences. I actually want to share one of my experiences. When I started leaving my child in a day-care centre to go back to work, I did feel guilty about it. Yes, it is not easy and it is not easy for any parent to leave their child in a day-care centre to go back to education or work, no matter what the age of the child is. Moreover, people also frown at new mums who decide to leave their child in a day-care centre to go back to education or work. It is about making new mums guilty about leaving their child in a day-care centre to go back to study or work. I strongly feel that that needs to be stopped. We want a society that is equal for men and women. We want to see that women have equal opportunities to men and have access to education and work as and when they require, and we want to close the gender gap. I do not support any ideas that promote segregation of women just because of their biological make-up.

A lot of research has been done and members opposite have spoken about research that they are using to support their argument but, in research, the important thing is that the outcome of any research will depend on the question that you ask in that research. So I want to ask: why stop at 26 weeks? Why not make it 16 years, because parenting is a long-term commitment and parents ideally should be there to support their child through their childhood to get into adulthood.

Talking about research, I want to talk about one piece of research. This study is led by New York’s Columbia University School of Social Work. It is published by the Society for Research in Child Development. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study of early childcare followed more than 1,000 children, so it is a very healthy sample size—1,000 children. These children were from 10 different geographical areas and were up to the age of 7. The study followed their family circumstances and their development. What they found in that research is that, yes, there are some downsides to mums getting to work within a few months of their child being born, but, overall, the advantages are more than the downsides. The advantages include increased income and the overall well-being of the mum. In this research what they finally concluded is that the net effect is neutral. The net effect is neutral because we need to look at the full picture—we cannot just pick one or two points and debate this; we need to look at the full picture. It is about the overall outcomes for the child and for the mother, and the overall effect that they found in this research is that it is neutral.

The research also recognised that parenting is a big thing. The researcher also recognised that it is important for working mothers to be sensitive to their child’s needs. It is about how, when they get back from their work, it is important that they leave their work before they get in the door so that they can give full attention to their child. So it is about having that quality time to have that bonding with their child. It is about being sensitive to the child’s needs. There is no point to someone staying with their child 24 hours, 7 days, if they are not attentive to the child—it is not going to give any benefits to the mum or her child. I spoke about this research because I do not want new mums to feel guilty about getting back to work, and given the work that we have already done in this space, I oppose this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the House to rise early for the dinner break so that the first speech of the next bill can go uninterrupted.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just following the last bill, the member is not being ironic, is she?

Carmel Sepuloni: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. All right. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I move, That the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I am very pleased to take this call on the second reading of this, my member’s bill. I am very pleased that since the first reading, we have come a long way. I want to acknowledge the work of the Government Administration Committee, chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson. As a former member of that committee, I know that it is one of the hardest-working committees in Parliament. I want to acknowledge all of the members for their openness about this bill.

This bill is about openness and transparency in this Parliament. It provides for parliamentary under-secretaries to be responsible for answering Official Information Act requests. I said in the first reading that it was an anomaly that we have this current situation where a parliamentary under-secretary, although being a member of the executive, is not required to answer Official Information Act requests. We, fortunately, passed the first reading, and the bill was sent to the Government Administration Committee.

We received a total of five submissions on the bill. All five were in support of this bill. Because there are only five, I am going to read them out: the New Zealand Law Society, the New Zealand Law Commission, Brent Jackson, Malcolm Harbrow, and Terra Dumont. One of the things that three of these submitters pointed out was that parliamentary under-secretaries are, in fact, part of the executive. They are not part of the Executive Council, but they are none the less part of the executive. Two of the submitters quite clearly pointed out that the role of parliamentary under-secretaries is created under the statutes Act. Under that particular Act, it makes parliamentary under-secretaries part of that executive. That was pointed out by these submitters.

Part of the discussion, as well, was around what I call the slippery-slope theory that was promulgated in the first reading by some members. There have been claims that information held as an MP may be captured in this bill; that is quite clearly incorrect. The Ministry of Justice, in its report, pointed out that very fact—that, in fact, it is work that we do as members of Parliament that is not captured by this bill. Under the Official Information Act, work done by members as members of Parliament is quite separate to the work that those members who are part of the executive do. It also pointed out that a request to the Minister does not assume that the Minister has the information that the parliamentary under-secretary has. It pointed out that there was no requirement for the Minister to request that information from the parliamentary under-secretary, nor to create official information. That is the basis of that anomaly.

I also acknowledge the Government members who in the first reading voted against this bill but who through the select committee process, in having access to all of the information from the submitters—in particular, the Law Society and the Law Commission as well as the report from the Ministry of Justice—addressed every single one of those issues that was raised in the first reading. I think it is important to acknowledge that the weight of that evidence clearly influenced the members who had voted against it in the first reading, to the point that the report that has come back to the House is a report that is supported by all of the committee. I want to acknowledge those members for that. I think it shows how members, through the select committee process, can bring back a better bill and ask the hard questions, certainly, but in this instance they have clearly come to the understanding that this is a good bill.

The recommendation from the Ministry of Justice is that the bill is entirely consistent with the Official Information Act and that it should be passed by Parliament. I acknowledge the things that have been said by the member from the ACT Party—I think it would be silly not to. I think that despite the way that it was expressed, the issue is that any party that stands up for open and transparent Government should support this bill. That is the only question that should be asked, not whether someone thinks it is particularly about that person. In this instance, there is only one parliamentary under-secretary, so I can understand why one might think that.

In the interests of good legislation, I am pleased to hear—I could be incorrect, but I understand—that this bill is going to be supported by all parties in the House. I welcome that. I do not want to prolong my contribution on this. I am sure other members of the House will have a lot to add. Just one more thing: there is an amendment, too, that was agreed to by the select committee. It does make the bill clearer. There is only one clause in this amendment bill. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. Let me just give you a bit of the background as to why that is. This bill is completely pointless, and it also blurs, in quite a damaging way, the constitutional lines within New Zealand’s arrangements. None the less, I have decided to support it because I have far better things to do than waste my time persuading my colleagues to vote against a bill that will make no material difference to the operation of this Government or this House but that none the less does waste an enormous amount of the Labour Party’s time. If you doubt that, let me help you with some of the research it might have done if only it had been the Labour Party of old, and we will come to that a little bit later.

This is an education report, dated 22 January 2015, responding to a request for official information on partnership schools kura hourua, which says “Mr David Seymour will receive official information on Partnership Schools” and that he will also receive and sign out Official Information Act (OIA) requests. You may think that this is some sort of secret, but, like many of the documents I am going to show you tonight, it is publicly available, and I would love—actually, I seek leave to table this document, which is widely available on the internet.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not be putting that leave.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot even table this document, because it is on the freaking internet!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just in case there is any doubt, I am not putting that leave. I take it the member is now continuing with his speech and is not contesting my ruling on that particular matter.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would never contest your ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I cannot table this document in Parliament because it is on the internet, but it has none the less escaped the Labour Party.

We have been very clear about the process and, actually, I have already been signing out OIA requests according to a document that has been available on the internet for at least a year. Not everybody missed this fact, because not only have I been able to sign out Official Information Act requests but also I have been doing it, including to one Ben Cunliffe, researcher in the office of the Leader of the Opposition: “Dear Mr Cunliffe, thank you for your email. You asked for, I have considered, and here are the documents. [signed] D. B. Seymour.”—i.e., me. So there is an actual OIA request that the Labour Party has already made to my office that we released and I signed out.

But it gets better. It is not only the Labour Party that has figured that out; Andrew Little should have told these members that. Here is an Official Information Act request from “Te Green Party o Aotearoa”, which I also signed out and which it has received. So I am already signing out these OIA requests. Then we thought: “Actually, I’m committed to open and transparent Government.” So we started proactively releasing documents that pertain to my portfolios, and here they are. The documents—I will not try to table these, Mr Deputy Speaker, because—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —they are widely available on the internet, thank you. This is the amount of official information under my portfolio that I have already released. I would stack all of it up, but if I were to do that I might not be able to see you, Mr Deputy Speaker, over the pile of documents. So, QED, this bill is completely unnecessary. There is no public interest in my having the OIA applied to me because we are already highly transparent, already releasing documents proactively, and already responding to OIA requests, but the Labour Party members could not quite figure that out, or maybe Andrew Little’s office did not tell them.

There is actually a more serious matter to this bill, which is that the Official Information Act was set up to ensure that the executive of Government—those with actual official information and decision-making powers—could be held to account by the public. It will not surprise you that every document I have that contains official information is copied to the Minister of Education or the Minister for Regulatory Reform, depending upon the portfolio that it pertains to. I do not hold any official information exclusively that the public would gain access to. That is why this is an entirely futile bill, which none the less breaches the line between executive responsibility on the one hand and the rest of Parliament and civil society on the other.

Some people would say that Adrian Rurawhe and this bill are a waste of space, but I actually think this is quite useful, because once upon a time the Labour Party was a grand, public policy - oriented, reforming party. There was a period in Labour’s history when in 6 short years it introduced the Constitution Act, the State-Owned Enterprises Act, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, the Education Act, the State Sector Act, the Public Finance Act, and so it went on—a party that had bold plans and good ideas for New Zealand and that actually shaped this country in a way that no Government, Labour or National, has sought to change in the 26 years since. Ruth Dyson can remember this because she was there for much of it, even if she did not understand all of it. Today we see a Labour Party so diminished that it is reduced to introducing members’ bills that will have no material effect on the way New Zealand functions whatsoever. What a tragic day for the Labour Party, for this Parliament, and for New Zealand.

To borrow a phrase from that hallowed period in the Labour’s history, I have been thinking. I have been thinking, if we are prepared to breach the basic line between the executive, with official information and the decision-making power, then why would we not be prepared to breach it a bit further? There are actually many groups in the political arena in which the public has a great interest in what information they have, in whom they talk to, and in what meetings they have. These are all things that are of great interest to the public.

I would say that in the eyes of the public there is not a big difference between members of the executive and members of the Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition has access to a Crown car, then I think there might actually be some interest in being able to make him subject to the OIA. But what about all MPs? Who do they talk to? Who is influencing them? They have decision-making power in this Parliament. Now that we have breached the difference between the executive and Parliament, why not go the whole way? But why stop there? What about you, Mr Deputy Speaker? You have influence in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not bring me into this debate.

DAVID SEYMOUR: OK, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not bring you into this debate, but the point is made. What about the members of parliamentary press gallery? They can set the agenda. They can influence public opinion. Who influences them, and should they not be subject to the Official Information Act?

So I have been thinking, now that the Labour Party has pointlessly breached the division between the executive with official information and the decision-making power, I think we may just—how does it go—be hung for a sheep as a lamb. In the Committee stage of this bill—which I am looking forward to because I am voting for the second reading—I am looking forward to putting up a number of amendments to make this bill apply to a wide range of people in Wellington. If the Labour Party thinks there is a point in applying it to parliamentary under-secretaries, then why not parliamentary private secretaries, why not Leaders of the Opposition, why not members of Parliament, why not the parliamentary press gallery, which, after all, has access to space in the gallery—why do we not just burn the whole thing down?

I am supporting this bill because it is going to be a lot of fun. It is going to show us what a silly and diminished little force Adrian Rurawhe and the Labour Party are and how those members quibble over such tiny matters when they used to be such a grand, reforming party. I am going to enjoy every ounce of the remaining debate on this bill. It is a pity that the Labour Party is wasting the House’s time, but it is a wonderful thing that it is wasting its own time because if it got serious again, it might actually do some real damage.

I support this bill wholeheartedly. Thank you very much.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Well, that was 10 minutes of my life I will never get back again. Good grief! Talk about wasting the time of Parliament. What an example that member has set for us all.

I want to, first of all, commend Chris Hipkins, and I do it with the greatest respect to Adrian Rurawhe, but this was his idea. Chris Hipkins put this bill in as his member’s bill some time ago, and, actually, you can link the time of his lodging of this bill as a member’s bill with the commencement of the release of information from Mr Seymour’s office. There is a direct parallel, and it does not take anyone too much time to figure out what the relationship is. Adrian Rurawhe then took over that bill, and, with the luck that a number of members have had, it was suddenly drawn. I think there is more chance of winning Lotto, actually, than there is of getting your member’s bill drawn from the ballot, although I have recently had success in that area as well.

Adrian Rurawhe then brought the bill to the Government Administration Committee, which gave it a lot of good consideration. I want to commend the other members of that committee, including the then deputy chair—Sarah Dowie, who was ripped from our committee and taken somewhere else, and replaced very well by Paul Foster-Bell—Mark Mitchell, and Brett Hudson. Adrian Rurawhe himself was on that committee, and, again, he was ripped away from us to go on to another committee. He was replaced by Kris Faafoi—again, very well. Mojo Mathers is the Green Party member on our committee.

As has been mentioned, we had only five submissions on this bill, but when one of them is from the Law Commission and another one is from the New Zealand Law Society, you tend to think that you are getting some quality advice. They certainly supported the bill. They went to quite a lot of effort to explain to us why they thought it was constitutionally appropriate, and I think that was a concern that some members of the committee had at the outset. I do not know whether it has dawned on the member David Seymour, who resumed his seat just prior to me taking a call, but, actually, this is not about him. The whole world does not revolve around the current MP for Epsom, and thank goodness for that. This bill is about having openness and transparency in Government.

There have previously been parliamentary under-secretaries, and I think there will be others in the future—

David Seymour: Why didn’t Labour change the law then?

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is a very good question—a very good question. If you had used your time more wisely, Mr Seymour, you may well have asked it during your speech, but you did not, so you have missed out. You will have to wait for the Committee stage.

This bill is about openness and transparency. I do not imagine that many members of the House would argue against that. I think that in New Zealand we pride ourselves on having that sort of accountability, of being open and transparent. Certainly, the National members of our committee, who originally did not support the bill, were persuaded by the weight of the submissions, I am sure. At least the National whip has got the honesty to laugh about that. It is often a concern of mine, actually, that the select committees have lost the independence that they used to have. They used to be much more independent and less beholden to the Minister, but that is not the case any more, and I think our Parliament is the worse off for it.

So the purpose of this bill is not about Mr Seymour; it is about any parliamentary under-secretary, to make sure that they can have the same accountability as other Ministers do. As I said, in the view of the Law Society and the Law Commission, that is consistent with the intention of the Official Information Act requests. I do not know what happened in the process of our deliberation up to this point where the bill has come to the second reading with just one minor amendment, but I am very pleased that not only is the National Party able to give the bill its support but the member who described the bill as being particularly silly and a waste of time is now going to put his name on the public record in support of it. I think that is a very good thing.

There should not be any accountability that as members of Parliament we are afraid of. We understand the propriety of protecting our constituents’ private business—of ensuring that when people come to us for help that they do that entirely confident that their details would never be released. That is not the purpose of legislation such as this. This bill is to ensure that when decisions are made against which a lot of taxpayers’ money is attached, the public have the right to scrutinise them, often triggered by a member of Parliament.

I think this is a very good step forward. It is a real celebration tonight that this is the second Labour bill in a row that is getting a lot of support across the House. It is not often in recent years that we have had that, but I look forward to it continuing for many years to come. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): The Government members on this side will be supporting the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure to take a call in the second reading debate. Can I congratulate the member Adrian Rurawhe. Having the good fortune to get a bill drawn from the ballot is one thing, but can I also observe the careful and, I think, very practical and pragmatic way he has approached this.

I have come into the process only part-way through, having joined the Government Administration Committee, which is ably chaired by Ms Dyson. I joined the committee only halfway through the process of considering this bill, but I have to congratulate the member on the positive approach he has taken, even though initially we did disagree on whether this bill was necessary and also on some of the substantive points that it raises. We still have some concerns as to the necessity for it, and I think that has actually been well illustrated by our colleague Mr Seymour and his tabling of the Official Information Act (OIA) requests that he has already dealt with using the existing system, which makes parliamentary under-secretaries “OIA-able” via the Ministers from whom they hold their delegations in their relevant portfolio areas. I think that point has been well illustrated.

I still have a few lingering concerns, particularly around the constitutional issue that is raised when you talk about deeming a parliamentary under-secretary of State to be, for the purposes of the OIA, a Minister. The Cabinet Manual is quite clear. We did hear a wide range of advice on this, not only from the Law Commission President, Sir Grant Hammond, in a personal capacity but also from departmental advisers. The constitutional implications of deeming an under-secretary to be a Minister are of concern to me and, I think, to other members. It is very clear in the Cabinet Manual that they are not, and were never intended to be, a Minister.

They certainly do not enjoy any of the other support, I suppose, that Ministers get. A parliamentary under-secretary, for instance, does not have access to the VIP Transport Service, the Crown limos that have already been referenced in this debate.

Hon Judith Collins: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Unlike, as Minister Collins points out, the Leader of the Opposition. But also I think the argument that this presents a potential slippery slope is a valid one, and it is one that we had to mull over at some length. If one does make a parliamentary under-secretary who was never intended to be subject to the OIA—and we actually sought advice on this. Historical research was conducted by the Ministry of Justice advisers, and they were not able to find any suggestion whatsoever that it was originally intended to apply to parliamentary under-secretaries. This may well have been a very conscious decision made by the forward-thinking—I think—drafters of the Official Information Act 1982, which, it should be observed, was one of the world’s first freedom of information pieces of legislation. It was promulgated under Robert Muldoon’s Government, and that was roughly at the same time as the Australians went through theirs but was a good 18 years ahead of the British example of bringing in their Freedom of Information Act, which did not happen until the time of the Tony Blair Labour Government.

The OIA drafters, when they originally put this together, did not intend it to apply to parliamentary under-secretaries, so this is not an omission that has been corrected. It was specifically provided for that parliamentary under-secretaries could be subject to the Official Information Act via the delegating Minister. Therefore, there is a concern that this does present somewhat of a slippery slope. If we can add in parliamentary under-secretaries, what about parliamentary private secretaries? They are certainly not members of the executive. They carry out some very useful responsibilities on behalf of their delegating Minister. They may represent the Minister at functions, for instance. They may give speeches on behalf of the Minister. Will that be the next step? Will we make parliamentary private secretaries subject to the Official Information Act?

David Seymour: Why not?

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I know that Mr Seymour, I presume facetiously, is mooting that as a possibility. We actually take quite seriously on this side of the House the protection that is provided to members of Parliament when they go about their work and not being able to be subject to the OIA on, for instance, which constituents they may have met and when and what briefing they may have sought from other agencies to enable them to undertake work on behalf of constituents.

The privacy of a constituent is very, very important. They may not raise a sensitive issue if they are having a conflict with, perhaps, a Government department, or a local council, as we often get here in Wellington under the current mayor, at least. That may well change, hopefully, later in the year when we have our local body elections. I see a number of complaints about our local body here. Would a constituent feel comfortable raising those with a member of Parliament if they felt that it may be subject to the OIA and either used as a political point, a debating point, by the Opposition, or aired through the media using our OIA mechanism? Of course they would not.

Similarly, we have dealings with businesses. I assist a number of businesses with issues ranging from visa applications to, again, dealing with the local council, and for reasons of commercial sensitivity, not only with their competitors—but also these might be issues that are private to that company and it simply may not want them aired. So for these reasons I think the slippery slope concern is a very valid one, and I would be concerned, as I think other members on this side of the House would be, should we start adding other categories to the OIA that were certainly never suggested and were not the intention of the original drafters.

I believe that public confidence in government decision-making is very important. It is a wonderful thing that we have an environment in New Zealand where the public can access the full gamut of official information, having been on the other side of this picture as an official wielding the black pen and deleting withheld information—redacting information from an Official Information Act request for reasons of national security, protecting our economic interests, saving our friends and allies from embarrassment, perhaps protecting personal information, or it may well have been legal advice that was legally privileged. For all assorted reasons of good governance and the protection of the privacy of individual citizens, there are grounds for withholding information. Also, I think that the wider picture that we need to take into account is to whom the OIA applies and why that should be the case.

I think we will be joining Mr Seymour and voting for this bill to see it get through to the Committee stage. It will be very interesting to see what amendments members may have to table on this. But, you know, we do take it very seriously.

There was a discussion with the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Cabinet Office because there are wider constitutional issues at stake. The interesting thing was that we were advised that this approach was utterly consistent with the one taken by a former Prime Minister—Helen Clark, actually—following the 2002 election when she appointed two parliamentary under-secretaries, double trouble, whereas currently under this Government, there is only one parliamentary under-secretary of State.

I thought we were actually taking a very reasoned approach. It was consistent with the approach taken by Helen Clark, who, hopefully, is the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, and was a former Labour Prime Minister back in the day when the Labour Party held Government and was able to present a generally more coherent political argument, I think. So we are taking a consistent approach.

Having said that, we will see this through because this is a Government that believes strongly in transparency, in good Government, and in those elements of governance that allow the public to scrutinise and hold us to account. On this side of the House we have got absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. I am sure that should OIA requests flow into Mr Seymour’s office, there will be absolutely nothing of any concern to any member of the public, although there may be a significant amount of officials’ time devoted to servicing those requests. Let us bear in mind that there will be a compliance cost to this piece of legislation. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I am pleased to take a call in support of the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill, and I am very pleased that the Government members have changed the position that they had on the first reading and are now supporting the bill. It looks as if unanimity has broken out in the House. We in the Green Party are supporting this bill because citizens need to be able to trust the Government they elect. The Official Information Act is a critical check on the powers of the executive and how Ministers, Associate Ministers, and—when this bill passes—parliamentary under-secretaries exercise the powers that Parliament has given them under the law.

The Official Information Act, when it was passed in 1982, was a landmark piece of legislation because it was going against the prevailing ethos of the time, which was about official secrets. Its major purpose is to progressively increase the availability of official information so that the people of New Zealand can participate more effectively in both the making of law and policy, and the administration of that law and policy. It also promotes the accountability of Ministers and officials. So it was really surprising in the first reading that Government members were opposing Adrian Rurawhe’s bill with the extension to parliamentary under-secretaries.

We have seen in the submissions that the Government Administration Committee received universal support for the bill. As the Law Commission said in its submission: “The principle at stake is simple: Parliamentary Under-Secretaries perform a role that would otherwise be performed by a Minister of the Crown, and should therefore be subject to the same obligations of open and transparent government as Ministers, established under the [Official Information Act].”

Parliamentary under-secretaries are members of the executive, although some disputed that in the first reading. Their appointment is authorised by the Constitution Act and they can exercise the powers and functions that Ministers delegate to them, subject to certain constraints. The Cabinet Manual recognises that they are part of the executive and are bound by the principle of collective responsibility in the same way that other members of the executive are.

Mr Foster-Bell said that the National Government believed in having transparent and open Government, and I would agree with my colleague Denis O’Rourke that you could have fooled us. We hope that National’s change of heart on this bill will also lead to a change of heart in how it actually applies the Official Information Act, because we have seen under that Act major delays in the release of information by Ministers, large redactions, and a huge increase in complaints to the Office of the Ombudsmen in terms of requests to investigate the failure to release information and in terms of the delays. In 2014-15 the Office of the Ombudsmen received more than 12,000 complaints, and that was the second highest in its 33-year history. There were over 6,000 complaints in the first 6 months of 2015-16. So we would like to see that same change that Government members have taken on the bill then applied to the actual application of the Act.

This is only a small step to increasing the accountability of the executive, and the hallmark of this Government has actually been to significantly increase the powers of Ministers. It has given Ministers much greater power to override local democracy. In the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill it can tell councils what provisions can be included in their plans, and what cannot, and it can potentially pull provisions from those plans. These are things that former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has called a constitutional outrage.

We have seen under this Government regional democracy not restored in Canterbury, and the health board in Otago and Southland still has Minister-appointed commissioners, so this Government has increased ministerial power rather than reduced it. This bill is a tiny step to actually making the powers of the executive slightly more accountable and more transparent. We congratulate the member on his bill and the Government Administration Committee on its consideration of the bill and the major effort it has made in ensuring that submitters were able to persuade Government members to change their stance on the bill.

But I would say that I look forward to the presiding officer ruling out of scope a number of the amendments that Mr Seymour is planning to bring in relation to ridiculous things such as bringing the parliamentary press gallery within the scope of the bill. It highlights ACT’s lack of understanding of how our constitution works and how the Official Information Act works. Thank you.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my pleasure to take a call on this, the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the chair and the other members of the Government Administration Committee who worked on this bill.

National voted against the bill—we did vote against the bill at the first reading—because we felt that there is an important distinction that is drawn between the executive, which is subject to the Official Information Act (OIA), and Parliament, which is not. I will come back to that point a little later in my speech.

The work of the parliamentary under-secretaries can be sought through the Minister they are responsible to. Having gone through the select committee process, however, which was thorough, and after hearing the submissions, it was apparent to us that the public would like more accountability and transparency around the parliamentary under-secretaries in Government, and we felt that this bill did achieve that. Therefore, we decided that we would support the bill.

I did want to address one comment that was made by the chair of the committee, and it was directed at David Seymour. I know that in the first reading I referred to this bill as the “Pick on David Seymour Bill” because I felt that it was politically motivated and that it was directed at a member of Parliament and the leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour. But tonight we have been told by the Opposition that this is not the case—that it is not about David; it is about parliamentary under-secretaries.

There are two things that I want to raise that would contradict that. The first is the statement made by the member sponsoring the bill, Adrian Rurawhe, and I want to acknowledge the member, who is in the House tonight. This is what he said: “My bill is a direct challenge to the anomaly in how parliamentary under-secretaries are treated with respect to the OIA. Parliamentary under-secretaries exercise delegated authority from ministers in specific policy areas, but they are not subject to the Official Information Act 1982. There is no reason for this to be the case. Under-secretaries are undertaking work as part of the executive branch of Government and they must be accountable to the public in the same manner as the rest of the executive.”

That statement I accept and I support 100 percent, and if it had been left there, then I could also accept the argument that this was not directed at David Seymour or even at a policy that he has been the sponsor of—that is, our charter schools. That is a policy that the Opposition and Labour are against. But the member sponsoring this bill went on to say this—and I know that Mr Cunliffe is speaking after me and maybe he can address this for us. The member went on to say: “After the last election, ACT Party leader David Seymour was appointed an under-secretary to the Minister of Education with responsibilities for charter schools.” So now he has introduced David Seymour into the debate. Now he has introduced the charter schools policy into the debate, which would be in direct contradiction to what the select committee chair just got up and said—that it was not about David Seymour.

The member went on to say: “He is also the under-secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform. Charter schools were excluded from the OIA when they were set up, an arrangement the Chief Ombudsman said may be unconstitutional.”—that is fair enough, raising that point; I accept that—“It is therefore vitally important that those with oversight responsibility for these schools, such as Mr Seymour, are subject to proper democratic accountability. National and David Seymour may claim that they have already accounted for this with respect to Mr Seymour’s delegated responsibilities; if so, why do they have such a problem supporting a bill that seeks to correct the anomaly in legislation?”

The point that I would make is that although we have decided to support the bill, I still feel strongly that this was a bill that was directed at David Seymour and that it was directed at the charter schools policy, which, as we have seen, has actually been very successful. I would invite the speaker from the Labour Party who is following me, Mr Cunliffe—

Carmel Sepuloni: He’s not following you, Mark.

MARK MITCHELL: Well—

Hon David Cunliffe: I’ve never followed you, Mark. I’ve never been able to follow you.

MARK MITCHELL: That is true. That is very true, David, but you did seem very excited and very interested in this debate, so maybe you will get the chance—I would have liked to have heard you on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). That would have been interesting, your position on the TPP, because we thought you might have been a free trader. Maybe I got that wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: However, we are not talking about that just now.

MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The other thing that I wanted to mention about this bill is that I want to come back to the first point that I made around the distinction between the executive and Parliament, because most of us in this House pride ourselves on the fact that our primary role, or one of our primary roles, is serving the communities that elect us to represent them. A big part of that is that all of us will sit down and we will have a constituent clinic where a constituent is able to come into our office and they often share personal information, and we are often the last port of call in terms of being able to help them to remove some of the stress that they are under. It is really important that they are able to come in with confidence and know that the sensitive and personal information that they share with us is protected and is going to be treated confidentially.

One thing that I did speak about in my first reading speech, and I did use a military term—and certainly our New Zealand Defence Force people would have known what I was talking about when I said “mission creep”. Effectively, what that means is that you start off with one idea and then gradually it starts to change and transform. I think the danger around this bill, to a certain extent, is that now that it is before the House—and I think the leader of the ACT Party alluded to this—where do we start and where do we stop? Maybe we could see some Supplementary Order Papers come in asking, or at least challenging, as to why, say, the leaders of Opposition parties are not also subjected to the same level of transparency. Government should be, without a doubt, and we accept that, and I am proud of the fact that this Government is extremely transparent and continues to move and look for ways to be even more transparent. There is one thing that is very, very true in politics, and it is that the thing that will get you is the attempt to make a cover up on something. The minute that happens—

Richard Prosser: Transparency and lack of opacity aren’t the same things.

MARK MITCHELL: I hear New Zealand First members laughing. I do not know whether they have got experience of that, but they seem to be supporting the comment.

Anyway, I am very happy and very pleased to have been able to take a call on this, the second reading, and I just highlight the fact that we in the National Party will be supporting the bill. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supported this bill at the first reading to go to the Government Administration Committee because it seemed to us to be a pretty common-sense sort of a bill—that parliamentary under-secretaries should be subject to Official Information Act (OIA) requests for information in the same way that Ministers are.

At that time, of course, David Seymour opposed the bill, and we in New Zealand First were pretty comforted by that because, of course, he always gets things wrong, so by supporting it we thought we must be getting it right. He said the bill was “inconsequential in every practical sense” given that his decisions as Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Education responsible for charter schools and as Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform would be copied to the Minister, and so an OIA request would better discover those decisions direct from the Minister and not from him. That was his reasoning.

But, strangely, he also said that the Official Information Act was there to “keep tabs on what the executive was [doing]” and that this bill means that “We’ve now abandoned that principle”, apparently because he does not see that a parliamentary under-secretary is part of executive Government. Well, hello? If he does not understand that he has joined the Government in an executive position, then there can be little hope that he will actually do anything useful in that position either, and, therefore, there could be no useful official information he would possess that could then be obtainable under the Official Information Act.

He also said: “All [the bill] does is attempt to attack me, and while I am a little bit flattered, I cannot support the bill.” In fact, he has been more flattened by the bill than flattered by it because he also said that the bill was “silly”. Yet he now announces that he will support this “silly” bill, so what does that make him? The answer, I think, is self-evident by self-definition.

But this has led to a rethink by New Zealand First, because if Mr Seymour now supports the bill, we are worried about our initial support for it. After thinking it through, we can no longer support the bill, and we now feel strongly that we must oppose it.

There are two good reasons for that. The first one is that the bill is actually completely unnecessary, and the appointment of a wet behind the ears, first-term MP as a parliamentary under-secretary actually shows that. He is not even well-named as Mr Seymour for the position when he clearly sees less than most, as far as his responsibilities are concerned. So what possible use could he be in regulatory reform, which he clearly has got no actual experience of whatsoever, and what possible use could he be supervising the obviously failed charter school programme? Therefore, what possible useful information could be obtainable from him on any of these areas that cannot be got from actually reliable sources?

In fact, I am unreliably informed that an OIA request already made of him for all information in his diary concerning his duties performed so far was returned with this result. Yes, it is a blank sheet of paper, and that is about as useful as information from Mr Seymour could ever be.

Secondly, there would be many other problems in getting useful information from Mr Seymour because even if he did have any useful information, which we doubt, it is very unlikely that such an inexperienced parliamentary under-secretary would understand it enough to make any worthwhile comment on it. Then there is a question of how long getting the information would take—possibly as long as it would take to get the Parliamentary Library to get the answer for him because he would not know what the answer would be. That, of course, actually makes him redundant, and it would clearly be much better to go to a reliable source to get the information one might want on the subject that Mr Seymour is the parliamentary under-secretary in respect of.

In fact, the only thing I can see that Mr Seymour and ACT have achieved so far is the disappearance of the last red telephone boxes in New Zealand’s streets. Many think that that was because of increased mobile telephone use, but the truth is that the primary use of telephone boxes was to provide accommodation for ACT Party meetings. But with ACT parliamentary representation now provided by Mr Seymour, even that requirement has now dwindled to zero.

Finally, what the bill does do is it redefines the term “Minister of the Crown” to include parliamentary under-secretaries. We in New Zealand First cannot actually bear the thought of having David Seymour as a genuine Minister of the Crown. Clearly the crowd he once met with in telephone boxes around the country does not think so either, because it does not do that any more. So for that reason, amongst all the others, New Zealand First can no longer vote for a bill doomed by what it cannot possibly achieve, which is obtaining useful official information from Parliamentary Under-Secretary Seymour.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member could not have been more eloquent if he had read his speech.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill. One of the things we hear quite often as first-term MPs is the value of the select committee process: an opportunity to reflect, to listen to submissions, to reconsider one’s position, and just occasionally—just occasionally—to change it. This is the position we find ourselves on this side in, in this, the second reading of this bill.

We had grave concerns at the introduction of this bill that it was not necessarily actually going to meet the objectives set out, but particularly that it would blur some constitutional distinctions, some roles within Parliament, and that it could be a slippery slope to other things. But hearing the submissions and the advice from officials, and discussing it as members of the Government Administration Committee, I think we all reached a position that the interests of transparency of this Government, in this instance at least, trump the potential—because it is by no means absolutely certain—that by permitting this bill to pass we will destroy the constitutional separations between roles. So the interests of serving transparency in Government and transparency to the public would outweigh the potential that we could in some way blur those distinctions.

The distinctions are real. It has been mentioned by several speakers this evening that in the first reading of this bill a number of members in this House made incorrect references to “the executive”, and I will put my hand up. On review of the Hansard I am one of those. But there is a very, very clear distinction. In fact, two members tonight, one from the Greens and one from New Zealand First, failed to acknowledge that and possibly failed to understand that. In the executive there exists the executive and there exists the Executive Council. The Executive Council is the group that advises the Governor-General. It is the Executive Council that has the Governor-General execute Orders in Council—those actions of government outside of the Acts that Parliament passes. All Ministers are members of the Executive Council. They are also members of the executive. The only members of the executive who are not members of the Executive Council are parliamentary under-secretaries. This distinction has existed in this country since at least the early 1980s.

Among the submitters who appeared before the committee was the Law Commission, represented by the Hon Justice Sir Grant Hammond. Many of them, and particularly that submission, made the point that they felt that including the parliamentary under-secretaries was within the spirit of the Official Information Act (OIA) and that it would provide that level of accountability and insight over the actions of the executive. They also pointed out, actually, that members in this House had made that incorrect distinction in the first reading. They had talked about parliamentary under-secretaries not being members of the executive, when they are, but they are not members of the Executive Council. What we should have said, myself included, in the first reading was that the distinction was the Executive Council, not the executive.

What they had not considered, when they did look at saying “Well, actually this fits within the spirit of the OIA.”, was why Parliament had originally made that distinction and what Parliament had intended, and what members of Parliament had spoken about in terms of that distinction between being a member of the Executive Council, a Minister, and therefore very clearly, because of the language of the Official Information Act, subject to it—what the distinction is between that group and members of the executive who are not members of the Executive Council and who have never been, up until perhaps the third reading of this bill, subject to the Official Information Act.

Another thing that I think we would all agree on is that Parliament does things for a purpose and also, under consideration, when it does not do things it does not do those things for a purpose. So I asked officials to look back at the Hansard and at various public commentaries around the time, not only on the passing of the Official Information Act but also in the years subsequent to it in the 1980s, because the parliamentary under-secretary role was well used in that period, particularly in the period of the Lange Government. In fact, two members of this Parliament, the Hon Annette King and the Hon Peter Dunne, were both parliamentary under-secretaries in the 1980s, and therefore neither of them were subject to the Official Information Act in the discharge of those roles. Interestingly, wind the clock a few years forward and now both of them are going to be in favour of the role that they once held now being subject to an Act that it was not subject to when they held those roles.

So I asked them to have a look at the record of Hansard and other public commentaries to say what comment has ever come out in that period that gave some measure that Parliament thought: “Oops, we’ve made a mistake. We have these parliamentary under-secretaries. They are not captured by this Act. Oops, perhaps we should either change it or at least reflect on the fact that what we have done doesn’t include them.” They found the sum total of zero utterances to show any sign at all that in the parliaments in the 1980s—including the Parliament that actually created the Act, but also subsequent parliaments as well—members of Parliament considered that somehow they had got it wrong. Somehow this Act passed that was to give greater transparency and insight into what the Government was doing and share that with the public, and there was no sign at all that those parliaments thought that they had got it wrong.

From that we can deduce, quite simply, that the Official Information Act was never intended to apply to members outside the Executive Council. It was never the spirit of the Act to include parliamentary under-secretaries. So we now find ourselves in a position where we are considering doing that, but I think it is important in the reflection on it that we actually look at what we are really doing here. What we are looking to do is not to say that it has ever been in the spirit of the Official Information Act to include parliamentary under-secretaries; what we are saying is that with the desire of the public and in the interests of transparency today, we are choosing to evolve the Act and its intent and its scope of coverage beyond what had been intended up to this point. So we can do so in the knowledge that we are evolving a piece of legislation and we are providing greater transparency to the public.

We will include people like David Seymour within the ambit of questions under the OIA. That will give greater and more ample opportunity for the public to seek answers—answers that we hold, quite frankly, could be sought anyway, because, as has been covered again, parliamentary under-secretaries receive their delegations from Ministers and they are responsible to those Ministers for the discharge of their duties. We did ask during the course of hearing submissions whether, semantically, you could say that because the Minister does not hold the information, they can answer that they do not have it and cannot answer it. A question I asked the officials was: “Well, OK, are there any grounds on which the parliamentary under-secretary could refuse to give it to the Minister if the Minister asked because they have had an OIA request?”. The answer to that is, very clearly, no. So the point that had been made in both the first reading and even tonight that the information could still be sought through the responsible Minister is indeed the case, but we are going to take a principled position tonight and through the remaining readings of this bill.

In the interests of transparency, we could continue to argue the point that there is a distinction between not only the Executive Council and the executive but the executive and Parliament. To include parliamentary under-secretaries just helps to blur the distinctions under our constitution sufficiently that we could find ourselves in a short period of time or a few years starting to have these things apply to other roles outside the executive, as well as the Executive Council. But, in the interests of serving democracy and serving transparency today, and doing so in a manner that is quick and easy, we have sought to support the officials’ advice that we simply redefine what a Minister includes under Mr Rurawhe’s bill. That will mean that a parliamentary under-secretary of this Parliament and any others will be captured. The Official Information Act will, therefore, then apply to that role. The public can feel secure that we are taking steps as a Parliament to give that greater transparency, and we will be supporting this bill from this point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party—Chris Hipkins.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): This is quite possibly, and quite probably, the least transparent Government that New Zealand has had since the passage of the Official Information Act in the early 1980s. It does not comply with that legislation, it treats parliamentary questions and processes with contempt—regularly avoiding answering parliamentary questions at all—and it is no wonder that New Zealanders do not have much trust in the mechanisms of Government any more when the current Government pays so little heed to them. This piece of legislation is a very welcome development, and I congratulate my colleague Adrian Rurawhe on bringing this bill to the House.

Brett Hudson, the previous speaker, asked what has changed in the last few years, from when we previously had parliamentary under-secretaries to now. Well, what has changed is that the Government has placed a parliamentary under-secretary in charge of a policy area where it has exempted the organisations receiving large sums of Government money from the Official Information Act. So the charter schools that David Seymour is responsible for the oversight of in his role as parliamentary under-secretary do not have to comply with the Official Information Act. That is what has changed. This is the only time in the history of the parliamentary under-secretary role that it has been placed in charge of a policy area that is exempt from the Official Information Act—so that is what has changed, that is why this legislation is necessary, and that is why I think it is great that this bill is going through the House.

Under the law as it exists today, partnership schools, or charter schools—whatever you wish to call them—can communicate with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Education, David Seymour, and none of those communications is covered by the Official Information Act, because they are not communicating with the ministry, nor are they communicating with the Minister. Therefore, those communications are not covered. But they are communicating with the Government, because the person in the Government who has that role is a parliamentary under-secretary. So it does create an anomaly that means that information about how significant amounts of Government money are being spent is being withheld from the public. This bill gets around that, and it means that those communications will be covered by the Official Information Act, and that is nothing to be afraid of unless the parliamentary under-secretary has something to be embarrassed about in those communications. And I certainly hope he does not, because, after all, the Government has said that the organisations in question—the charter schools—are supposed to be more transparent and more accountable than any others within the education system, and yet, under the current law, that is not the case.

This bill here does not overturn the exemption from the Official Information Act that partnership schools, or charter schools, currently enjoy. I think that is a bill that Parliament maybe should consider in the future. In fact, I would go much wider and consider that many, many entities that receive millions of dollars in Government subsidies should be subject to the Official Information Act, because one of the big things that is eroding the coverage of the Official Information Act at the moment is the constant contracting out of Government services, including everything from policy development right the way down to service delivery. It is being contracted out to businesses, and those businesses that are receiving Government funding to do the core business of Government are not subject to the Official Information Act. I think that is something that Parliament should address at some future point, because I think that that circumvents the original intention of the Official Information Act, which is that citizens should have the ability to scrutinise the actions of their executive. They should have the ability to scrutinise where public money is being spent, and, at the moment, many, many things since the passage of the Official Information Act in 1981 have certainly limited the ability of citizens to do that.

So this is one small step, but it is a very welcome one because it means that a member of the Government who, at the moment, can operate completely in secret is being brought to account in the same way that the rest of the Government is. I am glad that the National Party and the Act Party have finally seen the light and have seen that, actually, a little bit more transparency would be a welcome thing. I hope they embrace that spirit much more widely and start actually living up to their responsibilities to operate in a much more transparent manner. They are not above the law, they are not above scrutiny, and they should start acting a lot more like that so that the New Zealand public can judge them on their record and not judge them based on how much information they are hiding from the public, which seems to be the modus operandi of this current Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Māori Party—Marama Fox.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I was watching from the comfort of my spacious office—which I am happy for anybody to make an Official Information Act (OIA) request to come and have a look at—when the lovely, young Mr Seymour stood to deliver his speech. I thought: “This is great. What frivolity and jest is going on here in the House tonight! I must come down and take part in this.” I was tempted, of course, to join in the David Seymour roast and throw out a number of instances of why we would not want to make an OIA request about the inner thinking of what is the ACT Party. I was tempted, of course, to jump on the bandwagon of the “mock David Seymour” competition that seems to be going on in the House, until I sat and listened to that. I thought: “Well, hold on now, I am almost tempted to back the young man up.”

Let us have a look—why would we support this legislation? Well, as with all other pieces of legislation, we put it against the values of the party. No. 1: manaakitanga—the act of upholding someone’s mana. So why would we want to see what a parliamentary under-secretary is doing? Well, to ensure that, in the carrying out of his duties, he is continuing to uphold the mana of not just himself, the party and Parliament but also the people whom he represents.

No. 2: kaitiakitanga—the caring for. He is responsible for caring for the education of the students in charter schools—something that we have supported because, actually, when you look around the education system, though it is on the improve, a number of Māori and Pasifika students have not been well cared for in our education system. Again, I would like to see what is going on in our charter schools to ensure that we could make sure those students were being cared for.

And No. 3: rangatiratanga—rangatiratanga, or self-determination; the right for Māori, non-Māori, and anyone else on the whenua to assert their own pathways to success. Here is a model of education that many Māori organisations, iwi, and trusts across the country have decided is the option for them in their schooling choices—asserting their rangatiratanga.

And again, I think: “OK, we can support this piece of legislation to ensure that we can see and understand that those values are being upheld.” And then I think back to the lovely Mr Seymour’s speech. I think he has had OIA requests made of him already. He does not have to respond, but he has out of the goodness of his own heart. He has already provided the information requested, despite this legislation having not gone through. And then the lovely Mr Seymour has decided, again out of the goodness—[Interruption] yes, he is lovely sometimes—of his heart to proactively provide the information to the House and to the public, for the public good, so that people know what is going on.

So I ask myself: is the legislation actually needed? If I think about the proactive examples that the lovely Mr Seymour has provided to us tonight, I would think: “No, actually, we do not need it.” But that means that any parliamentary under-secretary, now and into the future, is going to need to be as lovely as the young Mr Seymour. I only need to look around the House at all the people who want to take a swipe at him, and I think I am not sure that that is the case of all of us here, though we would like it to be. I cannot be sure that that would be the case into our future.

In fact, for Māori, we would like to see these things written into legislation, because sometimes the Minister is great and, in their goodwill and good faith, they will work proactively with Māori for Treaty settlements and such, but at other times it just depends on how they feel on the day. So I am going to go with legislation over good luck and the ad hoc, and we are happy to support this legislation. Kia ora.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take a call on the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill in its second reading.

I want to acknowledge the member Adrian Rurawhe for his work in bringing this to the House. I think it was noted earlier by another member that getting one’s member’s bill drawn is quite something in and of itself. To have it then actually begin to progress through the House, particularly past its first reading, is of note as well. Can I thank the Government Administration Committee for its work on this. I do so for two reasons: first and foremost, I do not actually sit on the committee, but I have found the work that its members have done and the discussions that have been generated through that very helpful in being able to inform my own view. And I think a number of those members have spoken tonight and have discussed how, via the select committee process and, particularly, through listening to the submissions, they have changed their minds somewhat.

I am happy to go on record that I am uncomfortable with this bill. I am comfortable enough to, along with the party, vote for it tonight at this second reading, but I will elucidate the reasons for my discomfort a little bit more. I think, first and foremost, we have to understand the role of a parliamentary under-secretary. It has been part of the Westminster System for a while. It is explicitly acknowledged and written up in our Cabinet Manual—sorry, it is in the Cabinet Manual, but it is also within the Constitution Act 1986—and, without belabouring the point for the House, section 8 of that Act makes it very clear that the Governor-General can appoint a parliamentary under-secretary with the advice of the Prime Minister.

I think this becomes quite important because there has been a lot of discussion tonight around the constitutional manifestation, shall we say, of a parliamentary under-secretary. Are they part of the executive? Well, as I would understand it, yes, in so far as they hold a delegation from a Minister. But, vitally important—vitally important—is that a parliamentary under-secretary is not part of the Executive Council.

I need to draw that out a little bit, and my colleague Brett Hudson had done so a little bit earlier. The parliamentary under-secretary that is a power authority is, ultimately, as I said, delegated from a Minister. It is the Minister in some ways—if I wanted to put it in very simple terms—giving part of their responsibility over, in this case, to another member of Parliament. That is quite distinctly different, though, from sitting on the Executive Council. A parliamentary under-secretary does not sit on the council, and the council in turn is that body of MPs who have become Ministers of the Crown who advise the Governor-General. I am not going to bore the House—primarily because most of them have sat on the committee—as to why that is constitutionally important, but it does begin to raise questions about why this bill is ultimately necessary. I might leave that point there for now.

The second point—

Paul Foster-Bell: Very good point.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Look, I think it is a good point, again, on the constitutional reality. It will come back to the whole mission creep that Mark Mitchell talked about, but I just think it is important to note that the OIA, the Official Information Act, has been specifically directed at Ministers, and primarily—if not actually up until this bill—exclusively to those who sit on the Executive Council, in order, rightly and properly, that the executive can be held to account. Granted—I must say as an aside—that there is part of me that often wonders just how effective the OIA is. Granted, I have not sat in Opposition yet, so I will defer my thoughts somewhat. But I do see the enormous amount of work and effort that goes into generating paperwork; I am not really sure at times how useful that is, and in some other ways just how much time, effort, and money is spent, particularly by civil servants, generating this. But, as I said, I reserve my judgment: I have not applied it completely and fully.

Importantly as well, as the member for Epsom, David Seymour, was indicating tonight—and we do understand this—his work as a parliamentary under-secretary is already, in effect, covered by the OIA. We know this for two reasons: the first reason is that it is actually very clear that any person is able to approach the Minister who has handed over that delegation to a parliamentary under-secretary and ask for the relevant information. I think that makes absolute perfect sense. Again, you do not want Ministers beholden to the OIA, handing over responsibilities to a parliamentary under-secretary—or anyone, for that matter—in order to escape the purposes of the OIA. We can see that you can already seek this information, so you begin to wonder what the point of this bill is—it is somewhat redundant. The second reason came through very clearly, and by the great illustration, shall we say, by David Seymour when he gave his presentation of just how much paperwork he was already providing. There is nothing that is being hidden here currently, and I think that is important to stress.

The other element, and it is little bit theoretical—I am no lawyer and I am a little bit nervous to raise this with lawyers in the Chamber—is that one of the basic precepts of the law that I have understood over time is that it should never really be designed to address a particular individual. Instead, laws should be designed to address particular behaviours, and most of the time that is what we do in our laws. I am sure an argument can be constructed that this bill is aiming at a behaviour—and we have heard a lot about open and transparent Government—but I cannot help but feel, and I think it is evidenced rather strongly, that this is a bill whose genesis has come about to target a particular member. Others have referenced previous debate points where it has been noted strongly that it has been focused on David Seymour—in fact, even the previous speaker, Marama Fox, alluded to it—and that is a concern.

We have had it too, even with Chris Hipkins, who spoke around—slightly more eloquently, I have to say, or with a rather refreshed angle about—the whole “we want to get more information on partnership schools, and we haven’t been able to do that directly so we’ve got to go through a person.” It is, I think, a slightly cleverer argument, but one that still does not stack up. This is not the appropriate way to try to seek information on an entity.

Chris Hipkins: Through the OIA.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No, it is not about going through the OIA. But the whole idea that “we couldn’t go directly to the organisation, or we weren’t happy with dealing with the Minister, so now we have to target an individual”, I do not think is all that helpful.

Chris Hipkins: Who is acting on behalf of the Minister.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Exactly. Of course, you can already go to the Minister, too, and receive that information—which I think completely highlights the point that this has become a bill focused on the individual rather than a particular behaviour, and, therefore, is breaking a pretty basic precept of law. Again, for those legally interested, the whole bills of attainders years ago were a good illustration of just how these things were misused. It also came up in one of the talks that if an entity gets Government money, then it should, somehow, automatically be a focus of the OIA. Having worked in the likes of the Ministry of Social Development and so forth, where a number of NGOs and groups, charities and otherwise, get Government money, I am not quite sure we want to go in that direction.

I think that brings me—conscious of the bell, Mr Assistant Speaker—to that whole slippery slope and mission creep. We have breached a constitutional line here; it has been very clear to date. We have breached a line here. [Interruption] Yes, that is right. We have breached a line, and I do wonder where it ends.

I actually hope that the Supplementary Order Papers that David Seymour has proposed are discussed—not that I necessarily think they should go through—but I think they do begin to illustrate the point that if the OIA is just about open and transparent behaviour, if it is about people of influence, then it actually applies to just about everyone. Why should it not apply to the Leader of the Opposition? Why should it not apply to MPs? I do have concerns, when I think how, in recent weeks, the names of New Zealanders have been drawn and pushed through this House—without good merit, but, again, information has been sought, grabbed, and misused. I think we have seen that far too often, actually: where knowledge about people’s activities becomes an excuse, particularly for Opposition parties, to have a crack at those people, often without good reason. I do not think that is particularly helpful for open or transparent government.

I, again, reluctantly vote for this bill. I do acknowledge the intentions, I do acknowledge the hard and good work of the Government Administration Committee, and I do acknowledge the conversations, particularly those that my colleagues from the National Government who have been on the select committee have had. So I will vote in the second reading, but I am interested in the further processes as they come forward. Thank you very much.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I have listened very carefully to all of the National Government members speaking on this bill tonight—

Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s very courageous—very courageous.

CLARE CURRAN: It was a very courageous thing to do, but, yes, I have listened very carefully, and I do not think anyone is in any doubt that every one of them is extremely uncomfortable about voting for this bill. They have trotted out a whole range of reasons why, and I am going to address all of those reasons.

The member Paul Foster-Bell said in his speech that he strongly believes in open Government, “but …”, and then went on to give a whole lot of reasons why he did not like this bill, and was followed up by all the other speakers. The “listening carefully” was about their support for the bill at this reading, and, certainly, we were left in no doubt with the ACT member, who told us that he was going to put up a whole lot of Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage that would be about opening up the Official Information Act (OIA) to all and sundry, including yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker—not bringing you into the debate.

So either they are serious about open and transparent Government, and are swallowing a bit of a dead rat with this bill—and there are some good reasons for them to do that—or they are playing games. They are playing silly games, and their so-called support for open and transparent Government—they are doing that at the behest of the silly David Seymour. Paul Foster-Bell also said that the Government—[Interruption] Apologies to my colleagues, but Paul Foster-Bell, who did make a worthy contribution, made the claim that the Government has nothing to be ashamed of in regard to open and transparent government. It is true that the National Government did sign up to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in December last year—

Paul Foster-Bell: Ratified.

CLARE CURRAN: Ratified. It was a strong step in a direction. And in 2014 New Zealand accepted an invitation to join the Open Government Partnership, which brings with it a requirement to demonstrate how the Government will implement transparency, accountability, technology, innovation, and civil society participation in Government—all very worthy.

It might interest the members in the House tonight and the public listening at home that New Zealand has formally been warned in just the last few months—formally been warned—for its lateness in meeting its obligations under that Open Government Partnership. One of the parts that we signed up to was a recommendation on parliamentary transparency, which relates directly to this bill. But that formal warning is directly relevant—directly relevant—because we are not fulfilling our obligations under that.

Therefore, the action of the National Government tonight in swallowing a dead rat—hopefully, that is what it is doing—and voting for this bill at the second reading is because it realises that in this environment, when the eyes of many in the world are on New Zealand at the moment, and it is whether or not we are a tax haven and just how much our commitment is to anti-corruption measures and to transparency measures, this is an opportunity for the Government to show that it has a commitment to openness, a real commitment to openness and transparency. Certainly, I hope that is what this is about and that it is not about playing a silly game with the silly David Seymour, who has really shown very little brains tonight in his speech in the House.

Certainly, if the Government had voted against the bill at the second reading it would have been going against the advice of the Ministry of Justice, which was very clear, and the Government Administration Committee. They said that the bill was consistent with the purposes of the OIA and with the constitutional position of parliamentary under-secretaries as part of the executive with the ability to exercise delegated ministerial power. This was backed up by the Law Commission and the Law Society, both august organisations whose recommendations should be listened to. Certainly, this Government has not always listened to their recommendations when it comes to legislation, but tonight it appears as if it has.

My third point is that this bill is very clear, and the analysis is very clear, about the distinction between the executive and the rest of Parliament—very, very clear. It is a very simple bill. It makes a very simple change to correct an important anomaly, and I do want to commend my colleague Adrian Rurawhe for bringing this before Parliament tonight. There is no hint in this bill that that line should be blurred. There is no slippery slope. This is an anomaly, it is a clear anomaly, and it makes an important and simple distinction between the role of an under-secretary and the role that they play, and how that should be accountable to public scrutiny and accountable under the OIA. Of course, the Ministry of Justice agrees with that, as do other submitters. There is no muddying of the waters with this so-called “slippery slope” argument that the National members seem to be buying into tonight. This is not about the road to ordinary members of Parliament becoming accountable under the OIA. This is not about the Speaker’s office becoming accountable under the OIA; this is about the under-secretaries, who are part of the executive, even if they are not members of the Executive Council, and that is quite simple and that is an important principle.

This is important for the future. It is a small but important piece of legislation. What David Seymour has done tonight has actually started a trend—a positive trend from our perspective on this side of the House—because he has begun proactively releasing information before the law requires him to. We support that. This was part of our policy in 2011 and 2014 for the proactive release of information under our open government policy. Of course, the Government had no open Government policy. The proactive release of information is an important trend. If we could see other National Ministers starting that trend and continuing that trend, that would be a good and positive thing. So what David Seymour has started is a very significant change in keeping with the principle of keeping the bastards honest, and we support that.

What we do need to do is to cement this under a small legislative change. This bill is not about David Seymour, as much and all as he would like it to be about him; it is about the role that he currently plays as a parliamentary under-secretary. It is not about his ego in any way, but it is important. I think that what it is doing tonight is showing a pathway, and with the Government’s support it will actually cement that pathway towards true openness and accountability, and towards the release of more information and the accountability of another member of the executive who currently is not accountable.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This is a fairly unusual experience—in that this is the first time that I can remember, in my 7½ years as a member of the House—where the Government, having opposed a bill at its first reading, is now supporting it as its second reading. I want to traverse some of the arguments as to why that might have come to pass.

I think we need to reflect on some aspects of the history of the bill. One is that, as my good friends on the Government Administration Committee have said to me, there were only five submissions received on the bill, which would suggest to me that there is a very low level of public interest in this particular measure. Nevertheless, I do not want to be dismissive of that, because, of the five submissions that were received, all were in favour of the bill being passed. Two came from quite august bodies of which this House always takes note and listens to with respect—i.e., the Law Commission and the Law Society. And, of course, it is also notable that in its report to the House, following its careful consideration of the submissions, the Government Administration Committee has advised that it had unanimous support that the bill should proceed.

Taking that into account, I have to say that I was very disappointed tonight that the member in charge of the bill, Adrian Rurawhe, gave us very little of his personal reasons for supporting it and, in particular, the purpose of the bill. In fact, I am not sure that he actually mentioned anything about the purpose of the bill whatsoever. Essentially, what he confined himself to in his relatively brief speech were questions of process. I would have expected to hear some compelling arguments in favour of the bill from the member. For that reason, I want to put a few questions to him that he might give some thought to as he moves on to the next stage. It appears that the bill will pass tonight and so, as he prepares for the Committee stage of the bill, I would like him to give some thought to a few questions.

Nevertheless, I do congratulate him, as others have done, on having had his bill adopted, if not unanimously—it looked for a while as if it might have been unanimous, but, of course, the New Zealand First Party hates to be agreeable, so it now looks as if it will just be adopted comprehensively. But that is a very rare thing for any member putting forward a member’s bill, and particularly an Opposition member, so I do congratulate Mr Rurawhe on that particular fact. Of course, the only current parliamentary under-secretary is Mr Seymour, and he gave his warm endorsement to the measure before describing it as, effectively, completely pointless—I think that was his description.

In an effort to educate myself as to the purpose of the bill—because I had not had much of that from the member in charge of it, and I was not sure, after listening to Mr Seymour, that I was much better educated—I decided to try to bring an independent analysis to Mr Seymour’s less than generous assessment of the bill by turning to what you might know as the parliamentary bible—otherwise known as David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. It is always a wise place to start if one wants to understand a little bit more about parliamentary procedure and constitutional provisions. But I have to say that, despite the impressively comprehensive and scholarly tome that McGee’s text undoubtedly is, references to parliamentary under-secretaries in McGee are relatively few and far between. He notes that “A Parliamentary Under-Secretary may answer a question on behalf of a Minister in the Minister’s absence. Otherwise, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary cannot perform functions conferred by the Standing Orders on a Minister, such as taking charge of a Government bill.”

Kris Faafoi: What happened to the questions?

TIM MACINDOE: They are coming, Mr Faafoi. Thank you so much; it is lovely to know that you are listening.

On page 331 of the third edition—and I would just like to read from this particular passage—McGee notes, about private member’s bills: “A Parliamentary Under-Secretary may introduce a Member’s bill.” That led me to ask: in that capacity, will an under-secretary now face scrutiny that other members who are introducing a bill will not? That is a matter that I would recommend the member sponsoring the bill give some thought to, as he approaches the Committee stage. Later, McGee notes, on page 533, that “A Minister (or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister whose measure is under discussion) who quotes from a document relating to public affairs must table that document if requested to do so by any member.” So, of course, there are a few degrees of accountability in that.

But at page 558—if, Mr Assistant Speaker, you would just allow me to read a slightly longer passage from McGee; and I might need to put my glasses on—he notes: “a question cannot be addressed to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in his or her own right as if the under-secretary were a Minister. Questions to Ministers must be addressed to Ministers of the Crown (including now an Associate Minister). A Parliamentary Under-Secretary may answer a question on behalf of a Minister, but can have a question addressed to himself or herself personally as a non-Minister only in respect of parliamentary proceedings of which the under-secretary has charge (for example, as the chairperson of the select committee), not in respect of the wider range of responsibilities for which Ministers are answerable. Thus, a question to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary relating to a statement the under-secretary had made was not allowed”—in 1977—“even though the statement was made in respect of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s official departmental duties.”

There is clearly an essential difference between the two roles, and I ask the sponsor of the bill—

Grant Robertson: Why isn’t this man in Cabinet? Or, at the very least, an under-secretary?

TIM MACINDOE: Moving right along, Mr Robertson, thank you. I ask the sponsor of this measure, as he prepares again for the Committee stage of the bill, whether the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill, which we are considering tonight in his name, will have the effect of changing that constitutional distinction and perhaps force David McGee out of his well-earned retirement in order to update or indeed write a fresh edition of his parliamentary masterpiece?

As Ruth Dyson, the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee, argued, this bill should not be about David Seymour. Ms Dyson told us that it clearly is not. But I have to say that although the member for Epsom seems to delight in the thought that it might be—and the select committee’s report to the House after its consideration of the bill, although little more than a page in length, is nevertheless about three times the length of the bill itself—one cannot escape the conclusion, as my good friend the learned and distinguished member for Rodney noted earlier, that this really would appear to be the “Pick on David Seymour Bill”. Given its incredible brevity, one would also have to wonder whether it is not a case of much ado about nothing.

I listened with interest to the contributions of previous speakers, and I thank them, particularly those MPs who are members of the committee, their officials, and those who submitted on the bill, for their careful consideration of it. All speakers have noted that transparency and accountability are important features of good government. There is no argument about that, of course. If this bill will enhance that outcome, then it is perhaps a good thing and we can support it. Indeed, the National Government has decided tonight that it will support it at its second reading, but I join Mr Mitchell in questioning the sponsor’s real motives for introducing it. Is it really just an attack on David Seymour? Because—

Hon Ruth Dyson: He never raised that at the select committee. He’s got more manners.

TIM MACINDOE: As Ms Dyson is interjecting so effusively at the moment, she might want to reflect on the contribution of her colleague, the member for Rimutaka, because in his diatribe about partnership schools—and, of course, we hear that quite frequently from Mr Hipkins whenever he is speaking in the House—you would have to say that he lent credibility to the view that this is the “Pick on David Seymour Bill”. Really, given that that came from my opposite number in the whips’ desk across the House, I am left thinking that it probably is the real motive.

But I do not want to attack Mr Hipkins. It would be churlish to do so, because I would like to congratulate him on the double dose of happy tidings that we have heard recently. I gather there is both an engagement plus a baby to come, and that is wonderful news. I do feel that all members of the House would want to celebrate that with him.

So let me end as I started: initially, the National Government members did not support this bill, because we believed, and we still believe, that there are strong mechanisms to keep the Government to account without having to go down this particular path. Although parliamentary under-secretaries are not members of the Executive Council, they do perform an important constitutional role, with powers and responsibilities delegated from the responsible Minister. Any official information relating to their work as a parliamentary under-secretary can be sought from the Minister to whom they are responsible.

This bill may help to ensure transparency across government. It is clear that the public wants that accountability, and no one wants to hold that back, particularly from those who perform public functions. As a Government that has always championed accountability and transparency in government, the National Government has taken steps over the last 8 years to try to ensure that Ministers and Government agencies are accountable to the public. So although I am not entirely convinced that this is going to be a vital constitutional innovation, I, along with my colleagues—particularly as you are giving me the message that I should conclude these remarks, Mr Assistant Speaker—will support this bill at the second reading.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 109

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

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I move, That the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. I want to start by addressing the problem that this bill is designed to fix. I want to draw the House’s attention to a story that has been running on the New Zealand Herald website today about a house flip in the Auckland suburb of Beach Haven in which the house jumped $180,000 in price in just 2 months. The Barfoot and Thompson agent who sold the house said that it went over the phone to a buyer last Thursday. “The house is empty.”, he has told the New Zealand Herald, “It was telephone bidding. There’s been nothing done to it between the sales. Similar things happen all the time.” A neighbour, I think, who spoke to the New Zealand Herald said: “Auckland has become speculator’s paradise…[when] a Beach Haven house sells for $180,000 more in just 2.5 months.”

This bill amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005. It applies new restrictions on non-resident purchasers of New Zealand’s residential property in order to protect New Zealand homebuyers. We have seen in this country a housing crisis, the results of which have been all over the TV screens, the radio, and the newspapers now for several years, but it seems to have particularly worked itself up into a crescendo over the last few days and weeks. At the heart of that problem are a number of drivers that have seen Auckland house prices become amongst the most unaffordable in the world relative to incomes. Labour believes that out-of-control property speculation is one of those key drivers.

Under the provisions of this bill non-residents will be granted permission to purchase a residential property only if they intend to live here permanently or their purchase adds to the existing stock of housing. So, for example, a non-resident wishing to purchase vacant land with a commitment to begin building a dwelling within 12 months is likely to have their application granted. Students, skilled migrants, and other persons who are temporarily resident in New Zealand will be granted approval to purchase a house on the condition that it is sold if they subsequently leave the country. Any non-resident person found to have purchased a residential property without the approval of the Overseas Investment Office could be forced to sell the property, which may cause them a loss, and they may have to wear a fine.

This has been one of the most intensely debated and discussed issues in relation to New Zealand’s housing crisis. This bill reflects the Labour Party’s policy to ban non-resident foreigners from buying existing homes and to say to them: “If you are a non-resident foreigner, you live on the other side of the world and you want to buy a house in New Zealand, build a new one.” That is the Australian policy and it has been working successfully there because in the last 12 months it has channelled nearly $30 billion of foreign direct investment into the building of new homes. This policy is supported by an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders. The last 3 News/Reid Research poll on this found that 61 percent of New Zealanders supported this policy, including a majority of National Party voters. In that poll of 1,000 people 54 percent of National Party voters said that they supported the ban that is Labour’s policy.

It is common knowledge—everybody knows in Auckland—that non-resident foreign speculators are bidding up the price of housing just as it was reported in the New Zealand Herald today that a phone bidder from offshore snapped up that house at $180,000 more than it was sold for only 2 months before. Some very disturbing data came out recently that showed that speculators—foreign and domestic—are hoovering up the more affordable suburbs in Auckland. In the last 12 months 80 percent of property transactions in the south Auckland suburb of Ōtara were made by investors, or speculators, depending on which way you want to describe them. And it should be no surprise to this House that it is the suburb of Ōtara, which has that very high level of speculator activity, that has the most rapidly falling level of homeownership—more than four times the national average. That is the reality in John Key’s New Zealand today. That is the consequence of the housing crisis that this National Government has allowed to spiral out of control. Right across Auckland now, particularly in the more affordable suburbs in south and west Auckland, entire streets of homes are owned by absentee foreign landlords who are never seen in that neighbourhood—they are never seen. This is destroying communities and neighbourhoods right across our country’s largest city.

John Key has painted himself into a corner on this policy. The proof of this was seen recently when we saw the National Government selectively and manipulatively releasing data that had been gathered over the last 6 months by Land Information New Zealand. Poor old Louise Upston was left with the job of having to release this shonky data, and the Government tried to claim that the data showed foreign buyers amounted to only 3 percent of the buyers in the market.

Hon Steven Joyce: That’s correct. That’s correct, Mr Twyford.

PHIL TWYFORD: If Steven Joyce’s maths is so bad that he is willing to interject in this House to say that that data suggested it is only 3 percent, then economic development in this country is in very, very bad hands. Even the most cursory analysis of that Land Information data showed that up to 48 percent—48 percent—of the transactions could have been offshore buyers—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to sit and I am going to ask Dr Coleman to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I withdraw and apologise.

PHIL TWYFORD: —because 45 percent of the transactions in that Land Information data had been excluded from the final calculation of the presence of foreign buyers. Forty-five percent of the transactions were excluded, including trusts, businesses, companies, people on student visas, and people on temporary work visas. The data was shot through with holes. It has no credibility at all. The only thing that data shows is that this Government was so desperate to try to support a political point, that foreign buyers do not have significant presence in the Auckland market, and that it was prepared to embarrass itself by releasing such selective and manipulative data in such a cynical and dishonest way. One of the things that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Now, now. The member will stand and withdraw. He cannot accuse Ministers of being dishonest.

PHIL TWYFORD: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And apologise—thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD: I meant to say that the release of the data was cynical. I certainly did not mean to say it was dishonest.

The thing that really upsets people in Auckland is that there are an estimated 15,000 ghost houses in Auckland that are sitting empty. The census data identified 22,000. When you do the calculations and remove the ones that are in between tenancies or in the process of being sold, there are approximately 15,000 properties deliberately left empty by their absentee landlords who are happy to make 25 percent a year of capital gains, as they did last year, and cannot be bothered renting the house out to tenants. This is one of the symbols of the National Government’s housing crisis. It has got to change, it has got to stop, and Labour says that there is no benefit to New Zealand or New Zealanders in allowing non-resident foreigners to sit on the other side of the world and bid up the price of housing, disenfranchising young Kiwi first-home buyers in the process.

It was the Prime Minister who said he did not want New Zealanders to be tenants in their own land. Well, that is exactly what is happening, because homeownership rates are falling so rapidly—so rapidly. In Auckland, a majority of people are renters. A majority are renters. We have the lowest homeownership rates in 64 years thanks to the negligent housing policies of this National Government.

I want to point out that a number of commentators—BNZ Chief Economist, Tony Alexander said that there is merit in this bill, noting that we are becoming one of the few residential markets left around the world that is completely open to foreign buyers. The New Zealand economist and investment broker Rodney Jones, based in Beijing, has supported action like this bill by saying: “Look, the foreign buyers go to New Zealand or Australia or Canada. They can buy freehold property that’s theirs for ever. That’s a very powerful allure, and that’s not going to go away.”

This is not a silver bullet, but it will make a major contribution to fixing the housing crisis.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It actually makes my stomach turn to hear a speech that, although dressed up in language about protecting New Zealand home buyers, is, at the heart of it, round two of the Labour Party’s attack on people with Chinese-sounding surnames. We are a country that, for a long time, has welcomed people from overseas. For a long time this country has welcomed our forebears, whether they be my forebears who came here on a waka 900 years ago or whether it be those who came on a sailing ship from Scotland 100 years ago. We have been a country built up by the people who have come here, worked hard, and contributed to our society, and that is why this bill is a revolting piece of dog whistle politics, once again, from a member who one would have thought would know a little bit better than this.

This bill, by amending the Overseas Investment Act 2005, applies a new level of restrictions on all non-resident purchasers of New Zealand residential properties. It does beg the question of whether this will also apply to non-resident New Zealanders who have chosen to go offshore. We know that a significant proportion of the 3 percent nationwide—or 4 percent in Auckland—of non - New Zealand tax resident purchasers of property are actually New Zealanders who are working overseas, perhaps in Australia, perhaps in the UK, perhaps in Asia. There is a growing class of New Zealand entrepreneurs and business people who are choosing to go to China and do business in that burgeoning developing market for us. Will these measures apply to New Zealand citizens who, for reasons of business or marriage, perhaps, are choosing to go and live offshore?

Under the provisions of this bill, non-residents will be granted permission to purchase a residential property only if they intend to live here permanently or if they are going to add to the housing stock. The motivation for this bill is based on absolutely shonky data. Frankly, I find it terrifying that the main Opposition party—the largest, at least, Opposition party in the New Zealand Parliament; although we have learnt in recent weeks it is not necessarily the largest Opposition party by party membership—the alternative Government of New Zealand, is suggesting, I think, such a retrograde and dog-whistling measure.

So even if you were a student coming to New Zealand here on a student visa, you would be required to sell your house within 12 months if you were going to leave New Zealand, perhaps to do a post-doctoral qualification after having graduated here with a PhD or a valuable post-graduate qualification. We know that for people studying at that level it is actually very usual, normal practice to go and do a period of time, perhaps, at an overseas university or to do a post-doctoral qualification, maybe at a research laboratory. These people will often come back to New Zealand and make a huge contribution.

We can look at a number of the great achievers, the people who have made significant scientific advances. I look to someone like Dr Swee Tan, who has contributed enormously to the alleviation of strawberry birthmarks among New Zealand infants and toddlers who suffered from that debilitating and disfiguring condition. He has contributed hugely to the research that allowed those young people to be cured of that condition without the hugely traumatic intervention of surgery, which was previously the case. So someone like Dr Swee Tan is for me an example of a very fine New Zealander, someone who makes a huge contribution but is the sort of talented person who after having perhaps completed post-graduate study here in New Zealand might rightly and properly go overseas to do work in a laboratory and will hopefully return to New Zealand. We want to make it as easy as possible for those sorts of people to come back to New Zealand, not place barriers in the way, as this bill would do.

There is absolutely no need for this bill, given the statistics. The shonky statistics come from the Labour Party. They are not the neutral figures that were published by our neutral Public Service—from Land Information.

Phil Twyford: Highly selective and manipulative figures.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: They are not at all manipulated, as the member claims. What I would say is manipulated is his statistic of 15,000 ghost houses. One can only presume Mr Twyford’s 15,000 ghost houses are a little bit like the missing million Labour Party voters who did not show up at the last election. It is completely fictional.

I think this is an absolutely hopeless bill. It shows the xenophobic underbelly of the modern Labour Party. It would disgust previous fine Labour Ministers and Prime Ministers. The founding fathers of the Labour Party would no doubt be turning in their graves at this sort of measure. It is revolting, and I will be voting against it.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Taking a lecture from Paul Foster-Bell about the founding fathers of the Labour Party is a bit rich. Mr Foster-Bell told us that he was terrified of this legislation. Well, that makes him terrified of Malcolm Turnbull, because this is the current policy of the Australian Government. If Paul Foster-Bell is terrified of a policy like this, he needs to get on a plane, get himself across to Canberra, and talk to his mates in the Australian Liberal Party, because this is what they support.

Mr Foster-Bell and the other National Party members need to calm down a little bit and actually read what this bill is about. In the end, as Tony Alexander, I think, has pointed out, New Zealand is, in fact, the outlier now. We are the outliers when it comes to this kind of legislation. We are the ones who do not have mechanisms in place to support new first-home buyers in New Zealand to get access to the housing market. We have talked a lot on this side of the House about the importance of increasing supply in the housing market. There is absolutely no doubt that building more homes is critical to us solving the housing crisis, getting more New Zealanders into being able to buy their first home, and dealing with the social housing issues that we have got.

But we cannot leave the demand side of the equation out. That is what this bill attempts to do. It is the nature of a member’s bill that it is only one step, because that is how members’ bills get written, and I congratulate my colleague Phil Twyford on putting it forward. It is not a silver bullet but it is a step towards giving New Zealanders the chance to do something that is so important to our way of life in New Zealand—buying their own home. Buying your own home is not just about shelter. It is not just about the ability to have bricks and mortar around you. It is how we establish communities and neighbourhoods in New Zealand. More and more in New Zealand, people are becoming isolated from their communities and neighbourhoods because they move around so much.

Phil Twyford talked about the number of renters exceeding the number of homebuyers in Auckland now. We need New Zealanders to be able to buy into the housing market, so that they can put down roots and create those strong communities that are the bedrock of giving New Zealanders a decent life. That is what this is about. It is about the communities that have served New Zealand so well in the past, when we have had higher levels of homeownership. This bill, quite simply, sets in place the rules that, as we say, are already in place in Australia, which say that somebody who is not a resident of New Zealand, who does not intend to live in New Zealand, gets to buy into our property market only if they are creating new houses. That is fair. That is what other countries do.

Paul Foster-Bell threw a whole lot of irrelevant information on to the table when he started talking about his pride in migrants who have helped to create this country. I absolutely agree with him, and this bill gives those exact people the ability to buy a house. In fact, what it does for somebody who is here on a skilled migrant visa, which is not even a permanent resident visa, is it gives them the ability to buy a house. So none of that diversionary nonsense that we heard from Paul Foster-Bell is even contained in this bill. It provides the facility for people who are here, who want to live in New Zealand, who want to stay and make a commitment, to purchase an existing home, and it provides for those from offshore, if they do want to come, to be able to build and invest here.

The question I put to National Party members is: what is the value to New Zealand of allowing offshore speculators to speculate in our property market? What do we gain from that? We lose so much more than any gains that Mr Seymour might want to stand up and talk about in a few moments. What we lose is the ability of New Zealanders to be able to get on to the property ladder, to be able to help create those good environments, to raise families, and to be able to build strong communities.

The Labour Party has had this policy for some time. Mr Twyford has had the bill in the ballot for some time, and he had it drawn out. It is our great concern that the Government, knowing that, failed in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations to protect the right of a future Government to put this policy in place. In fact, it deliberately moved to make sure that a future Government could not do that. That is a true shame, because a bill like this, passed through this Parliament, would put us in line with other signatories to that agreement. [Interruption] Sorry?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am indicating the number of seconds.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is excellent—seconds. I did not hear a bell ring.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, it is a 5-minute speech.

GRANT ROBERTSON: This bill is a contribution to giving New Zealanders a chance to get on to the property ladder, to treat them fairly. It is in line with legislation around the world, and it should be supported across the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): As a Chinese person, I have to say I was simply astonished by the author of the bill. Obviously, he still believes his Chinese-sounding names approach is more scientific than the data collected by Land Information New Zealand. From that initial data, published by Land Information New Zealand, only 3 percent of New Zealand’s property transactions were made by people from overseas—by non-resident buyers. But Mr Twyford believes that this is not scientific enough—that his Chinese-sounding names approach is more scientific and that, according to that approach, about 40 percent of Auckland properties were bought by people from China. That is astonishing. So we have this data. Although it is initial data, still we believe it is more scientific and more reliable than what he believes.

So this is Labour’s problem: either it is unable to see the real causes of various issues or it is basically too lazy to find the real causes of various issues. In the housing area, it believes that the Chinese-sounding name approach would be the solution and, largely, this is because of its intention to play some political game. Of course it failed. This bill is just a continuation of this Chinese-sounding name approach. There is no need for it, based on what we have received from Land Information New Zealand. It is the wrong approach, basically.

We believe that the real issue here is housing supply, so increasing supply and reducing the cost of construction is the way to go forward. How do we do that? Actually, this housing issue has been an issue for many years. Under Labour it was an issue, but because the issue was too great and too hard to resolve, Labour basically left it alone. The National Government has been trying to address the issue head-on. We have initiated a wide range of programmes to try to increase the supply and to reduce the cost. One programme is to try to free up more land faster. For that reason we have established 202 special housing areas. In these areas, central government and local government work together to fast track housing development. Talking to developers in these areas you will find that they are full of praise for this kind of programme, although more work needs to be done.

Also, interestingly, that member recently proposed that we should abolish the super-city boundary. That is an interesting change of mind, and we believe that this is more rational than the Chinese-sounding name approach. We believe that this is the right direction, so we would like to work with Labour in trying to move forward the reforms of the Resource Management Act (RMA). So this second-phase RMA reform will be, hopefully, moving forward. In this second phase we would like to prioritise housing affordability, so we look forward to Labour’s support for the second phase of the RMA reforms. Also, much of the building costs has to do with paperwork and efficient council work, so it is important for us to make sure that RMA reforms will increase efficiency of council work.

Finally, I would say that the National Government has been working very hard to make sure that our New Zealand families are able to afford houses, because homeownership is important to our families, to our communities, and also to each New Zealander. So we have been working very hard, and I have to say that this Government has been achieving a lot in providing housing supply and also in reducing the cost. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Julie Anne Genter, I will remind people of the topic of the bill. I think the member who has just spoken made a passing reference to it at the beginning of his speech—maybe for about 30 seconds—and then went into a general housing debate. This is not a general housing debate; it is on this bill.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party supports the bill, which is pretty non-controversial and is in line with longstanding Green Party policy to restrict the sale of property and land to residents and citizens. I would just like to start by saying, very generally, that this would be only one part of solving the housing affordability problem. There are a number of issues on both the demand side and the supply side that affect house prices. But, that said, there is no question that this would do no harm.

I think it is really important to address some of the objections to this bill that have been raised by the Government—the National Party and the ACT Party—because rather than engaging with the substantive issue, which is whether foreign capital impacts the value of property prices in New Zealand, it says that to raise this question is xenophobic and racist. Of course that does not logically follow. That is not a logical argument; in fact, it defies all economic logic.

Any economist will tell you that foreign capital flows do have an impact on property prices. In fact, I have pulled up a paper here that was published at one of the conferences at the London School of Economics. This paper was written by a professor of economics from the University of Auckland and co-authored by a professor from the University of California, San Diego. It is all about global capital markets and housing prices. I will just read the first few lines of the introduction, for the benefit of the House: “The experience of the past decade has demonstrated the challenges that international capital flows can pose for financial stability. [Indeed] the build-up of global imbalances … was one of the preconditions for the recent financial crisis.”

Deficit countries such as the United States, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland, Poland, Greece, Estonia, New Zealand, and Australia, attracted lots of foreign capital, and exhibited large run-ups in house prices, while surplus countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, China, and Austria, exported capital, and they, in fact, experienced flat or slow house price growth. So it is just a distraction on the part of the Government not to address the fundamental economic issue with foreign capital inflows, which do not, in fact, benefit New Zealand’s productive economy. If we have a fairly limited supply of dwellings, the inflows of foreign capital lead to large run-ups in prices. This is a consequence of global financialisation and deregulation and inequality. I mean, really, it is the growth in global inequality that is leading to the ability of people who have captured a large portion of the surplus in some of these surplus countries to bid up house prices all around the world. If we look at the cities that have the most unaffordable housing in the world, it is no accident that most of them are Pacific Rim cities. So it is Hong Kong, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland—

Phil Twyford: Vancouver.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: —Vancouver. They are all Pacific Rim countries.

It would not be surprising, given the huge amount of capital outflows coming from China, that that was having an impact on New Zealand’s property market. Of course, it is not just China, and there is nothing racist about saying that that is happening, because that is a fact. But there is also money coming into New Zealand from Australia, from the United States, and from other countries where you have vast amounts of income inequality and wealth inequality, and that, of course, bids up house prices. It is no surprise that the second-most unaffordable city in New Zealand is Queenstown. Why do you think that is? Is there a lot of foreign ownership of property in Queenstown? Yes, there is.

Chris Bishop: Neo-liberalism! I blame neo-liberalism.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: I just have to point out that the Government is trying to distract New Zealanders from the real issues. Why will its members not debate the merits of their policy? If they really think there is no problem with it, why do they distract with accusations that people are racist?

I am an immigrant and the Green Party supports immigration. We also support providing more houses. The State should be building more State houses. The Government should be more involved in the provision of housing in New Zealand, and there is a lot it could do on the demand side, because there is no question that investors are having a disproportionate impact on house prices in New Zealand. That, fundamentally, is not good for our economy, and it is not good for our people. The National Party is being incredibly misleading by not addressing the actual economics of the issue and by distracting in order to try to get votes.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in opposition to this Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Mr Yang has pointed out, this is a cynical bill from the Opposition member seeking to perpetuate his fundamental approach, as was evidenced just a few months ago, that he believes that public policy in New Zealand should be driven by the sound of people’s surnames. It is an absolute disgrace for New Zealand. It is certainly a disgrace for the history of the party that he is a member of.

But I would like to set that aside. He made a lot in his contribution this evening about his measure being all about stopping foreign speculators from distorting the New Zealand market, but then he refuses to accept—perhaps because it is an inconvenient truth—the reality of the data that illustrates that non - tax-paying resident foreigners were not a major purchasing driver of homes in New Zealand, and particularly in Auckland, in the last 6 months. You see, what that data shows us is very clear. Mr Twyford points out a very large amount that is—[Interruption] Why? Because it is not speculation; it is primary residences. And who is the largest group? Tax residents—tax residents.

So the member now has an issue with people paying tax in New Zealand to fund our infrastructure, to fund our schools, to fund our roads, to fund our essential services—they should not be allowed houses as primary residences. When you look at that data, if the member was following his own contribution, the area of concern for him, and which his bill should address, is that of non - tax-paying residents—people who are not contributing to the infrastructure and public services of this country, non - tax-paying residents buying a second property, third property, or more.

The data on that is absolutely crystal clear: that across New Zealand non - tax-paying residents making investment property decisions make up less than 3 percent. In Auckland, where the member would have us believe it is something like 40 percent or more, it is actually 4 percent.

Phil Twyford: Why did you exclude company trusts?

BRETT HUDSON: I will tell the member what was excluded—primary residences and tax residents. Why? Because we value people paying tax in New Zealand, and funding our infrastructure and funding our public services.

Phil Twyford: Why did you exclude overseas companies and trusts?

BRETT HUDSON: If people who are contributing to New Zealand in taxation, Mr Twyford, wish to buy a property here, that is perfectly fine. Instead, what we have is, as Mr Yang has pointed out, a mere continuation of an anti-foreigner approach trying to frame a small group as responsible for the ills of the country—so much so that he would have, under his approach to public policy, Ms Lee unable to buy a house because, of course, she is Chinese. She tells me she is from the province of China called South Korea—they do not like being referred to as Chinese.

The public could be excused for actually wondering, with a bill such as this, which is targeting a group that the data shows is not actually a distorting factor and that is a continuation of informing public policy by the sound of a surname, whether perhaps Mr Twyford is making a play for the leadership of the New Zealand First Party. It certainly is not the sort of thinking that should inform good public policy in this country. It is not the sort of thinking that should inform a good member’s bill. All he would really do, if we were to permit this to pass, is address a tiny, tiny percentage of the current property purchases.

We are a Government that welcomes migrants and welcomes foreign investment. People are going to come and form company structures. If they are going to undertake taxable activity in New Zealand—whether they are paying PAYE, or whether they are coming here with foreign direct investment helping to fuel growth in New Zealand—if they are going to pay tax in New Zealand, and if they are resident here for taxation purposes, they are paying for the essential infrastructure and services that benefit all New Zealanders, and we do not mind where their country of origin is.

In fact, New Zealand is a far better place for the diversity that has grown in this country over the decades, and it is so obvious today in any major metropolitan centre. That is the sort of thing that we on this side applaud and welcome. We do not believe that we should be setting public policy on the basis that we do not like someone’s surname. We do not believe we should be a New Zealand that is trying to exclude people and exclude diversity. We oppose this bill, and we call on all parties to oppose it.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Seventy-six percent of New Zealand people will be very disappointed by what they hear the members on the other side of the House saying. Seventy-six percent of people will be very dissatisfied by what they have heard from members on the other side of the House because they want something done about the problem of overseas speculators buying up New Zealand homes in competition with New Zealand people. It is as simple as that, and that is the one thing that those members opposite have not addressed. They are on the wrong side of this issue. They will be punished for it, and they deeply deserve it. New Zealand First will support this bill because we support—clearly and unequivocally—restrictions on overseas buyers competing for, and buying up, New Zealand homes in competition with, especially, young New Zealand people seeking to buy their first home.

There are too many speculators in the market and too many of them are overseas speculators. We know because I have seen many examples of advertisements in overseas newspapers by overseas real estate agents imploring people in overseas countries to invest in New Zealand houses because they can make a killing on them. That much is beyond doubt. The damage that does to the New Zealand housing market is perfectly clear to everybody except those dead-head members opposite who do not understand the reality of what is going on. That clearly means that there will be a contribution to rapidly increasing and hugely increasing house prices in New Zealand, and especially in Auckland.

Nothing that an overseas speculator does in the New Zealand market can ever be of any value to the New Zealand economy or to New Zealand people. So it is a no-gain situation as far as overseas speculators are concerned. Of course, we in New Zealand First are also concerned about immigration and the effect of excessive immigration on house prices as well. That is another issue for another time because that is not covered in this bill, but it is still a significant issue.

Although New Zealand First will support this bill we do have some issues that we would like to discuss, especially at the select committee stage, because it actually does not go far enough. In other words, it is too conditional as far as New Zealand First is concerned. The first of these issues relates to the provisions of the bill in which it says that “non-residents will be granted permission to purchase a residential property only if they intend to live here permanently or their purchase adds to our existing housing stock.” We have some issues with that.

First of all, we are not sure about how it could be properly shown whether a person intends to live here permanently or not, so we would need to investigate whether that is actually a practical proposal. In addition to that, purchasing new housing stock can also be problematical, because what it could simply mean is that somebody buys a house that was already going to be built by a developer anyway, and that actually does not mean that there would really be any increase in the housing stock as a result of that. So that, again, seems to me to be a practical obstacle to the proposal.

What New Zealand First says is that there should be a much more simple proposal than that, and that would be to simply make sure that if a person does not have permanent residence in New Zealand or does not have citizenship, then they simply cannot buy property in New Zealand. You can see other countries in the world, especially China and many others, where that is the situation. New Zealand’s housing crisis is so extreme now that such a proposal should be the one that is adopted, and that is the one that we would prefer to see. So we are not too keen about the conditions that are attached to this bill. We would like to see a simpler and more straightforward regime altogether. The other issue that I mention is this. The bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption]

DENIS O’ROURKE: —talks about “Students, skilled migrants”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat.

DENIS O’ROURKE: —“and other persons”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat. David Seymour will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

David Seymour: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Denis O’Rourke, completing his speech.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was saying that the other parts of the bill that we have some concerns about are those parts that refer to—and I am reading here—“Students, skilled migrants, and other persons temporarily resident in New Zealand for 12 months or longer will be granted approval to purchase a house”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill. I would like some time to set out the reasons for that, but the time is very short, so I would like to focus on one particular provision in the bill that I think exposes, I guess, the misadventure in this whole enterprise of Mr Twyford’s. It is that, under this bill, overseas investors can purchase housing despite not being tax residents if, as the bill says, they are adding to the level of housing stock. The reason that this is such a misadventure is that the price level of housing in New Zealand is ultimately set by the price of producing new homes in each particular market. The reason why housing is so expensive in New Zealand is that people who weigh up buying a new home and who weigh up buying an existing home as an alternative are driven by what is, ultimately, the price of expanding the overall supply and building new homes. So if it costs $800,000 or $900,000 for a serviced section in Auckland, and if it costs another $200,000 to $500,000 to build the types of houses that people are building, well, that is why you have houses going for over $1 million.

Of course, this bill says that so long as a purchaser is bidding in the market of new homes, then the bill does not apply to them. They are allowed to purchase those homes despite being non-resident buyers. Well, if we are going to concentrate this rush and inflow of foreign speculative capital into the New Zealand housing market on the precise area of the market—that is, new homes—that actually sets the price for the market right across the city, be it Auckland or any other city, then we are not going to have any net effect on price levels. All we are going to do is put more and more pressure on the new-build sector and, therefore, raise the price of housing across the city. That is due to a fundamental misdiagnosis of what is really happening in the housing market. We have heard earlier that the real proportion of foreign investors buying homes in New Zealand could be as low as 3 percent, but let us say that that is a low-ball estimate and it is actually somewhat higher—maybe it is three times that, at 9 percent, or maybe it is a bit higher; maybe it is 10 or 12 percent. But the fact of the matter is that the real problem in the housing market, and particularly in Auckland, is that it is so difficult to build new homes.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.