Wednesday, 1 June 2016

WEDNESDAY, 1 JUNE 2016

WEDNESDAY, 1 JUNE 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing Supply, Auckland—Building Consents and Special Housing Areas

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing’s ability to ensure there is sufficient building supply to meet demand, given Statistics New Zealand says Auckland building consents in April were down 23 percent compared with last year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing. Many different agencies, including councils, are involved in ensuring that there is a sufficient supply of housing. Actually, in the year to April the number of building consents issued in Auckland increased by 15 percent to more than 9,300. That is over twice the number of 4 years ago.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with Nick Smith’s statement on the Auckland build rate that “We need to get it up more, like 50 to 60 houses per working day, if we are going to make that material difference …”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. Nick Smith was right; we do need to build more than the 40 a day we are building. That is, obviously, a substantial increase from the 10 a day that we inherited when we came into office. I think one of the ways to do that is to follow the Productivity Commission’s view, which is to, essentially, get rid of the metropolitan urban limit. That is a policy that Labour supports but, interestingly enough, if I look to other political parties in the Parliament, they say relaxing Auckland’s urban boundary will simply lead to further unsustainable urban sprawl and further congestion on Auckland roads. That, of course, is the Green’s position. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Little: Given that answer, and also his statement to the House yesterday—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Start the question again, Mr Little.

Andrew Little: Thank you, I will do that. I would not want the members to miss out. Given that answer, and also given his statement to the House yesterday that 40 houses a day are being built, how many houses a day is he currently falling short?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I just simply do not have that number.

Andrew Little: Can he confirm that when he uses his figure of 40 houses a day he is talking about building consents, not actual houses completed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The building consent rate that converts to building houses being met is virtually 100 percent—a little less than that, but it is very high.

Andrew Little: In view of his clarification that he is now talking about 40 consents a day, just how many families are living in those consents?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is building more houses than we have seen for a very long time in Auckland, four times the rate from when we came into office, but, you know, when you have a piece of paper like a building consent it means something. It is a bit like when you have a memorandum of understanding—I suppose it means something. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A little less interjection from both sides of the House, please. [Interruption] Order! Can we have the supplementary question. [Interruption] Order! Mr Little would assist me if he could just move to the supplementary question.

Andrew Little: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am obliged. Is it not clear to him by now, as it is to everyone else, that there will be no end to the housing crisis unless the Government plays its part by abolishing the Auckland urban growth boundary, stopping foreign speculators, and building thousands of affordable homes for Kiwis to buy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government happens to agree that the metropolitan urban limit is a significant issue, which is why we, effectively, temporarily went around that with 154 special housing areas. That is why we happen to agree that the national policy statement, which, effectively, goes around the metropolitan urban limit—

Phil Twyford: You promised it 8 years ago.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —is the right thing to do. But it does not really matter what the Opposition thinks. We should not listen to you, Phil; we just need to listen to Catherine Delahunty. She will be the next housing person who speaks for Labour and the Greens. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have been relatively patient so far, but it may not last for much longer.

Metiria Turei: Of the 700-odd homes that have been built in the special housing areas over the last 3 years, how many have people actually living in them, and how many Aucklanders overall have been housed in the special housing areas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no idea, but the member is happy to live in one with Andrew Little. I would not want to. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Metiria Turei: How many plots of special housing area land are still vacant, despite having the special housing area status?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would have to ask the Minister for Building and Housing that question.

Metiria Turei: Why does the Prime Minister not know how much land banking is going on in the special housing areas, given that it was his Government’s grand plan to build more houses for Auckland?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not the Minister for Building and Housing, but what I do know is the national policy statement that will be announced very soon will ensure that land banking becomes a very difficult thing to do.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister not understand that without a Government commitment to actually building more homes, all other policy options simply increase the risk of land banking and fuel the price growth in Auckland, which now means the average price of a house in Auckland is nearly a million dollars?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is concerned about land banking I look forward to her support for the national policy statement tomorrow. It will be quite different from the Greens’ position on housing. In the end we will have to work out whether—[Interruption] That is right. You are saying no; he is saying yes. What a mess.

Budget 2016—Jobs and Wage Rates

2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: How is the economy helping to deliver more jobs and higher wages for New Zealand families, particularly given Budget 2016’s focus on supporting a growing economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The outlook for the economy is positive. Businesses are hiring more people, and wages are increasing. More than 200,000 more people are in work now than 3 years ago, and a further 170,000 jobs are expected by 2020. The average annual wage is now almost $58,000—up 14.1 percent in the last 5 years, during which time inflation was just 4.7 percent. The annual wage is expected to continue to rise, to $63,000 a year by 2020. Obviously, these are just Treasury forecasts, but they are driven by the National-led Government’s economic policy that supports investment, innovation, and growth.

David Bennett: What steps did the Government take in Budget 2016 to support the growing economy, more jobs, and higher wages?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Budget 2016 continues this Government’s programme of sensible economic management. Our responsible approach to managing the books is helping inflation and interest rates to stay lower for longer, which supports businesses wanting to invest, households with a mortgage, and means that wage increases go further. Budget 2016 also includes the $761 million investment in Innovative New Zealand for science, skills, and regional development. A key part of this package is supporting people to develop the skills they need for an increasingly digital and diversified 21st century economy.

David Bennett: How will Budget 2016 develop the skilled workforce needed to support a growing economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: An amount of $256 million over 4 years is budgeted in the Innovative New Zealand package for the tertiary education sector to deliver the skills New Zealand needs to support our growing economy. Over 4 years that package includes $86 million to better match tuition subsidies with the costs of provision and to remove any remaining disincentives for degree providers to provide places in core areas like science and technology. There is $37 million to increase tuition subsidies for sub-degree provision at level 3 and above, $14 million to fund 5,500 more apprentices by 2020, and $9.6 million for 2,500 young Māori and Pasifika to participate in trades training. We have a constantly evolving economy, and this package will help to ensure those people have the skills to stay ahead of change.

David Bennett: Why are STEM subjects and key trades a priority for Budget 2016?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The availability of highly skilled people in the STEM areas of science, technology, engineering, and maths, plus of course agriculture and the key trades, is crucially important to growing a high-value, diversified economy that encourages businesses to invest. As with previous Budgets, we have continued to make STEM subjects a priority, to make up for historical underfunding and boost interest in careers like engineering. Graduates from these subjects make a substantial contribution to productivity and help meet the skill needs of New Zealand businesses.

Mental Health Services—Funding

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Will funding for mental health services in 2016/17 meet all demand-driven cost pressures?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): It has over the past 7 years, but of course, we will only know the actual inflation rate for the coming year retrospectively. Budget 2016 provides an extra $568 million of new money, the highest increase for health in 7 years. Although the 2016-17 mental health ring-fence will not be known until district health board (DHB) annual plans are finalised, there is plenty of money within that $568 million for DHBs to allocate to mental health services.

Hon Annette King: Will community mental health funding receive a significant increase from the 2.5 percent yearly average increase the Government has provided in the last three Budgets, in light of increasing demand and the spate of reviews of mental health service failure?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I said, the DHBs are free to allocate part of that $568 million as they see fit, but the key thing is that across the mental health system, we are seeing more people more quickly and with more resources than ever before.

Barbara Kuriger: Can the Minister confirm that over the last 7 years, through difficult global financial times—[Interruption]—this Government provided sufficient funding to meet all population growth and inflationary pressures in Vote Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I could not hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is saying he did not hear it, so I am going to invite—[Interruption] Order! I am going to invite the member to repeat the question, but there is a portion in that question that is not necessary to the question. It is to be excluded; it only creates disorder.

Barbara Kuriger: Can the Minister confirm over the last 7 years that this Government has provided sufficient funding to meet all population growth and inflationary pressure in Vote Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I can. Critics are wrong to claim that health funding under this Government has not kept up with population and inflationary pressures. [Interruption] Just listen—this is really important, OK? An analysis of Vote Health over the previous seven Budgets shows that the total injection of new money has been higher than population and cost pressures for the same period.

Hon Annette King: Will the funding provided for mental health services in the Budget be sufficient—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry; I am having trouble hearing the question itself because of the level of interjection. I ask for it to cease. If it is not going to cease, I am going to have to deal with it more severely. Would the member start the question again.

Hon Annette King: Will the funding provided for mental health services in the Budget be sufficient to reduce emergency department presentations by mental health patients, which have grown by 69 percent for the month of June, for the past 5 years, and across 18 DHBs?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I totally dispute that figure, but what I can say is indisputable is that out of that $568 million the DHBs are free to allocate money to mental health as they see fit. There are some very specific initiatives in the Budget to take pressure off mental health. There is $12 million for mental health responses at an early stage. That is to support primary care with the triage system—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —and to create a liaison service between primary care and secondary care psychiatrists. There is also, of course, the $20 million for Canterbury mental health. There is another $12 million to help pregnant women with alcohol and drug problems. That is on the back of the Prime Minister’s $64 million youth mental health programme. I could go on and on, but there is plenty there.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, if Canterbury DHB does have sufficient funding as he keeps claiming, why do its recent board minutes state the increase in mental health funding “will not address the challenges faced by the DHB.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I can tell you is that it has an extra $20 million—[Interruption] Just listen to this—it has an extra $20 million, which we announced a couple of weeks ago. There is also an extra $44 million in this Budget for Canterbury. There is actually plenty of money there, and the feedback I get from the chair of the DHB and the chief executive is actually that they are very happy with the injection of funds. So please stop making it up; it is not very helpful for anyone.

Hon Annette King: Has sufficient funding been provided for mental health services to assist district health boards like Waikato, Capital and Coast, and MidCentral, where reports have suggested there are serious funding issues, staff recruitment problems, and services in significant debt?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, reports have not suggested serious funding issues. The only serious funding is actually the $568 million extra going in—the biggest increase in 7 years. I can tell you that funding is ahead of population and cost pressures—that is a fact. You need to stop telling people otherwise. You should take down that silly website.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister cannot bring me into the debate, but, equally, there is not much point in asking a question if the member is then not going to bother to listen to the answer.

Hon Annette King: Oh, I could hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member can hear it, then she can allow me to hear it without her interjections.

Marama Fox: What does the Minister say to the many members of the public who turn up to the emergency department suffering depression and making threats of committing suicide, and who are turned away?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not had any reports of anyone being turned away, but what I can say is that we are putting in more resources. We are seeing more people more quickly on an ongoing basis. Mental health services have never done more than they are doing now. But, actually, we have got to keep on doing more and more.

Housing—Building Consents

4. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What reports has he received on the building boom spreading beyond Auckland and Christchurch?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yesterday’s building consent figures show total annual consents nationally topped 28,000, an all-time record of $17.6 billion of building work. Growth in Auckland remains strong, with now 4 years of 20 percent growth, which is why we now have a house-build rate of 40 new homes each working day. The surprise in yesterday’s data was that two-thirds of the national growth was outside Auckland and Christchurch. Centres like Hamilton and Tauranga are now experiencing growth of 26 percent in the rate of housebuilding.

Dr Shane Reti: What increases in building activity were there in Northland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Northland had one of the strongest growth rates, with increases in annual consents of 53 percent in Whangarei for the year, 54 percent in the far north, and 31 percent in Kaipara. Across Northland, consents were up from 660 to nearly 1,000, showing how successfully this Government’s policies are working for the community of Northland.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Todd Barclay. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary questions were from the Government, and now you have taken the next one when I was on my feet at the same time—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member needs to understand the Standing Orders. It is the Speaker’s discretion as to where he takes the call. I have taken it from Todd Barclay.

Todd Barclay: Is the building growth confined to regions in close proximity to Auckland?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, the growth was strong all over the country. Manawatū was up 66 percent, Palmerston North was up 57 percent, Wanganui was up 60 percent, and Rotorua was up 96 percent. I note that in Queenstown Lakes District, in the member’s own electorate, the number was up 40 percent. In my own area of Tasman, it was up 35 percent. I acknowledge the unique housing issues in Queenstown, and I would particularly commend that member for his initiative around the old Wakatipu High School site, which the Government is exploring as a place where it can further grow housing supply.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the whole history of humanity, in this country or in the whole wide world, has the Minister ever seen someone living in a consent?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What I know is that Governments have always used building consent data as the best measure of the way in which housebuilding occurs, and that it matches, within 1 percent, the census data on new homes that are constructed.

Phil Twyford: Does he believe that regional centres like Queenstown and Tauranga, both now rated as severely unaffordable and with high levels of homelessness, are victims of their own success, or is this what passes for regional development under his Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is true that the regions of New Zealand are strongly growing, and that is a good thing. The irony is that 3 years ago, when I announced housing accords with both the Tauranga and the Queenstown councils, this was the member who said I was wasting my time and should be focused only on Auckland. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Simon O’Connor: Are there any risks to the strong building boom in Auckland continuing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The historical root cause of Auckland’s housing woes has been that the old regional council was very opposed to urban sprawl and did not want greenfield growth, while the territorial councils were very opposed to infill housing. As a consequence, Auckland was not able to grow anywhere. The irony is that although National and Labour now agree that metropolitan urban limits are at the core of the problem, the new-found love-fest between Labour and the Greens exposes opposite policies on the metropolitan urban limit.

Wage Rates—Average Wage

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in question time yesterday with respect to average wages, “we do not promise some specific level of income”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes.

Grant Robertson: Why, then, did he produce a policy in 2014 that specifically claimed that the average wage would reach $62,000 in 2018?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I happen to have my own copy of that policy at hand, and I appreciate the member’s interest. It clearly says: “The Treasury forecasts average wages to grow by around $6,600 to $62,000 by mid-2018, and expects around 150,000 new jobs to be created in that time.”

Grant Robertson: Referring to that same document, can he confirm that it says “National’s economic plan will make those forecasts a reality.”; and if that is not a promise, what is?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I can, and the good news for the member is that we are making very good progress. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update said that it expected the average weekly wage to be $1,114 while the actual figure is $1,111, which is just $3 per week behind at this point. The point remains that they are Treasury predictions, but it is only this Government’s economic policies that deliver economic results for New Zealanders, which they test every 3 years.

Grant Robertson: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The only safe man in Opposition.

Grant Robertson: It’s a job you’ll never have, Gerry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know the member was responding to an interjection, which was unhelpful, but can we have the supplementary question?

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that on the basis of the same calculation that he used to say that there would be a $62,000 average wage in 2018, that will now actually be a $59,400 average wage; and whom should working people go to see to find the $2,600 a year that is missing from what he promised them?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions, the Hon Steven Joyce.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is wrong. The latest forecast is actually an average wage of $60,000 in mid-2018, but as the Minister of Finance constantly stresses to Mr Robertson, those are predictions that move around. We are confident that when the time comes in late 2017, when the National-led Government is up against Labour and the Greens, New Zealanders will see that their wages have grown much faster than inflation under this Government, and that under the previous Government, wages were growing slower than inflation.

Dr David Clark: It’s just not true.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is true.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can he confirm that Budget 2016 says that average real wages will not go up in the next 2 financial years under his Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot at one point say that the Government is not bound by the Treasury figures, and then say the Government is bound by the Treasury figures. The reality is that every 6 months Treasury comes up with predictions. The reality is that Treasury expects real wages to continue rising over time and, importantly, the experience for New Zealanders is that over the last 5 years the average annual wage has risen 14.1 percent, compared with inflation of only 4.7 percent. That is what Kiwis are actually experiencing, and we will see where they are at next year.

Smoking—Cost and Government Cessation Strategy

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It is “Iiga”, not “Liga”, but anyway, yes, because he has worked hard to improve health outcomes for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Associate Minister of Health, who in this House claimed yesterday that the intangible cost of smoking is some $11 billion or 61 percent of the health budget?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The point the Minister was making yesterday is that the cost of smoking on society is enormous. But all of that is outweighed by the cost on the individual, and by the end of this question time one further New Zealander will have died of a smoking-related illness. Personally, I think the Government should stand up and try to protect those New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. Well, if—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called you. I am just waiting for a bit of silence. Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if that is true, Prime Minister, and smoking is as bad as he and the Associate Minister of Health said yesterday, then why does he not get some guts and ban it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think history has shown that for very addictive substances, banning is an extremely difficult thing to do. In fact, most of the addiction services will tell you that, ultimately, for someone to stop doing something, they themselves have to want to do it. So, yes, of course the Government is doing the right thing, I think, in terms of, for instance, raising prices, and we know that that has the biggest single effect. There is about a 4 percent to 5 percent reduction per year for every 10 percent increase in price. In the end, 5,000 New Zealanders die every year from smoking-related illnesses, and maybe that member should get some guts and try to help those people.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister if that Minister’s intention is, on the one hand, to reduce the harm from cigarettes, targeting $1.8 billion in taxes on smokers; and if, on the other hand, he is guesstimating total Crown revenue in 2020 as being $2 billion from these taxes but he cannot guesstimate the number of people who are going to give up smoking?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The evidence we have over the last 5 years of price increases in smoking is that it has reduced by about 4 percent to 5 percent a year, so it is about a 25 percent reduction. We know that the biggest impact that it has is on young people. We know from our data that disproportionately larger groups of Māori and Pacific people smoke, particularly Māori people, and, in our view, by taking all of the steps that we are, we are trying desperately hard to encourage people to stop so that they can live a longer life. I saw my mother-in-law die at a very, very young age from smoking. She was 53. She did not get to see our kids growing up. Personally, I know that when she was 53 and on her deathbed, she would have given everything to have made an earlier decision not to smoke. I think there are a lot of New Zealanders in that category.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, why will the Government not forgo billions in taxes into its coffers—the smoking taxes—and get some guts and ban it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier, bans are a nice idea, but history has shown that bans do not work terribly well. The Government is taking steps where it can, but in the end, ultimately, for people to give up smoking—like any addiction—people have to want to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a library analysis of the massive billions in smoking taxes—an analysis of page 104 of this Budget document.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The Budget document has been tabled. Are you saying—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, it is a library document I am tabling.

Mr SPEAKER: Explain the library document. If it is just—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a library document, an analysis, into Crown revenues and the 80 percent tax on a packet of cigarettes—its analysis of that Budget document. It is a library document that I want to table.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Members can decipher whether they want the information or not. Leave is sought to table a library document. I presume it is the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Budget 2016—Support for Young Vulnerable New Zealanders

7. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Social Development: How will Budget 2016 support the care and protection of young vulnerable New Zealanders?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Budget 2016 will see over $347 million invested to support the current and future care and protection of our most vulnerable children and young people. This will ensure that the services and supports are in place to help our most vulnerable when they need it, both now and into the future. The size of this investment, coupled with a 24 percent increase in the total Child, Youth and Family budget since 2008-09, shows how seriously this Government is taking the welfare and protection afforded to our vulnerable children and young people.

Matt Doocey: What funding has been announced to support the overhaul of Child, Youth and Family?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This overhaul will see the child placed squarely at its heart. Their voice will be heard, as we are guided by what is best for them now and into adulthood. Budget 2016 has invested $200 million into the development and implementation of this new model. Among other things, this will establish a single point of accountability by March of next year, a youth advocacy service, the age of care rising to their 18th birthday, greater support for caregivers, and national care standards introduced. In fact, today the first bill has just been introduced into the House that starts these reforms. This Government is determined to make a difference in the lives of young people who come into contact with State care, and this Budget starts delivering on that.

Burglaries—Resolution Rate

8. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that the 9.3 percent resolution rate for burglaries last year is acceptable and meets the expectations of the community?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): No.

Stuart Nash: Well, in light of that, how can New Zealanders have confidence that police will be able to solve more crime when her own post-Budget press release clearly states that 94 percent of extra money is going towards overdue wage increases and outlines nothing new for fighting crime?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course, there was nothing about overdue wage increases. Police have been very well paid under this Government—I have to say, much better than they ever were under the previous Government. In fact, the police budget has grown from $1.26 billion a year in 2008 to $1.6 billion a year now, which equates to a 28 percent increase.

Stuart Nash: In light of her answer to the first question, if she is expecting police to solve more property crime in 2015-16, what figure will meet her expectation?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: A substantial improvement.

Stuart Nash: Is something not wrong when the Mayor of Hastings has to spend up to a million dollars per year on private security companies keeping his constituents safe, due to a lack of police presence in his local community?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, because there has always been a partnership between local government and central government around keeping communities safe. In fact, there always has been, particularly when there was the previous Government in place, when we had to spend quite a lot of money in the Papakura district around safety.

Darroch Ball: Did she or her office provide the Minister of Finance the data contained in his Budget speech stating that crime had reduced by 16 percent; if so, does she stand by that advice?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course.

Darroch Ball: Did she mention to the Minister of Finance the fact that the number of incidents that police attend each year has, in fact, increased from 420,000 in 2008 to over 525,000 in 2015?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Not all instances are, in fact, evidence of a crime.

Darroch Ball: Did she mention to the Minister of Finance that the number of cautions and other non-arrest outcomes every year has jumped from 340,000 in 2008 to over 450,000 in 2015, and how on earth is that a 16 percent reduction in crime?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member may not be aware that those are actually actions taken by police. They are not evidence of a crime; they are actions taken in resolution of an issue.

Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015—NetSafe

9. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made relating to the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Yesterday I announced that internet safety organisation NetSafe has been appointed as the approved agency under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. The approved agency plays a key role in reducing the devastating impact of harmful digital communications by providing a timely and effective service for victims to get help from an independent body. Budget 2016 included $16.4 million to support the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which includes funding for the new approved agency and for the technical advisers provided for in the Act.

Brett Hudson: How will the approved agency help reduce the impact on organisations and individuals of cyber bullying?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The approved agency’s role includes advising on steps people can take to resolve a problem, investigating and attempting to resolve complaints where harm has been caused, and providing education and advice about online safety and conduct. NetSafe brings a strong body of knowledge and experience in this area, with its established relationships with companies and schools across New Zealand and overseas, and I am confident that it will do an excellent job to help remove or stop the spread of harmful content.

Corporate Sponsorship Cuts—Cook Strait Whale Survey and Other Native Species Work

10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: How will the Department of Conservation fund the annual Cook Strait whale survey this year, now that its contract with OMV has ended?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): This survey was never intended to be an indefinite project, and it has achieved what it set out to do, which is to give accurate trend figures of the humpback whales. Surveys done over the past 12 years have shown a significant improvement in the whale population, from 25 back in 2004 to 137 last year. So we now have 12 years of field work and biopsies. We will analyse those, review, and reframe, and although we have finished the boat-based work—that phase is complete—there is also a land-based component. A dedicated group of retired whalers and the Department of Conservation (DOC) will assist them to continue in their work.

Kevin Hague: Can the Minister confirm that the project that has been cut is the one that DOC has described as “A great piece of work and a really exciting research project”, and, indeed, used as a flagship for the department’s partnership programme in presentations up and down the country?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The particular Cook Strait project has finished what it needed to do and we are analysing it. Not all projects last for all time. It has been very successful. It has given us a lot of information, and, at the risk of repeating the information that I gave in my last answer, I think it is important for the Greens to understand that the data that has been gathered is very useful but it has now come to an end as far as the boat-based part is concerned. We may review that once we analyse the statistics, but at the moment we are very satisfied with it.

Kevin Hague: What work with native species has DOC had to cut to fill the gap in kākāpō recovery and research that was left when corporate sponsorship for that species recently ended?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Mr Speaker, that question is a long way from the primary question.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that, but the mention was around corporate sponsorship. On that basis, I have allowed the question.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: We have had a bumper breeding season for the kākāpō. While one sponsor has finished, there are many others queuing up to take its place. In a couple of weeks’ time I will be in a position to announce another sponsor. Kiwibank and other banks are no longer involved in Kiwis for Kiwi, but you will note that from last year we had $11.2 million of new money that has gone into kiwi recovery, which has proved very successful. The ongoing programmes are matched by Crown funding and they are matched by volunteer and community groups. They are very successful and not dependent on corporate sponsorship, but it is a very nice-to-have element of it.

Kevin Hague: How many species of snail or weta or ground beetle, which have had their threat status slide closer to extinction under National’s watch, have had corporate sponsorship money found for them by the Department of Conservation?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: What the member is failing to join up the dots on is that when we get corporate sponsorship it enables DOC to do work that is, perhaps, less attractive to corporate sponsors. So, instead of taking away from our capacity, it enhances it. All of our species are very important. We protect ecosystems in a way that no previous Labour Government had the courage to do. We deal with landscape predator control and ecosystem protection, and that is at the heart of species protection in New Zealand.

Kevin Hague: What did OMV, New Zealand’s largest producer in the oil industry—an industry that threatens whale habitat—get in return for sponsoring the annual whale survey?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I think that it probably has the satisfaction of knowing that it was participating in something that was very helpful. The Cook Strait whale survey was needed at the time of the aftermath of Japanese whaling, to ensure that the trend was accurately measured as to the humpback whale numbers going through the Cook Strait. That is a responsible corporate response, and I think if the member wants to know any more, he could contact them and find out further detail.

Emergency Housing—Te Puea Marae

11. PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister for Social Housing: How much financial assistance, if any, has the Ministry of Social Development given to Te Puea Marae to house the homeless?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing) on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: Today the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) opened for proposals the $41 million emergency housing initiative, which includes funding for community organisations to provide emergency housing. Officials have been in discussion with the marae on accessing funding but no contract has yet been signed. MSD has also been dealing with each of the individuals using the marae who are in high housing need, to find longer-term solutions for the families.

Peeni Henare: How will her $41.1 million fix the problem when most of it covers only existing places, and yet Te Puea Marae had to open its doors because there is a huge increase in demand that is not covered by existing providers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The $41 million that the Minister for Social Housing has secured in this year’s Budget is the most generous support the Government has ever provided for emergency housing. There certainly will be portions of that that are for new emergency housing, as well as supporting the sustainability of community organisations that provide existing emergency housing.

Marama Davidson: Given that Te Puea Marae is responding to the housing crisis by putting a roof over the heads of homeless New Zealanders, why has the Minister not been out to Te Puea Marae to see what is happening there?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government provides social housing support for over 150,000 New Zealanders. We commend the marae on its initiative. MSD staff have been to the marae in the last week, contracts have been available only from today, and the Minister has brought forward the timetable for those contracts that were not due to come into effect until September, taking into account the need.

Peeni Henare: Can she confirm the only financial help the Government has given Te Puea Marae to help house the homeless is $10,000 through Te Puni Kōkiri, and will she commit to an ongoing weekly contribution to assist Te Puea in filling the gaps in this Government’s failed emergency housing policy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The way this Government goes about funding community organisations is to respond to need, but to do so in a professional way. The specific need of this marae arrived only last week. There are discussions—[Interruption] Well, the marae started its programme just last week, and the ministry is in discussion with it about a funding contract.

Peeni Henare: In light of that answer, how has she let homelessness get so bad that a 15-day-old premature baby has been forced to live at an Auckland marae because Housing New Zealand would not house her family in Whakatāne?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The specific circumstances of that case are that the person did not provide the information of them having an infant child because they were concerned that the child may be removed from them if they declared it. That is unfortunate. I think the circumstances are understandable, and the lesson from that is for MSD to be able to reassure families that providing their full information will ensure we can meet their housing need.

Peeni Henare: When the public is moved to action by the reality of so many New Zealand families living in cars and garages, why will she not commit to matching that demand with actual beds?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The number of people in high housing need, which is being monitored by Housing New Zealand, is not significantly different across the country from the number that existed when we came to Government in 2008. It may be news to members opposite but in every single year in my 26 years as a parliamentarian I have dealt with constituency cases of people in high need. It is true that the need in Auckland is greater. In exactly the same way as we have successfully resolved those issues in Christchurch, we will resolve them in Auckland.

Smoking—Tobacco, Standardised Packaging

12. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on standardised packaging of tobacco?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): Yesterday we marked World Smokefree Day by announcing the next steps to bring about standardised tobacco products and packaging in New Zealand. We released for consultation a draft set of regulations with detailed proposals for standardising tobacco products and packaging. The draft regulations propose similar standardised packaging, as has been in use in Australia since 2012. Tobacco products are harmful and highly addictive. Standardised packaging is another important step in the Government’s programme to help smokers to quit smoking and to dissuade people, especially our young people, from taking it up.

Paul Foster-Bell: What evidence has he seen that standardised packaging reduces smoking?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The Australians have had standardised packaging since 2012. Over that time research has shown that standardised packaging reduces the appeal of tobacco products, especially to young people. It also increases the impact of health warnings and the recorded attempts by smokers to quit. Earlier this year the Australian Government published its post-implementation review on tobacco plain packaging. The review shows that 25 percent of the increased drop in smoking prevalence was directly attributable to standardised packaging. I seek leave to table the Australian Government post-implementation review, page 35, which shows this effect.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it available on the internet for members if they want it?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Not that I am aware of, but I will table it.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the member is unsure of its public availability, I will put the leave, and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Paul Foster-Bell: What steps is the Government taking to reduce Māori and Pacific smoking rates?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: This Government is focused on reducing harm to all New Zealanders from tobacco products. We have recently reviewed all the face-to-face smoking cessation contracts to ensure that they target the most at-risk groups, and these include Māori, Pacific, and pregnant women. Quitline has been merged into the new telehealth service and is now available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to support those trying to quit smoking. The theme of the Government’s smoking cessation programmes is “It’s all about whānau”. This Government is determined to reduce smoking rates among these high-risk groups.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 31 May on the .

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): The 2016 Budget of Bill English is a truly excellent Budget. How do we know that? We know that because of the way the Opposition has reacted to the Budget. Instead of challenging the Budget, instead of actually going through the Budget, instead of questioning the Budget, it has decided to do a diversion—a little diversion in the political environment. In late-breaking, “stop the presses” political news of the last 24 hours, Labour and the Greens have announced that they are going to campaign against the National Government at the next election. That is the news—they have decided that they are going to campaign against the Government at the next election. That is the news. They are not going to share policy, they are not going to have any arrangements around seats, there will be no commitment afterwards—no commitment afterwards—they are just going to campaign against the Government.

Do not take it from me. They went on the television this morning to explain what they were about with this big announcement yesterday. Mr Paul Henry said to them “So nothing has changed at all—nothing changes at all?”, and Andrew Little said: “No. Actually, what the agreement does is confirm what’s been happening for the last few months.” Metiria Turei said: “The first step is telling people that we’re going to work together.” Mr Henry said “But you must have had a discussion. You must have worked together to now.”, and Metiria said: “We’ve actually been working together for the last 18 months, but today we’re announcing we’re working together.” So there you have it: the Labour Party and the Green Party have announced that they are going to campaign at the next election against the Government.

The Labour Party has given the Greens a rose—it has. Do not just take it from me: they literally tweeted love hearts to each other on their Twitter accounts. They tweeted love hearts to each other on their Twitter accounts. Labour has given the Greens a rose, which makes Winston Naz. It does make Winston Naz. I feel a bit for Naz. I feel a bit for Naz.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a longstanding requirement in this House that you cannot refer to someone by their first name, and in his case he should put “Sir” in front of it.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to make a comment. [Interruption] Order! There have been a number of times in the last 2 days where Ministers, particularly, have referred to members by their Christian names only. It is unacceptable. It is against the Standing Orders. Members will be addressed by their Christian name and surname, or as Mr or Ms and by their surnames only. We cannot have the informality of speaking to members across the House using their Christian names alone.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Therefore, that makes the Rt Hon Winston Peters Naz, and that is sad for Winston Peters but probably sadder for Naz, to be fair. So there you have it—the announcement that wasn’t.

Except there was one interesting thing about this nonsense. Despite the fact that there was nothing new, there was one small thing that was new. Despite the fact that those members said all bets are off after the election and there is no deal after election day, they felt obliged to say that Grant Robertson would be the finance Minister if they won. Who was feeling insecure? Who required his leader to go out and speak for him because he was feeling a bit insecure? What we know is that this discussion occurred last Thursday night. It occurred last Thursday night. The two of them, Andrew Little and Grant Robertson, were sitting, having a beer—on YouTube, as it happens. They were sitting, having a beer, on YouTube. Mr Little said to Grant “I’m going to announce a deal with the Green Party.”, and Grant said “Well, that’s OK, although—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just mentioned to the House that we cannot have the informality of referring to members simply by their Christian names.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And so Grant Robertson said to Andrew Little “I need to be announced as the finance guy, as part of this deal.” while drinking his unfinishable beer that he had on the YouTube video—the beer that never finished, the beer that just kept going and going. So anyway the only thing we know, out of this deal, is that Grant Robertson would be their finance guy because he was worried that he would not be.

I worry about Julie Anne—what about Julie Anne Genter? What has happened to Julie Anne?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Julie Anne Genter has been forgotten. She has been forgotten in this. She has become errant. She has been thrown under a bus by this Labour-Greens deal. Julie Anne Genter has been thrown under a bus by this deal, which is ironic. It is ironic, actually, because she is in favour of public transport. But she was thrown under the bus by this deal.

The whole show that we have seen in the last 24 hours is much less than it seems. It is The Bachelor, but there is no happy ending for these guys. They are doing it because they cannot respond to Bill English’s Budget, which is a strong Budget that invests in a growing economy, that delivers results for New Zealanders, and that invests in innovation, health, and public services. This is a strong Budget. The reaction from Labour and the Greens is absolutely worse than pitiful. It is a complete diversion. It is an announcement about nothing.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): That is how proud Steven Joyce is of this Budget: he mentioned the word “Budget” twice in 6 minutes, and nothing else—there was nothing else whatsoever about the details in the Budget. He is obsessed with the reality TV show The Bachelor. The show he should be talking about is The Biggest Loser. That is the show that he should be talking about, and Steven Joyce knows who that is.

In regard to this Budget, I take the word of Dominick Stephens, the Westpac economist who produced a publication the day after the Budget entitled New Zealand Government Budget 2016: Fiscal mirage. That is what he said—he said it is a fiscal mirage. This is why. He said: “it’s clear that the improvement in the fiscal outlook has largely come from economic projections … rather than from policy decisions.” That is the point. There is no plan here to grow jobs. There is no plan here to get New Zealanders back into work, to get young people back into work, to transform the regions. There is just a fiscal mirage. Bill English is like some kind of Moses on Mogadon, stumbling about the desert for 40 years trying to find an economic plan, and it is not there. That is why Steven Joyce had nothing to talk about when he stood up today, because there is nothing in this.

There is nothing in this Budget, but the thing is to call it boring is actually an insult. It gives it too much credit. It is not boring; it is useless. It is a failure. It is hopeless. Another economist, Ganesh Nana, described it as breathtakingly visionless—breathtakingly visionless—and that is exactly what this Budget is. It has failed the key tests that New Zealanders would put on a Budget. What will it do to make their lives and their families’ lives better and easier?

If we take a look at the core things that are the building blocks of opportunity, which every single Budget should be built upon, this one failed. In health, the Budget once again failed to meet the basic test of keeping up with demographic change from an ageing population and an increasing population. It falls short again, adding to the $1.7 billion of effective cuts in the health budget. Every member of this House knows that district health boards (DHBs) around New Zealand are not keeping up. They are not keeping up with hip and knee surgeries. They are not keeping up with mental health services. Every DHB in this country is struggling, and this Budget failed to deliver an increase in funding that would see New Zealanders get the health system they actually deserve. And so New Zealanders will pay.

The New Zealanders who are parents will pay as well, because we have an education budget that, amazingly, freezes operational funding. Hekia Parata can stand up in this House and tell us: “Actually, we are targeting the funding.” Well, no, they are not, because it turns out that the targeted funding actually just goes to the schools. So it is not social investment; it is social disinvestment—

Carmel Sepuloni: Divestment.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —divestment. Thank you, Carmel Sepuloni—divestment. It is not saying “There are 150,000 people in need, and we are going to get something to them.”; it is actually reducing the amount of money that schools need, and then claiming that it is targeted. It is disingenuous, and the Minister of Education should stand up in this House and say the truth to New Zealand parents: they are going to pay more. New Zealand parents will pay more. They are already paying 10 times the rate of inflation in terms of the increase in so-called voluntary donations, and a frozen Budget like this will not help.

Then we come to housing. Everyone in New Zealand was expecting the Budget to say something about housing—the biggest crisis facing New Zealand—and Nick Smith, he came up with the goods for the Government. He came up with the goods: another 25 hectares to go with the 12 hectares that he got from the last Budget—37 hectares out of a promised 500 hectares. Dr Smith’s maths might not be fantastic, but even he can work out that he is failing Auckland when it comes to actually doing the one thing that this Budget needed to do. Three words, Dr Smith: build more houses.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We are.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is what this Budget needed to do. He says: “We are.” We have been through this. A consent is not a house, Dr Smith. It is just not—you cannot live in a consent. What Aucklanders need, and what the rest of New Zealand needs, is a State-sponsored housebuilding programme. It is the only way that we will get affordable homes built in New Zealand. Bill English, in his pre-Budget speech, said it: only 5 percent of homes built in New Zealand in the last 10 years have been affordable homes. It is not going to happen without the Government behind it.

The Labour Party has been saying since 2012 “Let’s do KiwiBuild. Let’s build 100,000 homes so that New Zealanders can actually get on to the homeownership ladder.”, rather than having the worst homeownership rates in 64 years, which is what we have got today in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

GRANT ROBERTSON: It is true, Dr Smith. It is absolutely true. We have the worst homeownership—and this is the problem. He is so out of touch. He sits in the House every day tut-tutting, saying that it is not true. Get out into the real world, Dr Smith. Get up to Auckland. I think they have gotten over seeing your face on the billboards. Get up there and listen to Aucklanders about what is happening in the housing market.

But here is the issue. Fundamentally, the housing system is a system, and when people cannot afford to buy houses, that pushes them into the private rental market. That pushes the cost of rents up, and that pushes New Zealanders out of the private rental market into having to find social housing, which is already overstretched, and that, in turn, pushes people who would get into social housing out looking for emergency housing. Right now, today in Auckland, there are people living in cars and garages, crying out for help and for emergency housing. Last weekend in Auckland there were no emergency housing beds available—none whatsoever. The wonderful whānau at Te Puea Marae stepped up, and I want to say, on record, congratulations on that whānau for stepping up and saying: “We will look after that.” But what kind of indictment is that on New Zealand, that today we rely on Te Puea Marae to be the social service provider? That is the core moral responsibility of a Government: to ensure that its citizens are housed if they cannot house themselves.

This Government has lost its moral compass. It has lost its ability to responsibly govern when it comes to housing, when there are people queuing up—people coming all the way from Whakatāne because they are so desperate to find a house somewhere, and, more than that, to find someone who actually cares. That is what they went looking for at Te Puea Marae—someone who cared—because they did not find it in the National Government. They could not find anybody over there who cared enough to step up in this Budget and provide the emergency housing that is needed, because this Government has lost its way. It is out of touch. It does not understand the plight of New Zealanders.

And it is not just Auckland. In the last couple of weeks there has been story after story about homelessness. Homelessness in my old home town of Dunedin—I do not remember that when I grew up there. I do not remember people living on the streets then. Dr Smith said that ever since he has been in Parliament, people have been coming to him. Well, I have got news for Dr Smith: it is worse, and it is getting worse and worse and worse under his watch. This Government has completely failed New Zealanders with this Budget.

In this Budget we also see that in the next 2 years real wages will fall. Real wages will fall—they will go down. All the promises in the world from the Government cannot get around that. Wages are not keeping up. Unemployment goes up. Anne Tolley sits over there—one in 10 people in Gisborne are out of work. The Government does not care. It is not doing anything about it. The Budget fails those people.

Well, I have got good news for people: a change of Government is coming. A change of Government—built on health, education, and housing—that New Zealanders can be proud of. A Government that is actually prepared to invest in the future, have a proper programme for infrastructure, build roads, build rail, and not pretend that the Inland Revenue Department computer system is infrastructure, as the Government has done in this Budget. A Government that actually says that wherever you live in New Zealand, you have the right to expect that there will be a decent job for you to do, a decent house to live in, a good hospital, and good schools, because they are the building blocks of opportunity in New Zealand. That is what the next Labour Government will bring. A Budget that we would bring to this House would be one that was about a fair share for all New Zealanders, and prosperity—not just the very few at the top doing well, but every New Zealander getting a shot at success. That is what a future Labour Government will bring, and that is what a change of Government will bring.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am delighted to join in this Budget debate—the 26th that I have participated in as a parliamentarian—which, if you look at the core economic statistics, is the best Budget in a generation. It does not matter whether you look at the issue of the balancing of the books, whether you look at job growth, whether you look at income growth, whether you look at the state of the Government’s level of debt, or whether you look at the issue of inflation. I challenge members opposite to tell me a Budget in the last 25 years that has had a better set of core economic statistics than Bill English’s 2016 Budget. Let me go through each of them.

Economic growth—3.3 percent, 2.6 percent, 2.8 percent—3 strong years, both now and into the future. Tell me an OECD developed country that has its economy growing stronger than ours. I can remember Budget after Budget after Budget in this Parliament where we have had depressing numbers about our economy scratching to make 1 percent growth, let alone those strong numbers.

Let us look at the issue of jobs. When I came to this Parliament unemployment in New Zealand was 11 percent. We all know that there are countries in the world right now—the US, Europe—where unemployment numbers are up at 10, 11, 12, 15 percent. There are countries where 25 percent of young people are unemployed. And what this Budget shows is that not only is unemployment set to go lower than 5 percent but also, over the next 4 years, there will be another 170,000 jobs in our country. I again challenge the members opposite: show me a Budget in the last 25 years that has been as strong in terms of job growth.

Let us look at the issues—the hard issues—around living within one’s means. I have sat in this House so often, listening to Budget debates that are riddled with red ink—billions and billions of dollars of deficits, right through the 1990s. Look at those Budget figures in 2009, when Treasury said this country was going to run deficits for the next 10 years. Let us look at that Budget figure only 5 years ago, when the Budget presented in this House had a deficit of $17 billion.

I say to Mr English that to deliver a Budget balance last year, again this year, and next year is a stunning result, and so too are those future surpluses that are going to give this country choices.

Dr David Clark: You borrowed more than Muldoon.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And then take an issue—the member raises the question of debt. When I came to this Parliament, this country had debt of over 90 percent of GDP—90 percent. What this Budget shows is debt levels of 25 percent. Do you know what—

Hon Annette King: Who got it down?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Annette King asked this question. Do you know what level of debt for New Zealand was projected by Treasury when I picked up my ministerial warrant and joined Cabinet in 2008? It said that New Zealand’s debt in this year, 2016, was going to be 110 percent of GDP—110 percent of GDP. Annette King, it was your legacy, and Bill English has it down to 25 percent. I challenge the members opposite and say: tell me the country in the OECD that has got a lower level of debt than New Zealand, because now it is even lower than Australia, which was the gold standard. Again, I say to Bill English, congratulations.

In so many Budgets that I have been a part of, the big debate has been regarding the cost of living—the cost to a Kiwi family of paying their food bill, of paying for basic costs of living. When we came into Government, Annette King, inflation was running at 5 percent. What did that mean? That meant that families were going backwards by 5 percent per year. Bill English has presided over an economy that has the lowest level of inflation in 50 years, at only 0.4 percent. I say that that is what you get with good economic management.

Equally, I remember so many Budgets where the big debate was interest rates. Why do interest rates matter? I will tell you why: because for families struggling to pay their mortgage, for farms, and for businesses that are wanting to invest in growth in jobs, interest rates matter a heck of a lot. Why are we not debating about interest rates? That is because they are at the lowest level in 40 years, and that is good for Kiwi families and that is good for Kiwi businesses.

And, at the same time, I thought the gall of Grant Robertson to say that there was nothing in this Budget for health. Well, let me tell him something. This Budget provides for bowel cancer screening. I have had people die—mates die—from bowel cancer. There are hundreds of New Zealanders every year who die from bowel cancer, and this Budget is going to provide a screening programme that is going to save over a hundred Kiwi lives a year. I say that is good news. And I say that the extra $70 million for Pharmac, which is going to enable this country to have more drugs so that we can prevent diseases so that we can save New Zealanders’ lives, is good news.

I openly acknowledge that because New Zealand’s economy is doing so well, tens of thousands of Kiwis are voting confidence in New Zealand and moving back to our country. That is true, and that is putting pressure on housing. But here is the real question: which Government has the wherewithal to deal with the root causes that are so pertinent to the issues of housing? I had to agree with Phil Twyford when he said 2 weeks ago that the most important issue around housing is land supply—on that we agree, absolutely. Here are the numbers: over the last 25 years the price of a section in Auckland has gone from $100,000 to $450,000, and if the section costs $450,000, of course there will not be an affordable home built on that section. So if this Parliament is serious about dealing with Auckland’s housing issues, we have to deal with the issues that have sections in Auckland costing $450,000.

There is the problem. We, on this side of the House, are very clear on the solutions. That is why we are reforming the Resource Management Act. That is why we are driving a new Auckland Unitary Plan. That is why, tomorrow, we will be announcing a new national policy statement on the supply of land for housing. But here is the rub: for all the love fest that occurred yesterday between Labour and the Greens, on the issue that Labour admits is the most fundamental to solving housing, these guys—Labour and the Greens—are a hundred miles apart.

The Green Party strongly believes in metropolitan urban limits. It is behind the policies that have seen section prices go stupid over the last 20 years. What I say to this Parliament is that the dysfunctionality on such a fundamental issue as metropolitan urban limits and housing shows that Labour and the Greens do not have the solution. They can have all the exchanges of roses in a Bachelor-style episode—[Interruption]—but they need to resolve, Annette King, the fundamental policy issues like Resource Management Act (RMA) reform and metropolitan urban limits if we are to deliver long-term, sustainable solutions around housing.

So I simply challenge Labour members opposite: are the Greens on the same page as you on scrapping metropolitan urban limits? Are they on the same page in respect of the requirements to reform the RMA, where they now recognise the requirements for reform? Because the truth is that members opposite are all talk on housing, but actually, around the core issues that we need to address, they have no idea, and they have not resolved fundamental issues like land supply, which are critical to finding the solution, long term, for Kiwi families.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): The Minister who just resumed his seat, Nick Smith, spent the last 10 minutes telling us that this was the best Budget of a generation. Any young person who might have had the unfortunate pleasure of having watched that speech just now would surely be asking themselves the question “Which generation?”, because it will certainly not feel like theirs. When you have the lowest homeownership rate since the 1950s, people of this generation are not patting themselves on the back and saying: “How lucky we all are.”

When it comes to employment opportunities, we have over 87,000 young people who not only are not in employment but are not in education or training, and are desperately looking for opportunities so they can put a roof over their heads—[Interruption]—and I would add, Minister Tolley, that that is 25,000 more than when your Government took office. That group of young people is not saying that this feels like the best Budget of a generation. In fact, what is the measure of a Budget? What is the measure of a successful Budget? You cannot sleep under the roof of a graph of GDP.

People will be measuring the success of a Budget for themselves. How will they feel better off, if at all? When you have got a situation where wages are not looking to rise, according to the Government’s own Budget, in the next 2 years and when you have got a Government that has borrowed more than Muldoon—more than Muldoon—which generation is Nick Smith talking about? And for all of the platitudes about how, relative to other countries, New Zealand is in not quite the same shape as other places, that thanks goes to Helen Clark and Michael Cullen because they were the ones who got net Crown debt to almost zero before this Government came into office. They set us up for a rainy day—they set us up for a rainy day.

I will give some applause to Nick Smith. At least he talked about the Budget. The last few speeches I have heard from Ministers did not even touch on some of the Budget initiatives. In fact, I have heard more, creepy, discussion about The Bachelor from some of those Government Ministers—all of them male, I have to point out—than I have heard about the Budget itself, and maybe that is because this Budget did not present a vision that was worth talking about, and I have sought that almost every single Budget. Budgets are a Government’s opportunity to tell the people of New Zealand where they are going and how it is going to tackle the big issues that New Zealand is facing.

Not only did this Budget not present a vision but it did not even address the here and the now. I should have expected that because, recently, when the Prime Minister was asked about his view on the fact that people were sleeping in cars, what was his response? “Those people should go to Work and Income.” Any Prime Minister or any MP who has done constituency work knows what a ridiculous statement that was. We all have people coming through our office doors, day in, day out, who have been to Work and Income and have been turned away either because they did not fill in a form properly or there was a bit of information missing, or there was some little part of an obligation that they were not quite aware of.

There have been, according to Work and Income workers whom I have spoken to, more changes to the welfare system in the past year and a half by policy direction than there were in the welfare reforms a year ago, and all of them are discretionary little blockages to stop people getting the help they need. Any Prime Minister who is talking to his own electorate office staff or to people—or to people—would know that. I feel the same way about the housing issue that we are facing now. Any Prime Minister worth his salt would know that the need for the 3,000 State houses that this Government has sold is coming back tenfold now that we have this housing crisis.

I challenge Nick Smith, I challenge the Prime Minister, and I challenge any National member to go and visit Te Puea Marae, where they have done what needed to be done for their community. They opened their doors and they gave people who were desperate a bed. For the Minister to stand up in the House today and say that one of the families that has been referred to, which has a brand new baby, was denied housing because family members did not fill in their forms properly and tell Housing New Zealand they had a baby on the way—well, that just speaks to the problem. They were homeless, they needed a place to live, and, naturally, they were scared that if they talked about having a baby on the way someone might take their child away from them because they could not find a roof.

That is the reason we should be absolutely making sure nothing stands in the way of having a couple like that, let alone a couple with a child, housed. To instead explain it away as a rational reason why they now find themselves at the mercy of being housed by social agencies—and not social agencies; a marae that simply is responding to need—is simply not good enough. I met that little baby, and I would challenge the Minister to tell me that simply the incorrect filling in of a form is a good reason why that family is not housed. He needs to visit them.

I would challenge all of those members to do the same with education—go and talk to a principal and ask them whether the targeting of 150,000 students, leaving behind more than 600,000, is adequate. The Government has frozen the education budget. Health is pretty much the same. It needed $600 million just to tread water, and anyone who has had a family member show up at a hospital recently would have seen how much pressure our health services are under.

One shining light—and I will acknowledge this one shining light, particularly while Anne Tolley is in the House—is the $36 million that in the next year will go into Child, Youth and Family to ease the pressure on these front-line services. That is welcomed. The expert advisory panel that wrote about Child, Youth and Family modernisation and reform acknowledged that it was facing a deficit that could have been as big as $38 million. It needed that cash injection, but we also need decent investment and early intervention if we are going to improve the outcome for kids.

Those are the big ones, but perhaps what also deserves some headlines is what is happening in some of the portfolios where the Government is hoping that people will not be noticing—for example, the cuts being experienced in conservation. Also, there has been a reduction of about $10 million per year going into water quality, but then again, if your aim is only to make your rivers wadeable instead of swimmable, perhaps you do not need to spend as much money on water quality. Perhaps that is how you make your savings.

And for the arts community, I have to respond to that as the shadow portfolio holder. On Budget night we had Minister Barry crowing about the investment into the arts. It equates to about $2 million per annum.

Hon Maggie Barry: What’s that member ever contributed?

JACINDA ARDERN: What have I ever done? Well, surprisingly, I am not on the Treasury benches, Maggie Barry. If I was, I would have done a damned sight more than that Minister did. There is $11 million coming out of Creative New Zealand—$11 million being cut from Creative New Zealand—and the Minister’s response was to find a small amount of money for three organisations that were all going backwards. They were stopping touring and were about to cut performers because of the state they were in, and the Minister was having salivatory selfies when other arts organisations are going to face cuts of 10 percent. She crows that she has done more than me. Give me 1 week in your portfolio, Minister Barry, and I will show you. I will show you what you should do with an arts portfolio.

Overall, this Budget could have done so much more. It should have presented a plan on housing. It should have presented a plan on poverty. It should have invested in education. Ultimately, this Budget needed to be about people and it was not.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I rise with great pleasure to talk about Bill English’s eighth Budget. It is an excellent example of its kind. It gives us choices that we have not been able to make in other years. We have listened to the arts sector, we have listened to conservation, and those are the two areas of my ministerial responsibilities.

I would have to say that that member Jacinda Ardern, who has just resumed her seat, is a tragic example of her kind. She has achieved nothing. She does nothing. When people compare that member with the actual member of Parliament for Auckland Central and all that the Hon Nikki Kaye has achieved, as opposed to her doing, what? Turning up at the odd disc-jockeying, turning up to the odd event—actually doing very, very little. In fact, I cannot think of a single contribution that member has made that has made a difference to anybody—a tragic and pathetic example of her kind.

But I am not going to spend any more time on the foolishness and delusional nonsense that is being peddled by the Opposition. Instead, I will concentrate on what we have achieved, and this Budget has achieved much. The economy is set to grow by 2.8 percent in the next 5 years, so when we look at what we have achieved around job growth, we have been able to spend more on health and more on education. Ultimately, those are much better results for New Zealand families and vulnerable children.

Hon Annette King: No wonder they don’t want her back on the Henry Show.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Those are the kinds of things that count, rather than carping from the edges of the universe as the Hon Annette King does—again, an ineffectual individual who achieved very, very little. In fact, she put her portfolio backwards in the period of time that that member had it. When we look at Tony Ryall and at Jonathan Coleman, we see people who have actually achieved.

Let me look at my own portfolio responsibilities, because when you look at the arts sector in New Zealand it is very easy to see that there has been a vibrancy—cultural dimensions that have been added to enrich us as a society. I am very grateful indeed that we have such resilient arts organisations. I am very glad indeed that they put together good, strong business cases and I was able to support them. I put a very strong case to the Minister of Finance, who listened very carefully and acted in a way that I think was responsible.

For the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra (NZSO), for example, its funding has increased by more than 10 percent. So it has gone up $1.2 million, from about $13.446 million to $14.646 million. This is an increase that will enable the Symphony Orchestra to travel more around the regions, to take its extraordinary world-class orchestral members and talent to the parts of New Zealand that are clamouring to have that kind of cultural engagement. The Symphony Orchestra has responsibility for the National Youth Orchestra as well, so it is nurturing the young orchestral people of the future. I think that is a very important part of the arts.

The NZSO was given the great accolade of being a finalist in the Grammy awards, up there with world-class orchestras—really up there, punching above its weight in those international stakes. It is doing that because it is supported in its own country. The Symphony Orchestra, I think, is a major asset for us. I think something like 60 percent of its orchestral members are now able to be used in a way that they were not able to be before. In other words, with the additional funding that it will have now, the orchestra will be able to travel around New Zealand, go to the regions, and make sure that the very talented line-up of people that it has, whom I saw performing on Italian National Day—20 of them went to the celebration and were extraordinary, and incredibly impressive to the ambassadors who were there and to all of us.

The Royal New Zealand Ballet is another example of a Crown entity that does an extraordinary amount. It has, out of its own endeavours for box office, for business, and for partnerships and philanthropy, managed to achieve more than 60 percent of the funding that it requires to run itself. That is commendable. That is the sort of thing that Crown funding can do to assist and back up its endeavours, which are already very good indeed. Tutus on Tour—the ballet will be able to send more ballerinas around New Zealand, and perhaps on some more international tours as well.

Along with Te Matatini, which has had a 56 percent increase—it will be able to take our national kapa haka, which is extraordinary and unique, and very much part of who we are as New Zealanders and our identity, to the world. To those who were privileged to see the Edinburgh Tattoo, our Matatini kapa haka groups that performed before it as the curtain-raiser, if you like, to the tattoo, were extraordinary and people love them. They have been invited internationally around the world. The money, the $1.94 million we have been able to allocate, is up from $1.24 million. This is, in fact, permanent baseline funding, and it will enable them to develop kapa haka around New Zealand. The regional organisation of Te Matatini will be able to set up 50 more groups a year in schools. They will be able to encourage kapa haka not only as a vibrant cultural expression but also as something that is good for your health—your cultural health, and your physical health as well.

When I look at the entities that are under my immediate responsibilities as the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage I am very proud of what they have achieved. I am very proud of the ability that they have to not only reach the people of New Zealand and to resonate with them but also to ensure that partners, philanthropists, and others really appreciate and value them. This means, of course, that the taxpayer’s dollar can go a great deal further than if we just paid one entity the lump sum of money and then did not look at developing other business partnerships.

My task is partly to make taxpayers’ money go that much further. I am concentrating on doing that as well in my Department of Conservation (DOC). Despite some of the nonsense that has been peddled, particularly by the Greens, and backed up by the other Opposition people, DOC’s operational spending has increased. It is difficult to understand why the Greens are having so much trouble with the mathematics. In 2008 the operational funding for DOC was $316 million a year. This year it is $391 million. That is a rise by everybody’s standards and everybody’s mathematics, except the Greens, who deliberately peddle misinformation and nonsense constantly about DOC, and also attack it—attack it for what it does, attack it for the fact that you have extraordinarily good-hearted people who work for DOC and try their absolute best, and they succeed. I am very proud of them, and I am very proud of what they do.

There is plenty of good news for conservation in this year’s Budget. Let us look at one aspect of it: the War on Weeds, which we launched last year, where I have the Dirty Dozen annual array of weeds that need to be kept under control. We have as our No. 1 weed—and I fear it will be so for many years to come—wildings. We call them wildings because they escape from where they ought to be and they get away on us in our New Zealand landscape. Generally, they are conifers, but there are also sycamores and other specimens that have done this. So on Budget day Nathan Guy and I announced a $16 million package, and that is going to increase our work to be able to control wildings.

Wildings occupy at the moment something like 6 percent of the country’s total land area. That is about 1.8 million hectares that is high-value, conservation, and very productive land. They also smother our native species and ruin the biodiversity of New Zealand. So when we look at the money that we spend on wilding control, it is up around $11 million a year, actually, and we are going to be targeting to control some priority areas, including the Molesworth Station, the headwaters of the Southern Alps, lakes and rivers, and the central North Island.

Battle for our Birds is another reality this year because of beechmast seeding, so $20.7 million has gone into landscape predator control, which involves the use of aerial 1080, but with that money I have allocated a reasonable sum to do two pilot schemes on self-resetting traps.

David Shearer: A reasonable sum?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It is a very reasonable sum, actually. It is many millions of dollars, and it will be used to test and to pilot these self-resetting traps. Once you have dealt with the rodent population—knocked them back to negligible numbers—you then put the self-resetting traps in and they are able to protect our endangered and threatened species. This will be the biggest ever predator pest control operation in New Zealand’s history. So it will be more than 800,000 hectares, and that will prevent the plague proportion—biblical plague proportion, actually—of rats, stoats, and possums. The results of 1080 have tremendously improved our ability as a nation to be able to control these predator numbers—these introduced eco-invaders.

When I look at superannuation, as well—when we cast back over the 8 years that National has been in Government, superannuation entitlement has gone up 34 percent. This is a Government that cares about seniors and is concerned about the way that social isolation and elder abuse, the growing rates of dementia numbers, and so forth, are needing to be planned for—not feared; not worried about unduly, but to understand where we are heading with dementia rates with an ageing population. At the moment it involves about 50,000 New Zealanders. That will treble, and we need to plan ahead for that.

This was a great Budget. I am very proud to be part of the Government that delivered it.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I will ring the bell at 5 minutes.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I understand that Kevin Hague will address Maggie Barry’s previous statement. This Budget commits the greatest of all possible mistakes a Budget can possibly make: it misjudges the future. It rests an interrelated whole-of-Government fiscal plan on a wrong premise. Get the premise wrong, and everything that follows is wrong. Let me explain how that has come about. In introducing the Budget last week, the Minister of Finance said that he was presenting a healthy set of accounts with rising surpluses and falling debt.

The Budget at a Glance booklet contains the 2016 highlights. What are they? There are five principal highlights and four secondary. The principal ones are growth, innovation, infrastructure, social investment, and health. The secondary ones are education, housing, justice, and—wait for it—the environment. Within environment are three component parts: fresh water, pest control, and the emissions trading scheme (ETS). The ETS contains one policy measure: restoring the one-for-one surrender obligation. That constitutes the sum total of the Government’s budgetary planning on climate policy. Of what significance is this? The Ministry for the Environment calculates that it will shave 0.7 percent off our emissions in 2030. Bravo! It is within the margin of error. This relegation of climate policy to the last of 45 highlights, with no perceptible effect over the longer term, shows the misguided world view that I mentioned.

What should the Minister have done instead? He should have placed the 2016 Budget within the context of a future carbon price. He started off optimistically: “I recall our first Budget, delivered in difficult times, with Treasury forecasting never-ending deficits and ever-rising debt. Today, however, I can present a healthy set of public accounts.” But, instead of patting himself on the back from then on, he should have said the following: “Although we have left those difficult times behind, we must recognise that unprecedented challenges lie ahead. A continued rise in global emissions guarantees dangerous climate change for the planet, including New Zealand. This Budget is, therefore, cast in the context of a transformational pathway to a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. Nothing less is required for us to meet our national responsibility level within the global carbon budget. If we do not move at this speed, New Zealand will face a fiscal overhang in the long term of unprecedented magnitude. I note that France is setting a carbon price of NZ$50 for 2017. We must prepare for a global carbon price of this size in our fiscal planning. The 2016 Budget rests, above all, on that premise.” That is what he should have said, and that is what is missing from page 1 of his Budget statement.

Let me cite another statement the Minister made in his speech last week. He said: “Budgets are not just an accounting exercise. They are about achieving better results for New Zealanders …”. How unwittingly prescient that was. Budgets are not about accounts; they simply express in dollar terms what kind of society we are, what kind of Government we have, what values our country embraces, and, above all, what level of prescience, foresight, purpose, and resolve we are showing.

This Government retains a world view that has damaged the planet and betrayed the people. Because this Budget hews to an old world view, it fails the simplest, most basic test. It presents an unhealthy set of accounts that appears stable and sensible and pragmatic and balanced on the surface but which, in ignoring the real cost of carbon, is dangerously unstable, lacking in sense, fails the test of pragmatism, and loses all sense of intergenerational balance. In concluding his Budget speech, Bill English claimed that the Government takes a long-term view of its stewardship. We commend the Minister for aspiring to take the long-term view; we condemn him for failing to do that in any way that can be seen as realistic, pragmatic, and sensible.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): The public conservation estate is one of the great treasures of this country, and when New Zealanders look to their Government to determine what they seek from that Government, protection of those unique species and ecosystems that exist in New Zealand—and, typically, nowhere else in the world—is one of the very core things that they expect. Contrary to the remarks recently made by the Minister of Conservation, Maggie Barry, the Greens do not attack the Department of Conservation (DOC) and DOC staff. The Greens believe that the Department of Conservation and its staff are heroes. The work they do is fantastic. But, increasingly, they have been asked to carry out their work with one hand tied behind their backs by a Government that is determined to erode the funding that is available to the department to spend on conservation.

The analysis undertaken by the Parliamentary Library shows that in real terms—that is, inflation-adjusted terms, for the benefit of the Minister—the department is spending $50 million and more, on average, less each year than when the National Government took office in the 2008-09 year. That is more than $50 million a year less, in real terms. That is a very, very substantial reduction in conservation spending.

What does that translate to? I have spoken about the 46 percent of tracks in the conservation estate that are not up to standard, the 26 percent of huts that are not up to standard, the many structures that have failed their load capacity assessments, and the 38 structures that were overdue for serious or critical repairs, and the Minister has been completely unable to respond to that erosion in the conservation estate.

In this year’s Budget—and I brought along the document—

Fletcher Tabuteau: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise sincerely for interrupting the speaker, but my understanding of the proceedings of the House is that for a member to move down closer to the speaker and harass him is completely out of order. The Minister needs to show some class in these proceedings.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the last part was certainly unnecessary, but the first part is correct. A member should not move a seating position away from where he or she is set simply to interject on the speech that is being given by another member.

Hon Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. If it is a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it, but I am not interested in having that matter relitigated. The member can move back to her seat if she wants to continue, but I will not accept an unreasonable amount of interjection, anyway.

KEVIN HAGUE: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. What I was about to draw the House’s attention to was this document entitled Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2017, Environment Sector. What this document says about the appropriation for the management of natural heritage is that the final budgeted amount for 2015-16 was, let us see, $187,877,000, and for the 2016-17 year it has reduced to $160,639,000. That is a drop of 14 percent.

One of the ways that the Department of Conservation has been forced to accommodate that reduced commitment to spending on conservation by this Government is through the partnerships programme. It is great if there is additional money that comes from the commercial sector or comes from the work done by volunteer groups—that is fantastic. That adds icing on to the cake. But in an environment where the department has less money to spend, what that does instead is replace the money that the Government should be spending. What that means is that when a commercial sponsorship ends, as the kākāpō one has just done, the Department of Conservation has to stop doing other conservation work to backfill that. It means that conservation work will be done on those species that attract commercial sponsorships rather than those that are most ecologically important. It means that the department will sometimes have to accept money from companies that will have other motives.

It is very interesting that the Minister believes that an oil company was sponsoring the Cook Strait whale survey because of a feeling of satisfaction that it may have given the company. In fact, what we have seen is that it is the Minister who is out of step with the Parliamentary Library’s analysis, the independent accountant’s analysis, and, indeed, the Budget documents themselves. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: Again, this is a split call—Dr Jian Yang.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): This is a Budget with confidence. This is a Budget with a strong sense of responsibility. It is a Budget with confidence, simply because New Zealand is one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD—a top performer. Let us look at the growth rates in the past few years since 2008, when we experienced the global financial crisis. In 2009, after the financial crisis, we did experience a decline of 2 percent, but since then the economy has been growing. In 2010 we had a growth rate of 1.7 percent, in the following year—2011—we had a growth rate of 2 percent, and in 2012 we had a growth rate of 3 percent.

This is a sharp contrast with some other OECD economies. For example, in the United Kingdom the growth rate was only 0.3 percent, in the European eurozone it was minus 0.9 percent, in Japan it was 0.4 percent, in Canada it was 1.1 percent, and in the USA it was 1.6 percent. So our growth rate has been much better than many other OECD countries, and for the forecast in the next 4 years we are predicting about 2.8 percent on average. This is our economy. That is why we feel confident that we will be able to continue to do well.

This is also a Budget with a strong sense of responsibility, simply because although we believe that we are doing well, we want to continue to manage our finance responsibly. That is why we have returned to surplus but we are going to continue to increase our surplus, and we will pay our debt to make sure that our debt will continue to decline in the coming years. We will spend money where we think we need to spend it.

Health is one area we believe is very important to our public services. Each year since 2008 we have increased our spending in health—about $500 million each year. For that reason we are able to have today over 6,000 more doctors and nurses, and, also, 99 percent of under-13s are now able to have access to free doctors every day, day and night. This is a very, very outstanding public system. Based on what we have achieved and, also, a very high record of spending, this year we have another $2.2 billion for health, which will take our total health spending for next year to $16.1 billion, which is another record. This is what we are trying to do to further improve our public services.

Education is another area where we have been trying to invest more. We have a hard-working Minister of Education, a very strong leadership, and we have achieved a lot. Look at this: 96.6 percent of preschool children are now going to early childhood education, which has increased from 93.6 percent in 2008, and 84.4 percent of 18-year-olds are now achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, which, again, is a substantial increase from 68 percent in 2008. We have record spending of $11 billion for education. In addition to that, we are going to spend $1.44 billion more for education. We are going to build nine new schools—480 new classrooms.

To finish my speech, I will quote an OECD comment in 2015 that says: “Inflation and inflation expectations are well anchored … Strong fiscal monetary policy frameworks and a healthy financial sector have yielded macroeconomic stability, underpinning growth. Employment is high … business investment is robust, and households and firms are optimistic.” This comment still applies. Thanks.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is a great pleasure for me to stand and speak to this Budget, Bill English’s eighth and my first. It was with some anticipation that I waited for Budget day. It was almost like a child waiting for Christmas, excited about the potential that this package held for me—and not just for me but for the people of New Zealand. I was not disappointed. With rising surpluses and falling debt, this gives the country the ability to make choices it simply did not have 8 years ago.

The benefits from this Budget are spread across the whole country and throughout all sectors. For Innovate New Zealand there is $761 million to help grow and diversify the economy. We all know that if we do not keep moving ahead, we are, in fact, standing still or moving backwards, because the rest of the world will overtake us. To invest in innovation is an absolute essential for us. The broadband initiatives: a $2 billion investment into ultra-fast broadband and the Rural Broadband Initiative. This has already created 4,000 jobs across New Zealand. It is extending out into the rural areas of New Zealand and making us more connected, making us more competitive.

Public infrastructure like transport and schools receive a $2.1 billion investment. That is absolutely massive and essential, and recognised by this Government. There is $1.44 billion extra for education over the next 4 years. This brings our investment next year to a record $11 billion in education. Tourism—this is one that is near and dear to my heart because of the area that I live in on the West Coast. Thirty-seven million dollars will go into small regional communities that have pressures on them brought about by the success of our investment into tourism and promotion. Small communities will be able to access funding for small projects like car-parks and public toilets—the things that tourists and the success of tourism bring into our rural communities. This will be great news for West Coast - Tasman, I can assure you.

Health, of course, is an absolutely outstanding winner in this Budget—$2.2 billion extra over the next 4 years. I am particularly proud that I can stand here with the knowledge that $9.7 million extra was found to support the new Greymouth hospital. This now brings that budget to $77.8 million. This is a huge relief to the people of the West Coast. I am so grateful that this Government recognised that need. On top of that, we have also recognised that an extra $3 million will be going into the West Coast District Health Board for its operational costs—a big thankyou to Minister Coleman for recognising that.

Another good news story that is heading into West Coast - Tasman is the project that will see a new road bridge across the Taramakau River. No longer will we have to share our bridge with the train, although it is quaint and often a tourist attraction. I have witnessed many times a campervan stopped in the middle of the road and a tourist standing in the middle of the train tracks photographing the train coming towards them. In terms of health and safety, I think it is an extremely good investment, and I look forward to that day as well.

What worries me is that all of the gains that are made by this Government in tourism, in goldmining, which is a huge employer on the coast, in dairying—another massive investment on the West Coast—and in forestry and fisheries will be put at risk if the unholy alliance of the “Reds” and Greens, which gives us that muddy brown colour, ever gets its hands on it. We know how the Greens influence Labour Party policy. When I promoted the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill that went through this House under urgency in 2014, we did not get the support that we needed or wanted. Fortunately—

Chris Bishop: You weren’t even in Parliament.

MAUREEN PUGH: Correct. I was not even in Parliament, but this Government recognised a common-sense solution to a natural event. We got that legislation through.

Bill English, you have delivered a fantastic Budget. It is solid and it is sensible. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. We made a commitment in our 2014 election manifesto to extend the Youth Service to a broader group of young beneficiaries. This bill fulfils that commitment. We want more young people to access the Youth Service because it makes a meaningful difference in young New Zealanders’ lives. It also aligns with the Government’s social investment approach, which is focused on making upfront investment in vulnerable New Zealanders to help them lead successful and fulfilling lives. The Youth Service provides young people with the support they need to build life skills, engage in educational training, and prepare for employment. Evidence shows that young people under 20 are likely to remain on benefit long term if they do not receive the support they need at this early age.

The bill requires all 19-year-old parents to access the Youth Service, including having a supportive relationship with a youth coach, parenting and budgeting courses, and support to engage in educational training. Making sure that these young parents have access to the support they need throughout their teen years will support positive outcomes for both them and their children. It also makes sense, as many will have been engaged in the Youth Service when aged 18 or younger, so it allows continuation of support.

The bill also enables 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries who are also at risk of long-term welfare dependency to be referred to the Youth Service. This is a diverse group with varying needs. Therefore, only those who are at significant risk and most in need of support will be targeted. This target group will be identified through risk modelling undertaken by the Ministry of Social Development. Those referred will remain on their existing benefit and their youth coach will provide them with case management to meet their work obligations. But like other young people in the Youth Service, they will also receive help with working towards life goals, budgeting, and money management.

The bill also includes two changes that improve the existing Youth Service. For young people who finish their studies in December, the bill extends the exit date from the Youth Service from 31 December to 31 March. This recognises that young people often need continued support over the summer period when schools and universities are on a summer break and it can be a difficult time to find work. The bill also allows young partners of specified beneficiaries who are engaged in the Youth Service to receive incentive payments.

The bill clarifies three matters in the Social Security Act. Firstly, people will only have review and appeal rights in relation to decisions about their own financial assistance, not somebody else’s. The second amendment allows the Ministry of Social Development to continue the practice of paying terminal benefit into a deceased person’s bank account unless their partner or their child’s carer applies to receive it. Finally, the bill clarifies that the ministry can pay the remaining credit held on a young person’s payment card to them directly when they are no longer money-managed.

I would like to commend the Social Services Committee for its efforts in considering this bill. The committee considered views from 10 written submissions and heard three oral hearings on the bill. Overall, submitters supported the bill’s intent to provide more assistance to young people, and acknowledged the wraparound support that the Youth Service provides. Concerns raised by submitters related to provisions around money management and risk modelling being extended to an older group of teenagers. Money management is a key part of the Youth Service and helps young people to gain financial skills and learn to make good choices with their money. They can move off money management as soon as they have demonstrated those good financial skills.

Submitters also sought more clarity around the risk model used to refer at-risk 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries to the Youth Service, particularly the lack of consultation with young people and what risk factors would be used in the model. The risk model is important to make sure young people receive the right service support, and amendments have been made to the bill in response to the Social Services Committee’s recommendations—firstly, a requirement to consult those at-risk 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries on their referral to the Youth Service. We have added that in, and that means that once they have been identified as at risk, providers will consult with the young people and give them an opportunity to comment and to provide any extra information about themselves. This conversation will then help their youth coach understand the wider circumstances of the young person’s life, which might suggest a different level of support. The Ministry of Social Development can consider recommendations from providers that a young person does not need the Youth Service, and their referral to the Youth Service can be withdrawn if appropriate. The amendment makes this consultation with young people a clear requirement in the legislation.

Another improvement to the bill that responds to submitters’ concerns relates to factors considered in the risk model, which are currently not transparent in the legislation. The risk model will likely consider factors such as young people’s education levels, whether they have had contact with Child, Youth and Family or the justice system, and their reasons for leaving school. It is in everyone’s interest to know what information is being considered in risk modelling to determine who receives service support, but it is also important to have flexibility to adjust the factors used to assess the risk to ensure that the model remains up to date and fit for purpose as new data-streams or risk-modelling techniques become available. The bill has been amended so risk factors that may be used in the model will be set by ministerial direction. This provides a balance between the desire for transparency and the desire for flexibility.

Six minor technical amendments have been made to the bill that correct minor drafting omissions and support alignment of the bill with policy intent and practice. Two amendments have been made to ensure young partners or spouses of specified beneficiaries in the Youth Service are treated the same as their peers—firstly, that money management be extended to young partners and, secondly, that the date that young partners exit the Youth Service should match that of other Youth Service clients. An amendment clarifies that the Youth Service is able to work with young people who are in but are at risk of leaving education, training, and employment. The definition of a specified beneficiary has been amended so that youth activity obligations would not be extended to a young spouse or partner of a young beneficiary who is caring for a patient. This is appropriate because no additional amount is paid for that spouse or partner.

For ease of operation and to avoid confusion for clients when they apply for a benefit, an amendment has been made so that 19-year-old parents who apply for a benefit after the bill comes into force will receive a young parent payment. Those who apply before the bill comes into force will receive a different benefit. Lastly, an amendment is made to maintain the existing agreement between the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Education, which enables information sharing through an amendment to the Privacy Act.

This Government is committed to supporting young New Zealanders who need more support to meet their education and employment goals in their transition to adulthood. Extending the Youth Service is an opportunity to assist more young beneficiaries to get on to a better life pathway and to reduce the future liability to New Zealand taxpayers. I commend the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We continue, at this stage, to support this bill, but we do have major reservations. I am signalling now to the Government that at the Committee stage we will have amendments that we want made and it is likely that our support at the third reading will be contingent on those amendments. I want to talk to the reasons why we do have some level of support for this bill, but also why we have such strong reservations.

We know that the bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 to extend the existing Youth Service to all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children, and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency based on how the Government is choosing to measure the risk of long-term welfare dependency.

Labour does support the extension of provisions for young people who may be at risk of long-term welfare dependency, as the Government has put it, and supporting them toward a better future through the Youth Service, which offers assistance with educational aspirations, employment opportunities, budgeting, and parenting support. Our concern is that the framework in which this has been placed is faulty, and we have real concerns with the Government’s social investment approach, or what it calls the social investment approach. We have real concerns with the predictive risk modelling and real concerns with the platform on which this so-called support for young people has been built.

We have got concerns around the success of the Youth Service, given that it is a relatively new intervention and comprehensive analysis is yet to be completed. We have asked for reports and evaluations on the existing Youth Service and have been given very little. So to think the Government is expecting this House to support further investment when we do not know whether or not it has been successful so far is a little bit presumptuous, I think, of the Government. Rather than being solely focused on employment outcomes for young people, we think the Government needs to be equally supportive and encouraging of educational achievement and higher-level education for New Zealand youth, especially in light of the expected decrease in tertiary student numbers forecast in the Budget. We are just really concerned that there are low expectations and a lack of aspiration from that side of the House for our young people.

If we look at this bill, the only expectation the Government has is that young people will achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, and after that there is no support for them to go on to further education. It is all about work obligations once NCEA level 2 has been achieved. We know that in this world that is not enough, actually. If these young people have further education aspirations, then they should be supported through the legislation to be able to go on and achieve higher than level 2 NCEA. So it is disappointing that that is not the case as it stands at the moment.

Again, I just want to reflect back on the social investment approach. Social investment should not just be about moving people off benefits in the short term. It should be about the long-term outcomes for these young people and the children they have or are going on to have. It should be about investing in them so that down the track their life, their opportunities, their life achievements—

Hon Anne Tolley: That’s exactly what it is.

CARMEL SEPULONI: —are going to be much greater because of the investment that a responsible Government makes up front. The Minister for Social Development is rolling her eyes at me, but the bill supports education for these young people to only level 2, and after that it is work obligations that take precedence, and we cannot support that on this side of the House.

For those youth who are looking for paid employment, there need to be the jobs for them to go into, and the Government ignores the fact that, actually, it has failed to take responsibility in that department. It has not been creating jobs and it has not been creating job opportunities for these young people. In fact, we have recently heard the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, talk about the fact that these people are “pretty damned hopeless”, actually. He went on to say they are illiterate. He went on to say they are unemployable, and then he went on to say that, because of this, the Government has made the immigration process, or system, a little bit more permissive. It has made it more permissive to make up for the fact this new generation of workers, according to Bill English and the National Government, is unemployable. I just think: where is the social investment approach in that when the expectations on these young people are so incredibly low? Where is the hope for those young people when they have got a Government that does not back them?

Of further concern is the rising number of young persons—15 to 24-year-olds—not in education, training, or employment, which is now at 87,200. That is 87,200 young people who are not in education or employment. That is over 26,500 more than when National took office. So of course we on this side of the House are going to question that Government’s attempt to address this situation, because it has been unsuccessful so far. There has been an increase of 26,500 young people not in education or employment, and the Government is telling us that its Youth Service to date has been successful. It is asking us, in the House today, to support a bill to extend the provisions of that Youth Service when clearly it has not been successful, with a further 26,500 young people not in employment or education under that National Government since it took office.

There are rising concerns about the ability of the Government to support youth into quality, stable employment, given the failure of this Government to facilitate benefit-to-work transitions for main benefits. That is based on the March 2016 figures, which have only 19,730 of the 49,907 benefit cancellations actually going into work. When we look at the number of beneficiaries overall who have had positive outcomes—if we are measuring positive outcomes in terms of employment outcomes—then we can see that a large number of the people who have gone off the benefit have not actually gone into work. So our concern for these young people is that success is going to be based solely on whether they go off the benefit rather than on whether or not they go on to anything better for them.

Even when we look at the Better Public Services target that the Government has set in relation to this, it is not about improved outcomes for those individuals or their families. All it is about is reducing risk of long-term welfare dependency, not that they actually go on to anything else. I think that as a country we should be concerned that we have a whole lot of people going off the benefit who are not necessarily going into work, who potentially not only do not get an income from a benefit but also have no income from employment and are potentially living off nothing. I think many of us can see that every day in the increase in numbers of people whom we see begging outside our shops and homeless thanks to the National Government.

Labour supports the amendment that came out of the Social Services Committee’s report requiring consultation with the 18 or 19-year-olds in question about their referral to the Youth Service. However, given the punitive culture of Work and Income, with heavy-handed use of sanctions, Labour must call into question what this consultation will look like. Labour, therefore, urges that youth are consulted in a way that ensures they feel empowered and understand both their obligations and their rights, because even young people who have to access welfare have rights, and I think we need to remind the National Government of that.

Finally, the other concern that I want to point out is my concern, Labour’s concern, about the discrimination, really, against young parents in this bill. Actually, what we are doing is we are pushing them into work even sooner than is required for parents who are on sole parent support. This could have negative implications for their children’s well-being. This bill would require young parents to be in full-time education, training, or work-based learning from when their child is only 1 year old, rather than 3 years old under sole parent support, and it can be even earlier depending on whether there is a teen parent unit in that area.

Of course we support young people to get education and training and to be supported to go back into work, but young parents deserve the same rights as older parents to be able to stay home and care for their children if that is in the best interests of their children. We are concerned about the discrimination there. As I have said, we will be putting up a number of Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage. At this stage, after discussions with my colleagues, I think it is unlikely that we are going to be able to support this bill at the third reading unless there is some support for the amendments that we make at the Committee stage. Thank you very much.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour and a pleasure to rise in support of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Can I just start off by pointing out some of the facts about some young people in New Zealand. We know, when we look at the future liability of welfare dependency in New Zealand, that 70 percent of those people on the benefit went on it before the age of 20. For those 18 and 19-year-olds who go on the jobseeker allowance, the average time they will spend on that benefit is 13 years. So we know that this bill is much needed. We need to extend the entitlement and the provision to more young, vulnerable people in New Zealand.

It is not all that bad. We know that if those young people can get into jobs, employment, and training, they will go on to be productive members of New Zealand. We know that in the jobseeker allowance space, around 70 percent of young people are able to go on to employment, education, or training within 6 months. We need to capture what works well for some young people and support what is not working well for a smaller amount of young people.

When we link this to the Budget last week—there was quite a big announcement around social investment. The Minister of Finance announced $652 million into the social investment package. Of that, $61 million was specifically for this Youth Service package to get vulnerable young people into employment or into training, giving them skills to go on and get employment and be productive members of New Zealand. This Government takes this very seriously, with our Better Public Services target of reducing dependency on welfare by 25 percent and a future liability of over $13 billion to New Zealand taxpayers.

Can I just take some time to not only talk about what this new service will look like but also touch on some of the value and impact of the submissions to the Social Services Committee and the amendments that the select committee made to this bill, which I think make it a better bill. It is coming back from the first reading through the select committee process to its second reading a lot better for having been through that process. We know that this Youth Service will have very definable outcomes of reducing young people’s risk of long-term dependency. They will need to gain National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 and go on to have better social outcomes—not only for themselves; a lot of these young people have children themselves.

When we talk about these young people I think we have got to take a step back and appreciate how vulnerable these young people are, and why it is that these wraparound youth services are required. They are intensive and they are active wraparound services because a lot of these young people are dealing with very complex and challenging issues. When the select committee looked at the cohort of young people in the Youth Service, 38 percent of them had been victims of domestic violence, 76 percent of them had been victims of emotional neglect, 5 percent had been either homeless or victims of sexual abuse, and most of them had disengaged from mainstream education. That is why we need to expand these services through this bill and give further entitlement for a greater population of young people to be able to access these intensive and active wraparound services, because we know it works.

When the Youth Service was reviewed four out of five had gone on to get into education, training, or full-time or part-time employment, and research on the Youth Service showed that every dollar put in was returned through reducing future liability by $2.53. That is a great social investment: a dollar put in and future liability reduced by $2.53. Really, what it did was it gave this group of vulnerable young New Zealanders hope that they were engaging in a framework of services in which people were listening to them, understanding their needs, and providing effective services that would allow them to go on and get the training and the education, and they would be productive members of New Zealand society.

I just want to touch on some of the amendments through the select committee process. We had 10 submissions; three of them were heard orally. One of the main themes that came out was the lack of transparency about talking to young people when they had been picked up on this risk assessment matrix, and also about their referral into young people’s services. I think most of the committee felt it was not right to be referring young people without their knowledge. When you look at the great work the Hon Anne Tolley is doing around the Child, Youth and Family review, it is going to be children-centred, young people - centred, and that is exactly what this amendment to this bill will do. Now young people will have more involvement in their care, which will lead to better outcomes. Ultimately, these will be wraparound services, and they will be young people - friendly.

I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Malo lava le soifua Le Fofoga Fetalai. It is my pleasure to take a call on this, the second reading of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill, as Labour’s youth spokesperson. I have not had much to do with the passage of this particular piece of legislation, but obviously I am incredibly interested in it. What I have done is take the time just to read through as much of the material as possible, and to simplify it. I am going to share it with the House.

This piece of legislation is about amending the Social Security Act 1964 and extending the Youth Service. It is going to apply to all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children, and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered to be at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency. They are the “who”, but the “who” is incredibly important if you look at two particular submissions to the Social Services Committee. I would like to quote from those submissions.

The first was from the Salvation Army, which says that “In general The Salvation Army opposes the intent and much of the content of the Bill. The principle [sic] reason for this opposition is that the Army believes that is both paternalistic and somewhat contradictory to treat 18 and 19 year olds in the same way as 16 and 17 year olds. The Army believes that it is important to respect individuals’ legal and civil rights ahead of particular policy objectives which may in themselves be of questionable value. It is the Army’s opinion that the proposed extension of ‘young persons services’ and the associated obligations and sanctions, to 18 and 19 year olds is a clear example of the State placing its policy objectives ahead of the legitimate rights of citizens and that as a practice this is unwise and unfair.”

I would now like to quote from the Human Rights Commission submission. I found it interesting that “The Attorney-General’s report on the Bill’s consistency with the NZBORA notes that the Bill discriminates against young beneficiary parents and ‘at risk’ 18 and 19 year olds on the grounds of age,”. I find it really interesting that in terms of the “who”, in terms of who will be impacted most by this piece of legislation, we have had two organisations say that, actually, this legislation is discriminatory and it should not be taking choices away from that cohort.

A previous bill that we discussed in this House was the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill—and I am glad that my colleague the Hon Annette King is here because on 11 May this year in the Committee stage there were lots of debate about whether we should ban sunbeds. National’s position in that debate was that no, we should not. We should protect children—that is fair enough; those who are up to the age of 18—but if you are over 18 you are an adult and so we should not take away your rights. That was the philosophical position in that particular debate of both the Minister of Health, Dr Jonathan Coleman, and Simon O’Connor, who is chair of the Health Committee. So I wanted to highlight the “who”.

In terms of the “why”—actually the “why” is very clear. The “why” is all about the money. The Better Public Services framework I suppose has an objective to reduce long-term welfare dependency, which actually is about reducing beneficiary numbers by 25 percent and the overall cost—not investment, everybody—by $13 billion. That is actually the driver of this piece of legislation. The Government can talk about investment and about valuing young people, but actually, at the end of the day, its primary objective is to save money. So let us just put that on the table. That is the “why”.

So then we look at the “what”. How the Government plans to do all this is through the Youth Service. I took the time to download the report. The Youth Service was established in August 2012 to address the extremely high risk of long-term benefit dependency. The Youth Service was established with the objective of helping a group of vulnerable young people. There was a report that was produced after the first 18 months of the service, and I have that particular evaluation. What I would like to highlight from that evaluation is this, which is at the bottom of page 1: “Many young people who enter Youth Service have serious or complex issues that require intensive support. For example, a review of Youth Payment grants by Work and Income found that 38 per cent of applicants were victims of domestic violence, 76 per cent suffered emotional neglect and 5 per cent were homeless or victims of sexual abuse.”

I think, for me, the most important aspect of that analysis is to ask how we support the young people who, through no fault of their own, are living in those circumstances. If the underlying intent of this piece of legislation is to put in the services and support so that this group of vulnerable young people can have their needs met, then, actually, I think we would support that 100 percent. One of the other aspects of this piece of legislation is around risk assessment and risk modelling. How are we going to find these young people whom, actually, we are going to treat as children? How do we find them?

I would like to acknowledge that the Greens wrote a minority report within the select committee report; they are opposing the bill. They are opposing it on solid grounds. But one of the things that they highlighted was the risks—who knows what they will be? They may be about whether they have been with Child, Youth and Family (CYF). They may be based on gender. I think the Minister has alluded that educational outcomes and the reason for leaving school were some of the reasons. But what we do know is that from 2013 the Government has been working quite seriously on this issue. For example, there is a Government data project. It was looking at four indicators. It was about whether or not children had engaged with CYF and there was a finding of abuse or neglect, whether or not there were long-term dependency issues in those families, whether or not a parent had a corrective sentence, and whether or not the mother had a formal qualification.

But the interesting thing to note about that data project was that it looked at different cohorts of children. It looked at the zero to 5 cohort, the 6 to 14 cohort, and the 15 to 24 cohort. I wonder, based on all that information, why the project is not dealing with the zero to 5 cohort. Why is there not a whole lot of investment going into those children, really early on in their lives—making sure they have a house to live in, making sure they have a roof over their heads, and kai in their puku; and making sure that mum is well supported, so that, yes, she is getting support to be a better parent, through budgeting advice, so that we are going to make it easier for her to get further education and make their lives so much better? But, no, this Government would rather wait until they are 18 and 19-year-olds, and it will use a big hammer on these kids. That is part of the issue that we have with this piece of legislation.

The other key thing I would like to highlight is from the Greens minority report, but it was also one of the concerns raised by Kay Breerton, I think, of the National Beneficiary Advocacy Consultation Group.

Carmel Sepuloni: Great woman.

LOUISA WALL: What is her name, sorry?

Carmel Sepuloni: Kay Brereton.

LOUISA WALL: Kay Brereton—yes. What she said, or what is written here, is that they support wraparound services, but expressed the view that making young people’s income dependent on meeting certain obligations fundamentally changed for the worse the relationship between the young people and the people in a position to help them. So basically what that means is that telling young people what to do is going to have the opposite effect from what we want it to have. So that is a fundamental flaw in this piece of legislation.

I hope the Minister has been listening to my contribution, given I have taken the time to read through everything and to contribute to the second reading debate. But I do want to reiterate what my colleague and lead on the Social Services Committee and in the social development portfolio Carmel Sepuloni said. We will be proposing a number of amendments to this piece of legislation. I think we are really clear that if the Government does not want to listen, and will not support some of the amendments we have proposed, based on quotes from people like Kay, then we will not support this piece of legislation. We do not believe that it is in the best interests of young people. Kia ora.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. This is a very good piece of legislation and I rise in absolute support of it.

In 2012 the Government moved to improve the outlook for young people, particularly vulnerable young people who were beneficiaries. There has been a bit of a look at this over the years to see how effective it can be, and I think what we are starting to see are some good results for those young people who initially went on it: those who were single parents, young parents, and those who were at high risk of long-term welfare dependency.

I just think it is really important for us to clarify that when we talk about young people being “at risk of long-term welfare dependency”, this is not a judgment call—this is not a way of us looking down on them in any way, shape, or form. What I can tell you is that if the Government is having to spend a lot of money supporting you over a long period of time, it is probably because you are not having good outcomes in life. Generally, for people who need that level of input, things are not going well for them.

We are absolutely aspirational for these young people, in that we want the very best for them. We want them to be able to get beyond simply being a welfare beneficiary long term. We want them to be able to have education. We want them to be able to be in work. That is why, over this period that they are involved with the Youth Service and receiving these payments, for the 16 to 17-year-olds—absolutely—education is the focus. NCEA level 2 is the absolute minimum that we want these young people to achieve educationally.

But it does not have to end there, and if they want to go further they will be supported to go further. And yes, for 18 and 19-year-olds the focus is work. We do not want these young people to be trapped, out of study, or out of work, or without qualifications. We want them to have the tools that will be useful for them to be able to achieve the kinds of goals that they want to achieve.

I have been privileged over the last year or so to speak with some young people who have been involved with the Youth Service, and I have been—I have to say—pretty excited by the kinds of things they have said to me. They do have aspirations, they are setting goals for themselves; they do not want to just settle for second-best. They want to get better educated. They want more for their children as they go forward. I think that is great, and I think it is important that we continue, as we seek to expand the service through this legislation to another group of young people—to some slightly older ones—to ensure that they too will receive the mentoring. And to ensure that they too will receive the budgeting advice and the money management advice and increase their skills, to be able to give them an even better footing for life and an even better start for their children as they go forward.

We received 10 written submissions and three people presented oral submissions. For me, when I look at that, over my experience of being involved in putting things out, when you get a low number of submissions it is generally because people think it is a good idea. People do not tend to submit when they support things, they tend to submit only when they think it is a bad idea. So I see the low turnout of submissions that we had as highly positive. I think that we are going to see some really good results for young people going forward.

I do not want to see young people languishing any longer than they have to. I want to provide the best that we can for them, through the mentoring programmes and the wraparound services from Youth Service—for the number of extra people who are going to benefit from this going forward. I think we are going to see some really incredible results. We are going to see empowered young people ready to take on the world, and move forward. With that, I will conclude. Fa’afetai, manuia le afiafi.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The Green Party is voting against the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill.

I just heard from the previous speaker, Jono Naylor, that the National Government has aspirations for young people, yet it seems to believe they are incapable of having aspirations, or achieving them, themselves. I have to point out that its actions do not match its words. This is the Government that removed the training incentive allowance for higher-level courses, which means that most sole parents who had aspirations to be able to get into well-paid jobs and to have a career that will support them properly and support their children, are now stuck in lower-level education that is funnelling them into low-wage jobs that it will be very hard for them to get out of. That is not what I call aspiration.

We are opposing this bill for many reasons. It is the flagship of the Government’s investment approach to everything, which is increasingly being critiqued by a wide range of organisations, from the Morgan Foundation to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, to child advocacy organisations.

I would like to comment on some of the analysis from the Morgan Foundation, where it talked about what makes a data analytics or predictive risk modelling approach work—because that is what we are talking about. The Government uses the language “investment approach”, but, actually, this is predictive risk modelling. Whether it will work depends on three things: whether the people running it can recognise the data that matters; whether the programmes that they then funnel people into are effective; and, finally, whether the outcomes that it is all driving towards are the right ones.

The Green Party is concerned that this model effectively entrenches this predictive risk modelling with criteria that are open to change. This model will be used to decide which young people will have more obligations put on them and exceptional scrutiny and supervision by the State. We have been told that the modelling is likely to consider educational outcomes, prior contact with the Department of Child, Youth and Family, gender, and reasons for leaving school. And we do know that although ethnicity is not a criterion, 58 percent of young people who are in Child, Youth and Family care are Māori. We know there is a bias against Māori in policing, and there is definite evidence to suggest a bias within Child, Youth and Family. The Green Party is deeply concerned that existing biases within the system will be exacerbated by this initiative, and that young people who have in all likelihood already had very negative experiences of the State, will feel further marginalised.

I raised this with an official during the Social Services Committee’s consideration of this bill: acknowledging that, clearly, they could not identify Māori as being a risk factor—because, obviously, that would be perceived as being racist—and asked whether they were concerned that the effect of using contact with Child, Youth and Family as a risk factor might still target Māori. The official said: “Don’t worry, we’ll get them anyway.” This did not inspire confidence in me. And considering the very negative experiences of Māori with State services, real efforts need to be made to acknowledge the needs of Māori and address racism within the systems, before creating another system that will channel Māori, identify them as risks, and increase the State’s supervision of them. On this basis alone the Green Party cannot support this bill.

Further, this risk modelling requires increased information sharing between education services, Child, Youth and Family, and Work and Income, and potentially other core social services, in the future. Although health information is currently not included, it could be in the future, without parliamentary oversight in that decision-making process. We are concerned at this level of information sharing for the purpose of placing increased restrictions and supervision on to certain groups of people—particularly when the policy is yet to be proven effective. We are starting to hear more and more stories of people not going to Work and Income for housing or other help because they are worried that their personal information is going to be shared with other people—their employers or other agencies—and that that fear is stopping people from getting the help that they need. This initiative potentially increases that fear and the risk that people will not have confidence in the system and will not get the help that they are entitled to and that they need.

This was all about the data going into the system. We also need to consider the effectiveness of these interventions. The first thing to consider is that we know that the numbers of young people who are not in employment, education, or training have gone up under this Government, under this type of model, and that the Youth Service is still a relatively new intervention and comprehensive data is not yet available to establish whether the service is even effective or not. That is not the time to be extending it to people who are actually considered adults in our law. When this Government says that it is all about the data, it should apply that principle to its policy making, and make sure it has the data before it extends any legislation.

The Green Party shares the view of the Salvation Army that “the proposed extension of ‘young persons services’ and the associated obligation and sanctions, to 18 and 19 year olds is a clear example of the State placing its policy objectives ahead of the legitimate rights of citizens and that as a practice this is unwise and unfair.” That is a very considered and measured commentary on what this is doing.

Concerns were also raised by Kay Brereton on behalf of the National Beneficiary Advocacy Group about how the service currently operates. Clearly we all support wraparound services that are strength based for young people, but she pointed out that making young people’s incomes dependent on meeting certain obligations fundamentally changed, for worse, the relationship between young people and the people who are supposed to be in the position of helping them. Community organisations and the people who are running these programmes have always been there, traditionally, alongside young people, focusing on their strengths and helping them to build those strengths to move forward and achieve their aspirations. This bill puts those organisations into the role of police, with the requirement to cut those young people’s incomes if they do not meet their obligations. That is absolutely changing the structure of our society for the worse.

Increasing international evidence shows that interventions that work best are less targeted, are unconditional, and involve extra cash. So we do not support a measure that uses our precious resources to increase targeting and conditions. It is strongly risk based, rather than strength based.

Finally, of course, the usefulness of all of this modelling depends on what outcomes you are driving towards. This Government has set up a system where the goal of it all is to move people off benefits to save Government money. It is not about increasing skills in our society. It is not about even giving people access to higher-paid jobs or achieving their aspirations or even—in a very limited sense, in terms of looking at children—access to quality accessible childcare. No, it is only about reducing the future financial liability to this Government.

That is not a society. That is not how we look after each other. In this country, how you move ahead is by actually taking responsibility and making sure that people have the resources to participate and achieve their aspirations. We absolutely oppose this bill.

There is one more aspect of this bill that is deeply offensive, which is that it removes a right of appeal, and limits the right of appeal in review to decisions about people, only to the person involved. This has quite a significant impact when there are shared custody arrangements. In 2012 the Social Security Appeal Authority heard the case of a mother whose child was granted an unsupported child’s benefit, payable to another caregiver, and ruled that the law allowed affected people to appeal. This bill reverses and removes that right of appeal; it gives people only the right to judicial appeal, which requires legal aid. And that is an offence to the rights of natural justice.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill at this stage because New Zealand First fundamentally agrees with the purpose, the aim, and the intent of the bill. I do not think that there is any question from anybody, including the submitters or any other Opposition party, that we all support the intent, purpose, and aim of the bill, because what it means, fundamentally, is that youth in need are getting more support.

We do have some concerns that I will be going over, but the concerns are not with the “what”. The “what” is the fact that the extension of the Youth Service aims to improve the educational and social outcomes for young beneficiaries. When that occurs they will be getting some wraparound support, including youth coaching services such as budgeting help and parenting courses, which are all good things, and New Zealand First supports that. We also support the fact that there are some obligations put on to beneficiaries because this is not a handout; it is a hand up in a time of need. New Zealand First understands that it is a social contract, and as with any contract there are obligations, and New Zealand First supports those. We are talking about positive obligations for the outcomes of the youth, especially things like them being subjected to money management.

But, like I said, it is not about the “what”—the “what” is good—but it is about the “how” and “why”. So if we look at the heart of what the legislation is trying to change, which is the extension of the Youth Service to all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children, that is the “what”—we agree with that. The problem that New Zealand First fundamentally has with that is that all it is doing is increasing the number or the size of the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. That is all that it is. Actually, it is an indirect admission by the Government, after 8 years of being in Government, that the system is failing. If the system was working, and if the investment approach the Government was taking was working, then there would be no need to extend the new service. The new service would be working—apparently it is already, by the Government’s standard. But how can that be if it needs to extend it? It does not make sense.

The issue is that the Government is refusing to address the actual reasons why youth get on to the benefit in the first place. So we talk about the fact that the youth who are on the benefit are doing well, and the Youth Service, according to National, is doing well, so we need to expand it. But where was the talk about why the youth were put on the benefit in the first place? Where are the preventative measures—the legislation and the policy and the principles and the ethos and the values—from the Government that would stop our youth getting on to the benefit in the first place? It has been mentioned before, but we are talking about the fact that New Zealand has a very, very high youth unemployment rate.

We have just seen from Statistics New Zealand that in the last quarter unemployment has actually risen overall, but especially for the youth and especially for the regions. We are talking about Northland: 8.5 percent. We are talking about Gisborne: 8.5 percent. Wanganui and the Manawatū is at 7.7 percent, which is now the second-highest rate in the country. The highest increase in unemployment has been on the West Coast, which is at about 1.5 percent.

We have heard about the “neet” rates. We have got 87,000 youth who are disengaged with society. They are not just out of employment or education but actually disengaged with everything in society. That is over 12 percent, close to 13 percent, and, as has been mentioned, it has never been below pre-2008 levels. So, apparently, that is a success for the Government. The Government cannot be talking about “Well, we’ve gone through a rough period of the GFC and the earthquake.”, because, apparently, the global financial crisis, according to Bill English, ended in 2012. So what has this Government been doing? That is not success. We are talking about the issues—social issues with the youth, jobs issues, education issues, and health issues—and the Government has not done anything to solve those problems in 8 years.

That is the same approach that we have just heard in the last week or two from the social housing Minister announcing we have got some more funding for emergency houses—that is not a good thing. That is not a positive announcement because what it is doing is demonstrably showing that the safety net has failed. This Government is supposed to have a social obligation to ensure that safety net is strong and can catch people. People are falling through it and becoming homeless. To come out and announce that the Government is going to invest more money into emergency housing is an admission of failure. It is an admission of failure, and it is the same approach that this Government is taking with this piece of legislation.

I would like to use an analogy about what this Government is doing to solve the youth unemployment issue and the issues with youth and “neets”. It is taking the approach of emptying a sink full of water with a teaspoon without turning the tap off first. That is what is happening. What it is doing by trying to increase the wraparound Youth Service to include 19-year-olds is changing the teaspoon to a tablespoon—that is all that is going to happen. It is not going to solve any of the issues. It is not going to solve any of the issues. It will continue, just like the previous 8 years.

The other main thing this legislation concerns is 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered to be at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency. I know that we have heard it previously from a few of the other members talking today, but that brings into discussion the risk predictive models that the Government is using. The bill’s commentary states: “Some submitters asked how the risk of long-term welfare dependency would be assessed.” We have got an issue with the way the risk predictive models are being utilised to assess the youth. On the face of things, Joe and Jane Bloggs would look at a risk predictive model and an investment approach and think that sounds logical. But if I could use an analogy—if we, for example, were trying to target millionaires and the predictive model said that all people who drive red cars are millionaires, the indicator we would be looking for would be red cars, but if all people who drive red cars are millionaires, that does not necessarily mean that all millionaires drive red cars.

What that means is we are going to use a predictive model, we are going to use a criterion, and we are going to use a tick box to try to predict how these youth—and they are not just youth but they are adults; 18 and 19-year-olds—will be a long-term financial liability on the State. This has all got to do with the investment approach, and the Government has had legislation go through just recently about putting the investment approach in the entire purpose of the rewrite of the Social Security Act. Everything, including this legislation—and this is a demonstrable fact of that—has to relate back to the investment approach.

These are the Ministry of Social Development’s own comments in the departmental disclosure statement in regards to risk modelling: “The risk model for the Youth Service extension is still in development and will be finalised prior to implementation of the Youth Service in August 2016.” So, first of all, it is still in development. I am not sure what the backbenchers of the Government are talking about, or what the Minister is talking about, when they say they are happy with the development of their risk modelling and that they know it works.

The worst thing is the fact the existing model used for the Youth Service is based on how the Government assesses the “neets”, and we have just heard that in the last 8 years it has never been lower than pre-2008 levels. We have had a record increase in the last quarter of young unemployed males. It is going up. It is not being solved by this Government, and yet this Government wants to use that same predictive model that it uses for “neets” for this legislation. So it is still being developed, and it has demonstrably failed in the existing model.

There are a number of issues that New Zealand First has with this legislation, but we do agree with the intent, and that is why we will be supporting it at this stage. I think that the Committee stage and third reading will be an interesting discussion and, hopefully, we can get some resolution for the concerns that New Zealand First has, but we will be supporting it at this stage. Thanks.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking this call to support the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in the second reading. As a member of the Social Services Committee, I want to thank each and every submitter. Looking at the number of submissions, we received 10 submissions, and I would say that was reasonable for this bill. Each and every submission was given thorough consideration and, as a result, this bill has come back with some good amendments.

This bill addresses a very serious social issue, and that is long-term welfare dependency. We know that when people go on a benefit at a young age they tend to stay on a benefit for a very long time. It is very important to engage youth in education—it could be just simple coaching, like budgeting courses or parenting courses—and it is important to help them get into employment, because that is the best thing we can do to help them. The Youth Service is aimed at improving social and educational outcomes for young beneficiaries, and this bill is to extend the Youth Service to 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children but who are considered to be at a significant risk of staying on benefit for a long term.

This bill is about extending the support to a bigger group that is at risk of staying on benefit for a long term by helping them get into education, training, or employment. It is really important to engage youth, and it is not an easy task to engage youth in education, especially youth who are dependent on a benefit. This Government is fully committed to helping our young people. With the commitment that we have from the Government, and with the support of the community and families, we can definitely make the change that we want to see. The member from the Greens spoke about the investment approach, and she was critical of the investment approach, which is not just for the wider economic good but it is going to be good for them as individuals too.

Extending the Youth Service to 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children—those who are considered to be at high risk of staying on benefit—is a good step. The Youth Service programme was set up in 2012—yes, I heard that members are saying it is a new programme, but it is not that new. It was set up in 2012, and it has been successful.

Louisa Wall: Where’s the evaluation report?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: There has been some evaluation done. An evaluation was done in 2014, and the evaluation showed that the programme is making a very positive impact on the lives of young beneficiaries. One evaluation that was done in March 2014 showed that for a number of people—young beneficiaries, those who were on a youth payment—when they moved to a work-age benefit, the numbers reduced by 8 percent. The numbers dropped from 38 percent to 30 percent, so it is definitely giving us positive outcomes.

The overall aim of this bill is to have fewer people relying on benefits. We know that employment is the best way of getting out of poverty, and that is why we are focused on this. We have recently also done welfare reforms. That was also to help people get into employment, and as a result we have thousands fewer children in benefit-dependent families. That is a very positive outcome. This bill is to help more and more young people have better opportunities in their lives. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

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

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Greens. As my colleague Jan Logie said earlier, the Greens will be opposing this bill. We have some very grave concerns about it, and they are basically outlined in the report that came back from the Social Services Committee. I want to touch on a few of them and quote from some of the submissions that were made to the committee, which highlighted some really pertinent points that I think this House should be considering, particularly when we come to the Committee of the whole House stage.

One of our concerns is that, essentially, this issue is not about the welfare of young people; it is about getting them off and out of the welfare system. It is not about ensuring that they have positive outcomes and the ability to be able to move from very low-paid work and poverty through to a much better-paid existence through tertiary education—that is not part of the deal. What is part of the focus here is getting these young people into low-paid jobs, because the only type of education that they will be aspiring to is National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, and that is not an aspirational way to approach the future of our young people.

We support wraparound services for vulnerable young people—we absolutely do support that—but we have serious doubts that this is the way to go about it. We are worried that the Youth Service, as it has been outlined in this bill and as it has been playing out since it was introduced, is really around the privatisation of core services from the Government, which is actually counter-productive to young people.

I take on board the comments that were made by a Brereton from the National Beneficiary Advocacy Consultation Group. It had a very coherent submission. It basically said: “This service does not provide wraparound support and guidance, but contracted out case management, where Youth Providers are given the power to recommend sanctions to enforce the obligations imposed by W&I. Youth are not able to form trusting supportive relationships where they can discuss their fears and failures, as their ‘mentor’ is their case manager and might sanction them for their mistake.”

I think that is an absolutely crucial point that we should be taking on board. How do you empower a young person to change their life when they are afraid to talk to the person who is supposed to be helping them because that person has the potential to sanction them, to make them poorer, and to take them further down from where they are at the moment? I think, further on in that submission, Kay Brereton points to international research that shows that in this type of situation, where it has played out in other countries the case managers “cease to be mentors, and become enforcers teaching the rules to the unwilling.” That is what we are concerned about.

We share the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner as well, who believes that young people should be informed about their risk rating. What it says in this bill is that, essentially, young people can correct mistakes in information but they will not actually be able to appeal, and that, I think, is a breach of human rights.

We are concerned that the risk criteria captures Māori above every other type of person, and my colleague Jan Logie outlined the bias that exists within Government departments, which is basically racist, and we do not want to see that continue either.

Carmel Sepuloni: That’s just putting it bluntly.

DENISE ROCHE: Ha, ha! Well, you know—we support a strengths-based approach, and this is not it. This is actually a model that will undermine the autonomy of young people, and it is not what we want to see our Government supporting. We will be opposing this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Kai te pīrangi au ki te whāriki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Kāre e kore he āwangawanga kai roto i te pire nei, heoi anō, kai te tautoko i tēnei wā i runga i te whakaaetanga o Te Minita kai te hiahia ia ki te noho ki te tīni wētahi wāhanga kai roto.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to lay out the views of the Māori Party in regard to this bill. Without a doubt there are concerns in this bill and, accordingly, we support it at this point in time on the basis that the Minister has agreed that he wants to sit down and amend parts in it.]

We in the Māori Party have grave concerns about a number of issues in this piece of legislation. Up until maybe a few hours ago we were prepared to not give support to this because we had tried to get some changes through and we were unable to do so. We have since then had some ongoing discussions and have had some guarantees from the Minister that we can continue to make some changes through the Committee stage to address the issues that we have. So with that, we will be supporting this bill in the second reading, and we look forward to those ongoing conversations around the issues that we have.

I am just going to articulate some of those issues with a couple of little anecdotes, if I might. I have five sons. No. 5 son struggled at school, for a number of different reasons. At one school he went to, they said: “This boy knows nothing about maths. In fact, he’s so far behind we don’t think he is ever going to be able to catch up.” They identified issues of his language barrier because he had come from a Māori-medium school. So we changed schools because we thought: “We don’t want to be underserved by you any more, thank you very much.” At the next school he came to, he was in a maths class, and I asked: “How’s he doing?”. I got told by the teacher, who was long-term relieving: “Your son is a predator.” I was, like: “Excuse me?”. The teacher said: “The young little boy who sits next to him in class is so scared of your son that he will not even look at him. I watched your son steal things from his bag and he did nothing about it.” I said: “Did you tell him off?”. The teacher said: “I’m telling you.”

So I go: “Son, what the heck?”. My son said to me: “Mum, we were playing touch at lunchtime. I put my stuff in my mate’s bag. He’s on his way to class. That’s my good friend. I came in late from playing touch and got straight to work. Instead of disturbing the class that was already working, I just grabbed my books out and sat down.”

If we are going to be information sharing from school to State based on a whole lot of litany of underserving our tamariki in our schooling system by prejudices that are being held by people who do not deserve to be standing in front of those students—some of them, because that is not all the teaching profession by any means. But this is an example, and I could point to a hundred of them, where prejudices against young people have inhibited their learning, where they have fallen out of the system and have then gone on to be those people who would be targeted under this model. Why? Because of the risk profile that they are presented with. We do not think that that is the way to target young people. Yes, we understand targeted services, we ask for them all the time—we get that. But you cannot blanketly say to a group of people that just because you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, you must be a duck.

We also have some grave reservations about the three strikes and the sanctions to young people. Three strikes—you do not turn up, you miss an appointment, something does not happen, and you are off the benefit. How does that then support that young person? The results of that are sleeping on Lambton Quay right now. That is what the results of that policy do.

So we have had some discussions with the Minister. I am pleased the Minister has recognised that actually there are other ways that we can do this. So if you are removed off the benefit, does your support stop or does the money stop? Is someone obligated to come and find you and see that you are OK? All of those questions we will continue to have discussions on. We will continue to come to this House and, hopefully, we will get those changes at the Committee stage.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to take a short call on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its second reading today. As we have heard today from my learned colleagues Mrs Parmar and Mr Doocey, the numbers are scary. For 18 to 19-year-olds on jobseeker support, they will spend, on average, a whopping 13 years on welfare. To consign these young people to the scrapheap and simply keep throwing more and more money at them without wrapping the support around them is simply not acceptable. It is a bad investment. It is not affordable for us as a country financially, but what is more, it is not affordable for us socially. It is soul-destroying to be on a benefit and to be beholden to the State for everything. We owe it to these young people to invest in them so that they can be successful, so that they can be independent, and so that they can be proud. More importantly, they need to be meaningful contributors to society as a whole, but I guess the highest priority for me is that they become meaningful contributors to their families and their children. Breaking the cycle of dependency and wrapping all possible support around these young people is an absolute necessity.

We believe in them. We know that when they find their way into work, into training, and into education, everyone wins—the downward spiral is broken. More of the same will deliver more of the same. We will wrap support around these young people, each and every one of them individually, and help them achieve. We must do something to ensure that these young people are better equipped to better their own prospects, and I am confident that the work that the Hon Anne Tolley is doing in this field is making a real difference. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. I have a couple of issues I would like to address about this particular bill. I think my underlying theme is going to be that, actually, the Government needs to get a dose of reality. It needs to do a reality check when it is developing legislation because—we are supporting this legislation’s second reading, but we have some grave reservations.

The first reservation we have is about the effectiveness of this Youth Service. Mrs Parmar talked about the analysis that had been done and said that it is proving to be a really good service. Well, we would like to see that analysis, thank you very much. We would actually like to see the evidence, rather than putting some more resource into a service when we have no idea whether it is effective.

Matt Doocey: You didn’t listen to my speech, obviously.

POTO WILLIAMS: Here is a dose of reality, Mr Doocey: there are more young people who are not in education, who are not in work, and who are not in training. How is this bill going to address that? How are we going to address the reality for our young people when we cannot get the figures out of the Government? Give us the evidence, please—give us the evidence.

Meka Whaitiri: A mirage.

POTO WILLIAMS: It is a mirage. The intention of this is to reduce welfare dependency—that is what it says in the purpose of the bill. Actually, it is not. The intention of this is to get people off the Government’s books in terms of benefits, but it is not about getting them into work. It is not about the focus into work, because we have no idea whether this service is effective in the first place at putting those wraparound services around young people. Is it increasing their educational standards? Is it increasing their ability to obtain work? Is it increasing their ability to parent well? Well, show us the figures—show us the figures—before you make commitments like this. Where is this evidence? Where is the evidence, because there is no doubt that young people in this situation actually need the support to increase their ability not only to get work but to find work that is actually going to pay them a decent wage so that they can then live a fulfilling life and take care of the needs of their children.

There is a focus on getting people into work, but not just any job and not jobs that actually cost them to go to. What does it cost a young person to put their child into childcare, to access transport—what does it cost for them to do that, and has this been factored into supporting these young people to get what they need to get off benefit and into jobs? And tell me one other thing: where are the jobs? Where are the jobs for these young people, and where is the Government’s evidence that when people come off benefits, they are actually going into work? Where are they going? Show me where they are going, because I do not see any evidence that people coming off benefits are actually going into work and actually making a—[Interruption] Where is it? Where is the evidence? I have had a little pipe-up there from the Minister. Show me where it is that you can track people off benefits into work, because I do not see any evidence of that.

I want to refer to something that has been canvassed in this House, which is the effect of sanctions on people. How is it that you can actually cut somebody’s benefit when they cannot turn up for an appointment at Work and Income? Each and every one of us electorate MPs has had queries from people who have said to us: “We couldn’t make it because we’ve had to pay our power bill. We didn’t have enough money to hop on the bus to go to our Work and Income appointment. They’ve cut our benefit in half.” We are talking about people with children—half. How is that a responsible Government approach? How is that a responsible Government—

Carmel Sepuloni: They’re laughing.

POTO WILLIAMS: They are laughing—they are laughing. Let me quote one of the submitters about sanctioning young people, which is actually abhorrent. This is abhorrent—OK. “The sanctions in place currently resemble a three strike policy approach to welfare distribution. The first time an obligation is not met, 50% of the welfare recipient’s benefit will be cut, the second time, their benefit is suspended and the third time means a full cancellation of their benefit”—excuse me? Excuse me?

Chris Bishop: You’re voting for this.

POTO WILLIAMS: Because we want some changes made here. This Government is scared of the “p” word. The “p” word is poverty, and yet with this bill it is throwing young people on the scrap heap and right into the face of poverty.

The relationship that young people are supposed to have with the person at Work and Income is supposed to be mutually equal and they are supposed to have rights and obligations, and then what do they get faced with? The possibility of having their benefit cancelled. How is that an equal relationship? When I worked in family violence, we talked about the cycle of violence and the power wheel.

Hon Member: Abusive relationships.

POTO WILLIAMS: It is—it is completely an abusive relationship. There is a huge power imbalance when a young person who finds it difficult to operate in the world anyway has to negotiate and cajole and work with people at Work and Income. It is absolutely, absolutely abhorrent.

Let us then look at the predictive risk model, shall we? How much evidence has been put into this predictive risk model? I recall being on the Social Services Committee and hearing what was going to go into the predictive risk model. Let us see what the factors are that the Government is going to use to determine whether the young person is from a family that has had previous welfare issues—be it race, their age. The predictive risk model is about what? It is about determining what we already know. It is about determining what we already know and, actually, we need to find different solutions, and cutting benefits is certainly not a solution that I would be recommending.

I really tautoko what the Green Party has been saying in its minority view, because—what did it say, OK. The modelling is about considering “educational outcomes, prior contact with Child, Youth and Family, gender, and reasons for leaving school.” That is supposed to be the predictive risk model to determine someone’s long-term dependency on welfare. Where is the aspiration in this? Where is the aspiration for these young people? Where is the support for these young people to actually get off welfare and into decent-paying jobs?

Jono Naylor: That’s what the bill’s about. Read the bill.

POTO WILLIAMS: OK, tell me where the jobs are. Tell me how these young people are going to transition into work. The Government cannot tell us how it is tracking where these young people are going. We have no idea where these young people are going. They are certainly not going into work, because the rates for young people not in education, not in training, and not in work are going up. So you cannot tell me that they are actually getting into work.

The last point I want to make is about the right of appeal. The right of appeal—we should always have the ability to appeal and review a decision, whether that is as a beneficiary or as any other person in our society. We slide down a slippery slope when we start taking those rights away from people, and especially people who are in a position of diminished power, such as a beneficiary. To me, this is one of the most significant aspects of the bill, which we should really give full consideration to at the Committee stage. Everyone should have the right to appeal a decision that impacts on their ability to actually live a decent life and, in this case, the ability to actually have any income. There will be some vigorous debates in the Committee stage on this bill, I have no doubt, but thank you very much for the opportunity to make my contribution.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 107

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

Noes 14

Green Party 14.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill

Riccarton Racecourse Bill

Second Readings

Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I move, That the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be now read a second time. These bills are part of the Government’s both pragmatic and extensive response to New Zealand’s housing challenges, and they will introduce a further 600 homes into the Canterbury market. I want to begin by thanking members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, particularly the chair, Mr Scott Simpson, for the work that the committee is doing on a number of housing bills that are about addressing the very practical issues. Last night we passed the legislation regarding home insulation and smoke alarms, we have got a big Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, and this bill is just part of this package of measures that the Government is taking. I want to acknowledge the sensible refinements that the select committee has made to these two bills.

The housing market in Christchurch is recovering well following the devastating Christchurch earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, and increasing supply has been at the core of the Government’s response. The rebuild has seen a number of very successful repair programmes as well as new builds, and progress continues to be made to contribute to the residential recovery of the Christchurch and Canterbury housing market. The current pressure on the Christchurch housing market, particularly the importance of the issue of more affordable homes, comes at a time when the board of trustees that governs the Riccarton Racecourse is proposing to convert part of the large racecourse into housing development, to make better use of the racecourse’s land and to be able to support the racing club and industry as well.

It is noteworthy that these bills are amending legislation that dates back to 1878. In 1878, it is interesting to note in the New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, the comment was made that the racecourse was too far out of town and that Christchurch would never expand that far, and the area of land for it was questioned for some of those reasons. That was even before the motorcar had arrived in New Zealand. The Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and this Riccarton Racecourse Bill, effectively, take 40 hectares of that Riccarton Racecourse area, with the support of the raceway’s trustees, and enable 600 homes to be built on this. A condition of the Government allowing that to occur is that at least 180 of those homes need to be within the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme and below that $450,000 price point.

Phil Twyford: Boy, lucky they’re not in Auckland.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A total of seven submissions were received on the bills—and I note the interjection from the member about the situation in Auckland. I would say it is true that the situation in Christchurch has changed quite dramatically. That is because the Government’s programme is working. In the last 12 months, rents in Christchurch have dropped by 5 percent in the last year. It is interesting to note that, actually, in Christchurch houses prices are absolutely static. The truth is, as my colleague Matt Doocey would note, that there are hundreds of good quality, three-bedroom homes—brand new—available for about $420,000. That is because the Waimakariri District Council has taken a very effective approach to issues of land supply. I would invite members opposite, if they are genuinely interested in housing solutions for Auckland, to reflect on the Government’s programme in Christchurch and the programme that we have made, because it gives us a strong direction as to what the answer might be.

In the submissions that were received by the Local Government and Environment Committee, some submitters raised concern about the loss of open space. Although the bill does facilitate the loss of the some of the reserve area, it is the Government’s view that that reserve space is not that well used. The truth, to anybody who has been down there, is: is it really just to have many hectares of land sitting, effectively, under-utilised when we have got families across New Zealand in need of additional housing? That is why we say this bill is the right approach.

It is interesting that even after the loss of the area from this reserve for housing, it will still be one of the largest racecourse reserves in New Zealand, with over 82 hectares of land for this racecourse, which is surprisingly close to the city centre. There were concerns that were heard by the select committee about the operation of the Riccarton Market, and I want to assure you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that the board of trustees that administers the racecourse reserve has been working with the community and reserve users, like the Riccarton Market operators, to ensure that that need can be met and to continue to provide the open public space for public use as well as racing activities. Again, this emphasises the point that even with these bills, 82 hectares of public space remain.

The select committee also heard some concerns raised about the suitability of the land for housing. I can assure the House that the bill ensures that this is a quality residential development—that the land, like so much land in Christchurch, is suitable for housing. In fact, I would invite members who have concerns in that regard to look at the very similar land surrounding it, which has proved eminently suitable for that purpose.

This legislation is part of our Christchurch Housing Accord, which we signed back in April 2014 to get on top of the housing issues in Christchurch. It included the Awatea housing development, and if anybody doubts the effectiveness of the Government’s Crown land programme, I invite them to go to Awatea and see the hundreds of good quality homes coming on stream at an affordable price. I invite them to visit the developments that are occurring in both Welles Street and Colombo Street, which will deliver 420 homes for that city.

Phil Twyford: Actual houses or just consents?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, they are houses, and if Phil Twyford would bother to go to Awatea, he would see the success that this programme is delivering.

Phil Twyford: So actual houses that people can live in?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This pathetic line—[Interruption]—it is pathetic—is that the member says that you are not allowed to use building consents as a measure of how much building activity occurs. Here is a simple challenge for him: would someone spend $15,000 getting a building consent for a house if they were not going to build one? The second point is that in all of the last five censuses, if you add up the number of building consents and you add up the number of houses that are actually built, there is a difference of less than 1 percent, indicating that it is, in fact, a very fair measure.

I do want to acknowledge the board of trustees of the Riccarton Racecourse. I want to acknowledge the Christchurch City Council. I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu. We have worked very effectively together to be able to progress these bills and unlock this land for housing development in Christchurch.

I expect this to be the last phase of the Government’s necessary interventions to support the housing recovery in Christchurch. There were members opposite who questioned whether the Government’s housing response in Christchurch would work. I again draw the attention of the House to the number of homes that have been built in Christchurch, the fact that rents have dropped by 5 percent over the last 12 months, and the fact that house prices in Christchurch increased by only less than 1 percent in the last 12 months, indicating that the housing recovery in Christchurch is well on the way, but this further development of 600 homes at the Riccarton raceway will ensure that we complete the important work of the recovery of residential Christchurch from those devastating 2011 earthquakes.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill, a piece of legislation that I know started its life as a local bill and is now back in this House as a Government bill. It was a pleasure to be involved in working through this legislation. It of course covers a very important part of Christchurch: the Riccarton Racecourse area being in the Wigram electorate and a part of the city where I have very good connections about what is happening in that community. This is legislation that is changing the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act, which was put in place in the 19th century, in 1878, to establish on the outskirts of the city a racecourse for the city of Christchurch. This was a place that was imagined to last for generations. What we are seeing with this legislation is the continuation of that racing facility to the west of our city, situated at Riccarton Park. We can all still go and enjoy the New Zealand Cup there and, hopefully, have a good flutter.

But what is going to change once this legislation is enacted giving the potential for people to be able to develop on that site? I think it is very important to acknowledge that this legislation in no way starts the process of building houses. What this legislation does is make it possible for development to occur on this site—that is the purpose of the legislation. I am reliably told by the trustees of the Riccarton Racecourse that some of those houses will actually be down the long-stretch starters run at Riccarton, and they are assuming that for those who are keen on racing that will be some of the most sought-after land in this development.

This development has not been without some concerns for locals who live in the area. They were real concerns—concerns that needed to be listened to, and concerns that needed to be considered while we went through this legislation. One concern that came through very strongly from constituents and locals in the area was around the lack of transport planning that sits alongside this development. When the idea for this development first came to the fore, it was going to be an exemplar project. An exemplar project was a fast-tracked way of doing development in post-quake Christchurch. To qualify as an exemplar development, several factors needed to be met. There needed to be a proportion of affordable houses in the development. Although this is not proceeding as an exemplar project, I do note that the same number of affordable houses—under the definition of affordable that would have been used in the exemplar project—will still be in place. In an exemplar project there needed to be thought given to the amenity and to the urban design that went into the development, and there also needed to be consideration of the infrastructure and transport planning that sat beside the development.

As the local member in this area, one of the things that I have growing concerns about is that we are not putting adequate transport planning into the west of Christchurch as we expand into that area and the city grows in a westward direction. Anyone who travels along Yaldhurst Road on a regular basis will know that you cannot simply tumble another 600 households into this area and not give serious thought to how we are going to move people around. We have a huge and really exciting opportunity in Christchurch, as we are rebuilding and recovering and making our lives again in that city, to actually do some stuff that makes us fit for the 21st century—to put in place proper public transport planning as we plan our housing developments and to not just take a 20th century view of how it is that we do development.

We have the opportunity to think: “What is the potential for rail from the west of the city that would go through this area?”. I note, and the Minister for Building and Housing noted in his speech, that when Riccarton Racecourse was first established, one of the most important parts of establishing that racecourse was getting a rail siding in place so that you could get the people of Christchurch out to the races in the 19th century. That rail siding is still there. I think it is time that we started thinking in our city about how it is we can be a progressive modern 21st century city that is not burying its head in the sand and looking backwards, not forwards. Because that is what is happening with the kind of planning that this Government is putting in place, and I think it is a real shame to lose the opportunity to do this kind of transport planning and infrastructural planning to sit alongside it.

Another concern—and a valid concern—that residents in the local area had was the way the development would face; that we are seeing far too many subdivisions happen around this country that turn their backs to the road and to the local community, where front gardens face inward to the new development rather than outward to existing streets. That was something that we were able to work through in a public meeting with the developers—around whether or not this really would be part of the existing community that has flourished in that part of Riccarton and around the racecourse. There is a real community that lives in this area. The racecourse employs hundreds of people on site, and many of them live in this area and have for several generations. It is an important part of their home.

For the locals who already live there and who have made their lives and their homes there, it was important to them that there was an ability to integrate these new homes and this new development into their neighbourhood. That is something that I, as the local member for Wigram, am happy to support them on, because I think it is important that we are building communities and neighbourhoods as well as houses and homes, and that we are building strong and resilient communities as we go through. I would also like to acknowledge the board of trustees of Riccarton Racecourse, which was were more than willing to work with the local residents and to talk through concerns that residents had as we went through there.

I just now want to turn my attention to some of the comments that the Minister made in his speech. What we heard was the Minister respond to a very innocuous interjection from my colleague Phil Twyford with quite a tirade—a very defensive tirade—about how it is we can look to Christchurch’s progress as a strong direction for Auckland. I have been listening to this kind of nonsense from that Minister and his boss, the Prime Minister, for days now, and this is complete nonsense. What we have is a completely unique and different set of circumstances in Christchurch. We had a natural disaster where, in the course of a few days, we lost thousands of houses. It was with that loss of houses that we had the coming in of insurance money. Of course it was too slow—that insurance money has not tumbled in at the rate that we would like to have seen—but what we had was the ability to redevelop and rebuild in a way that for the Minister and the Prime Minister to say it was the exemplar for Auckland just sends a chill down my spine.

This sounds suspiciously like the kind of softening up that Nick Smith did before he sacked the regional council in Canterbury. He is laying the blame on the Auckland Council rather than accepting blame for a housing crisis that he has created and has failed to address. What he is doing is he is softening up to sack another council, and he is unwilling to take the responsibility. He and his boss, the Prime Minister, have been going around saying: “We can look to what’s happened in Christchurch.” The Prime Minister, who can never get a name right, talks about how “ECANZ” has been granting consents in the city. The Prime Minister should take note that ECan, Environment Canterbury, the regional council in Canterbury, is not the body that grants building consents. So if the Prime Minister is going to go around and talk about what he wants to see as the model in Auckland, as a way to fix it, perhaps he could actually get his facts straight. But why should he bother? This is he and Nick Smith softening up to sack yet another democratically elected council because they want to sidestep the blame for their failure in Government to do what they were elected to do.

I am happy to support this legislation. Labour is happy to support the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and Riccarton Racecourse Bill, but I would like to see the Government keep its rhetoric in check. I would like to see the Government stick to the facts, and I would like to see the Government actually talk about and have some concerns for the local communities that it is impacting when we do this kind of legislation. This is not a chance for the Minister to stand up and progress an agenda that he clearly has. This is a chance for him to talk about a particular community in Christchurch, in a particular community that is going to be impacted in a particular way. I would like to hear some discussion on that in contributions from subsequent Government speakers. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, that member, Megan Woods, started off her speech—and, in fairness, most of it was pretty good, apart from the last couple of minutes, when she flew off into a rage and a tirade about some flight of fancy about what she may think is going to occur in other parts of the country. But it is a pleasure to rise in support of these two bills and to follow on from the Minister Nick Smith, who, I thought, gave a very good address and a comprehensive history of why it is that we are debating these two bills in their second reading in the House this afternoon.

Back in 1878, when the original enabling legislation that set up the Riccarton Racecourse was put through the Parliament of New Zealand, the area that was designated as reserve land for the racecourse was, of course, way out in the boondocks. It was a long, long way from what was then Christchurch City. As the Minister said in his speech, if you go back to the Hansard reports of the original debate, you will find there was some scepticism about how successful this park of racetracks would be, because it was so far away from the city. Well, in the hundred or more years that have ensued since the original legislation was passed and the reserve was put in place, of course, the city has expanded, and it has built itself around what is now a very important part of the Riccarton suburb and, of course, the entire Christchurch City make-up. It is a very important part of the city.

These two bills are actually a combination of legislation that will mean the racing club can move forward in terms of providing some real estate for the regrowth—the regeneration—of Christchurch in a meaningful way, and I am very supportive of that. The Local Government and Environment Committee was fortunate enough to be able to travel to Christchurch and actually hear the two submissions that we received from submitters who wanted to be heard in person at the Riccarton Racecourse. I have to say I had not visited the racecourse previously. So for me, as a non-Cantabrian, it was a real treat and a privilege and a pleasure to actually visit the site and to go there and see the beautifully manicured grounds, the lovely racecourse, and, of course, the big, extensive area that makes up the racecourse.

Of the 120-odd hectares—which is a very large footprint, I have to say, for a racecourse—some 82 hectares will remain after this legislation has gone through and after the nearly 600 homes that are to be built on the 40 hectares that will be designated for residential building have been built. That still leaves a very big footprint. I got a sense, from hearing the submissions and from touring and visiting the site, of just how important it is to the people of Riccarton and Canterbury that that site be maintained in a way that is accessible to the public, which is important for the maintenance of the fine racing tradition that occurs in Canterbury. I guess I got a sense of how that balance could be achieved.

One of the things I think is particularly important is that of the homes that will be built on the 40 hectares that are being designated for residential building, a minimum of 180 of those homes are to be affordable. In terms of a definition, affordable will mean they will be below the $450,000 KiwiSaver HomeStart cap that exists in Christchurch. I think that is going to be important for part of the regrowth of Christchurch and the regeneration of Christchurch. The Minister made passing comment about how many homes are needed and how large the city is going to become. Of course, this is part of a suite of legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee has been considering, on a whole range of Canterbury and Christchurch - related issues. I guess I could put it in terms of it being almost a silver lining that came out of the tragic situation that was the Canterbury earthquakes 5 years ago. I suspect that had those earthquakes not taken place and had the tragedy not occurred, we would not be considering this bill today.

I want to, along with the Minister, acknowledge and thank the board of trustees of the Riccarton Racing Club for its support, for its ability to take on board some of the issues that the select committee raised. I want to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu Property, which will be the organisation that manages and oversees the development. I want to thank the local submitters—the people who came to the select committee and gave us a very clear steer about their views, both in writing and in person, and I particularly want to thank the officials who worked on the bills with the committee. These are good pieces of pragmatic legislation. They provide assistance to the solution of the much-needed need for further residential accommodation to the built in Christchurch, and I have very great pleasure in commending them to the House in their second reading.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a particular pleasure for me to speak at this peak listening time. Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. Can I acknowledge the fact that today is the very day of the 53rd anniversary of Samoan independence. Samoa was the first Pacific country to gain that status, and I acknowledge our brothers and sisters across in Samoa. It has been wonderful to hear the Samoan language that has been used.

Given the bills that we are debating this evening, can I particularly acknowledge the Christchurch City Council, which is one of the key players in this legislation, not just for its contribution to and support of the bills but also for the fact that it has a marvellous answering service in Samoan this week, describing the fact that it is Samoan Language Week, in Samoan and in English, which also acknowledges the Samoan citizens of our city. I just want to add that, given that the Christchurch City Council has a direct relationship with these bills.

As my colleague Megan Woods noted, these bills started as a local bill and a Government bill, and it has now ended up that we are debating them together as a Government measure. I think it is a bit of a tribute to the Hon Nick Smith that he has managed to pick them up and progress them in this way, and he has done so, I think, with a lot of understanding and support of the issues. He has perhaps not fixed all the concerns, but I think the process of these bills has been very constructive. I also want to acknowledge, as well as the Christchurch City Council, the board of Riccarton Racecourse and also, of course, Kai Tahu, who will end up being the direct property managers of this development, which will go ahead once this legislation has progressed.

As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee noted, these bills are changing something that is 138 years old. So 138 years ago the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act was introduced and passed by this Parliament, which protected the area that we are talking about tonight—120 hectares of land—to ensure Cantabrians had the benefit of a racecourse. I do not know whether we would be that visionary in this current Parliament, but 120 hectares is a huge amount of land to use as a racecourse. Obviously, over recent times, the board that operates Riccarton Racecourse has gone to the council and then, subsequently, to central government and said: “We want to make better use of this huge piece of land and make sure that, of course, we preserve a very satisfactory racecourse operation but also look at some property development.”

For Canterbury, it probably could not have come at a better time. We know not only that thousands of homes were destroyed as a result of the series of earthquakes that we had from 4 September 2010 but also that a lot of the land on which many of those houses were built was no longer deemed suitable for rebuilding. So not only had we lost the houses but also we could not use the land they had been on. We are short of homes, and places to put them on.

This legislation is proposing that 40 hectares of that original reserve, 120 hectares, is put aside for residential development. That is allowing for the possibility of 600 houses being built. Thirty percent of those houses are going be classified as affordable, and “affordable” is using the maximum cost of the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant, which is, I think, about $450,000—somebody might correct me if that is not correct—in Christchurch. It is about that level. So 30 percent of those 600 new houses will be affordable, and I think that is a very good thing.

As I mentioned, the properties will come under the management of Kai Tahu, and I presume that is just a straightforward commercial arrangement between central government or the city council and them. I am not privy to the details of that, but I am sure other members who were on the select committee will be able to give us those details.

I want to acknowledge the way the select committee operated and, particularly, the fact that it travelled to Christchurch. The bill did not get a huge number of submissions. You know, in some ways the committee could have said “Look, we’ve got very few submissions. We could hear them in Wellington.”, but it did not. It showed respect to the local people, and I think the decision of that committee in saying “We will all go to the effort of travelling to Christchurch.” should be acknowledged. There is—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Hon RUTH DYSON: Talofa lava. Malo le soifua. As I acknowledged earlier in my contribution, I want to re-acknowledge the fact that this is the very day of the 53rd anniversary of independence for Samoa. It is appropriate that we make the most of the fact that it is also Samoan Language Week and use the greetings of that great sister nation of ours.

I think that when the bell rang for the dinner break, I was acknowledging the good work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, led by Scott Simpson, particularly in making the decision to hear submissions in Christchurch. It is a bit of a call for a select committee. Of course, if it is a local bill, that could be the inclination, but with very few submissions, the committee may have been inclined to say: “No, we’re going to just hear them in Wellington and make people come to us or do it over the phone.” But the Local Government and Environment Committee members, to their credit, made the decision to travel to Christchurch. I think that was a very respectful thing to do. It also allowed people who have concerns about the legislation, who may not have made a submission but still had concerns about some aspects of the bills, to at least know that the select committee was in town and was listening to people who had made submissions.

So this is a big deal. This is turning a 138-year-old reserve into a mix of reserve for the purpose of the Riccarton Racecourse and the remainder of 40 hectares of the 120 hectares into a residential development, which I understand is going to be commercially managed by Kai Tahu. That will allow for about 600 homes. That is a very important need that will be met in Christchurch. When the series of earthquakes, from September 2010 to quite recently, destroyed so many homes, there was a double disadvantage for Canterbury. Not only were, literally, homes lost but also the land on which many thousands of those homes had been built was no longer suitable for building on. We did not just lose the properties immediately; we also lost the potential to rebuild on much of the land, particularly in Poto Williams’ electorate of Christchurch East and indeed in Waimakariri as well.

This measure enables some of that gap to be filled, but it is by no means enough. I am hoping that the 30 percent of those 600 homes that have been committed to being built at an affordable rate, which is being determined by the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant level, which is just under $450,000—I hope it ends up that they are actually affordable. We have lost, in New Zealand, the ability for many people to save up for a deposit and buy their own home, and I think that is a tragedy. So having 30 percent of these properties, 30 percent of 600—do the maths quite quickly and you will work out how much that is—will, I hope, enable some people to get into their homes; to own them.

But if you think of $450,000, for a person on a low wage, that is still a huge deposit to have to save. I do not think that the Government has done nearly enough, in the broader space of housing in New Zealand, to address what we all know is a crisis. We have people who not only have nowhere at all to call their home but also actually have no prospect ever of being able to save up enough to buy their own home. I think homeownership is quite a fundamental part of the Kiwi culture, what we frequently refer to as the Kiwi Dream—that people are able to work hard, save hard, and end up buying their own home. It is not just an asset that people have, although that is important in order to have financial security into the future. It also means that people have security of tenure, they have a place to call their own, and they become generally a much stronger contributor in the community because they know that that is their community and they are not at the whim of a landlord.

I heard today during question time the Minister for Building and Housing talking about how many resource consents had been issued. I want to make it really clear that although resource consents are an important, fundamental part of building a house, in the end we do not want building consents; we want houses to be built and we want those houses to turn into homes for good New Zealand families. So here is my little drawing contribution to the evening. This is a building consent. This is what a building consent looks like. It is just a bit of paper. You cannot actually live in a building consent. In order to progress the situation where people can move into a warm, dry home—hopefully one that they can call their own—you actually need to build houses. I think these bills, which will be progressed tonight, will progress that opportunity for some Cantabrians, and I think that is a very valuable contribution.

Debate interrupted.

Visitors

Australia—Former Deputy Prime Minister

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt, but I would just like to acknowledge a former Australian Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, who is with us in the gallery.

Bills

Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill

Riccarton Racecourse Bill

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. You might not be able to live in a building consent but you certainly need one to build a house with. I stand to speak on these two partner bills, the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. I am really pleased to do this, because this an exciting time for the people of Christchurch. The legislation enables 40 hectares of the 122 hectares of the Riccarton Racecourse lands to be used to develop some 600 homes, of which 180 will be set aside for affordable housing. These affordable homes are going to be valued at around about $450,000—they cannot go any higher than that, because that is what affordable housing is about.

These bills are parallel bills to the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act, which was passed in the House just recently. Together with the three bills, we can start to see some amazing housing developments that are occurring within Christchurch itself. Everybody thinks that once this happens, they might lose their racecourse, but they will not. The races will still keep going on at Riccarton Racecourse, and the Sunday market will keep on going every Sunday at Riccarton. It is a very big market, so the people of Christchurch can be safe in the knowledge that their Riccarton market and their races will continue to occur at the same place they have become used to. The racecourse itself, the Riccarton Racecourse, will benefit financially, and with the funds, they will be able to use this land and invest the funds back into their racecourse.

These homes are going to be set in areas where there are already communities built up, so it is not like there is going to be brand new community shopping areas that are going to need to be built; no, these are already going to be there. If this housing project is going to be anything like the housing project out at Prestons, it is going to be absolutely amazing, with lots of greenery and perhaps even some gym gear that the Prestons people also can use in their area.

Overall, these are excellent bills. Their core purpose is to provide homes in the Christchurch area. I want to acknowledge Minister Brownlee as well for his regeneration bill and the work that he did around Christchurch earthquake recovery. I want to thank Nick Smith because he does work very hard in the housing area. A lot of people want to step forward and criticise him, but he is doing an amazing job. I want to thank the Christchurch City Council, Ngāi Tahu, and the Riccarton trust board because they have all come together. We might have had only a couple of submitters, but I can tell you now that is because everybody in Christchurch is right behind this housing project. I commend the bills to the House. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Talofa lava. Malo faafetai, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill. The Green Party is supporting this legislation because it is going to provide land within the city limits for new housing and because a significant component, some 180 homes of the 600 homes that are proposed to be built on the 40 hectares of the Riccarton Racecourse, will be for affordable housing, so it is not leading to further urban sprawl. We certainly need those extra 180 affordable houses in Christchurch, although we question the definition of “affordable” in the legislation, which is a sale price of $450,000, because that is hardly affordable for a lot of people. We need that affordable housing because the city is predicted to grow by around 80,000 people before 2043 and because we have seen such massive loss of affordable housing as a result of the quakes, particularly in the east of Christchurch. We have seen a huge increase, both in house prices and in rental costs. Now the average house price is around $490,000. Certainly a lot of new building consents have been issued and some new houses have been built, but those are targeted at the higher end of the market.

That is why this Government has failed in tackling our crisis in housing, tackling homelessness—the fact that people are regularly sleeping in cars, on the streets, or in garages. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, about 30 percent of the new homes that were being built were affordable homes; now it is around 5 percent. That is why the Government needs to get active and enable Housing New Zealand to build more affordable homes. That is why the Green policy is to ensure that Housing New Zealand can keep its dividend—can keep the tax that it would pay the Government and use that to make a start on building new homes. We are supporting this legislation, but it is a very small measure to address the crisis we have in housing in New Zealand. One provision in the legislation is that if these 180 homes that are affordable are not built, then the developer, in terms of the racecourse trust and Ngāi Tahu, have to pay a penalty to the Crown of around $3 million.

But we still have some concerns about the way that the development may proceed. There were issues raised by submitters about the loss of open space and green space in this part of Christchurch. There were not many submitters, certainly, but one of them, William Morgan, noted that the other subdivision developments in the area, at Yaldhurst Village and the Kintyre Estate, along with this one at Riccarton Racecourse, would result in 1,200 new households. His concern was that there was not adequate provision of open space in those other subdivision developments, that we have seen the loss of open space at Wigram airbase, and that this area is not, as the Minister for Building and Housing claimed, not well used. It is well used for passive recreation, particularly during the week. It is used for running, for walking dogs, for walking, and for just enjoying being amongst the trees and being in that open area.

I was really troubled by the Minister’s comments in his introduction, which were seeming to suggest that if you had green space that was not being highly used, then that should automatically be available for housing development. We will get very unhealthy cities and towns if that is to be the Minister’s attitude through this proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development that we are seeing tomorrow. It fails to appreciate the importance of green open space. We have got rising obesity rates and rising issues with mental health, and there is a considerable amount of research that shows that being exposed to nature, being able to enjoy open space, improves people’s well-being and, of course, it provides a place for exercise, which both improves well-being and improves health outcomes.

We want to ensure that the subdivision that happens here is well integrated with existing public transport and that the roads are wide enough to accommodate buses, which they have not been in subdivisions like Northwood. We want to ensure that the city council really looks at these issues around integration with existing services, around making sure that it is not just pedestrian walkways that are provided through the subdivision, and that we have more than the two small reserves that are proposed. Certainly Paparua Stream is going to be enhanced, but we need to ensure that there is good open space, so that there are good amenity values—not just for the residents in this new subdivision but also for residents in neighbouring areas, because the Riccarton Racecourse land has catered to those needs for passive recreation.

This whole thrust in the Green Party’s policy for green cities and towns is that we have a subdivision that is not just urban sprawl on the outskirts, where there are very high costs for people commuting to work and to city services, but that the new development is well integrated, and that it has adequate provision for stormwater management. Again, Riccarton Racecourse, at the moment, is a soak for stormwater. That helps replenish the aquifers. If we get a lot of hard surfaces in the area, without adequate green space, that generates more stormwater, which the city council then has to deal with. Green spaces are really important in providing livable cities and towns, and the Minister needs to ensure that his National Policy Statement on Urban Development is not going to be just a fast track to converting reserves into housing areas.

There is a real risk of that if he uses the truncated process that he has made available in the Resource Management Act, where a national policy statement does not have to go out to a board of inquiry. He can appoint a single person to consider submissions, and there does not have to be a public hearing. The hearing process, as with this legislation, even though there are only a few people who made submissions, highlighted some issues for the Local Government and Environment Committee, which did lead to some changes in the legislation in terms of ensuring how the racecourse trust board can use some of the revenue that is generated, and just ensuring that the legislation was a lot clearer in terms of the way that it operated.

We support affordable housing. We do not want this to be a precedent for seeing other reserves and green space in urban areas converted to affordable housing, because those areas are quite critical to providing for good amenities and sustainable cities and towns and for ensuring that we cater for other values like public recreation and public health and well-being. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First welcomes these bills. I want to begin by congratulating the Riccarton Racecourse trust board and also the Christchurch City Council, both of which proposed the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. Riccarton Racecourse, as everyone in Christchurch knows, is very important reserve land for the sport of horse racing in Christchurch, and so it is very important that an adequate portion of the land be retained for that purpose. That is achieved with this bill. In fact, there are over 120 hectares of land available, and only 40 hectares of it will be required in order to meet the housing requirements in this bill. It is a good way of dealing with the surplus land that has been in Riccarton, at that racecourse, for a very long time. It will be good for Christchurch because this is prime residential land, and that is indeed very much in demand in the city of Christchurch.

I am also pleased with the provisions of the enabling bill—the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill—the key purpose of which is to increase the supply of affordable housing in Christchurch, and that is very much in line with New Zealand First policy. We want to see much more affordable housing in Christchurch, and in Auckland, and in many other parts of the country as well. Following the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, and onwards, the housing market in Christchurch has continuously faced pressure because of the loss of so many houses that were red-zoned or that, even if they were not red-zoned, had to be demolished and rebuilt or, in some cases, just demolished and not rebuilt. So the demand really is still there, and the demand currently has been increased by the sheer number of workers who are still arriving in Christchurch to support the rebuild.

This proposal involves at least 600 new homes, and 30 percent of those—a minimum of 30 percent—will be affordable homes, so that is very welcome. I think we in New Zealand First would have preferred to see that minimum at 50 percent or even higher, but we would not die in a ditch for that, and 30 percent is a very good proportion, and so we are pleased to support the bill. We are also pleased that the term “affordable house” is actually defined in the bill and is not left open to somebody’s subjective judgment.

I want to quote clause 6(1) of the enabling bill, because I think it is well said: “In this Act, affordable house means a house that has a maximum sale price at the date on which the house is sold as required by section 9(a) of—(a) the amount at which a person eligible for a HomeStart grant in Christchurch City would be able to purchase the house and receive the grant; or (b) if the HomeStart grant scheme no longer exists as at that date, the last amount that applied under paragraph (a) when the HomeStart grant ceased; or (c) $450,000 if the amount referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case may be) is less than $450,000,—”. I think that is a very good way of defining what an affordable home is, and $450,000 certainly is an affordable home these days. We are very pleased with that.

I also note that what the bill does is require a development scheme to be submitted, in accordance with specified minimum requirements, for approval by the Minister. That actually means that we will get at least 180 affordable homes—it would have been better to be 300, but at least 180 affordable homes—and they will be built as an integral part of that scheme.

This particular piece of land is particularly good for the development of residential homes in Christchurch, because it does have good public transport. No doubt that capacity will be increased as a result of that scheme as time goes on. But also, the land is very close to many other amenities—doctors, shops, schools, and so on. So it is very good land to be developed, and it is good to see this kind of land being developed within the urban limits of Christchurch City.

The enabling bill also provides for compensation to the Crown if the affordable housing is not delivered within a specified time frame. On that matter, I want to quote clause 14(1)(a) of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill, which says: “A scheme submitted to the Minister must—(a) provide for the compensation payable by the Board to the Crown if a scheme is approved and the Board fails to meet the minimum number of affordable houses requirement referred to in section 9(a) within the 5-year time limit required by that section;” And then subclause (b) goes on to specify in some detail the amount that would be payable. We are very pleased to see that, because if it did not have teeth like that, then these requirements, this aspiration, for affordable houses probably would not be met.

I think that, overall, these two bills are well-thought-out, and, in fact, they would be a good template that others could consider for similar developments for reserve land elsewhere in New Zealand. There must be a lot of reserve land in other parts of New Zealand that could be used for these purposes. Perhaps councils and other organisations need to look around and do what is being done here. I also want to commend the Local Government and Environment Committee, which has made some worthwhile changes, especially to clause 8(a) of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill to ensure the protection of open space and amenity values of the reserve land. What we are going to get is a racecourse, some open-space land for people to enjoy, and also at least 600 new homes. It is a pretty exciting project, and I think we are all very much looking towards it.

I want to conclude by making some comments about Minister Smith’s speech, which I thought was, in part, pretty silly, actually. He said that Auckland could learn from Christchurch’s housing recovery, and that would include this project. But, of course, there are so many differences between what happened in Christchurch and what happened in Auckland that there is actually no comparison. So if the Minister thinks that in any way at all he could use this example as a means of solving Auckland’s problems, then he really does need a reality check.

The fact is that 16,600 people left Christchurch following the quakes, and the population went down. That is now reversed, but it is still only 5,000 in each of the last 2 years. At the same time, there were 45,000 net immigrants into New Zealand in the last year alone, of whom 30,000 went to Auckland. That resulted from the Government’s open-door, excessive immigration policy, which is one of the major causes of the situation within the Auckland housing market. So we have a Minister who is really, really clutching at straws with this. His comments were inappropriate and rather silly. But as far as this bill goes, New Zealand First is happy to support it.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour and a pleasure to rise in full support of the second reading of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. I must say, as a proud born-and-bred Cantabrian, I do enjoy getting up and being able to speak very passionately about a fantastic region and a fantastic city. I must say that for most people who grew up in Christchurch or in Canterbury, the Riccarton Racecourse is dear to our hearts. We all spent many a good time at the racecourse, and I must say, if that racecourse could talk, the things it could say. It was great to grow up in an era—I am sure Mr O’Rourke would agree with me—without digital cameras and Facebook to record that sort of evidence. There was a great time had by all at Riccarton Racecourse, and it is fantastic to be able to speak on another piece of legislation that will move this region forward in its recovery. We are building and rebuilding the best new small city in the world.

When I reflect on Riccarton Racecourse, I mean, the first thing that comes to my mind that is synonymous with racing is the classic call of Reon Murtha, when the horses bolted from the gate: “Racing this time”. It is fantastic—oh, I could reflect for hours.

But the point I want to touch on is why I think this area is critical to the development of Christchurch. Location-wise, as has been canvassed by other speakers in this House, it is well positioned for development, 12 kilometres from the central business district. Also, there has been large growth and change in how we view Greater Christchurch. Once upon a time, Riccarton Racecourse would have been seen as out of the way. Places like Belfast in my electorate—you would have packed your lunch; it was a day trip. Now these areas are all being seen as pretty much central city. So that is why it is great for this development. People will be able to access the airport and growth areas like Hornby for jobs, shoot down for a bit of shopping in Riccarton Mall, and, of course, the university. It will be a great place for university students to rent or own, to access the facilities of such a fantastic university.

In this development, we know there are going to be 600 properties. About 30 percent, or 180 of them, are going to be affordable, and they are going to be under that $45,000 cap for the KiwiSaver HomeStart loan. I must say, I was reading about this the other day; it is going great guns in Canterbury—533 families have been supported into their first house because of this initiative. I know that in my electorate of Waimakariri, we are up to about 234 families being assisted into their first home because of this scheme.

I think that when you look at that supply-side angle, there is real learning for the rest of New Zealand about what has happened in Canterbury, and I think this residential development is a good example. Before the earthquakes, before we lost 13,000 houses, if we said we were going to free up a reserve—you know, Cantabrians are not very good at using parks; we like looking at them, but to actually do something in them, we are a bit averse. But now we have this need around freeing-up land and building more houses. We increase supply and it equals demand. I think that when you look at the annual house price inflation, it is very minimal now in Canterbury compared with the rest of New Zealand. There is a real lesson in that.

Just to finish, what was really the strongest point of the select committee process was taking a cross-party membership of the select committee down to Canterbury to show our continued support, as people in Parliament, of the rebuild of the best new small city in the world. I commend these bills to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Talofa malo le soifua, fa‘afetai tele lava. Let us not forget why the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill have come to the House, and the genesis of the local bill, which became a Government bill. That was actually at the request of Riccarton Racecourse, because it was looking for an opportunity to stay viable and for the city to be able to continue to have that fantastic facility of the racecourse and continue to be able to provide the race meetings. It saw that this was a way to be able to do that by allowing for part of the land that is the reserve of the Riccarton Racecourse to be used for housing. So, firstly, I must acknowledge the fact that the trust board and the trustees of Riccarton Racecourse are really mindful of the significance and the history of that particular course and are wanting to ensure that we could retain that facility within Christchurch City. It has got a long history—138 years, as my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson says. It has history, it has presence, and when you are there, you can see that it is a much-loved facility that we would dearly hate to lose.

So let us start from that place, about why this legislation actually came to the House originally. In order for the racecourse trust board to be able to do what it is doing, of course we need enabling legislation on the Christchurch Racecourse Reserve Act, because it is a reserve. We need to pass this legislation in order that we can take those 40 hectares and use them for the purposes of housing. I want to commend the Local Government and Environment Committee for holding the committee meeting in Christchurch. But, as I recall, at the time, it was under some pressure from the Labour MPs that that occur—that we were sure that other people who would not ordinarily submit to the select committee would actually find it an opportunity to do so.

Scott Simpson: We went for a field trip.

POTO WILLIAMS: Indeed you did. It was actually really important that the select committee went to Christchurch to see the racecourse and also to hear the submitters. But, as I recall, over that period of time—it was a truncated period for gaining submissions, because it was the summertime. As I recall, there was only a few weeks of submission time over Christmas—chairman of the select committee over there, as you recall—but people go on holiday. I know that as a member from the Christchurch Labour team, we were very clear that we wanted to ensure that people had as much opportunity to submit as possible. So being there with the select committee to hear the submissions was a very important part of that.

I want to commend the work of Dr Megan Woods in her local community, because when the idea of taking some of the land at the racecourse and using it for housing first came up, of course the local people were very concerned that they would lose access to very valuable recreation space where lots of people would walk their dogs—would meet and walk together. It is a beautiful space. And they were right to be concerned. I know that Dr Megan Woods hosted public meetings where local people could talk about their concerns. They feared the loss of their facilities. They were also concerned about the increased number of houses and what that would do to the infrastructure, particularly in terms of roading and traffic and public transport. It is quite a busy part of Christchurch, and there were concerns that it would become very difficult, particularly at peak times, to get in and out of properties and around the streets. So they had some very, very real concerns. I know that Dr Woods also ensured that the concerns of the community actually reached the ears of the board at Riccarton Racecourse, and they were able to use that information to address those concerns.

There is a very strong partnership with Ngāi Tahu all through this work. Ngāi Tahu, as I understand it, will have a significant role in managing the project in developing the homes going forward. I recall, at a meeting, asking why the exemplar status was not continuing. An exemplar project around housing has to have a certain percentage of affordable homes, it has to address the key issues of amenities and urban design, and it has to look at infrastructure and transport planning. The reason this project, which started out as an exemplar project, actually did not continue to be an exemplar project was that other than the percentage of affordable homes, those other key issues around infrastructure and transport planning were not, I do not think, addressed sufficiently for it to retain that status.

I recall there were some Christchurch city councillors who had some concerns, around April to May 2015, when the announcements were first made, and some of them were concerned about the rationale for rezoning. Over the course of a year or so, those concerns have been addressed, and in 2016 the council became the formal promoter of the legislation.

We are looking forward to the 600 homes that are going to be built—about a third of those are going to be under $450,000. Although in Auckland terms that seems very cheap, we still have some issues about concerns we have that our house prices have gone up significantly in Christchurch but that our incomes have not gone up at the same rate to match the pace of house price inflation. So although the Minister for Building and Housing, in reference to his speech earlier on, is crowing about the number of houses that are being built in Christchurch, that very significant factor—that incomes in Christchurch have not increased at the same rates—has not been addressed, as far as I am concerned.

One of my colleagues was just asking what is going to happen to the Riccarton Market. It is a great market on a Sunday; in fact, it is a place where you can get just about anything. For those of us who live in New Brighton who thought “Hey, here’s an opportunity for the Riccarton Market to actually move to New Brighton to become part of the Seaside Market.”, well, we were clean out of luck because in this legislation, the land that is going to be used for housing actually means that the market can stay in situ, on site, and continue to be a favourite place for my colleague Rino Tirikatene and I to go on a Sunday morning. So I am sorry, New Brighton Seaside Market, we have missed out on that one.

It is going to be a fantastic place to live. While the select committee was there, we had the opportunity to view the land that is going to be where the houses are built, and for some lucky people, they are going to be able to watch the horses go down the home straight. It will be a great place to live. I commend the work of the select committee, and I am looking forward to being there when the houses are built. Thank you.

NUK KORAKO (National): Talofa, e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. It is indeed my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill. In looking at this legislation, it also is a completion of the trifecta. What I mean by that, seeing as this is related to horse racing, is the trifecta that has been won by Cantabrians and the people of Christchurch. What I am talking about is three legislative bills—or, actually, three plus one. This is the great legislation that is coming out of the Local Government and Environment Committee, well chaired by Mr Scott Simpson.

The great thing is that we have just put through two wins—the first one was the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill; the second one was the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill—and the trifecta, now, is this legislation. Once it gets through its final reading, it will be a trifecta win for Christchurch and also for Cantabrians.

It is always a pleasure to talk about any legislation that is for the betterment of this great city of Christchurch, and Canterbury. In talking about this legislation, it has all the hallmarks of a very, very successful development.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, let us talk about it, then.

NUK KORAKO: I had to just set the scene. This legislation is actually about the fact that the development is a partnership: the working together of, first, Ngāi Tahu—the iwi; the second one is the Riccarton Racecourse; the third one is the Government; and the fourth one of course is the Christchurch City Council. All of them, working together, have come up with this excellent development that is going to take place. The interesting thing is that when you talk about Ngāi Tahu, the iwi, it actually reflects on a lot of goodwill that is being shown here.

Originally, the land was under the control of the iwi, then it was taken, and then it was returned again, and what we got was a right of first refusal (RFR) if the use was ever changed. This is the case with this bill. The use of the land was changed, and so the RFR was triggered, but the iwi showed very, very goodwill because it, basically, waived the RFR. This is how we have that real important part of the iwi input, through a Treaty settlement, in this particular legislation.

It is great that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is sitting here, because Māori right across New Zealand show goodwill—they really do—and this is a good reflection of that. Last week, the Wanganui iwi also did, around the river, so that is a really great reflection of what has happened here.

The real essence of this legislation is the fact that you have got 40 hectares of land that is currently vested in the Riccarton Racecourse, and this will be used for that development. What we are going to get out of that is another really important development of housing in Christchurch. We have the land, and what we are doing here is we are going to utilise it now, for the benefit of Christchurch people. The other good part of this is that even though there are 600 houses, a really good portion of that—180 houses, around that—is going to be affordable housing. That is another really important part of this legislation.

In saying all of that, this is very pragmatic, excellent legislation; it is very nimble. The other part of it is that it is a piece of legislation that really does carry the hallmarks of partnership right across the board. This legislation, to me, should be progressed by this House without delay, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Like other members on both sides, I rise to support this legislation. I say to the member Nuk Korako, who just made an eloquent speech, that it is right and proper that we celebrate this development and that we celebrate the initiative and goodwill of Ngāi Tahu and other community actors and stakeholders within Christchurch. But I have got to say to the member who has just resumed his seat that, in all the self-glorification that the Government shines on this tonight, it is noteworthy to point out that it was not the Government that initiated this process. It was not the Parliament that initiated this process. It was, of course, the Riccarton Racing Board, which approached the Government with an initiative to do it.

Nuk Korako: Couldn’t do it without us, though.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, that is true. The member said they could not do it without Parliament, without the Government. That is true, that if you want to progress legislation this is the only game in town. But it was not an initiative of the Government to fly down from Wellington and say: “Hey, here is a brilliant idea. Let’s put this in place.” No, it was the local people, the local stakeholders, and the racing club itself that came up with the idea. It was slightly controversial at the time, to be fair, because this is an iconic place within Christchurch. I know it well. I grew up, effectively, across the road, on the north side of Yaldhurst Road in my early years. My old man actually taught me how to drive, in a Morris Minor, in the carpark of Riccarton Racecourse—probably because he was too scared to put me on the road at that time, at 15.

Hon Phil Goff: Wise man.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. Wise man, says Mr Goff. We will not talk about his motorbike antics, because he is running for mayor. I have had the occasional flutter and was Acting Minister of Racing for about 8 hours at a New Zealand Cup at one point—I did not pick the winner—a great moment in history. But I just say to the member who has just spoken, that credit should go where credit is due, and credit for this initiative is due to the Riccarton racing folk. It was not without controversy, and it is an iconic part of the Canterbury and Christchurch landscape.

In fact, I can regale the House—I am in danger of becoming John Carter in my latter years—with a story of my grandmother and grandfather, who harked from Invercargill. My grandfather ran a dubious book, I think, at a business many years ago, so if I owe the member for Invercargill’s parents any money, I am sorry, but the debt died with my grandfather. But he was a great punter, and on his wedding honeymoon, he brought my grandmother up at Cup week and housed her in the Riccarton Racecourse pub across the road for the duration of Cup week. He went from the gallops to the trots, gallops to the trots, and then, after a pretty arduous week, he advised his new wife that he had won enough money to pay for the honeymoon. Suffice to say that my grandmother, who died at 96, hated the races for the rest of her life because of that short and interesting experience.

Look, we support the legislation. It will provide a substantial number of houses in an area, but, again, I would just point out that although it will add to the housing stock, you have to acknowledge in Christchurch that it is late—

Hon Ruth Dyson: We’re short of a few.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We are short of a few, but the housing market is over the hump. On that side of Christchurch, it will provide a gap—Rolleston is not that far down the road—but, as Dr Megan Woods and Ruth Dyson and others have said, there are other issues around that side of Christchurch in respect of infrastructure. You cannot just plonk 600 houses of—what—3½ people on average per house in that particular area and not deal with infrastructure around Yaldhurst Road, and Racecourse Road leading into Johns Road and the Hornby area. That is a challenge, I think, not only for the Christchurch City Council but also for the Government—to provide infrastructure resource around that. That was, in my early years, a pretty sleepy part of Christchurch. It was very rare you would get a traffic jam, as I grew up, around that part. That will change overnight with this particular development, and resource and infrastructure must follow.

So, in the briefest possible way and having regaled the House with a wonderful couple of personal histrionics, I think this is a very good piece of legislation. It is a chance for local stakeholders, again, I think, to take charge of their own destiny. It will preserve the iconic—as a colleague said—Riccarton Market, which is very, very well established and very well loved right across Christchurch. It will—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Not as good as Lyttelton market.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Not as good as Lyttelton market? Well, you know, we do not often disagree in the Labour Party but, you know, once or twice, occasionally, we do. It will preserve the iconic nature—that is, the Riccarton racing club—and assist with its financial and fiscal future. So I think we should expedite this. I do not think there is a lot of drama around it now, but as I conclude my speech, I just make the point again that credit should go where credit is due, and credit is due to local stakeholders and the Riccarton racing club rather than any sort of reflected glory that members of the Government would reflect upon themselves during this debate.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise to take a very short call in support of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill. I will not prolong this much longer for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will simply say—and in response to the member opposite—that these are a couple of bills and a process that signify a symbiotic relationship, which is a good one, where the Riccarton Racecourse has looked to grasp a financial benefit for some underutilised land.

On the other side, this frees up space to build more houses for families who were adversely affected by the Christchurch earthquakes. It allows them to get into their own homes and re-establish themselves. We have already heard from members on both sides of the House that this will free up space for 600 homes, and approximately 180 of those will be affordable housing subject to the Government’s wonderful HomeStart grant programme. So that is a good thing for the people of Christchurch. It is wonderful to see some progress made in Canterbury following the earthquakes, and, quite simply, I commend these bills to the House.

Bills read a second time.

Bills

Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 March.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): When I last spoke about this bill, I described the framework that goes with the electronic monitoring of prisoners. I also spoke about the fact that on any given day there are between 20 and 47 offenders who have had their bracelets cut off, and that means there are 20 to 47 communities out there in New Zealand that are living under a bit of a cloud in terms of their safety.

Just in the short space of time that I have got left—one of the biggest issues that the Department of Corrections has is not so much offenders cutting off their bracelets, but the fact that our prisons are full to overflowing. One of the reasons that our prisons are full to overflowing is just the poor rehabilitation programmes that are going on. In fact, the department’s own annual report last year said on page 134 that the rates of some of the programmes reported are so small that they are below the level of statistical significance. That means, basically, whether an offender does a course, or does not do a course, there is basically no difference to his outcome.

I have asked written questions of the Minister around how many offenders are on a particular course. There is one where 319 offenders did one of the courses, and there is a rehabilitation quotient on page 41—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relate it to the bill.

KELVIN DAVIS: Well, it is related to the bill in that we would have less need for electronic monitoring if the rehabilitation programmes actually worked. This particular programme that I am talking about has a rehabilitation quotient of minus 2.2. When I asked the Minister how many people does this actually rate to, it came down to just a two-person difference. Whether they did the course or they did not do the course, there was only a two-person difference, and the cost of that course was some $5 million. So the taxpayer—

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

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Judith Collins, for her support and her leadership on this bill. I would also like to acknowledge all the members of the Law and Order Committee on their contribution and, lastly, I would like to acknowledge the officials who supported us during the select committee process.

The main provision of this bill, the purpose of the bill, is to remove legislative barriers to the electronic monitoring of offenders released from prison sentences of 2 years or less and offenders sentenced to intensive supervision. It is very important to understand that we do not want offenders who are released into the community to reoffend. As the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, just mentioned, the focus of this Government is to reduce reoffending and part of the Better Public Services target is to reduce that by 25 percent by 2017.

We want to remove the barriers to the monitoring of offenders, to help ensure the safety of the New Zealand public. Where offenders are back in our communities, we want to support them so that they stay away from the drivers of crime and so that we keep our communities safe.

The technology is advancing day by day, and this electronic monitoring can help to monitor offenders—show where their movements are. For example, if there is an offender who has been released into the community who has been a child sex offender, there will be restrictions in his release order that he should not be seen around schools. This electronic monitoring, which has GPS tracking, can help us to monitor the offender so that he is not around a school or anywhere nearby.

Traditionally, prisoners have been temporarily released under supervision from prison for reasons like funerals, medical treatment, or work experience from time to time. Electronic monitoring can help us to achieve this. Nowadays most prisons are working prisons, and they give opportunities to the prisoners to go out and work so that when they come back into the community they have some kind of skill so that they can earn their bread and butter and help their families. When we put bracelets on the offenders, we could easily monitor where they are going and what is the purpose of their visit. Another reason could be that the prisoners nowadays may be in an external self-care unit, where they go and live and try to get back into the community.

These are some of the issues that can be addressed with electronic monitoring. With these words, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am pleased to support this bill. I have got to say that there are some law and order bills that the Government, from time to time, comes up with that are simply floss. They are designed to appeal to the electorate but they are not really effective. I have got no time for that sort of bill. I do not care which party introduces it. I think we are only misleading the public when we pass legislation that is all for show and has no effect.

So when I look at a law and order bill, I look at it, first of all, in light of whether it is going to be effective in meeting the purpose that it sets out to meet. I do not look at it in terms of whether it is a tough law and order measure or a soft law and order measure; I look at it as to whether it is an effective law and order measure. Secondly, I look at it in the context of what our responsibility is as a House to protect victims and potential victims and to ensure the safety of the community. On those two criteria this bill deserves to be supported.

From my point of view, I think that this House always has to be on the side of the victim and of stopping more people becoming victimised. Indeed, in the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act, which I passed as the Minister of Justice, the determining criterion had to be risk to, and safety of, the community. So I try to look at these things consistently, regardless of which side of the House is introducing the legislation.

So what does this bill do? First of all, it removes legislative barriers to two areas where offenders were previously excluded from monitoring. One is that area of offending where the sentence is less than 2 years, and the second area is where there is a sentence of intensive supervision. There were two other areas that were also excluded, and the Government clearly looked at these as well and decided that monitoring of these sentences was not justified—that is, supervision and release from home detention. The reason why those areas were not included was, basically, that these are at the lesser end of sentencing. You could not justify the expense of monitoring—I think it is about $3,500 a year—given the low level of risk, and you probably could not justify the intrusive nature of monitoring for those particular offenders, but for the two areas that we extended it to, you can.

When you are sentenced to less than 2 years, you are automatically released after serving 1 year in prison. Regrettably, the level of reoffending by that category of offender—it might not be at the worst end of offending, but it is serious enough to put you in prison, and the high level of offending meant that there needed to be another tool to manage the person who had been released after 1 year and who still had 1 year on parole. So it is really important that we were able to act in this area to try to reduce that high level of reoffending.

The second area is the sentence of intensive supervision. That is obviously less than an imprisonment sentence—in fact, it is less than a sentence of home detention—but there were a lot of people in that category where it was useful for justice and corrections officials to be able to keep a watchful eye on the offender. Sometimes it was the sort of offender who, because of addictions to alcohol or gambling, ought to be prevented from going to those areas that would contribute to reoffending, and it makes sense because a GPS system tells you exactly where that offender is.

I suppose—although usually the sentence would be greater than this—it could be potentially useful for keeping a person who was at risk of sexual offending away from an area. But, most particularly, for those who commit domestic violence offences—you can get a domestic protection order, but that is a piece of paper. It does not provide the protection that the victim or the potential victim of reoffending needs. Having a person on a GPS system who has been sentenced for domestic violence—again, the sentence would be helpful in that regard.

For these two areas—less than 2 years’ imprisonment and intensive supervision—monitoring is not automatic. It is still a decision by a judge in a court who independently decides in which particular cases the additional instrument of electronic monitoring is needed.

I want to put a caveat on the question of electronic monitoring. It is not a guarantee that the person will not reoffend, and I think the Government also needs to look at the level of breach of electronic monitoring that is currently occurring. You know, since 2008 there have been 15,500 cases of people on electronic monitoring who have breached the order. Sometimes it is a minor breach; sometimes it is a major breach. But 15,500 breaches is a serious breach of a sanction that is not working as well as it should, and I think the Government needs to look more closely at that.

In fact, we heard from the Department of Corrections last year that at any one time there are between 20 and 47 offenders out in the community who have removed the electronic monitor and are at loose in the community. To put that in context, to be fair, that is 20 to 47 out of 3,300 people who are on electronic monitors at any one time. It is not huge, but it is still significant. And it is significant to know that in 23 percent of home detention cases and 19 percent of community detention cases, people are at some point in breach of those conditions. That is not a tolerable level of breach for a court order designed to keep the community safe.

I can think of the case of Tony Robertson. Tony Robertson actually would not have been covered by this bill. He is the man who murdered Blessie Gotingco. It was an appalling murder. Everyone in this House would have had their stomach turned by the nature of the murder and the rape of an innocent victim by this man. At the time that he committed these awful offences, he was on a GPS monitor. That is evidence that the GPS monitor by itself does not prevent a person from offending, and if anybody in the House thinks that all you have got to do is monitor a person and that will protect the community, they are wrong.

The monitoring is useful only if it is backed up by the sort of supervision you need from your probation officer and by a programme for rehabilitation dealing with the cause of the offending. So the only thing that happened in the Robertson case was that of course they could convict him because they knew exactly where he was, and he was where the victim was and where the victim’s body was dumped, but that is hardly a consolation to the family of that poor woman. So yes, this legislation helps, but it is not sufficient in itself.

You know, one of the things that appalled me, I have got to say, was when I went to see the corrections officials in the place that the monitoring was occurring and I asked “Why is it so easy to remove the electronic bracelet?”, do you know what they told me? They said: “Well, if it was hard to remove, what if it got caught in a piece of machinery and it put the offender at risk?”. Frankly, that was a load of nonsense, and I am glad that, finally, the Department of Corrections and the Government have moved to make it harder to remove the bracelet.

I want to finish on the question of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I see that the Attorney-General is in the House, though I do not know whether he is taking a call. I know that he does not personally decide whether a bill is in breach—he is advised by his department—but to say that extending supervision by electronic monitoring is an unjustifiable breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act cannot be right. It is a limitation on freedom of movement, it is classified as search and seizure, and sometimes people say—wrongly—that it is double jeopardy, but of course it is justifiable if it is helping to keep the community and victims safe when a person is regarded as being of sufficient risk to be electronically monitored. I would just ask the Attorney-General to have a look at how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is working in that regard, because it defies common sense to say that this bill is an unjustifiable limit on the freedom of the offender.

Having said that, with all of the qualifications that I have made on it, this bill is worth supporting, and the Labour Opposition will continue to support it through the remaining stages.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is an honour to be able to speak in support of this bill. I would just like to acknowledge the Minister of Corrections, who is here and who leads this bill; the select committee chair; and the other members of the committee from across the House. This was one of the first pieces of legislation that I had the privilege of being a part of on the Law and Order Committee, and I want to acknowledge many of the remarks made by Phil Goff. I was on that visit to Auckland when we visited the facility that monitors the people who are out in the community on electronic monitoring. I have got to say that it was a much more sophisticated set-up than what I had envisaged. When you take into consideration the fact that you have got about 3,000 to 4,000 people on electronic monitoring at any one time across the country, 24/7, and you have got the ability for any one of those people to breach their conditions, it is a pretty dedicated staff, I think, in the facility in Auckland who are monitoring and keeping in contact with the Department of Corrections and the police on a regular basis.

Just a bit of background as to why this bill was necessary. We know that under the Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, and the Bail Act, respectively, they all have various conditions set out where electronic monitoring can be used. So within the Sentencing Act it can be used as a condition of home detention or community detention, under the Parole Act it can be used as residential restrictions, and under the Bail Act it can be used as a condition of bail. But one of the things that it could not do was that for prisoners who were released after 2 years or less there was not the ability to be able to impose electronic monitoring on those people, nor was it there for people under intensive supervision or people going into post-detention conditions at the end of their home detention.

This bill is really an extension of what already exists within the legislation. It is a pragmatic step, because what it does is it enables people who have served sentences for less serious crimes than crimes that warrant over 2 years’ imprisonment to be able to get out of the prison system a lot quicker and reintegrate into the community, and for the Government to be able to use these people and for them to be able to take advantage of some of the reintegration tools that exist within the community already.

What it also does is it enables people who are in prisons to go out on work to contract positions. For example, in Milton prison, where there are 22 people in this position where they are in contract-to-work parties, they are out across the South Otago region on a daily basis, providing support to council or community organisations or whoever. These guys—it is a high-trust model. They are obviously out in the community; they could be doing anything, but now what this does is it gives the Department of Corrections the ability to slap on a bracelet and to be able to monitor these people more intensively. Also, Milton prison, under Jack Harrison’s management, has 28 prisoners who work on the prison farm, a vast piece of land basically offsite from the prison. This bill gives the ability for the department to be able to monitor these people out in the workforce as well. So it will enable us to help reintegrate these people into the community and provide training while still monitoring and managing their integration back into the community. It is an honour to be able to support this bill.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I am proud to support the Green Party, which will be supporting this bill that will electronically track more offenders. I will tell you why. [Interruption] I will tell you why we are supporting this bill before you start cheering too much. This could be a good tool. This could be a good tool for a better justice system, and, absolutely, good technology should be part of the way forward in any system, especially in a better justice system. That is part of the reason why we will be supporting this bill, but it will not be without concerns and without wanting to review and closely monitor whether this bill will achieve what it is actually set up to achieve, which is a better justice system. That is why I stand to support the bill, but because we are the Green Party, I do have to be very clear in this House on what we are actually aiming for when it comes to a justice system, because this is not a solution to lower reoffending—not in and of itself.

It is, perhaps, a tool to keep more people out of prisons, and that is a positive, because we certainly know that prisons do not reduce reoffending. On that matter, it is also important for why we are supporting this bill. Māori and Pacific people are absolutely overrepresented in prison and also in offending, and so it is important that I, as spokesperson for both Māori affairs and Pacific peoples, stand up to make sure that my lens with those portfolios is passed over this legislation. I want to say that yes we are supporting this bill, but this bill is not about true restorative justice, which is what will really keep our communities safe. This bill is a tool—the electronic monitoring of offenders is a tool—but the Green Party would like to see true restorative justice. I am deeply concerned about safety for all people in our community, and that is actually the side I am on. I am on the side of a safer community. It is not necessarily about saying that I am on the side of victims or that I am on the side of offenders. I am on the side of truly safe communities, and that actually takes more equal societies. More equal societies are the cohesive societies with less crime and less offending.

It is public knowledge, and has been known now for my entire time that I have been in Parliament, that I am a victim of child sexual abuse. This electronic monitoring tool is absolutely not the thing that would have kept me safe in the first place. So I do want to be very clear about that as I continue to debate the concerns that the Green Party will keep putting up in light of this legislation.

We want a better justice system. True restorative justice is actually about truer accountability than what we get when we send people to jail. I do want to state clearly in the House that that is actually what we would prefer investment and pūtea to be put into if we are really serious about justice in our society and in Aotearoa. True restorative justice actually has a better effect at reducing reoffending than imprisonment, and even more so than the tools that support the current system, which is punitive. However, again, we will be supporting this in the hope that it is a tool that can be effective towards a better justice system.

One final point, I think, Mr Assistant Speaker—because you are listening?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for being distracted by the Attorney-General.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you. One final point is that I do take note of Kim Workman’s concerns about whether this legislation will be put in place—whether electronic monitoring will be put in place—at the cost of investment in proper reintegration programmes. What organisations like the Salvation Army have pointed out in their submissions on this bill is that the electronic monitoring will possibly allow people to be reintegrated into their communities without the proper, strong programmes around that reintegration. The Greens will certainly be wanting to keep a check on whether this electronic monitoring tool is going to be at the cost of something that will create sustainable, true safety for our communities.

Just to finish off, the Greens will want to review how this goes. We will be looking for this to be an effective tool for safety and a better justice system. We will want to hear more about other reintegration support programmes in our communities. We will want to check who is being monitored and whether it does breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and other human rights standards, because once we have lost our human rights standards, we lose everything. We will want to keep pushing for more equal societies, because that is actually what creates safer societies for all of us. Kia ora, thank you.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. The intent of this bill is to make provision for the courts to stipulate electronic monitoring for those offenders who have been judged as being under intensive supervision conditions and those offenders who have served, or are likely to serve, less than 2 years of imprisonment. This is in addition to provisions for offenders to be on home detention, community detention, extended supervision, parole, and release-to-work schemes, or for those who are bailed with specific conditions.

This provision will also cover the offenders involved in family violence who pose a very high and serious risk to the victims. This provision may apply to any prisoner serving 2 years or less and who, in the opinion of the Department of Corrections, requires electronic surveillance to forbid them from entering or remaining in specified places or areas at specific times, or at all times, which used to be known as the whereabouts condition. This, in our view, will contribute towards enhancing public safety only as long as it is an additional condition, and not the only condition, for such a release.

At the moment, as the Hon Phil Goff mentioned, there are about 40-odd offenders who are at large who have violated their conditions and breached the electronic monitoring system. With this legislation coming into force—I will quote from one of the submissions. Mr Kim Workman, who represented the Robson Hanan Trust, said “the bill would expand monitoring to an additional 5,800 prisoners serving less than two years in jail without proper consideration of what that would entail.” He further said: “Electronic monitoring allowed people to be released without a proper reintegration strategy and support. The effect, over time, would be that jurisdictions using it would ‘slack-off” in rehabilitation and reintegration strategies as they came to rely on electronic monitoring.” So this would result in over-reliance on a system that has failed 15,500 times in the past, since 2008.

Also, funding is the other thing that we are worried about. There is nothing in the Budget to provide for the 5,800 extra offenders who will be covered under this new legislation. On the contrary, $3.4 million has been reduced, under the heading “Sentences and Orders Served in the Community”. This category is limited to the management and delivery of sentences and orders served in the community, and electronic monitoring of people on bail. We fail to understand how the agencies or the contractors or the department that are responsible for monitoring these offenders on the electronic system will cope with 5,800 more offenders with $3.4 million less. That is the risk that we see in this. The system has already failed. It has proved to be a failure and still we are over-relying on this system, and then we claim that the communities are going to be safer by relying on this system. We think that this is a disaster waiting to happen, as happened in the case of Blessie Gotingco. Tony Robertson was on electronic bail—not only was he on electronic bail; he was on conditions for the next 10 years. Within 5 months of his release, he reoffended. The result was that an innocent victim was raped and killed. So this system has again proven to be a failure.

We want electronic monitoring extended to those offenders currently serving a custodial sentence who have to leave the secure confines of a prison for any reason. This will enhance public safety in a scenario where a prisoner escapes custody during an outing but is not able to cut, remove, or otherwise tamper with the electronic monitoring device. Public safety relies more on surveillance than on just electronic monitoring. It has proven to be effective in some instances. However, at no stage has this system been foolproof. Even the Minister has admitted that even after these changes this is not going to be a foolproof system. So why are we relying overly on a system that has failed 15,500 times?

The other thing that comes to our mind is the one instance where it can actually work, which is the outing that has been declined for some Māori offenders in the past. This has been for two reasons: one, they were high security prisoners, and the other reason is that they could not be handcuffed on a marae. We think that the Department of Corrections can actually think about this as an option. This is an operational matter for the department, and this is my suggestion: if it looks at it, it can actually make the system work by sending those offenders to a tangi with only the electronic bracelet. This is because if the offenders can be sent into the community without handcuffs—with just electronic monitoring—then the offenders can actually be sent on a marae with just an electronic bracelet with two officers, as is the practice now. But that is something that the Department of Corrections will have to see as an operational matter.

On the one hand, this legislation may be helpful in providing some relief to Māori prisoners. Other than that, we do not believe that this system is going to make any changes in the safety of the community at present. Having another 5,800 offenders monitored under this system, which has been proven to be a failure, is not going to be supported by us. We do not support this bill. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): How disappointed I am to hear those comments, when every other party in this House supports this bill. We are not surprised—we are not surprised—that New Zealand First does not stand up for the rights and protections of the public in this case. It is outrageous.

This bill does gather support all around this House because it puts the public first. Although I also heard what the member from the Green Party said, I disagree strongly that there are not strong rehabilitation and reintegration practices put in place by the Department of Corrections, because I know that there are. Recidivism has reduced significantly because of the educational opportunities given to inmates in our prison system. The ability for them to work and gain a trade skill is quite phenomenal. The Law and Order Committee has visited a number of prisons and has seen the great work that the Department of Corrections is doing to assist prisoners in their reintegration and upskilling of their education, which not only affords them a better way of life when they return to society but also protects our society because those people are more fulfilled and more focused.

What this bill does is very important. It is utilising electronic technology to better monitor prisoners when they are released, whether that is on a work programme, whether that is to go to a funeral, or whether that is on probation. What it does is it enables the Department of Corrections to monitor that prisoner to the point where if they violate or breach their conditions the department is made aware of that far sooner. The person who wears an electronic bracelet knows that. That in itself creates a deterrent for breaching. Without having the electronic bracelet, people can breach their conditions with nobody knowing, and so what that does is it just encourages bad behaviour and encourages breaching. What this bill does is it brings accountability far sooner to those people.

I believe that this is a very good bill. As we know, right across this House, with the exception of New Zealand First, parties are supporting this and we are thankful for that. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a brief call on this bill. In part, I will reiterate what my colleague Marama Davidson has already said. In respect of this bill, the Greens are supporting it. I think repetition is no bad thing. From my teaching days I know that some students are slower than others to absorb information. Although some of our friends on the National benches are charming people, they might be in that category on occasion and take a little longer than others to understand evidence.

Technology is a wonderful thing, as we know. This is an instance, I think, where legislation is to some extent catching up with technology. The electronic monitoring tools that we have are exactly that—they are tools. The Greens are supporting this bill because it gives another option to parole boards, to sentencing justices, and to people making decisions about bail. Often it may be the case that electronic monitoring enables a person to not undergo a custodial, or a further custodial, sentence. So, in that sense, it makes sense to use technology in this way.

But we ought not to confuse this management tool with a long-term solution, because that it is not; that point was made very strongly by Kim Workman in his, as ever, reliably excellent submission. May I just divert for a moment to acknowledge and put on the record in this House the Green Party’s congratulations to Mr Workman on the award of an honorary doctorate recently. That is something I am sure that even those who might disagree on occasion with Mr Workman would acknowledge is a well-deserved honour and one he merits very strongly. The point is made that although this is a management tool, it is not a long-term solution for offending.

I am very reluctant to politicise a tragedy, but the sad and tragic business of Blessie Gotingco’s very preventable death has been raised in this debate. I would make the point that the person who perpetrated that wretched crime had been monitored. I also make the point that he was 8 years in custody. For 8 years his every movement was controlled by the State. In those 8 years, we are given to understand that he had seven sessions of psychological counselling. At the completion of those seven sessions the psychiatrist said that he ought to be given time to reflect, to demonstrate that he had absorbed something, and that his behaviour was moving, and then a more intensive programme of counselling, of whatever it took to change that man’s attitude, to change his thinking, and to change his perception, could be undertaken. That follow-up never occurred, and I think all of us, collectively, need to take responsibility for that.

That is a clear and obvious failing of the in-prison rehabilitation. If such a serious, high-risk offender is not getting adequate, or even barely adequate, attention while he is serving that long, 8-year sentence, then we need to look very hard at what is happening inside our prisons. We cannot simply point the finger and say: “Well, the bracelet should have been the solution.” It clearly was not, and it cannot be, in any case.

The bill makes some useful contributions, as I have said. I sat on the Law and Order Committee. One of the decisions of the select committee was to insert a statement of purpose into this bill so it was very clear what the point of it was. It is an obvious thing to do but it is something that we saw was lacking in the bill as it was originally drafted, so that was put in there. The bill enables, as I said, decisions to be made. For example, inmates might be allowed to be released from prison, be it for humanitarian reasons, to attend funerals or important family functions, or, importantly, for Release to Work. Unfortunately, one of the overreactions to the case of Phillip Smith’s unauthorised expedition to South America is that Release to Work has almost ceased, despite the incredible value to the offenders, the very observable and observed improvement in behaviours, and the likelihood of them not reoffending. Release to Work was a very successful programme that has been largely abandoned by the Department of Corrections, or at least a much higher bar is set. That is unfortunate.

I think we need to, if need be, use the electronic monitoring to enable a return to a much more widespread use of the Release to Work programmes, because they are a means of reintegrating people, to give them just a little bit of freedom—a little bit of opportunity to earn the trust of the community and to make some useful contribution while they are doing that. If technology can assist that, that is a good thing; the Greens will support it. Kia ora.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Fa‘afetai malo lava le soifua. It has been really interesting listening to some of the debate and reading some of the background information on this in the second reading of the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. I am not on the Law and Order Committee. I am part of the justice team within the Labour caucus. I was really fascinated by the Law and Order Committee’s commentary on the bill, which was all about—and I will read it: “This bill would effectively restate and facilitate the existing ability to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of an extended supervision order (ESO) on released offenders.”

The reason it was highlighted was that the Attorney-General said that this piece of legislation would place unjustifiable limits on offenders’ rights and protections under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the “rights affected are those of freedom of movement, against unreasonable search or seizure, and against double jeopardy.” The reason everybody has become interested in that particular impact of the legislation was around Tony Robertson and his offending when he was on extended supervision and, obviously, the rape and murder of Blessie Gotingco. I cannot not, in this contribution, acknowledge Blessie and her whānau and the impact of our justice system on their lives. There was an inquiry report that has just been released and, within that, it said there were issues in terms of the rehabilitation this young man did or did not receive at the time. So there are implications from that legislation and that experience within our justice system for New Zealanders, and I think it should be acknowledged.

The ability for people who are released from prison on a prison sentence of 2 years or less to now be eligible for electronic monitoring has actually quite a big implication for our justice system. We currently have 4,000 people who are under an electronic monitoring regime, and there will be another 5,800 people who, post this piece of legislation, will also be on an electronic monitoring regime.

This is an opportunity, I guess, to share what some of the submissions were to the select committee. I too want to highlight Dr Kim Workman’s submission and acknowledge that he received a doctorate of literature on 19 May this year from Victoria University and that he is completing a book that is titled Criminal Justice, the State and Māori: 1985 to 2014 and Beyond. He actually, on behalf of the Robson Hanan Trust for the Rethinking Crime and Punishment project, did have some concerns. He said electronic monitoring is the fashion, and his concern was about the rehabilitation opportunities for people who were in prison and then were transitioning out of prison into the community.

If the extent of the rehabilitation and support offered to those people is “Now you are monitored and you have a probation officer who will monitor you in the community.”, actually, I think there may be unforeseen consequences with this piece of legislation. What we do need to ensure is that anyone who qualifies under this regime actually receives the support they need—drug and alcohol support, other forms of counselling—and that part of the intent of this legislation actually should be to reduce recidivism. I am not sure whether that has been thought through as fully as it could have been.

I am hoping this not just a cost-cutting mechanism so that under this legislation we do not have the release of 5,800 people who should still be in prison, but what I am reassured by is that on our side of the House, we have a former Minister of Justice, the Hon Phil Goff, who has been monitoring this piece of legislation. So because of his experience and his guidance for some of us on this side of the House, I too stand in support of this piece of legislation. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I will take a brief call on the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill in its second reading, and I just wanted to agree with my colleague from the Greens, David Clendon, very briefly, on Mr Workman.

Todd Barclay: What?

IAN McKELVIE: Yes, unusual, Todd, is it not? He is an interesting character, and he does make a great contribution to the justice system, whether we agree with him all the time or not. I think it is important that he is acknowledged because he does do a great deal of work for this system.

I want to just speak briefly about, I guess, the reasons that this piece of legislation comes to the House and the reason that the Law and Order Committee pretty much, with the exception of New Zealand First, unanimously considered and sent it back here. It is just one little cog in many, many cogs that successive Governments have put in place to try to improve our justice system. This piece of legislation just gives an opportunity to monitor and assist people from prison back into mainstream life in a manner that gives them, I think, a much better chance of success as they reintegrate and also gives us the opportunity, where there is risk, to monitor that risk and ensure that the justice system has some controls over those people’s behaviour.

I just wanted to talk about a couple of things the Hon Phil Goff talked about, because I think there could well have been some misconceptions in the issues he raised. It is important to note that the thousands of breaches that he talked about are not about the removal of ankle bracelets; they are about any kind of breach that could occur. It could be a breach of the boundaries that those people are monitored within. It could be any number of things, such as alcohol being consumed when they are on an alcohol prohibition order. There are many, many ways that breaches could take place; they certainly are not all the removal of anklets.

I also want to talk about the reason we have a large number of bracelets about and the number of people detained on home detention. It is not a statement of new risk, because we never knew before we had these electronic monitoring systems in place whether or not they breached their conditions of bail or their conditions of release, so the monitoring system has enabled the detection of a whole lot of breaches that we never understood the workings of before. In terms of there being a potential 5,200 people who may come into the system, I think it is extremely unlikely that there will be anywhere near that percentage of people coming into the system once this legislation is passed.

I think it is just worth commenting very briefly, before I finish, on the Government’s contribution to giving people a better opportunity to integrate back into the mainstream after their offending. In the last Budget there was some $20 million put in to support offenders as they leave prison. This bill and the addition of that kind of input will make a big difference to them. It is also worth pointing out that there was some $356 million more given to the Department of Corrections to assist to reduce reoffending. That includes in-prison courses—education and smoking, drug, and alcohol rehabilitation courses—and all sorts of measures that the department is taking to reintegrate people into mainstream life.

Whatever we think of our prisoners, we really need to give them every opportunity, where possible, to reintegrate into mainstream life and make a contribution to the New Zealand community. I think this bill, although it is a very small cog in a very big wheel, is well worth it. It will do a great job and I have no trouble commending it to the House.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E muamua la‘ava ona si‘i le‘veiga ma le mamalu mo lenei aso u‘amafai ai ona tatau ma‘futa fa‘atasi.

Thank you for allowing me this contribution. My Samoan is amateur at best, but I thought I would take this opportunity to acknowledge Samoan Language Week. Thank you, once again, for this opportunity to contribute to this particular bill.

There have been some great speeches across the House where they have talked about some of the sad outcomes of poor decisions made, or perhaps poor monitoring, or perhaps poor legislation. I think this is a good opportunity to come into the House this evening to look at this particular bill to work out, does it actually meet the intention? Is it going to do what it says it is going to do? Furthermore, how will this affect New Zealand moving forward, both on the side of the offender and also the community at large?

The House has already spoken about technology catching up with legislation, and I think that is a great step forward. In fact, it has been a long time coming. I would argue that probably by the time that this bill actually passes through into law, the technology is going to change again and leave it behind again, and we will probably be back some time in the near future to debate this particular bill or make some particular amendments to this bill. But we commend the step forward.

Technology plays an important part but I want to flip this on its head, because I think that one of the parts in commentary on this particular bill—“Prisoners have for many years been temporarily released or granted escorted absences from prison for several recognised purposes, such as funerals,”—I want to just touch on briefly. I wonder how technology would keep up with the vast metropolis of Mitimiti in the far north. If I understand it correctly, this particular piece of technology will allow GPS to monitor where this offender is at any point in time. I wonder if that will happen in Mitimiti where there is no—

Hon Member: Internet.

PEENI HENARE: There is no internet. There is no cellphone coverage and—

Paul Foster-Bell: Satellite coverage.

PEENI HENARE: I cannot see anything in this particular legislation that says we are going to now be commanding satellites to follow these things. Because I can tell you, I say to the member across the way, that even when you drive out there, you look at your iPhone and you have punched in there “Mitimiti”—I can tell you that just past Waihou, near Pānguru, it cuts out. It is not going to work. It loses you in the system—it loses you in the system. So, although I acknowledge that technology has a part to play, you cannot beat human supervision. In instances like that I think it is really important for us to remember that. Let us applaud the advances in technology in this particular bill that will keep up with it, but you cannot beat human supervision for most parts.

Because the other part of that argument is, actually just very recently, only on Monday, I was at a tangihanga—or a hui mate we call it in Ngāpuhi; Māori 101—of a kaumātua by the name of Hoterene Tīpene, or Bossy Tīpene they called him, a great kaumātua for Tāmaki-makau-rau. His son had his troubles with the law. Bossy was kept in Auckland long enough for his son to be released from prison so that he could farewell his father before his father made the long trek back up to Tai Tokerau, Ngāti Hine, Tau Henare Marae, named after—not young Tau Henare—old Tau Henare. Anyway, it was interesting because when they brought my uncle, the offender, into the marae, or the church, where we congregated, they refused to remove the handcuffs. Although I take the point from Mahesh Bindra, who said that at times like that, where there is only one entry and one exit into this particular congregation, into this particular building—but I thought that a bit of compassion could have been shown. By all means let us have the supervision there at hand ready to do their job—I agree with that—but allow this particular person the opportunity to grieve for a short time before being taken back into prison. In a very pragmatic way, which is how this side of the House operates, I volunteered my services and the offender was handcuffed to my hand, as a family member, and I was able to lead him through to pay his respects.

There are several arguments here, but I guess this is part of the vagaries around some of these bills, and we want to make sure that we get it right, make sure that the intentions of these bills are actually met. It has been mentioned in this House about rehabilitation and proper reintegration. We argue on this side that in order for this to happen, quite a lot of things actually need to take place. It is not as simple as clipping on a monitoring device and making sure that you can track this person by GPS, because I think just as important to allow the reintegration is actually to make sure that the community of Aotearoa New Zealand is familiar with these types of bill, and this bill in particular. Because the perception of the community, regardless of how strong electronic monitoring might be and the advances of technology, is that that person is still an offender. I wonder then if this actually is proper reintegration to make sure that the communities feel safe, to make sure that the communities can go about their daily business, and also that the offender can reintegrate successfully into society.

We have heard the sad case this evening being talked about by many of the speakers in the House. To see that repeated again would absolutely be tragic, and I hope that this particular bill can go some way to fixing that, to make sure it does not happen again.

As mentioned, we will be supporting this bill, but in my short time in Parliament we have passed quite a number of bills by this Government that tinker around the edges. What we have noticed with a lot of these bills, and this one is no exception, is that the pressure is now being placed on the front line. It is great to have this great technology advancement, but somebody has got to monitor it, somebody has got to sit there, and somebody has got to make sure that the technology actually performs its role—the effective monitoring of offenders. It still requires a human capacity.

In the recent Budget, sure, there was a little bit of money for rehabilitation stuff—some might call it a slush fund; a bit of a fund that is available for some of the rehabilitation programmes—but, essentially, we need more capacity at the front line to make sure that the type of monitoring that the community in Aotearoa New Zealand expects from bills such as this actually happens, to make all and sundry feel safe.

Finally, just in conclusion, we do support this. I believe that most New Zealanders—I repeat, most New Zealanders—do not actually understand the implications of this bill. So it will be the responsibility of the members out in the wider community, but, more importantly, in this House, to share that message, to make sure that they are able to fully understand this so that reintegration works for both sides, the community and the offender, moving forward. On this side of the House we will be supporting this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill be now read a second time. This bill will enable the establishment of a child sex offender register, which will reduce sexual offending against child victims and the risk posed by serious child sex offenders living in our communities. I would like to thank the members of the Social Services Committee, and in particular the chair of the committee, Alfred Ngaro, for his and his committee’s work on this groundbreaking bill. I thank all those members of the public who took the time to submit on the bill. The bill in its current form reflects the careful consideration of the committee.

As emphasised by the submitters on this bill, child sexual abuse is a serious problem in New Zealand. It causes significant and long-lasting harm to the child victims in our communities and to their families. As also noted by some of the submitters, the actions of the child sex offender can also result in significant harm to their own families, especially the children who have to live with the repercussions of their parents’ offending.

Inter-agency work aimed at preventing child sexual reoffending has improved in recent years, in response to various incidents and the introduction of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014. However, the lack of a centralised child sex offender register has meant that Government agencies cannot reliably identify, assess, and/or monitor persons who pose a risk of further harm to children, especially after the completion of their sentence.

The bill enables the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections to establish a child sex offender register for offenders aged 18 years or older at the time of committing the offence who are convicted of a qualifying offence against a child under the age of 16 years and who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment or sentenced to a non-custodial sentence but directed to be registered by the sentencing judge, and for offenders convicted of a similar child sex offence in an overseas jurisdiction who intend to reside in New Zealand, or who are currently serving a custodial sentence, or who are subject to an extended supervision order or public protection order for a qualifying offence, on the date that the Act comes into force.

In summary, the bill prescribes the duration of an offender’s registration based on the class of qualifying offence in schedule 2 and the sentence received. If an offender is sentenced to imprisonment, the duration for class 1 offences will be 8 years; for class 2 offences, 15 years; and for class 3 offences, life. If an offender receives a non-custodial sentence and the judge orders registration, the offender will be on the register for 8 years, regardless of the offence committed. Registered offenders will be required to report to the police or, in some cases, to the Department of Corrections, and to provide a range of personal information upon their release from prison, their commencement of a non-custodial sentence, or their arrival in New Zealand, and then annually. They will also need to report any changes to their registered information and any intended travel from the registered address.

Where it is deemed necessary to protect the safety of a specific child or children, the bill provides for authorised information-sharing of a registered offender’s personal information between specified agencies, between the commissioner and overseas law enforcement agencies, and between police and third parties. The information on the register will not be available to the public. The bill establishes offences for failing to report or provide the required information, for providing false or misleading information, and, most importantly, for unauthorised disclosure of information on the register by agencies or third persons to whom information has been disclosed.

The bill has emerged from the Social Services Committee with a number of changes as a result of the committee’s careful consideration of these difficult issues. I believe these have strengthened the bill. In the bill as reported back, a registered offender who is registered for life will be able to apply to the District Court for a suspension of their reporting obligations after 15 years on the register. The onus will be on them to prove that they no longer pose a risk to the life or sexual safety of a child or children. If the application is granted, the offender’s reporting obligations will be suspended but they will remain on the register. If the application is declined, they can reapply after 5 years, or a lesser period if specified by the court. The police or the Department of Corrections will be able to apply to the court for a revocation of the suspension if it can prove that the offender’s level of risk has increased.

Another amendment to the bill is that registered offenders will be required to seek the approval of the Commissioner of Police prior to applying to the Department of Internal Affairs for a change of name, and the bill provides a list of the matters that the commissioner must consider prior to granting approval. It is an offence to fail to get that prior approval. The bill also now includes matters that the court must consider when contemplating whether to order an offender sentenced to a non-custodial sentence for a qualifying offence to be placed on the register.

The Attorney-General presented a report on this bill pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, advising that he considered the bill as introduced was inconsistent with section 9 of that Act and with section 26(2). I consider that the bill as reported back goes some way to addressing these concerns. The Attorney-General’s report, in respect of section 9, commented particularly on the lifetime reporting obligations of offenders. This has been modified, to enable those with lifetime reporting obligations to apply after 15 years to have those obligations suspended. With regard to section 26(2) the retrospective provisions are now ameliorated by the new review provisions.

As noted by the select committee’s report, for those offenders qualifying for the register who are still serving a custodial sentence but who will have already been released into the community when the Act comes into force, the reporting requirements are calculated to have started from when the offender was released from custody, not from the commencement of the legislation. The committee has, however, in my view, rightfully retained the substance of the retrospective application of the bill, to remove the immediate risk from previously convicted child sex offenders who are still serving a sentence of imprisonment when the legislation comes into force.

There was discussion during the committee’s consideration of the bill around whether it would be better and cheaper to place offenders on the register based solely on their assessed risk. Although I can appreciate this view, and did consider it at the time of writing the bill, the problem is that the risk presented by a child sex offender can vary over time. An offender assessed as having a low risk of offending at the time of sentence or release from prison may well become high risk once back in the community again, or 5 years after release, if some change in circumstances triggers the offending behaviour.

This Government believes that it is in the interests of child safety to ensure that personal information is gathered on all qualifying child sex offenders, so that if the offender’s level of risk does increase—for example, when an offender notifies police of a change of circumstances—agencies will be informed, can assess potential risks, and will be able to start working with the offender, or, if necessary, a third party such as the offender’s new partner, to reduce the chance of further offending.

There have also been concerns expressed that the resources required to establish the register will reduce resources for proven interventions or treatment programmes for child sex offenders. This is not a case of having either programmes or the register; both play a very important and complementary role in reducing sexual reoffending against children. I am confident that we have got the right balance to achieve the purpose of this legislation—the protection of vulnerable child victims against the offending behaviour of child sex offenders in the community.

I propose to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee of the whole House stage with technical amendments to clarify procedural matters and ensure consistency of language in the bill. It will also include an amendment to the commencement clause to the effect that the Act shall come into force 30 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, rather than on 1 July 2016. This is because a lead-in period of 1 month is needed to bring technical aspects of implementation into effect. I commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the member—I did not interrupt the Minister while she was reading her speech, but I do want to make it clear to Ministers that they do not have a general exemption from Speaker’s ruling 53/4 from the Report of the Standing Orders Committee in relation to reading speeches. Where matters are highly technical and at first reading, there are exemptions. I think it is fair to say that parts of this bill were technical, but Ministers should not read—in fact, no member should read—their entire speech. What I am indicating is that at first reading people are much more flexible, but by this stage of a bill, except for the very technical parts, members should not read their speeches.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my duty on behalf of Labour to give a second reading contribution on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill. I think it is really important, particularly with legislation like this—as it was with the legislation that we had before this House in a member’s bill around name changes of sex offenders via the Birth, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act—that we are absolutely clear about what bills like this will achieve, and what they will not achieve.

Sometimes the mere title of a bill can be very misleading. I want to use my second reading speech to be very clear on that front, but to also extend some challenges to the Minister regarding our support for this bill, because during the debate—particularly during the submissions at the Social Services Committee—it became very clear to us that, unlike what the Minister has set before this House, there have been trade-offs with this bill. The amount of expenditure that will go into the creation of this register will be well beyond what the public would expect, and is undoubtedly coming at a cost to investment in other areas. I will set out that challenge a little bit further on.

Firstly, what does this bill do? Well, it requires offenders to register with an official sex offender register if they fall under certain criteria: if they are convicted of one of the child sex offences listed in a schedule of the bill, if they were aged 18 or over when they offended—very important because, of course, there is separate jurisdiction for those under that age via the Youth Court and Rangatahi Courts, and we deal with them there—and if they are sentenced to either imprisonment or a non-custodial sentence and, if it is a non-custodial sentence, they are specifically directed by the judge to be registered. I think that is an important point. If it is a non-custodial sentence, that will be indicative of the severity of the crime, and in that circumstance we would not want a blanket rule of thumb; we would want the discretion of the judge to be applied. And then also, of course, a person guilty of any offence set out in the schedule who may have committed that crime in a foreign jurisdiction would also have to register.

The onus—it is not a default registration—would sit with the offender to fulfil those requirements. Of course, that will in and of itself require certain mechanisms to be set up for returning offenders to ensure that they are aware of that responsibility, and, likewise, for anyone who is covered by the bill and who changes their details at any point, because there are requirements that fall upon them to make sure that those who hold the register are aware of those detail changes.

This is where there will be confusion, however. The bill, in its title, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill, implies that that is an accessible piece of information. The reason that it probably implies that, I would say, is because there has been some debate for some time, driven by groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust, that there should be a sex offender register for public safety. They never put in a caveat, when they talk about it, about whether it should be publicly available, or available only to Government departments. This bill is very clear that the register is available only to specified agencies—the police, the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Social Development, and Housing New Zealand—and they are able to share amongst themselves. The only exception is where the Commissioner of Police—the commissioner, so it is at a very high level that this discretion is used—believes that an offender poses a threat to the life, welfare, or sexual safety of a particular child or particular children. Affected persons, such as parents, guardians or teachers can be informed under those circumstances.

That is very particular, and we might consider it to be a set of circumstances. For instance, where someone may have been the victim of predatory behaviour, and that sex offender perhaps has some potential for contact might be an example. But what I will be seeking from the Minister in the Committee stage is a few more examples of the ways that discretionary power would be used. In the bill, it does seem to be rather confined but it does still allow groups such as teachers—and does not necessarily give the degree to which the individual or individuals are to be informed. Could, for instance, that include an entire classroom of children, or an entire set of parents for an entire classroom of children? I think we need to be absolutely clear that where these details are revealed to the public, we know the parameters and the criteria that will apply to that. Otherwise this is not a public register.

One of the amendments that Labour will be seeking for this bill is to change the name. It is misleading, and as part of the need to protect this register from ever becoming public, I think the name of the bill should be changed to something like the “Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Database for Government Agencies) Bill”, or something to that effect—something that implies this is definitely not a register that can be accessed by the public, nor should it ever be. And the penalties need to reflect that. I see the quizzical look across the Chamber from my colleague Chris Bishop. The reason that I am so stuck on this point is that it would take one amendment by one Minister in the future—and he knows this to be true—to dramatically change this bill and allow it to be a public register. It would not take much. And I think that this Parliament needs to be clear in its intentions, and be clear that the evidence states—

Chris Bishop: Changing the name doesn’t change the facts.

JACINDA ARDERN: Well, I think the change of name would give clarity to the public, because I have certainly heard members of the public who believe that this is a public register. The word “register” implies that, because of the way the debates have been constructed around the issue of registers.

Chris Bishop: What about “Database”? This could be a public database.

JACINDA ARDERN: Well, maybe I need a little more creativity and time, Chris Bishop, but the point is there. We do need something that clearly indicates that it will not be a public register, and we need the penalties to reflect the fact that this should never be made public.

The reason that it should not be made public—I want to come back to this point—is that the evidence tells us that a public register would do more harm than good. When I say “harm”, I do not mean vigilante harm; I actually mean the harm that sits at the core of the purpose of this bill, which is to keep families and children safe. If it is about keeping children safe, we know that the likelihood of reoffending by those who are convicted of sex offences is heightened by acts like having public registers. International evidence makes that absolutely clear. So if it is about safety, then we should be absolutely rock-solid that this should never be made public.

The second point is a point that was made very clearly by submitters who work in this field every day. I want to talk particularly of a submission that stands out in my mind, from an academic from Auckland University who specialises in the kinds of rehabilitation programmes that are offered to sex offenders in New Zealand and who has done a lot of research into the most successful interventions when it comes to sex offences, particularly those perpetrated against children. Her submission was very, very clear that a bill like this does very little—does very little—when we are talking about reducing risk and keeping people safe. But we are about to spend—and this will stagger people—$146 million over 10 years on a database to be shared by Government departments. That is $146 million—that is staggering.

The Minister tells the House that that will not lessen the amount that is therefore spent on rehabilitation. Well, it is certainly not going to increase the amount either, and our concern is that the submission that was made by experts in the field was that there is already a shortage of programmes in this space and access is difficult. So I would like the Minister, at Committee stage, to tell the House that she will be investing the equivalent amount over 10 years—$14 million per annum—into rehabilitation programmes specifically in this field. If she is willing to do that, then we will believe that nothing is being lost in this space by spending $146 million on something that is unproven to reduce harm. We will be looking to support this bill, or not, based on some of the amendments that are made in the Committee stage. We are heavily caveated at the moment, because we are not necessarily convinced that this will make families and children safer.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I am rising in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill in its second reading. It will probably come as a surprise to many people that this country does not already have a child sex offender register. It would be a register where offenders over the age of 18 offending against children under the age of 16 would be registered. For me, as an electorate MP, it has already happened in a small town, where the fear starts and there are allegations that there is a sex offender living in the town. It does surprise people when they talk to the authorities that there is no central register, and I think people look to us, and to the authorities, in those times to ensure that they are understanding where people are living, tracking offenders, and understanding how they can manage the risk a lot better.

Over the course of this call today I want to touch on three areas. No. 1 is a bit more about the bill. No. 2 is some of the issues that we had to address during the select committee stage. No. 3 is some of the changes that we are now bringing back to the second reading.

I just want to acknowledge the chair, Alfred Ngaro, and all the members of the Social Services Committee, who I think did a very good job and stayed reasonably objective. The committee was constructive. It is quite an emotive issue, and at times we could have fallen down the hole of trying to debate punishment versus treatment and how this register will support that. In my own view, it probably fits somewhere in the middle of that continuum. But at the end of the day this is only one tool that will support the management of sex offenders better.

It was interesting; we encountered the impact that putting people on a register has on human rights. We know that child sex offenders will be put on the register for—depending on their offence—8 years, 15 years, or life, but the impact was around their privacy of personal information. Personally, I thought: “Tough.” We had Jian Yang, who introduced a member’s bill that would stop child sex offenders from being able to change their names. We had to take advice, and we were not, around human rights issues, able to implement that, but there were some changes made in this bill because of that bill. It did surprise me—fair to say, I thought it was a bit PC gone mad, but there it is. We will be talking a bit more about how some of those amendments were implemented into the current bill.

What we know is that this register will be very prescriptive. There will be three types of information sharing. There will be one, as you would expect, between police and the Department of Corrections, sharing information about how we can make our children and our families safer, and how we can manage these offenders as well. There is also an avenue for sharing information—I think, quite rightly—between Government agencies like Housing New Zealand and the Ministry of Social Development. A third avenue is for third parties, where information will be able to be disclosed to people on the ground around offending history, but that comes with a restriction where they are not able to go on and disclose that information to others. Basically, it is very prescriptive on the register—three types of information sharing.

As has been alluded to by the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, this is a field that is developing. Research is about understanding how better we can mitigate or manage this risk, and treatment as well, which I know a lot of people will be sceptical of. But as we move further into this field and the research evolves—I mean, when you look at some of the language that was spoken to us about the child sex offender register being a risk-based, multi-agency management framework, it sounds like quite a bit of jargon. But it is about understanding the intricacies of using a tool like this and gathering the information we need about personal details, travel details, addresses, and movements of sex offenders, and then how that informs supervision packages, treatment approaches, and court orders that these sex offenders will be on.

When we looked at the cost-benefit analysis, it showed that the potential benefit of this bill was preventing up to 34 child sex offences, and I think we have also got to use the Pareto ratio, where possibly only 20 percent—

Chris Bishop: What?

MATT DOOCEY: The Pareto ratio. Only 20 percent of these offences will be recorded; 80 percent possibly will not. Exponentially, there is a real capacity to understand how this can go forward. There is also a clear link for child sex offenders to recidivism and other crimes, and how that will play out as well.

I just want to quickly touch on some of the changes. The first one was around when a child sex offender on the register would have to declare they were travelling. Currently in the bill, they would have to declare children residing at the accommodation address, but, of course, at a public house or accommodation, if there are children there, the child sex offender would not be able to name them. So the recommendation, as changed, is that they would have to declare children who were residing with them.

There is also a change around when the information that child sex offenders give to the register is not correct. That will be recorded as well—again, building up a bigger picture of offenders in order to manage them.

Just to finish off, coming back to the change of name, it was agreed, and an amendment has been put forward, that with approval from the Commissioner of Police, an offender will possibly be able to change their name. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I had the pleasure of sitting on the Social Services Committee for some of the submissions. I do not believe I was on the select committee when the report was deliberated on and brought back to the House. Suffice to say, the select committee process was fairly harrowing. There was some very sensitive material that came up and some high emotion by those people who were presenting. In my contribution I want to traverse the range of concerns that came up through the whole spectrum of issues.

I start with a contribution that really sets the tone for the community concern that we get this right. This is a quote from the submission: “I’ve had calls from many people over the years worried about a sex offender being in their neighbourhood—from headmasters, teachers, concerned members of the public and so on—many, many from desperate parents whose children have been raped by sex offenders, and when these offenders have been released the victims are petrified, scared of their own shadows, cannot sleep. All they want to do is make sure the offender is not in the area they live. Surely that is not too much to ask?”. I start with that because it does demonstrate the level of concern that there is in our communities that we do everything we can to address public safety.

It is very interesting because there was a range of views that were presented at the select committee, including views from people who had been offenders and who were concerned that they could appropriately present their concerns that the register was not going to be the most efficient way to deal with safety for our community. We looked, as a select committee, across the various other Parliaments and countries to see which ones had sex offender registers and the effectiveness of those registers. It could not be said categorically that the register provided the kinds of assurances that our community and this submission that I have just read actually speak to.

Some of the other views that were presented at the select committee said things like: “A register is actually a list of people who have already offended, and it is not proven as an effective way of protecting children from offending.” One of the pieces of evidence that came to us was about the reoffending rates of sex offenders, and I think the jury is kind of a little bit out on this. By and large, most of the submitters said that, actually, sex offenders do not have a high rate of recidivism. So what a register may do, in that instance, is actually just list somebody who has offended but it may not necessarily indicate that that person would reoffend and therefore be a threat to the community. Another submitter said that 95 percent of sex offence cases against children go unreported. That is a high level of cases that are not reported. So having a register does not actually provide any mechanism of protection whatsoever.

There is also the notion of double jeopardy where you have committed an offence, you have completed your sentence as judged by the judicial service, and then going on a register may potentially put you in a position where your freedom of movement could be restricted, so in a sense you are in double jeopardy. Another submitter said that 90 percent of offenders will not be on a register because they have not been caught yet. So there will be offenders at large who have not been caught who this register will not actually protect the public from. Those who are seeking a more robust rehabilitation process said that the register is detrimental to successful reintegration into the community.

We have already heard in the debate on the previous piece of legislation where poor sentencing and ineffective rehabilitation resulted in the tragic case of Blessie Gotingco, so if we are to do anything about ensuring the protection of our children, then surely we must look at how we sentence and how we rehabilitate people. That is where, obviously, when things go wrong, they go badly wrong, as in the case of the Gotingco whānau.

There is the notion of specified agencies within the bill, and my colleague has already mentioned those, including Housing New Zealand, the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Corrections, and the like. One of the submitters said that there is a possibility that one of the public servants within those agencies may actually use the information that they have about a potential sex offender. For example, you may be a Housing New Zealand worker and you may see that you are responsible for rehoming a sex offender who is on the register, and you see that that sex offender is possibly going to move into your street or into a street that your family member is on. It is human nature to want to warn your family member or warn members of the public. It is human nature, and can we absolutely guarantee that public servants will not be tempted to do that? Given the height of emotion around this particular issue, I am not sure that we can.

One of the submitters said that the boards of trustees of local schools should actually be included in specified agencies. Some people would say: “Yes, that’s probably fair enough.” Others would say “Well, absolutely not.”, because then that puts the board of trustees in the position of having to hold that information private, knowing that it has a sex offender in the area of its school and around its children. There is the potential that being on the register actually punishes you for life, and I have already mentioned some of the arguments around that.

It will increase the workload of the police, and my colleague Jacinda Ardern made a really, really useful point that there is $146 million out of the police budget, out of the rehabilitation budget—$146 million over 10 years. I have the privilege of providing some input into the child protection diploma that a particular organisation, Child Matters, puts out when it is in Christchurch delivering to Christchurch students. I do a paper on legislation and the role of legislation in protecting children, and the last time I presented this paper was when this bill first came to the House. So it was an opportunity to talk to people who would be front-line workers in child protection about what they felt about the implications of this bill. We talked about the role of the register to protect children, and we also talked about the role of rehabilitation and good support and reintegration into a community and how that could work, but, overwhelmingly, every single one of those students said: “$146 million would go a long way to supporting us to rehabilitate and to work with sex offenders and actually solve some of the problem.”

Ria Bond: What about the victims?

POTO WILLIAMS: It would go a long way to solve some of the problem, because that $146 million is coming out of the police budget. That is money that we do not have for burglaries. That is money that we do not have for family violence. That is money that is taken out to actually monitor a register. I do not know, and I agree with those students that there is a much better use for that money than to provide a database. As I say, there is lots of emotion around this bill. It is a very sensitive topic, and I look forward to the fulsome exploratory debates that will happen during the Committee stage. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right. The question is that the motion be agreed to—oh, Jono Naylor.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Talofa lava. It is always a bit tricky at this time of the night. Mr Assistant Speaker, I was not sure whether you were standing to adjourn the House, or whether I should stay seated or not. So it is a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. It is a very—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that the time has come for me to leave the Chair and I have to interrupt the member.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.