Thursday, 2 June 2016

THURSDAY, 2 JUNE 2016

THURSDAY, 2 JUNE 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Leader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday, 7 June, the Government will look to complete debate on the Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill and make progress on the Coroners Amendment Bill, the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday, 8 June will be a members’ day.

Motions

Turkey—Withdrawal of Parliamentary Immunity

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the decision of the Parliament of the Republic of Turkey to amend the constitution to withdraw parliamentary immunity from some of its members.

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

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I move, That this House express support for the statement of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, stressing the critical importance of the principle of parliamentary immunity, and express concern at the vote in the Turkish Parliament amending the Constitution which effectively stripped a quarter of the country’s MPs of their immunity, noting that such wholesale lifting of immunity will weaken the Parliament.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economic Growth—Forecasts

1. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Finance: What is Treasury’s latest forecast for economic growth, as set out in the 2016 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Treasury tells us that the outlook for the world economy is somewhat weaker but that New Zealand’s economic outlook is positive. It is forecasting real GDP growth of around 2.9 percent over the coming year and 2.8 percent on average over the 5 years to June 2020, including another 170,000 new jobs by 2020. Unemployment is expected to drop to 4.6 percent, and the average wage is forecast to rise to 63,000 a year. Of course, these forecasts are subject to the usual risks, both in the world economy and the domestic economy. But few developed economies enjoy a positive outlook.

Jono Naylor: What are the main drivers of the positive outlook for growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Looking into the detail of this forecast, strong population growth is both an indicator of New Zealand’s economic performance and a contributor to it. However, Treasury expects migration to fall fairly sharply, from 71,000 currently to the long-run average of 12,000 per year. Similarly, the growth forecast remains robust despite rising oil prices and a wind-down of investment in Christchurch. This is because consumer spending and exports continue to drive economic growth, plus a large pipeline of construction projects and low interest rates, which should continue to stimulate investment.

Jono Naylor: What other reports has he seen that suggest New Zealand is expected to display strong growth over the next few years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The OECD released its forecast, which shows a similarly positive outlook for the New Zealand economy. It projects 3 percent growth in 2016 and 2.7 percent in 2017. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research also released its forecasts, which show solid growth, more jobs, higher wages, and falling unemployment, broadly in line with Treasury’s forecasts.

Jono Naylor: What steps is the Government taking to support the growing economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are always taking steps, week by week, but it is important that the Government remains following policy that is consistent economic reform, to give business the confidence to invest and grow. The main vehicle for this is the Business Growth Agenda, which includes new free-trade agreements, reducing ACC levies, rolling out ultra-fast broadband, simplifying tax for small to medium sized enterprises, and, in Budget 2016, a large, forward-looking package—the Innovative New Zealand package—that will support scientists, entrepreneurs, and innovators.

District Health Boards—Mental Health and Bowel Screening Funding

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, but we should know more in about 30 seconds. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question. Supplementary question—Hon Annette King.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that “DHBs are free to allocate part of that $568 million as they see fit” for mental health, when district health boards (DHBs) actually received $400 million in the Budget; so how much of the $400 million is available for mental health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes.

Hon Annette King: Which of the following statements does he stand by: “increase in core Crown health expenditure since 2009-10 covers all demographics and most, but not all, inflationary pressures” or “over the previous seven Budgets, the total injection of new money has been higher than population and cost pressures”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member’s premise to that question is flawed. It is Vote Health; it is not core Crown health expenditure. After 30 years, she should understand the vote structure.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Should I table the Minister’s answer from last year—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. [Interruption] Order! The member is now trifling with the point of order. The question was asked, the answer was given, and it addressed the question.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that the bowel-screening programme is on track to begin in 2017, when Treasury yesterday gave its implementation a red grading for delivery, which led him to attack Treasury officials in a less than manly way, because officials cannot stand up for themselves?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh yes, officials are well capable of standing up for themselves, and I absolutely stand by what I said. Frankly, I do not agree with everything Treasury says, and on this occasion I definitely do not.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that the age for the bowel-screening programme in New Zealand should be 60 to 74 because it is in line with most countries, when Australia, Scotland, Canada, France, and Germany start at 50, and even the Cancer Society of New Zealand recommended starting at 50?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I do, and I also stand by my statement that Labour, despite announcing back in 2008 that it was going to start a programme, never did anything and did not spend a single dollar on it.

Hon Annette King: In light of his answer to Mike Hosking on radio today, what is the amount of money that DHBs will have to absorb in related costs to the bowel-screening programme, and is that money to be taken out of DHB budgets over the next 4 years?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is quite clear: there is $39.3 million over 4 years in this Budget to commence the roll-out, and that is the money that will fund that roll-out and some of the broader national costs. But it is primarily for Wairarapa and Hutt Valley, and there is a progressive roll-out over the next 3 years for the other 17 DHBs, because we are including Waitematā with the first three as well.

Hon Damien O’Connor: When the Minister told the House on Tuesday that the Grey Base Hospital build was under way, did he know that contracts for building, wiring, and construction had not been finalised—the only action was to shift a crane on to the site—and is this another of his premature pronouncements for which he is becoming well known?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, at least I am able to make a pronouncement, rather than that member, who will not even say whether he backs the Labour-Greens deal. The clear fact is that the work has started, and the advice I have had is that the contracts have been signed. But you can see there is going to be more of this trouble coming for Labour and the Greens.

Roading, Northland—Brynderwyn Hills Road Improvement Cost

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: Is he satisfied that the New Zealand Transport Agency funding in Northland is adequate to cover the cost for the Brynderwyn Hills road improvements?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Yes. I am satisfied that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has sufficient funding to complete the safety upgrade of the Brynderwyn Hills road improvements, and they are well on track for completion in the summer of 2017. The project was originally funded at $16.9 million, but due to geotechnical issues, the cost now is $18.9 million. But I am sure the member will welcome this additional investment by the National-led Government in Northland.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that month on month the cost of this project has blown out, and what has he or the NZTA done about it?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: No, it is not a fact, but I am sure the good people of Northland will be interested that the current member is not wanting or welcoming an additional spend in his electorate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has not stuck to the question that I asked him. He has turned it into a personal attack, and it is a very unfortunate approach he has taken.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part of the answer by the Minister was certainly not helpful to the order of the House. The first part did adequately address the question. The member can continue with supplementary questions if he wishes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he has just admitted that the costs have blown out by $2 million already, by how much each month has it been blowing out, and why does he think that $18 million is the total cost now?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: We are committed to delivering this project on time. Yes, there is an additional spend required to build it to the right standard. Geotechnical issues that were not apparent when the design was first planned have become apparent. There is no month-on-month additional spend. New information has created an additional spend required for additional investment into Northland.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the NZTA is working, in its words, to “create transport solutions for all New Zealanders”, then why can it not keep contracts within the expenditure that was originally announced, such as in the Brynderwyn Hills, where every month it has blown out?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I take it from that that the member would prefer the road to be built of substandard material that is not durable or lasting for many, many years. Geotechnical issues have required an additional spend in the project. I would have thought that a good local member would welcome that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that every million dollars overspent on this project and outside of the contract is a million dollars that cannot be spent elsewhere on desperately needed roads and two-lane bridges in Northland?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am sure, again, that that member may portray to the good people of Northland that he would prefer that a substandard road was built to allow spending somewhere else.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I do not think that—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. [Interruption] Order! With the greatest respect, I am going to invite the member to repeat the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much; that will be most helpful. Is it not a fact that every million dollars overspent on this project is a million dollars that cannot be spent elsewhere on desperately needed roads and two-lane bridge projects in Northland?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Of course this will not stop other investment. Actually, the member may be interested to know that there is around $2 billion of funding for planning of roading investment into Northland.

Budget 2016—Economic Growth Per Capita

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the statement in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update that “growth in average income (or output) per person (i.e. GDP per capita) is what matters for achieving higher material living standards”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do agree; that is a measure of material living standards. As I have explained to the member many times, right at the moment growth in per capita income or per capita GDP is a bit lower because of the surge in population growth. If the forecasts that Treasury has made come to pass and migration and population growth drop off, then I am sure that he will be severely disappointed to see per capita incomes growing faster in future years.

Grant Robertson: What is the forecast real GDP per capita in Budget 2016 for 2016 and 2017?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not have that detail to hand, but I imagine it is around 0.6 or 0.7 per year, on the basis that there is 2 percent population growth, which is pretty strong—in fact, about the fastest-growing population that we have had in many decades—and which we regard as a measure of success. The Government is ambitious that New Zealand be a place that people want to live and work, and we are certainly achieving that ambition for New Zealand.

Grant Robertson: Is real GDP per capita of less than 1 percent over the next 2 years going to deliver meaningful higher living standards for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and those New Zealanders will have the opportunity to be part of an economy where the population is growing at 2 percent, which we regard as successful. But they also have the reassurance of knowing that if migration drops off, these numbers will increase.

Grant Robertson: How is he delivering meaningful gains to New Zealanders’ standards of living when real GDP per capita has grown by 0.5 percent—i.e., less than 1 percent—in the period 2009 to 2015?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not so much a matter of what I am doing; it is what people are doing by voting with their feet—that is, the 30,000 New Zealanders a year who used to decamp to Australia are staying here, and New Zealand is increasingly seen as a desirable, stable, growing economy, and it is attracting interest from all around the world from people who want to turn up here. We regard that as a good thing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If $11 billion, in the Government’s words, is required for defence in the next 10 years, where was that accounted for in his last Budget projections?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just cannot see how that question relates. Can I have the question read again, because it is quite a deviation from the original.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, it is about forecasts.

Mr SPEAKER: No, let us have the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, in the Government’s words, $11 billion will be required on defence spending over the next decade, where was any of that accounted for in the last Budget projections?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member can be reassured that it is in the Budget, although not set out in quite the way that matches that description. Defence has a long-term funding track for the first time ever, which is leading to a much more efficient and focused Defence Force, and each year it gets roughly a $100 million increase in its baseline. Over 10 years, that is roughly about—that roughly adds up to a lot of money.

Grant Robertson: Why, in the face of such poor per capita GDP, did he deliver a Budget that, in the words of the Westpac economist team, has a net reduction in the allowances for new operational and capital spending over the next 4 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know what the Westpac people are talking about, frankly, in relation to a net reduction, because, as the finance Minister, I can tell you that all the numbers are going up—some of them a bit faster than might be absolutely ideal from a finance Minister’s point of view. I do not know how many times I have to explain to the member that the low per capita income is a function of the surge in population growth. We regard the surge in population growth as a success, not a problem—as success. This is what we want to see; 30,000 New Zealanders who used to go to Australia staying home. Under a Labour-Greens coalition, I am sure they all will pick up sticks and leave, and will get—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That part is not going to help the order of this House.

Grant Robertson: Why has he presented a Budget described as “a fiscal mirage” by Westpac and as “breathtakingly visionless” by Business and Economic Research Ltd (BERL), when what New Zealand needed was a Budget that actually invests in New Zealand’s future?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree with both of them. Neither BERL nor Westpac sets Government policy, and, in this case, they also happen to be wrong.

Housing Supply and Affordability—National Policy Statement on Urban Development

5. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What specific new requirements for councils are proposed in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, and how will these support the Government’s long-term work on improving housing supply and affordability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Councils will be required to ensure that sufficient development capacity is provided in their plans to meet projected growth. They will have to monitor and report, for the first time, on issues of housing supply and affordability. They will have to take into account the difference between theoretical capacity and that which is commercially feasible, as well as providing a 20 percent over-supply to ensure that there is genuine competition. These requirements on land supply are an important part of the Government’s work on housing affordability, because it is actually the price of the section—now averaging $450,000 in Auckland—that is at the core of New Zealand’s housing affordability problems.

Jami-Lee Ross: What background work has gone into the development of this National Policy Statement on Urban Development?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have to acknowledge the work of the Productivity Commission, which produced, last September, a 380-page report that identifies this key area in which our planning system is failing. I would also draw attention to the research work on other jurisdictions, in which it was found that between Australia and the UK, our Resource Management Act systems for ensuring adequate development capacity were weaker than any of those other jurisdictions. They were also very poor in terms of the information and analytical requirements, and that is why they are included in the national policy.

Matt Doocey: What examples are there to show that increasing development capacity directly impacts on housing prices and affordability?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It was interesting to note yesterday that the only urban area in New Zealand that had house price inflation under 10 percent was Christchurch. In that same city, rents in the last year have dropped by 5 percent. When we look at the intervention that Mr Brownlee took 5 years ago to open up 25 years of supply of land for housing, that directly shows the link between land supply and housing affordability—

Dr Megan Woods: That’s just ridiculous!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and members opposite say it is ridiculous. At the time, they said there was a housing crisis in Christchurch. We have fixed it, and we are going to fix it in Auckland with the same successful methods.

Prisons—Prison Population and Programmes

DAVID CLENDON (Green): My question is to the Minister of Corrections—I can see she is looking forward to it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, that does not help the order of the House. Just ask the question.

6. DAVID CLENDON (Green) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she take responsibility for the additional $41 million above baseline funding that has been earmarked for prisons in response to the rising prison population?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I accept responsibility for helping to secure this funding.

David Clendon: Given the Government’s stated goal of reducing reoffending by 25 percent by 2017, what is the rationale for allocating $10 million less to rehabilitation programmes in this year’s Budget compared with the initial estimate for 2015?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can tell the member, because I know he is deeply interested in it, and genuinely so, that reoffenders are, by the way, down by 25 percent at the moment. The reoffending rate, though, is 6.7 percent down. But the big focus this year is actually going to be on mental health and the provision of mental health services in prisons.

David Clendon: Does it make sense to cut $25,000 from rehabilitation programmes like Circles of Support and Accountability, which has a proven record of reducing reoffending, while increasing spending on custodial services by $41 million?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If fewer people would like to commit serious violent offending and methamphetamine supply offences, then we would be happy to take fewer of them into corrections. But while they continue to do that, then we will continue to house them properly.

David Clendon: What assurances can she give that the corrections scheduling regime is fit for purpose and that inmates who need rehabilitation programmes are getting access to them in a timely fashion?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I know that corrections is taking this very seriously to make sure that prisoners can, in fact, access rehabilitation when they should be, and I can assure him that I have taken the issue to the chief executive of corrections, and that is actually something that they are making sure that they do better on.

David Clendon: Is the Minister then saying that she is aware of the numerous and credible reports of inmates being unable to access rehabilitation programmes required by the Parole Board, meaning that they are serving more prison time than they need to be?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am aware of many allegations, but they are not always credible. In fact, sometimes when we have looked into them, it has been a prisoner who has been scheduled to undertake rehabilitation and has then gone on to commit an offence in prison itself, and therefore is no longer able to undertake that rehabilitation.

David Clendon: As corrections Minister dealing with the blowout of 700 inmates in the prison muster since last year, does she now regret any of the decisions she made as justice Minister on mandatory sentencing and bail policy—policies that have increased prison numbers with no measurable improvement in public safety?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, I would never say that to someone who has been the victim of a serious violent offender. In fact, I would absolutely support the policies of this Government. I am very pleased to have been part of them.

David Clendon: What evidence does the Minister have for her reported assertion that the percentage increase in the prison muster is caused by longer sentences for violent offenders rather than an increase in the remand population?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is actually both, and what is really important—and I have heard from the Department of Corrections directly—is that quite a lot of that increase in the remand population is actually around family violence being treated far more seriously in the courts by police and by the courts, and repeat recidivist violent offenders in their own homes not being let free to go home and beat their children and their spouse until they end up dead, which is what we have had, by the way, in the past.

Housing, Auckland—National Policy Statement on Urban Development

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: In light of his claim the Government has been systematically dismantling the urban limit, does his proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development abolish Auckland’s urban growth limit?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The Government has systematically dismantled Auckland’s urban limit—firstly, with the special housing areas, which allows new residential areas beyond the limit; secondly, with the fast-track process for Auckland’s new unitary plan, which will permanently replace it; and, thirdly, with today’s national policy statement, which would make it impossible to recreate. Abolishing the urban limit is the easy bit; it is what rules and plans you replace it with that matters, and that is what the independent hearings panel is doing with the unitary plan.

Phil Twyford: Why does his national policy statement endorse the approach of drip-feeding land, when doing that in Auckland clearly just feeds the rampant property speculation; and why does he not just abolish the urban growth boundary?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is clear that the member has not read the Government’s national policy statement. Secondly, the member pretends that if you just whip the metropolitan urban limit away, that is all you need to do. You have to answer the question beyond that metropolitan urban limit. What are the rules if somebody wants to build an apartment building? What are the rules if somebody wants to build a factory? What are the rules if somebody wants to build a house? That is where the member continues to have sound bites rather than policies.

Phil Twyford: How does he expect Auckland ratepayers to fund the $17 billion of infrastructure needed to support Auckland’s growth when he has offered them nothing to fix that in his national policy statement?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the national policy statement does not answer the question as to who funds the infrastructure is that that would be outside the law of what you can do in a national policy statement, and that member would be the very first to criticise me if I started breaking the law. We did make changes to the Local Government Act in 2014—interestingly, changes that the member opposed, but he has done so many flip-flops it does not surprise me. Those changes to the Local Government Act made it plain that the cost of infrastructure should be met by the developer who is selling the sections and, secondly, those changes enabled infrastructure agreements, and those infrastructure agreements allow innovative ideas like infrastructure bonds to be used.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that Auckland’s draft unitary plan already includes demand assessments and staged injections of land supply, and that all his huffing and puffing has come to nothing because his national policy statement is no different from what Auckland Council is already doing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It may have missed the member that the draft unitary plan currently has no legal effect. It is before an independent hearings panel, and I would urge that member to not make views around whether it is a good plan or a bad plan until the independent hearings panel has finished its job. What the Government can do is make its expectations very clear, and that is what it has done, with a national policy statement that requires the council to ensure there is adequate development capacity.

Phil Twyford: Why, after years of talking tough and blaming councils for expensive housing, and 8 years after he promised a national policy statement in the National Party election manifesto, is he not embarrassed and humiliated that this is all he has got to show for it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member may be interested that the first urban development national policy statement was promised by one of his colleagues in 2001—2001. I would also say to the member, when he asks me to be bold—is it not interesting that he challenges me to break the metropolitan urban limit, I bring legislation before this House with special housing areas to do just that, and he delays the legislation in the Parliament and argues against it at every stage through Parliament? That just shows that that member on housing has had every single position that the Kama Sutra could have invented. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] We now move to question—[Interruption] Order! We now move to question No. 8.

Budget 2016—Science and Innovation

8. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What new investment does Budget 2016 make in science and innovation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Budget 2016 significantly increases the Government’s investment in science and innovation. As part of the wider $761 million Innovative New Zealand package, Budget 2016 provides a further $410 million in operating funding over the next 4 years for science and innovation. The increased funding will greatly strengthen New Zealand’s science system. It will increase investment in the sector by a further 15 percent by 2019-20, taking cross-Government investment in science to $1.6 billion annually for the first time. This very significant increase shows how committed this Government is to science-led innovation to strengthen and diversify the New Zealand economy.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why is the Government making significant new investment in research, science, and innovation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Investing in the work of our researchers, scientists, and innovators is hugely important for developing an innovative New Zealand with a truly diversified economy. We are doing that with initiatives like $113.8 million more over 4 years for the new Endeavour Fund, the contestable fund devoted towards longer-term, high-impact, mission-led science; $97 million over 4 years for additional health research through the Health Research Council of New Zealand; and $66 million over the next 4 years for the Marsden Fund, a boost in support for investigator-led research. These investments will fund more projects like Game of Clones, which is a study of antibiotic resistance and the global threat of that to human health—

Hon David Cunliffe: I thought it was the National caucus.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and investigating destructive volcanic eruptions in “Mount Doom”, which is not about David Cunliffe but about pyroclastic flows on Mount Ngāuruhoe.

Paris Agreement—Ratification

9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does the Government intend to present the Paris Climate Change Agreement to Parliament and ratify it before the end of 2016?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: New Zealand was a signatory to the Paris Agreement on the very first day. The next step is a national interest analysis, which will be presented with the Paris Agreement to Parliament and is subject to the treaty examination process. The timing of ratification has not yet been determined. The treaty requires 55 percent of emissions and 55 countries for the Paris Agreement to come into force.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Why is New Zealand unable to commit to ratifying the agreement in 2016, when six Pacific Island States have already ratified, and China, the US, France, Canada, Mexico, and Australia have all said that they will do it this year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I find the member’s question ironic in that his party has argued that New Zealand, particularly with respect to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), needs to have a very thorough parliamentary process around the examination of treaties before ratification. I would simply say to the Green Party, it cannot demand one process on the TPP to be as slow as possible, and then a separate process around the Paris Agreement on Climate Change that is the opposite.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that 7 months is an entirely reasonable time to do all of what the Minister has said and to ratify at the end of that, and given that New Zealand has only 14 years to meet the commitment it made under the Paris Agreement, why will the Minister not get on and do that: ratify it and give business a clear signal to begin the transition to a cleaner future?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know that the Minister is ambitious to move forward with ratification as quickly as is practical, but the first legal step that is required is the national interest analysis, and part of that work is in terms of requiring the legislative or regulatory changes that New Zealand needs to take to be able to ratify the agreement. I would also note that the same Minister has just put through Parliament changes to our emissions trading scheme that mean that it is one of the most comprehensive and effective emissions trading schemes anywhere in the world.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that all those responsibilities can indeed be cleared up in the course of calendar year 2016, is not the real reason that the Minister will not commit to ratifying the Paris Agreement that the Government is holding out hope that it can still resort to international carbon trading and avoid cutting pollution in New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is completely mistaken. Even with the process of ratification, the issue about what units from the previous Kyoto agreement will be available or not is still going to be the subject of subsequent discussions through the regular climate change forums. For instance, the Kyoto agreement took five further meetings to determine all the rules. That would equally be true of the Paris Agreement, and that is in no way any barrier to New Zealand being able to get on with ratification, which the Minister is committed to doing as quickly as is practically possible.

. 10 to the Minister

Question No

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that you will be moving on to question No. 10. In the interests of this Parliament’s image, how did this question get past the Speaker’s office? I mean, that is not even grammar.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, it has certainly got through. If the member is not happy with the grammar, I am afraid that is going to be his problem. It is an accepted question.

Drugs, Illegal—Police Operations

10. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Police: What recent successes has Police had in targeting drug dealing?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Police today announced the outstanding results of its annual national crime and cannabis operation. The 7-month-long operation involved nine police districts and targeted drug-dealing houses. It has resulted in 791 charges laid against 155 offenders. More than $11 million worth of property is under investigation or restraint by police. Around 900 grams of methamphetamine, 42 kilograms of cannabis plant material, and seven firearms have been seized; 46 addresses were selling methamphetamine, 70 addresses were selling cannabis, seven addresses were selling synthetic cannabis, and 25 addresses were selling both cannabis and methamphetamine.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How has this contributed to preventing social harm?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Police is very focused on shutting down drug-dealing operations to prevent the significant social harm they cause any community. Drug offending is often linked to other crime, and this operation is no different. Gang members feature prominently among those arrested. Eighty-nine of the people charged have previously been convicted of burglary, theft, theft ex car, and receiving offences; 54 percent of those charged have previously been linked to family violence incidents; and another 44 percent have been convicted of a violence-related offence. Forty children aged between 3 weeks old and 16 years old were found in drug-dealing houses across the country, and a number of referrals to Child, Youth and Family have been made.

Stuart Nash: Although I join with the Minister in congratulating the Police on its recent success, when John Key said in 2008 that “I will expect the Police to use the full force of the law to shut down the organised gangs that control the distribution of these drugs”—

Hon Steven Joyce: The question.

Stuart Nash: —just wait—can she inform the House how many organised gangs have been shut down since this promise was made 8 long years ago?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it is quite a long way from the primary question, but I am happy to tell that member that when we have got approximately 3,000 gang members and gang associates in jail right at the moment, he can do the maths himself. Forty-five percent of all Head Hunters members, by the way, are in jail. They are being shut down. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Financial Markets Authority—Silver Fern Farms

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: In light of its report on Silver Fern Farms, does he believe the Financial Markets Authority is performing its function well as a “risk-based conduct regulator” promoting and facilitating “the development of fair, efficient and transparent financial markets”; if so, how?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yes; the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) is continuing the long-term task of building confidence in our critical markets, which, in turn, helps businesses raise capital efficiently so they can invest in jobs and growth.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Financial Markets Authority found no problem with Silver Fern Farms understating its profit by 85.8 percent while overstating debt by up to 24 percent, what benefits are taxpayers getting from the $30 million Financial Markets Authority turning a blind eye to blatant deceit and corruption at the Silver Fern Farms shareholders’ expense?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It is not appropriate for me, as Minister, to second-guess an independent Government authority’s decision making. It is for the FMA, as an independent regulator, to form its judgment as to the appropriate level of investigation. No regulator applies the full force of the law every time it receives a complaint; each individual complaint is assessed on its merit.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is proven, as it soon will be, that the Financial Markets Authority failed on this complaint in the same way it failed on the NZX Clear Grain Exchange case, which is now before the courts, will he demand accountability and resignations?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: My expectation, as Minister, is that the FMA continues to act in a professional and independent manner by ensuring the market participants act according to the law. And I would expect the member, if he made a complaint to the FMA, to have put all the information before the FMA, and it will have considered it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a letter dated 18 April 2016 to the Financial Markets Authority laying out the case that it failed to investigate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The letter is from, presumably, the member himself, is it?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Corrections, Department—Spending and Management of Wiri Prison

12. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes.

Kelvin Davis: Can she guarantee that the $41 million blowout in the Department of Corrections budget will not lead to corners being cut and standards dropping even further?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: How can it be a blowout when we have actually got $355 million extra in Budget 2016?

Kelvin Davis: Does she have any concerns about Serco’s management of Wiri Prison; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Significantly less than I have in that member’s management of his portfolio.

Kelvin Davis: How has she allowed Serco guards at Wiri Prison to allegedly smuggle contraband to prisoners on her watch?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If there are any allegations of bribery and corruption, then that member should take them straight to the Department of Corrections or police. If he is too scared to do so, he should bring them to me. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member.

Kelvin Davis: Why would anyone take concerns to her when she would just try to shoot the messenger and sweep the allegations under the carpet?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, let me tell that member that this morning on The Paul Henry Show I heard that member making allegations against an unnamed corrections officer. The Department of Corrections, when I spoke to its staff this morning, looked at it and sent it straight to the New Zealand Police for investigation. And, apparently, that member might have some evidence to assist police. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need the assistance I am getting from the right-hand side here. [Interruption] Order! Mr English.

Kelvin Davis: Does she hold Serco at Wiri Prison to the same high standards of “professionalism, safety, rehabilitation, and security” that she expected of it at Mt Eden prison; if so, does she expect Serco to fail these just as it did at Mt Eden prison?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, what a loaded question. I can tell that member, though, to give him some comfort, that since 2007 four corrections officers—previously, by the way, employed by the Department of Corrections—have actually been imprisoned for corruption and receiving bribes. We have two former officers who are in front of the courts at the moment, and I can tell that member that any such allegations will be sent straight to New Zealand Police by the Department of Corrections, as they were this morning. I think that that is the appropriate action, rather than making unsubstantiated allegations based on no names and no details other than allegations.

Kelvin Davis: Supplementary—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! I understand that the Labour allocation of supplementary questions has been used.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 1 June on the .

Mr SPEAKER: I call Tim Macindoe, and I understand that this is to be a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Back home in the tropical paradise of Hamilton, my constituents are full of praise for the outstanding stewardship of our economy over the last 8 years by the Hon Bill English and for his excellent eighth Budget. I have had the privilege of being a member of this House for every one of those eight Budgets—in fact, I have sat behind him as he has delivered four of them. I have to say that each time he has hit the spot superbly.

Back in late 2008 National came into office after this country had already plunged into recession. That was in no small part because of the reckless explosion in public spending that we inherited from the previous Labour Government. There is no question about that. Labour members boasted that they had spent the lot, they had squandered the good times, and had left an incoming National Government facing Treasury predictions of at least a decade of deficits and Crown debt of eye-watering proportions. That was a horrendous record. The wonderful thing, if you are in the National Party, is to note that they have learnt nothing in the 8 years since.

Through it all, this National-led Government has made the tough calls. We have turned things round dramatically. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with the people of New Zealand and, in particular, with the people of Canterbury as they have gone through the dreadful ordeals that they have suffered in that region. So all of those things have had a devastating impact on Crown accounts, and, in every respect, Bill English and this Government have stood up to the plate and delivered what is expected by New Zealanders.

That is why this Government has achieved this staggering feat of retaining the same support in the polls that it had on the day it came into office 8 years ago. I will go further and say that I will go to my grave proud of the record of this Government, proud of the actions that this Government has taken to get us through those tough times, and proud to defend that record in any public forum across the country. Our lacklustre opponents opposite continue to demonstrate how totally out of touch they are with public sentiment on the reality of the position. After nearly 8 years in Opposition, they still have not grasped the fact that irresponsible spending sprees are not what the public are asking for. Hard-working New Zealanders have to pay for them—not Governments. Governments simply take the money from the pockets of those hard-working New Zealanders. Until the Opposition learns that simple fact of life, its members are destined to stay there, in ever-diminishing numbers.

Over the last week, we watched the wonderful civil union emerge between the Green Party and the Labour Party—well, that was on Tuesday. Then, on Wednesday, we watched civil warfare break out, led by the Cosgrove-Nash-O’Connor faction as they took aim at the rest of the Labour Party and said: “We don’t want to go there, and we know damn well the public of New Zealand don’t want to go there either.” It has been a sorry spectacle, and it shows just how desperate the second-largest party of this Parliament is—that its members find themselves in the position where they know they have not got any credible options for forming a Government and so they are scrambling around desperately, even to the point where they are having to say: “Well, you decide what you’ll do on this one, we’ll decide on this one, and let’s go to the public and see whether they think that’s a credible option.” I can tell them right now that the public do not like it, and they will not like it any more when we go to the polls next year.

The Minister has made it very clear that this is a Government focused on social investment. Theirs is the side of the House that says: “Just throw more money; all that you need to do to be a successful Government is to throw more and more money at things.” On this side of the House, we believe in the social investment strategy. That is why we are seeing more people in jobs. That is why we are seeing more elective surgeries. That is why we are seeing higher rates of achievement in National Certificate of Educational Achievement than ever before. That is why we are seeing crime rates down to record levels—by over 40 percent for youth crime. These are the best results in more than a generation.

That is why this Government continues to be in touch with the public of New Zealand, to understand what they are requiring, and that is why, when we go to the polls next year, we will continue to campaign proudly on our record. I look forward to hearing whatever Opposition members think they are going to come up with, because, after 8 years, they have learnt nothing more than they knew on the day they left office.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the next member, there is the habit developing, particularly on the right-hand side of the Chamber, of people thumping the desks. It is a very annoying noise. I am also the landlord and am concerned at the damage that is being done to the desks. I have got to then make a Budget bid to a mean Minister of Finance to get the repairs undertaken. Applaud enthusiastically by all means, but we are not going to have the thumping of the furniture.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Local Government): That was the speech of the day from the senior whip on the Government benches. After 7½ years on the Government benches, that is the sort of enthusiasm and passion and excitement that this Government brings to bear. I am just glad that Dr Coleman is in the House, because I thought Mr Macindoe was about to collapse under the weight of that speech.

This Budget is Bill English’s eighth Budget. It is a Budget that focuses on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. What are those issues? In Maungakiekie, where I come from, the issues that New Zealanders want to hear about are not the de facto relationships between parties across the aisle; they want to know about jobs. So here is the Government’s record on jobs: there are 2.4 million people who are employed in this country today—2.4 million. That is more than at any other time in our history. I am proud of the fact that there are 130,000 Pacific people employed today. That is the most of any time in our history. In the last 3 years, we have created 200,000 jobs. That is 200,000 families who have been looked after, clothed, fed, and educated.

This economy is growing, and it is growing at the rate of 2.8 percent per annum, year on year. That is the sort of growth that New Zealanders want, that is the sort of growth that New Zealanders expect, and that is the sort of growth that will support our communities out there in New Zealand. This growth appears not just by accident; it appears through the careful, considered approach by the Minister of Finance, alongside the other economic Ministers, and it is done through trade agreements. We know that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is an agreement that will benefit all New Zealanders, but the Labour Party will not support it and the Green Party will not support it, because they know that they will argue against what is good for New Zealand. They are the parties of “no”.

As we grow the economy, we also grow the ability of our Government to support those in need. That is why, over the next 4 years—and I am proud of the work that the Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman, is doing, because the spending on health will go up by $2.2 billion. But it is not just about the increase in spending, which is over $4 billion more than the Labour Government ever put into health under Annette King. It is about the quality of spending. It is about the quality of spending on things like disability support services. I am proud of the fact that there is $169 million more being put into that.

We also know that bowel cancer screening is a really important thing for New Zealanders. That is why we are investing $39 million—that is right, $39 million—into bowel cancer screening, and it is taking effect in the coming years.

As Associate Minister of Health, I am proud of the fact that we have raised taxes on tobacco by 10 percent for the next 4 years, year on year—10 percent. What that will do—and we have seen it over the last few years, where, over the last 5 years, we have got 37,000 fewer people smoking. That is 37,000 fewer people smoking. That is saving lives—that is saving lives. It is promoting the health of all New Zealanders. These are the sorts of measures that, as a package, are improving the well-being of New Zealanders.

Hekia Parata is in the House, and we know that the continued investment into early childhood education is good for our children. We know that these are the issues that matter to New Zealanders. We know that these are the things that make a difference in our communities. That is why we stand by the Hon Bill English in supporting this Budget, and that is why this Government continues to be a popular Government. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): What is that old saying? It goes something like “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”—and that is exactly what we got from the senior Government whip, where all he could do was bellow and be bombastic.

There was so little in the Budget, the Government members have taken to splitting their votes because they cannot fill in the whole 5 minutes. They are struggling to fill in 5 minutes, so what do they do? They spend the 5 minutes that they have got talking about us. Well, thank you very much; we are very happy for you to talk about the Opposition, because we are doing such a damned good job. So carry on—devote all your speeches to the Opposition. The Labour Party is very happy about it. I know the Greens and New Zealand First will be. We have no problem with you talking about us.

There is another saying, I think it goes: “There are statistics, damn statistics and lies.” Well, I have to say there are none more so than in the health portfolio.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is unparliamentary to imply that lies are being told.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance with this. Please take your seat. [Interruption] Please take your seat, Minister. The honourable member gave a quote. If he wants to apply that to himself, he is welcome to, but she was completely within the Standing Orders.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Week after week, the hapless Minister of Health stands up in this Parliament and he denies, he denigrates, and he ducks questions put to him about the Government’s performance in health. You know, he is brilliant at statistical gymnastics: he is great at the backflip, he is very good at the forward roll, he is a contortionist, and he is the con man of health. And you see—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know what it is about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance there. If it has escaped the Minister that this is a fairly robust debate, then, you know, I feel sorry that he is at that loss. But to suggest that you are a con man—as the Minister obviously did—you may well take offence at that. If you have taken offence, you may well seek a withdrawal and apology. I would suggest that you are a little bit more robust than that.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Sorry, I take offence at terms such as “liars” and “con man”. Yes, I do. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on the lies. If you take offence at the veiled accusation re a “con man”, no doubt the Hon Annette King will withdraw it.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will withdraw, Mr Speaker. I have to say, I take offence—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It had better be a good point of order.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It is. The member has been here for a long 30 years, and she knows it is “withdraw and apologise”. You do not just get up and say “withdraw”.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, you did not ask me to apologise; you asked me to withdraw. I withdrew.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is entirely over to the Speaker as to what he requires. There was no suggestion that she apologise. The instruction was that she withdraw, and she did that. We will not have any more frivolous points of order that are aimed at breaking up a speech. I recall that the Minister himself got a pretty good go.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have to say that I am offended, week after week, day after day, at the performance of the Minister of Health. Dr Coleman has just picked up where Tony Ryall left off. You see, it works like this: blame, blame again, and then blame some more. But 8 years on, the blame game has become National’s shame. It has become National’s shame. They have run out of excuses, they have run out of places to hide, because the truth is out. After 8 National Governments—their National health budgets—$1.72 billion of cumulative underfunding has occurred; $1.72 billion. And in this Budget, $50 million is missing from the overall health budget. To make it worse, when you drill down and look at the district health board (DHB) budget, $140 million is missing, in real terms.

Those are not my figures, they are from Infometrics’ updated report, replicating the Treasury model from its fiscal strategy model. It takes demographics and inflationary cost pressures and uses these to calculate the real growth in core Crown health expenditure. So if Dr Coleman does not like the figures, then he should produce his own model and tell New Zealanders what is really happening in health. You see, what Infometrics does is take the demographics calculated by using the 2009-10 health cost weights and apply this to the population data from the Budget 2016 fiscal model. Then when it looks at the average inflation growth, it is calculated from the previous year and the forecast from the Budget 2016 fiscal model. So that means that the Treasury calculation used in the demographic growth is extremely, extremely conservative. What you get out of that, when you put it together in the same way that Treasury does, is that the real growth in core Crown health expenditure is only 0.4 percent.

Hon Member: How much?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is 0.4 percent—and that is why health does not have sufficient money. [Interruption] So every day when the hapless backbenchers, along with their Minister, come in here and read out their skite sheet of health achievements, they are increasingly laughed at by the public of New Zealand—the ones who live in daily pain and disability and who are missing out on health services.

But I do feel a little pity for the Minister of Health because the well of excuses is exhausted and he is now resorting to tinkering around the edges of truth. Take mental health: he claimed that DHBs have $568 million allocated to them, so part of it could go to mental health. Did health get $568 million for DHBs; would the Minister of Health not know his own budget? No, health did not—it got $400 million. Take off the $11 million it must put into Pharmac’s budget and you are down to $389 million. Now we hear that they are going to have to pay part of the cost of the bowel-screening programme roll-out. So you can see why our DHBs are underfunded.

The Government has no idea what is happening in mental health. Many of those members opposite are constituency members, and I cannot believe that they have not had people come to their constituency offices, telling them about problems in mental health. If they have not, then they are not performing their role as constituency MPs: their doors are not open to listen to what people say. All of us—including members who are list members from the Opposition—have heard these stories, day after day, of the crisis in mental health. So if you do not want to believe your constituents, have a look at the recent reports on mental health failure: Northland DHB—a report into a terrible failure in mental health; MidCentral DHB and Capital and Coast DHB are under review right now because of the number of suicides; Waikato DHB, Canterbury DHB—these are major reviews and reports showing failures in our mental health system.

Let us look at the major announcement in the Budget: the bowel-screening programme. Everyone knows that we have one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world—3,000 cases registered every year, about 1,200 deaths every year. In 2007 the then Minister of Health and, David Cunliffe, announced the roll-out of a bowel-screening programme that would start in 2008-09. The Minister, in an answer in the House today, said: “Well Labour announced it in 2007 and they didn’t implement it in 2008.” We lost Government in 2008, so why did this Government not pick up the roll-out of the bowel-screening programme and implement it? The Minister said today that 700 lives a year would be saved if this programme was in place. In other words, 6,300 lives could have been saved if the Government had rolled out the bowel-screening programme when it was announced.

Did it start where the highest incidence and the highest death rate is for bowel cancer, in the southern part of New Zealand? No. Within days of the Budget announcement—with a quick phone call or two to two little DHBs—the Minister announced a roll-out. Had it been to Cabinet, Cabinet Ministers? Has the case for the bowel-screening programme gone to Cabinet? No it has not. I have not before heard of an announcement where there is a big-ticket item and dollars attached to it that has not gone through a Cabinet process. That is not Cabinet government to make such an announcement—National was desperate to make an announcement before the Budget.

So you have now got what I call the “McColeman announcement”—that is the announcement you have when you do not really have an announcement. There is a problem with it: Treasury has given it a red flag; it is very worried about the implementation. So what does the Minister do today? He goes on radio and slags off all the Treasury officers—the very Treasury officers whose forecasts the Minister of Finance stands up in this House every day and tells us that we have got to believe. It had “decades of deficits”—we were meant to believe that.

Brett Hudson: Thanks to you, Annette.

Hon ANNETTE KING: We were meant to believe those Treasury forecasts, but we are not meant to believe, Mr Hudson, that Treasury said the roll-out of the bowel-screening programme is a crock at this stage and gave it a red flag. You see, you would like it both ways, I think, Mr Hudson.

So where in this Budget is the funding to honour the promises that were made to our older people? Where is the money to pay for home care? Where is the money to pay for the minimum wage increase for all those wonderful women who look after our old people in their homes? Do you know that for 7 years—7 years—the providers of home-care services have not had funding to account for the increase in the minimum wage? I have got their report—these are not my words—for 7 years they have not had funding to pay for the increase in the minimum wage, and that has eroded over $7 million a year from their provision of services for our old people. They deserve better, do they not? Our old people deserve the best possible care, in their own homes.

This Budget is a flop and a failure, and that is why the Government cannot talk about it.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare i tēnei ahiahi, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to us all throughout our House this afternoon.]

Our John Key - led Government is investing in a growing economy. It is a growing economy that is able to generate more jobs, higher wages, and a future that is based on a modern approach that is about science, enterprise, and entrepreneurial behaviour. It is also based on a hallmark of National Governments, which is to have a compassionate heart for those most in need and to do something about it rather than talk, wring our hands, and cry crocodile tears; it is to do practical things. And we get to do those practical things when we have an economy that supports that. So it is pretty important that we grow the economy—that we invest into it and that we do so in a futureproofed way.

The Budget is an important mechanism for telling the country, in a comprehensive way, what the business of Government is. It is important that we do tell the country what the business of Government is, because it makes up, still, too big a part of our economy. It is not the economy—which is something we understand although the Opposition clearly fails to understand that, almost pathologically. The Opposition thinks it is the Government that creates jobs. The Opposition thinks it is the Government that earns the income. It is not. The Government’s responsibility is to ensure that it creates an environment in which New Zealanders can be successful and through which we back New Zealanders to make good choices and to be powerful actors in their own lives so that they are not dependent on Government. That is our long-term vision, and that is what this Budget—the eighth Budget of the Minister of Finance—continues to invest in.

I want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, for the magnificent job he has done over 8 very challenging years. Yes, we have heard already about the very parlous legacy from the Opposition, and I am not going to rehearse that, because, as the Opposition has rightly pointed out, we are not here to talk about it, because there is not much to talk about. So I am going to talk about us—I am going to talk about this Government. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance for the fine work that he has done, because not only are the appellations “prudent”, “conservative”, sometimes “pessimistic” totally apposite but also they have occurred within the context of a strategic framework. We have a very clear vision of how we ensure that we grow a productive economy, of how we ensure that there is prosperity available to all New Zealanders, and of how we invest in an economy that is based on science and on knowledge and that is future-focused and not backward-looking. We can see, within our Budget, that we now will have choices that would otherwise not have been available to us.

The Government’s business makes up about 30 percent of the economy, and it is really important that it is both efficient and effective, given that size. We need to make sure that we get every bang for the taxpayer’s buck that we possibly can, and that we can measure the impacts—that we are actually getting results. We are not simply saying, as the Opposition keeps wanting to argue, that the more money you put in, the more it shows you care. Actually, the more practical the results are and the greater the impact is shows how much we care.

On that basis, this Government has a very good record. It is by no means enough, but that is the direction of travel, and it is comprehensively set out in this Budget. We have a plan, and our first aim is to have an innovative New Zealand. We are a small country—4.5 million and growing. We are small, smart, and sassy. We punch above our weight, and we continue to wish to do that.

I have recently returned from Crete, where I went, along with the Governor-General, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Crete. The point of that was that New Zealanders—7,700—went all the way around to the other side of the world to fight for the principles we believe in: of democracy, of fairness, and of looking after those who cannot look after themselves, while also growing the possibility of prosperity for all.

We are seen by the rest of the world as very credible international players, and the more that we invest into our own science, our own skills, and the growing of our economy—through leveraging off our primary industries and through growing our information and communication technology areas—the more we continue to have weight in that regard. We have continued to invest in infrastructure. It does not sound very sexy, but getting from A to B to C on really good roads, as we see around the country, is pretty critical to the businesses of New Zealand and the flow of that work.

In the education area, we have benefited from that enormously, because we are the single biggest investment in this Budget, at $882.5 million for new schools, for roll growth classrooms, and for redevelopments. Places of learning really do give substance to this idea of growing the economy, and in education we have a plan that supports what I have talked about, generally, in terms of our approach to Government. And the plan is that every kid is educationally successful.

We have not just talked about it. We are overhauling the 27-year-old Education Act; we are reviewing funding. This is the single biggest amount that has gone into education ever: $11.04 billion. Education is bigger than police, bigger than foreign affairs and trade, bigger than roads, bigger than conservation—and that shows how serious this Government is about how we build our kids to have the skills they need, the qualifications, and the technological capabilities to participate. We want to make sure that we have successful and effective teachers. We want to make sure that they have a very independent profession, which, again, is something the Opposition seems incapable of understanding. When I say the Education Council is independent, it is independent. It gets to make its own decisions about how it raises the quality of teaching and leadership.

We are configuring communities of learning because we understand that the whole pathway of the student is critically important. We have provided more pathways—applied learning as well as academic learning—so that every New Zealander has the opportunity to go into the trades, which, of course, we need more of because we have an economy that is growing. In this Budget we have invested in infrastructure, in science and innovation, in health and education. I do not need to talk about health a lot, because we will hear later in this debate about the comprehensive investments we are making in health.

In addition, of course, we have the social investment approach, which is very specific: how do we change the trajectory of young people who otherwise might lead a very poor life? How do we invest early with impact to make the difference? Not only do we cut down the liability of Government and free up money to resource more in the productive side of the economy but also we help support better lives for individuals. That is what this Government is about. We want better lives for all our kids, for all our young people, for all our middle-aged people—for those of us who are in that young middle-aged category—as well as for those who are older. So this Government is about quality opportunities for all, and education is a core part of that.

We provided in this Budget nearly $400 million for early childhood education. Those of you who have been able to see, in a distilled fashion, Professor Richie Poulton’s Dunedin study will understand that if we can invest early, identify those kids most at risk, and make a change for them, they will lead better lives. So we have seen in this Budget that rather than provide a universal operational grant to schools, we have taken what that would otherwise have been and targeted it to those kids who have spent 75 percent of their lives in long-term benefit-dependent homes, because we have heard and understood that we need to prioritise those who are most at risk of educational underachievement.

We are not, in the process, sacrificing the rest of New Zealand students; not at all, because the first $10 billion goes towards that. We want kids who are doing well to do even better, but we also, because this is the nature of this Government, want to pick up those who are falling behind. We want to give them the same chance of better life outcomes—real kids, real results, real time. That, in a nutshell, describes education, but it also describes this Government: real New Zealanders, real results, in real time. Bill English’s eighth Budget delivers the economic and the business approach that will ensure that next year we will be able to report—because we have a transparent means of reporting because we are prepared to be accountable—that we are making progress. But there is still a way to go. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of New Zealand First—Fletcher Tabuteau.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I think I see the strategy: bore us into oblivion—

Tim Macindoe: No, that’s your job.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —and hope that we cannot drive the energy to reply to absolute nonsense like that. It is painful, painful. Mr Macindoe, while you were giving your speech—and it was better than your usual contributions to the House—were you worried as you looked back at the backbench National members there, who were so enthusiastic that it was mind-boggling? It was not that good a speech.

I have coined a new phrase in respect of Mr Macindoe’s contribution today. I have coined a new phrase. I have called it the “sycophantic, bobble-head syndrome”. It is a syndrome. What we have seen over 8 years is a National Party membership sitting there nodding away, agreeing with everything that their members say. It is a beautiful sight. It is usually in sync, and it is quite entertaining. The sycophantic, bobble-head syndrome means that those poor members have come to believe their own spin. Therein lies the problem. If you believe the spin, you cannot prepare yourself for when someone actually holds you to account on logic and content.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us try some of that then. Back to the bill.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: All you can do is go: “It’s good. It’s good.”

Another member—I cannot remember who, because that is the summation of the contributions this afternoon—spoke about this Budget reflecting a supposedly strong leadership from the Prime Minister John Key, a Prime Minister who is slipping perilously every day in terms of popularity numbers. This was a “Get Stuffed” Budget. This was a Band-Aid Budget that even New Zealand big business could not find much to say about. They struggled to find positive words. I think the most positive contribution I can think of, off the top of my head, was: “It’s a good start.”

We are 8 years into National’s supposed leadership of this country, and we should be well passed a good start. In fact, the banks and the academic and financial experts of New Zealand have gone so far as to say that the Government has lost its way and the Budget is simply a symptom of a National Party that is living in an anachronistic past. It is trying to move forward by looking in a mirror from the past because Government members do not know and do not have the skill set to move forward and to solve the problems that everyday New Zealanders are living with.

This is a Government that stands up and tells us about positive GDP numbers every single day. We dispute those numbers, but let us assume we believe them, because one might concede that 0.5 percent over the last 8 years is still slightly positive. It is still slightly positive. If we believe those numbers, it does not belie the fact that the rhetoric from the Government is not matching the reality that New Zealanders are seeing more and more every day—

Brett Hudson: More jobs, you mean?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —outside in the real world, which Mr Hudson has so carefully blinded himself to.

The evidence is right in front of us: house prices and homelessness, and yet wage inflation is static as we move forward into the future. People are not making more money from their incomes. There is exponential growth in inequality in New Zealand, and this Government does not know how to deal with it. This Budget is a symptom of a Government that has lost its way. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of New Zealand First—Mahesh Bindra.

MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I am afraid my speech is going to be less entertaining than my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau’s. It is about a more serious matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speak within the rules and we will be happy.

MAHESH BINDRA: Last month, about 200 members of the South Auckland community, mainly small-business owners, got together in South Auckland, and it took a radio station to bring those people along because the Government was not worried about their safety. These people were actually angry and frustrated, and their frustration and their anger were really palpable at that meeting. We hoped at the meeting that we would be able to take some of their concerns to the Government, and we were hopeful that the Government MP present there would also contribute towards it. That does not seem to have happened, because after the Budget was announced, those hopes were shattered. The hopes of that community were shattered because there was nothing in that Budget to address the crime situation—the law and order situation—particularly in South Auckland.

In this Budget, we have noticed that a paltry $8.5 million has been allocated for police primary response management. The police response as it is at the moment is appalling. The police response time is appalling. A particular incident I knew of, because I had visited that victim and that victim was also present at that meeting. Although he has started back at work, he is still scared and he is worried about his safety. His concerns have not been addressed in this Budget, and there are many more like him.

What actually happened was that a few months ago three offenders raided and burgled a liquor store in Takanini at 7.30 in the evening. The store owner’s friend followed the offenders when they escaped. The closed-circuit television cameras had the evidence. The store owner’s friend then followed those offenders to their hiding place, took the car registration number, took the address of that property, and gave it to the store owner, who in turn then informed the police. This was at about 7.50 p.m., which means that within 20 minutes of that incident the store owner informed the police that he had the evidence, he knew where the offenders were, and he said that he wanted the police to act then. So the police replied: “Look, we don’t have enough staff numbers to go with you and search that property, and, besides that, we don’t have a search warrant for that property.”

The same offenders at 9.50 p.m.—that is, 2 hours later—went to a Manurewa address, another liquor store, and stabbed the store worker there. They stabbed him five times. Those were serious wounds, and I have personally seen those wounds. So the police reacted then, at 9.50 p.m. Had they acted on the previous complaint, which was at about 7.30 p.m., the second incident would not have happened. The second victim could have been saved. But that did not happen, and nothing has happened in this Budget to correct that situation. That will happen again because there is no mention of police numbers being increased in this Budget.

On the contrary, as we know, our population has increased by 6.5 percent since 2012. However, taking into consideration the inflation rate—4.7 percent—there has been an increase of only 1.8 percent, and that is not going to help the 6.4 percent crime resolution rate that we have at the moment—just 6.4 percent resolution of violent crimes. That is not good enough, and neither is this Budget.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the National Party—Parmjeet Parmar.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Budget 2016 is a great Budget. Yes, it is about 8 years since National came into office, and no one can forget that. There are several reasons for that, and one of these reasons is the Opposition—yes, the Opposition—because every single time we announce a new, significant, and practical policy, even on Budget day, all those members do is count the number of years we have been in office, as if counting the number of years is some kind of worthy counterargument. It truly is a testament to the hard work of this National Government that the Opposition does nothing else but just count the number of years we have been in Government.

Year after year, Budget after Budget, election after election, we have overcome challenges, and it is because of this that the people of New Zealand have more and more confidence in this National Government, and the confidence of the people of New Zealand in this National Government is more than ever before. We are one of those handful of countries that enjoy a very positive economic outlook, and this is because of the leadership of the Rt Hon John Key.

I want to congratulate our Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, on such an awesome eighth Budget. This Budget is focused on the economy. Our GDP growth is expected to grow by 2.8 percent over the next 5 years.

Hon Member: How much?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: By 2.8 percent over the next 5 years. In the past 3 years, there were 200,000 new jobs under this National Government, and it is forecast that there will be 170,000 new jobs by 2020. Over this period, unemployment is expected to drop to 4.6 percent—yes, all this in just about 8 years. And this is despite the global financial crisis, the devastating Canterbury earthquakes, and a series of finance company failures; 2016 is already proving to be a very productive year for families and businesses all around New Zealand.

Budget 2016 is focused on all the important areas. Coming from a scientific background, I am really delighted to see $411 million over 4 years for science and innovation. This includes the commercialisation of high-tech ideas that our New Zealand scientists develop. I am also really happy to see $97 million for health research funding. Coming from a health research and life sciences background, I am really happy to see that commitment from our Government. Through the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the funding is going up by 56 percent, from $77 million in 2015-16 to $120 million in 2019-20. This shows that we are really committed to our health research sector.

I am the National list member of Parliament based in Mt Roskill. In Mt Roskill, social housing and emergency housing are important issues. I am really delighted to see $258 million put towards that, which includes 750 additional social housing places and 3,000 emergency housing places. We are working hard. We are investing to ensure that people have a roof over their heads when they need it the most. We are not doing propaganda like the Opposition, trying to run press conferences outside houses that are not even overcrowded—yes, trying to run press conferences outside houses that are not even overcrowded.

Budget 2016 is focused on the economy. It is focused on low-income people and homeless people, yet Opposition members will try to enforce a stereotype that we work for the wealthy and they work for low-income people. But who increased the benefit for the first time in 40-plus years? It was this National Government. Who is working hard for homeless people? It is this National Government. Who is creating opportunities for low-income families? It is this National Government. The Labour and Greens combination stands for no opportunities, low job security, and more financial burden on families and businesses. This National Government stands for success, prosperity, and opportunities for families and businesses all around New Zealand. Budget 2016 is a great Budget. Thank you.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you say “Point of order.”?

Hon Phil Goff: A call?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, sorry. A 5-minute call on behalf of the National Party.

BRETT HUDSON (National): New Zealand is in great shape, and Bill English delivered another great Budget—his eighth. Look at New Zealanders; New Zealanders are achievers. They go out, they greet the world, they compete with the world, and they win. And back home, they know that they have got a Government, a National-led Government, that backs them all the way, that supports their aspirations, and that puts the frameworks in place that mean they can go and compete offshore—I know Mr Goff supports that; it is a shame that none of the rest of his caucus does—and supports them competing in the world. This is a National Government that backs Kiwis and Kiwi kids to be successful, that puts an education system around them, and is about each one of them achieving their potential. This is another great Budget from Bill English.

What is this Budget telling us that New Zealand’s future is? New Zealand’s future is bright—with 2.8 percent growth over the next 4 years, on average. That is going to be right up there with the very best countries in the OECD. A further 170,000 jobs and average wages climbing to $63,000 are great results—a great set of figures by any comparison with the developed world. Kiwis embrace these figures—they like the way New Zealand is travelling. It did not actually come as too much of a surprise to hear that in the Budget, though. Why? This is because they look at the record of this National Government, and what have they seen? Well, 200,000 jobs over the past 3 years, and an $11,000 increase in the average wage since the National Government has been in office. This is a Government that understands what is important for Kiwis, and it is a Government that continues to focus on delivering those things.

Let us just look back and remind ourselves what the things that matter for Kiwis and their families are: it is a growing economy, and one that is delivering more jobs and higher incomes; it is a Government that is focused on delivering good education so that your children are going to be ready for the future that awaits them; and it is a country where you feel safer in your communities, and one where you know that should you get sick, you have got a great health care system that is going to help you to return to health as soon as possible. Kiwis know that that is what this National Government is delivering for them.

I came to this Parliament from a 20-year career in the ICT industry, and I am delighted—delighted—to see a continued investment in innovation from this Government. In this Budget there is $761 million—$761 million—for helping to continue to diversify our economy, not only to focus on adding value to our traditional core strengths in the primary sector but also to support burgeoning industries, including the ICT industry and also our creative industries that are very strong and growing here in Wellington, our capital.

When we do this, when we look to support innovation—unlike some, who would choose winners—we know that New Zealanders can be successful across sectors. We invest money, for instance, in research—$63 million into strategic science research; research, for instance, that will look into the likes of freshwater management and research. This will help us to deliver our primary sector strength with a smaller environmental footprint. But if we look at what the Opposition says in these areas, all it wants to do is shrink what we do—to cull the dairy herd and do less of what we do so well.

This is a Government that is very balanced in its approach. It is a Government that supports our traditional sectors while also adding support to the newer ones. I look at Ōhāriu, the electorate that I am based in, and I see, for instance, Taylor Preston meatworks. It exports everything it produces—$250 million worth of export receipts into the Wellington economy every year. At the height of the season, it employs 700 people. It is a very, very important business in Wellington, creating value locally from a traditional core strength of New Zealand. On the other side—in fact, almost across the road; just down the road—you have a company like 4RF, which works in telecommunications. It is a company that does research and innovation—a company that creates new technologies—and it also exports them around the world. It is a company that, for instance, has made use of our research and development growth grant programmes through Callaghan Innovation.

There we have a great example, even in Ōhāriu, of a Government that is balanced in its approach, that supports what Kiwis do so well and supports growth in new and more value-added, intellectual property - based areas, which are a big part of our future. It is that sort of balanced and pragmatic approach that has the New Zealand public continuing to support John Key and continuing to support this National-led Government. It was a great Budget, and I look forward to more.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I think that I have spoken to more and more diverse audiences across Auckland over the last 3 or 4 months than I have in 30-odd years in a political career. I have spoken at meetings organised by the National Party, the ACT Party, the Labour Party, the Green Party, and New Zealand First. I have spoken to business groups, I have spoken to Rotary groups, I have talked to ethnic communities, and to Māori and Pasifika. I am saying this because what I have found, in talking to those audiences, is an amazing unanimity amongst 35 percent of New Zealand’s population about what they expected from the Budget and what Auckland needed.

I have got to say—and I say this with some regret because I thought that with the massive debate around housing need and around transport congestion this would have been a Budget that delivered some relief from the problems of housing and transport gridlock—not only was I disappointed in the Budget for failing to deliver in these areas but so too was a broad cross-section of Aucklanders, who were looking for something better. The argument generally goes like this: the Government wants to increase the population of the country. And maybe that is OK; immigration is good for a county. But we are now seeing migration at the highest level in decades: 70,000 more people coming into New Zealand. How is that impacting Auckland? Auckland is growing by 800 people a week. People say: “Well, that would be OK if the Government was providing the infrastructure needed to cope with that growth, the transport system to stop the roads being gridlocked, and the housing so that New Zealand’s first-home buyers could still afford to buy a home in their own city.”

The Budget offered no relief at all in either of those areas. I even read the press statements of the Minister of Building and Housing and the Minister of Transport, and they are usually skite sheets saying: “This is what we are doing.” I read it line by line, and the word “Auckland” did not exist there—it just did not exist. The truth of the matter is that those are really serious problems. They are not only holding Auckland back but also holding New Zealand back. We now have a situation where our roads and our motorways—not only at peak hour but also even outside peak hour—are becoming gridlocked. We have got the Productivity Commission and the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development saying that congestion in Auckland is costing $3 billion a year—$3 billion. Aucklanders say to me: “Well, aren’t we just pouring that money down the drain?”. That is money in lost productivity and other costs, and we are getting absolutely nothing for it. If we were investing $3 billion a year in a congestion-free transport network, we would have something to show for it and Auckland could move forward. But we are not, and there was not a dollar in capital investment in Auckland to relieve that congestion.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: So what would Phil Goff do if he was mayor?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Then it comes to housing affordability. Now, if the Minister of Health listens—you listen through your ears not your mouth, Dr Coleman—I will tell him what some of the problems are, including those in his own electorate. The problem is that housing prices in Auckland went up by over 15 percent in the last year, on top of the 15 percent the year before. Do you know what the average cost of a house in Auckland is now? It is $955,000. God damn it—I bought my first house in Mt Roskill for $64,000; it was 1½ times my annual salary. Today, my kids are paying 6 or 7 times their annual household income to live out in places like Papakura and Pukekohe because they cannot afford to live closer to town than that.

I have got to say that I have heard all sorts of blame being attributed to why people cannot get into homes of their own. You know, it’s their own fault; if you chose your parents wrong and your parents cannot pay your deposit to get into a home, then you cannot buy a home in Auckland today. That is the truth of it. That is why we will have growing inequality in our city, because those who come from reasonably privileged backgrounds can be on the housing ladder, and those that do not will miss out. That is not the New Zealand and that is not the Auckland that I want, Dr Coleman. I want a New Zealand where the Kiwi Dream of owning your own home can survive and people can have that stability and security and they can have a chance in life.

I am telling those members that there is nothing in this Budget that helps those young people towards the dream of homeownership. I am saying to those members that each year in Auckland, with the population growth, we are falling 4,000 houses further behind what we need. That means that 4,000 people lose out on getting any form of what we would call reasonable housing. It means that people are sleeping in garages and cars and are doubling up in homes. And that is not the New Zealand that I want, Dr Coleman. That is not the Auckland I want, and nothing in this Budget will alleviate that. People who are renting their homes have seen their rents go up at seven times the overall rate of inflation. These are massive problems, and there is nothing in this Budget that addresses those problems.

I want to say that it is not good enough just to blame the council—that seems to have been what some members of the Government have been doing recently. The council does have its responsibility. It must make sure that sufficient land is available for the growth that is happening in the city. If the council does not accept that the city needs to go up and out, it will not be doing its job. I do not have a problem with the national policy statement, other than this: the problem that I have with it is that it deals with one aspect of the problem but not the others. I want to know: where is the policy that will see affordable homes being built? Do you know that affordable homes are about 5 percent of the homes being built at the moment? It used to be about 50 percent. We will not get affordable homes unless the Government is prepared to partner with the private sector to make sure that homes are developed that are affordable. That is the time-honoured way in New Zealand of providing for people to have decent, warm, and healthy homes.

I am saying this too, that you can make the land available through your planning but if the council does not have the capital to provide the infrastructure needed to build homes on it, then the homes will not be built. Dr Coleman, as a member of Cabinet, will know that Treasury reported to Cabinet that Auckland Council can neither use the rates base nor borrow to provide the infrastructure. So I am saying to the Government, why not have infrastructure bonds? Why not have either the Government raise the money itself and on-lend it to Auckland, or allow Auckland itself to raise that money so it can provide the infrastructure? If you do not do that, how is that infrastructure going to be provided if you cannot borrow to pay for it or rate to pay for it? And I do not want to push the rates through the ceiling.

I want to know from the Government why there is not some sort of restraint on demand when 40 to 50 percent of the houses are currently being bought in Auckland by investors, and one house in the paper the other day was onsold five times in a year. Each person clipped the ticket for $30,000, did not add anything except to the price, and the price goes up and it becomes unaffordable. I want to know why we do not do what the Aussies do and say to foreign investors: “If you want to buy property in New Zealand, build a new house. Add something to New Zealand. Don’t just push the price up on existing houses.”

There is a lot that can be done. I look forward, interestingly, to working with the Government, not squabbling with it, but it needs to be a Government and a council that puts Auckland first and is determined to do something to address those pressing problems. I want to say it again, and I want to say it very clearly: if Auckland cannot succeed, then, at 35 percent of the country’s population and productivity, New Zealand is not going to succeed. The Government cannot close its eyes to those problems; it needs to be prepared to work with the elected members of the Auckland Council after October to do something that will really make a difference for a better future for Auckland and a better future for New Zealand.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Talofa lava. It has kind of quietened down a little now really, has it not? I have got some oxygen to use up. It is a great pleasure to rise and talk on this, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill. I think we have got to remember the paramountcy of this bill is the protection of children from recidivist offenders. That is the primary reason this bill is here, and the idea is that by having such a register we can ensure young people will be as safe in our country as they possibly can be.

Over the course of the Social Services Committee process there were a wide variety of submissions. Some people, of course, were submitting suggesting that the register should be publicly available, others were concerned there was an impost on human rights for those who would be subject to these reporting conditions for the rest of their life, and others felt it was an ongoing punishment for people who had already served their time. The select committee weighed this up pretty carefully, and I think it was a good process. We were able to look at the pros and cons of all those things, and we were able to make a couple of changes, which I will touch on in just a moment.

I think the important thing to convey to those people who were adamant that it needs to be a public register, I think what we can say, is that by having this register, which is being held by the police and will be available to certain other agencies as required, we can still give the public some confidence that these people are known to the authorities, that they are at least being monitored to some degree, and that it does not need to be publicly available. I think we have got the balance about right in that.

Just coming to some of the changes that were made in the select committee process, there was a bit of concern that for some people this is, to some degree, a life sentence—that they would not ever be able to be rid of these reporting standards. So there are some changes that are being brought forward that are now a part of the bill and will allow for those who are on this register to be able to apply for suspension of those reporting conditions after a period of 15 years. I think that seems an appropriate balance. It gives them an ability to apply, and if they have been compliant and have been showing there is very, very low risk of them reoffending, then it enables those people to come off the requirements for reporting, and I think that is a good, balanced approach to it.

I think the other thing that has come through and, again, was running parallel to the process of Dr Jian Yang’s member’s bill, which we managed to sort of incorporate, in part, into this bill now, was that if somebody is on this register and wants to change their name, they will need to apply to the Commissioner of Police before they go off to the Department of Internal Affairs to change their name for any reason. Again, that provides a certain level of protection going forward. I am pleased to endorse the bill. I think it has come out of the select committee process in better condition than when it came in. I think it is going to be a bill that is going to be useful to the people of New Zealand. It is going to, I think, help promote a greater level of safety from recidivist offenders, and I commend the bill to the House. Fa’afetai.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I would agree with the previous speaker, Jono Naylor, on one point he made, which was that the bill has come out of the Social Services Committee in somewhat better shape than it went in. However, the Greens initially supported this legislation to the select committee with some reservations because, I guess, sex offending against children is universally abhorred. It is one of the most offensive forms of criminal activity possible. There has been talk of registers and their merits, or not, for some time. We went into that process with an open mind to investigate the evidence and to see whether, in fact, there is value in establishing something like a child sex offender register in New Zealand.

Our conclusion is that there is no value in that proposition. We will not be supporting this bill in future readings. We are basing that on the evidence we heard at select committee. It was a good committee. There were one or two changes made that have improved the bill from the initial draft. But, overall, we simply do not see that there will be a sufficient return on investment, if you like—and I mean that in a general, not only in an economic, sense—in establishing something like this. There is, overall, a distinct lack of evidence that these registers actually do anything to make our children safer. There are a lot of economic and other costs along the way.

The bill as it is drafted proposes an incredibly intrusive regime for people who may indeed have offended. We are concerned, obviously, about the section 7 Bill of Rights Act report. The concerns outlined in that section 7 report still stand. The bill does impose a disproportionate punishment. Yes, I acknowledge that there is now the possibility that after 15 years a person might apply to have their name removed from that register. That is a small step. But still, overall, the punishment, if you like, is disproportionate. I mentioned the intrusive nature—everything down to people’s log-ons and passwords for their internet accounts, their email accounts and the like, would be open to inspection by all and sundry. And I do mean that. It is a point I will come back to in a moment.

The Human Rights Commission was one of those that noted that the bill would be very costly. The regulatory impact statement document, in the figures given by the officials, indicates a cost of about $146 million over 10 years. On balance, it is very hard to see how simply creating a list of names is going to give better value for $146 million over that period than would investment in such things as education programmes—educating families and their children on how to keep our kids safe—and treatment programmes.

Despite some assertions to the contrary, sex offenders can be rehabilitated. They can and often do change their behaviours. So investing $146 million in, essentially, creating a list of names with potential for significant negative knock-on effects, we simply do not see as a smart way to spend scarce public sector dollars. The Council for Civil Liberties agrees with that point of view. It describes the bill as establishing a very harsh regime, with very little justification, while making no economic sense. The Law Society, similarly, expressed the view that the bill infringes on civil rights and freedoms, and it made a positive, alternative proposition that the very admirable intent of the bill, which is to improve the safety of our children from potential offending of this sort, could be achieved by allowing judges and, indeed, parole boards to impose a registration and reporting requirement in individual cases where the risk profile is seen as being so high that such a regime would be appropriate. I think that would be a much, much better proposition, a much more targeted proposition, and a more effective and appropriate proposition than this sort of shotgun, blanket approach that simply registers people for an offence and, in many cases, puts them on that list for life.

I mentioned that the select committee had made some changes that we saw as being positive, but not sufficient to make this legislation overall acceptable to us. The legislation names a number of agencies that would have access to the register. They include Police and the Department of Corrections, and that would seem entirely appropriate. Both of those organisations are accustomed to routinely dealing with confidential information—confidential databases, if you like. Then we get down to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). I am not sure how many people work for MSD, but I suspect it is a large number. In the likelihood—

Alfred Ngaro: 10,100.

DAVID CLENDON: Sorry?

Alfred Ngaro: 10,100.

DAVID CLENDON: 10,100—thank you, Mr Ngaro; a man on top of his numbers, clearly. That is a large number of people we would be relying on to keep a database confidential.

Similarly, Housing New Zealand—people in that organisation, I suspect, have no particular culture or experience in maintaining the very strict confidentiality of highly sensitive database information, or material, or whatever you call it. My point being, of course, that you would have many, many thousands of people, in fact, with access to this database. The likelihood of its leaking—it is almost a certainty that all or part of that database, of that register, would quite quickly enter the public domain.

The knock-on effect of that, we know, could be entirely negative. It could lead to what somebody last night referred to as vigilante action against people. We know from the evidence we saw at the select committee that, for want of a better word, “outing” people publicly, drawing attention to people who may be back in the community and trying to live proper and decent lives, making them the target of suspicion, fear, and often aggression, is more likely to lead to them reoffending than if they are simply left to get on with their lives with appropriate, positive support from within the community.

Again, we would be much better to restore and dramatically increase funding to projects like the Circles of Support and Accountability. We saw the Bond Trust recently, which has a good record of working with paedophiles post-release and ensuring that they are protected, in some cases from themselves, and that other people are protected from them. It is doing that in a very positive, low-key way. That funding of, dare I say, a trivial amount of $25,000 has been withdrawn despite the fact that in the UK, as we speak, the funding for similar entities has been dramatically ramped up because it has proven to lower the likelihood of people—sex offenders, specifically—reoffending. So you have got to pose the question: why are we spending many millions of dollars—$146 million—over 10 years on a project that is unlikely to result in improving the safety of our children when we are taking away small amounts of money from a project that has a track record of protecting those self-same children?

Something that sits behind this legislation, I believe—and we saw it spelt out very graphically in some submissions—is the proposition that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, cannot cease their behaviours. That is simply, patently untrue, and we have good evidence that, in fact, there are many examples where people have offended against children but then have gone on to regret their actions, to seek treatment, and to remove themselves from that risk profile. There is no evidence to suggest, no solid evidence to say, that a register will deliver the outcomes that it seeks to achieve. We know there are alternative mechanisms for reducing the risk that certain offenders represent.

I recently had a conversation with a fellow who works in this area as a support person for some serious and high-risk sex offenders. They know very well what does work and what can work. At every step, they are running up against bureaucratic and economic barriers to implementing the programmes that we know do work. Although this is certainly well-intentioned legislation—anything that protects our kids from predators, from sex offenders, has got to be seen as a good thing—we have absolutely no confidence that this legislation will deliver positive outcomes, and for that reason we will not be supporting it.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I think that about 90 percent of that speech by David Clendon, if not 99 percent of it, was talking about the offender. If we continue to address this piece of legislation and this problem of child sex offending starting with the offender at the centre and as the foundation of the conversation, we are going to get it wrong. We are going to get it wrong not only for the previous victims of child sex offending but also for the potential future victims of child sex offending. We will be supporting this bill because we do agree that, at a minimum, there needs to be a register. As we have heard, not only today but also yesterday, throughout the second reading speeches, it is a complex and wide-ranging topic in that it encompasses quite a few issues. It is not a simple, straightforward, one-dimensional issue, and that is why we see, across the House, the varying degrees of agreement or disagreement in opposition.

There are a number of issues that New Zealand First has with this legislation and the way that it is implemented—the way that it is written. We have got some concerns, and, obviously, we have got some opposing views as well. The main one for us is that New Zealand First believes that this register should be made publicly available. We have introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that will be discussed further through this process, but we believe that it is absolutely essential that, in order to put the protection and safety and rights of the children at the centre of this conversation, the register needs to be made public.

This is not a new, groundbreaking piece of legislation. We have registers around the world that work, and we have got evidence that shows that they work. Not only are there restricted registers but also there are actually countries that have publicly available registers. So we have 19 countries around the world that have fully functioning, working registers right now, and seven of those are either publicly available or have variations of being publicly available. A further 12 countries are considering using registers and are in the process of putting legislation through the House, just like we are, to create a register. This is not new. It is not groundbreaking legislation. Nowhere in those 19 countries that I have mentioned—they include Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States—is there any evidence that a register does not work. There is no evidence, anywhere in those countries, that states that it does not work.

We heard the advice of the Green member who spoke, who said that because there is no evidence that it does work, we should not do it—because there is no evidence that it does work, we should not do it. The only reason why you would choose to oppose it, based on that fact, is if you were leaning in favour of the offender. If you had any doubt whether a public register, a register itself, works—if you had any doubt—then putting the children first, you would ensure that you put that register in place. If you have any doubt and the member is wrong and you do not put that register in place—and that member was wrong, or that idea or concept was wrong—then who will suffer? It is the children. That is the stance that New Zealand First is taking. We need to ensure that we take that step, not only to make a register but also to make it fully public.

One of the issues that we have, like I said in my opening statement, is that this is not one-dimensional. It is not a simple concept. There are wide-ranging issues. But what some of the parties in this House are doing is they are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They are throwing out the entire concept of having a register, or the possibility of making it public, because there are some issues that surround it or that fall out of having a register, or of making it public. Anything that we have heard from some of the members who have spoken previously is only anecdotal; there is no actual evidence that it does not work. Those were the member’s own words—there was no evidence that it works. That was it.

We have heard arguments today that have been about the offender’s rehabilitation or the ability for an offender to rehabilitate, about reintegration, and about issues with vigilantes. We have even heard about the offender’s human rights. But we have heard very little about public safety and the protection of our children, which should be at the centre of this conversation. That is a fact—that is a fact. There is a need for a register. What needs to happen is that there needs to be—if the Green Party or other parties in this House want to concentrate on or invest in rehabilitation and reintegration, and all of those things that the Green member talked about, that is fine. But that does not mean that you throw out the entire concept of a register. That does not mean you throw out the entire concept of making that register public. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This conversation has turned into a perpetrator’s rights versus children’s rights. That is what has happened—the protection of the human rights of the perpetrator versus the right to protect children. We have heard about the issues that have come out. I have got some articles about things that have happened recently, very recently, that prove there is a need for a public register. We have had—and this is only in the last few months—a number of them: “Recidivist South Canterbury sex offender imprisoned.” He appeared on representative charges of indecently assaulting a female between 12 and 16, and this is a recidivist child sex offender. The judge said “You were convicted in 1991 of very similar offending. I assume it was a less frequent series of assaults.” and his major quote was “It is inescapable, it is part of your character.”—it is part of your character.

That is why we have got hundreds of convicted child sex offenders being released into society every year, and we do not know where they are. In fact, I have got the statistics here about just how many. I will be interested to see whether members in this House know just how many child sex offender convictions have occurred in the last 10 years. The number is 4,000. In the last 10 years there have been 4,000 convictions for child sex offending. That is 400 a year. That is more than one a day—more than one a day.

If we are talking about an issue with name suppression, there is a misapprehension out there in that people think that there is a huge number of child sex offenders who get name suppression. In fact, only 10 percent of child sex offenders get name suppression. The vast majority of child sex offenders do not get name suppression. If we are talking about the reoffending rates of these offenders, these criminals, we are talking in the vicinity of—because there have been quite ranging numbers and percentages of reoffending rates—around the 20 to 25 percent mark. That means that, over the last decade, of the 4,000 offences, there have been a thousand offenders who have been reoffending.

I have an article here that actually takes the views, the comments, and the point of view of the victims. The headline says “Sex offender register should name paedophiles …”, and the article says: “Sex abuse victims say a child sex offender register is needed and they want it to go one step further by making the names public.” These are the victims. These are the victims’ voices, which it seems no other party in this House is listening to. A victim says: “name suppression protects the perpetrator and not the victim. It hasn’t protected me as a person at all. I live a life sentence, they serve—if they do get convicted a few years and then they get out and then they can freely travel wherever they wish and continue to do it, they just get smarter. … The Law Society does not support a register and argues the bill before a select committee in parliament takes a blanket approach, treating all sex offenders the same. It says the proposed register should be re-designed so that it is aimed only at serious child sex offenders who are likely to re-offend. … Helena Watson said encouraging silence feeds their ability to reoffend.”

What an action of not creating a public register does is it is feeding those offenders with the ability to reoffend. At the basis and the heart of this is giving the ability to parents in the community to know where these sex offenders are, to know who they are, and to protect their children. That is why New Zealand First is putting through a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that this register becomes public. We are standing up for the victims, we are hearing the victims’ voices, and we need this register to be public. We will support this bill, and we look forward to discussing it in its further stages. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill. There are some comments that were made in regard to the whole aspect of the register and its importance. I want to just say that the purpose of the register is to provide the authorities with another tool. It does not just exist on its own; there is a list that people will look at and then make a judgment, and create some analysis.

Just to provide a little bit of background information, what has happened previously is there has been the role of information sharing between different agencies. That has played quite an important role, especially with Police and with the Department of Corrections. In fact, back in 2012 this role was significant because it was at that time that they were able, through that information sharing, to identify a convicted sex offender who was actually a teacher at a school. Without that information sharing, that would not have happened. That was critically important. It highlighted the need to have the analysis, to have good data and good information, that allowed them to be able to make a judgment call about what needed to happen in that case.

In 2013 a collaboration between Police and corrections meant they set up what they call the CISO—the Centre for Impact on Sexual Offending. That was set up, particularly, so that there could be both the analysis of the information and the ability to form what they would call a product of intelligence, that allowed them to give to the individual a profile around a particular offender. That was critically important. Out of that analysis, they were then able to have individual profiling, which allowed them to be able to then make an assessment about the risk factor of that offender. The purpose, then, for this bill and for this register is to fit into that context.

So, firstly, the Centre for Impact on Sexual Offending will become the administrator of the register. Secondly, it adds to the analysis because it gives regular up-to-date information. Currently, there is no legislation framework that allows them to be able to do that. In order to be able to minimise risk, you have to have what they call an appropriate risk management framework. So this fits into a framework. It is not purely a list that exists on its own; it has an administrator, it has two key stakeholders—the Police and corrections—working together. They have the analysis. What the register will do is give them up-to-date information that enables them to make an assessment at that point in time. Their role is to both monitor and manage the risk. That is the reason for the register; that is the reason why it is actually absolutely important for us to have this register inside that framework, to truly make a difference to reducing the risk of offending and, at the same time too—I would agree with the member David Clendon—to be able to then provide other forms of rehabilitation that may be appropriate to the offender. That is the reason that is there.

Mr Clendon also made comment around the $146 million. We all had the inquiry and the information that we wanted to be able to ask, as to how, when we think about the cost-benefit analysis, almost two-thirds of that $146 million is already consumed in current roles of responsibility already there. So we are not talking a huge amount of extra fund that is going to be used to administer this register that is being proposed at the moment. That is critically important. We also feel that that is important because, again, it enables them to be able to have this up-to-date information as well.

We had 135 substantive submissions, and 98 of those submissions talked about the need—and I take Mr Darroch Ball’s comment—for making the register public. There was concern because they felt that the public needed to have the information—in fact, many submitters talked about the right of the public to have that information—so that it could give them the ability to be able to assess their own risk and their own challenges that they had in their own communities. You would have to say there is some merit in that submission and in the advocacy for that.

There was some comment that there was no evidence. There is evidence, and it was presented to us. There is a 2011 study by Prescott and Rockoff from Columbia University in the United States, which was substantive enough to identify two things. The first thing that it identified is this: there is little or no evidence to demonstrate that making the register accessible to the public improves public safety overall. So here is the evidence. The fact is, they were saying that there is no evidence to say that by making it public it was going to be able to reduce the offending that was in there. But here is the thing that I think is actually really important too: inside of that, it said that we find that the evidence that the registration reduces the frequency of offences by providing law enforcement with information on sex offenders. There is evidence; it does prove the importance of the register—No. 1, to be able to have approved accredited providers that will ensure that those key stakeholders have that information.

We did ask the question to ensure that that information would not be able to be breached or leaked out into the public, to ensure, in a sense, the confidentiality. However, the balance is this: do we have the right information to create the right analyses so that the monitoring and the managing of high-risk offenders could be put in place? We think that is important as well.

The last thing I want to say is that this Government has also passed other forms of legislation, such as the public scrutiny information that is there, that is provided—it is the public protection orders and the enhanced extended supervision orders that are also in place. When there are high-risk offenders, this form of legislation will ensure that the enhanced extended supervision orders are actually still behind the wire. It means there is accommodation that is there. That is another tool, along with the register, to ensure that we both monitor and manage high-risk offenders that are a risk and could be a risk to our communities. At the end of the day, it is about keeping our children and our communities safe. I commend this bill, in its second reading, to the House.

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

JAN LOGIE (Green): Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is opposing the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill. I just want to put on record at the beginning of this speech my discomfort of hearing our opposition characterised as not centring on the needs of the victims and not being concerned with the needs of victims. Green Party members are passionate advocates for survivors of sexual violence. I am on record many times talking in this House of the number of people whom I know personally who were offended against as children; of the many more women and children I have worked with as a volunteer in specialist sexual violence services and Women’s Refuge; and of how passionate I am about sorting out the system, to ensure that they get the support that they need, that we have a functioning justice system, and that we have the appropriate treatment for those who offend, so that they will not offend again. To suggest that we do not care about this issue and the survivors of sexual violence is blatantly untrue.

We oppose this legislation for many reasons, but the heart of our opposition is actually based on a real commitment to reducing the prevalence of sexual violence in this country and to making sure that survivors and perpetrators both get the right help so that we can reduce violence. START, a very well-respected Christchurch-based NGO—it has spent years supporting children in particular, as well as adult survivors of sexual violence—did not support this bill, based on the experience of its work. It brought forward to the Social Services Committee a US-based study that found “no support for the effectiveness of registration and community notification laws in reducing sexual offending by: (a) rapists, (b) child molesters, (c) sexual recidivists, or (d) first-time sex offenders.” The regulatory impact statement also notes that there is limited research evidence from other jurisdictions about the effectiveness of sex offender registers. I heard the member from New Zealand First saying that there being no evidence to show this works does not mean that it does not work. Well, actually, that US-based research does question whether it works.

We also have to recognise the potential for harm from this register: the possibility—when we acknowledge that we have a 1 percent conviction rate in this country—that people will see this register, particularly if it is public, and they will think: “OK, they are the dangerous people over there. Anyone else, we don’t need to be so worried about. We don’t need to make the efforts around having vigilance and ensuring that people know how to report, because they are the dangerous people.” In actual fact, they are a tiny percentage of the dangerous people in our society, because our justice system does not work.

The $146 million—which I might say is about three times what the entire sexual violence sector got out of the select committee inquiry, which they had to fight and advocate for decades to get, based on strong, strong evidence—is being given to an unproven method, and $86 million of that will come from Police baseline funding, when police are patently unable to do their job of getting cases to court at the moment, because of resource pressure as well as a failing legal system. To take money from them and their resources to put into a register when we have no evidence that it is going to work is, to me, creating more potential harm than not.

So the Green Party is absolutely opposing it on the basis of the needs of victims. We need to put money into prevention services right across the country, and we need to put money into ensuring that our justice system works. That is where our money should be going in the first instance, alongside support for survivors. We were given evidence by the Law Society that said that we could do this with some law changes through parole and sentencing to ensure that when there was evidence of risk, we could put measures in place. We have to recognise there is the potential that if this goes through and the Law Society does not support it, that it may be a deterrent against sentencing people, which we have seen with increased penalty rates. So there is significant harm at play here.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Let us first put on the table that, in my view, sex offending against children is the ultimate betrayal of trust. It is that fundamental breaking of a social contract that exists between people who live in the community and the community itself. I actually do not think, to be honest, there is such a thing as a disproportionate punishment for child sex offenders, but what I do want to see is money spent in a way that keeps our community safe.

So what is this bill about? What it means is that all child sex offenders will have to be on this register if they are 18 years old or over and are sentenced to imprisonment. They will have to update the register annually. They will have to update the register within 72 hours of a change of details, or within 48 hours prior to travel. What happens is, depending on the sentence, they will stay on the register for either 8 years, 15 years, or life. The ministries that will have access to this register are the police, the Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand, and the Department of Corrections. The reason they have access to the register is so they can manage the risk to public safety posed by known sex offenders who are living within the community. I do not think there is anyone in this House who would disagree with the intent of that in any way, shape, or form, because it does have to be managed in the interests of public safety.

According to the bill, police and corrections staff will have to inform third parties where they consider it necessary to protect the safety of the community. So the police and corrections staff do have the mandate to go out to the community and say: “Be aware, there is a known sex offender living at this address or living within this community.” The real concern I have about this is the fact that the police and corrections just do not have the resources to do this. What I would like to see before I support this in any way, shape, or form is assurance from the police that they are going to really police this legislation and manage this in a way that is going to achieve the objectives. As Darroch Ball mentioned, if they do not do this and we have recidivist sex offenders living in our community with a high risk of reoffending, then this bill will mean absolutely nothing. So there does have to be an absolute assurance from police and corrections staff that they are going to manage this in a way.

I do have a concern that the register will be leaked. I think that is a very real concern because, if we put ourselves in the situation of someone from the Police, Department of Corrections, Housing New Zealand, or the Ministry of Social Development and we saw on the register that a known sex offender was living beside a friend of ours or beside a school, it would be incredibly difficult. There would be a real moral dilemma, I believe, on whether to speak out or not—on whether to inform a school, or a friend with children, that a known sex offender was living beside them. I think the moral dilemma around how to keep such a register confidential is very real, and we must understand that.

The one thing that must lead policy and legislation in this House is evidence, and Alfred Ngaro talked about this. If you look at my Facebook site, you will see that I am no apologist for child offenders in any way, shape, or form, but what we need to do is develop legislation that is based on good evidence. What I have read is that the evidence suggests that making public such a register actually does not do any good to the community whatsoever. It does not stop child offending in any way, shape, or form, nor does it protect the community in a way that we all want it to. If the evidence pointed the other way—if I had evidence that said making public a register would protect our community—then I would be all for it. But the evidence I have seen says that making public a register does not, in fact, protect the community.

Just to sum up, I have absolutely no doubt that every member in this House has the safety of our community at heart. We have the victims as the No. 1 group that we want to protect, and we have our communities’ safety at heart; there is no doubt about that whatsoever. But what we must do is ensure that if this bill passes, there are the resources in place in the corrections system and Police to give effect to it and to make sure that our communities are safe. Thank you very much.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill’s second reading. I am taking this call to support this bill.

It is important to reduce any possible risk to children, including the risk of them being sexually attacked, and the responsibility for this cannot be left to parents and guardians alone. It is not written on the foreheads of offenders that they are child sex offenders, so we need a system to record that: a system that is kept up to date and that serves the purpose of informing people—those who can be affected, like parents, teachers, or other community groups looking after children.

This bill is to establish New Zealand’s first child sex offender register. There are conditions around who goes on this register: they should be over the age of 18, should be convicted of a qualifying crime, and should be sentenced to imprisonment or a non-custodial sentence with a judge’s direction to go on the register.

It is important that we have this register so that there is a process for authorised police and corrections system people to work on this register to keep a record of people, because at the moment, what happens after child sex offenders finish their sentence is that they go back into the community. But we want to track them; we want to see whether there are any changes in their circumstances that can increase their risk of reoffending.

As a member of the Social Services Committee, I want to thank all submitters. There was a huge number of submissions, with 140 written submissions received by the Social Services Committee. That shows that there was huge interest in this legislation. All submitters expressed concern about this offending, and I want to thank the submitters because it helped us understand their points of view. All submitters agreed that child sex offenders pose a serious risk to the community that they choose to live in. There was a wide range of views that came through submissions. Some submitters thought that the child sex offender register should be publicly available, while others thought that it could be misused. So there were extreme views on this. But, overall, a majority of them agreed that it should not be publicly available.

The issue of name suppression, when child sex offenders go through the process, also came up. All acknowledge that child sex offending is a serious problem in New Zealand—it is a significant problem in New Zealand—and that monitoring of child sex offenders in a community is limited by the current legislation. In 2014 alone, 451 offenders were convicted of a child sex offence and 307 were sentenced to imprisonment. Once these offenders have completed their sentences, they are free in the community—there is no system in place for them to keep in contact with the justice sector. That is what we want to fix through this legislation.

Looking at the numbers, this register is going to be a substantial register; it is estimated that 472 offenders will be registered in the first year, rising to 1,541 in the fourth year, when an evaluation will be completed. So, along with being a substantial register, in terms of numbers of child sex offenders who will go on this register, this is an expensive piece of legislation because of the system that is required to set it up, and then there is the ongoing maintenance of this register that will be required—but we do not want to compromise the safety of New Zealand families, especially children. We all agreed that this will not completely eliminate reoffending, but this will definitely enhance child safety. So I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I am standing up on the behalf of Labour to say that, at this stage, we support the bill, but we do have major reservations. Those reservations are based on the evidence that we have had put before us.

I do want to address something that was said by another member of the House, and that is that anyone who might oppose this bill is not putting children at the centre of the debate. I think that is incredibly unfair. I think no one in this House can say that there is any party, or any individual, that does not care about the welfare of children—in this case, in relation to sexual offences against children. There is no one in this House who does not care about that. Our job here is to be rational in our thinking, to use evidence to guide our decision making, because it is so easy to be guided by emotion. This is an emotional issue. This is an emotional issue for us in this House. This was an emotional issue for the people who came to make submissions. It is an emotional issue for most of the country, actually. Keeping that in mind, we just need to remind ourselves that our job is to make rational decisions on behalf of the country, and to use an evidence base to make those decisions.

Of course we support the intent of the bill, and that is to reduce sexual reoffending against child victims and the risk posed by serious child sex offenders by providing government agencies with the information needed to monitor child sex offenders in the community, and by providing up-to-date information that assists the police to more rapidly resolve cases of child sex offending. I do not think anyone would dispute that. The dispute would come in respect of whether or not we need a child sex offender register to be able to have that kind of data information-sharing between government agencies. During this process, so many people have felt misled, or have been misled in some ways, by the fact that the title of this bill says “Child Sex Offender Register”, because the assumption is that this will be a public register, and, of course, we know that that is not the intention. That is why New Zealand First, which does think it should be a public register, has put up, or will be putting up, a Supplementary Order Paper to say that it should be a public register. That is why we, on our side of the House, though, are putting up a Supplementary Order Paper to say that it should not be a public register and that there should be no doubt that it is not a public register.

One of the concerns that was raised by many of the submitters, and a concern that we now have based on the evidence that we have had put before us, is that a child sex offender register can give a false sense of security. Giving it some context, I think we really need to look at the wider issue that we have at hand, and that is sexual offending against children. If we look at the most recent statistics for New Zealand, we see that one in three girls in New Zealand will be sexually abused and one in seven boys in New Zealand will be sexually abused. The sad case is that only 10 out of 100 sexual abuse crimes are actually reported, only three out of 100 sex crimes will actually make it to court, and only one—only one—out of 100 sexual abuse crimes in this country will actually lead to conviction. So when we are talking about a sex offender register, we are talking only about the sexual offenders who have actually been convicted who can go on that register. It is only one out of 100 of the sex crimes that happen in this country that will lead to conviction, so we are talking about a very small part of a huge issue that we have as a country.

A recent statistic that I saw, as well, was that more than 23 percent of women who participated in a recent Auckland study reported having been sexually abused as children, and most of those women reported that it was a family member who committed the sexual offence. The register makes us all feel very comfortable in this place, it makes us all feel very comfortable in the public and as a country, but, actually, the reality is that the people whom our children are most likely to be sexually abused by are family members or close friends of family. It is not the stranger whom we are talking about here; it is certainly not the person who has been convicted of a sexual offence, because so few are actually convicted of a sexual offence. So to give people this false sense of security is concerning. We are not resolving the issues. We would not even be making a dent in the problem for those children who are at risk of being sexually offended against by introducing a child sex offender register.

It was raised by several submitters that this register is going to cost a lot of money to actually administer. We are talking about $146 million over 10 years—that is $14 million a year. The agencies that actually deal with children, with women, and with men who have been sexually offended against—those agencies have come to us and said: “There are better ways to spend that money. There are more effective ways to address this issue.” There are more effective ways to spend that money, and that is a very valid point. This is a big chunk of money going towards a tool that evidence tells us will not be effective in stopping sexual abuse against children.

We did have over 100 submissions on this bill, and the ones that I was actually reading up on before I came to the House today were the ones that are from the people who actually work in this sector. They are the people who work with children and with adults who have been sexually abused or who have had a sexual offence committed against them, and, overwhelmingly, those organisations that actually undertake this work—individuals who have committed their lives to working with people who have been sexually offended against—are actually against a child sex offender register for many reasons, including some of the ones that I have just stated: the cost and the fact that that money could be channelled into more effective measures to stop sexual offending against children, and also the false sense of security that they are concerned it will give people.

There were some submissions by these organisations that raised the fact that this register could serve to further isolate the offender and could actually result in the offender being more likely to go on to reoffend. We have to take those concerns seriously, particularly when they have been raised by reputable organisations and reputable individuals in those organisations who have committed their lives to this work. I want to quote a couple of them, just so we get an understanding of the thinking that has gone on within these organisations.

We have got one here from the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse. To quote from the submission: “The vision of the Clearinghouse is that families, whānau and relationships are healthy, respectful and free from violence. Our purpose is to provide access to high quality research and information on family and whānau violence. We are committed to working towards the elimination of all forms of family and sexual violence, including child sexual abuse. However we do not support the establishment of a child sex offender register. This is because there is little to no evidence that registers reduce rates of child sex offending. We believe the high level of resourcing a register would require would be far more effectively spent on initiatives which have evidence of effectiveness. Further information, including references to relevant research and our recommendations are [included in this submission].” That is just one of many of the reputable organisations that submitted on this bill and have actually said to us that we need to rethink it.

We in the Labour Party are in the position where we will support this bill at this stage through to the next stage. We will have amendments that we want to put up in the Committee stage, and we really have to think through whether or not we will support this bill at third reading. We need to know that this is actually going to make a difference in people’s lives and that it is actually going to assist us in reducing sexual offences against children before we can support this particular bill. Thank you very much.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) 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

Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill

Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I move, That the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill be now read a second time. This legislation supports Christchurch’s regeneration by clarifying the law for locating legal property boundaries in Greater Christchurch. The enactment of this bill will mark another step forward towards achieving this Government’s commitment to Christchurch’s recovery.

First, I would like to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and its chair Scott Simpson for their work and thorough consideration of this bill. I also want to thank those people and organisations who made submissions on the bill. The committee received 11 written submissions and heard from five submitters. All except one of these submitters expressed their support for the intent of the bill. I do want to specifically start by acknowledging the work of the professional surveyors who have contributed to the development of this bill through various consultation processes from the very moment that this issue was identified.

My ministerial colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith noted, when he introduced the bill into the House on my behalf, that surveyors and other interested parties have been uncertain about the correct legal location of some property boundaries. This is because of the extraordinary scale of the land movement that occurred in Canterbury following the earthquakes.

The common law in this area has been quite difficult to interpret, and has had different interpretations because it is not directly on point with the types of land movements that were triggered by those earthquakes. There are generally accepted survey principles to date, and they have been that the legal boundaries do not move with the land. What this has meant is that it has been difficult for surveyors to identify and interpret the physical evidence of boundaries—all of which have moved with the land movement—in light of this principle. Unfortunately, this uncertainty has led to delays and surveys taking longer to complete, and with there being an obvious reluctance by members of the surveying profession to undertake surveys in the worst-affected areas where the movements have been the greatest. It has also resulted in more costs for property owners and delays in their building work.

The bill provides certainty to surveying and land titles and supports the regeneration of Christchurch. This bill also helps maintain public confidence in the cadastre, which is our official record of survey and related information that defines the location of property boundaries. This bill achieves its aims in three ways.

The first is that it provides for the legal boundaries of lands in greater Christchurch to be “deemed to have moved or to move with the movement of land caused by the Canterbury earthquakes”. As a result of this, after the commencement of this bill surveyors in greater Christchurch can apply the new “boundaries moved” principle with confidence and certainty.

Applying this “boundaries moved” principle can create conflicts with some surveys undertaken on the basis of the opposite principle, which is that the boundaries did not move. Since the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has approved surveys by licensed cadastral surveyors on either basis—that is, either the basis that the boundaries did move or the basis that they did not move—provided the surveys otherwise complied with the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. The bill recognises the validity of all cadastral surveys and boundary determinations in greater Christchurch that have been approved by LINZ in the interim period between 4 September 2010—which is the day the first earthquake struck Canterbury—and the commencement of this bill, regardless of whether they were done on the basis of the first principle or whether the boundaries have moved, as long as those surveys were done in good faith and without negligence. This avoids unfairly penalising surveyors, property owners, and others who did act in good faith and who relied on the surveys that had been undertaken.

There might be a small number of boundary conflicts that arise from validating surveys in the interim period that were done on the basis of the boundaries not moving. However, we are confident that the existing conflict resolution mechanisms, like those under the Land Transfer Act 1952, will resolve these conflicts. In addition, Land Information New Zealand will work with surveyors and property owners to manage any conflicts on the ground.

Finally, the bill also provides for the Surveyor-General to issue guidelines for surveyors about the rules and standards made under the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. This guidance will assist with boundary determinations in Greater Christchurch and Canterbury after the earthquakes, as well as with achieving greater consistency of interpretations of, and, of course, improved compliance with, the Cadastral Survey Act more generally in the future.

Submissions, as I said before, generally agreed with the direction of these proposals. Submitters also made some proposed changes to the bill, which were to make the bill more effective and to ensure that the intent of Parliament was delivered through this legislation. I am pleased to see that, where appropriate, the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that the changes be made to the bill to reflect the submissions received.

I thought I would just go through some of the changes that were recommended by the committee in the select committee process. One of the key changes was the recommendation of the committee to amend the definition of “Canterbury earthquakes” to include any earthquakes and aftershocks that occur from 14 February this year to 14 February 2022. The previous definition recognised earthquakes only between 4 September 2010 and 31 December 2012, and any aftershocks in that period in between. The committee has recognised the Valentine’s Day earthquake, and taken a pragmatic approach to amend the definition of “Canterbury earthquakes” to include that wider period of time.

Hon Ruth Dyson: But we don’t have to have them for the next 6 years.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This amendment futureproofs the legislation. No—we absolutely do not want there to be any more earthquakes in that intervening period—I do want to recognise that, touch wood! More important, the amendment futureproofs the legislation and provides greater clarity for surveyors in Christchurch by recognising that the Valentine’s Day earthquake resulted in ground movement of a similar nature to the earlier earthquakes and providing for the possibility of others—touch wood that they do not happen—in the future period.

Another key change that was recommended by the committee is to the bill’s “no liability” provision for interim surveys that were done on the basis that the boundaries did move or did not move. This change makes it clearer that the bill does not exclude any liability for surveys that were negligent, done in bad faith, or where there was misconduct or non-compliance with statutory obligations or professional standards. That is completely unrelated to the boundary movement issue.

The committee has recommended clarifying the bill’s wording around title conflict resolution under the Land Transfer Act 1952. The changes specify how that Act will operate to address a title conflict arising from an overlap between the approved interim survey and the survey that happens after the commencement of this legislation, for the purposes of correcting titles and for compensation under section 172 of the Act.

The committee has also recommended a change to the bill’s amendment of the Cadastral Survey Act 2002 to give the Surveyor-General the power to issue guidelines. Currently the Surveyor-General makes mandatory rules and standards under that Act and issues voluntary guidelines to support the rules and standards. The bill’s provision was intended to confirm the Surveyor-General’s ability to do so. The committee’s recommended changes make clear that the guidelines will remain voluntary.

The amendments that were proposed by the select committee have clarified the intent and scope of the bill. I am confident that this legislation will provide much-needed certainty for property owners affected by land movements as a consequence of the Canterbury earthquakes. The overall impact of this bill is that property boundaries will continue to be located where the property owners expect them to be. This bill will reduce potential future boundary conflicts and disputes that would have otherwise occurred in its absence.

The Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill that we are debating today will help in Christchurch’s regeneration, and I proudly commend the bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am really pleased, as the Minister indicated, to speak in the second reading of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. It might sound a bit dry to some people, and that is not a reflection of the quality of the speech that the Minister gave; I just meant the topic generally. It is actually really important for Canterbury so I just want to acknowledge to anyone who is listening that if you think this is not important, actually, it is.

In Canterbury we had about 11,000 properties that moved at least 20 centimetres. That means that some people’s boundaries are not where they used to be—quite a lot of people’s boundaries are not where they used to be—and that has caused some problems, and so I totally agree with the Minister that this is an issue that needed fixing. In June 2016 we are fixing it—excellent. It could have been a little earlier, but at least it is done now.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, who has just resumed her seat, not just for the contribution she has made in the debate but for the fact that she, not just once but twice, invited Canterbury members of Parliament from across the political spectrum to her office for a briefing that enabled us to get well on top of the issues, ask questions, and get answers before the bill was introduced. That is really appreciated. It is, as I said, a little bit dry, but it is actually very important to people who are affected by it, and for us to be able to get direct access to officials, ask questions and have them answered, made us more able to respond to questions from our constituents. That is what is important in the end: getting accurate information from this place, particularly about significant changes to the people who are going to be affected by it. So I really want to acknowledge both those briefings that the Minister provided us with, and say that I would recommend to her that she spread the word amongst her colleagues, because it would be a really good thing if we could do things, particularly those that do not have a political divide, on a little more collaborative basis.

The Minister indicated the number of submissions that were heard. I think that she did not indicate enough, though, how important some of those submissions were—I guess they were all important, but in terms of the organisations that were represented. One was from the Christchurch City Council—obviously a critical player—along with the Waimakariri District Council and the Selwyn District Council. In this space there have been the other elected representatives for the individuals who are affected by this mass land movement. Also, there was the Cadastral Surveyors Licensing Board, which did a written submission; it did not do an oral submission—

Hon Simon Bridges: Spell it.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Sorry, Mr Bridges?

Hon Simon Bridges: Spell it.

Hon RUTH DYSON: “I-T”, Mr Bridges. So there you are—the response of the week. I will get in the Labour notes for that one. That organisation represents the people who are responsible for drawing up the boundaries. It had a lot of really important issues to raise, particularly in terms of whether previous boundary surveys post-quake and pre-legislation would be deemed illegal, and the liabilities of such; also provisions about other activities that were negligent, basically, and to make sure that negligence was not captured by the removal of liability in this legislation. Those matters seem to me to have been captured in the main by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I commend it on that.

In the Committee stage I will be raising one issue that has not been captured by the select committee as a query, because it was raised in the submissions as a major issue by the Christchurch City Council. I cannot find anything in the commentary or the amendments from the committee that refers to it, and that is the application of boundary provisions and watercourses that was raised by the Christchurch City Council as a major issue. It does not seem to me to have been responded to. I will just give the Minister a bit of a heads-up that when she is sitting in the chair during the Committee stage I will be putting that question to her. She might want to read the Christchurch City Council submission again—because that is where the issue was alerted to me from—and just figure out why that was not responded to. It would be really helpful to get an explanation of that.

The select committee has recommended a change in the time frame so that the definition of “Canterbury earthquakes” is extended to 14 February 2022. Some people will know that we had another significant quake on 14 February this year. It is not the way that most people want to be moved on Valentine’s Day—there are better ways of achieving that—but it obviously set a new time frame in terms of significant quakes. The fact that the time is now set out to 2022 is not an indication that we wish to have any more quakes till then; it just means that there will be security for surveyors, homeowners, and planners right up until that time. Obviously, if there are any more quakes between then and now it will give Parliament time to produce more legislation to push it out even further or to amend this legislation. I hope we do not need to, but I think the change that has been made was very good because it does give that certainty. I think a 6-year time period is sufficient in advance in terms of planning. Whether it is subdivisions or alterations to a home, or it is building a new property, it will allow all the key players the security to know that whatever they mark out as the boundaries will be the correct boundaries. The title conflict has been resolved, and that was another good change that the committee made that I want to acknowledge.

A lot of people said that there should be a dispute resolution framework. That is another point that I was a little surprised that the Minister did not talk about much, because we know that there are some properties that will be negatively impacted by this legislation. Quite how they resolve their disputes or how they get any compensation as a result of that does not seem to have been adequately addressed, and I thought the Minister’s contribution may well have clarified that. The dispute resolution framework was raised by a number of submitters, but for some reason the committee decided not to go ahead with that.

The liability for early surveys and boundary determinations was clarified. In what might be an interesting setting of precedent, the committee decided that the guidelines issued by the Surveyor-General would have no legal status, and I am not sure whether that has a flow-on effect to other guidelines that might be issued by the Surveyor-General or by another Government department or agency. For example, if the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment issued guidelines, would this set a precedent for them not having any legal status? I am not sure about that. A helpful definition of “landslip” was given by the committee, and that pretty well sums up the changes that were made to bring us to the second reading that we are now going through.

Although I commended the Minister for Land Information not just for her contribution but also for her process, I want to say I was frustrated at the first meeting—and expressed that frustration, and it was not resolved by the second meeting—in terms of the community organisations that were asked or informed or had this issue discussed with them. I think there were a lot of residents associations that would have appreciated the sort of briefing we received so that they could have made a considered contribution to the bill. Not many people would read the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill on the Parliament website—two unlikely occurrences—and think that it might affect them and they should make a submission, but residents associations are ideally placed to make that connection and involve the people who are affected by it. That was not done.

The Minister took the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s advice and consulted with the community forum. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is gone now—it has been disestablished—and the community forum has gone as well, but I want to say that that was not the appropriate body. We should remember, when we are trying to get information out to the public, that we do not need to create bodies; they are already in existence in our communities. They are well informed, nimble, and, I think, the entirely appropriate people to have responded. So we missed out on good community engagement. That may be the reason we did not get as many submissions as we may have, but that is a lesson to be learnt for the future.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. From the outside looking in, reading its report and looking at the submissions and the way it responded to them, it seems to me as though it gave the issues in this legislation a great deal of thought and consideration. I think it has done a commendable job.

I want to just conclude by saying that the submitters have really helped in this process. It is obvious from the amendments that were made that the submissions contributed to a better-quality outcome of the legislation. That is, I guess, the process that Parliament should aim for. We should say: “Well, obviously, the bill that we get at the start is the best that we thought we could do, the best the Minister thought he or she could do, but the select committee and the submitters can really improve it.” So, as a result of that, we have got a better bill to discuss in the next stages. People of Christchurch will welcome this, giving them some certainty after a period of a lot of uncertainty. Thank you.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. I say that because many of my colleagues do not think I am a Canterbury MP but, in fact, the Kaikōura electorate is, actually, a little bigger than the State of Israel. It extends from the Marlborough Sounds right down to the Ashley River, which is just north of Christchurch. Many of my constituents were affected by the earthquakes directly, and some have properties in Christchurch that have been affected by them. I also have quite a few constituents who have moved north out of Canterbury into my electorate, and I run into those people quite often and, in fact, have advocated on their behalf in many earthquake-related matters since the earthquake.

I think this bill really touches on one of the main tenets of our society and that is property, and property that we all hold very dear. One thing we expect with our property is that it is all set in our boundaries and the boundaries define our property. Generally, it is accepted that property boundaries are fixed and do not move. In fact, surveyors generally accept the principle that boundaries do not move at all, except for gradual, unnoticeable water boundary movement, which, I guess, stands for erosion. In fact, as has been pointed out, over 11,000 properties, it is estimated, had their boundaries move by at least 20 centimetres, which is significant by anybody’s measure. The difficulty is that the surveyors and residents generally expect that boundaries are fixed, so something had to be dealt with in the law. I was quite surprised that only 11 submissions were received on the bill, as has been alluded to before, but I accept that some of those represented bodies were quite significant, in being the council and other bodies.

I think it is quite significant too that some of the recommendations that came out from the Local Government and Environment Committee were quite significant in taking note of the aftershocks and earthquakes that have occurred since—particularly the one that has been mentioned, on Valentine’s Day of this year—and extending out this bill to take account of that right through to February 2022. If you look back in history after significant earthquakes in New Zealand—and we have had quite a number—the aftershocks and earthquakes do go on for a long period of time, particularly after an earthquake of the magnitude and the ground accelerations that occurred in Christchurch. So that is quite a prudent matter for the select committee to touch on, and I think that will be a very welcome addition to the law.

A number of submitters thought that a dispute resolution mechanism should be put in the bill itself, but there are, however, existing processes under the Property Law Act 2007 and also the Land Transfer Act. The select committee felt they provided quite adequate mechanisms for dispute resolution, and, of course, the various parties can always get through a dispute like that on their own. The select committee came to the view that it would add complexity that was unnecessary and so, therefore, it decided not to follow those submitters’ recommendations.

It also recommended amending clause 10 to specify that it provided specified criteria to be met and that there be no liability for surveyors and boundary determinations done in the interim period between 4 September 2010, the first earthquake, and the commencement of this legislation, which is on its assent. I think that is a very good move. It takes away any liability from those people and the decisions they have made in good faith, but that will be with no liability for any negligence, bad faith, or misconduct, or non-compliance with statutory obligations and professional standards.

So I think this is a really good bill. It is necessary. It is a shame we have to do these things, but given the uncertainty thrown up by the earthquakes, this is very necessary. It is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a brief call in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. I am doing so as Labour’s land information spokesperson. It is a role that I am relatively new to, and, therefore, I was not in attendance during the select committee hearings on the bill. However, we are in possession of a very useful committee report, so I acknowledge the chair and all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who have contributed to that.

Like the member who has just resumed his seat, Stuart Smith, I have a connection with Canterbury. In my case I grew up in South Canterbury, in the beautiful little town of Pleasant Point. For a teenager growing up in the Point, Timaru was the, sort of, big smoke and Christchurch was the really big smoke. That road has been travelled many times. I have a particular affection for Christchurch, and still do.

Like all New Zealanders, I was gutted to see the horrific earthquakes of 5 years or so ago and, like the people of Christchurch, I have been watching and waiting and doing what I can to support the rebuild of our second-largest city and something that is a jewel in New Zealand’s array of urban living. Canterbury people whom I speak to say they just want to move on. It has been so long. They want the remaining hurdles to being able to get on and settle down and live a normal life to be behind them. They cannot understand why it has taken as long as it has to rebuild the central business district, to get the infrastructure in place, and to get final agreement on things like the conference centre. They have witnessed the argy-bargy between local and central government.

But this is not a time for party politics; this is a time for focusing on this particular aspect of being able to move forward. So to drop down to the content of the bill, the issue is, of course, as others have noted, that some 11,000 properties have had their boundaries moved because the land has moved by 20 centimetres or more. That is significant. If the boundary peg was in one place on a GPS, then it will be in a different place after that movement. This bill, therefore, sorts out an argument about whether the true boundary is where it was on a GPS basis or on a peg or marker basis. It basically says that the legal boundary of the property will move with the peg or the marker as a result of the earth movement in the earthquake. That is a sensible, practical way to deal with this.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all rule in a disaster of this magnitude. You can contemplate, for example, properties in the Sumner area, some of which ended up over a cliff because the ground fell away. So there is a case where this bill deals with things like landslips and provides now, I am pleased to say, a dispute resolution mechanism, whereby if there is an unintended consequence people can get around a table and sort it out so that we actually get a reasonable result for the people of Canterbury.

This is, I think, an example of Parliament working cooperatively. There are no partisan politics in this bill. Members have worked assiduously around the select committee table and they have addressed themselves to a number of technical issues, which we will deal with in more detail at the Committee stage. But to just briefly note, the definition of the Canterbury earthquakes has been broadened to include significant aftershocks. That is important because boundary movements continue to occur. There are mechanisms to address title conflicts and dispute resolution, and ways in which liability for earlier surveys and boundary definition can be sorted out, including cases of negligence and bad faith. It clarifies that guidelines issued by the Surveyor-General will have no legal status, and deals with landslip situations.

I would like to acknowledge Scott Simpson, the chair, and other members of the select committee on the Labour side—my colleagues Megan Woods, David Parker, and the team. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to this bill. We look forward to further discussion at the Committee stage and send the message to the people of Canterbury that we stand with them. We hope that this bill will enable them to get on with their lives, as one remaining uncertainty is removed.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure, too, to stand in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill in its second reading. Having been in this 51st Parliament for only a few months, I have not been involved in this bill’s select committee process, but I can see that it has been a very cordial agreement across the parties to reach this point in this legislative change.

This bill aims to provide certainty regarding where the legal boundaries are. As we have heard, the land shift in Canterbury during the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes has been significant. It has caused some problems in identifying those legal boundaries. This bill aims to give the surveyors and the property owners certainty about the correct location of those legal boundaries. We all know how severe the impacts of those events in Canterbury were for everyone, and 5½ years after that first big shake we find ourselves at this point of regeneration. This bill aims very much to support that process.

The problem, or the generally held principle, this bill sets out to address is that legal boundaries do not move. But given the extent of that movement in Canterbury, we find ourselves in this position where we are looking at this legislation. It has created some difficulties, given the extraordinary scale of that land movement. For instance, some neighbours could find themselves now legally harvesting fruit and vegetables or picking the flowers out of their neighbours’ gardens, simply because they now encroach on to their boundaries. We could find people arguing about parking cars in someone else’s garage because it legally is across their boundary. Potentially, there are problems with set-back rules with the Christchurch City district plan. Encroaching on those set-back rules is through no fault of the property owners, and it would be a nonsense for any correction to be forced upon those property owners.

This bill, as I said, recognises that those boundaries have moved through the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes, and it also takes account of aftershocks. The bill applies a very common-sense approach to correcting the legal boundaries. It is going to put them where property owners would expect them to be. It is not going to be a definitive result; it is going to be a cordial result, and people will reach common-sense outcomes. This bill is going to recognise that there have already been surveys, and it is going to give validation to those surveys that have already been undertaken—that provision is also made in this bill.

It is essential that the people of Canterbury whose property boundaries have been affected by the earthquakes and the aftershocks have certainty over their property rights. I believe this bill achieves that. It is another step in the regeneration of that region, and it also complements the $17 billion that this Government has committed to the initial response in Canterbury. It is one of the most ambitious programmes in New Zealand’s history. It is for that reason that I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The first time I came into contact with any surveying was in Hokitika, in the then Department of Lands and Survey office there. There was a dusty storeroom, and it had the notebooks of Charlie Douglas, or “Mr Explorer Douglas”, who in the late 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s was roaming and mapping South Westland. He was employed by the survey department, I think, through the 1880s and early 1890s. His notebooks of those surveys included some absolutely beautiful watercolours; he was not only mapping but describing the areas as well. That was my first exposure to surveying.

The matters in this bill are slightly more technical. I learnt the difference between accretion, where legal boundaries in relation to land and water move gradually, and avulsion, which is a much more sudden movement. But this is a very practical bill because, as others have said, the significant number of properties in Canterbury that were affected by the earthquakes, some 135,000 properties, moved. Most of those were within the tolerance, but there were about 11,000 that moved by more than 20 centimetres, and there was some confusion.

There were guidelines that Land Information New Zealand put out, and some of those surveyors who were working on the ground were making a practical interpretation and ensuring that boundaries actually did move with the land, as most people would expect. But the guidance did not clarify the situation, so it is appropriate that we have had a bill through Parliament that makes it clear that—rather than being fixed, as they are in the law; rather than being where the survey mark is, where the pegs are—if boundaries have moved more than that tolerance of 20 centimetres, then the boundaries go with the land movement. I think the bill, as others have noted, is also providing more certainty to people in Canterbury because it is ensuring that the boundaries from those surveys that were done in that interim period where they were approved by the Surveyor-General will stay where they were surveyed—and I think there were some 3,500 of those—so people can continue to rely on the surveys that were done there.

There were 11 submissions, and three of the organisations that made submissions were professional organisations representing surveyors. The major one of those, the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, which involves some 1,300 professionals, was supportive of the bill. There were concerns raised around a disputes resolution process, and, yes, the select committee has not amended the bill to implement that. It has instead said that people have to have recourse to the provisions in the Property Law Act, and that may involve going to court. There is also provision for compensation, of course, in the Land Transfer Act. A bill to reform that Act is currently before the Government Administration Committee, ably chaired by Ruth Dyson. There have been quite a few submissions on the provisions around compensation, which may benefit from clarification in that separate select committee process.

This bill is a sensible one. The Green Party is supporting it, and we hope that it progresses promptly through Parliament. Thank you.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague Denis O’Rourke to take a short call on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. New Zealand First agrees with the purpose, which has two main points, as has been mentioned previously. The first is to clarify the law. In any case, really, to clarify a law is a good thing and New Zealand First agrees with that. With regard to this piece of legislation, it relates to locating legal property boundaries of land affected by the movement of that land as a result of the 2010 and 2011 earthquake sequence in Canterbury.

The other part of the purpose is to provide the guidelines that are to be issued about standards, to assist with boundary determinations so that surveyors can do their job properly and people can rely on what they do. As has already been mentioned, there have been around about 11,000 houses that will be affected by this legislation, obviously in a good way—not only for the homeowners of those 11,000 properties but also for surveyors, who will be able to do their job. At the moment the surveyors have been finding it very difficult to do their job, especially with identifying and interpreting the actual physical boundaries of the land, which include surveying pegs and the like that moved during the earthquakes.

This bill addresses that problem by attempting to provide people, landowners, and surveyors alike with some certainty about their legal boundaries. It does that by providing some flexibility around the general rules that usually apply to the location and the identification of boundaries, and by providing for practical solutions. The Surveyor-General will issue guidelines for surveyors so as to maintain standards and technical consistency. That is consistent with usual practice and the bill simply reinforces that in relation to these special circumstances.

The select committee has made some sensible changes, especially to the definition of the earthquakes for the purposes of this legislation, and also in allowing 6 years for the entire sequence. New Zealand First also agrees that there is no new dispute resolution process that is needed, because there are already adequate provisions. New Zealand First supports this bill and we look forward to discussing this further in the Committee stage. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise. I think this is the first time since I have been in Parliament that I have been able to speak on a bill that is related to trying to put things right in Christchurch. Often our Christchurch MPs, or the Local Government and Environment Committee MPs, have had this task, and it is, I guess, in some small part, by speaking in support of this bill, my opportunity as a parliamentarian to be able to contribute something towards helping to improve the lives and the ongoing livelihoods of those in Christchurch.

This is, I have to say, an incredibly sensible bill, and I guess a number of speakers have already said that. The level of support that this has right across the House, I think really iterates to me the level of support that there is for wanting to find solutions to some of the difficulties that are being experienced in Christchurch, and have been experienced since the first earthquake in 2010, and the subsequent earthquakes. There has been such a vast array of difficulties that people have faced. Of course that was highly publicised early on, with people being without water, people being without sewerage, roads being a mess, people having houses that were uninhabitable, and the issues have gone on for a very, very long time.

The general public of New Zealand, I think, were initially very supportive, and are aware of ongoing issues that have made the headlines, and have been widely circulated. But this is a particular issue that has significant impact for homeowners, making it difficult for them to be able to move on—I mean, you basically need to know where your property begins and ends, in terms of what you do with it. This is a problem that has not been widely known by the people of New Zealand. It has not been widely talked about, but it is a significant problem none the less for those people who are experiencing it. So it is beholden upon Parliament to take some action and rectify the situation, to put things in place to give people that level of certainty. From my perspective, I think my understanding of this bill is that it does just that.

In particular, it is about taking a really practical approach to this issue. It is very difficult when you have had ground move—not necessarily in a uniform way—for surveyors to be able to follow any of the old boundary lines, because earthquakes do not necessarily move in a straight line. So boundaries will not be, or are not, where they once were, and are not easily defined. The provisions in this bill, I think, are great. There is going to be a sense of “common sensibility” applied across this so that surveyors will now be able to come in, look at a property, assess it, and essentially exercise a level of common sense; so that property boundaries will largely be where property owners expect them to be. I think that is really crucial.

If you think of the types of problems that people have had with boundaries over the years without earthquakes—often you will see a fence that has been built where someone did not expect it to be; you have all manner of issues with hedges, and all sorts of difficulties that people have with their neighbours over boundaries—it is really an ongoing issue and has been for a long period of time. Instead of getting down into, sort of, really nitty-gritty problems and definitions of where boundaries should or should not be, for surveyors to be able to apply some common sense and get stuck into this issue to ensure that where there has been this lateral movement—the spreading or sideways movement of land—boundaries are where people would expect them to be is, to my mind, incredibly sensible, incredibly practical, and will help bring some resolution to these issues.

As usual, the select committee—and it is a very hard-working select committee of course; the Local Government and Environment Committee has had a lot on its plate recently—put a lot of time and energy into this particular bill. I want to commend all the members of that committee, especially the chairman, Scott Simpson, who I think has done a fantastic job in steering this bill through this process to ensure that we get a good outcome. There have been some amendments that the committee members made along the way that, I think, are entirely appropriate. They have taken what was obviously a very good, practical, sensible bill in the first place a little bit further, and ensured that there have been some improvements.

I guess, in particular, I want to draw attention to the amending of clause 10 to specify that provided the specified criteria are met there will be no liability for surveys and boundary determinations done in the interim period between 4 September 2010 and commencement of this legislation. As we all know, it was not just one earthquake: there have been a number of earthquakes subsequent to those particularly devastating ones in September of 2010, and February 2011. So it is important that we actually recognise that this has been an ongoing issue for a period of time since then, as well.

But of course this is not a blanket waiver of liability. Very sensibly, the committee members have looked at it and said that they obviously recommend the amendment to this clause, in terms of the exemptions of liability—but it does not exclude things like negligence or bad faith or misconduct or non-compliance with statutory obligations and professional standards. So this is not a blanket waiver of liability for surveyors; this is just to ensure that where they have made their best endeavours to do the best that they can between September 2010 and now, and where those lines that they have drawn have moved through subsequent earth movements, they are not being held liable for that. I think that is eminently sensible. It is a practical approach, as I have said a number of times already, right across the board in this bill.

I do just want to commend the Local Government and Environment Committee on its work, and commend the Minister on bringing forward something that, in a small way, is going to help to bring some more resolution to homeowners in Christchurch, who, without doubt, have been having all sorts of challenges over the last 5 or 6 years. This is a way that we can help them to put some things right. I commend this bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you to the last speaker, Jono Naylor. I want to add a little bit of clarity to your speech on this, but I want to start with actually acknowledging the work that the Minister for Land Information has done on this bill. She was very open in encouraging the Christchurch MPs to get involved in discussions early on, when the bill was being put together. We all have an expectation that our property boundary issues will be resolved, and there was a very real danger that, unless we could agree on a way forward, there might be some discussion and dissension and debate. I want to acknowledge the fact that she got the parties into the room with the officials to talk through some of the key points about this bill.

As a matter of background, as some of the previous speakers have said, what happened was that the earth and the property boundaries were impacted by things such as lateral spread. When the earth stretches and potentially stretches your boundary it also has the impact, in some places where the earth lifted, of shrinking boundaries. So in order to be fair to property owners, in order to be fair to the ratepayers of Christchurch, something had to go in place to ensure that boundaries could be—if they needed to be—redrawn, but could be in an equitable way, so that it could minimise whatever dispute between boundary neighbours. This bill was put together in order for that to be accomplished.

As a very visual kind of representation of what happened, we have a large section of the Avon River flowing through my electorate and a large part of the red zone is actually bound on either side of the Avon River. What happened was that one side of the river dropped and the other side of the river spread. So when you drive down places like New Brighton Road, for example, on one side of the road you are actually below the waterline of the river. So there are impacts upon you as a property owner. Large tracts of that land have been red-zoned, so that is taken out of the equation—that is not covered by this bill. Immediately up against the red zone, of course, are the properties that are still zoned as being able to be habitable, because the land is still relatively OK. So it is those properties that are up against the red zone or up against those areas of land that have been significantly impacted that this bill will apply to.

What I do want to clarify in the previous speaker’s speech is the issue around interim surveys. Surveys were conducted on normal properties prior to the earthquake. You have a survey. Then the earthquake happened, and then we have a period before this bill takes effect. The surveys that were conducted from the time after the earthquake sequence and before this bill will take effect—this is the interim period for the survey. Those surveys will be quite different in many cases from surveys that were done prior to the earthquake sequence. It is these surveys that may provide some contention and some dispute amongst neighbours.

So that is where the submitters actually made the major contribution to this bill. The New Zealand Law Society provided quite a comprehensive submission on that, dealing with the issue of what an interim survey actually was, and then with its suggestions on how parties who might be in dispute actually could resolve those conflicts. It is those key concerns that the Local Government and Environment Committee looked at and reviewed. So when the bill came back to the House, the select committee had considered those particular issues and the mechanism with which those parties potentially in dispute could resolve those disputes.

It also provided the mechanism that may provide compensation for some property owners who will be disadvantaged by any new boundaries that may be drawn. At the end of the day it could be that some boundaries go into areas that might be at the edges of rivers or creeks, for example, and the boundaries are no longer appropriate. So there are opportunities within this bill to provide some remedy for property owners in that regard. We have had a lot of zoning done to us, as Canterbury property owners, so we are really pleased that this bill addresses some key concerns. Some of the concerns will be around property value, of course, but they are mostly around ensuring that people feel that there is a fair process, that they are going to get a fair deal, and that if they have decided to stay on their properties then those properties are going to be identified and titled appropriately.

Without wanting to hold up this bill, we do commend it. It is a good piece of legislation. The select committee did work well on addressing those issues of the interim survey and how the remediation could be put in place after the bill is actually enacted. We do commend it to the House.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. I am pleased to stand in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill for its second reading. I am also pleased to be ending my week here in Parliament talking about yet another common-sense and very, very pragmatic bill that the Government is putting forward.

The other thing is that when we look at this bill—Rūaumoko, the Canterbury earthquakes, came and one of the results of this upheaval was the moving of property boundaries. This has made the job of surveyors harder as they try to determine the current legal boundaries of properties affected by the land movement from earthquakes. When we look at this bill, it really does clarify the legal status of these properties by asserting that their legal boundaries have moved with the movement of the land. You only have to watch Neighbours from Hell to know that when there is uncertainty about boundaries of property, there is great potential for conflict.

This bill provides a certainty that surveyors and landowners need—it is about that certainty—and it settles this issue in a very, very fair way. I would like to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a second time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): We have made really good progress this afternoon. There has been some important work that has been done, and I seek leave for the House to rise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any member brave enough to object to that? There appears to be none.

The House adjourned at 5.46 p.m.